Trinity

[volgadon]

I specifically state Roman Catholics because I'd venture to say that Eastern Catholics, following the Orthodox traditions, also have more of an emphasis on theosis than those in the West.

Eastern Catholics, such as the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church, are far more Orthodox in doctrine than they are Roman Catholic. The main differences is acceptance of papal supremacy. They are also a little more open to change than the Greek Orthodox.

[volgadon]

Except it does not say what you are interpreting it to say, much less mean. The Hebrew is:

The pivotal word, eḥād, is not "one", it's "in unison" from the root meaning "unique". Because Hebrew is a poetic language, there are multiple ways of translating the Shema. Here are two viable options:

• "Hear, O Israel! Jehovah is our God! Jehovah is One!"
• "Hear, O Israel! Jehovah is our God — Jehovah alone."

The second one is probably more accurate, and it, as you'll note, does not support your premise at all. It says, in effect, that Jehovah is the only God of Israel, nothing more.

Lehi

Another possiblity is that "one" expressed the obligation to love the person so-termed, as well as the unique relationship between them.

[Hughes]

Your attempt to equate lust with adultery and anger with murder is noted. But that doesn't save David. David hasn't been redeemed.

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in h***, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

And then there is this to consider.

1 Jn. 3:15 . . . and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

But it isn't. NOTHING in that verse expresses or implies "one being". You have to presuppose it, and therefore you are without Biblical support.

Then that part of the doctrine is unsupportable.

Well, nothing like your doctrine true. Our doctrine doesn't have that problem.

But it isn't "clear" in the Biblical text. It must be presumed. It therefore wasn't derived from the Biblical text but is extra-Biblical. (Sola scriptura is thrown under the bus.)

That ONLY makes sense if "God" means something different than the way you are using it.

????

So, let me get this straight.

You don't understand your concept of God, you don't know it, you can't explain it, BUT Mormons have it wrong?

If they don't make sense to you, how do you know they are true? You don't even know WHAT they are.

You mean like the ancient Hebrews?

Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Which is totally consistent with the Bible.

Well, if God is all knowing then He knew He was creating evil. If He created us from nothing, then He is totally responsible for all evil.

Simple. To be an infinite being/person only requires one infinite aspect.

A person who occupies a finite space and has always existed is infinite, because they go from all eternity (infinite) to all eternity (infinite).

It’s important to rightly divide the word of God.

Acts 2:34 doesn’t support the idea that David wasn’t redeemed. Rather in context is Peter is talking about Jesus, not about David's redemption or not.

As far as Shema, of course the original hearers understood it to mean God to be one being. Your position is quite difficult to support. You think that “one Lord” means more than one?

Actually, the trinity is derived from the biblical text, speaking as a Trinitarian, thanks.

And I do understand it, and have explained it, and as I’ve said from the beginning, it’s not a problem. You stating it to be a problem or difficulty means only that it is such for you.

Mormons appear to me to be polytheistic. Your dictionary quote doesn’t include all the possibilities, as I posted a definition before, and it includes those who simply believe that a pantheon of gods exist.

If you wish to call the ancient Hebrews polytheists, then I will disagree, as the other gods aren’t real gods, but false gods, whether some still believed these gods were real or not, isn't the question, but rather what is taught.

CFR where the Bible states that Jesus and the Father are different beings.

If you think that God is responsible for evil, then you don’t believe God created free will. Or a love based on free will.

Sorry, to be infinite in “being” or existence, as described by the Psalmist, one cannot occupy only a finite space.

I am probably wasting my time showing you all of this, but since you asked here they are. These quotes are not exhaustive, but a representative sample.

The following quotes are taken from Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers (London: Oxford University Press, 1956, repr. 1958). Each author’s name, and relevant page numbers in the book are given after each quote. Emphasis added:

. . . and they have received the title of “gods,” since they are destined to be enthroned with the other “gods” who are

ranked next below the Saviour

. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

. . . the Word, I say, of God, who became man just that you might learn from a man how it may be that

man should become God

. (Clement of Alexandria, p. 244.)

The Son in his kindness generously imparted

deification to others

. . . who are transformed through him into

gods,

as

images of the prototype

. . . the Word is the archetype of the many images. (Origen, p. 274.)

For the Word was not degraded by receiving a body, so that he should seek to “receive” God’s gift. Rather he deified what he put on; and, more than that, he

bestowed this gift upon the race of men

. (Athanasius, p. 384.)

. . . If the works of the Godhead had not taken place by means of the body,

man would not have been made divine

. (Athanasius, p. 399.)

The Word was made man in order that

we might be made divine

. (Athanasius, p. 404)

Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not

made gods

from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then

later as gods?

Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are the sons of the Most High.” . . . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality. (Irenaeus,

Against Heretics

, 4.38.)

But he himself that justifies

also defies,

for by justifying he makes sons of God. “For he has given them power to become the sons of God” [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been

made gods

.” (Augustine,

On the psalms

, 50.2.)

The following quote comes from The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, which is a reputable (non-LDS) book. Notice that he traces the doctrine down to the tenth century, which is two thirds of the way into the Middle Ages:

Deification (Greek theosis) [snip]

If what they are talking about is becoming Infinite Gods as if that’s even possible, then of course I disagree, because I see absolutely no evidence of it. If they are talking about becoming “like” gods, in that there’s no death and no pain, as is described in Revelation, about Heaven, then I agree..."This is more than the customary Protestant concept of sanctification, however. In theosis, while there is no ontological change of humanity into deity, there is a very real impartation of the divine life to the whole human being--body and soul... while Athanasius did not clarify in every reference what he intended by his concept of deification, he made it quite clear from his writings as a whole that he did not have in mind a transformation of the human into the divine, an ontological or essential change of humanity into deity. "

Source

I have met a few Trinitarians, but not many, who believe as you do; i.e., you do not agree with orthodoxy's stipulation that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved.

If you don't mind my asking, do you consider yourself an orthodox Christian? Also, do other orthodox Christians accept you as orthodox since you do not agree with their belief that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved?

Thank you,

Regards,

jo

I suppose I consider myself to be orthodox...

I have no idea what other orthodox christians think of me, and I don't agree with the belief, that one must accept the trinity to be saved. I think God looks at the heart.

While we readily acknowledge that a prophet may be in error

except

while he is acting as a prophet

, you do not accept that your man-made interpretations can be in error,

ever

.

Your trust is gravely misplaced.

While we do not rely on those few books found in the Bible for all truth, are position may not be found in the Bible,

per se

, but that is a far,

far

different thing from being in opposition to biblical scripture.

So, consider this a call for reference: what LDS doctrine is "in opposition to [the Bible]?" I mean, in opposition to the biblical text, not your human philosophy, your man-made interpretation of the actual words; and not the words of some modern version, it has to be the words of the biblical writers, as those words fell from their lip 9to a scribe) or as they wrote them personally.

Oh, you don't have those originals, do you? Well, do the best you can with that shortcoming.

Lehi

Since we both know what the Biblical text states, and it states no where that matter is eternal. The LDS Position is in opposition to the Biblical text, where in the Beginning God, there wasn't any matter.

I've never comitted adultery, not even "in my heart", I'm not Jimmy Carter. I have never murdered anyone, and have never been angry at anyone without a cause. I know I am not alone.

Lehi

Wow, I guess you're nearly perfect!

Except it does not say what you are interpreting it to say, much less mean. The Hebrew is:

The pivotal word,

eḥād

, is not "one", it's "in unison" from the root meaning "unique". Because Hebrew is a poetic language, there are multiple ways of translating the Shema. Here are two viable options:

• "Hear, O Israel! Jehovah is our God! Jehovah is One!"
• "Hear, O Israel! Jehovah is our God — Jehovah alone."

The second one is probably more accurate, and it, as you'll note, does not support your premise at all. It says, in effect, that Jehovah is the only God of Israel, nothing more.

Lehi

The question is what did the Israelites teach? Did they teach that there were more than one infinite being or God?

It amazes me that you all stop with verse 2. Why do you not cite verse 3?

You're right: it does not

imply

that the materials were already there: it states it unequivocally. The "earth was without form and void", and the "waters" existed

before

God started creating—before He said "Let there be light".

Furthermore, the first two verses are not necessarily part of the "text" of Genesis. I'm

not

saying that Moses didn't write them—I'm saying they are his (inspired) "chapter heading" (the chapter runs through verse 4 in our modern chapter 2). Notice we find the words "heavens and earth" and "creation" in Gen 1:1~2 and mirrored in 2:4. They were "bookends" (or, more academically, "a colophon") marking Moses' concept of a "chapter". They were not put there as the first words of the account of the creation.

While the Bible does not explicitly say that the matter out of which God created the heavens and the earth are "eternal", it does say, unenigmatically, that

they were there

before

the creation

, and we are fully justified by the biblical text in understanding that they are eternal.

Lehi

Gen. 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

It states plainly that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Period. It doesn't state that the matter existed first, and he just formed it. God created it first.

Your point that the earth was formless and empty, also doesn't indicate any sort of eternal matter. Rather, it describes it's emptiness... as he hadn't filled it with animals or plant life yet.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Hughes

[Vance]

It’s important to rightly divide the word of God.

And just how do you do that, (what ever that means)?

Acts 2:34 doesn’t support the idea that David wasn’t redeemed. Rather in context is Peter is talking about Jesus, not about David's redemption or not.

So, it doesn't mean what is says? (A very common issue with you guys.)

As far as Shema, of course the original hearers understood it to mean God to be one being.

So, you are into necromancy?

Your position is quite difficult to support. You think that “one Lord” means more than one?

This has been explained to you already. "one Lord" is a modern English construction.

Actually, the trinity is derived from the biblical text, speaking as a Trinitarian, thanks.

You keep asserting that against the mounting contrary evidence.

And I do understand it, and have explained it, and as I’ve said from the beginning, it’s not a problem.

Changing your story, again.

You stating it to be a problem or difficulty means only that it is such for you.

Now you are attempting to read the minds of the living?

Mormons appear to me to be polytheistic. Your dictionary quote doesn’t include all the possibilities, as I posted a definition before, and it includes those who simply believe that a pantheon of gods exist.

Believing they exist (like the ancient Hebrews) isn't the same as worshiping them. But that is what you want to imply by using the term "polytheistic" isn't it?

If you wish to call the ancient Hebrews polytheists, then I will disagree, as the other gods aren’t real gods, but false gods, whether some still believed these gods were real or not, isn't the question, but rather what is taught.

You apparently missed this thread.

CFR where the Bible states that Jesus and the Father are different beings.

Here is just a few of the many.

Matt. 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Matt. 11:27 All athings are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

John 5:17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

• • •

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

If you think that God is responsible for evil, then you don’t believe God created free will. Or a love based on free will.

Your theology requires God to be responsible for evil, not mine. If God created it from nothing then He is responsible for it, ALL of it.

Sorry, to be infinite in “being” or existence, as described by the Psalmist, one cannot occupy only a finite space.

Prove it!

Edited July 29, 2011 by Vance

[Hughes]

And just how do you do that, (what ever that means)?

So, it doesn't mean what is says? (A very common issue with you guys.)

So, you are into necromancy?

This has been explained to you already. "one Lord" is a modern English construction.

You keep asserting that against the mounting contrary evidence.

Changing your story, again.

Now you are attempting to read the minds of the living?

Believing they exist (like the ancient Hebrews) isn't the same as worshiping them. But that is what you want to imply by using the term "polytheistic" isn't it?

You apparently missed this thread.

Here is just a few of the many.

Matt. 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Matt. 11:27 All athings are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

John 5:17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

• • •

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Your theology requires God to be responsible for evil, not mine. If God created it from nothing then He is responsible for it, ALL of it.

Prove it!

Vance, Acts 2:34 means exactly what it says. Jesus was resurrected, just as David predicted. It says nothing about David being redeemed or not.

Your list of scriptures don’t use the word “being” at all, not even once.

Sorry again: “CFR where the Bible states that Jesus and the Father are different beings.”

My theology understands that if you or a god or any god or any creature, creates a free will, then you, the creator are no longer responsible for the actions of that free will.

If you think this is in error, that in fact the creator of said free will is still responsible, then a true free will wasn’t actually created, or you didn’t understand the implications of creating a free will.

The word given to David proves it. “Where can I go from your presence?”

Rhetorical question, assumes, “no where” is the answer.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Hughes

[volgadon]

The question is what did the Israelites teach? Did they teach that there were more than one infinite being or God?

Did they at all teach that there was a being infinite in the philosophical sense of the word?

[zerinus]

If what they are talking about is becoming Infinite Gods as if that’s even possible, then of course I disagree, because I see absolutely no evidence of it.

They say nothing about becoming “infinite” or “uninfinite”—and neither do we, for that matter. That is your philophizational interjection. They talk about becoming gods, period—just as we do. So what difference do you see between their idea of “becoming gods” and ours? I don’t see a difference.

If they are talking about becoming “like” gods, in that there’s no death and no pain, as is described in Revelation, about Heaven, then I agree..."

That is not what they are talking about at all. They talk about becoming gods, period. There is a big difference between saying “god” and saying “like god”. They were smart enough to know the difference, and make that distinction if they needed to, but they didn't. They talked literally about becoming gods. You are trying to put words in their mouths which they never said or intended to say.

This is more than the customary Protestant concept of sanctification, however.

The Protestants have gone off the rails altogether! They have nothing to stand on whatsoever. Let’s not bring them into the equation.

In theosis, while there is no ontological change of humanity into deity, there is a very real impartation of the divine life to the whole human being--body and soul...

That again is your philosophizational interjection. When was the last time you read “ontological” in the Bible or in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

while Athanasius did not clarify in every reference what he intended by his concept of deification, he made it quite clear from his writings as a whole that he did not have in mind a transformation of the human into the divine, an ontological or essential change of humanity into deity. " Source

See above. It has nothing to do with Athanasius. It is much bigger than him. He is a latecomer on the scene. Deification goes back much further than that; and they all talk about becoming gods, period. They don’t add any qualifications to it, as you are trying to do. They were smart enough to realize that they could be misunderstood if that is not what they meant, and to add qualifications to it to ensure they wouldn’t be misunderstood; but they never did. Those qualifying interjections are coming from you guys, not from them. You are adding things to what they said in order to make it conform to your false philosophies. They never did. They simply talked about becoming gods, as we do.

[Vance]

Vance, Acts 2:34 means exactly what it says. Jesus was resurrected, just as David predicted. It says nothing about David being redeemed or not.

So, again, what part of "For David is not ascended into the heavens" says nothing bout David being redeemed or not?

Your list of scriptures don’t use the word “being” at all, not even once.

Doesn't need to. They are very clear that Jesus and the Father are separate individuals/persons/beings/entities.

Sorry again: “CFR where the Bible states that Jesus and the Father are different beings.”

See my post above.

My theology understands that if you or a god or any god or any creature, creates a free will, then you, the creator are no longer responsible for the actions of that free will.

That is illogical.

Rom. 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

If you think this is in error, that in fact the creator of said free will is still responsible, then a true free will wasn’t actually created, . . .

EXACTLY!!! Can a computer program have free will? No! It only responds to inputs according to its predetermined program.

or you didn’t understand the implications of creating a free will.

It is because I understand them. Your position is illogical/impossible. Continue believing it if you like, but don't expect you argument to convince anybody.

The word given to David proves it. “Where can I go from your presence?”

Not at all. It simple expresses David's inability to escape his own guilt. If he was really in God's presence, why would he be racked with guilt? Again, why would you let someone in the depths of sin and guilt drive your doctrine and ignore the Sinless Son of God?

Rhetorical question, assumes, “no where” is the answer.

Yup, David was powerless to escape his own guilt. So, again, it is an expression of David's powerlessness and guilt, not the omnipresence of God.

This is the concept expressed here,

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

And,

Hosea 10:8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.

9 O Israel, thou hast sinned from the days of Gibeah: there they stood: the battle in Gibeah against the children of iniquity did not overtake them.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Vance

[Anakin7]

Wasting Time in the Links I have posted ?, Not falling for that ? Hummm.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Hughes]

Did they at all teach that there was a being infinite in the philosophical sense of the word?

Seems to imply that to me with, "most high God..." and "everlasting to everlasting...."

They say nothing about becoming “infinite” or “uninfinite”—and neither do we, for that matter. That is your philophizational interjection. They talk about becoming gods, period—just as we do. So what difference do you see between their idea of “becoming gods” and ours? I don’t see a difference.

That is not what they are talking about at all. They talk about becoming gods, period. There is a big difference between saying “god” and saying “like god”. They were smart enough to know the difference, and make that distinction if they needed to, but they didn't. They talked literally about becoming gods. You are trying to put words in their mouths which they never said or intended to say.

The Protestants have gone off the rails altogether! They have nothing to stand on whatsoever. Let’s not bring them into the equation.

That again is your philosophizational interjection. When was the last time you read “ontological” in the Bible or in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?

See above. It has nothing to do with Athanasius. It is much bigger than him. He is a latecomer on the scene. Deification goes back much further than that; and they all talk about becoming gods, period. They don’t add any qualifications to it, as you are trying to do. They were smart enough to realize that they could be misunderstood if that is not what they meant, and to add qualifications to it to ensure they wouldn’t be misunderstood; but they never did. Those qualifying interjections are coming from you guys, not from them. You are adding things to what they said in order to make it conform to your false philosophies. They never did. They simply talked about becoming gods, as we do.

I don't know what the differences are between LDS and the deification, and frankly it's not a big issue to me. Like I've said before, I follow Christ.

So, again, what part of "For David is not ascended into the heavens" says nothing bout David being redeemed or not?

Doesn't need to. They are very clear that Jesus and the Father are separate individuals/persons/beings/entities.

See my post above.

That is illogical.

Rom. 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

EXACTLY!!! Can a computer program have free will? No! It only responds to inputs according to its predetermined program.

It is because I understand them. Your position is illogical/impossible. Continue believing it if you like, but don't expect you argument to convince anybody.

Not at all. It simple expresses David's inability to escape his own guilt. If he was really in God's presence, why would he be racked with guilt? Again, why would you let someone in the depths of sin and guilt drive your doctrine and ignore the Sinless Son of God?

Yup, David was powerless to escape his own guilt. So, again, it is an expression of David's powerlessness and guilt, not the omnipresence of God.

This is the concept expressed here,

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

And,

Hosea 10:8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed: the thorn and the thistle shall come up on their altars; and they shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.

9 O Israel, thou hast sinned from the days of Gibeah: there they stood: the battle in Gibeah against the children of iniquity did not overtake them.

If we read scripture in context. It's plain that Peter is not making a point about David, but rather Jesus.

The fact that the trinity are separate persons, but not separate Gods, or beings is an important point. Your argument that persons and beings are one in the same, has not been proven. In order to do so, you'd need some sort of statement that says so plainly.

If you don't believe that God created free will, then I could see your point, then God is responsible for evil.

Unfortunately David's guilt isn't being talked about in that passage. God's omni-presence is.

[Anakin7]

From my understanding in non LDS Christian usage 'Being" means nature, and persons as understood [Nicea and by some in the post Nicea era] was a "mask" worn by an actor playing various roles. In True LDS Doctrine,Teaching,Thought,Practice,Walk each member of the Godhead/Trinity have the same True God [being/Nature but are actual individual True GOD Entities[No masks].

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited July 29, 2011 by Anakin7

[Vance]

If we read scripture in context. It's plain that Peter is not making a point about David, but rather Jesus.

Oh REALLY? But of course David IS making a point about God's omnipresence tho, right?

So, Peter, clearly and plainly saying that David is NOT in heaven has nothing to do with David's redemption, BUT David's statement that he is powerless to escape God's presence means exactly what YOU want it to mean?

Well, color me unconvinced.

The fact that the trinity are separate persons, but not separate Gods, or beings is an important point.

A point that you (a sola scripturist) can't support with the Bible. Thus it violates your own doctrine.

You can't demonstrate that one God means one being. You can't demonstrate that three beings can't be one God. You can't demonstrate that three persons can be one being. You can't demonstrate that one being can be three persons.

So, why should I accept your unexplainable and undemonstrative concept of God?

Your argument that persons and beings are one in the same, has not been proven.

You and I are two separate persons and two desperate beings. I can show you billions of examples of one person being one being and one being being one persons. So I easily show my concept.

You, on the other hand, can't show any examples of your concept. You can't even explain it in a way that makes sense.

So, why should I accept your unexplainable and undemonstrative concept of God?

In order to do so, you'd need some sort of statement that says so plainly.

The fact of the matter is the word "being" (as we are using it) isn't found ANYWHERE in the Bible.

BUT, there is clear and plain separation of being/person/entities/individuals. The verses I posted earlier are a small portion of what is available.

But hey, just ignore all of those and concentrate upon your dogma.

If you don't believe that God created free will, then I could see your point, then God is responsible for evil.

That is what your theology requires. But because I reject "creatio ex nihilo" my theology has no such problem. Thanks.

Unfortunately David's guilt isn't being talked about in that passage. God's omni-presence is.

Actually, it is just the opposite, as I have explained. Sorry but "nuh uh" isn't an adequate enough response, IF you want to be convincing.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

From my understanding in non LDS Christian usage 'Being" means nature, and persons as understood [Nicea and by some in the post Nicea era] was a "mask" worn by an actor playing various roles. In True LDS Doctrine,Teaching,Thought,Practice,Walk each member of the Godhaed/Trinity have the same True God [being/Nature but are actual individual True GOD Entities[No masks].

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I think that THAT definition of "being" is clearly consistent with John 1:1, whereas Hughes' is NOT.

[zerinus]

I don't know what the differences are between LDS and the deification, and frankly it's not a big issue to me. Like I've said before, I follow Christ.

LOL! You are a funny guy. I follow Christ by accepting His Restored Church.

[volgadon]

Seems to imply that to me with, "most high God..."

Unless you were willing to interpret "high priest" as "infinite priest" then I'm afraid you'll have to discard your interpretation. "Elyon" is the superlative of "high" or "up," so it should read as "El the uppermost" or the "highest God."

Here is a good quote from the "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible."

ELYON

I. Derived from the Hebrew verb (ala, meaning 'to ascend', (elyon in the OT may be used either as an adjective, describing something that is spatially higher than something else ('upper', 'highest'), or as a substantive, used primarily in reference to the 'most high' deity.

In Ps 89:27, however, it is used in reference to the king. As a divine name, 'Elyon appears either on its own (e.g. Ps 9:3: Isa 14: 14), in combination with other divine names (Yahweh, Elohim [--God], -EI e.g., Pss 7: 18: 57:3: 73: 11) or in association with lesser divine elements (bene elyon, Ps 82:6; ef. Aramaic references to qaddishe elyonin in Dan 7: 18, 22, 25, 27).

An abbreviated form may also be attested in Hos 11:7 (al) and 1 Sam 2: 10 (alathi).

In the LXX, 'Elyon is translated as Hypsistos.

and "everlasting to everlasting...."

As noted in CHALOT, the word "olam" is usually translated as "eternity" or "eternal," but is not to be understood in the philosophical sense. It usually meant a long period of time, which is why from olam to olam is used instead of saying olam just the once. Even the theologically-loaded "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" writes that the OT "has no special term for 'eternity' that can be contrasted with 'temporality.' The Hebrew word most often used to express 'eternity' is olam. It is the same word that expresses duration of time, and it designates 'eternity' only in such statement as 'from olam' and 'until olam' (Ps. 90:2). Its meaning also shifts from a quantitative/temporal sense of a long span of time to a qualitative sense conveying the idea of permanence or immutability (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 78:69). Use in this latter sense does not deny the essential temporal quality of all OT thought when olam is used. While this word can shift in meaning to the qualitative ideas of greatness, power or transcendence when refering to God, it must be noted that these are qualities of God and are not implied in olam itself."

Here is another entry from the DDD.

III, Taken by itself, the Hebrew term olam does not possess any connotation of divinity.

M. Dahood regarded olam as an archaic divine appellation, 'the Eternal', and referred to many psalms in support of his contention (M. DAHOOD, Psalms I [AB 16;

Garden City 1965] xxxvii, with ref. to Pss 24:7.9; 52: II; 66:7; 73: 12; 75: 10; 89:3; cf. also his interpretation of Ps 110:4).

Unfortunately, however, Dahood was forced to emendate or reinterpret the Masoretic text in many cases (so in Pss 31:2 1/ 71:1; 52:11; 75:10; 119:111.160).

The alternance posited by him between olam,'the Eternal One', and zu leOlam, 'the One of Eternity' (Ps 12:, does nothing to reinforce his case either.

Nor does the expression zeroot olam in Deut 33:27 mean 'the arms of the god Olam' (pace A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les dieux des patriarches, BeO 162 [1990] 36).

The God of Israel may be reverentially qualified as 'eternal', but there is no biblical text which uses the abstraction 'eternity' as a divine designation.

The abstraction "eternity" as a separate god is not found in the Bible. One wonders why, if he was considered to be the only infinite being.

So I ask, did they at all teach that there was an infinite being in the philosophical sense of the word?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A point that you (a sola scripturist) can't support with the Bible. Thus it violates your own doctrine.

You can't demonstrate that one God means one being. You can't demonstrate that three beings can't be one God. You can't demonstrate that three persons can be one being. You can't demonstrate that one being can be three persons.

So, why should I accept your unexplainable and undemonstrative concept of God?

You and I are two separate persons and two desperate beings. I can show you billions of examples of one person being one being and one being being one persons. So at easily show my concept.

You, on the other hand, can't show any examples of your concept. You can't even explain it in a way that makes sense.

So, why should I accept your unexplainable and undemonstrative concept of God?

The fact of the matter is the word "being" (as we are using it) isn't found ANYWHERE in the Bible.

BUT, the clear and plain separation of being/person/entities/individuals. The verses I posted earlier are a small portion of what is available.

Is this not the main issue with the Trinity? That is the the bible says "God is one God". But it never says how they are. So extra biblical ideas and explanations are used. It is never spelled out in the bible that one = one in being. Of course the idea is that they try to fit God into a monotheistic box. Which the text never truly demands. And when one finds out that there is text that seems to be talking about monotheism it is from Jewish reforms. They basically added in the monotheism.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[zerinus]

The fact that the trinity are separate persons, but not separate Gods, or beings is an important point.

The Trinity was originally defined as three separate Gods. That is how the Athanasian Creed defined it:

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge

every

Person

by himself

to be

God

and Lord;

20. So are we

forbidden

by the catholic religion to

say;

There are three Gods or three Lords.

And that is how it is still defined in the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church. "Three persons in one God" is a bit of verbal gymnastics of recent invention designed to circumvent the obvious absurdity of "three Gods in one God". LOL!

Edited July 29, 2011 by zerinus

[Hughes]

Unless you were willing to interpret "high priest" as "infinite priest" then I'm afraid you'll have to discard your interpretation. "Elyon" is the superlative of "high" or "up," so it should read as "El the uppermost" or the "highest God."

Here is a good quote from the "Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible."

As noted in CHALOT, the word "olam" is usually translated as "eternity" or "eternal," but is not to be understood in the philosophical sense. It usually meant a long period of time, which is why from olam to olam is used instead of saying olam just the once. Even the theologically-loaded "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" writes that the OT "has no special term for 'eternity' that can be contrasted with 'temporality.' The Hebrew word most often used to express 'eternity' is olam. It is the same word that expresses duration of time, and it designates 'eternity' only in such statement as 'from olam' and 'until olam' (Ps. 90:2). Its meaning also shifts from a quantitative/temporal sense of a long span of time to a qualitative sense conveying the idea of permanence or immutability (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 78:69). Use in this latter sense does not deny the essential temporal quality of all OT thought when olam is used. While this word can shift in meaning to the qualitative ideas of greatness, power or transcendence when refering to God, it must be noted that these are qualities of God and are not implied in olam itself."

Here is another entry from the DDD.

The abstraction "eternity" as a separate god is not found in the Bible. One wonders why, if he was considered to be the only infinite being.

So I ask, did they at all teach that there was an infinite being in the philosophical sense of the word?

The only way I know how to answer the question is to try and understand how they would have expressed that idea, in their language and culture. You seem like you know more than I, how would you answer it?

The Trinity was originally defined as three separate Gods. That is how the Athanasian Creed defined it:

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge

every

Person

by himself

to be

God

and Lord;

20. So are we

forbidden

by the catholic religion to

say;

There are three Gods or three Lords.

And that is how it is still defined in the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church. "Three persons in one God" is a bit of verbal gymnastics of recent invention designed to circumvent the obvious absurdity of "three Gods in one God". LOL!

It appears as though you've misread the creed, quoted below:

Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,

neither blending their persons

nor dividing their essence.

For the person of the Father is a distinct person,

the person of the Son is another,

and that of the Holy Spirit still another.

But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,

their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.

The Father is uncreated,

the Son is uncreated,

the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,

the Son is immeasurable,

the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,

the Son is eternal,

the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;

there is but one eternal being.

So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;

there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,

the Son is almighty,

the Holy Spirit is almighty.

Yet there are not three almighty beings;

there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,

the Son is God,

the Holy Spirit is God.

Yet there are not three gods;

there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,

the Son is Lord,

the Holy Spirit is Lord.

Yet there are not three lords;

there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us

to confess each person individually

as both God and Lord,

so catholic religion forbids us

to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.

The Son was neither made nor created;

he was begotten from the Father alone.

The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;

he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;

there is one Son, not three sons;

there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,

nothing is greater or smaller;

in their entirety the three persons

are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,

we must worship their trinity in their unity

and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved

should think thus about the trinity.

But it is necessary for eternal salvation

that one also believe in the incarnation

of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.

Now this is the true faith:

That we believe and confess

that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,

is both God and human, equally.

He is God from the essence of the Father,

begotten before time;

and he is human from the essence of his mother,

born in time;

completely God, completely human,

with a rational soul and human flesh;

equal to the Father as regards divinity,

less than the Father as regards humanity.

Although he is God and human,

yet Christ is not two, but one.

He is one, however,

not by his divinity being turned into flesh,

but by God's taking humanity to himself.

He is one,

certainly not by the blending of his essence,

but by the unity of his person.

For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,

so too the one Christ is both God and human.

He suffered for our salvation;

he descended to h***;

he arose from the dead;

he ascended to heaven;

he is seated at the Father's right hand;

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

At his coming all people will arise bodily

and give an accounting of their own deeds.

Those who have done good will enter eternal life,

and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith:

one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

Taken from: http://www.crcna.org/pages/athanasian_creed.cfm#

As bolded above, there are not three beings, but one. And this creed doesn't support the idea that there are three Gods, as the LDS seem to believe.

[zerinus]

The only way I know how to answer the question is to try and understand how they would have expressed that idea, in their language and culture. You seem like you know more than I, how would you answer it?

It appears as though you've misread the creed, quoted below:

<snip>

Except that you are ignoring verses 19 and 20, which explain how and why.

[volgadon]

The only way I know how to answer the question is to try and understand how they would have expressed that idea, in their language and culture.

Then by all means do so.

You seem like you know more than I, how would you answer it?

Honestly? I don't really see a way of doing so with Biblical Hebrew. Tibbonian Hebrew, sure, I probably could, but not BH.

[Storm Rider]

Forgive me, for I know of no magisterial (ordinary or extraordinary) document that admits this. Do you have a source?

I apologize for missing your question. I am looking for the source now (Catholic Encyclopedia), but a cursory review was not fruitful. This was brought to my attention in a conversation with a Catholic on the Catholic forum. I will continue to search for it; I am away from home now, but the internet should suffice. Forgive me again for not seeing this sooner.

[Storm Rider]

While I await your response to my request (found on the previous page), I should also ask how it is that the "Catholic Church began to cover it up", especially when the Angelic Doctor teaches explicitly this doctrine of deification two and a half centuries after you claim the Church hid it.

As you posted the very citation that I would use to demonstrate that theosis is explicitly taught by the One Holy Catholic Church today, I will provide another example: Celebrants of a valid Mass cannot omit the prayer when mingling the water and wine: By the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in Christ's divinity as he humbled himself to share in our humanity.

"Cover it up" is not only improper wording, it is blantantly incorrect. The Catholic Church began to de-emphisize it. Today most Catholics are perplexed with CCC 460 when they see it the first time. As you well know, apologists will do everything, but admit that they may become gods. Theosis, the doctrine of the EO, seems different than the teaching of Deification of the CC, or at least my EO friends would say so. EO has kept this teaching front and center and the members reflect this by their knowledge of it. CC members seem wholly in the dark about deification as is evidenced by one of the major criticisms being that Mormons believe they will become gods.

The Catholic Church teaches that man may become gods; this is the same language that Mormons use. In my opinion, neither of them have a complete understanding of what that means. One seeks to clarify it as being one in righteousness with God, but never being God. The other seeks to clarify it as being joint-heirs with Jesus Christ and inherit all that he does. There are a range of teachings on this topic and both can learn from the other by studying the language used to describe what it means to become gods; what is absolutely unacceptable is for one to persecute the other for believing in the same doctrine they themselves believe in.

[ChristKnight]

I apologize for missing your question. I am looking for the source now (Catholic Encyclopedia), but a cursory review was not fruitful. This was brought to my attention in a conversation with a Catholic on the Catholic forum. I will continue to search for it; I am away from home now, but the internet should suffice. Forgive me again for not seeing this sooner.

If I remember correctly, I think I know what you're talking about as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia. Remember though that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document.

Edited July 30, 2011 by ChristKnight

[zerinus]

If I remember correctly, I think I know what you're talking about as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia. Remember though that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document.

It carries an Imprimatur though, which is an official way of saying that the Catholic Church does not object to its teachings.

[Hughes]

Except that you are ignoring verses 19 and 20, which explain how and why.

Sorry, you missed where I bolded that portion (v19, 20). Here I'll post it again:

"Just as Christian truth compels us

to confess each person individually

as both God and Lord,

so catholic religion forbids us

to say that there are three gods or lords."

Notice it says that the catholic religion forbids us to say there are three gods. So, the descriptor of three persons in one God isn't a recent invention, the Athanasian Creed uses it.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Hughes