Trinity

[Vance]

Please cite for us even one verse in the Bible (I'll also allow you to use the Book of Mormon for the sake of argument) that clearly says that the Father and the Son are two separate gods.

We have been over this before but here it is.

John 1:1

En archE en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ho theos kai theos en ho logos

In beginning was the word and the word was toward the god and god(or divine) was the word.

In the Greek it is clear that "the God" and "the Word" are separate "gods".

Other translations bring this out.

The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text

1808, LONDON

Rendering: "...and the word was a god"

The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists

1829, BALTIMORE (by John S. Thompson)

Rendering: "...and the Logos was a god"

The Emphatic Diaglott

1864, NEW YORK, LONDON (by Benjamin Wilson)

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

The Bible - An American Translation

1935, CHICAGO (by J.M.P. Smith and E.J. Goodspeed)

Rendering: "...and the Word was divine"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

1950, BROOKLYN (by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.)

Rendering: "...and the Word was a god"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1975, GOTTINGEN (GERMANY) (by Sigfried Schulz)

"...und ein Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1978, BERLIN (GERMANY)(by Johannes Schneider)

"...und goettlichen Wesens war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and god-like sort was the Word"

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

1979, WURZBURG (GERMANY) (by Johannes Schneider)

"...und ein Gott war das Wort"

Rendering: "...and a god was the Word"

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

First of all, it is only your own opinion that it is "incoherent" to not pray to Christ.

I gave a reason for regarding it as incoherent, which you have not addressed.

You wrote:

Second, your implication that it is okay to pray to Jesus since Jesus did not instruct His disciples not to pray to Him is a complete argument from silence.

You made the assertion that it is not okay to pray to Jesus. I asked you for a reference supporting your assertion. My asking you to provide evidence for your claim is not in any sense an argument from silence. Furthermore, since I provided several references supporting praying to Jesus, I was clearly not arguing that it is okay to pray to Jesus on the basis of the silence of the Bible on the question. Thus, you are doubly mistaken in charging me with an argument from silence.

You wrote:

Luckily, Latter-day Saints do not have this problem, because latter-day revelation affirms that we are to pray to the same person that Jesus prayed to: His Father.

I realize this is your present belief. However, out of curiosity, do you have any specific statements in any latter-day scripture that teach that one must not pray to Jesus? Or is this in a latter-day revelation that is not in any latter-day scripture?

You wrote:

You also must realize that in the New Testament verses you cited, none of the individuals praying to Jesus were present when He commanded His disciples to pray to the Father.

But that is beside the point.

I can agree with that. It is indeed beside the point, meaning that it is irrelevant. If the NT teaches prayer to Jesus, it doesn't matter whether the NT authors that do so were present when Jesus gave the Lord's Prayer. Moreover, your statement is false. The apostle John was present when Jesus gave his disciples the Lord's Prayer, and John also affirmed praying to Jesus (1 John 5:14-15). The apostles who prayed to Jesus regarding Judas's replacement (Acts 1:24-25) had been present when Jesus gave them the Lord's Prayer. So your claim here is both irrelevant and factually incorrect.

You wrote:

For whatever reason, we are to no longer pray to Jehovah, and until we are commanded otherwise, we will continue praying to our Heavenly Father through and in the name of His Son.

In other words, you cannot explain why it was okay to pray to Jehovah in the OT but not okay to pray to him now. Again, I'm curious to know just when and where, exactly, you were commanded not to pray to Jehovah, Jesus Christ.

[shalamabobbi]

Shalamabobbi,

You asked:

No, that wouldn't be an adequate analogy. Obama is the president and Biden is in no sense the president. Only one of them can be president of the USA at a time. The Bible reveals that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, simultaneously (and eternally).

Ok..

How about this.

Are you saying that one God has the same significance in relation to the Father and Son as one marraige has to the husband and wife?

You apparently accept separate bodies. And presumably separate minds since Christ prays to the Father "not as I will, but as thou wilt" so what is left for unity other than that of purpose?

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

Hi again. You wrote:

Ok..

How about this.

Are you saying that one God has the same significance in relation to the Father and Son as one marraige has to the husband and wife?

You apparently accept separate bodies. And presumably separate minds since Christ prays to the Father "not as I will, but as thou wilt" so what is left for unity other than that of purpose?

The marriage analogy is also inadequate. I don't believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have separate bodies because I believe that God is by nature incorporeal; the Son alone took on bodily form when he became a human being.

There's a lot more to say, but my time at the moment is very short. Perhaps I can post more later.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

shalamabobbi,

Hi again. You wrote:

The marriage analogy is also inadequate.

Is there any analogy that would convey the nicean view of the Trinity accurately? I, in all honesty, have not seen one.

I will say one thing, you are correct in your statement of

"You made the assertion that it is not okay to pray to Jesus. I asked you for a reference supporting your assertion. My asking you to provide evidence for your claim is not in any sense an argument from silence. Furthermore, since I provided several references supporting praying to Jesus, I was clearly not arguing that it is okay to pray to Jesus on the basis of the silence of the Bible on the question. Thus, you are doubly mistaken in charging me with an argument from silence."

I would only add that it seems to be the case when Jesus is present that people pray to him. Any way I really did not want to get into a "You cannot pray to Jesus" derail. I don't have an issue with it personally.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[zerinus]

Please cite for us even one verse in the Bible (I'll also allow you to use the Book of Mormon for the sake of argument) that clearly says that the Father and the Son are two separate gods. Verses that say or indicate that they are personally distinct from one another (i.e., that show that the Father is someone other than the Son and vice versa) do not count. Trinitarians agree that the Father and the Son are different persons. Please show us from the Bible (or the Book of Mormon) that they are different gods.

That's right, it is not a clear statement of two separate gods. Nothing in the text says this or clearly requires it (Acts 7:55-56). The text does reveal that the Father and Son are personally distinct from one another, but not that they are separate gods.

That is a weird question. So you admit that the scriptures portray the Father and the Son as being "personally distinct from one another" (to the point that Stephen sees them standing side by side); and you also admit (I presume) that each of these two "distinct" beings is God; yet you are asking us to demonstrate to you where the scriptures shows them to be two separate Gods? I think that the burden is on you to show how they could be anything other than "two separate Gods".

CFR that Jesus ever instructed his disciples not to pray to him. Citing statements in which Jesus spoke of praying to the Father (e.g., in the Lord's Prayer) don't count. In no text does Jesus say that prayer must be addressed only to the Father and not to him.

Nowhere Jesus commanded anyone not to pray to Him; but He didn't command them to pray to Him either. On the contrary, when they asked Him how to pray, He gave them a pattern in the Lord's Prayer addressed to the Father which we would like to adhere to.

Contrary to what the two of you claim, the NT frequently speaks of prayer addressed to Jesus Christ (John 14:14; Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60; 9:14; 22:16; Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 2 Cor. 12:8-9; 1 John 5:14-15; Rev. 22:20-21). If Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the OT, as your theology admits, then it makes absolutely no sense to claim that it is wrong to pray to Jesus, since Jehovah is God from eternity to eternity (Psalm 90:2) and so is God right now. To claim to believe that Jesus is Jehovah, that he is "God," but to refuse prayer to him, is incoherent.

We do not pray directly to Jesus in our formal prayers; but speaking form my own personal experience, when I say my personal prayers I often find the focus of my attention shifting towards Jesus, and I don't see anything wrong with that, or contrary to LDS doctrine.

[Hughes]

First, I don’t recall in the Bible that they did. Second, we also worship Jesus; but in our formal prayers we follow the example Jesus set, by addressing our prayers to the Father in His name.

Actually He did. He corrected them by saying that He was the Son of God, which is not the same as making Himself equal with God.

That doesn’t make them equal either. It simply is not a logical deduction to make, that just because all three are mentioned in the baptismal formula, therefore all three must be equal. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. If I signed a contract in behalf of my dad, my next door neighbor, and my wife’s great uncle, does that mean that all three of them are equal?

First of all the verses you quoted don’t agree with translation of the Bible I am using. The KJV renders them as follows:

Colossians 1:15

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the

firstborn of every creature

"

Revelation 3:14

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the

beginning of the creation of God

"

Secondly, these verses suggest that Jesus in some sense or other was created, or had a beginning. He was the “firstborn of every creature,” and the “beginning of the creation of God”. The fact that the “pre-existent world” or the “spirit world” is not mentioned is irrelevant. If He had a beginning, then that beginning was before the creation of this earth; you can call that "beginning period" whatever you like.

When Jesus prays to His Father, and calls Him His God, and declares that He is greater than Him, I take that to mean what it says.

To answer for him, because it just doesn’t make sense.

For me there's no difference between formal prayers and informal prayers. They are all seen by God, and God sees the heart.

And no, Jesus didn't correct anyone when they said he was claiming equality with God. In fact, they picked up stones to stone him, and he slipped away.

The baptismal formula, "In the name of..." Indicates authority of... Father, Son, Holy Spirit... and yes that indicates they are equal. Just as in the ancient times it would be asked, in what name you come in, or by what authority are you doing this or that?

The flip side of the question is also valid, why those three names? Why not just in the name of the Father?

While you see it as irrelevant that the words, "Spirit world" isn't used. I don't. This is one of those doctrines of the LDS that isn't found explicitly in the bible, yet is claimed that it's there. Yet, at the same time the LDS attack the trinity because it's not explicitly stated? Why the double standard?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

On my "burden" of proof to show that the Father and the Son are one God, see my outline study on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Lord's Prayer is an example of how to pray, not what words one must say. In Matthew 6, the prayer is presented as a model of sincerity, brevity, and meaningfulness, in contrast to the ostentatious and superstitious manner in which so many people of the time prayed.

If Jesus is God, then we may pray to him. If it was all right to pray to him before he died for our sins, why would it not be all right to pray to him after he did so? And again, we have several passages from Acts, the epistles, and Revelation showing that Christians (including the apostles) did in fact pray to Christ. If this is wrong, the apostles did not get the memo.

In John 14:14, Jesus encouraged his disciples to pray to him: "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." The manuscript evidence clearly supports the inclusion of the word "me" -- and in any case Jesus says that he will answer the prayer!

I've asked someone else this question and haven't seen an answer yet; perhaps you have one. Is there anything in modern LDS scripture that indicates that one should no longer pray to Christ?

That is a weird question. So you admit that the scriptures portray the Father and the Son as being "personally distinct from one another" (to the point that Stephen sees them standing side by side); and you also admit (I presume) that each of these two "distinct" beings is God; yet you are asking us to demonstrate to you where the scriptures shows them to be two separate Gods? I think that the burden is on you to show how they could be anything other than "two separate Gods".

Nowhere Jesus commanded anyone not to pray to Him; but He didn't command them to pray to Him either. On the contrary, when they asked Him how to pray, He gave them a pattern in the Lord's Prayer addressed to the Father which we would like to adhere to.

We do not pray directly to Jesus in our formal prayers; but speaking form my own personal experience, when I say my personal prayers I often find the focus of my attention shifting towards Jesus, and I don't see anything wrong with that, or contrary to LDS doctrine.

[Hughes]

Hughes, you keep pulling the polytheism card on us. We do not worship the Father and the Son separately, as you seem to be content with claiming. We reject the idea that they are united in essence or substance, but believe that they are perfectly united in every other way, making them "one God," members of one Godhead, in that sense. And it is God—the Father and the Son in unity, with the accompanying influence of the Holy Ghost—whom we worship. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are only separate "gods" in the sense that they are divine beings, like I said. That puts polytheism out of the picture. Your claim that Joseph Smith was too dumb to comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity is without merit, because both LDS and non-LDS scholars agree that he was very intelligent. His "lack of comprehension" had nothing to do with it. Scholars, both LDS and non-LDS, are also in agreement that the doctrine of the Trinity was not known or taught prior to the centuries after Christ, giving strength to the LDS belief in an apostasy within the Christian faith, and in the necessity of a restoration.

Therefore, it comes down to one thing: was Joseph Smith a prophet? And the best (and maybe only) way to know the answer to that question is to study the Book of Mormon, ponder the message it contains, put its teachings into your life, and sincerely ask God "with real intent" and "while having faith in Christ" if the book is true, and He will give you the knowledge of whether it is or it is not. In other words, if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's authorizing institution on this earth, and all its doctrines are true, which means that the doctrine of the Trinity (three consubstantial persons united in substance as one being without substance) is false.

It seems that every claim made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes down to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Funny how that works. So this conversation will really go nowhere unless we keep that in mind, and unless you keep our other beliefs and claims in mind as you study our religion.

When someone says that we are unified, that indicates that there's more than one, and unity is used to emphasize what's tying them together. For example, a husband and wife are unified (even called "one flesh") Yet, they are two. No one denies that they are two beings, not one, but two. IF for example, we have a group who are unified behind one cause, and that cause unifies those people. The unity is emphasized because of the very fact that they aren't one, but many.

It sounds like you are doing the same here. Three Gods unified in purpose is still three Gods. And by definition, three Gods are not one God. And further by extension, believers in three Gods are polytheists.

You see, you like to attack the trinity and say, we don't believe in that incoherent, same substance thing, we believe in the Godhead, where the three are unified in purpose.

Ok fine. If they are three, and are only unified by purpose, then that means they are three separate gods, and the polytheistic label is accurate.

An no, this isn't intended as an attack. I'm am simply analyzing what you all are saying.

It always makes me laugh when someone is purposely obtuse. Please explain in English how firstborn does not mean the first born? Before Jeremiah was fromed in the belly, God knew him, before he was born he was ordained sanctified and ordained a prophet. Tell me how that happened if Jeremiah did not already exist. Please no philosopical backflips, just admit the obvious. It is easy; try it.

How do you get all are equal because all names are used in the baptismal prayer? Where does it say that? Nope, not there either. Oh, you think it implies that?!? No, it means Jesus tells them to use all three names for each member of the Godhead. Count the names - there are three. Not one, but three.

You will never find a LDS who is confused about to whom s/he is praying; it is always God the Father. You will not find them praying to Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost. Why do you think that is? Why do Protestants mix them up; worship all three seperately. They even say prayers directly to Jesus in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words. Why is that?

What is so frustrating is there is not one of these "critics" (using the term loosely here) that is not guilty of exactly what they accuse LDS of. They always want to use two standards. Intellectually dishonest and completely deceitful. Of course, it could just be a case of spiritual blindness, which I think is far more likely.

Concerning Jeremiah, I believe that God has what is called foreknowledge. "Those he foreknew, he also predestined..."

[zerinus]

For me there's no difference between formal prayers and informal prayers. They are all seen by God, and God sees the heart.

By formal prayer I meant prayers uttered in public, or vocalized to be heard. In some established churches, those kinds of prayers are even written down! LOL! So yes, there is a distinction between formal prayer and informal prayer.

And no, Jesus didn't correct anyone when they said he was claiming equality with God. In fact, they picked up stones to stone him, and he slipped away.

According to my reading, He did.

The baptismal formula, "In the name of..." Indicates authority of... Father, Son, Holy Spirit... and yes that indicates they are equal. Just as in the ancient times it would be asked, in what name you come in, or by what authority are you doing this or that?

And the moon is made of chees.

The flip side of the question is also valid, why those three names? Why not just in the name of the Father?

And that proves that they are equal! I get it!

While you see it as irrelevant that the words, "Spirit world" isn't used. I don't. This is one of those doctrines of the LDS that isn't found explicitly in the bible, yet is claimed that it's there. Yet, at the same time the LDS attack the trinity because it's not explicitly stated? Why the double standard?

I think what you are referring to is actually the pre-existence. We generally use the “spirit world” to refer to the place where the spirits of the dead go to while they await the resurrection. And there is evidence in the Bible for both the pre-existence as well as the spirit world. For example, Peter taught that when Jesus died, He went and preached to the “spirits in prison:”

1 Peter 3

:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the

spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

That is what we mean by the spirit world; and it is perfectly biblical.

As regards the pre-existence, that too is biblical. By the pre-existence we mean the time, place, and events that took place before the creation of this earth. And the Bible acknowledges such a time and place. The scriptures often use the expression “before the foundation of the world” or “from the foundation of the world,” which is the same as what we refer to as the pre-existence. Here are some quotes:

Matthew 25

:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

John 17

:

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1

:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

1 Peter 1

:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Revelation 17

:

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, . .

All of this refers to events that took place before this world was made, hence the word “pre-existence”. Here is another scripture:

Luke 10

:

18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

This also refers to an event that took place before this world was made. Satan is a fallen angel. That is generally acknowledged by all Christians. And his fall took place before this world was made; and that is when Jesus had seen him “fall as lighting from heaven”. So there is plenty of evidence in the Bible for both a spirit world as well as a pre-existent world, or pre-existence for short.

[zerinus]

On my "burden" of proof to show that the Father and the Son are one God, see my outline study on the doctrine of the Trinity.

I am not going to wade through that. That is not the way to debate. To me the fact that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings (by your own sdmission), and each is God, proves that they are two separate Gods. If you think that they are not, and you want to debate it, bring the relevant points here in a concise manner so it can be discussed.

The Lord's Prayer is an example of how to pray, not what words one must say. In Matthew 6, the prayer is presented as a model of sincerity, brevity, and meaningfulness, in contrast to the ostentatious and superstitious manner in which so many people of the time prayed.

I agree that it establishes a general pattern for how to pray; but parts of that general pattern become fixed. Prayer is addressed to God, who is acknowledged to be the Father. Jesus never prayed to Himself. He always prayed to the Father, and commanded us so to do.

If Jesus is God, then we may pray to him.

Jesus is the Son of God, and subordinate to the Father. He is also God.

If it was all right to pray to him before he died for our sins, why would it not be all right to pray to him after he did so? And again, we have several passages from Acts, the epistles, and Revelation showing that Christians (including the apostles) did in fact pray to Christ. If this is wrong, the apostles did not get the memo.

Most of your quotes don’t in fact prove that, and in the case of the few examples that they might, I see no problem from an LDS point of view with directing prayer informally to Jesus rather than the Father.

In John 14:14, Jesus encouraged his disciples to pray to him: "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." The manuscript evidence clearly supports the inclusion of the word "me" -- and in any case Jesus says that he will answer the prayer!

I don’t see that from the translation. It is something that language experts will have to comment on. I looked it up in multiple translations, and most render it as the KJV does. Only the most modern translations render it that way. I am not a fan of the most modern translations. The construct also seems odd. To ask Him in His name sounds odd. To ask the Father in His name makes sense.

I've asked someone else this question and haven't seen an answer yet; perhaps you have one. Is there anything in modern LDS scripture that indicates that one should no longer pray to Christ?

There is nothing in LDS scripture that says one should not pray to Christ; and as I said before, I see nothing wrong with it in one’s personal or private prayers. But in formal or public prayers we follow the pattern established by Jesus Christ, to address the Father in His name.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I did not say that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings. I said they were two distinct persons.

You ask me to bring the relevant points here in a concise manner. Fine. Biblically, there is only one God who is recognized as the Creator of the universe, Yahweh/Jehovah (e.g., Isa. 44:24). Other beings may in some sense be called "gods" but they are inferior beings and not the maker and ruler of all things. Yet the NT recognizes both the Father and the Son as the maker and ruler of all things (and associates the person of the Holy Spirit with them as well).

Your comment that Jesus never prayed to himself is singularly unhelpful. Of course Jesus never prayed to himself. But his apostles prayed to him after his resurrection and ascension. Saying that they were praying to Jesus "informally" is neither significant nor even correct. "Calling on the name of the Lord" for salvation was a formal act of faith, commonly done in the context of getting baptized.

Regarding John 14:14, the correct text may sound odd to you, but that is simply further evidence for that particular reading. Scribes were more likely to smooth out a text to make it sound less odd than they were to introduce wording that sounded odd. And again, Jesus said that he would answer the prayer.

You wrote:

There is nothing in LDS scripture that says one should not pray to Christ....

That's what I thought.

[Hughes]

By formal prayer I meant prayers uttered in public, or vocalized to be heard. In some established churches, those kinds of prayers are even written down! LOL! So yes, there is a distinction between formal prayer and informal prayer.

According to my reading, He did.

And the moon is made of chees.

And that proves that they are equal! I get it!

I think what you are referring to is actually the pre-existence. We generally use the “spirit world” to refer to the place where the spirits of the dead go to while they await the resurrection. And there is evidence in the Bible for both the pre-existence as well as the spirit world. For example, Peter taught that when Jesus died, He went and preached to the “spirits in prison:”

1 Peter 3

:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the

spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

That is what we mean by the spirit world; and it is perfectly biblical.

As regards the pre-existence, that too is biblical. By the pre-existence we mean the time, place, and events that took place before the creation of this earth. And the Bible acknowledges such a time and place. The scriptures often use the expression “before the foundation of the world” or “from the foundation of the world,” which is the same as what we refer to as the pre-existence. Here are some quotes:

Matthew 25

:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

John 17

:

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1

:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.

1 Peter 1

:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Revelation 17

:

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, . .

All of this refers to events that took place before this world was made, hence the word “pre-existence”. Here is another scripture:

Luke 10

:

18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

This also refers to an event that took place before this world was made. Satan is a fallen angel. That is generally acknowledged by all Christians. And his fall took place before this world was made; and that is when Jesus had seen him “fall as lighting from heaven”. So there is plenty of evidence in the Bible for both a spirit world as well as a pre-existent world, or pre-existence for short.

LeSellers, on 31 July 2011 - 05:45 PM, said:

You are assuming, against all evidence, that the Son of God is equal to God the Father. He is not: He is the Son of God, and was "created" in the premortal Spirit world.

CFR as to Jesus being created in the premortal Spirit World, in the Biblical text.

zerinus, on 01 August 2011 - 12:37 AM, said:

Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14.

Jesus being created in the premortal Spirit World, in the Biblical text?

Col. 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Nope. Not created in this passage.

Rev. 3: 14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:

These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation."

Nope not this one either.

Neither passage above mentioned "premortal Spirit World" Sorry.

Nor do they say that Jesus was created. The word first born is not the same as created. Adam was created a living soul, Jesus wasn't ever created because he always was, as he said, before Abraham was, I AM.

zerinus, on 01 August 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

First of all the verses you quoted don’t agree with translation of the Bible I am using. The KJV renders them as follows:

Colossians 1:15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"

Revelation 3:14 "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"

Secondly, these verses suggest that Jesus in some sense or other was created, or had a beginning. He was the “firstborn of every creature,” and the “beginning of the creation of God”. The fact that the “pre-existent world” or the “spirit world” is not mentioned is irrelevant. If He had a beginning, then that beginning was before the creation of this earth; you can call that "beginning period" whatever you like.

While you see it as irrelevant that the words, "Spirit world" isn't used. I don't. This is one of those doctrines of the LDS that isn't found explicitly in the bible, yet is claimed that it's there. Yet, at the same time the LDS attack the trinity because it's not explicitly stated? Why the double standard?

And now you think I'm simply referring to is actually the pre-existence.

First, there are more than a couple points being ignored. Fact is that the supposed doctrine is implicit not explicit, yet this double standard isn't seen as a problem, unless it's about the trinity.

Then the fact that Christ isn't created, as creator God himself, he is by definition, uncreated. And given that the LDS believe that all "intelligences" weren't created either, also undercuts the idea that Christ was created.

I don’t see that from the translation. It is something that language experts will have to comment on. I looked it up in multiple translations, and most render it as the KJV does. Only the most modern translations render it that way. I am not a fan of the most modern translations. The construct also seems odd. To ask Him in His name sounds odd. To ask the Father in His name makes sense.

The KJV:

John 14:12 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Seems to me that even the KJV confirms that Jesus told his followers to pray to him, and he would do what they ask. Not just verse 14, but 13 as well.

[zerinus]

I did not say that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings. I said they were two distinct persons.

In post #370 you acknowledged that they were distinct enough to be seen by Stephen as two separate people standing side by side. To me that means two separate beings, personages, whatever. Your attempt to redefine the common word “person” in the English language is disingenuous. If you want to go down the “Personalization” absurdity, you will have to address the issue of the “fourth Person” in the Trinity which I have been debating with Hughes for a long time, which you have been running away from.

You ask me to bring the relevant points here in a concise manner. Fine. Biblically, there is only one God who is recognized as the Creator of the universe, Yahweh/Jehovah (e.g., Isa. 44:24). Other beings may in some sense be called “gods” but they are inferior beings and not the maker and ruler of all things. Yet the NT recognizes both the Father and the Son as the maker and ruler of all things . . .

Not quite. Jesus created all things under the direction and command of the Father, not independently, as you suggest:

1 Corinthians 8

:

6 But to us there is but

one God, the Father,

of

whom are all things,

and we in him; and

one Lord Jesus Christ,

by

whom are all things,

and we by him.

Ephesians 3

:

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God,

who created all things

by

Jesus Christ:

Hebrews 1

:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,

by

whom also he made the worlds;

So although they are both creators, their creative role and activity are not the same. The Son stands distinctly below the Father in all creative activity. The Father begets the Son, not the other way round. The son prays to the Father, not the opposite. The Son is sent by the Father, prays to the Father, calls Him His God, says He is greater than Him, and keeps His commandments. He is sent by the Father, and finally returns to Him, not the reverse. He creates under the direction of the Father, not the opposite. How else could the scriptures demonstrate that the Son stands below the Father in rank and in every activity—and that they are two separate beings?

Your comment that Jesus never prayed to himself is singularly unhelpful. Of course Jesus never prayed to himself. But his apostles prayed to him after his resurrection and ascension. Saying that they were praying to Jesus "informally" is neither significant nor even correct. "Calling on the name of the Lord" for salvation was a formal act of faith, commonly done in the context of getting baptized.

See above.

Regarding John 14:14, the correct text may sound odd to you, but that is simply further evidence for that particular reading. Scribes were more likely to smooth out a text to make it sound less odd than they were to introduce wording that sounded odd. And again, Jesus said that he would answer the prayer.

Biblical passages do not stand in isolation. We resolve ambiguity by comparing, contrasting, harmonizing with other passages of the Bible. The relevant passages in this case are these:

John 14

:

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask

in my name,

that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing

in my name,

I will do it.

John 15

:

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of

the Father in my name,

he may give it you.

John 16

:

23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask

the Father in my name,

he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing

in my name:

ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

26 At that day ye shall ask

in my name:

and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

We ask the Father “in the name of Jesus,” as shown in John 15:6 and 16:23. Where the Father is not specifically mentioned, as in John 14:13-14 or 16:24, 26; that is understood on the basis of the other verses mentioned.

That's what I thought.

And?

Edited August 3, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

No, I did not say that Stephen saw the Father and the Son "as two separate people standing side by side." And no, I'm not "running away from" the "fourth Person" argument. In fact, I distinctly remember addressing this bogus objection earlier in this very thread. It is a silly objection based on a caricature misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

And no, I did not suggest that Jesus created all things "independently" of the Father. Exactly the opposite: I hold that the Son and the Father are in no sense independent of one another. You see, you have no idea what you are criticizing (Prov. 18:13).

If the NT shows that the apostles and other Christians prayed to Christ, as I have shown (a point you have not answered), and if no latter-day scripture forbids praying to Christ, then why do Mormons object to the practice of praying to Christ? Pointing to NT texts in which the Father is the object of prayer is not an answer.

[Vance]

I did not say that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings. I said they were two distinct persons.

A distinction without a difference.

Show me a being/entity/person that is more than one "person"/personality, and I will show you someone suffering from multiple personality disorder.

[Flyonthewall]

. . . To me the fact that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings (by your own sdmission), and each is God, proves that they are two separate Gods. If you think that they are not, and you want to debate it, bring the relevant points here in a concise manner so it can be discussed.

To me, this is the language that negates the concept of the Trinity.

3 individuals, each individually God = 3 Gods.

Each individual is a member of the Godhead and function in unison under the direction of the Father, the Most High God, and God of Gods.

[zerinus]

No, I did not say that Stephen saw the Father and the Son "as two separate people standing side by side."

This is what you said:

When Stephen looked up into the Heavens and saw Jesus on the right hand of the Father, are you saying that is not a clear statement of two seperate gods? Are you saying that one of them was not a God? I look forward to your answer.

That's right, it is not a clear statement of two separate gods. Nothing in the text says this or clearly requires it (Acts 7:55-56). The text does reveal that the Father and Son are personally distinct from one another, but not that they are separate gods.

In normal English, if two ...whatevers... are "personally distinct" (and especially if they can be seen as such), that means that they are two separate people.

And no, I'm not "running away from" the "fourth Person" argument. In fact, I distinctly remember addressing this bogus objection earlier in this very thread. It is a silly objection based on a caricature misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

That is best dealt with in a separate thread. I have started a new thread on this subject that I hope you will join and discuss.

And no, I did not suggest that Jesus created all things "independently" of the Father. Exactly the opposite: I hold that the Son and the Father are in no sense independent of one another. You see, you have no idea what you are criticizing (Prov. 18:13).

Well, that is what your words suggest.

If the NT shows that the apostles and other Christians prayed to Christ, as I have shown (a point you have not answered), and if no latter-day scripture forbids praying to Christ, then why do Mormons object to the practice of praying to Christ? Pointing to NT texts in which the Father is the object of prayer is not an answer.

I told you before. There is no objection to people praying to Jesus if they want to. But in our liturgical prayers (if you prefer that term), we follow the pattern established by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer.

Edited August 3, 2011 by zerinus

[Zakuska]

A distinction without a difference.

Show me a being/entity/person that is more than one "person"/personality, and I will show you someone suffering from multiple personality disorder.

I dub thee... Sybil.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Zakuska

[jo1952]

zerinus,

If the NT shows that the apostles and other Christians prayed to Christ, as I have shown (a point you have not answered), and if no latter-day scripture forbids praying to Christ, then why do Mormons object to the practice of praying to Christ? Pointing to NT texts in which the Father is the object of prayer is not an answer.

When Jesus visited the Nephites, He taught them to pray to the Father just like in the Bible. Yet, you will see that they still prayed to Jesus while He was there in front of them. While they are praying to Him, He goes off to pray to Father and explains to Father that the people are praying to Him (Jesus) because He is currently with them. It just seems like common sense to me, as they would have been overcome with the emotion of their love for Him. If Jesus were to appear before me, I doubt I would be praying to Father in Jesus' name since He is right there with me. While He is in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, however, it is more appropriate that we follow Jesus' teaching; i.e., pray to Father in Jesus' name.

It is not forbidden to pray to Jesus; it is just not in accordance with what He taught us to do. It would not be uncommon to call to Jesus in moments of great pain, fear, joy, etc. I am sure those prayers are still heard, and that they are still answered the same way they would have been if the taught formula had been followed.

Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

Hughes,

Read this:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Polytheism

This should explain that Latter-day Saints worship one God. You can distort our beliefs however you would like, but Latter-day Saints are not polytheistic. And I really hope you're not trying to say Jesus, for example, is God, but not a god. Yet as a divine being, of course Jesus is a god. To deny that would be a denial of His divinity. He is also God. But hey, whatever floats your boat, my friend.

A Muslim or a Jew would deny that you, as a Trinitarian, are a monotheist. You would, obviously, reject the idea that you are polytheistic. And we do the same thing. Leave the polytheism thing alone. It's a complete straw man argument, first of all, and does not fairly or accurately describe LDS theology.

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

When Jesus visited the Nephites, He taught them to pray to the Father just like in the Bible. Yet, you will see that they still prayed to Jesus while He was there in front of them. While they are praying to Him, He goes off to pray to Father and explains to Father that the people are praying to Him (Jesus) because He is currently with them. It just seems like common sense to me, as they would have been overcome with the emotion of their love for Him. If Jesus were to appear before me, I doubt I would be praying to Father in Jesus' name since He is right there with me. While He is in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, however, it is more appropriate that we follow Jesus' teaching; i.e., pray to Father in Jesus' name.

In the Bible, this distinction between praying to Jesus when you can see him on Earth and not praying to him when you can't see him or when he is in Heaven is totally absent. People prayed to Jehovah in the OT all the time, and Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus was in Heaven at the right hand of the Father when Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:55-60). Yes, Stephen says that he could see Jesus, but other prayers to Jesus did not involve such a vision (e.g., Acts 1:24-25). All Christians are supposed to call on the name of the Lord Jesus -- that means to pray to the Lord Jesus -- for salvation (Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.). If anyone prays to Jesus according to his will, he is assured that Jesus will hear and answer (1 John 5:13-15).

You wrote:

It is not forbidden to pray to Jesus; it is just not in accordance with what He taught us to do.

Do you pray "in Jesus' name"? Where in the Lord's Prayer do you see this?

You wrote:

It would not be uncommon to call to Jesus in moments of great pain, fear, joy, etc. I am sure those prayers are still heard, and that they are still answered the same way they would have been if the taught formula had been followed.

That's fine, but I'm primarily concerned about the issue of praying to Jesus for salvation.

[zerinus]

In the Bible, this distinction between praying to Jesus when you can see him on Earth and not praying to him when you can't see him or when he is in Heaven is totally absent. People prayed to Jehovah in the OT all the time, and Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus was in Heaven at the right hand of the Father when Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:55-60). Yes, Stephen says that he could see Jesus, but other prayers to Jesus did not involve such a vision (e.g., Acts 1:24-25). All Christians are supposed to call on the name of the Lord Jesus -- that means to pray to the Lord Jesus -- for salvation (Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.). If anyone prays to Jesus according to his will, he is assured that Jesus will hear and answer (1 John 5:13-15).

"Calling upon the name of the Lord" does not translate into praying to Jesus. Lord is a synonym for God. It means praying to God. Okay, Jesus is God; but so is the Father. In the Bible as well as the writings of the ECFs, God is generally identified with the Father.

Do you pray "in Jesus' name"? Where in the Lord's Prayer do you see this?

Modern scripture tells us that; and it is also affirmed by the Bible:

John 15

:

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16

:

23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

We don't claim to be exclusively biblical in our teachings; but we don't believe our teachings are contradicted by the Bible either. Where does it say in the Lord's Prayer that we should not pray to the Father in the name of Jesus?

[jo1952]

jo,

You wrote:

In the Bible, this distinction between praying to Jesus when you can see him on Earth and not praying to him when you can't see him or when he is in Heaven is totally absent. People prayed to Jehovah in the OT all the time, and Jesus is Jehovah.

Hi Rob:

Ahh, but in the NT what the Jews did not generally realize WAS that Jesus is the God they prayed to in the OT. That is why so few recognized Him. Once Jesus came in the flesh, He made clear what His True relationship with Father was. Part of revealing this knowledge to the people was to now ask them to pray to the Father - which he taught through His Words and through His example.

Jesus was in Heaven at the right hand of the Father when Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:55-60). Yes, Stephen says that he could see Jesus, but other prayers to Jesus did not involve such a vision (e.g., Acts 1:24-25). All Christians are supposed to call on the name of the Lord Jesus -- that means to pray to the Lord Jesus -- for salvation (Rom. 10:9-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; etc.). If anyone prays to Jesus according to his will, he is assured that Jesus will hear and answer (1 John 5:13-15).

Acts 1:24-25 seems appropriate that they should be asking Jesus who the next Apostle should be. It was Jesus who chose the original 12 (even though Jesus originally went to Father to help Him to choose them). So they went straight to the source who had called them. It is not often that they had such an unusual circumstance facing them. I don't think it was odd that they should seek Jesus' guidance; but I also do not see that as a regular type of occurrence which should be used as an example of Jesus teaching them to pray to Him. In fact, Jesus wasn't there; it was the decision of the Apostle's to seek Jesus out - it is not an example of Jesus teaching them what they should do.

Rom 10:9-13 - I do not see this as a prayer. This is discussing confessing/acknowledging Jesus; IOW, believing in Him - believing the Gospel message. It is through confessing Jesus and believing He is our Savior that we obtain salvation.

1Cor 1:2 - I would offer that you continue to read through verse 4. You can see that Paul is thanking God (and I believe Paul is talking about prayer) for the Grace of God which is given by Jesus Christ. Thus it sounds like Paul is discussing "calling upon the name of Christ" via praying to Father. Why would Paul be doing something different from what you think he is teaching? That would be like Paul teaching others to do as he says, but not as he does. I would offer this is inconsistent with Paul's reasoning. Therefore, pershaps another interpretation of verse 2 should be considered than what you claim it to be.

1John 5:13-15 - If you read verses 1-15, you can see that the conversation concerns first God (Father) and then His Son. In carefully reading this entire passage, God is the main subject and His Son is the secondary subject. It would be easy to assume, by taking verses 13-15 out of context, that the Being who is "hearing" our petition and which is according to "his will" could be interpreted to be the Son. However, inasmuch as Jesus continually taught by His Words and through His example, that He was doing everything in accordance with His Father's Will (and which is, in fact, made clear in the Lord's Prayer), that your interpretation is out of sync with everything else Jesus taught.

You wrote:

Do you pray "in Jesus' name"? Where in the Lord's Prayer do you see this?

I don't see it there. However, one of Jesus' main focuses in the flesh was to teach us His relationship with Father, which I mentioned earlier. Those who accepted Jesus as the Christ, as the Son of God the Father, recognized the distinction which Jesus was teaching while He was in the flesh. These verses from John are pretty much self explanatory concerning this very issue and how it relates to prayer as revealed by Jesus in the NT:

John 16:23-27

23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

That's fine, but I'm primarily concerned about the issue of praying to Jesus for salvation.

Praying to Jesus for salvation is NOT what we are taught. It is BELIEVING in and ACCEPTING Christ as our Savior which gives us access to salvation. We are TAUGHT to pray to Father in the name of Jesus, as I have shown was taught by Jesus Himself in the above comments.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 5, 2011 by jo1952

[Flyonthewall]

"Calling upon the name of the Lord" does not translate into praying to Jesus. Lord is a synonym for God. It means praying to God. Okay, Jesus is God; but so is the Father. In the Bible as well as the writings of the ECFs, God is generally identified with the Father.

Jesus Christ is LORD, and calling upon the NAME of the Lord can mean exactly what Jesus stated: to ask the Father in His name.