Trinity

[LeSellers]

Indeed, just as the trinity is implicitly found in the Biblical text, so also is creation Ex nihilo (out of nothing).

By necessity, anything that is "implicit" must be based on interpretation. All interpretations are subject to error.

It's a very good thing for us Saints that we have additional information, because we know that both the Tritnity dogma and creatio ex nihil are false interpretations: they are based more on Greek philosophy than on scripture.

Since, the doctrine for eternal matter is found only in LDS scriptures, the matter is settled. It's not supported by the Biblical text.

It is settled only for those who foolishly reject God's chosen prophets.

Lehi

[Vance]

Jesus stated that the Father is in Heaven, . . .

True, which does NOT support the words of the adulterous murderer (fallen prophet) David.

. . . and nothing he said is contradicting David the prophet's statement . . .

But He does NOT support the word of the adulterous murderer (fallen prophet) David.

. . . (why do you continue to call him adulterous murderer . . .

Because that is what he is.

. . . and not Joseph Smith?).

Because that is what he is NOT.

As I stated earlier, if you don't understand it, therefore it must not be true. The trinity is derived out of the implicit teaching of the Apostles, where God is one being, yet three persons.

Nah, it is derived from the teachings of the Apostles corrupted by the Hellenized philosophies of men.

Now where in the Bible does is say "God is one being", so that statement is not Biblically based.

You have yet to show that three persons can be one being. It makes no sense be cause it isn't possible.

If it's true as you state, that there are more than two infinite beings (gods), then why do you oppose the term polytheist?

Because a polytheist worship multiple gods. We do not. The recognition of their existence is NOT the same as worshiping them.

It's far to simplistic to say that "evil exists in the presence of God."

Oh yeah, right. You just can wiggle out of this one. If evil exists and if God is everywhere present, THEN evil exists in the presence of God. Period. End of story.

The answer is yes of course . . .

So then, God condones evil in His presence. Got it.

. . . (as any infinite being would necessarily exist everywhere), . . .

You keep asserting that when it has been demonstrated to be false.

. . . but one has to understand that when the Infinite God decided to create man, he knew that it would result in evil, but that the resultant evil would be a small price to pay for the amount of good created.

So, it was beyond His power to not create evil? (So, now were are back to God creating evil.)

It would be more accurate to say that evil doesn't escape God's presence, nor his judgement.

It is very interesting where your theology takes you. Not a very good God you have there.

[Ambrose]

The implicit teachings of the apostles is a stretch. The Trinity, by admission of the Catholic Church, was not taught until much later.

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

[jo1952]

I see your agenda driven post from a mile a way.

When something is implicit in the Bible, it is indeed *in* there implicitly.

As to your last statement, where in the Bible does it say that the trinity isn't true?

I don't think it's logical to posit more than one infinite being. Making monotheism the only logical choice.

The reason that Mormons aren't recognized as Christians is probably a more complex question than just the matter of the trinity. Although I do see that point though. When someone has the nature of God mixed up, then the identity of that being is also in error. Just as if I was to say that my best friend was from India, yet he's actually from Sweden. He would think that I didn't know him, and mis-identified him.

I recently asked a Trinitarian on another website about the many and various interpretations of the Trinity itself. For instance, some think that the Trinity teaches an heirarchy; others claim that each Person in the Trinity is the very same Being - that there are simply three different personalities being manifested. Some adhere strictly to the Trinity Shield; while others claim an entirely different view of what the Trinity "means", etc. So I asked him what he thought about these differences and nuances of belief in the Trinity. He told me it was quite frankly none of anybody's business; that the important thing was that they "accepted" the Trinity so that they could be saved.

Now, since it seems that the purpose for the Trinity is so that man can have a proper understanding of the actual "nature" of God, that these nuances are just as important as believing in the Trinity itself. If a person who accepts the Trinity does not completely understand the Trinity, then they STILL don't have the "correct" "Nature" of God in their head, right? So, it seems that if the Trinity is going to stand upon the premise that it IS a representation of the correct "nature" of God, then shouldn't it BE the business of every Trinitarian to make sure that other Trinitarians believe the exact same thing? Otherwise, they are not all believing in and understanding the same and correct "nature" of God - which is what is supposed to be able to same them (as opposed to the actual Atonement being able to save us......).

IOW, if a Trinitarian doesn't understand the Trinity and the Trinity's proposed true nature of God, then what good is it for someone to BE a Trinitarian if they don't understand it properly? Wouldn't that be indicative of the same inherrent problem which damns anyone who will NOT accept the Trinity? Neither the Trinitarian with the wrong understanding of the Trinity, nor the believer who refuses to accept the Trinity, understand the Trinity's true nature of God. Thus, inevitably, both would be damned according to the claim of orthodoxy's insistance that the proper nature of God must be understood in order for a person to be saved.

So where does a person draw the line? Methinks Trinitarians have some serious explaining to do. Until the in-fighting amongst Trinitarians themselves ceases (and this has gone on since it became an "essential core belief"), then I don't think accepting the Trinity "or be damned" comments have a leg to stand on, as it is quite clear that Trinitarians are unable to agree on what the "true nature" of God is, to begin with.

Best regards,

jo

[Vance]

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

Here is a place to start.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

[Ambrose]

Here is a place to start.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

This is not a magisterial document, Vance.

[jo1952]

I agree completely with you. However, it is just so strange when the topic is the Trinity; belief in this single doctrine is required before one can merit the label Christian. Somehow this single doctrine has become so important that it even more important than belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. When did the blood of Christ become so cheap? When this doctrine became the measuring stick of being a Christian. This type of standard is a sign to me of the apostasy imposed by men; when the doctrines of men become more important than the Son of God.

Amen! Stranger still is that the Trinity is supposed to represent the true nature of God which understanding must be had in order to be saved. This commandment of men has greater power than the Atonement!! Yet Trinitarians themselves do not all believe in the very same Trinity - so which "true nature" of God will save THEM, while all others who simply don't accept the Trinity are just as damned, in theory, as the Trinitarians who happen to hold to the "wrong" true nature of God??

Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

As to your last statement, where in the Bible does it say that the trinity isn't true?

The Trinity doctrine didn't even exist in biblical times. Why would the Bible say anything about a doctrine that wasn't in the minds of its authors at all? But if you want to go that route, please tell me where the Bible says that God is one being, but three persons. And don't tell me that it's there "implicitly," because that would mean that it's only there if you assume it is.

The reason that Mormons aren't recognized as Christians is probably a more complex question than just the matter of the trinity.

Mormons worship Jesus Christ, strive to faithfully keep His commandments, study His word and the words of His chosen prophets, take upon themselves His name, repent of their sins, and seek (and hope) to be like Him, just as He directed. What other qualifications for being a Christian are there?

Edited July 27, 2011 by altersteve

[zerinus]

I don't think it's logical to posit more than one infinite being. Making monotheism the only logical choice.

Did you know that the early Christians believed in more than one God, and that they themselves could become gods? I don't suppose you do. You don't sound very knowledgeable about the history of your own religion. But it is true, they did.

The reason that Mormons aren't recognized as Christians is probably a more complex question than just the matter of the trinity.

Mormons aren't recognized as Christians only by apostate Christians. And the reason for it is obvious: apostate religions have always opposed true religions until they have been swept away and succeeded by true ones.

Although I do see that point though. When someone has the nature of God mixed up, then the identity of that being is also in error. Just as if I was to say that my best friend was from India, yet he's actually from Sweden. He would think that I didn't know him, and mis-identified him.

That analogy applies to you very well. It is a good portrayal of your ignorance of God.

[zerinus]

Indeed, just as the trinity is implicitly found in the Biblical text, so also is creation Ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Neither doctrine is found in the Bible, implicitly or explicitly.

Since, the doctrine for eternal matter is found only in LDS scriptures, the matter is settled. It's not supported by the Biblical text.

It is found explicitly in LDS scripture, and implicitly in biblical text. It has been shown to you many times that the Hebrew word used in the Bible literally means to make, build etc. (i.e. out of preexistent materials), not "out of nothing".

[altersteve]

Also, Hughes, another thing I'd like to point out, if I may.

I never said that humans were infinite beings, no.

Oh, but you did:

We are what is termed "immortal beings" in that we have a beginning but no end. God is the only eternal being, with out beginning or end.

You also wrote:

If it's true as you state, that there are more than two infinite beings (gods), then why do you oppose the term polytheist?

This implies that you believe that the terms "infinite beings" and "gods" are interchangeable. Since when was this the case? And if it were the case, and if human beings are, as you said, infinite beings, then aren't human beings technically gods? And isn't this exactly what Jesus said, in John 10:34?

Edited July 27, 2011 by altersteve

[Hughes]

Not so Hughes, you have not responded to the scholarly assesments in the links above. Try again Please.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

In the past I've wasted time refuting links you've posted. Not falling for that, thanks.

As I have said in the past. You formulate an argument, and I will interact with it.

By necessity, anything that is "implicit" must be based on interpretation. All interpretations are subject to error.

It's a very good thing for us Saints that we have additional information, because we know that both the Tritnity dogma and creatio ex nihil are false interpretations: they are based more on Greek philosophy than on scripture.

It is settled only for those who foolishly reject God's chosen prophets.

Lehi

All interpretations are subject to error, just as all prophets are subject to error.

This doesn't mean we stop trusting our interpretations, or you stop trusting your prophets.

You point is irrelevant. But it does point out that the LDS position is not found in the biblical text, and in fact it stands in opposition to it.

True, which does NOT support the words of the adulterous murderer (fallen prophet) David.

But He does NOT support the word of the adulterous murderer (fallen prophet) David.

Because that is what he is.

Because that is what he is NOT.

Nah, it is derived from the teachings of the Apostles corrupted by the Hellenized philosophies of men.

Now where in the Bible does is say "God is one being", so that statement is not Biblically based.

You have yet to show that three persons can be one being. It makes no sense be cause it isn't possible.

Because a polytheist worship multiple gods. We do not. The recognition of their existence is NOT the same as worshiping them.

Oh yeah, right. You just can wiggle out of this one. If evil exists and if God is everywhere present, THEN evil exists in the presence of God. Period. End of story.

So then, God condones evil in His presence. Got it.

You keep asserting that when it has been demonstrated to be false.

So, it was beyond His power to not create evil? (So, now were are back to God creating evil.)

It is very interesting where your theology takes you. Not a very good God you have there.

Concerning David, all of us are adulterous murderers, but thanks to the grace of God we can be redeemed, just as David was.

The Shema, the lord is one... is sufficient to show that God is one being.

I'm not sure I could ever "show" that three persons can be one being. I agree it doesn't make sense to the Natural mind, as I stated earlier that one of the reasons we have trouble with it, is because we can't point to another thing like it, that is three in one. All I can do is accept the teaching that is clear in the biblical text. Where all three are God, yet there is only one God. I'm not like you though. I don't limit what I understand to be true, simply because it doesn't make sense to me. Many things don't make sense to me, even though they are true.

Not all polytheists worship multiple gods. Some have a pantheon of gods, while they only claim one as *their* god, very similar to the LDS beliefs. But, as I pointed out the LDS pray and worship Jesus, and the Father, which are by your own admission two beings.

God created free will, and by doing so created the potential for evil. There is no other way to create or share his unconditional love with us, which was the purpose in creating us. As I said, the there was a price to pay, but it is/was worth it.

Please tell me how you have demonstrated that any infinite being, as in infinite in existence (which has always been my argument), wouldn't necessarily exist everywhere.

So where does a person draw the line? Methinks Trinitarians have some serious explaining to do. Until the in-fighting amongst Trinitarians themselves ceases (and this has gone on since it became an "essential core belief"), then I don't think accepting the Trinity "or be damned" comments have a leg to stand on, as it is quite clear that Trinitarians are unable to agree on what the "true nature" of God is, to begin with.

Best regards,

jo

I haven't heard anyone here say that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved. So, I guess I can't help with that.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Hughes

[Hughes]

The Trinity doctrine didn't even exist in biblical times. Why would the Bible say anything about a doctrine that wasn't in the minds of its authors at all? But if you want to go that route, please tell me where the Bible says that God is one being, but three persons. And don't tell me that it's there "implicitly," because that would mean that it's only there if you assume it is.

Mormons worship Jesus Christ, strive to faithfully keep His commandments, study His word and the words of His chosen prophets, take upon themselves His name, repent of their sins, and seek (and hope) to be like Him, just as He directed. What other qualifications for being a Christian are there?

The trinity didn't exist explicitly as a doctrine in NT times, but it certainly does come through in their writings, as we've referenced numerous scriptures that contain references to all three being God, yet only one God exists. So, unfortunately, implicitly doesn't mean "assume" rather it means implied, or understood, "capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed."

LDS put the words of their chosen prophets above that of the Biblical text. The larger point is who do you trust?

When Jesus asks you why he should let you in his Heaven, what is your response? Who do you trust?

Did you know that the early Christians believed in more than one God, and that they themselves could become gods? I don't suppose you do. You don't sound very knowledgeable about the history of your own religion. But it is true, they did.

Mormons aren't recognized as Christians only by apostate Christians. And the reason for it is obvious: apostate religions have always opposed true religions until they have been swept away and succeeded by true ones.

That analogy applies to you very well. It is a good portrayal of your ignorance of God.

CFR- That the early christians believed they themselves could become gods.

Neither doctrine is found in the Bible, implicitly or explicitly.

It is found explicitly in LDS scripture, and implicitly in biblical text. It has been shown to you many times that the Hebrew word used in the Bible literally means to make, build etc. (i.e. out of preexistent materials), not "out of nothing".

Unfortunately you listen to your own arguments too much. I'm not saying that the Hebrew doesn't say to make or build out of preexistent materials. What the Biblical text absolutely doesn't imply is that the materials are eternal. Sorry, no support for the LDS position in the text.

Further, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth..." Implies that there was nothing before, only God.

Also, Hughes, another thing I'd like to point out, if I may.

Oh, but you did:

You also wrote:

This implies that you believe that the terms "infinite beings" and "gods" are interchangeable. Since when was this the case? And if it were the case, and if human beings are, as you said, infinite beings, then aren't human beings technically gods? And isn't this exactly what Jesus said, in John 10:34?

Sorry, but the meaning of "Immortal" cannot be stretched to mean infinite. Immortal means to have a beginning, and an infinite being has no beginning or end, such as is how God is described. " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2)

[Vance]

Concerning David, all of us are adulterous murderers, but thanks to the grace of God we can be redeemed, just as David was.

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.

The Shema, the lord is one... is sufficient to show that God is one being.

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.

I'm not sure I could ever "show" that three persons can be one being.

Then that part of the doctrine is unsupportable.

I agree it doesn't make sense to the Natural mind, as I stated earlier that one of the reasons we have trouble with it, is because we can't point to another thing like it, that is three in one.

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

All I can do is accept the teaching that is clear in the biblical text.

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.)

Where all three are God, yet there is only one God.

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

I'm not like you though.

????

I don't limit what I understand to be true, simply because it doesn't make sense to me.

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?

Many things don't make sense to me, even though they are true.

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

Not all polytheists worship multiple gods.

World English Dictionary

polytheism (ˈpɒlɪθiːˌɪzəm, ˌpɒlɪˈθiːɪzəm)

— n

the worship of or belief in more than one god

Some have a pantheon of gods, while they only claim one as *their* god, very similar to the LDS beliefs.

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.

But, as I pointed out the LDS pray and worship Jesus, and the Father, which are by your own admission two beings.

Which is totally consistent with the Bible.

God created free will, and by doing so created the potential for evil.

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.

Please tell me how you have demonstrated that any infinite being, as in infinite in existence (which has always been my argument), wouldn't necessarily exist everywhere.

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).

[zerinus]

CFR- That the early christians believed they themselves could become gods.

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) is for Orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is “made in the image and likeness of God”. . . . It is possible for man to become like God, to

become deified, to become god by grace

. This doctrine is based on many passages of both OT and NT (e.g. Ps. 82 (81).6; II Peter 1.4), and it is essentially the teaching of both St Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (cf. Rom. 8.9–17; Gal.4.5–7), and the Fourth Gospel (cf. 17.21–23).

The language of II Peter is taken up by St Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, “if the Word has been made man, it is so that

men may be made gods

” (Adv. Haer V, Pref.), and becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the fourth century St Athanasius repeats St Irenaeus almost word for word, and in the fifth century St Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons “by participation” (Greek methexis).

Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St Maximus the Confessor,

for whom the doctrine is the corollary of the Incarnation: “Deification, briefly, is the encompasing and fulfilment of all times and ages”, . . . and St Symeon the New Theologian at the end of the tenth century writes, “He who is God by nature converses with those whom he has

made gods by grace,

as a friend converses with his frieds, face to face.” . . .

Finally, it should be noted that

deification does not mean absorption into God, since the deified creature remains itself and distinct. It is the whole human being, body and soul, who is transfigured in the Spirit into the likeness of the divine nature, and deification is the goal of every Christian

. [Emphasis added.]

The following passage is an extract from the lengthy article found on this site. I am not endorsing the entire article; but the quoted passage is significant and relevant to our discussion (emphasis in the original).

He [Professor Harnack] makes the bold statement that the doctrine of deification was a primary teaching of all the scholars of the first Christian community. Harnack states:

“After Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Origen, the idea of deification is found in

all the Fathers of the ancient Church, and that in a primary position

. We have it in Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Apollinaris, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius, and others, as also in Cyril, Sophronius, and late Greek and Russian theologians. In proof of it, Psalm 82:6 (“I said, Ye are gods”) is very often quoted.”

(

Inge

, p. 358) [

Christian Mysticism

, by R. W. Inge]

* * *

Let us now look at what some of the early theologians (who lived in the four centuries after Christ) had to say about the biblical teaching of the deification of man.

Theophilus said

“that a man, by keeping the directions of God, may receive from him immortality as a reward and

become God

”

(

ad Autol

. ii.27).

Clement of Alexandria said mankind was to become immortal:

“to be imperishable is to

share in Divinity

[to be like God]” (

Strom

.v.10:63).

Hippolytus stated it even more clearly:

“Your body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as your soul.

For you have become God

. All the things that follow upon the divine nature God has promised to supply to you, for

you were deified

in being born to immortality”

(

Philos

. x. 34).

One of the principal developers of the Nicene Confession was Athanasius. His works are

filled with the doctrine of deification

.

“For He

[Christ]

was made man that we might be made God”

(

De Incar

. Para. 54).

“The Word was made Flesh in order to offer up this body for all, that

we might be deified

”

(

De Dec

. para. 14).

“He was God, and then became man, and that to

deify us

”

(

Orat

. I. para. 39).

Chrysostom said:

“Christ came to us, and took upon him our nature and

deified it

.”

Gregory of Nyssa said that Christ coming in flesh has now

“deified everything kindred and related to mankind”

(

Catechism

xxxv).

This doctrine of deification was also reflected in the teachings of Eusebius, the first historian of the Christian community. He was acquainted with all the top scholars before his time and was aware of the principal theological concepts then being taught throughout the whole of Christendom. When all his works are surveyed, it shows what real knowledge of early New Testament truth was understood at the time. . . .

In regard to the doctrine of

salvation in Christ

, Eusebius hit the nail right on the head. In fact, he merely stated what all knowledgeable scholars were aware of at the time. Note what Eusebius said about the meaning of

Christian salvation:

“The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to

deify mankind together with himself

”

(

Demonst

.iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ,

as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine

.

Professor Ferrar, who translated Eusebius’ work

Demonstratio Evangelica

, gave an overall view of Eusebius’ understanding of

salvation

and how he reflected the general belief of

all

major theologians of his time

. Ferrar said the doctrine of human deification which came by union with Christ is

“perhaps the greatest theological system of antiquity, and it is obvious how it

[deification]

lies behind and beneath all that Eusebius says”

(Intro.

Proof of the Gospel

, vol. I. p. xxvii).

Edited July 28, 2011 by zerinus

[jo1952]

I haven't heard anyone here say that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved. So, I guess I can't help with that.

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

[Storm Rider]

....“The Word of God [Christ] is now God as He had been man, in order to deify mankind together with himself” (Demonst. iv.14). It was clearly understood by Eusebius that mankind is on earth finally to become, through Christ, as divine as Christ Jesus is now Himself divine.

Professor Ferrar, who translated Eusebius’ work Demonstratio Evangelica, gave an overall view of Eusebius’ understanding of salvation and how he reflected the general belief of all major theologians of his time. Ferrar said the doctrine of human deification which came by union with Christ is “perhaps the greatest theological system of antiquity, and it is obvious how it [deification] lies behind and beneath all that Eusebius says” (Intro. Proof of the Gospel, vol. I. p. xxvii).

These generally make good Catholics choke, back up, reinterpret, reclassify, and do everything possible except admit that they could become gods as states Catechism 460: The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

I don't know why they stumble on this. For so many it is a giant stumbling block and they just can't come to the point of admitting that they will become gods. Evangelicals are simply in the dark. Their doctrine is very shallow given their sole focus on Grace, which in reality we could spend a life time studying, but the early Apostles discussed this, it was a common discussion and stayed such up until the 8th to 10 century when the Catholic Church began to cover it up while the Orthodox kept it a main focus.

It is understood that Exaltation is more than deification, but Deification is still to become gods.

[LeSellers]

All interpretations are subject to error, just as all prophets are subject to error.

This doesn't mean we stop trusting our interpretations, or you stop trusting your prophets.

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.

You point is irrelevant. But it does point out that the LDS position is not found in the biblical text, and in fact it stands in opposition to it.

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

Edited July 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Concerning David, all of us are adulterous murderers, but thanks to the grace of God we can be redeemed, just as David was.

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

[LeSellers]

The Shema, the lord is one... is sufficient to show that God is one being.

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

4 שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד.

(Šĕmaʿ Yisrāʾel YHWH Ĕlōhênû YHWH eḥād:

Hear, O Israel. Jehovah is our God, Jehovah [is*] alone.)

This second "is" is not in the text, and only

may

be implied by the context. However, insisting on its being there is hardly adhering to the text.

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

Edited July 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Could not another argument be that running with Hughes argument that "The Lord is one Lord", I am curious, Were in the bible does saying "One" mean one in being. I am not aware of any verse of scripture that will back up One= being. That is something read into the text and thus is extra biblical.

[LeSellers]

I'm not saying that the Hebrew doesn't say to make or build out of preexistent materials. What the Biblical text absolutely doesn't imply is that the materials are eternal. Sorry, no support for the LDS position in the text.

Further, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth..." Implies that there was nothing before, only 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

[LeSellers]

Could not another argument be that running with Hughes argument that "The Lord is one Lord", I am curious, Were in the bible does saying "One" mean one in being. I am not aware of any verse of scripture that will back up One= being. That is something read into the text and thus is extra biblical.

I believe not, because the word "Lord" is not what the Bible actually uses. It says "Jehovah is (some form of) one Jehovah". The unfortuante avoidance of pronouncing "Jehovah" and subsituting "Lord" (adonai) leads us to miss the subtelties. "Lord" (in both English and Hebrew) mens a sovereign (which He is), so when we see the word, we do not think of the name "Jehovah", we think of "God as sovereign". It is a different matter to understand "Jehovah is one Jehovah" than "the Lord is one Lord".

Lehi

Edited July 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ambrose]

These generally make good Catholics choke, back up, reinterpret, reclassify, and do everything possible except admit that they could become gods as states Catechism 460: The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

I don't know why they stumble on this. For so many it is a giant stumbling block and they just can't come to the point of admitting that they will become gods. Evangelicals are simply in the dark. Their doctrine is very shallow given their sole focus on Grace, which in reality we could spend a life time studying, but the early Apostles discussed this, it was a common discussion and stayed such up until the 8th to 10 century when the Catholic Church began to cover it up while the Orthodox kept it a main focus.

It is understood that Exaltation is more than deification, but Deification is still to become gods.

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.

[ChristKnight]

I agree with Ambrose. The doctrine of deification has not been covered up by the Catholic Church, and I find no evidence that the Catholic Church ever did so. What I do find is that deification/theosis is more emphasized in Eastern Christianity than in the west. Eastern Orthodox seem to focus more on theosis (or at least discussing the concept of becoming gods) than Roman Catholics. 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.

Edited July 28, 2011 by ChristKnight