Prayer To Jesus In The Book Of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, you wrote:

WE believe them to be one God. We just don't believe them to be one essence or one being like you do.

So that accusation that you present is utterly false.

Hmm. Which of the following best represents what you think is correct LDS doctrine?

1. It is true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and it is false that they are three Gods.

2. It is true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and it is also true that they are three Gods.

Also, can you tell me if there is any difference between a God and a Godhead?

With which of the following statements, if any, would you agree?

3. The Father is a God.

4. The Son, Jesus Christ, is a God.

5. The Holy Ghost is a God.

Finally, please explain why it appears that you disagree with the following statements:

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it? ...Many men say there is one God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370, 372).

"There are three Gods: the Eternal Father, Elohim, to whom we pray; Christ or Jehovah; and the Holy Ghost who testifies of the others and witnesses to us the truth of all things" (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, 94).

"This revealed doctrine of the composition and nature of the Godhead teaches that there are at least three Gods" (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 65).

"We have already shown that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons, and, so far as personality is concerned, are three Gods" (B. H. Roberts, Seventy's Course in Theology, 3:193; see also The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, 15, 29-30).

"Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 552).

Are they all wrong, and you right?

[altersteve]

We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate "gods" (divine or heavenly beings) who are members of one eternal Godhead and are united in every aspect of perfection as one God (Supreme Ruler). In other words, there is one God, which is a title held by three distinct personages, or "gods," who are members of one Godhead. And just because God passed through mortality does not mean that He was once not God (and you also fail to remember that in LDS doctrine, "eternal" does not always denote a length of time, since Eternal and Endless are two of God's names, as demonstrated in D&C 19:4–12). Jesus Christ passed through mortality, yet He was God both during and before this time. God the Father was only "like us" in that sense. You are describing this as if only your interpretation can define LDS doctrine, which is ridiculous.

Not more than the Father, right? So then, what does that mean?

Since worshiping the Son is the same thing as worshiping the Father, there is no such thing as loving one more than the other. They speak as one, they act as one, and they are One. It is God, who is both the Father and the Son, who I worship and love more than any other.

No, I'm simply saying that in LDS doctrine all of us have the potential to become everything that Christ is. Do you disagree with that?

I don't disagree, but that's not what you said at all:

The fact is that LDS doctrine now views Christ as one of God's billions of spirit children and teaches that he is not the proper recipient of prayer.

Where did you say that "in LDS doctrine all of us have the potential to become everything that Christ is" in that sentence?

Edited August 12, 2011 by altersteve

[ozpoof]

If you read the BoM you will find many examples of trinitarianism - the belief that Jesus WAS God manifest in the flesh. Joseph Smith was a trinitarian himself. He changed some parts of the BoM from reading like Jesus was God to Jesus is the son of God, but not all. The idea that Jesus was a separate being from God the father was not common in Joseph Smith's time except amongst Freemasons. The idea appears in Oliver's "The antiquities of Freemasonry" which was available to Joseph Smith.

So, the people in Alma do pray to Jesus, who at the time that was written was God the Father in the flesh. Smith changed his views on the trinity later, which is why later Mormon scripture speaks of three distinct beings. The Book of Mormon does not read this way in many places.

[altersteve]

If you read the BoM you will find many examples of trinitarianism . . .

And just what are these "many examples"?

. . . the belief that Jesus WAS God manifest in the flesh.

Trinitarianism is not simply "the belief that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh." Latter-day Saints embrace that concept. Trinitarianism is the belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three persons (not gods, even though they most certainly are "gods," or divine beings, by the very definition of the term—and denying that they are "gods" is the same thing as denying their divinity) who are united in essence as one Being whose substance is the same as His existence, whatever that means, and who created the universe out of His own essence, even though He technically doesn't have an essence. Whatever that means.

Joseph Smith was a trinitarian himself.

CFR, please, because Joseph Smith himself actually said otherwise.

Edited August 14, 2011 by altersteve

[jo1952]

Mola,

Regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, you wrote:

Hmm. Which of the following best represents what you think is correct LDS doctrine?

1. It is true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and it is false that they are three Gods.

2. It is true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and it is also true that they are three Gods.

Also, can you tell me if there is any difference between a God and a Godhead?

With which of the following statements, if any, would you agree?

3. The Father is a God.

4. The Son, Jesus Christ, is a God.

5. The Holy Ghost is a God.

Finally, please explain why it appears that you disagree with the following statements:

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it? ...Many men say there is one God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370, 372).

"There are three Gods: the Eternal Father, Elohim, to whom we pray; Christ or Jehovah; and the Holy Ghost who testifies of the others and witnesses to us the truth of all things" (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Report, April 1964, 94).

"This revealed doctrine of the composition and nature of the Godhead teaches that there are at least three Gods" (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 65).

"We have already shown that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct persons, and, so far as personality is concerned, are three Gods" (B. H. Roberts, Seventy's Course in Theology, 3:193; see also The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, 15, 29-30).

"Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 552).

Are they all wrong, and you right?

Hi Rob:

You appear to love to bring LDS to task about what you perceive are our beliefs about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

How about if we switch gears for awhile, and bring YOU to task about your own beliefs? I have started a new thread which provides the problems with the very foundation of the Trinity dogma (btw, it IS called a "dogma" by the RCC itself). Will you be able to openly and honestly address the truth of the history of the Trinity itself?

It seems to me that in my researching of the early church fathers (BEFORE the first council of Nicea), that the LDS beliefs look more like what they believed than what Trinitarians believe today.

Here is the name of the new thread: Problems With The Teachings Of The Trinity.

Thanks,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate "gods" (divine or heavenly beings) who are members of one eternal Godhead and are united in every aspect of perfection as one God (Supreme Ruler). In other words, there is one God, which is a title held by three distinct personages, or "gods," who are members of one Godhead.

So, your claim is that the three are both three "gods" and one "God." Is that correct? Does this explanation work only because the plural "gods" is not capitalized?

You wrote:

And just because God passed through mortality does not mean that He was once not God (and you also fail to remember that in LDS doctrine, "eternal" does not always denote a length of time, since Eternal and Endless are two of God's names, as demonstrated in D&C 19:4–12). Jesus Christ passed through mortality, yet He was God both during and before this time. God the Father was only "like us" in that sense.

Your explanation sounds plausible only because it ignores what Joseph Smith, other LDS prophets, and current LDS Church official doctrinal instructional materials actually say on the matter. They clearly teach that God the Father was a man like us before he became a God. Also, are you actually claiming that God has always been God, from eternity past? Or are you claiming only that God became a God before he "passed through mortality"?

You wrote:

You are describing this as if only your interpretation can define LDS doctrine, which is ridiculous.

As I have told other Mormons, given a choice between the published teachings of Joseph Smith, other LDS prophets, and current LDS Church official doctrinal instructional materials on the one hand, and the unsupported assertions of anonymous Mormons in online discussion forums on the other hand, I will have to go with the former as the best source of interpretation of LDS doctrine.

[altersteve]

So, your claim is that the three are both three "gods" and one "God." Is that correct? Does this explanation work only because the plural "gods" is not capitalized?

It's not my "claim," it's the doctrine of the Church, and it is not as difficult to understand as you're making it. It "only works" because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are indeed "gods," in the sense that they are divine. But they are united as God, and each can be referred to as such. It helps to understand how we view their unity. Since the generic word "god" is not a name or a title, I have no reason to capitalize it. So now I must ask you a question. Do you deny that Jesus Christ, for example, is "a god"? Why or why not? If you do, then wouldn't you be denying His divinity?

Your explanation sounds plausible only because it ignores what Joseph Smith, other LDS prophets, and current LDS Church official doctrinal instructional materials actually say on the matter. They clearly teach that God the Father was a man like us before he became a God. Also, are you actually claiming that God has always been God, from eternity past? Or are you claiming only that God became a God before he "passed through mortality"?

I know of no teaching of the Church that God was once not God. If Jesus Christ was God during and before His entrance into mortality, then there is no reason for me to believe that the Father wasn't. I don't believe there was ever a time when "God became a God," and I see no contradictions between my beliefs and what the Church "actually say on the matter."

Furthermore, you seem to love using "current LDS Church official doctrinal instructional materials" and what Church leaders have said to determine what Church doctrine is, but you shouldn't. The Church has specifically said the following regarding this matter:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

The Church specifically says that official doctrine resides in the following:

1. The united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve,

2. the standard works (despite what you may claim about the Church not teaching everything in the scriptures),

3. official declarations and proclamations, and

4. the Articles of Faith.

Notice how doctrinal instructional manuals are not on that list. The four listed are the proper sources that you should use to pin down Mormon doctrine. Doctrinal instruction manuals are to be used as guides only, not as the "end all, be all" for Church doctrine.

Edited August 15, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

It's not my "claim," it's the doctrine of the Church, and it is not as difficult to understand as you're making it. It "only works" because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are indeed "gods," in the sense that they are divine. But they are united as God, and each can be referred to as such. It helps to understand how we view their unity.

According to Joseph Smith, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not "one God":

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. 'Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.' 'Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.' All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372).

You wrote:

Since the generic word "god" is not a name or a title, I have no reason to capitalize it. So now I must ask you a question. Do you deny that Jesus Christ, for example, is "a god"? Why or why not? If you do, then wouldn't you be denying His divinity?

I deny that Jesus Christ is "a god" in the sense that he was a divine being or entity separate from the Father.

You wrote:

I know of no teaching of the Church that God was once not God. If Jesus Christ was God during and before His entrance into mortality, then there is no reason for me to believe that the Father wasn't. I don't believe there was ever a time when "God became a God," and I see no contradictions between my beliefs and what the Church "actually say on the matter."

I have a hard time believing that you really do not know of this teaching. I think you are well aware of it but are denying that it is really LDS Church teaching.

You wrote:

Furthermore, you seem to love using "current LDS Church official doctrinal instructional materials" and what Church leaders have said to determine what Church doctrine is, but you shouldn't. The Church has specifically said the following regarding this matter:

http://newsroom.lds....mormon-doctrine

Wait a sec. Gospel Principles (for example) is not a reliable statement of LDS Church doctrine, but the LDS Church newsroom is? Care to explain that?

You wrote:

The Church specifically says that official doctrine resides in the following:

1. The united voice of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve,

2. the standard works (despite what you may claim about the Church not teaching everything in the scriptures),

3. official declarations and proclamations, and

4. the Articles of Faith.

Notice how doctrinal instructional manuals are not on that list. The four listed are the proper sources that you should use to pin down Mormon doctrine. Doctrinal instruction manuals are to be used as guides only, not as the "end all, be all" for Church doctrine.

That LDS Church newsroom article does exactly what you say should not be done. For example, it quotes a statement from Joseph Smith not found in any of the standard works or any of the official declarations and proclamations. You also missed the following statement in that article:

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications."

Since doctrinal manuals such as Gospel Principles are indeed "official Church publications," it is reasonable to assume that the doctrine they contain adequately or faithfully represents the doctrine of the LDS Church.

[BCSpace]

Sound like prayer to Jesus, and none of the usual exceptions I hear from Mormons seem to apply.

I don't know what exceptions you're talking about. These are "OT times" and Jesus (Jehovah) is their God so it makes sense they would pray to him. They also seem to understand the overall gospel law of which the law of Moses was just a subset, so the notion of the Atonement being past present and future is not an anachronism here.

Edited August 15, 2011 by BCSpace

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

I don't know what exceptions you're talking about. These are "OT times" and Jesus (Jehovah) is their God so it makes sense they would pray to him. They also seem to understand the overall gospel law of which the law of Moses was just a subset, so the notion of the Atonement being past present and future is not an anachronism here.

Here is one problem with your argument. If "it makes sense they would pray to him" because he was "their God," but it no longer makes sense for us to pray to him, then it would seem he is no longer "our God." Yet Thomas confessed Jesus to be his God, and Paul and Peter also both affirmed that Jesus is our God (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1).

[jo1952]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

Here is one problem with your argument. If "it makes sense they would pray to him" because he was "their God," but it no longer makes sense for us to pray to him, then it would seem he is no longer "our God." Yet Thomas confessed Jesus to be his God, and Paul and Peter also both affirmed that Jesus is our God (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1).

My take on these verses: The Jews had always worshipped Jesus as their God, though this was not made clear to them until Jesus came in the flesh. Jesus also taught that His Father is our Father, and His God is our God With this in mind, let us look at the following verses.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

Admittedly, this could look confusing; however, Thomas himself had doubted that Christ had risen. In his joy to see Jesus who had also become a friend, a teacher, and someone Thomas loved, in his excitement at seeing Jesus alive, it would very easily be that Thomas therefore called him not only Lord (as in his Savior), but also recoginizing Him with full clarity that Jesus had also been his God, and thus also calling him his god as would have been familiar for him to do as his OT God (from the OT times). I don't think it would be Jesus' style to rebuke Thomas who finally believed that He HAD risen from the dead.

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

There is a distinction being made between the great God (Father) AND the Savior Jesus Christ. He is not referring to the same individual; but to two different individuals. I believe if this were describing the same individual, that more clear wording such as "the great God, our Savior Jesus Christ" or "the great God, who is also our Savior Jesus Christ" would have been used. But they were not.

2 Peter 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God AND our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Again, two different individuals are being distinguised "God" AND our Savior Jesus Christ....of God, our Savior Jesus Christ; or God who is our Savior jesus Christ would have been used if referring to just one individual.

I would point out that even the Trinity applied in at least the last two cases, also supports that two different Persons are being discussed. The Father is NOT the Son, nor is Jesus Christ the Father, according to the Trinity; however, The Father is God and Jesus Christ is God. Two of the God persons of the Trinity are being disgussed; not only one of them.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 18, 2011 by jo1952

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

Modern translations almost uniformly recognize that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are each referring to one person, Jesus Christ:

ESV Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

HCSB Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NAB Titus 2:13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,

NASB Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

NET Titus 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

NJB Titus 2:13 waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus.

NKJV Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

NLT Titus 2:13 while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

NRS Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Of these ten modern versions, only the Catholic NAB dissents in Titus 2:13.

ESV 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

HCSB 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

NAB 2 Peter 1:1 Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ:

NASB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

NET 2 Peter 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.

NIV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

NJB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith as precious as our own, given through the saving justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

NKJ 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

NLT 2 Peter 1:1 This letter is from Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to you who share the same precious faith we have. This faith was given to you because of the justice and fairness of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.

NRS 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Even the NAB agrees with the others on 2 Peter 1:1.

I can explain the Greek grammatical issue here if you're interested.

[Storm Rider]

Example #1: The standard works teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God (2 Ne. 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; D&C 20:28; see also the Testimony of Three Witnesses). Current LDS doctrine is that they are three Gods in one Godhead, not that they are one God.

This is a nice word game, but the Bible teaches us that we might be one just as Jesus and the Father are one; do you think that means we become one with the Father? Of course not. Now explain if we are to take all verses literally as you are proposing, are you prepared to live by that standard for all verses? When you start waving about these types of standards, they become as a two edged sword and your doctrine does not stand up to such rigid interpretation.

Example #2: The standard works teach that God has been unchangeable as God from all eternity (Mosiah 3:5; Alma 13:7; Moroni 7:22; 8:18; Moses 6:7; 7:29, 31; D&C 20:17; 39:1; 61:1; 76:4). Current LDS doctrine is that God was once a man like us but is now an exalted being--and that we can do the same (e.g., Gospel Principles, 275, 279).

Are you saying you do not believe that Jesus was a man on earth? As far as verses go: Mosiah 3:5, Alma 13:7, Moroni 7:22, Moses 6:7, 7:29, 31;....I quit looking; none of these have anything to do with an unchangeable nature. They state God is eternal, which is LDS doctrine. You seem to be grasping in an attempt to aggrandize your position. You also are seeking to minimize any conflicting theology of the Church. God has always been God, just as Jesus has always been a member of the Godhead. You seem to have a blind spot when it comes to context and breadth of doctrine.

No, I'm simply saying that in LDS doctrine all of us have the potential to become everything that Christ is. Do you disagree with that?

Are you saying that the Bible does not teach that we can become joint-heirs with Christ? Can God make us joint-heirs with Christ are is that something beyond his ability?

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

This is a nice word game, but the Bible teaches us that we might be one just as Jesus and the Father are one; do you think that means we become one with the Father? Of course not.

Actually, I do think it means that. It means that in the communicable sense of "oneness" that Jesus means in this context (John 17:20-23), we can become one with each other and with Christ and the Father. It does not mean that we will become one GOD with the Father, but that's not what Jesus is saying in this context.

You wrote:

Are you saying you do not believe that Jesus was a man on earth?

Er, no. I said nothing of the sort.

I wrote (note the emphasized reference): "The standard works teach that God has been unchangeable as God from all eternity (Mosiah 3:5; Alma 13:7; Moroni 7:22; 8:18; Moses 6:7; 7:29, 31; D&C 20:17; 39:1; 61:1; 76:4)." You replied:

As far as verses go: Mosiah 3:5, Alma 13:7, Moroni 7:22, Moses 6:7, 7:29, 31;....I quit looking; none of these have anything to do with an unchangeable nature.

Hmm, you seem to have skipped over Moroni 8:18. I wonder why you did that?

You wrote:

God has always been God, just as Jesus has always been a member of the Godhead.

That may be your own belief, but it is not LDS doctrine, as I have documented.

You wrote:

Are you saying that the Bible does not teach that we can become joint-heirs with Christ? Can God make us joint-heirs with Christ are is that something beyond his ability?

I wrote an article on the Parchment and Pen blog that specifically discusses the text to which you are alluding (Romans 8:17).

[jo1952]

jo,

Modern translations almost uniformly recognize that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are each referring to one person, Jesus Christ:

ESV Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

HCSB Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NAB Titus 2:13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,

NASB Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

NET Titus 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

NJB Titus 2:13 waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus.

NKJV Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

NLT Titus 2:13 while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

NRS Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Of these ten modern versions, only the Catholic NAB dissents in Titus 2:13.

ESV 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

HCSB 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

NAB 2 Peter 1:1 Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ:

NASB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

NET 2 Peter 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.

NIV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

NJB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith as precious as our own, given through the saving justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

NKJ 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

NLT 2 Peter 1:1 This letter is from Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to you who share the same precious faith we have. This faith was given to you because of the justice and fairness of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.

NRS 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Even the NAB agrees with the others on 2 Peter 1:1.

I can explain the Greek grammatical issue here if you're interested.

Hi Rob,

Just so I understand this correctly. You are now pursuing your argument that the Trinity is supported by the Bible through the means of using various different versions of the Bible in order to show that those other Bibles indicate that specific passages in yet a different version of the Bible is not accurately representing WHO in that Trinity is being referred to?

IOW, some versions of the Bible are better at supporting Trinity dogma than other versions of the Bible? Now, I can understand an interest in learning Greek and Hebrew to assist someone who is scholarly driven to try to have a better face value understanding of the words written in the Bible. What I CANNOT understand is the demand man makes of other men to accept an admittedly man constructed teaching as being necessary for a person's salvation.

I'm sorry; but Jesus never taught that a person would either first have to wait 300 to 400 years before His correct and "true nature" would be revealed to mankind FROM mankind; or that we could not be saved until that dogma had been properly constructed. Nor did He ever teach us that we would have to learn any foreign languages before we could be saved.

I believe that when Father thinks we are ready to have a truth, or more truth revealed to us, that He will direct the Holy Ghost to do so. At that point, it doesn't matter what version of the Bible is being used or how the words are written; the message that is supposed to be received WILL be received.

OTOH, I really do appreciate your offer, as I know you enjoy sharing your world-learned knowledge. If I should come across something that I would like some background on in either Hebrew or Greek, I will be happy to ask you for your help. In fact, I have been wondering if, during your education, you also studied Jewish traditions and how they symbolically play out the Plan of Salvation. I think that could prove to be a very interesting thread. Hopefully, it would be a thread where we wouldn't be arguing differences in our belief systems; but it would rather be a truly educational and fun thread to explore. This is something I really would enjoy discussing. What do you think?

Best regards,

jo

[Vance]

jo,

Modern translations almost uniformly recognize that Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 are each referring to one person, Jesus Christ:

ESV Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

HCSB Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NAB Titus 2:13 as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,

NASB Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

NET Titus 2:13 as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

NIV Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

NJB Titus 2:13 waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Christ Jesus.

NKJV Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

NLT Titus 2:13 while we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed.

NRS Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Of these ten modern versions, only the Catholic NAB dissents in Titus 2:13.

ESV 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

HCSB 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

NAB 2 Peter 1:1 Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ:

NASB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

NET 2 Peter 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.

NIV 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

NJB 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith as precious as our own, given through the saving justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

NKJ 2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

NLT 2 Peter 1:1 This letter is from Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ. I am writing to you who share the same precious faith we have. This faith was given to you because of the justice and fairness of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.

NRS 2 Peter 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Even the NAB agrees with the others on 2 Peter 1:1.

I can explain the Greek grammatical issue here if you're interested.

So, the translations aren't accurate?

Well, that is a nice list of the different translation of only two verses.

How about the different translations of these numerous verses?

Eph. 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

• • •

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

1 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Cor. 1: 2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

Col. 1: 2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thes. 3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

2 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 1: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 15: 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 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.

2 Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Gal. 1: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Eph. 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philip. 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Col. 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

2 Thes. 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

1 Tim. 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Tim. 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Philem. 1:3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Pet. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

2 Jn. 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

Just so I understand this correctly. You are now pursuing your argument that the Trinity is supported by the Bible through the means of using various different versions of the Bible in order to show that those other Bibles indicate that specific passages in yet a different version of the Bible is not accurately representing WHO in that Trinity is being referred to?

IOW, some versions of the Bible are better at supporting Trinity dogma than other versions of the Bible?

Of course. For example, the New American Standard Bible is more accurate and more faithful to the wording of the Hebrew and Greek texts than the Jehovah's Witnesses version, the New World Translation. Is this surprising?

I don't pick a translation or rendering of a particular verse based on whether it supports my theology. I am interested first and foremost in whether it faithfully renders the meaning of the original-language text. In the case of the two verses in question, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the vast majority of modern translations are right and the KJV happens to be mistaken. That doesn't mean the KJV is a bad translation, just that it's imperfect in its rendering of the original-language text. That's why all responsible Bible teachers and theologians make an effort to learn Greek and Hebrew.

You wrote:

Now, I can understand an interest in learning Greek and Hebrew to assist someone who is scholarly driven to try to have a better face value understanding of the words written in the Bible. What I CANNOT understand is the demand man makes of other men to accept an admittedly man constructed teaching as being necessary for a person's salvation.

We've already been over this. My position is not that you have to accept the formal doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. How about dealing with what I have plainly said I believe, rather than continuing to harp on a claim I expressly deny?

You wrote:

Nor did He ever teach us that we would have to learn any foreign languages before we could be saved.

Correct. Nor did he teach that being ignorant would help one's salvation.

You wrote:

I believe that when Father thinks we are ready to have a truth, or more truth revealed to us, that He will direct the Holy Ghost to do so. At that point, it doesn't matter what version of the Bible is being used or how the words are written; the message that is supposed to be received WILL be received.

For that matter, why bother having a Bible or any other written scripture at all? Why not just have the Holy Ghost tell you directly what to believe? If we don't come to know the truth from the text itself, why bother having it? Doesn't it confuse people to have a text susceptible to mangling by uneducated and unbelieving people if we can get the truth without it?

You wrote:

OTOH, I really do appreciate your offer, as I know you enjoy sharing your world-learned knowledge. If I should come across something that I would like some background on in either Hebrew or Greek, I will be happy to ask you for your help. In fact, I have been wondering if, during your education, you also studied Jewish traditions and how they symbolically play out the Plan of Salvation. I think that could prove to be a very interesting thread. Hopefully, it would be a thread where we wouldn't be arguing differences in our belief systems; but it would rather be a truly educational and fun thread to explore. This is something I really would enjoy discussing. What do you think?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Jewish traditions"; I'm familiar with many Jewish traditions and a lot of them have no bearing on the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I believe exactly what all of those verses say. God the Father is someone other than or distinct from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you need a refresher in Trinitarian theology. I'd cite my outline study, but you successfully had links to it banned and I haven't heard back on my appeal yet. But you know where to find it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Book of Mormon is clear, through example, that there are occasions where it is perfectly acceptable to cry out to Jesus and worship Him directly.

If someone who has been under the bondage of terrible sin receives a powerful outpouring of forgiveness through the Holy Spirit, why not cry out and give thanks to that One who made forgiveness possible?

[Vance]

Vance,

I believe exactly what all of those verses say. God the Father is someone other than or distinct from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yeah, that is exactly why the doctrine of the trinity is ridiculous. You can claim They are separate and distinct persons/personages/entities when shown overwhelming evidence to that fact. But then turn around a bash Mormons with the "They are one being" when you will.

Sorry but "persons/personages/entities" = "beings". No amount of contorted logic can change that fact.

Perhaps you need a refresher in Trinitarian theology. I'd cite my outline study, but you successfully had links to it banned and I haven't heard back on my appeal yet. But you know where to find it.

Why waste my time?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Praying directly to Jesus is acceptable only under certain conditions. Christ explained that they did this "because I am with them" (verse 22).

Joseph Smith did so when he dedicated the Kirtland temple in D&C 109, while his dedicatory prayer is initially addressed to the Father, he directed some remarks to Jehovah in an appeal for mercy, and because it was to be his house (DC 109:5).

There are no separate agendas, no conflicts within the Godhead that would require you to pray each member separately. Jesus functions as the mediator between God and man, thus with this true relationship of things in mind, we pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Ray Callis Hatton III

[jo1952]

jo,

Of course. For example, the New American Standard Bible is more accurate and more faithful to the wording of the Hebrew and Greek texts than the Jehovah's Witnesses version, the New World Translation. Is this surprising?

Hi Rob,

What surprises me is that you think men who weren't even alive when Jesus and the Apostles were teaching, or who weren't even alive when the Apostles wrote their epistles, claim to be able to more accurately tell us today what was taught back then. In fact, these men are even further removed time-wise than the men who decided which writings would be considered canon. The new versions of the Bible are being interpreted by linguists whose education is not based on first-hand experience of HOW Hebrew and Greek were being spoken then. They cannot know, for instance, what was "common" knowledge for specific definitions of words being used. Today, for example, a person born and raised in the USA can travel a mere 50 miles and come across shifting definitions for the same words Heck, even the pronunciation of words is not only different, they also SOUND different due to regional accents. They can be effected by the ancestries of local townsfolk, common local native language, the monetary wealth of an area, the major means of the labor workforce, politics, lore, local myths and legends, etc.

Perhaps you also believe that in another 2000 years, versions of the Bible being produced at that time will be even more accurate than the ones you give credence to today.

ALL this work being done concerning events and writings which happened over 2000 years ago. Yet the main person whom all those events and writings are talking about is ALIVE TODAY!! In fact the ONLY witness who can confirm that those events even took place is ALSO alive today; the Holy Ghost.

Did you know that at least some of the individuals who conduct these interpretations sometimes don't even believe in God?

Perhaps it is not difficult for you to place such faith in all of these new translations. You have already placed your faith in the dogma of the Trinity which you openly admit is a construct of man.

I don't pick a translation or rendering of a particular verse based on whether it supports my theology. I am interested first and foremost in whether it faithfully renders the meaning of the original-language text. In the case of the two verses in question, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, the vast majority of modern translations are right and the KJV happens to be mistaken. That doesn't mean the KJV is a bad translation, just that it's imperfect in its rendering of the original-language text. That's why all responsible Bible teachers and theologians make an effort to learn Greek and Hebrew.

But how can you KNOW this? Aren't you basing your conclusions on scholarly knowledge and not spiritual knowledge????? Scholarly knowledge can only give a best guess interpretation due to the inherent problems of linguistic study itself, of which I have only pointed to a few.

We've already been over this. My position is not that you have to accept the formal doctrine of the Trinity to be saved. How about dealing with what I have plainly said I believe, rather than continuing to harp on a claim I expressly deny?

I suppose it is because your position is not orthodox, even though your belief in the Trinity is held in most of mainstream Christianity. Why aren't you spending your time trying to "correct" the orthodox denominations and telling them they need to change what their institutions of religious affiliation teach about the Trinity, wherein they claim that any who do not accept the Trinity are damned? It seems you would be doing a better good because they are not supposed to be judging anyone's eternal destination. Why spend so much time trying to disprove a belief you don't think is going to effect a person's salvation, while other orthodox Christians are damning people all of the time? Isn't their position much more dangerous to them than you think ours is to us?

Correct. Nor did he teach that being ignorant would help one's salvation.

Do you believe that a person either IS saved or is NOT saved? Does their level of education CHANGE their ability to be saved?

BTW, I prefer to believe that this was not an ad hom attack against me.

For that matter, why bother having a Bible or any other written scripture at all? Why not just have the Holy Ghost tell you directly what to believe? If we don't come to know the truth from the text itself, why bother having it? Doesn't it confuse people to have a text susceptible to mangling by uneducated and unbelieving people if we can get the truth without it?

I know you are not that naive. Your question is pure theatrics. The Gospel message needs to be shared in one form or another. Today, the preferred method is actually to teach it out loud to the listener so that they can ask questions; and, then ALSO leave them with a written copy of scripture which they can read and study in accordance with their own time schedule. The seed needs to planted before a desire to believe can grow into an exercise of faith. In NT times, the basic method, obviously, was by word of mouth as written scrolls of scripture were difficult to come by in any type of quantity. Even in NT times, the Holy Ghost could not witness to a person unless they first desired to believe the message being taught.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Jewish traditions"; I'm familiar with many Jewish traditions and a lot of them have no bearing on the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. Perhaps you could be more specific.

I am referring to the patterns and types represented in the Law which are a similitude of the Plan of Salvation. This would encompass not only daily rituals, but also festivals celebrated by the Jews. For instance, discussing the details of the Passover or their wedding ceremony, or the purpose and symbolism represented in unleavened bread, or the origin of the "scapegoat" and what that meant to the Jews, etc.

Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

I believe exactly what all of those verses say. God the Father is someone other than or distinct from the Lord Jesus Christ.

But earlier you said:

I deny that Jesus Christ is "a god" in the sense that he was a divine being or entity separate from the Father.

So do you believe that the Father and the Son are separate/distinct from one another or not?