Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Often times in debates with others not of our Faith; John 17: 3 is quoted…“For this is life eternal that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (From memory so forgive me if quoted incorrectly).Even though this scripture shows a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, critics quote it to point out that we have the wrong Jesus, and this is why we will not have eternal life.This scripture come from Christ’s prayer unto the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. In this prayer Christ makes it clear that he is willing to submit “his will” to his Father’s. If they are the same being manifest in three “persons”…how could they have opposing wills?In this prayer he also thanks God the Father for those whom “he gave him”…how does the same being give something to himself?Also in this prayer he explains through his words what “being one” really means, as he hopes the same relationship to exist among us, as he enjoys with the Father.All the while, teaching us to pray as he had already commanded us to do “unto the Father”.A few other short examples…The Father knows when Christ will return “he” Christ does not.Christ felt as if the Father abandoned him in his greatest hour of need, how would one conceal this from oneself?Yet most in other Churches no longer pray to the Father as commanded by Christ, because they believe that “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” are the same being, therefore as long as your prayers are to anyone of the “three persons” it is to the same being.I attended a funeral yesterday and no prayers were offered to the Father, but unto Christ. I fear the Nicene Creed has killed the Father, but at a minimum cased the need for the “Restoration”.Do any agree, or can you offer more examples from the Bible that make clear that (although united) they are not the same being?
Flyonthewall Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 While I agree with you overall, what I don't understand is how mainstream christianity views "being". Does being the same "being" mean that they know the same things? or have the same will? or iis it they simply have the same attributes, like omniscience...oh wait, if the Father knows something that Jesus does not then Jesus in not omniscient? well that doesn't fit...There must be something else going on...
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Pa Pa,Your opening post is full of misunderstandings or misrepresentations of my faith (i.e., orthodox Christianity). I will explain the problems as best I can. Your statements appear as block quotes, followed by my replies.Often times in debates with others not of our Faith; John 17: 3 is quoted… Even though this scripture shows a clear distinction between the Father and the Son, critics quote it to point out that we have the wrong Jesus, and this is why we will not have eternal life.Orthodox Christians believe in a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father. Jesus Christ is the Son of the Father, sent by the Father into the world to redeem us. To suggest otherwise misunderstands our faith.John 17:3 does say that eternal life is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ. Surely this means that if a religion radically misrepresents the nature of God, that religion is not a reliable path to eternal life. If orthodox Christianity is guilty of such misrepresentation of the nature of God, as you seem to believe, then we would not be teaching the truth about the way to eternal life. The same would apply to the LDS Church if it is guilty of such misrepresentation. At least one of our religions teaches serious error about God; that reality should not be ignored or sugar-coated. Therefore, it is important for people to face this issue and come to terms with it.This scripture come from Christ’s prayer unto the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. In this prayer Christ makes it clear that he is willing to submit “his will” to his Father’s. If they are the same being manifest in three “persons”…how could they have opposing wills?They did not have "opposing" wills. They had distinct faculties or centers of volition, and Christ, by virtue of having become incarnate as a physical human, was capable of feeling the attraction of temptations to avoid the Father's will (i.e., to avoid the suffering and death that was imminent). However, as the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ never actually willed something opposed to the Father's will.Your own theology teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are perfectly one in purpose. Was this true while Jesus was living on the earth? If so, how, in your view, could he possibly "will" something other than the Father's will?In this prayer he also thanks God the Father for those whom “he gave him”…how does the same being give something to himself?Of course, this isn't what we believe. We believe the Father gave them to the Son. The Father and the Son are distinct persons in one infinite Deity.Also in this prayer he explains through his words what “being one” really means, as he hopes the same relationship to exist among us, as he enjoys with the Father.This is a big subject, so see my Parchment and Pen blog article on John 17 for a response to this argument.All the while, teaching us to pray as he had already commanded us to do “unto the Father”.We do this.A few other short examples…The Father knows when Christ will return “he” Christ does not.Correction: the Son did not know the exact time of the events he prophesied (Mark 13:32). There's no reason to think he continued not to know that exact time after his resurrection and ascension. Again, Christ had humbled himself by becoming a human being and experiencing finite limitations of human life, including not knowing everything about the future. This is not a problem for orthodox theology; it is part and parcel of what we believe, specifically of the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation.Christ felt as if the Father abandoned him in his greatest hour of need, how would one conceal this from oneself?See above. There was no concealment. The Son felt abandoned by the Father. The Son was not and is not the same person as the Father.Yet most in other Churches no longer pray to the Father as commanded by Christ, because they believe that “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” are the same being, therefore as long as your prayers are to anyone of the “three persons” it is to the same being.CFR that most people in other churches do not pray to the Father. That is an absolute falsehood. Most prayers I hear in churches -- and I've been in many congregations in many different denominations -- are addressed to the Father.I attended a funeral yesterday and no prayers were offered to the Father, but unto Christ.One anecdotal example does not an argument make.I fear the Nicene Creed has killed the Father, but at a minimum cased the need for the “Restoration”.Obviously, I disagree. Your conclusion is based on several serious misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed. 3
altersteve Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) This is a big subject, so see my Parchment and Pen blog article on John 17 for a response to this argument.Just so you know, there's really nothing in that blog post that a Latter-day Saint would disagree with. I think there are some great insights in that article. Edited November 4, 2011 by altersteve
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 4, 2011 Author Posted November 4, 2011 Pa Pa,Obviously, I disagree. Your conclusion is based on several serious misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the faith expressed in the Nicene Creed.Then based on another post here...define how you believe them to be "one God", or "being". I noted that you believe them to be three distinct persons, but you also believe them to be "One God", so please tell me in that context.
Rivers Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) When I read John 17:3, I think Jesus is speaking about having a relationship with God rather than knowing about the specific physical nature of God. That's how the word "know" often used in the scriptures. Edited November 4, 2011 by Rivers
Rivers Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 The Father and the Son are distinct persons in one infinite Deity. This is exactly what mormons believe. Mormon views on the trinity are a lot more similar to to mainstream Christian views than most mormons think.
Rivers Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Then based on another post here...define how you believe them to be "one God", or "being". I noted that you believe them to be three distinct persons, but you also believe them to be "One God", so please tell me in that context.They don't believe that the trinity consists of three anthropomorphic personages like we do.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 4, 2011 Author Posted November 4, 2011 They don't believe that the trinity consists of three anthropomorphic personages like we do.I know, but Rob was speaking of my misrepresentation of Christian Orthodoxy...as such I would like him to explain where my misrepresentation was noted.
ldsfaqs Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Rob.... There is no "misrepresentation". You can believe that the Trinity is "separate" all you want to whatever degree you want, but you still don't acknowledge that they are three separate beings. That is the bottom line.Also Pa Pa, to be fair to the Nicene Creed, I never actually noticed this before, but the actual "original" Nicene Creed IS in fact fully LDS.It's only later versions of it and other versions that aren't compatible to LDS theology.Check the wikipedia article on this and you can see the original version.The Nicene Creed we've always been shown normally isn't actually the original version. Edited November 4, 2011 by ldsfaqs
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 4, 2011 Author Posted November 4, 2011 Rob.... There is no "misrepresentation". You can believe that the Trinity is "separate" all you want to whatever degree you want, but you still don't acknowledge that they are three separate beings. That is the bottom line.Also Pa Pa, to be fair to the Nicene Creed, I never actually noticed this before, but the actual "original" Nicene Creed IS in fact fully LDS.It's only later versions of it and other versions that aren't compatible to LDS theology.Check the wikipedia article on this and you can see the original version.The Nicene Creed we've always been shown normally isn't actually the original version.Could you link both?
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Rob.... There is no "misrepresentation". You can believe that the Trinity is "separate" all you want to whatever degree you want, but you still don't acknowledge that they are three separate beings. That is the bottom line.Also Pa Pa, to be fair to the Nicene Creed, I never actually noticed this before, but the actual "original" Nicene Creed IS in fact fully LDS.It's only later versions of it and other versions that aren't compatible to LDS theology.Check the wikipedia article on this and you can see the original version.The Nicene Creed we've always been shown normally isn't actually the original version.Why specifically do you think the Nicene Creed is acceptable to an LDS, but the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is not?
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Pa-Pa, how do you define "being"? I ask because the OP doesn't really address traditional Trinitarianism and I think part if the cause may be our different understandings of "being".Also, FYI, while some do pray to Christ, from my experience in evangelical churches, the norm is definitely to pray to God the Father in the name of Christ. Though personally I see nothing wrong with praying to Christ.
altersteve Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Just thought I'd toss in the fact that there's really nothing in the Nicene Creed that absolutely cannot be part of LDS theology. I still maintain that there is not as big a difference between the traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the LDS view of the Godhead as most people think (and I am confident that I understand both views fairly well). Edited November 4, 2011 by altersteve
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Just thought I'd toss in the fact that there's really nothing in the Nicene Creed that absolutely cannot be part of LDS theology. I still maintain that there is not as big a difference between the traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the LDS view of the Godhead as most people think (and I am confident that I understand both views fairly well).What about the difference in our beliefs regarding the corporeality of God? That kind of seems like a big issue, right?
altersteve Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) What about the difference in our beliefs regarding the corporeality of God? That kind of seems like a big issue, right?Not really. If the Son is corporeal, why can't the Father be corporeal as well? Why can't He have passed through mortality just like His Son did? Edited November 4, 2011 by altersteve
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Not really. The corporeality of the Son isn't a big deal, so why should the corporeality of the Father?Perhaps I should have been clearer. In traditional Christianity, God is inherently an incorporeal being. Whereas, if I understand correctly, in LDS theology God is inherently a corporeal being.While mainstream Christians do not have a problem with seeing the Son as a now corporeal being (due to the incarnation of God), to say that God is inherently a corporeal being goes against the basic tenets of belief concerning God that mainstream Christians hold.You may not think this is a major difference, but unfortunately I think most mainstream Christians would disagree with you. Edited November 4, 2011 by diglot
altersteve Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Perhaps I should have been clearer. In traditional Christianity, God is inherently an incorporeal being. Whereas, if I understand correctly, in LDS theology God is inherently a corporeal being.While mainstream Christians do not have a problem with seeing the Son as a now corporeal being (due to the incarnation of God), to say that God is inherently a corporeal being goes against the basic tenets of belief concerning God that mainstream Christians hold.You may not think this is a majir difference, but unfortunately I think most mainstream Christians would disagree with you.What do you mean "inherently corporeal" and "inherently uncorporeal"? He didn't always have a body if that's what you're saying.
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 What do you mean "inherently corporeal" and "inherently uncorporeal"? He didn't always have a body if that's what you're saying.I know.Um, what I mean is that a body is an inherent part of being God. Would I be correct in saying that?
altersteve Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I know.Um, what I mean is that a body is an inherent part of being God. Would I be correct in saying that?It's an inherent part of having a fullness of joy. But there was a time when Jesus didn't have a body, yet He was still God. Same with the Father.
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) It's an inherent part of having a fullness of joy. But there was a time when Jesus didn't have a body, yet He was still God. Same with the Father.I've heard different views from LDS as to when Jesus became God. I have heard that he became part of the Godhead when he was resurrected. Is this a common view? Or did I just encounter a couple of LDS on the fringe? Edited November 4, 2011 by diglot
Bubblewrapmyhead212 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I do believe Pa Pa has a point. Most of my extended family and friends are not members of the Church and more often than not I'll here them start a prayer addressing the Father but end "in Your Holy Name, Amen". In the LDS Church we pray to/address the Father and we close in the name of Jesus Christ because it is Christ who is our advocate with the Father. "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6So from my experiance I've noticed the "confusion" (for lack of a better word) in other churches as well. 1
Bubblewrapmyhead212 Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 I've heard different views from LDS as to when Jesus became God. I have heard that he became part of the Godhead when he was resurrected. Is this a common view? Or did I just encounter a couple of LDS on the fringe?Either they were "on the fringe" or maybe explained themselves in an odd manner. Jehovah/Christ has always been part of the Godhead according to my understanding of who the Messiah was/is.
altersteve Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) I've heard different views from LDS as to when Jesus became God. I have heard that he became part of the Godhead when he was resurrected. Is this a common view? Or did I just encounter a couple of LDS on the fringe?Jesus was God both during and before His mortal life. He has always been a member of the Godhead. He would not have had been able to do the things He did if He wasn't God. Edited November 4, 2011 by altersteve
ldsfaqs Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Why specifically do you think the Nicene Creed is acceptable to an LDS, but the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is not?It also is acceptable, but it's a bit more wordy.The only issue LDS have with the creed is how "one substance" is interpreted. It is my view that the original intention and interpretation of that phrase was in reference to Christ being the "only begotten son", i.e. the only son to be born of the Father, and not created as man were. Thus, they would in fact be of the "same substance" i.e. one etc. If you note the context of that statement is the same context of the only begotten part, that they were simply adding more fluff to the same idea/principle.I believe that as a part of the apostasy, religions gradually changed that interpretation to the one that is believed now by so-called traditional christianity, that one substance is in reference to them being the same actual being, rather than of the same substance.I would like to add also that current versions of the Creed in the Catholic Church and especially in other religions have significant changes. Edited November 4, 2011 by ldsfaqs
Recommended Posts