MiserereNobis Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 From another thread.Just in case some missed it.Hmm. So, Nehor says that deep in my heart I fear that the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong... and his statement is meaningful how?I could just as easily say:"And we must remember deep within their hearts, Mormons fear that Joseph Smith was wrong."Of course, I have no evidence to say that, just as Nehor (and you) have no evidence to say that deep in my heart I fear that Trinitarianism is wrong, so then it ends up just being a silly statement to make.
MiserereNobis Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 To us, "non-biblical" does not = "unscriptural" In a similar way, to Catholics, "non-Biblical" does not mean "non-doctrinal" or "non-dogmatic."
MiserereNobis Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 I think you are playing with words here. The word Catholic literally means universal. It was not used "denominationally" in those days.You're right, because there was only one Christian Church in those days. There were the Christians (which was equal to the Catholic heirarchy) and the heretics In the days of Tertullian Christianity had not yet become "sectarian" or "denominational;" but it was not unanimous in its belief system either. There was wide diversity of belief among Christian thinkers and theologians. Right, which is why ecumenical councils were called -- to decide which of the beliefs were doctrine and which were not.Tertullian's "Trinity" was most likely very different from the Catholic Church's Trinitarian theology of today. Recruiting Tertullian as a champion of present day "Catholic" doctrine of Trinity is a bit disingenuous. I am willing to guess that his idea of the Trinity was a lot closer to the current Mormon idea than the present day Catholic one.I wasn't recruiting him as a champion of the the Trinity, I was simply pointing that he is credited with first using the word and the idea.
Vance Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 The Christian doctrine of Jesus as fully divine and fully human is not a logical mess. Yes, it is. Creedal Christians create this insurmountable gulf between man and God with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, between creator and creature. Then, mysteriously claim that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.So, yes it is a logical mess. A mass of confusion. Despite the fact that it is, in fact, a mystery it is not a flat contradiction.No, it is a contradiction. And this contradiction is overlooked or covered with a "mystery" to hide the contradiction. A logical contradiction posits two mutually exclusive premises, such as "Vance is a man and is not a man", where "man" means the same thing on both sides of the statement.Yup. And that is EXACTLY what you have there. God is the creator and is not man, man is the creature and is not God, two mutually exclusive premises. And then comes this Jesus is 100% God (creator) and 100% man (creature). If you attempt to remove the paradoxical then you are attempting to objectify what we cannot know objectively or, because we are in the process of becoming, dismiss the role of faith as an absurdity - silliness.Irrelevant. The contradiction is there. High fluting mumbo jumbo won't make it go away.
MiserereNobis Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 Stop trying to copyright the English language.I am not copyrighting -- I am sticking with definitions. When someone says, "I believe in the Trinity" the rest of us know generally speaking what that person means, and it is not simply limited to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It includes the relationship between those three. You are making the definition so simple as to lose all meaning, and the simple definition of "three" is not what is meant in theology by "Trinity." I don't count "one, two, trinity." I find it rather odd that you do not want to accept technical terms. It would be like me telling a physicist that I believe in quarks, and quarks are what an atom is made up of -- protons, neutrons, and electrons. The physicists would rightly point out that I was using quark incorrectly, that even though atoms are made up of quarks, quarks are not protons, neutrons, or electrons. If I then responded that he was trying to copyright the word quark he'd think I was nuts.Now, if I said I think he is wrong about quarks, that would be something else. Feel free to say that Catholics are wrong about the Trinity, but don't redefine a technical theological term to suite your purposes.We cannot redefine words to suit our purposes. I cannot say that I am woman, even though I have male genitalia, and then complain that people cannot copyright the word "woman" to exclude me. That's just plain silly.See my previous posts.I can see we're not going to get anywhere here, because my response to this is the same as yours: "see my previous posts."So perhaps we should just agree to disagree, because obviously we're not going anywhere Peace be with you, zerinus!And Lord have mercy on us all.
Vance Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 The foundations of the Catholic Faith are more than just the Bible, since the Faith existed prior to the Bible and was used to compile the Bible. Catholics are not Bible-only Christians, just like Mormons are not Bible-only believers. Please don't attack Catholicism for having beliefs that are clearly stated in extra-Biblical sources (but from our point-of-view are not in contradiction with the Bible). That would be disingenuous and rather hypocritical, since the LDS church has beliefs that are also more clearly stated in extra-Biblical sources (but from your point-of-view also not in contradiction with the Bible).I don't attack Catholics for having extra Biblical sources and doctrine. Quite frankly, Catholicism is FAR more consistent than ANY Protestant theology.But that doesn't make the contradictions (created by the philosophies of men, not God) any more palatable. In other words, don't argue with me as if I were a EV or a Protestant Yes, I must up my game.Nonetheless, the contradictions are there and "mystery" is used to cover them. No, I do understand that. That is why I am saying that the LDS church is not a Trinitarian church. That has been my only point all along, to show that the Trinitarian view and the LDS view are incompatible.I think the problem is what definition of "Trinity" is being used. I personally prefer NOT to us the term "Trinity" when discussing LDS theology. Humans and God are of a different substance in the Trinitarian view.Right. So it is a logical contradiction to claim that Jesus was 100% God and 100% human. Humans and God are of the same substance in the LDS view.Although I would say it that way. That makes for a big difference in ontology.No argument there.
Gervin Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 Yes, it is. Creedal Christians create this insurmountable gulf between man and God with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, between creator and creature. Then, mysteriously claim that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.So, yes it is a logical mess. A mass of confusion.No, it is a contradiction. And this contradiction is overlooked or covered with a "mystery" to hide the contradiction.Yup. And that is EXACTLY what you have there. God is the creator and is not man, man is the creature and is not God, two mutually exclusive premises. And then comes this Jesus is 100% God (creator) and 100% man (creature).Irrelevant. The contradiction is there. High fluting mumbo jumbo won't make it go away.I'm okay with the fact that you don't get it. I find it strange that you make no attempt to understand what I said.
zerinus Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 No, I do understand that. That is why I am saying that the LDS church is not a Trinitarian church. That has been my only point all along, to show that the Trinitarian view and the LDS view are incompatible. I think that The Catholic Church is not truly Trinitarian. They reject the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. They believe in an incorrect theology of the Trinity.
Vance Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 I'm okay with the fact that you don't get it. I find it strange that you make no attempt to understand what I said.Oh, so YOUR logical mess is my problem?Hey, you are free to believe what ever you want. But don't expect others to not see the obvious contradictions.
Gervin Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Oh, so YOUR logical mess is my problem?I tried to explain that a logical contradiction would be that "Jesus is God and is not God" or "Jesus is a man and is not a man." My statement was not a contradiction, despite your claim.Hey, you are free to believe what ever you want.You're very kind to allow me this freedom.But don't expect others to not see the obvious contradictions.I would hope these "others" will want to talk about it if that's what they see. On the other hand, it might not be so obvious to them. Edited September 18, 2012 by Gervin
Vance Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 I tried to explain that a logical contradiction would be that "Jesus is God and is not God" or "Jesus is a man and is not a man." AND THAT is EXACTLY what you are saying when you say that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. My statement was not a contradiction, despite your claim.Yes, it is. By your own definition of a contradiction. You're very kind to allow me this freedom.I am not allowing you this freedom. I am simply acknowledging it.I would hope these "others" will want to talk about it if that's what they see. On the other hand, it might not be so obvious to them.And they are free to speak their mind.Here is the summation of your logic. Feel free to correct me if and where I have it wrong.Premisses1)God is NOT man and can NEVER be (God is the creator NOT the creature).2) Man is NOT God and can NEVER be (man is the creature NOT the creator).3) Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man (Jesus is both creator and creature).
MiserereNobis Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 3) Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man (Jesus is both creator and creature).Just to clarify, the situation is a bit more subtle than this. For a full treatment, I suggest you read this section of the Catechism. One thing that I will point out is that while we humans have two parts, a body and a soul, Jesus had three: body, soul, and divinity. His Divinity was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (the Son), and this Divinity "assumed" the soul of Jesus, thus becoming the subjective side of Jesus yet the Divinity remained distinct from Jesus' body and soul.The Catechism link shows you the development of this thought and explains it using the language of the Church.God bless you!
Vance Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) Just to clarify, the situation is a bit more subtle than this. For a full treatment, I suggest you read this section of the Catechism. One thing that I will point out is that while we humans have two parts, a body and a soul, Jesus had three: body, soul, and divinity. Ok, so He wasn't "fully man" nor "fully God", but portions of each.His Divinity was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (the Son), . . . When is a person not an individual being? . . . and this Divinity "assumed" the soul of Jesus,So, Jesus was a separate person/man/being/human and 'this "Divinity"' took possession of his person (body and soul)? thus becoming the subjective side of Jesus yet the Divinity remained distinct from Jesus' body and soul.Sounds like two separate and distinct individual beings occupying the same body. The Catechism link shows you the development of this thought and explains it using the language of the Church.I would prefer the language of scripture. God bless you!And may He (Does that mean He is a male?) bless you as well. Edited September 18, 2012 by Vance
Ahab Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 The argument regarding the Trinity is not really the problem traditional Christians have with the LDS. Traditional Christians readily admit that LDS see the three persons in the Godhead as one in some way which different LDS explain differently. What they have a problem with is that LDS insist on calling them three Gods or three Beings instead of three persons who are one Eternal God. If LDS would simply stop right there instead of insisting on going beyond their own scripture and calling them three Gods there would be no problem. Exactly, and that's why I suggest we try to use more "politically correct" speech when we talk about "God".God is a word we use to refer to a particular kind of being which is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence. There is only one which is the most supreme, and thus there is only one God even though there is more than one person who is God.Beyond that, LDS insist on claiming that God the Father had a Father himself. If LDS would quit calling the persons in the Godhead three Gods and quit claiming that the Father had a Father, there wouldn't be a big disagreement.Well, sorry, but our Father does have a Father and there is no end to the number of our Fathers just as there is no beginning.Looks like we're going to disagree on this issue.Trinity only means three united persons so I don't see anything wrong with using the term.That's good. At least we see eye to eye in 2 out of 3 issues in your post.
zerinus Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) God is a word we use to refer to a particular kind of being which is the most supreme kind of being in all of existence. There is only one which is the most supreme, and thus there is only one God even though there is more than one person who is God.I see a contradiction between the above statement and the following:Well, sorry, but our Father does have a Father and there is no end to the number of our Fathers just as there is no beginning.If the second statement is true, that means that "the most supreme being" of the first statement is lost in an infinite regression of the Gods, according to your theory. If the Father had a Father etc., ad infinitum; and if we further postulate that the Father is subordinate to His Father, and so forth all the way back; then whoever started the chaim of progression of the Gods would have to be "the most supreme being" of the universe; and since by your theory that "first God" never existed---i.e. the regression is truly infinite---then truly "the most supreme being" does not exist and cannot be found; because no matter how far we go back in the chain of regression, we can never go back far enough to find the most supreme one. If we regress back to the Nth degree to find the most supreme being of all, there will always be the (N+1)th God who will be more supreme than all the succeding ones that we have counted; therefore we will never be able to regress back far enough to find "the most supreme being" in the universe; therefore the "one God" of your theory does not exist. He is lost in the infinite regression of the Gods. I am wondering how you would resolve this obvious paradox in your theory of the Gods. Edited September 19, 2012 by zerinus 1
Flyonthewall Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Just to clarify, the situation is a bit more subtle than this. For a full treatment, I suggest you read this section of the Catechism. One thing that I will point out is that while we humans have two parts, a body and a soul, Jesus had three: body, soul, and divinity. His Divinity was the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (the Son), and this Divinity "assumed" the soul of Jesus, thus becoming the subjective side of Jesus yet the Divinity remained distinct from Jesus' body and soul.The Catechism link shows you the development of this thought and explains it using the language of the Church.God bless you!Wait....you are saying Jesus has 3 parts? I was under the impression that Trinitarians believe God has no parts....I really try to follow, but it gets confusing very quickly.
zerinus Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Wait....you are saying Jesus has 3 parts? I was under the impression that Trinitarians believe God has no parts....I really try to follow, but it gets confusing very quickly.They do! In Catholic theology (or some interpretations of it), man also has three parts, body, soul, and spirit:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htmAlthough In some Protestant theologies this doctrine is more strongly taught:http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-bodyhttp://www.spiritual-growth.org/ Edited September 19, 2012 by zerinus
Bart Burk Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) I see a contradiction between the above statement and the following:If the second statement is true, that means that "the most supreme being" of the first statement is lost in an infinite regression of the Gods, according to your theory. If the Father had a Father etc., ad infinitum; and if we further postulate that the Father is subordinate to His Father, and so forth all the way back; then whoever started the chaim of progression of the Gods would have to be "the most supreme being" of the universe; and since by you theory that "first God" never existed---i.e. the regression is truly infinite---then truly "the most supreme being" does not exist and cannot be found; because no matter how far we go back in the chain of regression, we can never go back far enough to find the most supreme one. If we regress back to the Nth degree to find the most supreme being of all, there will always be the (N+1)th God who will be more supreme than all the succeding ones that we have counted; therefore we will never be able regress back far enough to find "the most supreme being" in the universe; therefore the "one God" of your theory does not exist. He is lost in the infinite regression of the Gods. I am wondering how you would resolve this obvious paradox in your theory of the Gods.I guess it is a mystery -- much more of a mystery than any Trinity doctrine that traditional Christians propose. Edited September 19, 2012 by Bart Burk
zerinus Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I guess it is a mystery -- much more of a mystery than any Trinity doctrine that traditional Christians propose.Agreed, except that it is not Mormonism!
Bart Burk Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Agreed, except that it is not Mormonism! When I was a Mormon, it always seemed to be Mormonism. I'm not sure what is and isn't Mormonism anymore. There are times I wish someone in Salt Lake City would just put together a catechism so that we knew for sure. They could always update it if they received new revelation. The closest thing I ever encountered to a catechism in Mormonism was McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, but we know the LDS Church didn't accept that as definitive. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which BYU produced explicitly states that it is not official doctrine.
zerinus Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) When I was a Mormon, it always seemed to be Mormonism. I'm not sure what is and isn't Mormonism anymore. There are times I wish someone in Salt Lake City would just put together a catechism so that we knew for sure.They have; it is called the standard works. They could always update it if they received new revelation. The closest thing I ever encountered to a catechism in Mormonism was McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, but we know the LDS Church didn't accept that as definitive. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism which BYU produced explicitly states that it is not official doctrine.I don't agree with producing a catechism, because whatever we do it will never be as good as what God Himself has done in the standard works. Edited September 19, 2012 by zerinus
Bart Burk Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) They have; it is called the standard works. I don't agree with producing a catechism, because whatever we do it will never be as good as what God Himself has done in the standard works.I will have to admit that looking at the Encyclopedia of Mormonism they have not endorsed the idea that God has a Father. They don't even really discuss it only saying there has been speculation regarding what might have been before God the Father, but there is no revelation on the matter. The article about God the Father states, "This doctrine is stated concisely in a well-known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be" This principle is clearly demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ, a God who became mortal, and yet a God like whom mortals may become. But the maxim is true of the Father as well. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret" (TPJS, p. 345). Thus, the Father became the Father at some time before "the beginning" as humans know it, by experiencing a mortality similar to that experienced on earth. There has been speculation among some Latter-day Saints on the implications of this doctrine, but nothing has been revealed to the Church about conditions before the "beginning" as mortals know it."The full article can be found here: "http://eom.byu.edu/i.../God_the_FatherI would be interested if God the Father would have been considered God before He became the Father. But again, it looks as if LDS don't claim to know one way or the other. I still don't believe LDS use being in the same way that traditional Christians use the term which I think leads to a lot of confusion in these types of discussions. Edited September 19, 2012 by Bart Burk
Vance Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Right, which is why ecumenical councils were called -- to decide which of the beliefs were doctrine and which were not.There is an underlying assumption here that bothers me. The assumption is that correct doctrine wasn't previously established by earlier church authorities.Did Jesus, the Son of God, not deliver correct doctrine and understanding to His disciples? Were those disciples incapable of understanding the correct doctrine and/or recording the same? 1
MiserereNobis Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 There is an underlying assumption here that bothers me. The assumption is that correct doctrine wasn't previously established by earlier church authorities.Did Jesus, the Son of God, not deliver correct doctrine and understanding to His disciples? Were those disciples incapable of understanding the correct doctrine and/or recording the same?Yes, Jesus did deliver correct doctrine to His disciples. But, as the years went by, some people began to have erroneous ideas about doctrine. This is common in any field of knowledge -- the more people think about things, the more diverse (and confusing) opinions become. Thus ecumenical councils were called and the Bishops, the successors to the Apostles, gathered together, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost, to declare and clarify what had been laid down by Jesus to the Apostles in the Deposit of Faith.I suppose an analogy (flawed like any analogy, but useful nonetheless), would be how the LDS church clarified what was meant by the word of wisdom's prohibition against "hot drinks." The idea of coffee and tea is not in the original text (by which, according to a strict interpretation, iced coffee would be acceptable and hot chocolate not), yet the church has declared what the text means. I assume that LDS members would not take this to mean that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about.
Vance Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Yes, Jesus did deliver correct doctrine to His disciples.But, apparently it wasn't recorded by his disciples. But, as the years went by, some people began to have erroneous ideas about doctrine. On this we can agree. This is common in any field of knowledge -- the more people think about things, the more diverse (and confusing) opinions become.Especially when those that have the authority to correct such heresy (that would be the Apostles) are no longer found in the church. Thus ecumenical councils were called and the Bishops, the successors to the Apostles, That the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles is pure speculation. gathered together, under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost,And don't forget Hellenized philosophers. The councils would NEVER have come up with this stuff without them.Also, I have never heard that the councils claimed to be operating "under the guidance and protection of the Holy Ghost. I think some post council retrojection is going on. to declare and clarify what had been laid down by Jesus to the Apostles in the Deposit of Faith.Which, apparently, they did not record. I suppose an analogy (flawed like any analogy, but useful nonetheless), would be how the LDS church clarified what was meant by the word of wisdom's prohibition against "hot drinks." Nah, because the word of wisdom had been documented.I assume that LDS members would not take this to mean that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about.Your analogy isn't even close.
Recommended Posts