3DOP Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I was pointing out that the post-Biblical creeds say that God, or the Trinity, is incomprehensible, and therefore distant and abstract. And the scriptural passages that I shared seem to contradict this. I thought I made this clear.Incomprehensible is a precise word. It implies neither distance nor abstraction. We are said to have comprehensive knowledge of a subject when we have all of the data. We would in fact argue that God is immanent even before the Incarnation. "...inasmuch it is in Him that we all live and move and have our being." (Ac. 17:28) 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) I think I've said enough and stepped on enough toes in this thread. It is probably time for me to bow out.Let me ask a simple three part question...what good is (are) the terms, God of gods; King of kings and Lord of lords, if there are no other, gods, kings or lords? Edited January 4, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Let me ask a simple three part question...what good is (are) the terms, God of gods; King of kings and Lord of lords, if there are no other, gods, kings or lords?There are people on earth even today whose titles are king and lord. There were also ancient rulers who considered themselves gods. And there were people who believed in false gods. I don't think you can prove a true belief in more than one God from the statement you've quoted. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 There are people on earth even today whose titles are king and lord. There were also ancient rulers who considered themselves gods. And there were people who believed in false gods. I don't think you can prove a true belief in more than one God from the statement you've quoted.I cannot use the words of the one God to define him? I have no other words to use.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I cannot use the words of the one God to define him? I have no other words to use.No you can't prove there is more than one true God from the statement you've quoted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities 1
Tacenda Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 It sounds like to me we all don't know very much. Who does?
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 It sounds like to me we all don't know very much. Who does?As a Catholic I believe we know a lot from what the Bible as well as sacred tradition as handed down from the Apostles to their successors the Bishops have told us. The ancient teaching of the Trinity goes back to the earliest Church Fathers who were taught by Christ's Apostles.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 As a Catholic I believe we know a lot from what the Bible as well as sacred tradition as handed down from the Apostles to their successors the Bishops have told us. The ancient teaching of the Trinity goes back to the earliest Church Fathers who were taught by Christ's Apostles.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htmIn terms of timeline those are modern teachings and in conflict with truly Acient traditions.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I think that is a fair statement. It is impossible for us to describe the unity of God since it is a unity which we have not yet experienced. We accept the unity of God on faith at this point, awaiting the time when we actually see God and enter into oneness with Him.Then the problem is semantics. Trinitarians call it God. LDS call it Godhead. We both believe basically the same thing.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 It sounds like to me we all don't know very much. Who does?While I am not the paragon of wisdom and learning I will not sell myself short. I know quite a bit actually and where God and church are concerned a lot of it comes from personal revelation.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Then the problem is semantics. Trinitarians call it God. LDS call it Godhead. We both believe basically the same thing.I've always said that. What we don't believe is that God's Father had a Father. That's an LDS teaching we can't accept. We also don't believe that humans are ontologically the same as God. Humans are not of the same Being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The LDS would say we share the same Being as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we just haven't progressed as far as they have.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I've always said that. What we don't believe is that God's Father had a Father. That's an LDS teaching we can't accept. We also don't believe that humans are ontologically the same as God. Humans are not of the same Being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The LDS would say we share the same Being as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we just haven't progressed as far as they have.And that is a legitimate area of discussion and disagreement as long as we can agree that we believe in the same God. Some time back(maybe a year or so) one poster kept reiterating that Mormons believed in three Gods and would never admit that by his standards that he himself believed in three Gods. It has been a helpful exchange with you to take this one step at a time. By doing that it becomes obvious that in this area we have been talking past each other. Now as to our beliefs about what our relationship to God is we still have room to engage in discussion.Thanks
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Since I've become a Catholic I've never understood that Jesus would be subject to Mary and Joseph in their eternal relationship. That doesn't make any sense. Jesus was subject to Mary and Joseph while he was on earth, but it is clear to me that Mary and Joseph are subject to Jesus in heaven. When we ask Joseph and Mary to pray for us, we can expect that Mary and Joseph, being perfected saints, would only ask Jesus to do something for us which He already willed to do. Jesus rejoices in the honor we give to Mary and Joseph when we ask them for help, but he wouldn't grant us something just because we prayed to Mary, Joseph or any other saint if it wasn't already His will. The entire concept of prayer is a paradox no matter who we are praying to. We are commanded to pray, but God already knows we what we need, He knows what we are going to ask Him, and answers our prayers according to what He decided even before we prayed.I'm assuming you know at least he fundamental fact that Mormons teach the concept of eternal families. Jesus perfectly showed man the way to the Father and so despite having no declared doctrine on the matter one may conclude that Jesus was sealed to His earthly mother and, well, *perhaps* to Joseph (though I'm very open to the idea that jesus was sealed to the Father since He was Jesus' earthly father as well - btw, I'm just now thinnig all of this ). Since the paternal relation is sketchy (Jesus and Joseph), let's focus a bit more on the maternal relationship (Jesus and Mary). Is she His mother in the heavens? I'd have to say yes though I'd be a fool to say that I know how exactly that works or really to know anything about it. I don't think anyone does. I think 3DOP is on to something in saying that Jesus is subject to Mary in heaven.As far as Jesus being the Savior I think we're on mucch safer grounds to say that Joseph and Mary are subject to Him. So I very much agree with you that eternally Joseph and mary's wills are aligned with Jesus' and not the other way around.Like I said initially, "very interesting".
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 And that is a legitimate area of discussion and disagreement as long as we can agree that we believe in the same God. Some time back(maybe a year or so) one poster kept reiterating that Mormons believed in three Gods and would never admit that by his standards that he himself believed in three Gods. It has been a helpful exchange with you to take this one step at a time. By doing that it becomes obvious that in this area we have been talking past each other. Now as to our beliefs about what our relationship to God is we still have room to engage in discussion.ThanksThere will be those who claim (I think correctly) that at least some LDS don't believe in the same God if they believe that God the Father had a Father. I don't have any argument with any LDS who believes that God eternally exists in three persons as One God so long as they don't introduce other Gods into the argument. The fact LDS believe the Father has a body is unimportant to me even if I don't think it is correct. The Nicene Creed does not address the issue of the Father's materiality.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I'm assuming you know at least he fundamental fact that Mormons teach the concept of eternal families. Jesus perfectly showed man the way to the Father and so despite having no declared doctrine on the matter one may conclude that Jesus was sealed to His earthly mother and, well, *perhaps* to Joseph (though I'm very open to the idea that jesus was sealed to the Father since He was Jesus' earthly father as well - btw, I'm just now thinnig all of this ). Since the paternal relation is sketchy (Jesus and Joseph), let's focus a bit more on the maternal relationship (Jesus and Mary). Is she His mother in the heavens? I'd have to say yes though I'd be a fool to say that I know how exactly that works or really to know anything about it. I don't think anyone does. I think 3DOP is on to something in saying that Jesus is subject to Mary in heaven.As far as Jesus being the Savior I think we're on mucch safer grounds to say that Joseph and Mary are subject to Him. So I very much agree with you that eternally Joseph and mary's wills are aligned with Jesus' and not the other way around.Like I said initially, "very interesting".And if I were Mormon it would be very logical to me that Mary was the pre-existent Mother of Jesus and spouse of God the Father. But at the same time Jesus would have had to have pre-existed Mary as God to be the Eternal God. Jesus would have been God before his spirit was organized and before Mary's spirit was organized ... it is enough to give one a headache trying to think about it. Let's not.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 In terms of timeline those are modern teachings and in conflict with truly Acient traditions.What do you mean by truly ancient teachings? I'm limiting myself to what Jesus taught the apostles and what the apostles and their successors taught.
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 And if I were Mormon it would be very logical to me that Mary was the pre-existent Mother of Jesus and spouse of God the Father. But at the same time Jesus would have had to have pre-existed Mary as God to be the Eternal God. Jesus would have been God before his spirit was organized and before Mary's spirit was organized ... it is enough to give one a headache trying to think about it. Let's not.Perhaps *to some degree* logically but not doctrinally. The limitations I see in such logic is that Mary *must be* a daughter of the Father just like Jesus is a son (the firstborn Son) of the Father. While it may make some sense that Mary was Jesus' pre-mortal existent mother, nobody knows for sure. I think it's safer to conclude that Mary may have been foreordained in the pre-mortal existence to be the mother of God on the earth.You're correct in that Jesus would be God before His spirit was organized and that goes along the lines of levels of intelligence. From the beginning, the LDS believe, Jesus was "like unto God [the Father]". His intelligence, therefore, must have surpassed all others even before it was organized an thus given power and purpose. The plan of salvation, according to LDS beliefs is for the rest of us to become like the Father in all things and that is only possible through the Son.I don't get headahces. I like this sutff. more later, I got other things to do at the moment.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 What do you mean by truly ancient teachings? I'm limiting myself to what Jesus taught the apostles and what the apostles and their successors taught.nBut he is ageless and was speaking long before walking the earth.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 nBut he is ageless and was speaking long before walking the earth.So tell me where you are getting these ancient teachings you are relying upon -- I don't find them in Mormon scripture.
pogi Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) What do you mean by truly ancient teachings? I'm limiting myself to what Jesus taught the apostles and what the apostles and their successors taught.The Ante-Nicene Fathers, foreign to the specifics of Trinitarian theology, because they were not defined until the 4th century, affirmed Christ's deity and referenced "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". That's about as close as you can get to the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the early successors.Scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved. You make it sound as if this idea of the trinity was passed from Christ down from generation to generation in it's purity and present form, when in fact the idea of the divinity of the Holy Ghost was never taught until later in the 4th century when the idea was developed by Athanasius.So I ask, are you are limiting yourself to the early teachings, or are you limiting yourself to the creed developed much later? Edited January 4, 2013 by pogi
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) The Ante-Nicene Fathers, foreign to the specifics of Trinitarian theology, because they were not defined until the 4th century, affirmed Christ's deity and referenced "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". That's about as close as you can get to the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the early successors. Scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved. You make it sound as if this idea of the trinity was passed from Christ down from generation to generation in it's purity and present form, when in fact the idea of the divinity of the Holy Ghost did not even come up until later in the 4th century.So I ask, are you are limiting yourself to the early teachings, or are you limiting yourself to the creed developed much later?The ideas in the creed were taught by the early Fathers. Arius introduced the idea that Christ was less than God so the Council was convened to clarify what was already being taught for the earlier centuries.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm Edited January 4, 2013 by Bart Burk
pogi Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 The ideas in the creed were taught by the early Fathers. Arius introduced the idea that Christ was less than God so the Council was convened to clarify what was already being taught for the earlier centuries.CFR. I am not talking about the idea of the divinity of Christ. I am talking about the teachings of the trinity creed - 3 distinct persons yet one "substance, essence, or nature."
Nathair/|\ Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 I'm responding generally to the past several pages of this thread, not to any specific post. Depending, as Obi-wan would say, on one's point of view; there are several ways to look at it and count the number of gods, all true.1. All humans on this earth and the other "worlds without number" He is responsible share one Heavenly Father.=1 god.2. We have at least one, but possibly more Heavenly Mothers+1 Heavenly father = between 2 and several Heavenly parents= between 2 and several gods.3. Any married couple is supposed to be a unified companionship. The scriptures teach that anyone who has reached the position our Heavenly Parents have is perfect, therefore as a unified companionship, again 1 god. 4. God as a priesthood office. As far as our world is concerned, there are three individuals (Father, Son, HG) who have been ordained to this office. Therefore 3 gods.5. God as a priesthood quorum. As far as this world is concerned, there is one quorum of three individuals in the office of god. Therefore 1 god.6. God as the leaders of the family. HF, HM(s), Son and HG in unity. 4 or more individuals in perfect unity = 1 god.7. God as those individuals who have progressed to a point where they have all power and all authority. The same 4 or more individuals as above, but as individuals (though working together) = 4 or more gods as far as this earth is concerned.8. All individuals who are of the species of gods: ie. (as far as this world is concerned, HF, HM and their children) innumerable, but including 7 billion gods currently in mortality.9. Those members of that species who have found unity with HF according to John 17, = in that unity: 1 god.10. Assuming there is an infinite regress of gods--HF and HM, HGF and HGM, etc. = infinite gods.11. It can be reasonably assumed (I think our doctrine requires it) that these gods are in the same kind of unity taught in John 17 = 1 god yet again.From this list of different points of view, we can see that there are more ways to look at things with one god than with any other number.
Recommended Posts