What does the Godhead really mean?

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, tonygravel said:

 

It was also a pagan Greek idea that an embodied gods in the literal form of men (complete with genitals) could come down to earth and have sexual relations with humans beings. So while you can say that neoplatonic ideas made their way into Christianity, thus corrupting it, we can also see that a different avenue of pagan Greek thought made its way into Mormonism. Many Mormon leaders have more than implied that God the Father is literally the father of Jesus' physical body. But since Mormonism is the one true doctrine, whenever Greek beliefs show up in Mormonism, it is because the Greeks had a scrap of that original "truth," and Joseph Smith restored it. However, whenever Greek beliefs show up in traditional Christianity, it is because traditional Christianity is apostate.  

.   

Another

Description: In the texts of Genesis 18 and 32, God appears to a patriarch in person and is referred to by the narrator as a man, both times by the Hebrew word sh. In both texts, God as sh is described in graphically human terms. This type of divine appearance is identified here as the sh theophany. The phenomenon of God appearing in concrete human form is first distinguished from several other types of anthropomorphism, such as divine appearance in dreams. The sh theophany is viewed in relation to appearances of angels and other divine beings in the Bible, and in relation to anthropomorphic appearances of deities in Near Eastern literature. The sh theophany has implications for our understanding of Israelite concepts of divine-human contact and communication, and for the relationship to Ugaritic literature in particular. The book also includes discussion of philosophical approaches to anthropomorphism. The development of philosophical opposition to anthropomorphism can be traced from Greek philosophy and early Jewish and Christian writings through Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides and Aquinas, and into the work of later philosophers such as Hume and Kant. However, the work of others can be applied fruitfully to the problem of divine anthropomorphism, such as Wittgenstein's language games.

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8190

Just google :Hebrew God Embodied" and you will get a zillion hits.   

[RevTestament]

50 minutes ago, tonygravel said:

 

It was also a pagan Greek idea that an embodied gods in the literal form of men (complete with genitals) could come down to earth and have sexual relations with humans beings. So while you can say that neoplatonic ideas made their way into Christianity, thus corrupting it, we can also see that a different avenue of pagan Greek thought made its way into Mormonism. 
.   

So you are saying that only Mormon Christians believe Jesus is God as a man with genitals? Could He have sexual relations if He wanted to here on earth?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

Right, so you're using the word divine in a general manner of speaking (hence your reference to a general dictionary definition). In the Biblical context there is only one divinity, that is God alone.

Really? CFR please - I mean with scripture not ante-Nicene "Fathers" etc.

How do scriptures define a difference between holy and divine? Or is that just your idea imposed on them?

Do you believe God feels His creation is holy or divine? Shall anyone be called holy? If one makes it into the house of the Father, is one still filthy or are they holy?

2 Peter 1:4

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Quote

How the word is used by unbelievers is more watered down, or general. 

Again, Matt. 19 doesn't state that "Jesus will be the Father..." 

No, but Isa 9:6 does. Do you not believe it? What exactly do you think His inheritance is? or do you adopt a the trinitarian view that He is immutable even though he was "made perfect" and exalted, and "inherited" His name, inherits the government, etc?

 

[tonygravel]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Nah

The fact that Hebrews believed in an embodied God is well established.

I am not going to do your research for you, but volgadon or Robert F.Smith probably have reams of references.

I will just link you to a BAPTIST scholar I found in 5 minutes on google who refers to an embodied God in Genesis and other books. 

No cigar for you!   http://claudemariottini.com/2012/02/25/the-embodiment-of-god-in-the-hebrew-bible/

I checked out that site. Do you mean to tell me that you seriously believe that the story of God wrestling with Jacob should be taken literally? You draw upon this for strength to your argument, so you are really willing to tell me that God literally came down and had a wrestling match with Jacob? 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, tonygravel said:

I checked out that site. Do you mean to tell me that you seriously believe that the story of God wrestling with Jacob should be taken literally? You draw upon this for strength to your argument, so you are really willing to tell me that God literally came down and had a wrestling match with Jacob?

Well, I don't believe it was actually a wrestling match.  More of a temple thing.

• Hugh Nibley in 'The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment' explains, "one of the most puzzling episodes in the Bible has always been the story of Jacob's wresting with the Lord. When one considers that the word conventionally translated by 'wrestled' (yeaveq) can just as well mean 'embrace,' and that it was in this ritual embrace the Jacob received a new name and the bestowal of priestly and kingly power at sunrise (see Genesis 32:23ff), the parallel to the Egyptian coronation embrace becomes at once apparent." (pg. 243.)

But yes, I believe Jacob held onto the physical body of God so tightly that his hip went out.
Jacob sure thought it was God because he called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

The number of elements from the temple endowment that are seen all through scripture are pretty amazing.
Mfbukowski and I have already discussed how the scriptures actually record parts of Moses and Abraham's endowments.  Now this records part of Jacob's.
 

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[tonygravel]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I don't believe it was actually a wrestling match.  More of a temple thing.

• Hugh Nibley in 'The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment' explains, "one of the most puzzling episodes in the Bible has always been the story of Jacob's wresting with the Lord. When one considers that the word conventionally translated by 'wrestled' (yeaveq) can just as well mean 'embrace,' and that it was in this ritual embrace the Jacob received a new name and the bestowal of priestly and kingly power at sunrise (see Genesis 32:23ff), the parallel to the Egyptian coronation embrace becomes at once apparent." (pg. 243.)

But yes, I believe Jacob held onto the physical body of God so tightly that his hip went out.
Jacob sure thought it was God because he called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

The number of elements from the temple endowment that are seen all through scripture are pretty amazing.
Mfbukowski and I have already discussed how the scriptures actually record parts of Moses and Abraham's endowments.  Now this records part of Jacob's.
 

So...you are talking about the ol' Masonic Five Points of Fellowship embrace, right? Well, with a Biblical precedent like that, it is a shame the ordinance has been changed. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, tonygravel said:

So...you are talking about the ol' Masonic Five Points of Fellowship embrace, right? Well, with a Biblical precedent like that, it is a shame the ordinance has been changed.

You appear to be new here.
So I'll just say, yes, yes it is.

[tonygravel]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

You appear to be new here.
So I'll just say, yes, yes it is.

Thanks for chatting. 

You're still banned. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, tonygravel said:

I checked out that site. Do you mean to tell me that you seriously believe that the story of God wrestling with Jacob should be taken literally? You draw upon this for strength to your argument, so you are really willing to tell me that God literally came down and had a wrestling match with Jacob? 

LOL

Well if you want to know my thoughts on the story, you can find them here.  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

I don't know how you conclude that I take the story literally, but I certainly could.  The principle of Divine Investiture is involved.

The question- which you have not very skillfully avoided- is whether or not the Hebrews believed in an embodied God, remember?

My views do not enter into the discussion at all.

I believe that seeing God as if he is embodied is the best possible religious paradigm for mankind.  I therefore think that Mormonism is the best possible religion for mankind, if we could get beyond this silly sectarian squabbling and get past our fundamentalist assumptions as shown in this thread

Quote

4. Jesus Christ the “Father” by Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that angel the Lord said, “Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him” (Ex. 23:21).

The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden:

“And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

“Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8–9).

And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself:

“And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. 22:12–13).

The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying, “I come quickly,” “I am Alpha and Omega,” though he meant that Jesus Christ would come and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

None of these considerations, however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. Following are affirmative scriptures bearing upon this great truth. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says of Jesus Christ:

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

“And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

“For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell” (Col. 1:15–19).

From this scripture we learn that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn of every creature,” and it is evident that the seniority here expressed must be with respect to antemortal existence, for Christ was not the senior of all mortals in the flesh. He is further designated as “the firstborn from the dead,” this having reference to Him as the first to be resurrected from the dead, or as elsewhere written “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Cor. 15:20; see also 1 Cor. 15:23); and “the first begotten of the dead” (Rev. 1:5; compare Acts 26:23). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms the status of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the spirit children of His Father and extols the preeminence of the Christ when tabernacled in flesh: “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Heb. 1:6; read the preceding verses). That the spirits who were juniors to Christ were predestined to be born in the image of their Elder Brother is thus attested by Paul:

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:28–29).

John the Revelator was commanded to write to the head of the Laodicean church, as the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: “These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). In the course of a revelation given through Joseph Smith in May 1833, the Lord Jesus Christ said, as before cited, “And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). A later verse makes plain the fact that human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh: “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth” (D&C 93:23).

There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of humankind. That He is by spiritual birth Brother to the rest of us is indicated in Hebrews: “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than any or all others, by reason (1) of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father; (3) of His selection and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[tonygravel]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know how you conclude that I take the story literally, but I certainly could.  The principle of Divine Investiture is involved.

Wait a minute...what does Divine Investiture have to do with it? You are trying to say Jacob wrestled God, therefore God has a body. But now you are throwing Divine Investiture into the mix, suggesting to me that Jacob is not wrestling the Father, but that he is wrestling Jesus, who is officially acting as the Father's agent as a wrestler? 

I don't think any Christians have a problem with an embodied Christ. They have a problem with an embodied Father. 

This is the problem I find. We use several Old Testament passages to prove that God has a body. But then we also say that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Jesus is Jehovah, and anytime God is speaking in the OT, it is always Jesus. So...God has a body...but at no point in the OT does the Father reveal a body, because the God of the Old Testament who makes appearances is always Jesus. 

If the Father has a body, and if Jesus has a body, okay. But if Jesus is ALWAYS the God that is appearing to people in the Old Testament, we have not OT proof that the Father has a body. We only have the New Testament proclamations that God is Spirit, and that spirit does not have a body of flesh and bone.

We also have the New Testament telling us that no man has seen nor can see God. That Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man, thus it is right for Jesus to be embodied, since he is God's mediator with his creation. 

If Jesus is the only God that shows up in the Old Testament, where is the evidence that the Father has a body? 

[Bobbieaware]

25 minutes ago, tonygravel said:

Wait a minute...what does Divine Investiture have to do with it? You are trying to say Jacob wrestled God, therefore God has a body. But now you are throwing Divine Investiture into the mix, suggesting to me that Jacob is not wrestling the Father, but that he is wrestling Jesus, who is officially acting as the Father's agent as a wrestler? 

I don't think any Christians have a problem with an embodied Christ. They have a problem with an embodied Father. 

This is the problem I find. We use several Old Testament passages to prove that God has a body. But then we also say that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Jesus is Jehovah, and anytime God is speaking in the OT, it is always Jesus. So...God has a body...but at no point in the OT does the Father reveal a body, because the God of the Old Testament who makes appearances is always Jesus. 

If the Father has a body, and if Jesus has a body, okay. But if Jesus is ALWAYS the God that is appearing to people in the Old Testament, we have not OT proof that the Father has a body. We only have the New Testament proclamations that God is Spirit, and that spirit does not have a body of flesh and bone.

We also have the New Testament telling us that no man has seen nor can see God. That Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man, thus it is right for Jesus to be embodied, since he is God's mediator with his creation. 

If Jesus is the only God that shows up in the Old Testament, where is the evidence that the Father has a body? 

The Old Testament does not convincingly prove the Father has resurrected body of flesh and bone. But just as it was in the case of the Brother of Jared's encounter with the premortal Christ (Jehovah), the epiphanies of the Old Testament demonstrate God is anthropomorphic. even when unembodied.

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

 7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

 8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

 9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

 10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me. (Ether 3)

And again...

 15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

 16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. (Ether 3)

Edited February 19, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, tonygravel said:

Wait a minute...what does Divine Investiture have to do with it? You are trying to say Jacob wrestled God, therefore God has a body. But now you are throwing Divine Investiture into the mix, suggesting to me that Jacob is not wrestling the Father, but that he is wrestling Jesus, who is officially acting as the Father's agent as a wrestler? 

I don't think any Christians have a problem with an embodied Christ. They have a problem with an embodied Father. 

This is the problem I find. We use several Old Testament passages to prove that God has a body. But then we also say that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Jesus is Jehovah, and anytime God is speaking in the OT, it is always Jesus. So...God has a body...but at no point in the OT does the Father reveal a body, because the God of the Old Testament who makes appearances is always Jesus. 

If the Father has a body, and if Jesus has a body, okay. But if Jesus is ALWAYS the God that is appearing to people in the Old Testament, we have not OT proof that the Father has a body. We only have the New Testament proclamations that God is Spirit, and that spirit does not have a body of flesh and bone.

We also have the New Testament telling us that no man has seen nor can see God. That Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man, thus it is right for Jesus to be embodied, since he is God's mediator with his creation. 

If Jesus is the only God that shows up in the Old Testament, where is the evidence that the Father has a body? 

LOL

Modern day revelation

That's why we need it.  The Bible is a mess. Why do you believe in it?

And if bodies are imperfect and Christ has a body, how does that work?  Total inconsistency.  Hope you know better how to explain the philosophy behind that than the Catholic priest I asked did.

Edited February 19, 2016 by mfbukowski

[tonygravel]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

LOL

Modern day revelation

That's why we need it.  The Bible is a mess. Why do you believe in it?

And if bodies are imperfect and Christ has a body, how does that work?  Total inconsistency.  Hope you know better how to explain the philosophy behind that than the Catholic priest I asked did.

"LOL" -- that's cute. Somewhat dismissive, but cute. 

Which modern-day revelation am I supposed to believe? The one that says there are two personages in the Godhead, the Father a personage of spirit and the Son a tabernacle of flesh? Or the one that says that Adam and Eve were already exalted humans when they created and came to this earth, and that they consumed Telestial food that changed their bodies so that they could make bodies of flesh for their spirit children? Or the revelations of today that refute those. 

What is this group I stumbled upon? Are you guys a bunch of fundamentalists? Are you people Rock Waterman-style Mormons? Or Denver Snufferites? 

I am wondering. I mean,.JLHPROF is mourning the the passing of the Five Points of Fellowship....! 

Where am I? 

I don't understand the problem with Christ having an imperfect body. That is called the Incarnation. God became flesh. God became sin for us, so that we could have the righteousness of God. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, tonygravel said:

"LOL" -- that's cute. Somewhat dismissive, but cute. 

Which modern-day revelation am I supposed to believe? The one that says there are two personages in the Godhead, the Father a personage of spirit and the Son a tabernacle of flesh? Or the one that says that Adam and Eve were already exalted humans when they created and came to this earth, and that they consumed Telestial food that changed their bodies so that they could make bodies of flesh for their spirit children? Or the revelations of today that refute those. 

What is this group I stumbled upon? Are you guys a bunch of fundamentalists? Are you people Rock Waterman-style Mormons? Or Denver Snufferites? 

I am wondering. I mean,.JLHPROF is mourning the the passing of the Five Points of Fellowship....! 

Where am I? 

I don't understand the problem with Christ having an imperfect body. That is called the Incarnation. God became flesh. God became sin for us, so that we could have the righteousness of God. 

 

Yeah well you have the same problem with the bible don't you?  That's the whole point- and the answer to the question you always skip- of why you know the bible is scripture.

The answer is personal revelation.  We are not to be little robot parrots spouting out verses which have a hundred possible meanings- we are to decide the meanings for ourselves, as confirmed by the spirit personally to you.  That is why we believe in Moroni 10:4-5

And then there is this, from the church website http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

• Quote

  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, theDoctrine 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.

   

So that's it.  Mormon Doctrine "resides" in the scriptures and is interpreted by the First Presidency, but they are not infallible.

Then also this:

 

Quote

 

Based on the scriptures, Joseph Smith declared: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

• Because different times present different challenges, modern-day prophets receiverevelation relevant to the circumstances of their day. This follows the biblical pattern(Amos 3:7), in which God communicated messages and warnings to His people through prophets in order to secure their well-being.  In our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the family in our increasingly fractional society. In addition, the Church does not preclude future additions or changes to its teachings or practices. This living, dynamic aspect of the Church provides flexibility in meeting those challenges.  According to the Articles of Faith, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
• Latter-day Saints place heavy emphasis on the application of their faith in daily life. For example, the active participation of Latter-day Saints in their community and worldwide humanitarian programs reflects concern for other people. As Jesus Christ declared, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
• Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together.

 

 

So the bottom line is that as long as you can pass a temple recommend interview honestly you are fully Mormon.

We pray about individual doctrines and take the counsel of the brethren and decide for ourselves.

So all this about the God head is subject to testimony.

EV's have the same beliefs, but handle the question differently

You guys have all kinds of doctrinal variations- you just walk around till you find a congregation you agree with, as the spirit communicates with you.

Essentially no difference.   Pick the doctrine that works for you. We just all do it under one umbrella.

Edited February 20, 2016 by mfbukowski

[danielwoods]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Really? CFR please - I mean with scripture not ante-Nicene "Fathers" etc.

 

I stated, "In the Biblical context there is only one divinity, that is God alone."

Your reply, "CFR". 

My answer. 

Isaiah 46:9 "for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."

For a more detailed answer I will review how we can see God's divine attributes that aren't shared by Humans. 

1)  God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone is worthy of worship

That is why in the First Commandment God tells us:  “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3).

2) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone decides what is good and what is evil

This can be seen throughout the Bible, from Genesis to the Ten commandments and so on. 

3) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone can create from nothing (I realize the LDS don't believe this)

Colossians 1:16, 17

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Nehemiah 9:6 testifies of God:  “You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all.  The host of heavens worships You.”

John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Ex. 3:14 "Tell them that the I AM has sent you." There is only one self-existent being, and that is God alone. This is why the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be equal with God, when he stated that "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8  )

4) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone has the right to take human life

God “has made us, and not we ourselves,” declares Psalm 100:3

Job 1:21 "And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."

5) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone has the power to show mercy and forgive sin

Luke 5: 21-26 - "Who can forgive sins but God alone?  Jesus replied:

“Why are you reasoning in your hearts?  Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise up and walk?’  But that you may know that the Son of Man [Jesus] has power on earth to forgive sins” — He said to the man who was paralyzed, “I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.  And they were all amazed, and they glorified God and were filled with fear, saying, “We have seen strange things today!” (Verses 22-26.)

6) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone is “good” 

Matthew 19:17 “No one is good but One, that is God”

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie"

7) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone has the right to avenge

“‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord,” Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:35 (Romans 12:19).

“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18)

8 ) God's divinity is seen in the fact that he alone decides whom to give authority to

For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2)

The above was summarized with help from this website:  http://pool-of-siloam.com/the-divine-prerogatives/

 

 

[danielwoods]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Really? CFR please - I mean with scripture not ante-Nicene "Fathers" etc.

How do scriptures define a difference between holy and divine? Or is that just your idea imposed on them?

Do you believe God feels His creation is holy or divine? Shall anyone be called holy? If one makes it into the house of the Father, is one still filthy or are they holy?

2 Peter 1:4

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 

 

No, but Isa 9:6 does. Do you not believe it? What exactly do you think His inheritance is? or do you adopt a the trinitarian view that He is immutable even though he was "made perfect" and exalted, and "inherited" His name, inherits the government, etc?

"How do scriptures define a difference between holy and divine? Or is that just your idea imposed on them?"

The divine (that is God alone) makes things Holy. A survey of the Bible about "holiness" implies a setting apart for God's purpose. Moral goodness or purity is intrinsic to the meaning because only with such goodness can one serve God's purposes.

"Do you believe God feels His creation is holy or divine? Shall anyone be called holy? If one makes it into the house of the Father, is one still filthy or are they holy?"

God's creation was called "good" in the beginning, so it was holy, but it wasn't divine. It was set apart for God's purpose. 

I'm not sure what you mean by, "house of the Father"? 

Your quote of 2 Peter 1:4 tells us that we will be partakers of the divine nature. I believe this yes. It doesn't say that the divine nature is already inside of us from the beginning though, rather, that we must hold to his promises to be partakers of the divine nature. 

I stated, "Again, Matt. 19 doesn't state that "Jesus will be the Father..." 

You replied, "No, but Isa 9:6 does. Do you not believe it?"

It actually doesn't say, "Jesus will be the Father..." as you claim. 

"do you adopt a the trinitarian view that He is immutable..."?

Yes I do. The statements you mention (made perfect, inherited, etc.) are referencing his human nature which he "put on" not his immutable divine nature. 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2016 by danielwoods

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

"How do scriptures define a difference between holy and divine? Or is that just your idea imposed on them?"

The divine (that is God alone) makes things Holy. A survey of the Bible about "holiness" implies a setting apart for God's purpose. Moral goodness or purity is intrinsic to the meaning because only with such goodness can one serve God's purposes.

"Do you believe God feels His creation is holy or divine? Shall anyone be called holy? If one makes it into the house of the Father, is one still filthy or are they holy?"

God's creation was called "good" in the beginning, so it was holy, but it wasn't divine. It was set apart for God's purpose. 

I'm not sure what you mean by, "house of the Father"? 

Your quote of 2 Peter 1:4 tells us that we will be partakers of the divine nature. I believe this yes. It doesn't say that the divine nature is already inside of us from the beginning though, rather, that we must hold to his promises to be partakers of the divine nature. 

I stated, "Again, Matt. 19 doesn't state that "Jesus will be the Father..." 

You replied, "No, but Isa 9:6 does. Do you not believe it?"

It actually doesn't say, "Jesus will be the Father..." as you claim. 

"do you adopt a the trinitarian view that He is immutable..."?

Yes I do. The statements you mention (made perfect, inherited, etc.) are referencing his human nature which he "put on" not his immutable divine nature. 

Spoken like a true indoctrinated trinitarian.

 

Quote

 

I stated, "In the Biblical context there is only one divinity, that is God alone."

I answered this with scripture -

You answered back with a bunch of statements of your interpretation or worse yet  "The above was summarized with help from this website:  http://pool-of-siloam.com/the-divine-prerogatives/ "   - no offense, but I know trinitarian doctrine and I don't need yet ANOTHER interpretation of the scriptures. You asked for context from the scriptures, which I gave you. What you gave back was a bunch of nothing IMHO - not anything giving context from the scriptures themselves which support your assessment in the least. 

I agree that the Father is Holy and "Divine" since He alone is El Elyon the Most High El - not even Jesus claims that title per scripture. That is the point which you don't seem to grasp despite my repeating it. That doesn't make Jesus non-divine does it?

Quote

The statements you mention (made perfect, inherited, etc.) are referencing his human nature which he "put on" not his immutable divine nature. 

Unscriptural jibberish - sorry. Christ doesn't have "two natures." That is the heresy of the Catholic Church from 425 AD when they caused the Church of Syria and The Church of the East to split off because they would not accept it. Of course they claim the one divine nature which the "Nestorians" maintained was the heresy. Those eastern bishops never really went along with the Nicene "homoousios" formula either, which is why they had councils trying to reverse it with even more bishops than the Nicene, but Rome had gotten too powerful, and just made their own councils "ecumenical." My guess is you are not at all well versed in early Christian history.... you would do well to crack a book not inspired by the Romans....

Trinitarians don't think about the lines they are being fed. If it is speaking of what he inherited as a human, how come the scriptures say He inherited a name above every name, and was made so much higher than the angels...sounds, reads, and is exactly referring to inheriting a divine name.... try again.

Cheers

Edited February 20, 2016 by RevTestament

[danielwoods]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I agree that the Father is Holy and "Divine" since He alone is El Elyon the Most High El - not even Jesus claims that title per scripture. That is the point which you don't seem to grasp despite my repeating it. That doesn't make Jesus non-divine does it?

Jesus claimed to be divinity, just as God is. No man can make this claim. That's what made Jesus unique and the only one who could save. 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Jesus claimed to be divinity, just as God is. No man can make this claim. That's what made Jesus unique and the only one who could save. 

Circular argument.  We all have a spark of divinity- his was just infinitely perfected.  "He claimed divinity so therefore was" is what you assert, but yet no man can make the same claim?

Why not?  You assumption is that he WAS divine in the first place, and no man can ever be divine.  That is your assumption.  It is just an assertion.  I can assert that men ARE also divine and it is as valid as your assertion.  There is no basis for judgement between the two assertions.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Spoken like a true indoctrinated trinitarian.

 

I answered this with scripture -

You answered back with a bunch of statements of your interpretation or worse yet  "The above was summarized with help from this website:  http://pool-of-siloam.com/the-divine-prerogatives/ "   - no offense, but I know trinitarian doctrine and I don't need yet ANOTHER interpretation of the scriptures. You asked for context from the scriptures, which I gave you. What you gave back was a bunch of nothing IMHO - not anything giving context from the scriptures themselves which support your assessment in the least. 

I agree that the Father is Holy and "Divine" since He alone is El Elyon the Most High El - not even Jesus claims that title per scripture. That is the point which you don't seem to grasp despite my repeating it. That doesn't make Jesus non-divine does it?

Unscriptural jibberish - sorry. Christ doesn't have "two natures." That is the heresy of the Catholic Church from 425 AD when they caused the Church of Syria and The Church of the East to split off because they would not accept it. Of course they claim the one divine nature which the "Nestorians" maintained was the heresy. Those eastern bishops never really went along with the Nicene "homoousios" formula either, which is why they had councils trying to reverse it with even more bishops than the Nicene, but Rome had gotten too powerful, and just made their own councils "ecumenical." My guess is you are not at all well versed in early Christian history.... you would do well to crack a book not inspired by the Romans....

Trinitarians don't think about the lines they are being fed. If it is speaking of what he inherited as a human, how come the scriptures say He inherited a name above every name, and was made so much higher than the angels...sounds, reads, and is exactly referring to inheriting a divine name.... try again.

Cheers

Agree.

The word "nature" simply asserts what a thing is.  Man's nature is to be a man.  If that man is divine, then his nature as a man is to be divine.  No need to postulate 2 separate natures as if a nature is something more than a description of what one's abilities are.

Your nature might be to be divine or to be carnal, intelligent or stupid, stubborn or easy going.  You do not have two natures because you are both stubborn and carnal, or a pessimist and logical.  Your nature is to be both or all four- whatever you ARE is your "nature".

"Two natures" = category mistake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

But of course I already posted that.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Jesus claimed to be divinity, just as God is. No man can make this claim. That's what made Jesus unique and the only one who could save. 

No offense, but you are speaking out from "trinitarian glasses" which won't let you see what the scriptures say. Nowhere does Jesus say I am divine, and you can't be like me. He does say I am the Son of God, and the NT does say we can be partakers of the divine nature like Him and with Him. You are simply buying into the trinitarian interpretation that we cannot. Everything you have said on the matter is a trinitarian interpretation....but is not what the scriptures say. The scriptures teach the opposite of what you keep trying to assert. You have been blinded by the trinitarian glasses. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it is just the way it is. Try stepping back and seeing what the scriptures actually say.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

The word "nature" simply asserts what a thing is.  Man's nature is to be a man.  If that man is divine, then his nature as a man is to be divine.  No need to postulate 2 separate natures as if a nature is something more than a description of what one's abilities are.

Your nature might be to be divine or to be carnal, intelligent or stupid, stubborn or easy going.  You do not have two natures because you are both stubborn and carnal, or a pessimist and logical.  Your nature is to be both or all four- whatever you ARE is your "nature".

"Two natures" = category mistake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

But of course I already posted that.

Yeah, the trinitarian theologians came up with the "2 natures of Christ" thing for this very reason - so they could dismiss those scriptures which show that Christ changes. It was their answer to criticism of their "immutable" doctrine - trying to make Christ the same as the Father without saying it. The Eastern bishops, which btw were centered in Antioch where Christians were first called Christian, were "obviously" just a bunch of dumb hillbillies who didn't know their past, and were just a bunch of idiots compared to the cultured Romans.....of course the Roman Church historians don't say that. It is always good to look at more than one source of history, because the history of those who wrote it is usually one sided.... just the way it has always been.

 

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree.

The word "nature" simply asserts what a thing is.  Man's nature is to be a man.  If that man is divine, then his nature as a man is to be divine.  No need to postulate 2 separate natures as if a nature is something more than a description of what one's abilities are.

Your nature might be to be divine or to be carnal, intelligent or stupid, stubborn or easy going.  You do not have two natures because you are both stubborn and carnal, or a pessimist and logical.  Your nature is to be both or all four- whatever you ARE is your "nature".

"Two natures" = category mistake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

But of course I already posted that.

Our language is as limited as we are and our ability to describe things we've never seen before is also limited to describing those things by comparing them to things we have seen. 

So, Jesus being the only person with dual natures defies our common definition of "nature". I agree with this. However, for lack of a better term to describe his being, who he is and was, we use the term dual nature because we don't have another term to use that describes what we see. 

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." This is a description that defies definition. It describes only one person in history. By putting on flesh he is acquiring an additional nature. 

[danielwoods]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No offense, but you are speaking out from "trinitarian glasses" which won't let you see what the scriptures say. Nowhere does Jesus say I am divine, and you can't be like me. He does say I am the Son of God, and the NT does say we can be partakers of the divine nature like Him and with Him. You are simply buying into the trinitarian interpretation that we cannot. Everything you have said on the matter is a trinitarian interpretation....but is not what the scriptures say. The scriptures teach the opposite of what you keep trying to assert. You have been blinded by the trinitarian glasses. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it is just the way it is. Try stepping back and seeing what the scriptures actually say.

Tell me where the Bible actually states that we will progress like Jesus did and become divine as God is?

You will notice that it doesn't say "In the beginning was a man who then progressed to became the Word..." It says, "In the beginning was the Word and... the Word was God..." 

 

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Tell me where the Bible actually states that we will progress like Jesus did and become divine as God is?

You will notice that it doesn't say "In the beginning was a man who then progressed to became the Word..." It says, "In the beginning was the Word and... the Word was God..." 

 

Yes, but the beginning of what?
God was at the beginning of this creation, but there is no reason to believe there had never been another creation.

And since we don't only accept the Bible there is absolutely no reason we have to prove something from the Bible alone.

[RevTestament]

11 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Tell me where the Bible actually states that we will progress like Jesus did and become divine as God is?

It is all over the Bible - much moreso than the Book of Mormon actually. The Bible doesn't come out and say it in those words because it is the hidden things of God which Christ revealed. It is the oracles of God. Read Hebrews 5 for more on that. God doesn't do things the way you think He should - He does them His way, which btw was the way of Christ. If He wanted to make everything plain Jane He would have appeared to His prophets, and to everyone so they would be left with no doubt - but He doesn't - why not? Because He showed what He wanted to in Christ - Christ showed the way to the holiest of all as Hebrews says. That wasn't just His path or the scripture would be null and void. If you look back to my comparison between what the Bible actually says and the interpretation of men, you will see a difference on each critical point

(Well when I inserted that link, I lost some text- I think I suggested getting a Restored Name KJV to help you begin to appreciate the Godhead - one can be had for free from theword.net)

Quote

You will notice that it doesn't say "In the beginning was a man who then progressed to became the Word..." It says, "In the beginning was the Word and... the Word was God..." 

Yep. I'm missing your point. Jesus was YHWH Elohim with the Father per Gen 3:22. That, however, does not make Him El Elyon, the Most High. Scripturally it is not there. If you ever understand that outside of trinitarianism, you will begin to see the nature of God. Maybe try to understand the difference between El/Elim, Eloah/Elohim, and the English "God" for starters. "God" gets used for all those 4 Hebrew words in the English Bibles. But what did they originally mean? The Hebrews had different words for a reason. Just understanding that will help you on your way to perhaps seeing the order of heaven. There are many other things, but that is a start. Just using "God" for everything "hides" the nature of the Godhead/Godhede as your friend put it.

Edited February 22, 2016 by RevTestament