A Different God?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

This is a good question. I am not sure where I see agreement at this time. I am still working on getting an accurate grasp of the LDS viewpoint. Much of the language is the same when Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals speak about God, but we often understand the meaning of the language differently. In his "Introduction" LDS scholar Stephen Robinson makes this point:

"Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals generally employ the same theological terms, but we usually define them differently, and this quite often makes communication more difficult than if we spoke different religious languages entirely" (How Wide the Divide?, 13).

Without a definable distinction, one has a distinction without a difference.

That is called "sameness" by most.  Semantics.

But I definitely do not worship the God concept of pagan Greeks.  Take your pick.  Neoplatonism destroyed "Christianity".

 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Different Gods.

LDS: Many gods, Body of flesh and bones, god was once a man, matter is eternal not crated by God.

Christians: One God, God is spirit, God has always ben God. Time, space and matter created by God.

Not sure how we can possibly be calling them the same.  

deleted - it is really not worth it.  Drivel is just not worth responding to. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Storm Rider

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Mormons see it as the plan of God to raise man to his level..."This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Man cannot do that for himself. As John put it, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Why can't God communicate with us without using anthropomorphic terms? Doesn't that appear deceptive? It seems to me that if we can understand why he uses such terminology to communicate with us, then he really doesn't need that superfluous verbal camouflage. It makes more sense that he uses anthropomorphic terms to describe himself because that is the way he truly is.

God can and does both. For the evangelical God is understood both as our divine/infinite creator that transcends this world, and as our closest relationship, our Father. This understanding is derived from descriptions of him found in the bible. 

Is it deceptive for God to describe himself as our Father? I don't think so. But, that's my opinion. I don't think he ever intended to convey the idea that he is our Father physically, as our Earthly fathers are. In fact, in my view our relationship to God is a much deeper connection than our physical father could ever be. But, it's a good analogy that get's us started toward understanding the depth of the relationship he intended to create. 

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And every single principle in your response is taken directly from some theologian's writings.  I referenced scripture, and you reference theology.  I am not impressed.

According to this anthropomorphic theology of God, He's lying to us when He says that He's our Father.  And when Jesus teaches us to address Him as Our Father in our prayers, then by extension, Jesus is asking us to lie in our prayers.  And here all this time I thought God was a God of truth, who cannot lie.  Who knew? 

The problem here, danielwoods, is that you seem to care more for how 1,800 years of theologians have interpreted scripture than for the plain words of the scriptures themselves.  

As I stated in the above post, I don't think it's deceptive at all. Rather, I think that it is both an anthropomorphic description of our relationship (designed to describe what is difficult to grasp) and an actual description of our relationship to him as adoptive sons of God through Christ. I know of no biblical scripture that describes and teaches what the LDS claim, that God is literally our physical father as our earthly fathers are. 

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, but not a familial relationship, and that's my point.  To them, He's the vast unknowable whom they cannot possibly imagine.  Not their Father.

I guess one should file this under telling others what they believe. Because it certain doesn't match what I believe. For an evangelical, everyone who is a believer is family, and God is our Father. 

20 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you picture your relationship with the Father?  Is it the same as with Jesus?

It's an interesting question. I suppose I picture it in different ways depending on my life experience at the time. The older I get the more depth I experience in our relationship and how having our own children enhances our understanding of God.

Is it the same with Jesus? Generally, yes. Jesus is the reason that we have direct access to the Father. 

[Okrahomer]

2 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I know of no biblical scripture that describes and teaches what the LDS claim, that God is literally our physical father as our earthly fathers are. 

Apologies, but this is simply incorrect.  CFR (respectfully) that LDS claim "that God is literally our physical father..."  

[danielwoods]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Which is sad that they choose to lose this connection to Him, and do not believe their scriptures:

 Phillippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

What does the title King of kings mean to Evangelicals? Does it mean king of earthly kings? King of fictional kings? 

How do you know? Did He tell you? How about Jesus. Does He have DNA? When He is called the Father, will He stop having DNA or are u just guessing, and telling God your opinion about Him?

Since I'm unclear what you mean by "they choose to lose this connection to him..." I have no response. 

What does King of kings mean to Evangelicals? I imagine it means the same to the LDS, that there is no other king that is higher than Jesus. 

As far as DNA, the claim was made that we must be the same specie as God. Yet, there is no biblical scripture to back this up and further, God claims to be Spirit, not a man. Hence, my conclusion that God doesn't have DNA. Now, if you wish to insert the fact that God came in human form as Jesus, then yes he did clothe himself with DNA for that time period, but that certainly doesn't have any bearing on the idea that God the Father is the same specie as man, as was claimed. 

[danielwoods]

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Daniel, you introduce several ideas.  The doctrine of the Trinity states there are three Gods that are one in essence.  The three are distinct persons.  You seem to speak of God more in like with Modalist thought.  Who created God the Father or God the Son?  God the Son does not use anthropomorphic terms only - Jesus goes beyond anthropomorphic terms - he actually has a body of flesh and bone today.  

LDS see God's objective in creating us is to bring us into his presence eternally.  It is not man making himself God, but God making man gods.  This concept is scriptural and doctrinal.  Orthodoxy and Catholicism continue to teach it in various capacities and with degrees of limitation, but the doctrine has existed since the time of the first apostles and Jesus Christ. 

In my view, God wasn't created. He's the only uncreated being. 

And I probably do sound like a Modalist much of the time. But, I'm a trinitarian. 

[danielwoods]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't know how to say this more clearly that this: if we weren't of the same species, how could God possibly require that we refer to Him as FATHER? 

13 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Apologies, but this is simply incorrect.  CFR (respectfully) that LDS claim "that God is literally our physical father..."  

I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone what they believe or don't. I was simply responding to Stargazers statement (quoted above). My interpretation of his statement (and maybe I'm misinterpreting it) is that he is saying that God wouldn't have us call him Father unless he was actually, physically our father. You tell me what does he mean if that's not correct? 

[Okrahomer]

7 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Now, if you wish to insert the fact that God came in human form as Jesus, then yes he did clothe himself with DNA for that time period, but that certainly doesn't have any bearing on the idea that God the Father is the same specie as man, as was claimed. 

Does this mean you believe the resurrection of Christ was not physical; or that it is only temporary?

[Okrahomer]

9 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone what they believe or don't. I was simply responding to Stargazers statement (quoted above). My interpretation of his statement (and maybe I'm misinterpreting it) is that he is saying that God wouldn't have us call him Father unless he was actually, physically our father. You tell me what does he mean if that's not correct? 

Hebrews 12:9

 

And from LDS.org:

It is generally the Father, or Elohim, who is referred to by the title God. He is called the Father because he is the father of our spirits (Mal. 2:10; Num. 16:22; 27:16; Matt. 6:9; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 12:9). God the Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. He is all powerful (Gen. 18:14; Alma 26:35; D&C 19:1–3), all knowing (Matt. 6:8; 2 Ne. 2:24), and everywhere present through his Spirit (Ps. 139:7–12; D&C 88:7–13, 41). Mankind has a special relationship to God that sets man apart from all other created things: men and women are God’s spirit children (Ps. 82:6; 1 Jn. 3:1–3; D&C 20:17–18).

Edited April 2, 2016 by Okrahomer
Spelling

[danielwoods]

4 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Does this mean you believe the resurrection of Christ was not physical; or that it is only temporary?

I believe that it was and is physical. Jesus still has a resurrection body. 

[Okrahomer]

1 minute ago, danielwoods said:

I believe that it was and is physical. Jesus still has a resurrection body. 

OK.  I wasn't sure what you meant by "for that time period."

[danielwoods]

8 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Hebrews 12:9

 

Amd fro LDS.org:

It is generally the Father, or Elohim, who is referred to by the title God. He is called the Father because he is the father of our spirits (Mal. 2:10; Num. 16:22; 27:16; Matt. 6:9; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 12:9). God the Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. He is all powerful (Gen. 18:14; Alma 26:35; D&C 19:1–3), all knowing (Matt. 6:8; 2 Ne. 2:24), and everywhere present through his Spirit (Ps. 139:7–12; D&C 88:7–13, 41). Mankind has a special relationship to God that sets man apart from all other created things: men and women are God’s spirit children (Ps. 82:6; 1 Jn. 3:1–3; D&C 20:17–18).

I don't disagree with these statements. Being the Father of our spirit doesn't make the same claim that it appeared to me that Stargazer was making, because a Spirit isn't a type of specie. Of course, maybe I was misinterpreting what he meant. 

[Teancum]

On April 1, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

I recommend the book God Is Not One by Stephen Prothero if anyone is really interested in knowing factually whether various religions worship the same God though see that God in different ways.

 

https://books.google.com/books/about/God_Is_Not_One.html?id=27HofxQ-VGwC&hl=en

 

 

 

[Storm Rider]

2 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

In my view, God wasn't created. He's the only uncreated being. 

And I probably do sound like a Modalist much of the time. But, I'm a trinitarian. 

It gets confusing when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity (DT) and how individuals discuss God.  They too easily slip from the DT to Modalism.  I try to be careful when I discuss the topic to not confuse the two philosophies.  I would ask the same of you; it is already difficult enough.  There are things that can be said as Modalist that cannot be said as a Trinitarian.  

There is a large body of work within Mormonism that attempts to explain the First Cause in terms of Gods of other universes, dimensions, etc.  People here have heard me say several times that I don't go down that rabbit hole very often.  The concept creates more questions than it answers.  Brigham Young wisely stated that attempting to understand the First Cause was akin to an ant trying to guess the number of sand particles in the world.  Comprehending such a thing is too far above the human mind and it is better not to try.  

I approach this topic from a clean slate - there is God the Father who has always been God and there was never a time when he was not God.  This fits within Mormon doctrine, but I fall within a minority of individuals in that others are comfortable trying to go beyond that.  What I know is that we have one God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  That is as pure a doctrine of Mormon teaching as exists.  

The topic of man anthropomorphizing God is of value and worthy of discussion.  However, in my faith God brings us to him; man does not bring God to down to humanity.  

As a Trinitarian how do you dispute that One God does not have a body of flesh and bone when Jesus so clearly has one?  Does the essence that binds them into one God somehow deny the flesh of Christ or make of no affect on the oneness of God?

 I have had several conversations with others about John 5:19

             19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This scripture seems to say that Jesus can only do what he has seen the Father do or maybe see what the Father is doing.  If it is the latter, in present tense, then it creates a great deal of confusion.  However, if it is past tense - that Jesus does what he has seen the Father do - then it is not as troublesome for LDS, but remains troublesome for mainstream Christian thought.  How is it that Jesus only does what he has seen the Father do?  When Jesus spoke these words was he speaking completely or do you think it was more narrow in scope?  

LDS teachings and beliefs are based upon scripture.  Obviously, we may interpret scripture differently than Protestants or Catholics and others, but we stand firmly on scripture and the fact that the heavens remain open and God still speaks to mankind.

[Okrahomer]

8 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I don't disagree with these statements. Being the Father of our spirit doesn't make the same claim that it appeared to me that Stargazer was making, because a Spirit isn't a type of specie. Of course, maybe I was misinterpreting what he meant. 

My guess is that Stargazer was probably referring to Genesis 1:26 (and others):    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

 

25 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

I believe that it was and is physical. Jesus still has a resurrection body. 

We LDS also believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.  So, when we read scriptures like Hebrews 1:3, we understand it in a literal way:  If the physically-in-the-flesh-and-bone--resurrected Jesus Christ is the "express" (or exact) image of our Heavenly Father; then our Heavenly Father must also have a body of flesh and bone. (At least that's how we see it.)

I understand that evangelical belief differs on this point, and I also understand that it is quite an important difference; however, I'm glad that we do in fact actually share at least some belief--particularly our belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I have great appreciation and respect for your belief in God--even if we "see" Him a bit differently.

My apologies to you and Stargazer for inserting myself into your conversation.  I will bow out now.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

God can and does both. For the evangelical God is understood both as our divine/infinite creator that transcends this world, and as our closest relationship, our Father. This understanding is derived from descriptions of him found in the bible. 

Is it deceptive for God to describe himself as our Father? I don't think so. But, that's my opinion. I don't think he ever intended to convey the idea that he is our Father physically, as our Earthly fathers are. In fact, in my view our relationship to God is a much deeper connection than our physical father could ever be. But, it's a good analogy that get's us started toward understanding the depth of the relationship he intended to create. 

If God is "transcendent" he is not immanent, and therefore cannot have a close relationship with humanity.

Philosophers have tried to make him both, but have not been able to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion)

I know of no Evangelical writer who has solved the conundrum- do you?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

In my view, God wasn't created. He's the only uncreated being. 

And I probably do sound like a Modalist much of the time. But, I'm a trinitarian. 

What reason do you have for that belief?  What is the reasoning behind postulating that?

It seems like a circular argument to me- it is just assumed to be the case.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Since I'm unclear what you mean by "they choose to lose this connection to him..." I have no response. 

I dont know - you tell me. Do you believe that scripture is telling us to think it is not robbery to be equal to God?

Quote

What does King of kings mean to Evangelicals? I imagine it means the same to the LDS, that there is no other king that is higher than Jesus. 

As far as DNA, the claim was made that we must be the same specie as God. Yet, there is no biblical scripture to back this up and further, God claims to be Spirit, not a man. Hence, my conclusion that God doesn't have DNA. Now, if you wish to insert the fact that God came in human form as Jesus, then yes he did clothe himself with DNA for that time period, but that certainly doesn't have any bearing on the idea that God the Father is the same specie as man, as was claimed. 

The Father has not come to this earth except maybe for brief appearances. He sent His Son as His revelator. God does not claim to be spirit - Jesus said that the Father is spirit in order to try to teach the Jews not to worship Him in rote obedience. But as the Father of spirits, what does that make us? Spirits just like Him. If God says He made us in His image, I believe He is speaking  of our physical bodies which He made. There are lots of other scriptures on point, but my guess is you wiIl interpret them to suit your ideas of God.

I believe the Father gave us bodies for a reason, and that we will all be resurrected to a body for a reason. Im not saying God is the same specie as mortal man. TBH I have little idea how His body is made or fashioned. However, I believe He has a body in order to enjoy some aspects of life not available to a spirit.

[Spammer]

A few random thoughts:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is only one God. The one God shares a single essence and is in three persons. The doctrine does not teach there are three Gods who share one essence. There is only one God. Monotheism. 

2. In Orthodoxy, God is transcendent in his essence but immanent in his energies, which are also God. God is both transcendent and immanent. See St. Gregory Palamas for the philosophical justification. Gregory fought Neoplatonist influence in the Church and won. We celebrated St. Gregory last Sunday, the second Sunday in Great Lent. He has that place of honor on that day every year.

3. Neoplatonism posits a God who creates everything through a series of self emanations. God creates all things ex materia out of preeexisting material - that material is Himself. Everything that exists comes out of God and has a divine spark, whose brightness is in proportion to the distance from the divine center resulting from the emanations. Traditional Christianity says God created all things ex nihilo. Only God is divine, not the universe. God is everywhere present and fills all things, dwells simultaneously in every point in time and space, but is distinct and separate from those points. Neoplatonism erases the distinction. The Eastern Church condemned Neoplatonist-influenced teachings that crept in from time to time (e.g., Origen's teaching on pre existent souls; Evagrius of Pontus' individualistic spirituality that sought to free the mind from matter; the Western Scholasticism of Aquinas and Barlaam of Calabria in Italy; Augustine's doctrines of Original Sin and human depravity).  These were condemned by church councils and via St. Gregory Palamas. You can see why. There is little in common between Neoplatonism and Christianity.  The Eastern Church has always recognized this and fought against it.  Neoplatonism's corruption of Christianity occurred primarily through Augustine and is predominantly a Western affair ( this is why the Eastern Church does not consider Augustine a saint, although we do call him Blessed Augustine, because of his personal holiness).  .

Edited April 2, 2016 by Spammer

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Spammer said:

A few random thoughts:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is only one God. The one God shares a single essence and is in three persons. The doctrine does not teach there are three Gods who share one essence. There is only one God. Monotheism. 

2. In Orthodoxy, God is transcendent in his essence but immanent in his energies, which are also God. God is both transcendent and immanent. See St. Gregory Palamas for the philosophical justification. Gregory fought Neoplatonist influence in the Church and won. We celebrated St. Gregory last Sunday, the second Sunday in Great Lent. He has that place of honor on that day every year.

3. Neoplatonism posits a God who creates everything through a series of self emanations. God creates all things ex materia out of preeexisting material - that material is Himself. Everything that exists comes out of God and has a divine spark, whose brightness is in proportion to the distance from the divine center resulting from the emanations. Traditional Christianity says God created all things ex nihilo. Only God is divine, not the universe. God is everywhere present and fills all things, dwells simultaneously in every point in time and space, but is distinct and separate from those points. Neoplatonism erases the distinction. The Eastern Church condemned Neoplatonist-influenced teachings (e.g., Origen's teaching on pre existent souls; the individualistic spirituality of Evagrius of Pontus that sought to free us from all matter; the Western Scholasticism of Aquinas and Barlaam the Calabrian; Augustine's  doctrines of Original Sin and human depravity) in it's councils and via St. Gregory Palamas. You can see why. There is little in common between Neoplatonism and Christianity.  Neoplatonism's corruption of Christianity is Western affair.

I think saying something is one thing, but it is not as easy as saying it. When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity an outsider could easily say it does not make sense.  To me personally I have viewed it as a philosophical construct to both justify the divinity of Jesus without abandoning what the originators perceived as monotheism.  A true monotheist - Jews and Muslims - are adamant that a monotheist God cannot have a son.  The fact of God having a son creates two gods, which destroys the idea of monotheistic doctrine.  How to get around this challenge?  Essence - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate, distinct persons, but the mystical essence makes them one.  

This construct sounds silly to a an absolute monotheist.  He would state that you can say there is one God all you want, but you have three gods, which does not make them one just by saying so.  

LDS theology does not have a concept of "essence" that makes them one God.  We don't have that type of philosophical foundation that allows us to create such an idea.  We are more simplistic.  God had a Son - that makes two Gods and they sent the 2nd Comforter, the Holy Spirit, and that makes three members of the Godhead.  

I have always felt comfortable with the idea of being a monotheist because I worshiped the same God that Jesus told me to worship, the Father.  Yet, I don't have a problem believe that Jesus is divine, the Only Begotten Son of the Father.  Jesus said he would send the Comforter, which makes three - a Godhead that consists of three Gods that are one in purpose.  

Mainstream Christianity feels compelled to create a mystery - essence to explain it in the hopes of maintaining a facade of monotheism. Why?

[Spammer]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think saying something is one thing, but it is not as easy as saying it. When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity an outsider could easily say it does not make sense.  To me personally I have viewed it as a philosophical construct to both justify the divinity of Jesus without abandoning what the originators perceived as monotheism.  A true monotheist - Jews and Muslims - are adamant that a monotheist God cannot have a son.  The fact of God having a son creates two gods, which destroys the idea of monotheistic doctrine.  How to get around this challenge?  Essence - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate, distinct persons, but the mystical essence makes them one.  

This construct sounds silly to a an absolute monotheist.  He would state that you can say there is one God all you want, but you have three gods, which does not make them one just by saying so.  

LDS theology does not have a concept of "essence" that makes them one God.  We don't have that type of philosophical foundation that allows us to create such an idea.  We are more simplistic.  God had a Son - that makes two Gods and they sent the 2nd Comforter, the Holy Spirit, and that makes three members of the Godhead.  

I have always felt comfortable with the idea of being a monotheist because I worshiped the same God that Jesus told me to worship, the Father.  Yet, I don't have a problem believe that Jesus is divine, the Only Begotten Son of the Father.  Jesus said he would send the Comforter, which makes three - a Godhead that consists of three Gods that are one in purpose.  

Mainstream Christianity feels compelled to create a mystery - essence to explain it in the hopes of maintaining a facade of monotheism. Why?

The construct sounds silly to Jews and Muslims, but not to Trinitarians.  Trinitarians insist they're monotheists and point to the philosophical arguments about the mystical essence as justification. Jews, Muslims and Trinitarians will deny that Mormons are monotheists. Take your pick.  Where you lean, is where you land.

As to the 'Why?', it's because traditional Christianity seeks to balance God's oneness with his multiplicity.  The belief is that God is somehow both.  Hence, the language and imagery that's employed, which can be modified, come an go, as needed, so long as the two concepts (oneness and multiplicity) are continually held in a dynamic tension.  That's what makes Trinitarians Trinitarians.  Relax one or the other and you cease to be orthodox. If it works, it works.  If it doesn't, it doesn't. That's what distinguishes between insider and outsider.  For me, personally, if, as I do, I put my faith in the validity of the decisions of the Orthodox church councils that selected and determined the New Testament canon, I see no way without falling into circular reasoning to avoid accepting the same Orthodox councils' decisions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. I see no valid ground for accepting one set of decisions and rejecting the other, without ending up in a vicious circle that destroys the ground for both.  

 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Spammer said:

A few random thoughts:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity says that there is only one God. The one God shares a single essence and is in three persons. The doctrine does not teach there are three Gods who share one essence. There is only one God. Monotheism. 

2. In Orthodoxy, God is transcendent in his essence but immanent in his energies, which are also God. God is both transcendent and immanent. See St. Gregory Palamas for the philosophical justification. Gregory fought Neoplatonist influence in the Church and won. We celebrated St. Gregory last Sunday, the second Sunday in Great Lent. He has that place of honor on that day every year.

3. Neoplatonism posits a God who creates everything through a series of self emanations. God creates all things ex materia out of preeexisting material - that material is Himself. Everything that exists comes out of God and has a divine spark, whose brightness is in proportion to the distance from the divine center resulting from the emanations. Traditional Christianity says God created all things ex nihilo. Only God is divine, not the universe. God is everywhere present and fills all things, dwells simultaneously in every point in time and space, but is distinct and separate from those points. Neoplatonism erases the distinction. The Eastern Church condemned Neoplatonist-influenced teachings that crept in from time to time (e.g., Origen's teaching on pre existent souls; Evagrius of Pontus' individualistic spirituality that sought to free the mind from matter; the Western Scholasticism of Aquinas and Barlaam of Calabria in Italy; Augustine's doctrines of Original Sin and human depravity).  These were condemned by church councils and via St. Gregory Palamas. You can see why. There is little in common between Neoplatonism and Christianity.  The Eastern Church has always recognized this and fought against it.  Neoplatonism's corruption of Christianity occurred primarily through Augustine and is predominantly a Western affair ( this is why the Eastern Church does not consider Augustine a saint, although we do call him Blessed Augustine, because of his personal holiness).  .

My dear friend Spammer, 

Love ya dude, but ... wow.

Those distinctions are  pretty.....vague, and let's just say I do not understand a word of it.

In a nice way.

Just keep it a "mystery" beyond language and we will get along fine.

They kicked Neoplatonism out the front door but forgot to close the windows and left the back door wide open.  It was in the language, in the culture and in the politics, in the way people thought- it was inescapable.

It was the "political correctness" of its day.  Your whole post is neoplatonic in linguistic style!  "ESSENCE"?  Three persons in one "essence" or one person in three essences- or whatever?  Transcendent in one way and immanent in another?  That's like black in some ways and white in others.  They are contradictory statements..  "A" in some ways and Not A in others.

Very sorry- no clue what that means 

Edited April 2, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Spammer said:

The construct sounds silly to Jews and Muslims, but not to Trinitarians.  Trinitarians insist they're monotheists and point to the philosophical arguments about the mystical essence as justifications. Jews, Muslims and Trinitarians will deny that Mormons are monotheists. Take your pick.  Where you lean, is where you land.

As to the 'Why?', it's because traditional Christianity seeks to balance God's oneness with his multiplicity.  The belief is that God is somehow both.  Hence, the language and imagery that's employed, which can be modified, come an go, as needed, so long as the two concepts (oneness and multiplicity) are continually held in a dynamic tension.  That's what makes Trinitarians Trinitarians.  Relax one or the other and you cease to be orthodox. If it works, it works.  If it doesn't, it doesn't. That's what distinguishes between insider and outsider.  For me, personally, if, as I do, I put my faith in the validity of the decisions of the Orthodox church councils that selected and determined the New Testament canon, I see no way without falling into circular reasoning to avoid accepting the same Orthodox councils' decisions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no valid ground for accepting one and rejecting the other, without ending up in a vicious circle.  At least to my mind...

 

The whole problem is that portions of Judaism were monotheistic at a certain point of history.

The comes Christianity, which makes Jesus God as well.  "OOPS how do we fit this in with monotheism?

Contradictory language!  That will do the trick!  And look over here- the Greeks have all this "essence stuff from Plato- let's just use that!"

The Mormon, restored answer is that God is a family name.  In my family we are all Bukowskis.  Six persons, one family named Bukowski.

Three persons, titled "God".  Father and son, Holy Ghost.(We won't get into HM and the HG being Wisdom to complicate it  )  But one family- that's the point.

Simple. Clear.  Council of Gods.

Ahhh.  Peace.