Anakin7 Posted October 18, 2018 Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) Maureen, the following from my LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Archives from a non LDS Christian who has been doing research on christian history for a # of years - his main page - https://www.christian-history.org/ and his material on The Council of Nicea from which he has written a book about as well - https://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea.html . The 2nd link has material on Christ Jesus existing inside God The Father that was taught. Thank you for your time. I Hope and pray that you have a True Grace Empowered day/night. The Atonement It Is the Central doctrine Washing My Garment/robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS, saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior Edited October 19, 2018 by Anakin7
co-eternal Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 (edited) On 10/17/2018 at 1:14 PM, Anon the Great said: You are correct, but He never meant we could control the power of Yahweh as gods. All power belong to One Yahweh Elohim that is in everything. That One source supplies the power to all life, including ours, which he gives to us, so we can understand words as mortals of having temporal powers of God. His power and glory belongs to Him. If we enjoy the power, it is only used to glorify Him. We are supposed to be poor in spirit to acknowledge that fact. The power as gods we have as mortals comes from God's grace through to sun that creates the food we eat. Yahweh said we are like Him to know good and evil ideas as mortals, who He was speaking to, but His words have nothing to do with His power and glory. We are to love his Character, not His Power. The glory and power belong to the Father. Jesus taught us how to glorify Him correctly. That is not what the scriptures say. The scriptures say there are more than one God. The most visible are God the Father and God the Son. In Gethsemany, God the Son prays to his Father - God the Father. How can he be his own Father or His own Son? He can not, the Father and the Son are two separate and distinct individuals. And there are many examples of more than one God in both the New and Old Testaments. So, do you believe Jesus when he talks of his Father or do you not believe Jesus - which now becomes a bit tricky, It is much easier that they are separate beings. And there are also multiple references in both testaments about Angels being Gods. Do you rationalize that to mean something other han what the words say, or do you believe the words as they are written. As to the post my post in which you replied, why does God call us his children? Do children become parents? Isn't that what he is telling us by calling us his children- that we will become parents - Gods. Do you believe what the Bible is saying or not? It is saying that, those are the words. Edited October 19, 2018 by co-eternal
bluebell Posted October 19, 2018 Author Posted October 19, 2018 On 10/14/2018 at 6:59 PM, Anon the Great said: Bluebell, Why is sin called a debt or trespass in scripture? How do the 10 Commandments relate to debt and trespassing? It is likely called a debt because the scriptures often refer to how we pay a price for sin, and that it is a price we cannot pay (ie. debt). When we are released from having to pay the price for our sins through the Atonement, it can be said that our debts have been forgiven. The definition of trespass is "to pass over, to go beyond one's right in place or act." Sin is probably referred to as a trespass in scripture because it is an act of someone going beyond where they are allowed to go.
Maureen Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 On 10/18/2018 at 6:08 AM, Anakin7 said: Maureen, the following from my LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Archives from a non LDS Christian who has been doing research on christian history for a # of years - his main page - https://www.christian-history.org/ and his material on The Council of Nicea from which he has written a book about as well - https://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea.html . The 2nd link has material on Christ Jesus existing inside God The Father that was taught. Thank you for your time. I Hope and pray that you have a True Grace Empowered day/night.... On the 2nd link I found this: Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is: Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind … Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (ibid. 5) Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity. In other words Tertullian sees the 2nd person of the Trinity as just the thoughts of the 1st person of the Trinity, the Father. I do not believe this or understand the Trinity in this way. For me, God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, before the world even was created. The persons of the Trinity have relationships with each other. We as God's creation have a human nature, but there are multiple humans with each of us having our own nature. But because there can only be ONE God, there can only be ONE divine being. Therefore when we try to understand God (the Trinity) we must realize that God cannot be made into parts or separated into parts because God is ONE. The persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, but THEY are ONE God. M.
bluebell Posted October 19, 2018 Author Posted October 19, 2018 2 hours ago, Anon the Great said: Ok. Thank you for the reply. So then, you believe God inspired the monks and priests in the 9th century to figure out that God's justice requires a punishment forever for not believing the penal substitution view of the cross, and the Pope has the right to correct and expand the doctrine of the first century Christians. No, I don't believe that. Quote That is assumed to be true as part of your belief system based on your definition of debt. No it's not. My definition of debt does not then mean that believe that God inspired months to figure out His justice requires punishment for not believing in the penal substitution.
theplains Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 On 10/14/2018 at 8:05 PM, bluebell said: If human effort was not required it would mean that people can do nothing and be saved. Is that what you believe? Works are the evidence of a saving faith, not the means to it. Jim
bluebell Posted October 19, 2018 Author Posted October 19, 2018 22 minutes ago, theplains said: Works are the evidence of a saving faith, not the means to it. Jim Faith without works is dead, being alone. To paraphrase CS Lewis, arguing about whether grace or works is more important in salvation is like trying to argue that one blade in a pair of scissors is more important than the other one. 3
bluebell Posted October 20, 2018 Author Posted October 20, 2018 15 hours ago, Anon the Great said: Then you are ignoring the facts in history and assuming the Christians in the 1st century believed like you do, but didn't. As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. Don't do the research, and do not change your mind. God bless you on your path. No I'm not. I don't see it as significant if the 1st Century Christians believed like I do. (Stop putting words into people's mouths. You are really bad at it). 2
Anakin7 Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 On October 19, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Maureen said: On the 2nd link I found this: Here's Tertullian's very interesting explanation of what logos is: Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind … Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are? (ibid. 5) Logos is that voice you hear inside yourself when you are thinking. At least, that's a rough estimation of what logos means. Tertullian goes out of his way to describe it as "a second person within you" because he's bringing up the Logos of God as a second Person of the Trinity. In other words Tertullian sees the 2nd person of the Trinity as just the thoughts of the 1st person of the Trinity, the Father. I do not believe this or understand the Trinity in this way. For me, God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, before the world even was created. The persons of the Trinity have relationships with each other. We as God's creation have a human nature, but there are multiple humans with each of us having our own nature. But because there can only be ONE God, there can only be ONE divine being. Therefore when we try to understand God (the Trinity) we must realize that God cannot be made into parts or separated into parts because God is ONE. The persons of the Trinity are distinct from each other, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, but THEY are ONE God. M. Maureen, sorry I have not been around for a few days I have been serving God The Father The Monarch Of The Universe in The Name of Christ Jesus The Vice Monarch, Lord Of Life, Lord, Redeemer, Savior, God, King, Master of The Universe, by way of The Awesome Sanctifier and Testator of the Universe The Holy Ghost/Spirit. Thank you for your response, I understand your disagreement on this however that is how the trinity was taught by Tertullian who from my understanding was not criticized for this teaching. He was/is considered the Father of Latin Christianity from my understanding as was an attorney/lawyer and was well known for his articulating his thoughts. And Paul Pavao here who has researched this for years now show that this was the teaching in response to the Arians at the council of Nicea. Did you read all of his pages regarding this ? .And there are a # of multiple forms/models/versions of the trinity all of which make the claim theres is the orthodox, Christian, Biblical, correct one - Western/Eastern/Athanasion,/Augustinian/ Economic/Essential/Social/Bulttman. We believe in The True Godhead or to use a more academic vocabulary a - Ancient, Monarch, Eastern, Economic, Social, Godhead, Trinity. Now to your word usage when you say "One" is it absolute or composite ?, Is "Being" an entity or nature or both ?, I ask because I have read/seen heard/been told that the word "nature and being are the same or related. You also state that God cannot be made into parts yet the 3 persons of the trinity are "separate". I have thoughts on this but time is short I must go serve my wife and possibly go to work with some of my evangelical friends. Time is sacred/precious, not much of it in my life. If you respond please be brief, than you. May True Grace be with you and this you love. The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine Washing My garment/Robe In His Blood In his Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior
Maureen Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) On 10/22/2018 at 8:34 AM, Anakin7 said: Maureen, sorry I have not been around for a few days I have been serving God The Father The Monarch Of The Universe in The Name of Christ Jesus The Vice Monarch, Lord Of Life, Lord, Redeemer, Savior, God, King, Master of The Universe, by way of The Awesome Sanctifier and Testator of the Universe The Holy Ghost/Spirit. Thank you for your response, I understand your disagreement on this however that is how the trinity was taught by Tertullian who from my understanding was not criticized for this teaching. He was/is considered the Father of Latin Christianity from my understanding as was an attorney/lawyer and was well known for his articulating his thoughts. And Paul Pavao here who has researched this for years now show that this was the teaching in response to the Arians at the council of Nicea. Did you read all of his pages regarding this ? .And there are a # of multiple forms/models/versions of the trinity all of which make the claim theres is the orthodox, Christian, Biblical, correct one - Western/Eastern/Athanasion,/Augustinian/ Economic/Essential/Social/Bulttman. We believe in The True Godhead or to use a more academic vocabulary a - Ancient, Monarch, Eastern, Economic, Social, Godhead, Trinity. Now to your word usage when you say "One" is it absolute or composite ?, Is "Being" an entity or nature or both ?, I ask because I have read/seen heard/been told that the word "nature and being are the same or related. You also state that God cannot be made into parts yet the 3 persons of the trinity are "separate". I have thoughts on this but time is short I must go serve my wife and possibly go to work with some of my evangelical friends. Time is sacred/precious, not much of it in my life. If you respond please be brief, than you. May True Grace be with you and this you love.... @Anakin7, I am not familiar with Tertullian, and I have no wish to read extensively into this, but from what I have gathered, some of his thoughts on the Trinity do not follow how I view the Trinity. For example from Wikipedia: Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the "substance" of Tertullian, however, was a material substance that did not refer to a single God, but to the sharing of a portion of the substance of the Father (the only being who was fully God) with the Son and, through the Son, with the Holy Spirit.[12] He wrote his understanding of the three members of the trinity after becoming a Montanist.[11] The bold part I definitely do not agree with, therefore I cannot agree with Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity. For my own description of the Trinity, I use the word "being" to differentiate from the word "person" to make it somewhat clear how the Trinity understands the persons of the Trinity from God. For example, there is one God in three persons, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but there are NOT three Gods (beings) there is only ONE God. And the better word to describe the persons of the Trinity is "distinct". The Father is the Father and not the Son or Holy Spirit, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; they are distinct from each other. Because God is One, we can't see the persons of the Trinity as parts of one God, because God cannot be separated into parts, he is One. The persons of the Trinity can be seen as God, individually and collectively. If I am having a conversation about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God, if I am having a conversation about the Father and the Son, I am talking about God. I wasn't expecting to have this lengthy conversation regarding the Trinity, since it somewhat veers off the topic of the OP. M. Edited October 23, 2018 by Maureen
Anakin7 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Maureen said: @Anakin7, I am not familiar with Tertullian, and I have no wish to read extensively into this, but from what I have gathered, some of his thoughts on the Trinity do not follow how I view the Trinity. For example from Wikipedia: Influenced by Stoic philosophy, the "substance" of Tertullian, however, was a material substance that did not refer to a single God, but to the sharing of a portion of the substance of the Father (the only being who was fully God) with the Son and, through the Son, with the Holy Spirit.[12] He wrote his understanding of the three members of the trinity after becoming a Montanist.[11] The bold part I definitely do not agree with, therefore I cannot agree with Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity. For my own description of the Trinity, I use the word "being" to differentiate from the word "person" to make it somewhat clear how the Trinity understands the persons of the Trinity from God. For example, there is one God in three persons, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but there are NOT three Gods (beings) there is only ONE God. And the better word to describe the persons of the Trinity is "distinct". The Father is the Father and not the Son or Holy Spirit, the Son is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; they are distinct from each other. Because God is One, we can't see the persons of the Trinity as parts of one God, because God cannot be separated into parts, he is One. The persons of the Trinity can be seen as God, individually and collectively. If I am having a conversation about the Holy Spirit, I am talking about God, if I am having a conversation about the Father and the Son, I am talking about God. I wasn't expecting to have this lengthy conversation regarding the Trinity, since it somewhat veers off the topic of the OP. M. Thank you Maureen for your explanation, I am still not getting what you believe what "Being" is and also what a "person" is in relation to the Trinity [Which Form/Model/Version ? ]. Also you state that God is "in" three persons. Do you mean inside three persons or three persons "in" one God ?. The Reason I ask I am told both formulas from different non LDS christians and from what I have read, there is a difference. You also state that God is a "he", I am told and read that God has no gender but we call him "Father" and "He" to accommodate our minds but in reality God is genderless, no physical reality [ there goes Christ Jesus Resurrected body if inside of God or God being inside "Him"]. Anyway just sharing my thoughts, have a True Grace empowered day/night. Anakin7 LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior
Maureen Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) @Anakin7, you keep using the phrase "inside of" which I don't follow. Can I ask you why you think "inside of" God is important or relevant in understanding who or what is God? I use the pronoun "He" because as a human being it's just easier to refer to God with that pronoun. God is shown as a Father figure to his creation. But in terms of a literal being I understand God as being genderless. M. Edited October 23, 2018 by Maureen
Anakin7 Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 15 hours ago, Maureen said: @Anakin7, you keep using the phrase "inside of" which I don't follow. Can I ask you why you think "inside of" God is important or relevant in understanding who or what is God? I use the pronoun "He" because as a human being it's just easier to refer to God with that pronoun. God is shown as a Father figure to his creation. But in terms of a literal being I understand God as being genderless. M. Maureen thank you for your reply, it is appreciated. Time is short - the reason I use the phrase "inside "is because in the past I have read/seen in theological books/journals/papers/tracts and hearing/listening to individuals of the evangelical christian house that "within" the nature, essence, being of God there are three persons... in relation to God. So God has no shape or form [Like air] without body/parts [which nullifies Christ Jesus glorious resurrected body ] . So there is God 1 Level/Tier of reality, what has a nature , a 2nd level/tier of reality and realm within the nature ,a a 3rd level/tier within the nature where the 3 "persons" reside. I know about the 3 "who's" and 1 "what" in non LDS christian terminology. So God appears in human form just for our convenience, and he has no passionate agape love for mankind [John 3:16]. is genderless as well. I am reminded of a Jack Chick tract where God who is anthropomorphic is form [ Well he gets that right] approx 100 feet tall with no eyes/ears/nose/eyebrows [faceless] sitting on a throne judging a individual the size of a small dog in comparison to God. This is not the True Christian/Biblical god I believe in. This is not the God of the True Prophets/Hebrews/Israelites of the O.T nor of the True Prophets/Apostles/Saints/Christians of the N.T., this to me is the god of the agenda drivin professors/scholars/theologians, and not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. It's great to pray to God knowing that he is really there for me. You probably disagree with everything I said, that is fine. Must rest to go to work with some of my evangelical friends this day.Have a True Grace Empowered day. The Atonement It Is the Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior
co-eternal Posted October 24, 2018 Posted October 24, 2018 The name of this forum is Mormon Dialog, I will speak entirely from an LDS perspective. This topic asks the question about how we teach the Atonement.. From the perspective of this verse, I don't see that as a problem of teaching but of learning. D&C 76 7 And to them will I areveal all bmysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. 8 Yea, even the wonders of aeternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. God has revealed the nature of the atonement, how it actually works. But understanding that is predicated on knowing and understanding other revealed doctrines, doctrines that have been rejected by most of the LDS. I Know exactly how the Atonement accomplishes what it claims. How do I know, because I've put away all my superstitions, my preconceived ideas, the philosophies of men and studied what the prophets of the restoration taught - without prejudice towards them and the doctrine they teach. It was not easy to give up my beliefs and prejudices, to set them aside while giving attention to what they taught. But in time, I gave up my beliefs and prejudices in favor of the eternal truths taught by those called to restore these truths. As a result, I know how the Atonement works. I know exactly what it takes to be exalted. I know what role the Blood of Christ plays. I know what happened in the Garden. I know how God became God and Christ became Christ. I know how I came to be where I am. I know what is next for me and what is expected of me. I know that some of you will say that is not possible, I just can not know these things. But to them I'll remind you of Matthew 7 7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? Do you believe the scriptures? Do you believe that God sent A prophet to restore lost Eternal Truths? Do you believe he fulfilled his calling and restored lost Eternal Truths? Do you believe prophets of God were chosen to continue in the Path of Joseph Smith and teach the truths he restored? Do you believe those prophets taught those restored truths? Do you believe thost restored truths were recorded for us to read? Have you sought out those restored truths? Have you embraced those restored truths? If not, why not?
Maureen Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) Quote ...the reason I use the phrase "inside "is because in the past I have read/seen in theological books/journals/papers/tracts and hearing/listening to individuals of the evangelical christian house that "within" the nature, essence, being of God there are three persons... in relation to God.... In this sense using the word "within" or "inside of" is probably not the best way to describe God. As opposed to seeing "persons" as inside or within God, it's easier to see God as these persons, God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Quote ...So God has no shape or form [Like air] without body/parts [which nullifies Christ Jesus glorious resurrected body ]... My understanding of Judaism is that God is formless. For Mainstream Christianity, God is spirit. How to interpret that or explain that is another question. But Christianity does believe that the only person of the Trinity to be fully human and fully divine is Jesus. He was resurrected with a corporeal body, a glorified body, but nonetheless a body. Quote ...So there is God 1 Level/Tier of reality, what has a nature , a 2nd level/tier of reality and realm within the nature ,a a 3rd level/tier within the nature where the 3 "persons" reside... The persons of the Trinity are seen as equal in glory and nature. None of the persons of the Trinity are above or greater than the other, they are coequal and coeternal. Quote ...So God appears in human form just for our convenience, and he has no passionate agape love for mankind [John 3:16]. is genderless as well... Not sure what you mean by passionate, but if you're referring to the term, "without body, parts and passions" that typically means that God does not require anything outside himself for existence, since God is existence. God does not have a body therefore he does not require air to breathe, food to eat for his existence. God is outside time and space because God created time and space. But he also chooses to interact with humankind who exists in a time and space environment. Agape Love is selfless, sacrificial and unconditional, God is Agape Love. Quote ...God who is anthropomorphic is form... Scripture describes God in anthropomorphic form because it's easier for humans to relate to a divine being with human attributes. Scripture also describes God as a door or with wings. @Anakin7, you are correct that I do not agree with your interpretation on how Trinitarians understand God. M. Edited October 25, 2018 by Maureen
Anakin7 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 Thank you again Maureen for sharing your thoughts which we disagree on. I do not adhere to the god of the scholars/theologians/philosophers but to the God of the True O.T Prophets, Hebrew's, Israelites, N.T. Prophets, Apostles, Saints, Christians. May True Grace be with you and all you love. The Atonement, It is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
Anakin7 Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 (edited) Will get back to this when time allows, thank you. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited October 25, 2018 by Anakin7
Navidad Posted October 25, 2018 Posted October 25, 2018 21 minutes ago, Maureen said: In this sense using the word "within" or "inside of" is probably not the best way to describe God. As opposed to seeing "persons" as inside or within God, it's easier to see God as these persons, God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. My understanding of Judaism is that God is formless. For Mainstream Christianity, God is spirit. How to interpret that or explain that is another question. But Christianity does believe that the only person of the Trinity to be fully human and fully divine is Jesus. He was resurrected with a corporeal body, a glorified body, but nonetheless a body. The persons of the Trinity are seen as equal in glory and nature. None of the persons of the Trinity are above or greater than the other, they are coequal and coeternal. Not sure what you mean by passionate, but if you're referring to the term, "without body, parts and passions" that typically means that God does not require anything outside himself for existence, since God is existence. God does not have a body therefore he does not require air to breathe, food to eat for his existence. God is outside time and space because God created time and space. But he also chooses to interact with humankind who exists in a time and space environment. Agape Love is selfless, sacrificial and unconditional, God is Agape Love. Scripture describe God in anthropomorphic form because it's easier for humans to relate to a divine being with human attributes. Scripture also describes God as a door or with wings. @Anakin7, you are correct that I do not agree with your interpretation on how Trinitarians understand God. M. Hi Maureen - I usually avoid doctrinal discussions but I want to say "I am with you." You have done a masterful job of responding to all the questions. I also do not agree with their interpretation of how Trinitarians understand God. 1
Recommended Posts