Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    It is all so confuserating.
    Which is what you get when a man claims to hear directly from God, suckers a bunch of people into following him, then spews forth "revelations" without thinking them through. God is not the author of confusion.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      That is your uninspired opinion, as there is a very direct comparison to what kind of sense we are to understand God as our Father:
      Yes. He is our creator.


      The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense.
      And was the ONLY begotten in the spiritual sense

      All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29).
      I've already addressed this. This is not talking about us being begotten by God the way the Son was. As I stated, Paul had just finished saying "for in Him we live and move and exist". Since He created us, He is our Father.

      Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense.
      Because He created our spirits. He did not beget us.

      [quote] Is there any comparison made to this spiritual sense in which we consider God our Father? Try this:

      "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9)

      This is not a direct comparison or claim that God sired our spirits with a fictional "Heavenly Mother". In fact, the writer of Hebrews had just finished saying:

      Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
      Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons

      Notice the terms "whom He receives" and "as sons". These are terms of adoption, meaning that God being the "father of their spirits" referred to them being adopted (received) into His family (as sons).

      You are correct. The "order" isn't necessary. Usually, it actually was the first person in numeric order, but there were some exceptions, which you pointed out. However, you are missing the point: that the prototokos is "chosen" from among other "fellows" ... the other "sons".
      No. From among His bretheren, the Jews. Again, you miss Moses' proclamation. There is yet another that proves the Jews are who God was referring to when He mentioned "fellows".

      Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.

      7UP: By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father has was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation".
      It was not given until the Ascension, not at creation. See Dan 7

      I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.
      I never said you claimed they were equal. I said you EQUATED them, meaning the Son was the same species as the angels, which the scripture does not do.


      We are all spirits Bill. Our spirit is our true self. Before Jesus entered mortality, he was a spirit. After he died (before the resurrection) his spirit still existed and was a messenger. Angels are spirits. You and I and every other single person are spirits. Your assumption that these "sons of God" are a different species is nothing but myth.
      Ecc 3:21 Who knows that the spirit of man ascends upward and the spirit of the beast descends downward to the earth

      So, are we now the same species as animals? They have spirits too according to Ecclesiastes...

      You are wrong Bill. The theory, from the moment that Joseph suggested it, was that Jesus was following the footsteps of God the Father, doing what God the Father had done. I can demonstrate that to you on another thread if you would like.

      I've already addressed this in another post.

      Your appeal to exceptions to the rule does not help you very much in your argument here. Especially when you realize that God is choosing from among sons either way.
      No, YOU assume that the bene elohim are sons the same way The Son is. God had ONE option, and that was The Son, His Wisdom, His Word.


      Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner?
      Because they were MADE, while The Son was begotten.

      They are all spirits. We are all spirits The difference is that Jesus was a perfect spirit and the others were not. We are not.
      Animals have spirits too.

      Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature.
      No He wasn't according to Mormon leaders. He had to EARN it.

      Jesus was superior in every way. The other sons of God were all imperfect/flawed/ignorant/etc. Hebrews 1 explains how Jesus was superior, unique, chosen, etc. There is no distinction of "species" as you claim.
      Nor is there any conflating the two as one species.

      Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title.
      He did. God is King of the Jews

      You are making an incoherent claim. Your assertion that Jesus had to die in order to become king is nonsense. “Jehovah is King forever and ever.”—Ps. 10:16.
      Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel."

      Luke 1:30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
      Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
      Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
      Luke 1:33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

      It only becomes incoherent when you believe the lie that Jehovah is solely Jesus pre-incarnate.



      "Having become so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:4)

      Your denial on this is mind-boggling. Who are "they" in this verse?
      The angels that the Jews were worshipping as their king.


      The Jews? That is ridiculous Bill.
      I never claimed that this was talking about Jesus having a better name than the Jews.

      The context is clearly speaking of the angels, the sons of God.
      It is speaking of why Jesus qualified to be their King, and thus qualified to be worshipped by them INSTEAD of the mere angels who were nothing more than God's servants. The writer of Hebrews was trying to get them to see that angels were not to be worshipped, but their King, who came from them (Hence the title of the book is called HEBREWS) as prophesied, was worthy to be worshipped. The proof was that He came from the Jews, as foretold, and was given their own royal proclamations of kingship by God Himself. How YOU keep mistaking that is what is mind boggling. The context is clear. You don't worship ANY angels. You worship ONLY your King, who is not an angel, He is a Jew.

      God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits.
      Yes. He was begotten, not made. All other spirits are made.

      Look again Bill. It was teaching the superiority of Jesus over the other spirits (angels / sons of God).
      IT DOES NOT SAY OTHER IN THIS PASSAGE!!

      Is that more clear??

      Your attempt to limit the scope of the Kingship of Jesus to just "the Jews" is not going to work.
      Sure it isn't. That's why God continually promised them a King from within their peoples, and the book is called Hebrews...

      Anybody at all can look at the concept of the passage and see that the scope is much larger than that.
      Only if they have Mormon blinders on.

      it is Heavenly, not earthly. It is Universal, not local.
      It is temporal.

      The section we are looking at is introduced with God "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
      Meaning that Jesus was far more than just a human being trying to CLAIM the Messiahship.

      Jesus was appointed heir of ALL THINGS.
      As Messiah. Hence their King.

      Not just heir of a single nation, the Jews.
      All believers are of Israel. Paul makes that clear. We gentiles are grafted in, but still members, and thus He is our King too.

      After speaking of Jesus being "anointed" from from his "fellows", verse 10 states: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands". The scope is larger than you claim.
      That part is talking about how the Son is God, and that He is eternal, while the works of His hand will perish. It is a claim to His divinity, and thus, another proof that He alone should be worshipped as King.

      His words and doctrine matches LDS teachings far closer than they match your "Trinity" views.
      Wait... wasn't Justin part of the "apostasy"? I guess you get to pick and choose which things of his you agree with, and toss the rest under the bus, huh?

      The Trinity had not yet been invented.
      There was no "inventing" it. Justin was not claiming two separate exalted humans who attained godhood at separate times in a premortal life. He was discussing how the Son was not the Father.

      Read it again, including the quote from Justin that you yourself provided. You will find no concept of God being a "single essence".
      Again, you do not dictate the context. Justin was showing Trypho and his associates that the Son was not the Father. Essence was in no way even a consideration.

      You find Jesus being referred to as an Angel
      You will also find John the Baptist's messengers referred to as aggelos in Luke 7:24.

      and "another God".
      An unfortunate limit in available terminology. But this does not apply ontological "otherness" for Justin. What he is saying (in perfect conformity with substantive Christian orthodoxy, given the undeveloped terminology of his time) is that the Logos is not merely some kind of "emanation" of God the Father (like the Shekinah Glory in the Old Testament, which is what Trypho the Jew, following Philo, had in mind via the sunlight from the sun analogy), but something/Someone distinct from the Father as a Person (a word Justin would not have used) in His own right, but dependent on the same Divine nature as the Father at the same time. The Logos as a torch was, for Justin, an image to convey how the torch is a separate flame from the flame that "begot" it, but still of the same nature as the original flame (that is, God the Father). This is all that he is saying.


      Just as I have explained, the "other angels" are referred to as those who are "fellows" who reverence Jesus: "the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him".
      Yet another context error and omission of a key fact. Justin had just mentioned the fallen angels, which he calls demons in 1 Apol 5, when he is talking about who we Christians worship. He says this of the Son:

      ...who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him... (1 Apol 6). It means that the Son not only taught us, but the host of the other good angels (meaning not the demons he had just mentioned), to worship God.



      The "sons of the morning" and the "morning stars" are very clearly representative of ANGELS in the Biblical text.
      No. They are descriptions of the glory that angels and Christ possess.

      They are the "sons of God." Jesus is known by this title as well, but only more exalted and "brighter", so to speak. Rev 2:28 has Jesus referring to Himself, the morning star—that is, Jesus will give to us Himself, He being "the morning star" (see Rev 22:16).
      Believers already have Him. How can He give us Himself if we already possess Him? No. The "morning star" is the glory of God which outshines all other glories.

      The idea is that we will reflect His perfect brightness, he shall shine like Him, the morning star, and share His kingly glory.
      Exactly. But that will not make us angels or God.

      None of your deflecting can change the fact that these titles refer to the same kind of being.
      No it doesn't. Not even close. None of your eisegesis can refute the clear facts that The Son is not the same species as the angels, nor are they the same species as us.

      The strength of the LDS position is far better than you are willing to admit.

      -7up
      No it isn't. It is a complete and utter mess. And we haven't even really discussed it as much as the biblical position held by the orthodox Christians here.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • 7UP: Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

        For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

        For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

        For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

        For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

        For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God bodily.


        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I believe Col 2:9 in CONTEXT, not just as a "proof verse" yanked out by a follower of a false prophet. ....

        Source: 9

        *For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

        © Copyright Original Source



        This refers to Christ, not God, regardless of how you want to twist it.

        Of course it is talking about Christ. I even provided the first two translations that specify that it is speaking of Jesus Christ.

        Are you now claiming that Christ is not God? Does Christ not possess the "fulness of Deity"?


        It appears that you missed the point I was making entirely, namely:

        You believe that an eternal and essential characteristic of God/Deity is literal omnipresence. If that is true, then the the "fulness of Deity" cannot dwell within Christ (i.e. bodily).

        You contradict yourself by saying that it is true for Jesus to be "fully God", while out the other corner of your mouth you claim that God the Father cannot be "Deity" if He dwells bodily.


        -7up
        Last edited by seven7up; 05-13-2014, 04:00 AM.

        Comment


        • 7UP: I never even implied that Constantine cared what the conclusion was. He forced a resolution to the conflict so that he could maintain power.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          He did not FORCE a resolution. He allowed it to take place. And the conflict had nothing to do with Constantine's power. He was Emperor of Rome regardless of which side won, or if neither side won.
          Constantine's power was to be diminished if the sects remained divided. Don't pretend to discount Constantine's interest in resolving these issues and the fact that he invoked the council for his own purposes. Again, not that he cared about the specific results of dogma, but instead to political ramifications of a united position.



          7UP: The result was a compromise between contradictory positions, and thus the incoherent dogma was invented with new terms and new ways of defining words.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          No. The result was the wholesale rejection of Arius' position in favor of the historical doctrine taught by the majority of the church that did not run after Arius.
          I hate to inform you Bill, but you won't get away with waving away these issues. Not with me.

          One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father. Within the Ex Nihilo framework, the idea of Jesus being "begotten" would imply that the Son was not eternal. The idea that the Son is eternal implies that he was not begotten, (again, if you hold to creation "out of nothing"). Therefore, you have two contradictory positions. The result was an entirely unbiblical and invented concept, which is the idea that the Son is being constantly and eternally begotten; continuously issued forth from the Father.



          7up: "Ousia" was never applied to any member of the Godhead in the Bible or applied to God in general at all.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          So? The Bible never says man has a thyroid gland either.
          The thyroid gland is not part of your religious doctrine about God, which supposedly is Bible based. So.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Clarifying statements and terminology are a natural evolution of human language patterns.
          This was a leap beyond that. And you know it.

          7UP: Even so, if ousia originally means "what a person has" or even "a person's characteristics", then even LDS would say that God the Father has the same "ousia" as the Son. Then the creeds changed the definition of the word.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          It didn't "originally mean" that.

          From: David Hamlyn - Metaphysics - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p. 60.

          "For Aristotle, 'substances' are the things which exist in their own right, both the logically ultimate subjects of predication and the ultimate objects of scientific inquiry. They are the unified material objects, as well as the natural stuffs, identifiable in sense-experience, each taken to be a member of a natural species with its 'form' and functional essence. Entities in other categories -- qualities, actions, relations and so forth -- are treated as dependent on, if not just abstracted aspects of, these independent realities.
          From the same source: The Greek word which Aristotle used -- 'ousia' -- and which is traditionally translated 'substance' has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of 'substance' provides, but has additional suggestions of its own, particularly a connexion with being. (The feminine present participle of the verb 'to be' in Greek is ousia; ousia has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated 'being' or 'beingness', but Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.)"


          7UP: LDS can say they believe in "one God", and as I have demonstrated, we (LDS/Mormons) use "oneness" of persons as it is used and understood everywhere else in the Biblical text.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          No you don't. You use "oneness" as it is used in CERTAIN places where functional relationships are described.
          I use "oneness" as it is used in EVERY place in the Bible where functional relationships are described. Including it being applied to the relationship between the Father and the Son. I will give you an example again, though I am sure that Christ's words must be painful to your ears:

          "that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one (John 17:21-22)

          This is referring specifically to the kind of oneness found within the Godhead.

          In contrast, you have verses which are comparing the God of Israel to the false idols (non-existent "gods") of other nations, which quite frankly is just an example of you taking a concept out of its context and attempting to apply it beyond the warrant of the text and into a completely different theological arena.


          -7up

          Comment


          • 7up: There are problems when making a blanket claim that "God is unchangeable". Therefore, it may be necessary to add to the language "unchangeable in His eternal Godhead".

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Because that is what makes Him unchangeable and also why. It is because He IS God that He is unchangeable in His person.
            "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." (Luke 2:52)

            Again, did Jesus Christ change as a person when he was growing up in mortality? You see, when the Biblical text refers to God being "unchangeable", the context is in reference to morality, faithfulness, truthfulness, consistency in God's dealings with creation, etc.

            7UP: As we know, in the example of Jesus Christ, we see how Deity can become flesh, grow into an adult in mortality, die, resurrect to an exalted state, etc. Those could be considered "changes" in a certain sense.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Unnecessary changes that do not affect His Godhood. Had Jesus never taken on an additional nature, He would still be God. And even after taking on the additional human nature, He is still God. Hence He is unchangeable.
            Did Jesus have a literally omnipresent nature prior to entering mortality? Does taking on an "additional nature" not constitute as a "change"?

            7UP: The problem I have with the "unchangeable" term is this: While the scriptures use the idea of unchangeable referring to God in terms of keeping promises and so forth, Trinitarianism attempts to take the "unchangeable" concept to some kind of metaphysical sense.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Psalm 102 shows that scripture uses His unchangeability to contrast with creations changeability.
            Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end (verses 25-27).

            The same "unchangeability" could be considered for an "angel", from your point of view. Would you consider an angel to be a spirit, who remains a spirit from before creation even until after the new heaven and new earth are created? (Even if billions of years pass?) Again, from what you are contrasting to "physical" reality would apply to Jesus Christ, in the resurrection, for example. The old "body" passed away. But how about the new immortal body, the new heaven and new Earth? Will it endure forever?


            7UP: That goes far beyond the warrant of the Biblical text and appears to be borrowed from the Greek philosophical view of God, (ie the unmoved mover).

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            The concept predates the Babylonian captivity, as seen in Psa 102, so your claim falls well short.
            You are claiming something quite beyond what Psalm 102 claims. You are talking about some kind of unchanging, ethereal, metaphysical substance. Some kind of disembodied mind which is "invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible".

            7UP: The concept of 3 centers of consciousness is a relatively new concept in Trinitarian theory, and was actually a move closer to the Mormon position. For starters, IF God the Father is literally omnipresent, then how can such a being have a "center" of consciousness?

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Because it is not a location.
            Did Jesus claim that God the Father was not in any location? Or even the Holy Spirit for that matter? Why would Jesus have to "send" the Holy Spirit if it is already literally everywhere? Did Jesus say, "Our Father, who art everywhere..." ? Jesus said, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father". A nonsense statement if God is literally everywhere. You have to add your own little theories (not found in the text) in order to get around that one.

            7UP: The very concept of 3 centers of consciousness was met and opposed by many Trinitarians as a form of "tritheism".

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Because they didn't understand it, just like you don't.
            You don't understand your version of it either. You simply accept that it is a contradiction.

            I understand the LDS version.

            7UP: 3 centers of consciousness implies that it is not a "single substance", but instead 3 persons, who are separate in a certain sense (separate consciousnesses) with the same characteristics.


            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            No. The characteristics are different too. The single substance neither grows or shrinks.
            So, you have 3 persons, who are each "fully God", yet literally only one God, but each of them have different characteristics, yet they are a single substance? Sound right?

            7UP: They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Yet there is not one without the other two. You can not slice one off from existence and be left with 2/3 of the original.
            So, then each one is not fully God after all. Got it.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            The LDS point of view considers "GOD" to be a job title, not a reality of existence.
            We believe that God/Deity implies spiritual perfection, wisdom/knowledge, relationship, authority/power, etc. We believe that those persons who have these characteristics exist in reality, and we have specific relationships with them, and they have relationships with each other.


            -7up
            Last edited by seven7up; 05-13-2014, 04:55 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seven7up View Post


              "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." (Luke 2:52)

              Again, did Jesus Christ change as a person when he was growing up in mortality?
              No. He remained fully God. While some of His attributes were veiled by His humanity, He still possessed them. When Moses' face was veiled, it still existed behind that veil, but it was not viewable.

              You see, when the Biblical text refers to God being "unchangeable", the context is in reference to morality, faithfulness, truthfulness, consistency in God's dealings with creation, etc.
              Partially. It also deals with His not needing anything, not increasing in His godhood, etc.

              Did Jesus have a literally omnipresent nature prior to entering mortality?
              Yes

              Does taking on an "additional nature" not constitute as a "change"?
              No. It did not make Him "more" or "less" God.


              Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end (verses 25-27).

              The same "unchangeability" could be considered for an "angel", from your point of view. Would you consider an angel to be a spirit, who remains a spirit from before creation even until after the new heaven and new earth are created? (Even if billions of years pass?)
              There is no evidence from scripture that angels will exist in the New Creation.

              Again, from what you are contrasting to "physical" reality would apply to Jesus Christ, in the resurrection, for example. The old "body" passed away. But how about the new immortal body, the new heaven and new Earth? Will it endure forever?
              As a creation of God, yes.


              You are claiming something quite beyond what Psalm 102 claims.
              No I am not. I am claiming that the concept of God being eternally existent is supported by Psalms 102, which predates any possible "Greek" influence.

              You are talking about some kind of unchanging, ethereal, metaphysical substance. Some kind of disembodied mind which is "invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible".
              Not here I am not. That's your straw you are burning.


              Did Jesus claim that God the Father was not in any location?
              David claimed that God was everywhere.

              Or even the Holy Spirit for that matter? Why would Jesus have to "send" the Holy Spirit if it is already literally everywhere? Did Jesus say, "Our Father, who art everywhere..." ? Jesus said, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father". A nonsense statement if God is literally everywhere. You have to add your own little theories (not found in the text) in order to get around that one.
              The stupidity of this post shows quite clearly that you don't even want to TRY to understand our position, only to mock it. You don't care that we believe that heaven is the centrality of His presence, nor that heaven is not an actual physical location in our universe.

              You don't understand your version of it either. You simply accept that it is a contradiction.
              Absolutely false. I understand it pretty well.

              I understand the LDS version.
              So do I. And it is an absolute mess. And it is becoming high time I turn the tables on your polytheistic nonsense.

              So, you have 3 persons, who are each "fully God", yet literally only one God, but each of them have different characteristics, yet they are a single substance? Sound right?
              Yes. Perhaps if you learned something about Jewish Wisdom theology, you'd be able to understand it a bit better.


              So, then each one is not fully God after all. Got it.
              No, stupid. If each were NOT fully God, then you could cut one off and then only be left with 2/3 of the original size of God.


              We believe that God/Deity implies spiritual perfection, wisdom/knowledge, relationship, authority/power, etc.
              Those are some characteristics possessed by God, but they are consequences of His deity, not the creators of it. Do you understand the difference? In fact, man possesses wisdom, knowledge, relationships, authority, and power right now. That doesn't make us Gods right now, does it?

              We believe that those persons who have these characteristics exist in reality, and we have specific relationships with them, and they have relationships with each other.
              And that you too can attain their equal measure that the Father possesses.

              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              Constantine's power was to be diminished if the sects remained divided.
              He was Emperor of the Roman Empire. His power was not in jeopardy. He had just fought Licinius for control of the Empire and was solely interested in religious and civil peace. Arius had been anathemized a few years before, so the matter had already been decided, but Arius refused to step down. Constantine did not force any decision because the decision had been previously made. Your claim is false.

              Don't pretend to discount Constantine's interest in resolving these issues and the fact that he invoked the council for his own purposes.
              Oh, he was interested in civil accord as Emperor, to be sure. But he no more forced them to come than he forced a resolution. In fact, Eusebius says that the letters to the bishops were "politely begging" them to come, not demanding them.

              Again, not that he cared about the specific results of dogma, but instead to political ramifications of a united position.
              But he never "forced a resolution to the conflict" like you claimed. Another claim of yours debunked.


              I hate to inform you Bill, but you won't get away with waving away these issues. Not with me.
              I'm reporting the facts, dude.

              One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father.
              It was not until Arius that this disagreement even arose. They were not competing positions. Arius' ideas were novel inventions of his own making that challenged the existing doctrines. There is no escaping that, nor is there any successful glossing over it either.

              Within the Ex Nihilo framework, the idea of Jesus being "begotten" would imply that the Son was not eternal.
              From ANY framework it would imply that.

              The idea that the Son is eternal implies that he was not begotten, (again, if you hold to creation "out of nothing").
              No it doesn't. It implies that time was not existent where the Son was begotten.

              Therefore, you have two contradictory positions.
              Only if you assume a temporality to God's existence, which the Jews did not.

              The result was an entirely unbiblical and invented concept, which is the idea that the Son is being constantly and eternally begotten; continuously issued forth from the Father.
              Then you are thoroughly ignorant of Jewish Wisdom theology which claims that God's Word and Wisdom are consistently being issued forth from God, and that God never lacked them. There was never a time when God lacked Wisdom or His Word.


              The thyroid gland is not part of your religious doctrine about God, which supposedly is Bible based. So.
              And it is not an exhaustive treaty on God's existence either. But what it gives us allows us to deduce other aspects.


              This was a leap beyond that. And you know it.
              It was a single step along a revealed path, and logically supported too.

              From the same source: The Greek word which Aristotle used -- 'ousia' -- and which is traditionally translated 'substance' has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of 'substance' provides, but has additional suggestions of its own, particularly a connexion with being. (The feminine present participle of the verb 'to be' in Greek is ousia; ousia has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated 'being' or 'beingness', but Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.)"
              And none of that changes what I posted, that to Aristotle, attributes were not considered different substances. Wisdom is an attribute of God, and Jesus is that Wisdom, therefore, He is not a different ousia.


              I use "oneness" as it is used in EVERY place in the Bible where functional relationships are described.
              That's what I said. The "some places" refer to the functional relationship descriptions, but you ignore the "oneness" in relation to His existence and identity.

              Including it being applied to the relationship between the Father and the Son. I will give you an example again, though I am sure that Christ's words must be painful to your ears:

              "that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one (John 17:21-22)

              This is referring specifically to the kind of oneness found within the Godhead.
              In terms of functional relationship, yes.

              In contrast, you have verses which are comparing the God of Israel to the false idols (non-existent "gods") of other nations,

              Because 1) The "gods" of the other nations did not exist, and 2) Because Jehovah was the only God, the Jews were to worship Him alone. Period. Jehovah never EVER mentioned a God higher in authority than Him to the Jews.

              which quite frankly is just an example of you taking a concept out of its context and attempting to apply it beyond the warrant of the text and into a completely different theological arena.
              No. Your ignoring Jehovah's existence as the only God is you taking a steamroller and flattening it to an unrecognizable stain on the ground. Have some courage and answer these with Old Testament citations:

              1) Who did Jehovah say was the God of the Jews?
              2) Who did Jehovah tell the Jews to worship?
              3) Did Jehovah ever allow the Jews to worship anyone else?
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              - Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • Here is a review of the view of God/Deity/Divinity according to the Greek philosophical monotheism:

                Thales (546 B.C.) God is "mind" (nous).

                Anaximander (532 B.C.) - the beginning and the fundamental substance (stoicheion) of things is an infinite something - "The Boundless" as he designates it. He also says the "apeiron", the absolute is the source of all things.Other elements are constantly being exchanged, but the Boundless cannot partake of this changeableness, or else it would pass away. The Boundless is not like the other elements. This Boundless is uncreated and indestructible, being itself primary. It has no cause, but causes all other things

                Pythagoras (532 B.C.) - The ruler and cause (arche) of all things is one eternal God, unique, unmoving, wholly like himself and different from all else. Being is one and there can be none else.

                Xenophanes (536 B.C.) - God is one and incorporeal. Neither in appearance nor in mind does he resemble mortals. God is without parts (homoion pantei) defined spherical and perceptive in all parts. The Unmoving, the effective cause, but most simply the existing one. There can only be one. He is neither boundless nor bound, neither the center, nor moving, nor motionless, etc. He is everywhere the same.

                Melissus (440 B.C.) - If nothing exists there is nothing to talk about. If something exists it is either created or timeless. If created it must come out of something else. It cannot come out of what does not exist, yet neither can it come out of what does exist, therefore what exists has always existed. It is unperishable and uncreated, therefore it is boundless, and hence one, hence unmoving, since the infinite has nowhere to go. There is no empty space or the one would fill it.

                Anaxagoras (428 B.C.) - no creation and no passing away, just an eternal mixing and reshuffling of elements. Nous came and gave structure to chaos. Nous is independent of all things. Only mind is unlimited and self-existent. It is the great mover, itself unmoved and invulnerable. Mind gives meaning, and hence being, to all things.

                Empedocles (444 B.C.) - God has no human body parts, but he is sacred, ineffable, indescribable, Mind (Phren), filling the whole vast universe with his thoughts.

                ntisthenes (444 B.C.) - No one can ever know God because there is nothing to compare Him with (no eikon)

                Euclid (440 B.C.) - Some call God intellect (phronesis), some god, some mind (nous). Only the Good exists. its opposite is nonexistence. This one Good is uniform and always the same.

                Plato (347 B.C.) - The boundless, the limit or definition (number, measure), the mixture of these both = our universe, the creator and cause of it all, God. God is simple, eternal, pure mind. The operation of the mind is obvious by looking at the motion of the celestial bodies. God is good and causes all good. Mind, not just necessity created all things.

                Aristotle (347 B.C.) - Only philosophy contemplates the immobile, immaterial, self-existent substratum. The most basic of all first principles is that nothing can be and not be at the same time. It cannot have parts, as these are limiting, and the infinite is not limited. Hence God is infinite and unlimited. The great primal body, moving on its own axis, is uncreated, indestructible and not subject to increase of diminution.

                Epicurus (306 B.C.) - God is an immortal, imperishable - "aphtharton".

                Philo (39 A.D.) - God is simple, absolutely one, and unmixed. He has no parts, no body, which would diminish him, therefore God is not compound. While he is older than the cosmos, he is the creator of the cosmos. He is a monad, One. Impossible to view God, all we can comprehend is His existence, everything else is beyond us.

                Appollonius (1st century A.D.) - God is one and apart from all things, He is utterly unlike anything corporeal (bodily in nature). God needs nothing, he is mind and has no organs.

                Plutarch (120 A.D.) - God is not like man or anything on earth. has no body, great or small, but is unutterable, indefinable, incomparable, to anything else.

                Plotinus (242 A.D.) - God embraces all, all nous, all God, all soul. Being all good, why should he change? Having all things present with him, where would he go? Being perfect, what more can he seek? Mind is all, embracing itself all in itself, it is one and eternal, having no past, present and future. Mind supports being and being is the substance of mind. For to know is to be, each the cause of the other, but though they are two, they are one. To seek is the act of an unsatisfied mind, nous and being are the same, the idea is inseparable from the Nous that has it; the substance of thought is thought. All matter is evil, there is nothing true and good in it, since it is the opposite of perfect being.



                In order to make Christianity more palatable to the philosophers in the Roman empire (and from there the populations), they traded in the God of the Bible (God the Father) for the "philosophical monotheism" described above. Read the Christian Creeds and you see exactly what kind of influence these philosophers had.

                Around the turn of the third century, Tertullian wrote his approval in adopting the "God of the philosophers",

                “Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers.”

                In the mid-third century, Origen wrote, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”

                Why was the Biblical God rejected in favor of the philosophical god? Because the "philosphers" despised the concept

                Here is a good article for you:

                THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
                The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
                By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
                http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm

                -7up

                Comment


                • 7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God".

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  But He was not always according to your religion.
                  Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority. Authority had to be given to the Son.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  So, Jesus was not always God in Mormonism.
                  No. In Mormonism, Jesus was called from among his fellows, (i.e. the sons of God, the sons of the morning, the morning stars). He was chosen and anointed, and thus "became better than the angels, and inherited a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1).

                  7UP: Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  A function of their being, not an ontological divide.
                  I agree. There IS NO "ontological divide".


                  7UP: So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion.


                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Only for the strawman you keep beating up.
                  Again. All you have are strawmen. Sometimes you act like a modalist, and sometimes you act like a Tritheist. Bob and weave Bill, bob and weave.

                  “The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The
                  Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not
                  three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
                  Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this
                  Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but
                  the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’”
                  (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, Trinity, by W. H. Griffith Thomas, pg 949).

                  “It [the Trinity] signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to
                  distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, not three
                  parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.”
                  (Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, ed. Harrison, Bromiley, and Henry,The Trinity, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, pg 531).


                  7UP: As I said, the definition of co-equal is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". However, it appears that the Father has a higher rank than the Son.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  So? We have 3 co-equal branches of government, but each has a different function. And we only have one government.
                  I agree that the Godhead has 3 persons who act as the governing officers in "one government". That is not where I take issue with your position. I disagree with your assertion that these three persons are literally the same "Being/substance/essence". In the Biblical text, the Son is called the image/copy/imprint of the Father's person. The Trinity dogma goes well beyond that concept. Now, I will say that the relatively recent adoption of "3 centers of consciousness" in Trinitarian thought is a step in the right direction, but you still hold to unbiblical concepts which were adapted into the creeds.

                  7UP: You gave an example of your wife being subservient to you, but that is a bad example, because you and your wife are not supposedly the same being.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  No analogy is perfect.
                  Especially when it comes to the self contradictory notion of the "Trinity" as it is (not) understood in most of Christianity.

                  7UP: The LDS view is that Jesus, for example, had a perfect/flawless intelligence from eternity with the characteristics of Deity.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Not according to BYU, Hunter, or Talmage.
                  Jesus had the characteristics of Deity from eternity, yet he was not yet "GOD" because before he created the Universe, he had to be "called" "anointed" "chosen". God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus. He had to be GIVEN authority by the Father and thus take his place at the Father's right hand into Godhood and act in the Father's name.

                  However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  So? It was "given" to the Apostles too.
                  Yes. It was given to lawmakers in the Israelite nation and by that God given authority they were then called "gods." Authority was given to Moses by God in order for Moses to become a "god unto Pharaoh".

                  7UP: We have 3 full glasses of water. How many glasses of water do you have? You have 3 glasses of water. You can even say that each glass of water has the same substance. But I don't even think you could accept that analogy. Can you?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  No. Because if I boil one, there would only remain 2 glasses of water and the volume of water would be reduced by 1/3.
                  So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God? This is not the first time you made this assertion in our conversation together. You have no choice but to contradict yourself. My example of 3 glasses of water still stands, because each person is FULLY God.

                  7UP: I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Even in the hypothetical situation of God sinning?
                  If God were to sin, then God was not really God to begin with. That is a little off topic.


                  7UP: Certainly we cannot become the same Being. That is impossible. Just as what you are proposing is impossible. We can become "like" them though.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  As a reflection of who they are. We can not become WHAT they are.
                  So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

                  -7up

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God".



                    Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority.
                    That is a consequence of deity, not the creator of it.

                    Authority had to be given to the Son.
                    When was it given? And did that suddenly make Him God?

                    No. In Mormonism, Jesus was called from among his fellows, (i.e. the sons of God, the sons of the morning, the morning stars). He was chosen and anointed, and thus "became better than the angels, and inherited a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1).
                    When?


                    I agree. There IS NO "ontological divide".
                    But there IS between God and us.

                    Again. All you have are strawmen. Sometimes you act like a modalist, and sometimes you act like a Tritheist. Bob and weave Bill, bob and weave.
                    Can't handle the actual doctrines of Trinitarianism, so run and hide while claiming victory. Classic loonie tunes behavior.

                    “The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The
                    Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not
                    three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
                    Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this
                    Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but
                    the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’”
                    (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, Trinity, by W. H. Griffith Thomas, pg 949).

                    “It [the Trinity] signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to
                    distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, not three
                    parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.”
                    (Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, ed. Harrison, Bromiley, and Henry,The Trinity, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, pg 531).
                    Yay!! He can use google!!


                    I agree that the Godhead has 3 persons who act as the governing officers in "one government". That is not where I take issue with your position. I disagree with your assertion that these three persons are literally the same "Being/substance/essence". In the Biblical text, the Son is called the image/copy/imprint of the Father's person. The Trinity dogma goes well beyond that concept. Now, I will say that the relatively recent adoption of "3 centers of consciousness" in Trinitarian thought is a step in the right direction, but you still hold to unbiblical concepts which were adapted into the creeds.
                    No I don't. You are the one that holds to completely unbiblical polytheism.


                    Jesus had the characteristics of Deity from eternity, yet he was not yet "GOD" because before he created the Universe, he had to be "called" "anointed" "chosen".
                    So, one can be deity, but not deity... riiight....

                    God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus.
                    Now we are talking complete and utter spin doctoring.

                    He had to be GIVEN authority by the Father and thus take his place at the Father's right hand into Godhood and act in the Father's name.
                    Jesus was not told to sit at the Father's Right Hand until after His ascension. Do you REALLY want to continue with that load of crap?

                    However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.
                    At what point was it given to the Holy Spirit? Or is He not really God now?


                    Yes. It was given to lawmakers in the Israelite nation and by that God given authority they were then called "gods." Authority was given to Moses by God in order for Moses to become a "god unto Pharaoh".
                    Elohim simply meant one with authority over another. That's why Nineveh is called an elohim city because it was where the authority for the Neo-Assyrian Empire was.

                    So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God?
                    No. That's what I am saying that YOU are claiming with your retarded examples. They are straw. Plain and simple.

                    This is not the first time you made this assertion in our conversation together. You have no choice but to contradict yourself. My example of 3 glasses of water still stands, because each person is FULLY God.
                    And if I drink one, there now exists only 2/3 of the total amount of water, meaning LESS water, or LESS God.

                    If God were to sin, then God was not really God to begin with. That is a little off topic.
                    No it really isn't.

                    So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?
                    Logical contradictions are just that. Your God can't make a square circle either, so he isn't omnipotent. See how stupid that argument is?
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      [I]So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

                      -7up
                      This is by far one of the goofiest arguments that Mormons make --- the fact that God doesn't do something silly is NOT proof that He could NOT do it if he wanted to. But why should he WANT to? And he certainly doesn't NEED to. He's God -- He can handle things all by Himself. AND, Jesus doesn't need Joseph Smith to help "check people into Heaven", as one of your colleagues, liked to claim.

                      Really, 7 -- this is an incredibly silly argument, and you would do well to scratch it from your Mormon talking points.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • 7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        This is by far one of the goofiest arguments that Mormons make --- the fact that God doesn't do something silly is NOT proof that He could NOT do it if he wanted to. But why should he WANT to? And he certainly doesn't NEED to. He's God -- He can handle things all by Himself.
                        This "tongue in cheek" commentary of mine was meant to drive at a couple issues. Here is one of them:

                        Of all the titles that God may have, his preferred title is as our "Father".

                        As a father, I want my son to grow up to be a successful person. I don't need him to be successful, but I want him to be. I want him to have a career, get married, have children, etc. I want my children to have all that I have. In a certain sense, I am not successful if my son does not obtain these goals.

                        So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is? That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • 7UP: The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          And was the ONLY begotten in the spiritual sense
                          He was the "Firstbegotten" in the spiritual sense, the "first born of every creature" even before mortality. The title of "firstborn" was his, and then he was ordained/anointed by God to be "brought into the world" as the "Only Begotten" in the flesh.

                          7up: All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29).


                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          This is not talking about us being begotten by God the way the Son was.
                          The term used is the same as is used as a member of a specific species begetting another of the same species after their own kind.

                          7up: Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Because He created our spirits. He did not beget us.
                          "Firstbegotten" implies that there is a second, a third, etc. The way things work on Earth are pattern after the Heavenly/Spiritual realm. I don't see why you all are uncomfortable with the concept of procreation.

                          7UP: Is there any comparison made to this spiritual sense in which we consider God our Father? Try this:
                          "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9)

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          ... the writer of Hebrews had just finished saying:

                          Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
                          Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons

                          Notice the terms "whom He receives" and "as sons". These are terms of adoption, meaning that God being the "father of their spirits" referred to them being adopted (received) into His family (as sons).
                          The implication is this: God is the Father of all of the spirits of all of the nations. There are "sons whom He receives" and there are sons whom God does not receive. Even the sons of "all nations", even the heathen ones, are still technically sons. But God is not disciplining them in the same way.

                          7UP: You are correct. The "order" isn't necessary. Usually, it actually was the first person in numeric order, but there were some exceptions, which you pointed out. However, you are missing the point: that the prototokos is "chosen" from among other "fellows" ... the other "sons".

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No. From among His bretheren, the Jews. Again, you miss Moses' proclamation. There is yet another that proves the Jews are who God was referring to when He mentioned "fellows".
                          The title of "Firstborn" when applied to Jesus goes well beyond just the Jews.

                          "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15).

                          Again, the context of Hebrews 1. The concept of the "firstborn" son is often spoken of in the scriptures as birthright (Gen. 43:33). Under God's law, the firstborn son was regarded as belonging to God. In the sacrificial system of the temple, symbolic of the cosmos, the male firstborn of animals also belonged to God. Clean animals were used for sacrifices. Jesus Christ was foreordained in order to be the Savior/Redeemer and principle heir of the Kingdom of God, because he was the "Firstborn". That gives him the right to be the first in all things, to be the Creator of the physical universe, to be above all others.

                          This is Jesus Christ speaking in the Old Testament: I the Lord, the first: Isa. 41:4 . He is referred to as the God of Israel:

                          "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, (Gen 4:15: 16)

                          "having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

                          7UP: By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father has was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation".

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          It was not given until the Ascension, not at creation. See Dan 7
                          It is a foreordination. The inheritance was considered his even prior to mortality, prior to his death, and prior to the resurrection. Our inheritance is foreordained as well. "Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ."


                          7UP: I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.


                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          I never said you claimed they were equal. I said you EQUATED them, meaning the Son was the same species as the angels, which the scripture does not do.
                          The text says that Jesus "BECAME" (ginomai) better than the angels. This implies that before He became better, he was one of them. Then it goes on...

                          7 And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”
                          8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

                          9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.


                          Your attempt to say that the entire context is about angels, yet suddenly verse 9 is not talking about angels is a poor attempt at misdirection.

                          7up: We are all spirits Bill. Our spirit is our true self. Before Jesus entered mortality, he was a spirit. After he died (before the resurrection) his spirit still existed and was a messenger. Angels are spirits. You and I and every other single person are spirits. Your assumption that these "sons of God" are a different species is nothing but myth.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Ecc 3:21 Who knows that the spirit of man ascends upward and the spirit of the beast descends downward to the earth

                          So, are we now the same species as animals? They have spirits too according to Ecclesiastes...
                          Animals are never called "sons of God". Yet angels are called sons of God and men are called sons of God and children of God.

                          7UP: Your appeal to exceptions to the rule does not help you very much in your argument here. Especially when you realize that God is choosing from among sons either way.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No, YOU assume that the bene elohim are sons the same way The Son is. God had ONE option, and that was The Son, His Wisdom, His Word.
                          If there is only "one option", then you cannot even call it an "option". Again the text contradicts you. Verse 9 even gives a reason why Jesus was chosen/anointed from among his companions/fellows. See above, it is because he "loved righteousness", THEREFORE, he was anointed. It does not say, that he was the only one and there were no other options.


                          7UP: Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Because they were MADE, while The Son was begotten.
                          If they are called "sons of God" and Jesus is the "firstbegotten" son of God, then I don't see why you can justify your baseless assumption that they cannot be spiritual sons in the same sense.

                          7UP: They are all spirits. We are all spirits The difference is that Jesus was a perfect spirit and the others were not. We are not.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Animals have spirits too.
                          Like I said, animals are not called "sons of God". They are not called the "offspring" of God.

                          7UP: Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No He wasn't according to Mormon leaders. He had to EARN it.
                          Just like the Hebrews passage says above, God recognized the superior nature of Jesus, THEREFORE, he was chosen and "foreordained from before the foundation of the world". (1 Peter 1:19-21)

                          The Lord told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). John the Baptist was foreordained to prepare the people for the Savior's mortal ministry (see Isaiah 40:3; Luke 1:13-17. It is the same word applied to those who were foreordained as disciples of Jesus. Same concept.

                          7UP: Jesus was superior in every way. The other sons of God were all imperfect/flawed/ignorant/etc. Hebrews 1 explains how Jesus was superior, unique, chosen, etc. There is no distinction of "species" as you claim.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Nor is there any conflating the two as one species.
                          There is no mention of species. When Jesus "became" better than the angels, that does not mean he is a different species.

                          7UP: Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          He did. God is King of the Jews
                          God is more than just "King of the Jews". God is the King of all the earth: Ps. 47:7 . ( Zech. 14:9, 16 . ) God was King before Jews even existed.

                          7UP: You are making an incoherent claim. Your assertion that Jesus had to die in order to become king is nonsense. “Jehovah is King forever and ever.”—Ps. 10:16.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel."
                          Jesus was King before birth, and in terms of being "king of the Jews", that was his birthright upon entering mortality, not after his death. "born King of the Jews": Matt. 2:2 .

                          "Having become so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:4)

                          7UP: Your denial on this is mind-boggling. Who are "they" in this verse?

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          The angels that the Jews were worshipping as their king.
                          Did they call angels their "king"? i don't see the title "king" being applied to angels.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          It is speaking of why Jesus qualified to be their King, and thus qualified to be worshipped by them INSTEAD of the mere angels who were nothing more than God's servants.
                          Yes. I agree that it is defining Christ as Deity, the image of the Father's person, who is worthy of worship. While Christ is also a servant of God, He is the only divine one.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          The context is clear. You don't worship ANY angels. You worship ONLY your King, who is not an angel, He is a Jew.
                          Jesus BECAME better than the sons of God (angels), thus was to be worshipped.

                          7UP: God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits/angels. ... The "sons of the morning" and the "morning stars" are very clearly representative of ANGELS in the Biblical text.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No. They are descriptions of the glory that angels and Christ possess.
                          So, when the text says "son of the morning" or "morning star" , your claim is that it does not refer to angels?

                          7UP: They are the "sons of God." Jesus is known by this title as well, but only more exalted and "brighter", so to speak. Rev 2:28 has Jesus referring to Himself, the morning star—that is, Jesus will give to us Himself, He being "the morning star" (see Rev 22:16).

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Believers already have Him. How can He give us Himself if we already possess Him? No. The "morning star" is the glory of God which outshines all other glories.
                          Nice try. Jesus IS the bright morning star. It does not say that the morning star is a glory that he possesses and will give.

                          "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

                          This is an angelic title. It fits all the text that I discussed above. You can't twist your way out of it. Among the "sons of God" , Jesus is preeminent. As the "firstborn" He is the principle heir to the throne, "foreordained" to be the Creator and Savior. He is the perfect one to be sacrificed for the sin offering / atonement. He hated iniquity and loved righteousness, THEREFORE, He was anointed from among his fellows/companions.

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

                            This "tongue in cheek" commentary of mine was meant to drive at a couple issues. Here is one of them:
                            So, you saw how nutty it was, and decided to call it "tongue in cheek"?

                            Of all the titles that God may have, his preferred title is as our "Father".

                            As a father, I want my son to grow up to be a successful person. I don't need him to be successful, but I want him to be. I want him to have a career, get married, have children, etc. I want my children to have all that I have. In a certain sense, I am not successful if my son does not obtain these goals.
                            So, YOUR will trumps GOD'S will? What if God had other plans for him? What if God, for example, called him to be a missionary to a leper colony, where he served the Lord, but died poor and homeless? Then YOU are "not successful"? That's just downright asinine.

                            I'm AMAZED at how your brain is wired to say really screwy things to protect your false religion.

                            So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is?
                            God is sovereign. He can do ANYTHING He wants, at any time. The fact that Smith came up with this goofy "man can be God" nonsense is not "on God" -- it's on Smith, and those who got duped into believing it.

                            That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?

                            -7up
                            Seven, I say this with all sincerity.... I am SO GLAD you will never be a "God", nowhere, no how, no way. Your thinking is WAY too scrambled to run a planet or world or cosmos or whatever it is you think you'll eventually run.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seven7up View Post





                              -7up
                              EVERY single reply was you restating the same refuted crap. I've answered EVERY ONE of these, yet you continue to restate them. Jesus was not a created angel. His "fellows" were the Jews. Hence the freakin name of the BOOK! HEBREWS
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seven7up View Post

                                Here is a good article for you:

                                THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
                                The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
                                By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
                                http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm

                                -7up
                                As JP said to Kevin Graham about Kevin's use of Cherbonnier:
                                Originally posted by JP Holding
                                As noted in my book, Cherbonnier never stumped for the "physical body" aspect of this. I have no problem with the sort of anthropomorphism he did stump for (God has feelings, reacts, etc.
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X