Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostThat is your uninspired opinion, as there is a very direct comparison to what kind of sense we are to understand God as our Father:
The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense.
All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29).
Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense.
[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".
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".
I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.
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.
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.
Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner?
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.
Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature.
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.
Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title.
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.
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 Jews? That is ridiculous Bill.
The context is clearly speaking of the angels, the sons of God.
God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits.
Look again Bill. It was teaching the superiority of Jesus over the other spirits (angels / sons of God).
Is that more clear??
Your attempt to limit the scope of the Kingship of Jesus to just "the Jews" is not going to work.
Anybody at all can look at the concept of the passage and see that the scope is much larger than that.
it is Heavenly, not earthly. It is Universal, not local.
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;
Jesus was appointed heir of ALL THINGS.
Not just heir of a single nation, the Jews.
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.
His words and doctrine matches LDS teachings far closer than they match your "Trinity" views.
The Trinity had not yet been invented.
Read it again, including the quote from Justin that you yourself provided. You will find no concept of God being a "single essence".
You find Jesus being referred to as an Angel
and "another God".
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".
...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.
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).
The idea is that we will reflect His perfect brightness, he shall shine like Him, the morning star, and share His kingly glory.
None of your deflecting can change the fact that these titles refer to the same kind of being.
The strength of the LDS position is far better than you are willing to admit.
-7upThat'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 PostI believe Col 2:9 in CONTEXT, not just as a "proof verse" yanked out by a follower of a false prophet. ....
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.
-7upLast 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 PostHe 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.
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 PostNo. 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.
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 PostSo? The Bible never says man has a thyroid gland either.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostClarifying statements and terminology are a natural evolution of human language patterns.
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 PostIt 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.
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 PostNo you don't. You use "oneness" as it is used in CERTAIN places where functional relationships are described.
"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 PostBecause that is what makes Him unchangeable and also why. It is because He IS God that He is unchangeable in His person.
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 PostUnnecessary 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.
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 PostPsalm 102 shows that scripture uses His unchangeability to contrast with creations changeability.
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 PostThe concept predates the Babylonian captivity, as seen in Psa 102, so your claim falls well short.
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 PostBecause it is not a location.
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 PostBecause they didn't understand it, just like you don't.
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 PostNo. The characteristics are different too. The single substance neither grows or shrinks.
7UP: They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYet 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.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThe LDS point of view considers "GOD" to be a job title, not a reality of existence.
-7upLast 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?
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.
Did Jesus have a literally omnipresent nature prior to entering mortality?
Does taking on an "additional nature" not constitute as a "change"?
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?
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".
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.
You don't understand your version of it either. You simply accept that it is a contradiction.
I understand the LDS version.
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?
So, then each one is not fully God after all. Got it.
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.
Originally posted by seven7up View PostConstantine'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.
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.
The thyroid gland is not part of your religious doctrine about God, which supposedly is Bible based. So.
This was a leap beyond that. And you know it.
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.)"
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,
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.
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 PostBut He was not always according to your religion.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSo, Jesus was not always God in Mormonism.
7UP: Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostA function of their being, not an ontological divide.
7UP: So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostOnly for the strawman you keep beating up.
“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 PostSo? We have 3 co-equal branches of government, but each has a different function. And we only have one government.
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 PostNo analogy is perfect.
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 PostNot according to BYU, Hunter, or Talmage.
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 PostSo? It was "given" to the Apostles too.
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 PostNo. Because if I boil one, there would only remain 2 glasses of water and the volume of water would be reduced by 1/3.
7UP: I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostEven in the hypothetical situation of God sinning?
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 PostAs a reflection of who they are. We can not become WHAT they are.
-7up
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View Post7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God".
Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority.
Authority had to be given to the Son.
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).
I agree. There IS NO "ontological divide".
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).
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.
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.
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".
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.
If God were to sin, then God was not really God to begin with. That is a little off topic.
So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?
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
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 PostThis 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.
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 PostAnd was the ONLY begotten in the spiritual sense
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 PostThis is not talking about us being begotten by God the way the Son was.
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 PostBecause He created our spirits. He did not beget us.
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).
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 PostNo. 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".
"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 PostIt was not given until the Ascension, not at creation. See Dan 7
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 PostI 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.
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 PostEcc 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...
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 PostNo, 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.
7UP: Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostBecause they were MADE, while The Son was begotten.
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 PostAnimals have spirits too.
7UP: Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo He wasn't according to Mormon leaders. He had to EARN it.
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 PostNor is there any conflating the two as one 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 PostHe did. God is King of the Jews
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 PostMicah 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."
"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 PostThe angels that the Jews were worshipping as their king.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostIt 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.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThe context is clear. You don't worship ANY angels. You worship ONLY your King, who is not an angel, He is a Jew.
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 PostNo. They are descriptions of the glory that angels and Christ possess.
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 PostBelievers 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.
"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 Post7UP: 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:
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.
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?
That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?
-7upThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View Post
-7upThat'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
Originally posted by JP HoldingAs 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.
Comment