|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does Scripture support the Trinity?
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:Is Jesus Christ God's gift? Yes. Does this gift dwell within me? In the sense that I love him and follow his steps as closely as humanly possible, yes.
And I would suggest that Christ dwells within a person not by a person's might or strength (i.e. according their efforts at obedience) but by the Spirit of God. As it says in Galatians 3:2-3
'This only would I learn of you? Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing the faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?'
quote:
I personally am not the temple, the Congregation of Jehovah's followers make up the temple (and by that I don't mean just JW's). Collectively we all make up the body of Christ (not literally of course) of which I'm probably something like a toe.
You are right that the Apostle Paul uses the image of the temple collectively in 1 Cor 3:16. But later, in the same letter, the image is used individually. In 1 Cor 6:19-20 Paul asks those who have been having sex with prostitutes the following question: '...do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own for you were bought with a price.' And of course, Jesus himself, as an individual, used temple imagary to describe his own physical body (John 2:21).
So, I suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to use this imagery in both a collective and in an individual sense. Collectively, it refers to the Church as the 'body of Christ'; individually it refers to the physical body of each believer bought with the precious blood of Christ.
Furthermore, 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' is given individually. In Acts 2:38 the Apostle Peter preaches the gospel thus, 'Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'
Now, why is this Temple imagery consistently linked with the indwelling Holy Spirit? How can both the Church collectively and the Christian individually be a Temple 'to the Holy Spirit' unless the Holy Spirit is God? God does not tollerate idolatry; he will not permit other Gods. Why on earth would Jehovah make the Church, or individual Christians, into Temples to something less than himself?
quote:
So yes in a way I am a temple, or at least a part of one, to Jehovah God and no-one else.
Quite right! But you cannot make this statement and still continue to deny the personhood and the divinity of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor 3:16 & !2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jehovah. If Jehovah has a temple, corporte or individual, the Holy Spirit must be Jehovah. Anything else would be an abomination! Only God Himself can have a Temple!
quote:
The way in which we have Jesus dwell in us is not by some mystic rite but through love and faithfulness in our hearts, plain and simple.
You are right when you say that a rite cannot make Jesus dwell within us. In fact you do not go far enough! We've already established that God's Spirit is a gift. Nothing, can make God God give a gift other than his generosity as a Father; not even our love and faithfulness can earn a gift. If we try to earn it; it ceases to be a gift and becomes a wage. What an insult to God that would be!
However, I think there is quite a lot of evidence is Scripture that suggests that the indwelling of Christ by the Holy Spirit is mystical in some sense. Look at Rev 3:20, that's fairly mystical. You can't take it literally can you! It is figurative language that describes how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indwell a person by grace through faith.
Hope you are getting me! Enough for now!
Daron
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Let me illustrate it this way,
If you were dangling off the edge of a cliff, and I was the only one there.
Who would you say was your only means of saving, me or the rope I throw to you?
The analogy is false. We are talking about the person who takes on the title of saviour of the world. In your example there would only be one saviour - the rope would not be a saviour.
Pax,
ar
No but I could not save you without it.
Jehovah can use whatever and whoever he chooses to accomplish his will.
Who better than the one person who has been with him from the beginning and with whom he created the earth and everything in it:
...
Simply because Jesus was a separate person does not mean that we were saved by anyone other than Jehovah, or that anyone else could do so.
That would be true if the New Testament didn't clearly call Jesus our saviour! And yet, it clearly does so:
quote:
... for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.Luke 2:11
Here Jesus is has two of God's titles applied to him: Saviour and Lord. quote:
“It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.” (Jn 4:42).
quote:
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.Eph 5:23
quote:
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.1 Ti 4:10
quote:
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.1 Ti 4:10
and this!: quote:
... grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.2 Pe 3:18. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
If Jesus was just the "rope" by which Jehovah saved the world, why would he receive "glory, both now and to the day of eternity"? Jesus is our Lord and our Saviour. He is worthy of glory, honour and all the worship that we give to him.
quote:
I still think that it is an unnecessary and therefore dangerous complication to God's Message.
No, it's a dangerous complication of God's message to believe that there are two or three separate gods in heaven, like a big god and a little god. We must give all our worship to the One True God of perfect unity.
Pax,
ar
[ 04. May 2005, 01:37: Message edited by: anglicanrascal ]
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
No, it's a dangerous complication of God's message to believe that there are two or three separate gods in heaven, like a big god and a little god. We must give all our worship to the One True God of perfect unity.
Agreed. It should be noted that JW's have their own translation of the Bible, which conveniently changes a few key phrases to better suit their theology. There's no point in supplying proof texts if you aren't reading from the same book. (FWIW, I have no idea if any of the verses you quoted are different in the JW version or not.)
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.
...and s/he quotes from a variety of translations, including the NWT (which s/he admits is dodgy ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Living in Gin
Liturgical Pyromaniac
# 2572
|
Posted
Okay, noted.... Carry on. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
It's all fun and games until somebody gets burned at the stake.
Posts: 1893 | From: Cincinnati, USA | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.
...and s/he quotes from a variety of translations, including the NWT (which s/he admits is dodgy ).
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Just to clarify, I did not admit that the NWT was dodgy, I merely acknowledged that some of you(generic) thought it was dodgy.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.
...and s/he quotes from a variety of translations, including the NWT (which s/he admits is dodgy ).
Just to clarify, I did not admit that the NWT was dodgy, I merely acknowledged that some of you(generic) thought it was dodgy.
Granted
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
TO RECAP:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Okay - let me define what I mean by exalted being and God.
Please do. With respect, the rest of your post, didn't.
So far you've said the following (apologies if my paraphrasing or memory is inaccurate)
There are an infinite number of Gods.
Jesus was not a God until after his death.
Jesus was never the Father.
Only the Father is the Creator, source of all being, etc, who the rest of us call God.
The Word in 1 John 1 is actually God (and by this you mean the Father).
The Word in 1 John 1 is not Jesus.
(I note that you haven't answered then, how God became flesh if not Jesus).
All people existed logically prior to the creation of the universe.
Forgive me, but I'm having difficulty discussing this because you haven't defined your terms.
There are an infinite number of "gods."
There is One God, One Lord - whom we worship. However, we believe that the whole purpose of human beings, is to become "exalted" ourselves. This is not merely a latter day belief. Read James 1:9. Therefore, if you call exalted beings "gods" then yes there are an infinite number of Gods. Notwithstanding this, there is one Lord God (Elohim) whom we worship and glorify.
Let me quote something to you from a famous LDS writer called Talmage.
quote:
The identity of Jesus Christ with the Jehovah of the Israelites was well understood by the Nephite prophets, and the truth of their teachings was confirmed by the risen Lord who manifested Himself unto them shortly after His ascension from the midst of the apostles at Jerusalem. This is the record: "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying, Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands, and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." It would appear unnecessary to cite at greater length in substantiating our affirmation that Jesus Christ was God even before He assumed a body of flesh. During that ante-mortal period there was essential difference between the Father and the Son, in that the former had already passed through the experiences of mortal life, including death and resurrection, and was therefore a Being possessed of a perfect, immortalized body of flesh and bones, while the Son was yet unembodied. Through His death, and subsequent resurection Jesus the Christ is today a Being like unto the Father in all essential characteristics.
It was a hard thing for me to work out myself exactly what Jesus Christ was before He came to the Earth. But Talmage - who is an Apostle of the church, has described it well:- Jesus Christ was a God before He came to the Earth, however He was unembodied (unlike God - who we believe has a tangible body of flesh and bones.) To reach further perfection, Jesus Christ (Jehovah) needed to come to the Earth to gain a body; another purpose to His resurrection.
I'm sure most here agree that Jesus Christ is "God" (or à mon avis "a God.") God has a physical body of flesh and bones - for He showed it to the apostles when He died. All those infinite number of "Gods" I talked about or "exalted beings" do NOT yet have physical bodies, and furthermore and not perfected like Elohim and Jehovah. There are few, however aside from Elohim and Jehovah like Enoch who we have no revelation about concerning His current state towards the plan of salvation.
I apologise - there is so much to comment on here, I don't know how I can clearly explain each point to you without swamping the message board!
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
There are an infinite number of "gods."
There is One God, One Lord - whom we worship. However, we believe that the whole purpose of human beings, is to become "exalted" ourselves. This is not merely a latter day belief. Read James 1:9. Therefore, if you call exalted beings "gods" then yes there are an infinite number of Gods. Notwithstanding this, there is one Lord God (Elohim) whom we worship and glorify.
OK - so a) what makes you think we are destined to be 'gods' b) was Christ just a 'god' in the sense that we all will be c) are there some who will be in heaven and not be 'gods'?
quote:
It was a hard thing for me to work out myself exactly what Jesus Christ was before He came to the Earth. But Talmage - who is an Apostle of the church, has described it well:- Jesus Christ was a God before He came to the Earth, however He was unembodied (unlike God - who we believe has a tangible body of flesh and bones.) To reach further perfection, Jesus Christ (Jehovah) needed to come to the Earth to gain a body; another purpose to His resurrection.
So, he was then he wasn't then he was again? Isn't this a bit convoluted? Whats the problem with believing he was the whole time?
quote:
I'm sure most here agree that Jesus Christ is "God" (or à mon avis "a God.") God has a physical body of flesh and bones - for He showed it to the apostles when He died. All those infinite number of "Gods" I talked about or "exalted beings" do NOT yet have physical bodies, and furthermore and not perfected like Elohim and Jehovah. There are few, however aside from Elohim and Jehovah like Enoch who we have no revelation about concerning His current state towards the plan of salvation.
ISTM that people are not 'gods', they would never become 'gods' and this is not a desirable condition to attain.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
OK - so a) what makes you think we are destined to be 'gods' b) was Christ just a 'god' in the sense that we all will be c) are there some who will be in heaven and not be 'gods'?
Latter Day revelation tells us that we are going to become "exalted" if we follow the plan of salvation. We believe in three kingdoms - the terrestrial (for Earthly people who had no faith at all but still will be resurrected), tellestial (for Christians or faithful people but who didn't follow the latter day plan of salvation) and the celestial (for endowed, sealed, married and faithful members of the church.) In the Celestial Kingdom we have been promised: "kingdoms, principalities, and a share in the glory of God."
As for Christ - because of His actions and being the most favoured in the eyes of Elohim, He is a God now equal to Elohim in stature, yet Elohim is His literal Father. We see Jesus as our Older brother, because in the pre-existance we were all born of God just like Jesus Christ - but He was the first.
quote:
So, he was then he wasn't then he was again? Isn't this a bit convoluted? Whats the problem with believing he was the whole time?
The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.
[ 04. May 2005, 08:57: Message edited by: Elder Moroni ]
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
]Latter Day revelation tells us that we are going to become "exalted" if we follow the plan of salvation. We believe in three kingdoms - the terrestrial (for Earthly people who had no faith at all but still will be resurrected), tellestial (for Christians or faithful people but who didn't follow the latter day plan of salvation) and the celestial (for endowed, sealed, married and faithful members of the church.) In the Celestial Kingdom we have been promised: "kingdoms, principalities, and a share in the glory of God."
As for Christ - because of His actions and being the most favoured in the eyes of Elohim, He is a God now equal to Elohim in stature, yet Elohim is His literal Father. We see Jesus as our Older brother, because in the pre-existance we were all born of God just like Jesus Christ - but He was the first.
I reject completely the idea that there are some people who are more saved than others in heaven.
quote:
The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.
Why?
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which half was which? And no thanks, I already have the original, not a counterfeit in specific contravention of it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------
The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.
------------------------------------------
Why?
Flesh cannot exist in the presence of the Father - this is common knowledge throughout the Old Testament. Perfect flesh, however can - Jesus Christ ascended to His father with a body of flesh and bones - the Father too also having a body of flesh and bones (perfected.)
[fixed horizontal scroll lock]
[ 05. May 2005, 04:11: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
quote:
quote:
------------------------------------
The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.
------------------------------------
Why?
Flesh cannot exist in the presence of the Father - this is common knowledge throughout the Old Testament. Perfect flesh, however can - Jesus Christ ascended to His father with a body of flesh and bones - the Father too also having a body of flesh and bones (perfected.)
Really? Where does it say that? On the contrary, the OT is the story of holy God coming and getting involved with sinful man. Sin and flesh is no problem to him.
C
[fixed horizontal scroll lock]
[ 05. May 2005, 04:10: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Flesh cannot exist in the presence of the Father - this is common knowledge throughout the Old Testament.
It is common knowledge? Then, how did Adam and Eve survive the presence of God? Or Moses? How did Jacob wrestle God? Or Abraham invite God in for dinner? Why did Isaiah declare "woe is me! for I stand in the presence of God" because of his "unclean lips" rather than the fact he was flesh and blood?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
You'll notice all those places that you referred to it was "Jehovah" who was present - Jesus Christ
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Exactly, God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
So you're saying that when St John speaks of the Word becoming flesh and living with us, he means the Father become flesh and lived with us, and not Jesus?
When is this alleged to have happened, and why did nobody notice?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
No... Jesus did become flesh; there is no doubt about that. This is not the dispute; the dispute is: was the word a MAN while on the Earth.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So what was Jesus before He became flesh?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Jesus was a semi-exalted being - in so far that He was favoured amongst all others and shared the glory of God - however, he did not have a perfected body which meant that He did not obtain full exaltation.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What are exalted beings? Apart from God? In what way wasn't Jesus' body, pre-incarnation, not perfect? By what biblical authority does any extra-biblical 'revelation' reverse the authority of the bible?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What are exalted beings? Apart from God? In what way wasn't Jesus' body, pre-incarnation, not perfect? By what biblical authority does any extra-biblical 'revelation' reverse the authority of the bible?
Exalted beings are people who have gained exaltation! We believe this is done through instruction in the Temple.
By what biblical authority does any extra-biblical revelation reverse the authority of the bible?
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
This, however is besides the point. Jesus' body could not have been perfect, because He was born of a mere mortal woman, and had not yet Himself fulfilled his own exaltation.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So how did Jesus, pre-incarnation, fail to obtain instruction in the temple that would have made His body perferct? What did His pre-incarnation body lack? How did Him receiving instruction in the temple as a child change His body?
I'm afraid I don't see how your Timothean reference authorizes biblical autorefutation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Okay - Jesus' body was unperfected because it was born of a sinful people - unclean - the human body during the state of probation is unclean! We refute the idea that Mary was sinless. Furthermore - Jesus was born of a person bearing sin - or the sins of her parents.
The scripture I gave you shows how that scripture can undergo "correction" and "reproof." If modern revelation is revealed - scripture might need to be corrected - we have a Joseph Smith translation of the bible. What do we mean by corrected? Am I a heretic for thinking that the inspired word of God can be corrected? This is not what we mean - we refer to the "language" and "grammar" which can never be perfect regardless of how learned the transductor is. The Joseph Smith translation clears up some things and some aspects of language which perhaps shine a better light on their meaning.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How was Jesus' body unclean by being born of the sinner Mary?
Your interpretation of Timothy is ... distinctive. Timothy is not self-referential. Scripture is not there to reprove scripture. It is there to reprove YOU.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
I disagree completely. I do think that this verse is self referential. But even so - we are reproved by scripture; the canon is not closed nor will it ever be.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
No... Jesus did become flesh; there is no doubt about that. This is not the dispute; the dispute is: was the word a MAN while on the Earth.
I'm sorry EM, I'm trying to be as clear as I can be. Is it your belief that, when John's Gospel refers to the Word, he is not referring to Jesus Christ but to the Father alone? In each of these:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
If you do not dispute that "the Word was God" means actually the real One God and not some less-than-God meaning of the word, then I would like you to justify your assertion that Jesus is not God, in the real One True God sense.
If you're saying this is from your later revelation contradicting St John, I'll leave it at that. If, however, you're claiming that St John's Gospel is inspired, there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Ok this argument about John 1:1 has been going on for a while now so I'll comment verse for verse on LDS beliefs on this.
"In the beginning was the word..."
In the beginning - the beginning of time - the universe, when God created the Heavens and the Earth as paralleled in Genesis 1 - was the word - JESUS CHRIST (JEHOVAH)
"And the word was with God" (or "face to face with God.")
Nothing more to say except that this clearly demonstrates a seperation between the two.
And the word was [a] God.
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute. The Book of Mormon repeatedly appellates "the Holy One of Israel, the Holy God of Israel." He is a God - inasmuch as that He is the one who interacted with the Israelites. He was not, however, equal with the Father - He also did not have a physical body.
[ 04. May 2005, 12:27: Message edited by: Elder Moroni ]
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Thank you. Now could you clear up what you mean by the word God? Clearly, you don't mean what orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists mean by it.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
This is very interesting! An LDS and a JW presenting heterodoxies that wouldn't have any less in common if they came from different planets! Which, if the LDS's are right, is probably true!
No, offence 12uthy (Ruthy)
Oh, and I guess Elder Moroni will the God of his own planet at some point. In which case he can blast any JW's that live there to Kingdom (Hall) come. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) haha. That's about the full extent of it yes! Although to be honest - I wouldn't care if I cleaned windows for all eternity in heaven as long as I got there!
Grey face - by o logos I just mean that Jesus is the similitude of the Father's command. "Let there be light" and (by Jesus) "there was light."
[ 04. May 2005, 12:56: Message edited by: Elder Moroni ]
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Grey face - by o logos I just mean that Jesus is the similitude of the Father's command. "Let there be light" and (by Jesus) "there was light."
But your whole premise is based on "God" in the translation of John 1 meaning two different things. In fact, in the same sentence.
The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
If God means an exalted being in the sense that you think Jesus and a multitude are, then the first part doesn't have to mean that Jesus is not the Father at all. It could be referring to any other exalted being. But what point would John be trying to make?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
So here we have a thread on the Trinity that is not about whether Trinity means three gods, but about whether Jesus is a god at all and what that means.
The LDS and JW angles really change things! ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You disagree completely with what? I like that, all by itself: "I disagree completely.". Yes, you do.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
And the word was [a] God.
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute. The Book of Mormon repeatedly appellates "the Holy One of Israel, the Holy God of Israel." He is a God - inasmuch as that He is the one who interacted with the Israelites. He was not, however, equal with the Father - He also did not have a physical body.
How do you (and Ruthy if you're still reading!) explain that later Jesus accepts Thomas's confession (presumably regarded by John as normative else why include it) of Jesus as "My Lord and my God"? God in this instance takes the definite article - the God (of whom there is only one according to Scripture), not a divine being lower than the Almighty. Clearly he is referring to Jesus. What are we to make of it, if not an ascription of the same divinty as God has to Jesus?
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
As I have asserted many times throughout these posts (maybe on other boards but I've posted so many now I can't remember!) that when Jesus Christ died He became equal with God (ah.. I remember - it was quoted in the passage from Talmage.) Although Jesus Christ is now fully God - and is the God of all Israel - we worship Elohim through Jesus Christ.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Asserted on your ipse dixit. Good for you mate. But on no scriptural authority.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
You ask me my beliefs - I tell you them. Is there much point in me quoting places in the BoM and Doctrine and Covenants of the LDS church if you don't accept it?
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Posted by Elder Moroni
quote:
As I have asserted many times throughout these posts (maybe on other boards but I've posted so many now I can't remember!) that when Jesus Christ died He became equal with God
I have to admit that I have my problems with believing in the Trinity - but I don't have a problem saying I'm a monotheist. To my way of thinking, the God I believe in, the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, is too big for any created being to become equal with. We are not operating according to the same parameters as him. God is infinite and the creator and sustainer of all. God has no beginning and no end. God is (ultimately) beyond being comprehended or defined by humans. To me, Jesus either is and was and shall be God, or Jesus was a man - he could not become equal with God - unless you mean God in a very different way to the way I mean the word, or equal to in a very different way.
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So here we have a thread on the Trinity that is not about whether Trinity means three gods, but about whether Jesus is a god at all and what that means.
The LDS and JW angles really change things!
The LDS and JW angels really change things too!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.
The NWT says:
(John 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(John 1:14) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
As you can see the NWT does not alter all that much from your translation, I don't understand why you have such a downer on the NWT.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
This is very interesting! An LDS and a JW presenting heterodoxies that wouldn't have any less in common if they came from different planets! Which, if the LDS's are right, is probably true!
No, offence 12uthy (Ruthy)
Oh, and I guess Elder Moroni will the God of his own planet at some point. In which case he can blast any JW's that live there to Kingdom (Hall) come.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) No offense taken
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
And the word was [a] God.
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute. The Book of Mormon repeatedly appellates "the Holy One of Israel, the Holy God of Israel." He is a God - inasmuch as that He is the one who interacted with the Israelites. He was not, however, equal with the Father - He also did not have a physical body.
How do you (and Ruthy if you're still reading!) explain that later Jesus accepts Thomas's confession (presumably regarded by John as normative else why include it) of Jesus as "My Lord and my God"? God in this instance takes the definite article - the God (of whom there is only one according to Scripture), not a divine being lower than the Almighty. Clearly he is referring to Jesus. What are we to make of it, if not an ascription of the same divinty as God has to Jesus?
I admit that this is the only real sticking point I've come across, however Jesus does not comment on this and so cannot truly be said to have accepted this title, he then goes on to make another point about those who would believe although not having seen him.
Ok that may seem lame and I admit it, but answer me this, if Jesus is God why does he say at:
Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.
The NWT says:
(John 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(John 1:14) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
As you can see the NWT does not alter all that much from your translation, I don't understand why you have such a downer on the NWT.
Cos there is a pretty major change of emphasis in that translation of that verse compared to all the other translations.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Ok that may seem lame and I admit it, but answer me this, if Jesus is God why does he say at:
Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"
Because in relation to Mary Magdalene's lack of recognition of Him, and her dwelling on the body in the tomb, He had not yet ascended.
However, He was ascending, and once ascended "all power in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28) was given to Him. That is, He was fully joined to the Father as the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God of the universe.
[ 04. May 2005, 21:38: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rusty John
Shipmate
# 9305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
However, He was ascending, and once ascended "all power in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28) was given to Him. That is, He was fully joined to the Father as the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God of the universe.
I thought he was always, in his divine nature, in possession of these qualities. Is there much disagreement on this point?
Posts: 76 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.
The NWT says:
(John 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(John 1:14) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
As you can see the NWT does not alter all that much from your translation, I don't understand why you have such a downer on the NWT.
Cos there is a pretty major change of emphasis in that translation of that verse compared to all the other translations.
C
Yeah but that is what is pretty pathetic about people who only read translations.
Sure "a god" is a bit clunky, but what JW are trying to get across is that in the Greek "Word"(ho logos) is the subject and "a god" (theos) has no definite article. "divine was the Word" must surely be admitted as a valid translation and all the time people call things divine that aren't God.
There was a reason why the Church had to call Ecumenical Councils to define the Divinty of Jesus Christ. And they didn't just say "Look, it says right here in English that the Word was God".
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
