|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does Scripture support the Trinity?
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Jesus is a God. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. Members of the Mormon Church do not use the term "Trinity" simply because it denotes a oneness between the three. Although we believe that members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)are seperate - they are one in purpose. ...
Ah, yes -- that would explain the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," wouldn't it?
quote:
...And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS
As I recall, the old Temple movie showed those three gods-of-this-world as identical albino dudes with long white beards, sitting around confabbing on matching thrones. Interesting imagery.
Smith didn't understand the concept of the Trinity (which is not particularly surprising; he was, as advertised, essentially uneducated), so it's not surprising that he muffed up his theology here, as elsewhere. Mormons are essentially polytheists, in any case, and polytheism isn't really consistent with a Christian viewpoint. Or so it seems to me.
Rossweisse // doubtless your mileage differs!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Jesus Christ was sinless, because He was born half God half Man ...
So how does this make him different from, say, Herakles?
If your father-god is having sex (you did say something about a "literal sense") with mortal women, how is he different from, say, Zeus?
And if Satan is Jesus's literal half-brother, who is his mother?
quote:
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."
Steerage, tourist, and first class?
How is positing different classes of heaven consistent with a Christian point of view?
quote:
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.
Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.
Rossweisse // wondering what kind of god would make one's spot in heaven depend upon human beings
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Glad to see your're still here Ruthy.
Coming back to our discussion about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I really haven't had an answer that satisfies my curiosity yet. Let me ask my question again: Why on earth would Jehovah make the Church, or individual Christians, into Temples for something less than himself: namely holy spirit?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty John:
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?
I don't think so. Yes, He was always, in His divine nature, in possession of these qualities. However, many passages make it clear that as to His human nature He was always progressing towards union with the Father. Finally, Matthew 28 has Him declaring:
quote:
All power has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
"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
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.
Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.
Sorry, I must be a bit thick or did I miss something - where did we find that the name Jehovah does not exist?
--------------------
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
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Jesus is a God. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. Members of the Mormon Church do not use the term "Trinity" simply because it denotes a oneness between the three. Although we believe that members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)are seperate - they are one in purpose. ...
Ah, yes -- that would explain the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," wouldn't it?
quote:
...And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS
As I recall, the old Temple movie showed those three gods-of-this-world as identical albino dudes with long white beards, sitting around confabbing on matching thrones. Interesting imagery.
Smith didn't understand the concept of the Trinity (which is not particularly surprising; he was, as advertised, essentially uneducated), so it's not surprising that he muffed up his theology here, as elsewhere. Mormons are essentially polytheists, in any case, and polytheism isn't really consistent with a Christian viewpoint. Or so it seems to me.
Rossweisse // doubtless your mileage differs!
I asked that exact same question! About what the three witnesses meant by one God. The answer is One in purpose. This is why we still have "One" God - it is the fundamental principle of the LDS doctrine of God. For if they were not one in purpose - it would be as serving two masters.
Also - there is a possibility (I admit) that the three witnesses did actually still believe in the Trinity. Right they were! The truth had not yet been revealed to them... non of them - not even Joseph Smith had profound insight - he was just a translator, seer and revelator.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Jesus Christ was sinless, because He was born half God half Man ...
So how does this make him different from, say, Herakles?
If your father-god is having sex (you did say something about a "literal sense") with mortal women, how is he different from, say, Zeus?
And if Satan is Jesus's literal half-brother, who is his mother?
quote:
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."
Steerage, tourist, and first class?
How is positing different classes of heaven consistent with a Christian point of view?
quote:
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.
Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.
Rossweisse // wondering what kind of god would make one's spot in heaven depend upon human beings
First - Satan is Jesus' (and our) literal brother. (not half brother.) Second - the three classifications of the kingdoms of heaven are actually mentioned in the bible:
1Co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
The "Celestial Kingdom" shall be established on earth:
Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
Let me see if I have this straight:
My original objection to the Trinity was that it was not supported by Scripture. I concede that within the limits of interpretation that may not be the case.
However the main sticking points seem to be:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
My (unitarian) argument is that the word God here being "theos" cannot be considered exclusive to the one true God Jehovah on the grounds that when Jesus at John 10:34 referred to the OT scripture at Psm 82:6 where God himself refers to the mortal judges of the earth as "gods" (Hebrew el-o-heem) he translates it into the Greek theos, the same word. (pauses for breath)
This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.
This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.
Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)
The Trinitarian view, as I understand it, finds this a problem since it appears that Thomas called him "My God" and Jesus did not rebuke him (John 20:28). I on the other hand maintain that Jesus could be said to be a god without actually worshipping him "before" the True God, ie to a greater or equal degree to the worship of Jehovah.
On the matter of divinity, could someone please define this as it seems that many here seem to equate it with immortality which of course every spirit creature in heaven, including the angels can be said to be immortal since they are not destined to die. Only imperfect man and Satan and his demons are thus destined to die due to their sinning.
Personally I define divinity to be holy and perfect in the eyes of Jehovah and not exclusive to the person of God. In this sense any person who exists in or has been resurrected to heavenly perfection can be defined as being divine. Thus Jesus can be said to be divine and was whilst on earth because he was perfect when he was incarnated of Mary and continued perfect throughout his life, otherwise he could not have been a propitiatory sacrifice to atone for Adam and his offspring.
There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos) in the sense of being a judge, as appointed by his father and ours, Jehovah. Jesus himself conspicuously never called himself God, but often referred to himself as the Son of Man or Son of God and specifically said that the Father was (and still is IMO) greater than him.
(Romans 8:16) . . .The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.
Now on the matter of the Spirit. (Takes a deep breath)
We all are said to have a spirit which can be defined as that part of ourselves that motivates us into fulfilling our will (our vital force):
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Since we are created in his image, it seems logical that Jehovah would have a similar part of himself that motivates him to act in the way that he does.
Since Jehovah is not human and hence not bound by a human body, his spirit can move freely throughout the universe and motivate others:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no, prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
He promises to give his spirit (his vital force) to those who ask, because only those who ask for it are worthy of it.
It can be seen as divine because it is the very vital force of Jehovah and hence absolutely Holy.
As to your question m.t:
Why on earth would Jehovah make the Church, or individual Christians, into Temples for something less than himself: namely holy spirit?
He wouldn't, because the Holy Spirit is the very essence of himself.
That makes the Holy Spirit a part of Jehovah not a god in itself.
I have no problem with considering the HS being one with Jehovah, the part I find difficult is the separating of it into a separate individual person.
Does this help any, because all this talk of Jehovah being the same as Jesus or even not existing at all is kind of making my head spin. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
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 Rossweisse:
quote:
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.
Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.
Sorry, I must be a bit thick or did I miss something - where did we find that the name Jehovah does not exist?
The tetragrammaton exists, yes. But the word Jehovah contains the vowels e o & a. These vowel were never in the original Hebrew text. The vowels that appear in the text as we have received it are the vowel pointing from the word Adonai meaning Lord. The tetragrammaton in the text as we have received it is intentionally unpronouncable because it is formed from two separate words. This is intentional.
The word Jehovah is simply one among many possible ways of pointing YHWH e.g. Yud -Veh-Vah-Heh would be more accurate or how about Jihavoh, or Johivah or Juhavih etc. All of the are equally plausible options: there is nothing to suggest that the Jehovah combination is the way to render the sacred name of God (YHWH).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.
Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.
Sorry, I must be a bit thick or did I miss something - where did we find that the name Jehovah does not exist?
The tetragrammaton exists, yes. But the word Jehovah contains the vowels e o & a. These vowel were never in the original Hebrew text. The vowels that appear in the text as we have received it are the vowel pointing from the word Adonai meaning Lord. The tetragrammaton in the text as we have received it is intentionally unpronouncable because it is formed from two separate words. This is intentional.
The word Jehovah is simply one among many possible ways of pointing YHWH e.g. Yud -Veh-Vah-Heh would be more accurate or how about Jihavoh, or Johivah or Juhavih etc. All of the are equally plausible options: there is nothing to suggest that the Jehovah combination is the way to render the sacred name of God (YHWH).
Thank you I understand now. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
12uthy, I completely agree with you (apart from the names which you give to God and Jesus but we'd be splitting hairs there!)
quote:
My (unitarian) argument is that the word God here being "theos" cannot be considered exclusive to the one true God Jehovah on the grounds that when Jesus at John 10:34 referred to the OT scripture at Psm 82:6 where God himself refers to the mortal judges of the earth as "gods" (Hebrew el-o-heem) he translates it into the Greek theos, the same word. (pauses for breath)
This was my argument also! You stated the word "God" cannot be considered exclusive to the one true God - this is true. The lack of the definite article "O" (kai theos ein o logos) means that "the word was God" can actually be translated as "the word was A God." This parallels, as you have noted, with "Elohim" which means "gods" rather than "God."
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Ok that may seem lame and I admit it
Not lame but definitely not very convincing - since Jesus' answer actually seems to imply that Thomas' confession of him as THE God is actually what everyone else should confess, even though they haven't seen the risen Jesus.
quote:
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. '"
That's simple, and it's why I believe that God is Trinity. Jesus is God - as John himself tells us. Yet he is somehow distinct from God. Therefore, there is more than one person involved in God. Jesus relates to God perfectly as a son. The one who relates to God the Father perfectly as a son cannot be less than divine himself.
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
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.
But this is just not what John's gospel teaches - surely whatever you make of inarticular "God" at the beginning of John 1, you cannot get away from the fact that whatever divinity Jesus had, he had when he became human.
Incidentally the fact that God there has no article proves precisely nothing - it could of course in theory mean "a" god - but equally it could mean "God". It doesn't prove anything either way.
More to the point, how can you become God? If God is God, isn't that just what he's like, full stop? If Jesus wasn't God when he became human, I'm blowed if I can see how he became so later on without playing merry hell with the idea that God is who he is without change.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
This parallels, as you have noted, with "Elohim" which means "gods" rather than "God."
What about the fact that the OT frequently refers to God (YHWH) as "Elohim"? The terms are completely interchangeable.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.
This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.
Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)
I completely agree with you. If we give Jesus worship and he is not the Almighty God, then we are in serious trouble.
This becomes interesting if you look at how the word "worship" (pr?skun?? ?????????) is used in the New Testament. It is used to apply to God as much as it is used to apply to Jesus.
This chart is very interesting because it shows how the NWT translates the same word differently depending on who it applies to. About 35 times it applies to God, the Devil, demons, idols, "the beast" and "his image". All those times, the NWT translates the word as "worship". But the 15 times that it applies to Jesus, the word magically becomes "obeisance".
The NWT is translated in a way that tries to present the image that the worship that the Father receives is somehow different from the worship that Jesus receives - despite the same greek word being used for both of them.
quote:
The Trinitarian view, as I understand it, finds this a problem since it appears that Thomas called him "My God" and Jesus did not rebuke him (John 20:28). I on the other hand maintain that Jesus could be said to be a god without actually worshipping him "before" the True God, ie to a greater or equal degree to the worship of Jehovah.
Yes, that does cause a huge problem - could you worship the flag, as long as you gave it less worship than you would give to Jehovah?
quote:
There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos)
Again the JW argument runs into huge problems. The first commandment sctricly prohibits us having other Gods than the true one. If Jehovah is the "only true god" then where does that leave Jesus?
quote:
He wouldn't, because the Holy Spirit is the very essence of himself.
That makes the Holy Spirit a part of Jehovah not a god in itself.
I have no problem with considering the HS being one with Jehovah, the part I find difficult is the separating of it into a separate individual person.
Ahh - you are getting so close here, Ruthy! The Holy Spirit is indeed the very essense of God - he is truly divine. There is nothing about him that is not God.
I really have to dash, but can I leave you with this page?
May the Holy Spirit intercede for you!
Pax,
ar
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
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.
Well, apart from the fact that it changes the fabric of reality as I understand it, from Jesus being God to Jesus being not-God in the monotheistic sense, I wasn't actually attacking the NWT here, though I think it's wrong. The distinction the NWT makes (and other translations though in different places) between God and god is an essential one if there is only one God.
I was defending the NWT translation to "The Word was with God, and the Word was a god" as logical on this passage, given the starting point that the translators believe in one God and that Jesus is a creature - which is where I and the Church disagree of course.
With respect to Elder Moroni, the position of the LDS as presented on this thread in the terminology that the rest of us would use is that Jesus Christ is not God, if I understand correctly, as we believe in one God and reserve that name for the Creator, the Eternal, and so on. EM, it would be helpful to me if you would confirm that this is in fact the case and try to avoid obscuring the LDS position in this way (inadvertently I'm sure), and then explain again how a creature can become truly equal to the one God, and if that is the case why worshipping him is wrong.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruthy:
We all are said to have a spirit which can be defined as that part of ourselves that motivates us into fulfilling our will (our vital force):
A human being is a psychosomatic unity. We are embodied spirits that can only be fully human when we are embodied. The spirit is not superior to the body: both have equal standing in human ontology. This is why the resurrection of the dead is about the shift from mortal to immortal embodiment (see 1 Cor 15).
At the resurrection, the mortal human spirit is clothed with the immortality of Christ who is the life giving Spirit. Hence, the embodied human spirit is immortal only derivitatively: Christ is our resurrection life.
Now, you say that the human spirit is 'part of oursleves'. And you are right, but a spirit is only human when we exist psychosomatically. For us, disembodiment is sub-humanity. That is our glory: we will always, and can only, fully exist holistically. We will never become disembodied spirits floating somewhere in an ethereal heaven.
The conjoining of my spirit and body is me. It is who and what I am; both now and at the resurrection. Without my body I am sub-human; without my spirit I am sub-human. My spirit alone is not 'me'; my body alone is not 'me'. The amalgamation of the two; spirit and body (me) is called a soul. I am a soul; a psychosomatic unity.
quote:
Since we are created in his image, it seems logical that Jehovah would have a similar part of himself that motivates him to act in the way that he does. Since Jehovah is not human and hence not bound by a human body, his spirit can move freely throughout the universe and motivate others.
My spirit is me; God's spirit is God. I think you are mistaken when you attempt to disect humanity into 'parts'. Likewise, I think you are mistaken when you attempt you disect God into 'parts'; he is Triune. You seem to be suggesting that 'part' of God isn't God: namely his spirit. That doesn't make sense to me. To suggest that my spirit isn't me, or indeed, that my body isn't me, is to fall into the grip of neo-Hellenistic philosophy. It represents an unaccepatble departure from Judeo-Christian anthropology.
quote:
He promises to give his spirit (his vital force) to those who ask, because only those who ask for it are worthy of it.
And I maintain that nothing, not even 'asking', can make a person 'worthy' of God's gift of himself by his Spirit. Children do not need to be worthy of gifts; they are given out of love - pure and simple.
quote:
[holy spirit] can be seen as divine because it is the very vital force of Jehovah and hence absolutely Holy.
Are you suggesting that without something that isn't God, God would have no vitality? Are you really suggesting that God's vitality is derived from something that is less than himself? I hope not! Otherwise we have a Jehovah who can do nothing but for something that is less than himself!
quote:
As to your question m.t:
Why on earth would Jehovah make the Church, or individual Christians, into Temples for something less than himself: namely holy spirit?
He wouldn't, because the Holy Spirit is the very essence of himself.
That makes the Holy Spirit a part of Jehovah not a god in itself.
So you seem to be suggesting that the 'very essence' of God isn't actually God! If I apply that to myself, you seem to be asking me to say that the very essence of me, isn't me. Plus, I don't accept the notion that my spirit constitutes my essence to the exclusion of my body (the Corinthian heresy). I am me: body and spirit.
quote:
I have no problem with considering the HS being one with Jehovah, the part I find difficult is the separating of it into a separate individual person.
If you can accept that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and that Jesus is also one with the Father (John 14:9-10) without either 'separating' them or confounding* them, you are getting close to the truth that is the Trinity ![[Smile]](smile.gif) After, Christians believe that YHWH is tri-une not tri-partite. Grasp the unity of the three and you're there!
*mistaking one for another
God Bless!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aim for the Prize
Apprentice
# 7054
|
Posted
Interesting discussion.
12uthy. Can I ask you, who is being reffered to in Psalm 45:6. Jehovah?
" Your throne, O God , is forever and ever."
Posts: 15 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
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.
But this is just not what John's gospel teaches - surely whatever you make of inarticular "God" at the beginning of John 1, you cannot get away from the fact that whatever divinity Jesus had, he had when he became human.
Incidentally the fact that God there has no article proves precisely nothing - it could of course in theory mean "a" god - but equally it could mean "God". It doesn't prove anything either way.
More to the point, how can you become God? If God is God, isn't that just what he's like, full stop? If Jesus wasn't God when he became human, I'm blowed if I can see how he became so later on without playing merry hell with the idea that God is who he is without change.
First show me from scripture why this is not what John teaches - is it just your take on the Gospel of St.John because of what you think you already know or otherwise?
Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation. The famous LDS quote shows this well: "As God once was, man now is..."
D&C 76
And are apriests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of bEnoch•, which was after the corder• of the Only Begotten Son.
58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are agods•, even the bsons• of cGod•—
59 Wherefore, aall• things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation.
Where did he live when he was a non-exalted being? How did he create everything before he was exalted? Do you in fact believe that the Universe is self-existent and God is not?
You see, issues such as these rarely come out until we get into in-depth discussions and I'm grateful to you for expressing them here, but the deeper we go the more apparent it is that far from being close to orthodox Christianity, you are actually much further away from us in theology than Islam or Judaism.
Mormons and Witnesses often seem to be thrown together in lazy Christian thought as similar Arians. I'm fairly convinced this is not the case. JWs are from my understanding of what is true*, following a recognisably Christian heresy - I use the term in the technical, not the derogatory sense, no offence, 12uthy - but the LDS have in my opinion a completely different religion.
I don't mean any of that in the sense of rubbishing your beliefs or your right to hold them, although obviously I believe you're wrong or I would join you.
* usual disclaimers apply
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aim for the Prize
Apprentice
# 7054
|
Posted
Elder Moroni.
You say there are countless gods according to LDS, but doesen't your own Book of Morman refute this?
"And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said, is there more than one God? ANd he answered, No." Al. 11:27-29
And if God is an exalted being, why does your book of Morman state:
"For I know God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity" Mo 8:18
Posts: 15 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation.
Where did he live when he was a non-exalted being? How did he create everything before he was exalted? Do you in fact believe that the Universe is self-existent and God is not?
You see, issues such as these rarely come out until we get into in-depth discussions and I'm grateful to you for expressing them here, but the deeper we go the more apparent it is that far from being close to orthodox Christianity, you are actually much further away from us in theology than Islam or Judaism.
Mormons and Witnesses often seem to be thrown together in lazy Christian thought as similar Arians. I'm fairly convinced this is not the case. JWs are from my understanding of what is true*, following a recognisably Christian heresy - I use the term in the technical, not the derogatory sense, no offence, 12uthy - but the LDS have in my opinion a completely different religion.
I don't mean any of that in the sense of rubbishing your beliefs or your right to hold them, although obviously I believe you're wrong or I would join you.
* usual disclaimers apply
Hi Grey Face,
Well I agree with you completely. We are a complete different religion. The basics are there - as in Jesus Christ being the redeemer - but the awkward theology which underlines the "frilly" parts of Christianity fundamentally differ when it comes to LDS and orthodox Christianit.
So... when did God become a man? First let me tell you that not a lot has been revealed to us about this at the moment. We await as always more information on the nature of God. However - it is accepted generally that Elohim was God before the universe / cosmos was created. To this you may ask: "then how was God a man? When man did not exist and the universe did not exist?" God was a non-exalted being - just like Jesus Christ. Imagine Jesus Christ now - He will go on to start His own kingdom in another dimension (sounds spacy but couldn't think of another word!) just as God did - this would mean that there was a chain of Gods - God's Father - his mother (yes mother!), and His Father and Mother and so on. This is why LDS place so much emphasis on family history (aside from vicarious baptism.)
Please let me apologize to you all. I was lay in bed last night thinking about what I posted. And it seems I have been VERY insensitive towards your beliefs. But moreso, I have portrayed myself as somebody who does not accept the full divinity of Jesus Christ - this is not so. I adore Jesus Christ, He is my redeemer, my saviour. We are HIS people - the church of JESUS CHRIST, of latter-day saints. I fear sometimes that I am giving you the wrong impression - there is only so much I can explain on a discussion forum when my native tongue is French! Please forgive me if I seem arrogant!
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aim for the Prize:
Elder Moroni.
You say there are countless gods according to LDS, but doesen't your own Book of Morman refute this?
"And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said, is there more than one God? ANd he answered, No." Al. 11:27-29
And if God is an exalted being, why does your book of Morman state:
"For I know God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity" Mo 8:18
1) There is ONE God (Elohim) which we have anything to do with!
2) "eternity to eternity" denotes time. Just like the scripture: "God was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." However - we must understand that before God created the cosmos - time did not exist as it does now. Even so - "GOD" - meaning, "NOW ELOHIM IS A GOD...he is unchangeable." He is NOW unchangeable since He became exalted.
Mormon scriptures certainly do NOT dispute that there are other Gods - Gods belonging to Elohim - read the Pearl of Great price - "the Gods" are mentioned on nearly every page through the Book of Abraham!
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aim for the Prize
Apprentice
# 7054
|
Posted
quote:
1) There is ONE God (Elohim) which we have anything to do with!
2) "eternity to eternity" denotes time. Just like the scripture: "God was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." However - we must understand that before God created the cosmos - time did not exist as it does now. Even so - "GOD" - meaning, "NOW ELOHIM IS A GOD...he is unchangeable." He is NOW unchangeable since He became exalted.
Mormon scriptures certainly do NOT dispute that there are other Gods - Gods belonging to Elohim - read the Pearl of Great price - "the Gods" are mentioned on nearly every page through the Book of Abraham!
Right, so you interpret your own "scriptures" to say;
1)No there are no other God's - except all the other ones.
and
2)God is changless from eternity to eternity - but we really mean just TO eternity not FROM eternity?
Why the disagreement between different Mormon "scriptures"?
Posts: 15 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
The good news is that the Trinity is looking a lot more straightforward now. The bad news is that I'm not sure any more that scripture can be said to support anything.
--------------------
where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
First show me from scripture why this is not what John teaches - is it just your take on the Gospel of St.John because of what you think you already know or otherwise?
No - it is because of the text which I then immediately mentioned in my answer: John 1. Feel free to reread what I said about it.
Elder Moroni I would like to ask you: to what extent do you think the Old and New Testaments are in tension/conflict with the Book of Mormon? I was under the impression that that they were read as equally authoritative with one another. Or has the NT etc been somehow superseded in your understanding? I am asking because it seems to me on the one hand it sounds like we are conducting an intra-Christian debate - on the basis of Christian Scripture. Whilst on the other hand, you are citing scriptures which most Christians don't regard as authoritative, and which perhaps understandably don't really cut any ice with us (cf e.g. the warning at the end of Revelation not to add to Scripture). I ask as I think if I understood your presuppositions a bit more it would help me a great deal in this discussion.
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sean, to be pedantic, the warning at the end of Revelation minimally only applies to Revelation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation. The famous LDS quote shows this well: "As God once was, man now is..."
This is what makes you so different. I have to echo greyface's remarks. This LDS POV is very far from the tradition of classical theism found in both Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Actually Buddhists would nod their heads at you mormons, at least as you present it.
Buddhist tradition generally do accept the existence of devas, that is godlings, but would deny the existence of a single creator God that is the source of everything isvara. However, in buddhist thought, it is precisely because these devas are only godlings that buddhists cheerfully can discount their importance to salvation.
May I ask you elder Moroni, since you explain that The Father and the Son are both exalted beings, and they themselves was born from other gods, presumeably in a long line from eternity (?) What then is the ultimate source of everything that is, seen and unseen? What is the absolute? What is beyond the god(ling)s?
Do the LDS have any teaching on this?
[ 05. May 2005, 13:23: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
First show me from scripture why this is not what John teaches - is it just your take on the Gospel of St.John because of what you think you already know or otherwise?
No - it is because of the text which I then immediately mentioned in my answer: John 1. Feel free to reread what I said about it.
Elder Moroni I would like to ask you: to what extent do you think the Old and New Testaments are in tension/conflict with the Book of Mormon? I was under the impression that that they were read as equally authoritative with one another. Or has the NT etc been somehow superseded in your understanding? I am asking because it seems to me on the one hand it sounds like we are conducting an intra-Christian debate - on the basis of Christian Scripture. Whilst on the other hand, you are citing scriptures which most Christians don't regard as authoritative, and which perhaps understandably don't really cut any ice with us (cf e.g. the warning at the end of Revelation not to add to Scripture). I ask as I think if I understood your presuppositions a bit more it would help me a great deal in this discussion.
The Old and New Testaments are seen as equal with the Book of Mormon, provided it is translated correctly. However, said one prophet: "The Book of Mormon is the most righteous book ever to be upon the Earth, and is the keystone of our religion."
Also - your argument about the end of revelation really makes me laugh (with much respect)!! Revelation says "don't add anything to the scriptures" in a round about way in the last chapter! Yes I agree! But Revelations, was written BEFORE the Gospel of St. John!!!!! How do you support this? Revelation was saying - don't add anything to this *respective* book; who is John to instruct anybody not to add to the canon? Are you saying God is bound by the bible? I think not.
The reason why we disagree is not because the Book of Mormon conflicts with traditional-Christianity, but because yours and my idea of God are abherrently different.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sean, to be pedantic, the warning at the end of Revelation minimally only applies to Revelation.
Yes. Similar warning was given by Moses. Yet neither Christians or Jews limit themselves to the Mosaic law.
quote:
Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."
I think the meaning is that we are not to change it, or add our own ideas to it. The rest of the OT and NT, however, are neither changes nor our own ideas, but are the consistent revelation of God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Yes - and like John (which was written after Revelations) we believe that the Book of Mormon is absolutely divinly inspired. I agree completely with your concept.
But this:
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
...does not mean that we can not have ANY other scriptures after the Book of Revelation - or else we wouldn't have one of the most beautiful Gospels in the NT today!
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Still, it does apply if Joseph Smith's work is not, in fact, from God.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Well... brother (or sister!), on that note, we will have to agree to disagree. We've come to the end of the road with this argument, because it all rests on the reliability of Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet - you don't! Let's move on! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Moroni,
Since when have prophets had the authority to cut covenants/testaments? When you talk of your scriptures being a 'testament' are you refering to a covenant to which they testify? Or are you using the word 'testament' to refer to a book or books?
If you are saying that there is another testament/covenant that improves upon the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, what may I ask is it? What promise has God made over above the promise of eternal life that we have in Christ?
If you cannot tell me plainly what this 'another covenant' is in terms of an agreement bewteen humanity and God based on God's faithfulness to a promise, then I will not read another word you post.
Sorry to be blunt, but i have no time for 'covenants' that detract from, add to, or in any other way occlude, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross as the final, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for sin and the eternal salvation of humanity. Why, tell me, does humanity need anything else.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Well... brother (or sister!), on that note, we will have to agree to disagree. We've come to the end of the road with this argument, because it all rests on the reliability of Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet - you don't! Let's move on!
I didn't quite say that. I just said that IF JS wasn't actually reliable THEN... I didn't say that he wasn't.
As I noted, I am a Swedenborgian. I think that Swedenborg received reliable revelations. He might well be wrong as well, bringing on the curses mentioned in Revelation and by Moses.
And don't forget that Catholics and the Orthodox believe that their church traditions are divinely inspired.
So it is not an open and shut case. One question, of course, is why we should believe any of them.
But I think that on a board like this we would want to stick we things that we all mutually believe. ![[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
|
|
Corpus cani
Ship's Anachronism
# 1663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Yes - and like John (which was written after Revelations)...
The sources I have checked date John's Gospel before his Revelation.
Revelation was certainly not added to the canon until much later than many other books.
Corpus
--------------------
Bishop Lord Corpus Cani the Tremulous of Buzzing St Helens.
Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Absolutely, Dog's Body. But we mustn't let fact and logic get in the way of polytheistic, arian heresy must we?
--------------------
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
In response to mt tomb -
The official name of the Book of Mormon is: The Book of Mormon - another testament of Jesus Christ.
The book of Mormon neither improves upon nor corrects the bible. The book of Mormon reveals more to us which we didn't know - and reconstitutes the teachings of the early apostles (it was for this reason that the plates were written by the Nephites.) For example - we now know more about the nature of God (His physical nature), more about creation - more about heaven - more about our tasks on Earth and how to gain exaltation.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So as it neither improves on nor corrects it is utterly superfluous. So as the Bible teaches clearly that God is three entities in one that does not stand corrected by LDS arian polytheism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Moroni, what exactly do you understand by the word 'testament'?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So as it neither improves on nor corrects it is utterly superfluous. So as the Bible teaches clearly that God is three entities in one that does not stand corrected by LDS arian polytheism.
It corrects it for us!
tomb -
I would define "testament" as: testimony, witness, evidence, proof, attestation; demonstration, indication, exemplification; monument [to], tribute [to.]
But just as a covenant , as at Sinai , and used of OT by Paul (Gal. 3: 15–18). It is also used of a speech or blessing given to children or followers, as by Moses (Deut. 33); this served as the model for such works as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Let me put this plainly, a testament is not a book. A testament is a covenant (a binding agreement) made between God and humanity. The Book of Mormon: another 'testament' of Jesus Christ should, if it is true, clearly state what this 'other' testament (covenant) actually is.
The testament of Abraham is well known.
The testament of Jesus (through his blood, shed on the cross) is also well known.
What, then, is this 'other testament'?
What 'other covenant' is there?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
EM - it's not for correction and it is? Or it's not to correct Christians but Mormons? It's an esoteric calling then? Like Christianity.
--------------------
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
Sorry Martin PC - you've lost me - I've lost the thread of convo you're refering to! Sorry.
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Let me put this plainly, a testament is not a book. A testament is a covenant (a binding agreement) made between God and humanity. The Book of Mormon: another 'testament' of Jesus Christ should, if it is true, clearly state what this 'other' testament (covenant) actually is.
The testament of Abraham is well known.
The testament of Jesus (through his blood, shed on the cross) is also well known.
What, then, is this 'other testament'?
What 'other covenant' is there?
Yes I mentioned the covenant earlier. The covenant (which is mentioned so many times throughout the BoM) is that: if we follow "these" commands (in the BoM) we have been promised exaltation. Not only this - we have been promised that if we use our priesthood (and motherhood) well... the spirit will always be with us, and all things will be known unto us - See Moroni 10:4.
To be honest with you though, I don't think this is what the LDS church means by "testament." - Not "covenant" anyway. Testament - to testify - from the Greek evalgelicos (in some places) can just mean "to preach" or "to support."
However, as some have mentioned, LDS take a different slant on some traditional Christian terminology (I know this will start a riot now!)
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
What I think it means is that Joseph Smith didn't understand what a testament was when he invented 'another testament'. He was under the false assumption that a testament is a book. You are mixing up the word testimony and the word testament.
The word occurs twelve times in the New Testament as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Sorry M.T - if I didn't explain - the book of mormon NOW is called another "testament of Jesus Christ." There was no such title when Joseph Smith wrote the book. There again - there were no page numbers, no scripture references, no chapters, no footnotes, headings and so forth.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I would really like to know what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread, which is whether or not the Bible offers support for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Thank you, Ruth. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
The topic is not whether LDS or JW theology is true, but whether the Bible supports:
1. The claim that Jesus is God
2. The claim that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is more than a metaphor.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Ruth - it becomes very hard with Christians, LDS and JW in the room! But it's so interesting at the same time!
The reason we diverge so often is because - if we cannot agree on the nature of God - most other things are appendages and become hard to agree on.
Ok - starting the Trinitarian concept again I actually have a question about it:
Does the Trinity refer to the unity between the three personages, or the actual three personages themselves?
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Does the Trinity refer to the unity between the three personages, or the actual three personages themselves?
Yes
It refers to both the concept/mystery, and to God, who is triune.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
