|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does Scripture support the Trinity?
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Yes, I agree with you that Christ's commandments are the means by which we manifest the Kingdom; I said that in my previous post. But we don't enter the realm of Christ's Kingdom by obedience to those commands: entrance to the Kingdom, as Christ's parables clearly point out, is by God's invitation only. We obey after we've entered, not to gain our entrance.
No, you are not saying that we enter the kingdom by doing what Christ commanded; I am.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."
John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."
The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.
Unless of course, John is wrong.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."
John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."
The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.
Unless of course, John is wrong.
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, you are not saying that we enter the kingdom by doing what Christ commanded; I am.
Me too. This is by far the most easily supported Scriptural position. The opposite can be supported also, but it really requires the prior assumption of PSA.
A trinity of persons may not seem to lead to the necessary conclusion that obedience to Christ is not the requirement for entrance into the kingdom. When you ask the question "How did Christ save us?" however, it goes that way pretty quickly.
On the other hand if Christ is simply God, and He saved us by overcoming the power of hell to make us free, then obedience to Him is the obvious requirement for entrance into His kingdom.
--------------------
"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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
And I maintain that Christ's commands would mean nothing to us if we were already subjects of his Kingdom. He must be our King before we can obey him. We must bow the knee first and confess his Kingship. Then we obey. It is the confession of Christ's Kingship in response to the revelation of the same that marks our entrance to the Kingdom. Our obedience to Christ's commands is the practical outworking of our prior confession of his Kingship.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Correction! Sorry...
And I maintain that Christ's commands would mean nothing to us if we were not already subjects of his Kingdom. He must be our King before we can obey him. We must bow the knee first and confess his Kingship. Then we obey. It is the confession of Christ's Kingship in response to the revelation of the same that marks our entrance to the Kingdom. Our obedience to Christ's commands is the practical outworking of our prior confession of his Kingship.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!
If so, doesn't that rather undermine any adoptionist or Arian christology?!
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
.
A trinity of persons may not seem to lead to the necessary conclusion that obedience to Christ is not the requirement for entrance into the kingdom. When you ask the question "How did Christ save us?" however, it goes that way pretty quickly.
On the other hand if Christ is simply God, and He saved us by overcoming the power of hell to make us free, then obedience to Him is the obvious requirement for entrance into His kingdom.
And trinitarians don't believe that Christ is god?
also all trinitarians accept PSA? Perhaps in your world... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!
Didn't he say "Before Abraham, I am"?
Of course there are other names; son of man, High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Emmanuel, Fullness of deity in bodily form....... Hard to come up with a strict, logical, no_further_questions_raised explanation for it all.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
Or is YHWH as a title used to denote the entire godhead?
--------------------
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 mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!
Didn't he say "Before Abraham, I am"?
Of course there are other names; son of man, High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Emmanuel, Fullness of deity in bodily form....... Hard to come up with a strict, logical, no_further_questions_raised explanation for it all.
I was working on the assumption that in the pre-Christian era the members of the Godhead were seperate entities. If we can focus on Jesus Christ as a person beforehand - seperated from God I mean - would you still give Jesus Christ the name of YHWH?
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Matthew 22:1-14
This is where Reformation got us. They have become bold and teach that when a man gets reborn that man enters the kingdom of heaven. They have no idea what they are talking about. They reject the wholeness of scripture and the experience of the church. Paul says that he keeps working hard until Christ gets formed in each baptised person of his flock. If we enter the kingdom of heavens by getting reborn, then why do we have to struggle throughout our lives for Christ to get formed in ourselves? Jesus taught Nicodemus that a man gets reborn when he gets baptised. At that moment the water and the Spirit give birth to a man once again. Jesus taught Nicodemus that it is necessary for a man to get reborn if one wants to enter the kingdom of heavens. The new birth is not the entrance to the kingdom. It is a necessary requirement so that one can enter the kingdom of heavens. One enters the kingdom of heavens by following Christ's commandments. But no, Reformation defies the experience of the church and teaches new things. What an act of pride to think that the entire tradition of the church, the christian message itself, gets nullified or adjusted by mentioning a couple of verses from the scriptures. Ignorance, pride and bad faith have gotten us in this situation.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!
Didn't he say "Before Abraham, I am"?
Of course there are other names; son of man, High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Emmanuel, Fullness of deity in bodily form....... Hard to come up with a strict, logical, no_further_questions_raised explanation for it all.
I was working on the assumption that in the pre-Christian era the members of the Godhead were seperate entities. If we can focus on Jesus Christ as a person beforehand - seperated from God I mean - would you still give Jesus Christ the name of YHWH?
Elder Moroni, you should read the book 'Does God Change?' by Prof. Thomas G. Weinandy. I think it would blow your mind how far from Orthodoxy your thinking actually is!! The very idea of God changing ontologically seems bizarre to me. What further mental gymnastics does your religion require of you? I'm truly amazed that you actually believe this stuff!! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
mt tomb:
Hi - I understand your post. However, never has a member of the LDS church stated that our beliefs are NOT far from orthodox Christianity. The truth is, the whole point of the LDS church is NOT to be parallel with orthodox Christianity. We believe it has apostasized - the "plain and precious things" have been removed from the gospel after the death of the Apostles. In addition to this, it would be immoral for us to change our beliefs according to the opinions / history of mainstream Christianity.
Abour our belief in God's unchangeable nature: we belief He was ONCE a man - yes (when I say a man, that "man" might not have been what we call a "man nowadays, as this was before the present cosmos was apparent.) However, when Elohim became exalted, it is THEN that we believe that God is unchangeable. We believe that God will not change, nor has ever changed since He became exalted.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
andreas1984
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Matthew 22:1-14
This is where Reformation got us.
Amen ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
If you remember, early, eaaaaarly on in this post (!) I promised you that I would give you an official answer on what we mean by "the word" in John 1:1 and how we view the Godhead. My Mission presidently has kindly answered my question, (He having more knowledge about the faith in general than me,) and so I will post it here for you to read:
Dear Brother and Sisters in Christ,
As heretofore shown in another connection, the Father operated in the work of creation through the Son, who thus became the executive through whom the will, commandment, or word of the Father was put into effect. It is with incisive appropriateness therefore, that the Son, Jesus Christ, is designated by the apostle John as, "the word;" or as declared by the Father "the word of my power." The part to justify our calling Him the Creator, is set forth in many scriptures. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers in this wise distinctively to the Father and the Son as separate though associated beings: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Paul is even more explicit in his letter to the Colossians, wherein, speaking of Jesus the Son, he says: "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." And here let be repeated the testimony of John, that by the Word who was with God, and who was God even in the beginning, all things were made; "and without him was not anything made that was made."
That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western himisphere. Samuel, the converted Lamanite, in preaching to the unbelieving Nephites justified his testimony as follows: And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of Heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things, from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name."
I hope this helps, and I hope that our Heavenly Father will richly bless you for your heavenly discussions.
I leave these words in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord.
Elder G. Fusato.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western himisphere. ...
I hope this helps, and I hope that our Heavenly Father will richly bless you for your heavenly discussions. ...
What about the Purgatorial and Hellish ones? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This egregiously overwritten foolishness actually doesn't support much of anything, but it does prompt me to suggest to you that a list of Mormon definitions of words (since so many of those differ from the ordinary definitions) might be helpful to your readers here.
For instance, when your chappie says "God the Creator," what he REALLY means is "god the organizer," since Mormons don't believe that one God created all that is -- rather, their gods took stuff they found lying around already and recycled it into this world.* As I recall, you also mean something very different by "salvation" than what Christians mean by the word.
As you might expect, using what most of us consider the demonstrably bogus "scriptures" of the Book of Mormon will not go very far in supporting your argument. Can you find something in the Bible -- the unSmithized version -- perhaps? That might be more convincing.
* This was the explanation for the fossils given me by one Mormon missionary; it was all just recycled material, from old worlds that weren't being used anymore. (The other explanation, from another Mormon missionary, was that the Devil put them there to confuse us. I asked him what despicable sort of god would allow such things, but he didn't have an answer.)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."
John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."
The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.
Unless of course, John is wrong.
No John is not wrong, however on the matter of translation of scripture, as far as I am aware the Good News Bible is the only translation that renders it specifically as Jesus' glory, every other one uses the word "his" from autos:
Strong's dictionary says:
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-]) self, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare G848.
Thus contrasting starkly against the quote from Isaiah which you rightly attribute to YHWH.
--------------------
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 Bonaventura:
Or is YHWH as a title used to denote the entire godhead?
Highly likely! Especially when one considers how little Yahweh is actually called 'Father' in the OT. I think it is possible to take the name Yahweh in a trinitarian sense inasmuch as it refers to God in his entire nature: Father, pre-esistent Son, and Holy Spirit.
p.s. Ruthy, I'm still waiting for your answer to my earlier post. Hope you are still interested in debate and that things went well at the hosp.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Matthew 22:1-14
Jesus taught Nicodemus that a man gets reborn when he gets baptised. At that moment the water and the Spirit give birth to a man once again. Jesus taught Nicodemus that it is necessary for a man to get reborn if one wants to enter the kingdom of heavens. The new birth is not the entrance to the kingdom. It is a necessary requirement so that one can enter the kingdom of heavens. One enters the kingdom of heavens by following Christ's commandments. But no, Reformation defies the experience of the church and teaches new things. What an act of pride to think that the entire tradition of the church, the christian message itself, gets nullified or adjusted by mentioning a couple of verses from the scriptures. Ignorance, pride and bad faith have gotten us in this situation.
While I agree with you here, I cannot attribute the problem to the Reformation. After all was not the formation of the orthodox church not a reformation in itself, caused by the pride of those who decided what we should believe.
On your point about being born again, Jesus said that in order to enter into the Kingdom one must be born again from water and spirit, water being the physical manifestation of faith and the spirit being the spiritual approval of God. However you are correct that at any time in our lives we can reject that approval in our conduct and just as Adam wilfully threw away his approved standing before God, so can we if we do not keep his commandments.
We cannot be found finally approved until we have completed our earthly course. Just as Jesus had to be put to death with his integrity intact, why else would Satan have tried to tempt him in the wilderness; he knew that if Jesus had succumbed, the sacrifice would have meant nothing.
--------------------
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:
p.s. Ruthy, I'm still waiting for your answer to my earlier post. Hope you are still interested in debate and that things went well at the hosp.
Haven't I answered this, sorry, can you refresh my memory, I'm struggling to keep up ![[Biased]](wink.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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
....I was working on the assumption that in the pre-Christian era the members of the Godhead were seperate entities..... If we can focus on Jesus Christ as a person beforehand - seperated from God I mean - would you still give Jesus Christ the name of YHWH?
Yes - since I don't accept the assumption. Indeed "Before Abraham I am", seems to deny the assumption.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elder Moroni
Shipmate
# 9432
|
Posted
Hi,
Yes it's true that LDS believe that God "organised" the world rather than "created" is, but let me say that this is not something which I can totally agree with - simply due to my knowledge of the scientific creationist theory etc.
The reason, non the less, is because in Genesis, before God creates the universe, a sense of matter is already asserted:
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This is the LDS answer that many are given in LDS seminary or institute.. However, I am aware that Genesis 1 states:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Infact, I emphatically do NOT agree with this idea. The idea is wrong - I will be the first to admit this. This is one of the many things in my religion that has not been given through revelation - it is not a doctrine. I believe that God is the creator.
--------------------
Mo.
Posts: 215 | From: Ashton Stake | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
fao m.t_tomb
I think this is the answer you were looking for, sorry I don't know how to make it into a link.
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Now to m.t_tomb:
You said "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."
Agreed, but if we truly love God then we should ask and he assures us that if we ask with a pure heart, he will graciously grant it to us:
Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly, Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
(See also 1 John 3:21 and James 4:3)
You said "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 After, Christians believe that YHWH is tri-une not tri-partite. Grasp the unity of the three and you're there!"
Yes but the problem is that the way in which Jesus is "one with the Father" ie metaphorically (If we are to take John 14:10 literally then we must take John 14:20 to be also, which plainly we cannot do)differs in the way that the Holy Spirit is God ie literally, therefore they are neither tri-une nor tri-partite.
Anyway, m.t_tomb if this is not what you were looking for, then I'm sure you will let me know
--------------------
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
|
|
Aim for the Prize
Apprentice
# 7054
|
Posted
12ruthy - I asked earlier who is being reffered to in Psalm 45:6. Jehovah?
" Your throne, O God , is forever and ever."
Any thoughts?
Posts: 15 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aim for the Prize:
12ruthy - I asked earlier who is being reffered to in Psalm 45:6. Jehovah?
" Your throne, O God , is forever and ever."
Any thoughts?
Indeed the throne being refered to is Jehovah's but as you know the Psalm is describing Jesus, the Messiah as sitting on that throne. This is in the sense of sitting on the throne which is God's righteousness.
hth
--------------------
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
|
|
Aim for the Prize
Apprentice
# 7054
|
Posted
Doesn't read very well though does it?
"Your throne, O "Jehovah", is forever...
... Therfore "Jehovah", your "Jehovah" has anointed you....
mmm
and reading Hebrews 1, you certainly have to twist things to arrive at that conclusion doen't you?
Posts: 15 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aim for the Prize:
Doesn't read very well though does it?
"Your throne, O "Jehovah", is forever...
... Therfore "Jehovah", your "Jehovah" has anointed you....
mmm
and reading Hebrews 1, you certainly have to twist things to arrive at that conclusion doen't you?
I'm not sure of your point here, in what way does Hebrews 1 not harmonise with the idea that Jesus was annointed by "his God" Jehovah?
--------------------
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
On the matter of Scripture supporting the Trinity, I'd just like to draw your attention to this essay and would be interested in your comments:
http://www.commentarypress.com/eng-onetruegod.html
Must dash, see you tomorrow probably
ps a friend of mine on another forum has the signiture:
"If the holy spirit is a person, he sure is clumsy! (Acts 10:44)" ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Ok, I'll go
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
And trinitarians don't believe that Christ is god?
also all trinitarians accept PSA? Perhaps in your world...
Yes, trinitarians certainly believe Christ is God. My point is that it is almost impossible to hold an idea of three persons that is not also an idea of three gods. Whereas it is much better to simply see Christ as God Himself, the one you pray to. Not the one you pray through, but just plain God.
And, no, trinitarians do not mostly accept PSA. But the answer to "How did Christ save?" will almost inevitably come very close in any trinitarian system.
The question is what fits with (Christian) Scripture. ![[Confused]](confused.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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."
John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."
The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.
Unless of course, John is wrong.
No John is not wrong, however on the matter of translation of scripture, as far as I am aware the Good News Bible is the only translation that renders it specifically as Jesus' glory, every other one uses the word "his" from autos:
Strong's dictionary says:
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-]) self, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare G848.
Thus contrasting starkly against the quote from Isaiah which you rightly attribute to YHWH.
I quoted the NIV
And context clearly shows that the 'Him' is Jesus, because all the other 'Hims' in the passage refer to Jesus.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."
John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."
The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.
Unless of course, John is wrong.
No John is not wrong, however on the matter of translation of scripture, as far as I am aware the Good News Bible is the only translation that renders it specifically as Jesus' glory, every other one uses the word "his" from autos:
Strong's dictionary says:
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-]) self, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare G848.
Thus contrasting starkly against the quote from Isaiah which you rightly attribute to YHWH.
I quoted the NIV
And context clearly shows that the 'Him' is Jesus, because all the other 'Hims' in the passage refer to Jesus.
I don't mean any offense but I beg to differ; I don't think that it does.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
This is Jesus speaking; so why would he refer to "his" if he meant himself rather than "my"?
After all, this passage didn't get him stoned; the "I am" bit nearly did of course. I can imagine a phrase like "The Fullness of Deity" would have upset them at the time also. His acceptance of Peter's worship also, had it not been relatively private; so I'm a trinitarian, I just don't think the Isaiah quote is the strongest case.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm a trinitarian, I just don't think the Isaiah quote is the strongest case.
Neither do I, but it is strong enough.
The entire context is about believing in Jesus, and that people did not believe in Him because "seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear."
Jesus then says:
quote:
"He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me." John 12.44,45
The Isaiah quote makes it very clear, I think, that the one they didn't believe in there, and that Isaiah saw, is Jesus, who is also Jehovah.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, trinitarians certainly believe Christ is God. My point is that it is almost impossible to hold an idea of three persons that is not also an idea of three gods. Whereas it is much better to simply see Christ as God Himself, the one you pray to. Not the one you pray through, but just plain God.
To be honest I don't find it exceptionally difficult to hold an idea of a trinity (at least in its immanent version), without it collapsing into tritheism. What I find the most mind numbingly difficult is to get my head around the doctrine of the incarnation, that Christ is both perfect God and perfect man. You see it is precisely because I am aware of the issues involved with the immanent trinity which makes the incarnation difficult, and it is precisely why a kenotic christology won't cut the mustard.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that it is almost impossible to hold an idea of three persons that is not also an idea of three gods. Whereas it is much better to simply see Christ as God Himself, the one you pray to. Not the one you pray through, but just plain God.
Well, this is because you have no idea what the concept of one god means.
Think about the ancient times. There were many people worshipping things that varied greatly. Things that looked like humans were considered to be divine, things that looked like animals were considered to be divine, things that looked like mythical creatures were considered to be divine, nature itself was considered divine. So, what's divinity like? The Hebrews gave a definite answer to that question. The deity is nothing like what you have imagined. There are not many different things that govern the world. There is only one divinity. The deity does not have a form. It does not consist of matter. It is not limited in space.
Well, everybody knows that human is one. We all know that humanity has a specific set of characteristics. There are not many humanities. There are no oxen-like or water-like humanities. Just one humanity, the humanity we are familiar with. Just like we know this humanity by experience, so did the Hebrews came to know god by experience.
How many persons are there that share in the one humanity? I don't know. But I do know by experience that there is only one humanity. We are all the same. We all have the same characteristics, the same set of characteristics that makes us all human. You may think that we differ, and we do differ, but our differences are not the same as the differences of a man and an ox. We differ; yea. But we are first human.
In god, there are three persons, just like there are almost 6 billion persons in man. There is one person who is the source of the other two, and he himself is of no source. The other two persons exist because of the uncaused person, but they are not caused by that person in the same way. This is how we distinguish between the three persons. That's the only difference we know. Therefore, there exist three divine persons, just like there exist almost 6 billions human persons, and we can distinguish between the three, just like we can distinguish between the almost 6 billions.
When early Christians named the cause of the other two divine persons God, they didn't mean that the other two persons were less divine than that person. They honoured Him by naming him God, because He is the source of the divinity. This is why Jesus admitted that "the father is greater than I".
Saying that we reach God through Jesus, is not supposed to mean that one divine person is reached through another divine person, as though we could divide the three divine persons. They do not exist inside the material universe so that they can be divided. We mean that because of their interaction with history, we can approach divinity through the life on earth of the humanity of Jesus. In order for one to do so, one has to live in the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the third divine person interacts with human history. It's because of that interaction that we have the Spirit living in us.
When we say that the three divine persons live within each other, we mean that we cannot perceive a division among them. Matter can be divided; not immaterial god. It's because we want to declare what they are not, that we say they live within each other.
When we talk about divinity, we cannot use words to describe what divinity is. Its impossible. But we can say what it's not. So, all the things we say about it, if we want to be accurate, tell us nothing about divinity itself. They only explain what divinity is not.
And when we pray, we pray to the father, and to the son, and to the holy spirit. And when we pray to one of the three persons, we actually pray to all three of them, because they are identical. They have the same will and power and they perform their works together, because there is one observable effect in material universe and not many. This is because they are ontologically different from the universe itself. They do not exist inside the universe. So, there are not three operations, but one.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
To be honest I don't find it exceptionally difficult to hold an idea of a trinity (at least in its immanent version), without it collapsing into tritheism. What I find the most mind numbingly difficult is to get my head around the doctrine of the incarnation, that Christ is both perfect God and perfect man. You see it is precisely because I am aware of the issues involved with the immanent trinity which makes the incarnation difficult, and it is precisely why a kenotic christology won't cut the mustard.
Very interesting way of looking at it. I agree about kenotic christology. That can't be how it worked.
I would say, however, that it is precisely the concept of an immanent trinity that causes the difficulties with the Incarnation. I believe that if we conceive of Christ as God-With-Us, or God-as-He-is-visible-to-us, or the Divine Human, these difficulties go away.
Christ as the Word existed from the beginning, because humanity has always had a concept of God. But in taking on a human form He brought light into the world in a way that it had not existed before. Not that it hadn't existed, but it had not existed in the world.
An important concept here is that God works from first things through last things into intermediate ones. Not, as you would expect, from first things through intermediate ones into last. So He did not descend through a process of self-limitation. He was born as an infant and was lifted up.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In god, there are three persons, just like there are almost 6 billion persons in man.
As I see it, there actually are almost billion individuals in man. So there are three individuals in God? And this isn't tritheism?
Explain to me again how I have no idea what the concept of one God means.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
This is John 12 v 37 - 43. The comments of John, not the words of Jesus:
"Even after JESUS had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they (the Jews) still would not believe in HIM.
This was to fulfil the word of Isaiah the prophet, "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
For this reason they (the Jews) could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn - and I would heal them."
Isaiah said this because he saw JESUS' glory and spoke about HIM (Jesus). Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in HIM (Jesus)."
Even if you substituted the word Jesus for HIM where it says Isaiah spoke about him, it would sttill habve to refer to Jesus otherwise it makes nos ense whatever. The grammar would be wrong because if it meant a third person, you would have to specify who that person was.
Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the Temple and referred to him as "The King, the LORD Almighty."
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In god, there are three persons, just like there are almost 6 billion persons in man.
As I see it, there actually are almost billion individuals in man. So there are three individuals in God? And this isn't tritheism?
Explain to me again how I have no idea what the concept of one God means.
I'll use an example to explain.
There is only one humanity.
Let me re-phrase.
There is only one man.
The above statement is true. This is the correct concept of "one man".
Man might exist in many persons, but there is only one man. There is one man in many persons.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And, no, trinitarians do not mostly accept PSA. But the answer to "How did Christ save?" will almost inevitably come very close in any trinitarian system.
Tommyrot. Not in Orthodoxy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
And, no, trinitarians do not mostly accept PSA. But the answer to "How did Christ save?" will almost inevitably come very close in any trinitarian system.
Tommyrot. Not in Orthodoxy.
You're right. I should have said "except in Orthodoxy." Thanks for pointing that out. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Man might exist in many persons, but there is only one man. There is one man in many persons.
So you are suggesting that the trinity is three individual beings who collectively make up "God" just as 6 billion individuals in this world collectively make up "man"?
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Man might exist in many persons, but there is only one man. There is one man in many persons.
So you are suggesting that the trinity is three individual beings who collectively make up "God" just as 6 billion individuals in this world collectively make up "man"?
Just let me take this opportunity to distance myself from andreas1984's use of the term "man."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
andreas1984:
The hypostases of the trinity are not one the way Fx. John, Peter and Paul by virtue of being humans are, despite sharing the same human nature and gender. They are all individuals
The hypostases of the trinity are one in that they are consubstantial, have one will and one power, it is important to qualify that. Thus we can talk about only one divine being, and monotheism.
[ 08. May 2005, 22:22: 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
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Infact, I emphatically do NOT agree with this idea. The idea is wrong - I will be the first to admit this. This is one of the many things in my religion that has not been given through revelation - it is not a doctrine. I believe that God is the creator.
Careful there, EM. You don't want to end up like Samuel W. Taylor.
So whence do YOU think the fossil record came?
Rossweisse // curious
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
The hypostases of the trinity are one in that they are consubstantial, have one will and one power, it is important to qualify that. Thus we can talk about only one divine being, and monotheism.
Phew.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm fine as long as we are talking about one will, one power, and thus one omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent 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
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western himisphere. ...
I hope this helps, and I hope that our Heavenly Father will richly bless you for your heavenly discussions. ...
What about the Purgatorial and Hellish ones?
This egregiously overwritten foolishness actually doesn't support much of anything, but it does prompt me to suggest to you that a list of Mormon definitions of words (since so many of those differ from the ordinary definitions) might be helpful to your readers here.
For instance, when your chappie says "God the Creator," what he REALLY means is "god the organizer," since Mormons don't believe that one God created all that is -- rather, their gods took stuff they found lying around already and recycled it into this world.* As I recall, you also mean something very different by "salvation" than what Christians mean by the word.
As you might expect, using what most of us consider the demonstrably bogus "scriptures" of the Book of Mormon will not go very far in supporting your argument. Can you find something in the Bible -- the unSmithized version -- perhaps? That might be more convincing.
These are remarks that would be better off made in Hell. There's robust debate and then there's provocative use of the words "bogus" and "egregious". You can ask someone to define his terms, without using them.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
