Announcement

Collapse

MESSAGE TO ALL USERS

- You are responsible to know the rules. https://carm.org/forum-rules
- Log in using https://forums.carm.org, not http. Use https not http
- We are working/modifying super membership stuff (http://carm.org/super-members)
- 12/27/2019 As most of you are aware, the carm forums crashed a few weeks ago. These boards are their replacement. They are formatted the same as the old ones. All your previous posts and reputation points are gone since we are on a completely new server. My apologies for the inconvenience.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Matt Slick
Founder and President of CARM.org
See more
See less

The Oneness of the Trinity

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

    Essence and substance are perfectly good English words that we can use to describe God's nature. There is nothing "pagan" about the words. They are just words. We aren't going by some book of "Henoch" or Aristotle, etc. We just use those words to describe the concepts we find in the Bible, since it isn't a theological dictionary or encyclopedia.

    Sinning against God isn't stealing. It is missing the mark. John says in his first epistle that "sin is lawlessness." Nothing to do with "stealing."

    Now, back to discussing Mormonism, if you please. That is what this forum is for--not for discussing the Triune nature of God in depth or the words used to describe that concept.
    The op was about trinity, no? And that is what i responded to.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      I'm almost ashamed to say that I could hardly wait for these forums to come back online. Posting here is almost an addiction and I'm still debating if it is a good addiction or a bad one.
      Haha! I don’t think you’re alone in this feeling. It’s definitely an addiction for me, though easily suppressed since I can recognize when I get my “fix” and leave. LOL!

      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      I've been contemplating the oneness of God, especially in view of the witness of the Book of Mormon. I noticed that the three witnesses bore record and ended their witness with these words: "the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God".

      This has frequently been used as a proof text by our critics that earth members of our church were taught the trinity doctrine (this verbiage does support that idea), but the eight witnesses don't use any verbiage even remotely connected to the Trinity or the Oneness of God. The argument has been, in the past, that the Jesus we believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible, but I don't think that's the issue here. It's not hard to identify who Jesus is because we have a book that describes him in detail in his earthly and pre-mortal work. Anyone who can read a Bible can tell who Jesus is and what we believe Jesus did. The individual that is in question is the Father and Jesus was supposed to reveal the Father, nevertheless. It is the Father who is the mystery and where we clearly have disagreements about Him, who and what He is.
      I agree with that.

      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      I have never heard a reasonable explanation about what the Trinity is. In my experience, the argument always falls into an unexplainable mystery or it falls into Modalism. My understanding after much debate is that the Being of God is one but the persons of God are three which is the unexplainable mystery. You all just accept that that is true and then go about explaining the persons of the Godhead as beings even though they aren't according to the above explanation. And, I'm not really sure why the being of God must be one when the Bible clearly identifies them as three separate beings, two of them are subordinate to God, the Father. The boundaries are already blurring.

      Bingo! It’s the theological challenge that Jesus is divine, He is the Son of God, yet there is only One God, lest there are “two” Gods and then you are technically a ‘polytheist’, (as if salvation was based on a label or something). I believe it’s a subject that has to be understood by the spirit and not by the letter.

      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      I would suggest that the oneness of God is not physical but is spiritual. A typical example is when a husband and wife work together for the well being and success of their children or the success of the family as a unit. When a couple has incompatible ideas about how things should be done, friction is discord creates a hostile environment and if not repaired will end in being dissolved. This also is exemplified in John 17:11
      ...keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

      In this prayer, Christ goes into great detail about that oneness connection between himself and the Father, that it should be identical between his disciples and himself. This is obviously not a physical oneness nor is it a oneness of being, but rather and oneness in spirit. this oneness is established in the phrase:
      That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...
      I agree. But at the same time, if we’re being completely honest, I have my own doubts of exactly who God is. I haven’t received the Second Comforter, have you? I don’t have a sure knowledge of the Godhead like Joseph Smith claims he did, and the closer I come to it, the more I come into the realization of the spiritual Oneness of everything.
      “Non-Mormon-Christians” will tell you, “God” is the Creat-or not the creat-ed. Jesus could not have been created (aka. “organized”), that’s their beef whenever I approach the subject, and it’s valid. Between the Book of Mormon, the Lectures on Faith, and the book of Abraham, and how the first vision account evolved as those other sources came out tells me the nature of God is more of a mystery that we’d like to admit. And that’s ok. Jesus focused more on living the “Doctrine of Christ” rather than have a completely detailed understanding on the corporeal nature of God, but it is a fun topic to discuss.
      Personally, reading a side-by-side of Genesis 1, John 1, and D&C 93 (starting with verse 8) has provided the most profound understanding on the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. It follows that the Holy Ghost is Christ in us (2 Cor 13:5). Not only does it incorporate all Christian religion, but eastern religions as well.
      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      This idea of being one inside of another person cannot possibly be physical. It must be spiritual. For this intertwining of spirits, the person's values but be acceptable to the person that we are in. IOWs, when we accept Christ, we are accepting his values and his truths. [When they accept us, either the Father or the Son, they must accept our values and truths.] Being one with the Father means that we accept him [and He accepts us (this occurs because his Son accepts us).]
      I agree with the first half of the statement. The part I bracketed is when we begin to diverge (atleast on a symantic level). God does not to accept us, but rather we become “acceptable” to Him. We are the ones that change, God never changes.
      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      This naturally means that in order to be one with God as Jesus prayed that we would be, we have to put off the natural, carnal man [and align our values and truths with God's values and truths] with the understanding that He will teach us what we don't know.
      Again, we’re probably in agreement, but I’d state it differently. We cannot align our own values and truths with God. We can align our actions, but we cannot change our own hearts. That’s a change only God can make for us. Like, we can’t give ourselves a priesthood blessing and heal ourselves. If we want a priesthood blessing, we have to submit to priesthood channels, ask for it, and receive it. The gospel of repentance is one of submission. Once we submit, God changes us, and our understanding follows. We have to empty our vessels to have room for God to have a place “in us”. When we take total protection relying on his arm, we are “in Him”.

      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      The testimony of the three witnesses was vastly different than the testimony of the eight witnesses. The Three witnesses were bearing witness to the power by which the Book of Mormon was translated. There is no empirical evidence that could support such a testimony. It cannot be touched but it can be experienced.
      I agree. Empirically, I think it’s notable that each witness fell away from the Church at one point, but never denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon. You’d think if the BoM is a sham, they would have exposed all the lies when they had the chance. It defies logic that they would not have done so.
      Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
      Their testimony was of the experience of the power of God, having been given that same gift as was Joseph Smith. I believe that experience is what led them to exclaim their testimony in honor of the Trinity in oneness because, in that moment, they were one with God. God was in them and they were in God, physically separate but spiritually joined.
      Again, this goes back to the shifting identity of God in Mormonism. It’s real. I don’t believe Mormon theology is as cut-and-dry as we’d like to initially believe or admit. Which, in and of itself, gives me hope that there’s more for me to learn.
      Having said that, believing the Oneness of God is not acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is a theological explanation based on the wholistic witness of the Bible, but God is not the Trinity. A vine, branches, and fruit are still part of the same plant, and yet different parts, purposes, and functions. But I am in full agreement that God has to be experienced to even get a glimmer of understanding.

      The truth is a heresy to the indoctrinated heretic.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Bonnie View Post
        God's Triunity is a mystery, not something we can fathom fully, this side of heaven. It is what it is. God understands it, even if we, with our finite knowledge, cannot. But we can certainly grasp the Concept. The Oneness is spiritual but also something much more, since Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons and the Bible never confuses them. So, they are more than merely one spiritually. But then, God IS spirit, which your church denies, except for the Holy Spirit.
        If you are theologically comfortable classifying things as a "mystery", where does the comfort zone end?

        I get frustrated that Christians on this board have no problem chalking up things as a "mystery" when they are cornered, but then are exacting when they expect Mormons to have answers in their beliefs.

        For example, there's many things I can't prove about the Book of Mormon in certainty, but it's consistent in principle. I have a unmistakable spiritual witness. Would you agree that it would be hypocritical to say "I don't understand the Trinity" but I need concrete evidence the Book of Mormon is legitimate"?

        Personally, I think is OK to say "You have mysteries in your religion, I have mysteries in my religion, and we each have things to think about." I like questions that make me think deeply, and I'm OK with people challenging my beliefs.
        The truth is a heresy to the indoctrinated heretic.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
          Yay! Starting new...

          I'm almost ashamed to say that I could hardly wait for these forums to come back online. Posting here is almost an addiction and I'm still debating if it is a good addiction or a bad one.

          I've been contemplating the oneness of God, especially in view of the witness of the Book of Mormon. I noticed that the three witnesses bore record and ended their witness with these words: "the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God".

          This has frequently been used as a proof text by our critics that earth members of our church were taught the trinity doctrine (this verbiage does support that idea), but the eight witnesses don't use any verbiage even remotely connected to the Trinity or the Oneness of God. The argument has been, in the past, that the Jesus we believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible, but I don't think that's the issue here. It's not hard to identify who Jesus is because we have a book that describes him in detail in his earthly and pre-mortal work. Anyone who can read a Bible can tell who Jesus is and what we believe Jesus did. The individual that is in question is the Father and Jesus was supposed to reveal the Father, nevertheless. It is the Father who is the mystery and where we clearly have disagreements about Him, who and what He is.

          I have never heard a reasonable explanation about what the Trinity is. In my experience, the argument always falls into an unexplainable mystery or it falls into Modalism. My understanding after much debate is that the Being of God is one but the persons of God are three which is the unexplainable mystery. You all just accept that that is true and then go about explaining the persons of the Godhead as beings even though they aren't according to the above explanation. And, I'm not really sure why the being of God must be one when the Bible clearly identifies them as three separate beings, two of them are subordinate to God, the Father. The boundaries are already blurring.

          I would suggest that the oneness of God is not physical but is spiritual. A typical example is when a husband and wife work together for the well being and success of their children or the success of the family as a unit. When a couple has incompatible ideas about how things should be done, friction is discord creates a hostile environment and if not repaired will end in being dissolved. This also is exemplified in John 17:11
          ...keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

          In this prayer, Christ goes into great detail about that oneness connection between himself and the Father, that it should be identical between his disciples and himself. This is obviously not a physical oneness nor is it a oneness of being, but rather and oneness in spirit. this oneness is established in the phrase:
          That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...

          This idea of being one inside of another person cannot possibly be physical. It must be spiritual. For this intertwining of spirits, the person's values but be acceptable to the person that we are in. IOWs, when we accept Christ, we are accepting his values and his truths. When they accept us, either the Father or the Son, they must accept our values and truths. Being one with the Father means that we accept him and He accepts us (this occurs because his Son accepts us). This naturally means that in order to be one with God as Jesus prayed that we would be, we have to put off the natural, carnal man and align our values and truths with God's values and truths with the understanding that He will teach us what we don't know.

          The testimony of the three witnesses was vastly different than the testimony of the eight witnesses. The Three witnesses were bearing witness to the power by which the Book of Mormon was translated. There is no empirical evidence that could support such a testimony. It cannot be touched but it can be experienced. Their testimony was of the experience of the power of God, having been given that same gift as was Joseph Smith. I believe that experience is what led them to exclaim their testimony in honor of the Trinity in oneness because, in that moment, they were one with God. God was in them and they were in God, physically separate but spiritually joined.
          Two things:

          You seem to think that any description that you don't find satisfactory is therefore, "unreasonable". That itself is an unreasonable standard. God is unique. Therefore, it is impossible to have a full understanding of His "ontology", if you will. It's like trying to describe the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted it. It has a unique taste, and you can't adequately describe it without being self-referencing. It's why the only answer we have to describe uncommon meat is, "it tastes like chicken" (even though it doesn't, really). You can't describe goat meat to someone who has never tasted it. And the uniqueness of God is one of the many ways the Mormon Godhead fails. The Mormon God is not unique, He is simply a "man", the same species of us, only a little further advanced.

          Secondly, yes, the nature of the Trinity is spiritual, not physical, because God is spiritual, not physical. "God is spirit" (John 4). Yes, the second person of the Trinity TOOK ON a body of flesh, but the reason He had to do so is precisely because God does not INHERENTLY have a physical body. So He had to take one on. And that is yet another way the Mormon god fails, since the Mormon god is a physical god, with "a body of flesh and bone, as tangible as a man's".

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by aaron32 View Post

            If you are theologically comfortable classifying things as a "mystery", where does the comfort zone end?

            I get frustrated that Christians on this board have no problem chalking up things as a "mystery" when they are cornered, but then are exacting when they expect Mormons to have answers in their beliefs.

            For example, there's many things I can't prove about the Book of Mormon in certainty, but it's consistent in principle. I have a unmistakable spiritual witness. Would you agree that it would be hypocritical to say "I don't understand the Trinity" but I need concrete evidence the Book of Mormon is legitimate"?

            Personally, I think is OK to say "You have mysteries in your religion, I have mysteries in my religion, and we each have things to think about." I like questions that make me think deeply, and I'm OK with people challenging my beliefs.
            The Bible says, "Now we know in part", and "we see as through a glass, darkly".
            We don't know everything.
            And so, unless you can be comfortable with not knowing everything, you will be "uncomfortable" for the entire rest of your life.

            You know what? I know next to nothing about Russian history, or German literature.
            But I'm not "uncomfortable" about those lackings in my knowledge.
            Why do we have to know everything?

            But the comparison you're trying to make is the difference between having a lack of knowledge (= "mystery"), as Christians have, and having contradictory theology, as the Mormons have. You can't simply sweep contradictions under the rug by calling them "mysteries".

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
              Why would anyone believe something they do not know nor can they explain?
              Because it is irrational not to?!

              Dogs can't understand or explain humans (eg. anatomy, psychology, etc. etc.), so should dogs not believe that people exist?
              Should they not trust their owners to feed them and take care of them, simply because they don't understand how they are "constructed"?
              Your suggestion is ridiculous, IMO.

              Especially when what they claim they know - which is impossible to claim since they do not know it - contradicts the Bible which clearly represents them as three distinct beings (you all use the word persons, but in my vocabulary, that's the same thing as beings).
              And that's the problem, you are conflating to DISTINCT concepts.

              First of all, the Bible does NOT "represents them as three distinct beings".
              The Bible represents them as ONE being, "God", "deity".

              You are conflating "being" (which is WHAT He is) with "person" (which is WHO each of the three members is).

              Do you not understand the difference between "what" and "who"?

              It seems to me that you don't WANT to understand the difference, because doing so would smash your criticism to smithereens.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post
                Not according to the scriptures.
                First of all, I am glad that you care about what is "according to the Scriptures.
                Because Mormonism is most certainly NOT "according to the Scriptures.

                We've already pointed out that the God of the Bible is UNIQUE, while the Mormon god is simply an "exalted man", nothing unique about that. The Mormon god is NOT Biblical.

                We've already pointed out that the God of the Bible is SPIRIT (eg. John 4), while the Mormon god "has a body of flesh and bone, as tangible as a man". Therefore the Mormon god is NOT Biblical.

                They are physically separate beings. The scriptures already listed in this discussion thread provides evidence of that. Define essence and we'll know what that oneness is. It is not physical.
                Wrong. The Bible NEVER calls the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "separate BEINGS".
                That is YOUR terminology, because you have an agenda to attack Christianity and defend Mormonism.

                If expressed as three separate and eternal beings, then they are three separate eternal beings.
                Except the Bible NEVER describes them as "separate ... beings".
                Disagree? Then QUOTE the verse that has the expression, "separate BEINGS".

                There is no difference between the word persons and the word beings.
                Certainly there is.

                A rock has "being" (and anyone who has been hit on the head with one can attest to this).
                A rock does NOT have "person".

                So there IS a difference.

                defined, a person is a human being. (the Merriam-Webster dictionary does you all no favor, it describes "person" as one of the three modes of being. Which is modalism.)
                defined, a being is a quality or state of having existence., life, personality, person.
                The M-W dictionary is WRONG on that count, then....
                It is not a theological dictionary, and so it has no authority to define Biblical terms.

                Three Gods, not one, except in purpose.
                And again, this is most certainly NOT "according to the Bible".

                The Bible NEVER describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "three gods", or multiple "gods" at all.
                NEVER.

                It ONLY says that only ONE God exists (Deut. 4:35,39, 1 Kings 8:60, Isa. 43:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, 1 Cor. 8:4, etc. etc. etc.)

                So that is ANOTHER proof that the Mormon god contradicts the Bible.

                God, himself, said, "This is my work and my glory - to bring to pass the immortality life and eternal life of man". That is their purpose. That is the essence that joins them as one. But this essence is not what makes them gods.
                And the Mormon <cough> "gospel" <cough> is to make God the slave of man, and for God to serve man and give man everything he wants.

                While the BIBLICAL gospel is to make God the master, and man the slave.
                We are SLAVES of God.
                We are SERVANTS of God.
                God is our LORD, our MASTER.

                God does not serve us.
                We serve Him.

                And that is why Mormonism is a despicable lie.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by aaron32 View Post

                  If you are theologically comfortable classifying things as a "mystery", where does the comfort zone end?

                  I get frustrated that Christians on this board have no problem chalking up things as a "mystery" when they are cornered, but then are exacting when they expect Mormons to have answers in their beliefs.

                  For example, there's many things I can't prove about the Book of Mormon in certainty, but it's consistent in principle. I have a unmistakable spiritual witness. Would you agree that it would be hypocritical to say "I don't understand the Trinity" but I need concrete evidence the Book of Mormon is legitimate"?

                  Personally, I think is OK to say "You have mysteries in your religion, I have mysteries in my religion, and we each have things to think about." I like questions that make me think deeply, and I'm OK with people challenging my beliefs.
                  There are things that arent mysteries... like who God said He is. But mormon doctrine contradicts what God said. You can refuse to address it, and just call it a mystery. But it isnt. He was very clear.

                  How he accomplishes miracles is a mystery to us. How He created the universe is a mystery to us. But doctrine that contradicts what He told us, like mormon doctrine, is not. It's just false.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Magdalena View Post

                    There are things that arent mysteries... like who God said He is. But mormon doctrine contradicts what God said. You can refuse to address it, and just call it a mystery. But it isnt. He was very clear.

                    How he accomplishes miracles is a mystery to us. How He created the universe is a mystery to us. But doctrine that contradicts what He told us, like mormon doctrine, is not. It's just false.
                    I haven’t read all the posts, but I didn’t to go very far to find a fellow Christians that seem to agree the Trinity, and the corporeal nature of God is a mystery. Did you also address Bonnie to tell her God isn’t a mystery? If it’s so obvious why does the Trinity subject have its own discussion board? Maybe you can do them a favor and close the case for them. Have you studied the doctrine of the Trinity, and can you explain why it took dozens of philosophies before arriving to the hypostatic union if the Bible makes it so clear (according to you)?

                    Can you bring up a specific example of mormon doctrine contradicting the Bible stating who God is?
                    Please remember ‘doctrine’ must be found in the ‘Standard Works’ (which I can supply multiple authoritative statements to that point if you like).

                    The truth is a heresy to the indoctrinated heretic.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by aaron32 View Post

                      If you are theologically comfortable classifying things as a "mystery", where does the comfort zone end?

                      I get frustrated that Christians on this board have no problem chalking up things as a "mystery" when they are cornered, but then are exacting when they expect Mormons to have answers in their beliefs.

                      For example, there's many things I can't prove about the Book of Mormon in certainty, but it's consistent in principle. I have a unmistakable spiritual witness. Would you agree that it would be hypocritical to say "I don't understand the Trinity" but I need concrete evidence the Book of Mormon is legitimate"?

                      Personally, I think is OK to say "You have mysteries in your religion, I have mysteries in my religion, and we each have things to think about." I like questions that make me think deeply, and I'm OK with people challenging my beliefs.
                      Not all things about God can be understood and explained this side of heaven. But in the Bible, a "mystery" is usually something God has not yet fully revealed to us. I am just fine with that. Even the Bible speaks of the mysteries of God. But all that we need to know for salvation is in the Bible and what God HAS revealed to us there.

                      But the BoM is different. For instance:.

                      1. It is "another Testament." We don't need another testament of Jesus Christ. We have the Bible and it contains all we need to know to know Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior.
                      2. There is zero evidence for any people, places, or things in archaeology, that are unique to its pages. Whereas there is plenty for many of the people, places, and things in the Bible.
                      3. Its author, JS, was a false prophet, as proven by his many false prophesies he made in God's name.
                      4. The BoM contradicts later Mormon doctrines, like about monotheism, The Triune Godhead, polygamy, salvation, etc.
                      5. Smith claimed the BoM was the "most correct book" on earth--yet it was "corrected" nearly 4,000 times.
                      6. Smith supposedly got the translation for the BoM by mostly looking at a rock in his hat. That is divination, which is forbidden in the Bible. Why did he even need the golden plates, when he just had to look in his hat to dictate the BoM?
                      7. Almost no doctrine that is unique to the LDS today can be found in the pages of the BoM. So, one cannot learn about Mormon doctrines from it, since it contradicts many modern Mormon doctrines in some places.

                      So, that is why we Christians do not accept the BoM. We don't need it, or want it. I understand it is sacred to those in the LDS church, and many have a "testimony" it s true--but that doesn't mean the testimony came from the Holy Spirit. Rather, it comes from the spirit of error.
                      "It is easy to fool a man, but almost impossible to get him to admit he was fooled." (attributed to Mark Twain)

                      "If the truth hurts--it's working." (Anonymous)

                      "Let the wife make her husband glad to come home and let him make her sorry to see him leave." (Martin Luther)

                      "A layman who has the Scripture is more than Pope or council without it."
                      (Martin Luther)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by e v e View Post

                        The op was about trinity, no? And that is what i responded to.
                        Up to a point. I asked Diane about this, two boards ago, about bringing up the Trinity on the Mormon, JW, etc. boards. She said we an a little bit, since it involves orthodox Christian beliefs, but in-depth discussions about the Trinity should go to the Trinity board. I just do not want either of us to break the rules. That is all.
                        "It is easy to fool a man, but almost impossible to get him to admit he was fooled." (attributed to Mark Twain)

                        "If the truth hurts--it's working." (Anonymous)

                        "Let the wife make her husband glad to come home and let him make her sorry to see him leave." (Martin Luther)

                        "A layman who has the Scripture is more than Pope or council without it."
                        (Martin Luther)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Magdalena View Post

                          There are things that arent mysteries... like who God said He is. But mormon doctrine contradicts what God said. You can refuse to address it, and just call it a mystery. But it isnt. He was very clear.

                          How he accomplishes miracles is a mystery to us. How He created the universe is a mystery to us. But doctrine that contradicts what He told us, like mormon doctrine, is not. It's just false.
                          Maggie! You are back! I subscribed to you!
                          "It is easy to fool a man, but almost impossible to get him to admit he was fooled." (attributed to Mark Twain)

                          "If the truth hurts--it's working." (Anonymous)

                          "Let the wife make her husband glad to come home and let him make her sorry to see him leave." (Martin Luther)

                          "A layman who has the Scripture is more than Pope or council without it."
                          (Martin Luther)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The BoM, Bible, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Lectures on Faith and JS teach something different about the Holy Spirit/Ghost. Which I bring out in this post. The main focus in this post is that teh Holy Spirit/Ghost is an IT not a HE like the LDS church claims. I allude to more, which I need to write another post on to get into other details.

                            IT
                            2 Nephi (LDS 33:2) (RLDS 15:2) But behold, there are many that DARDEN their HEARTS against the HOLY SPIRIT, that IT hath no place in them; wherefore, they cast many things away which are written and esteem them as things of naught.
                            ***
                            2 Nephi (LDS 31:8-9) (RLDS 13:10-11)
                            8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the HOLY GHOST DESCENDED upon him in the form of a DOVE. 9 And again, IT showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he [Jesus] having set the example before them.
                            2 Nephi (LDS 32:5) (RLDS 14:6) For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST, IT will SHOW unto you all things what ye SHOULD DO.
                            Alma (LDS 34:38) (RLDS 16:237-238) That ye CONTEND no more against the HOLY GHOST, but that ye RECEIVE IT, and take upon you the name of Christ; that ye humble yourselves even to the dust, and worship God, in whatsoever place ye may be in, in spirit and in truth; and that ye live in thanksgiving daily, for the many mercies and blessings which he doth bestow upon you.
                            Alma (LDS 39:6) (RLDS 19:8-9) For behold, if ye DENY the HOLY GHOST when IT once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny IT, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.
                            Moroni (LDS 2:2) (RLDS 2:2) And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall GIVE the HOLY GHOST; and in my name shall ye give IT, for thus do mine apostles.
                            https://seekingyhwh.com/2019/06/09/t...-are-the-same/

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by brotherofJared View Post

                              Why would anyone believe something they do not know nor can they explain? Especially when what they claim they know - which is impossible to claim since they do not know it - contradicts the Bible which clearly represents them as three distinct beings (you all use the word persons, but in my vocabulary, that's the same thing as beings).
                              Who says we do not know God? We know God by what is written about Him in the Bible. From the Biblical witness, we KNOW THAT:

                              1. There is only one true God. He is unique.
                              2. He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and eternal and uncreated.
                              3. We know God is love. We know that God loves us dearly.
                              4. God is merciful and just.
                              5. God can be grieved and feel other emotions, like anger. love, sorry, joy.
                              6. God can self-sacrifice, as He did in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ.
                              7. God has intellect.

                              God has spoken to us and revealed Himself most fully to us through and by His Son, Jesus Christ. He exactly reflects the invisible God the Father's qualities and nature. Reread Heb. 1:1-3.

                              So, God is NOT uknowable. But some things about Him and His nature we cannot fully understand this side of heaven. And I am okay with that. No one needs to understand all the workings of something for it to work. or be real. I haven't a clue how atom bombs are made but it one went off outside my house I would have immediate and incontrovertible proof that they work--whether or not I understood HOW they do so!
                              Last edited by Bonnie; 01-06-2020, 06:52 PM.
                              "It is easy to fool a man, but almost impossible to get him to admit he was fooled." (attributed to Mark Twain)

                              "If the truth hurts--it's working." (Anonymous)

                              "Let the wife make her husband glad to come home and let him make her sorry to see him leave." (Martin Luther)

                              "A layman who has the Scripture is more than Pope or council without it."
                              (Martin Luther)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Theo1689 View Post

                                Because it is irrational not to?!

                                Dogs can't understand or explain humans (eg. anatomy, psychology, etc. etc.), so should dogs not believe that people exist?
                                Should they not trust their owners to feed them and take care of them, simply because they don't understand how they are "constructed"?
                                Your suggestion is ridiculous, IMO.



                                And that's the problem, you are conflating to DISTINCT concepts.

                                First of all, the Bible does NOT "represents them as three distinct beings".
                                The Bible represents them as ONE being, "God", "deity".

                                You are conflating "being" (which is WHAT He is) with "person" (which is WHO each of the three members is).

                                Do you not understand the difference between "what" and "who"?

                                It seems to me that you don't WANT to understand the difference, because doing so would smash your criticism to smithereens.
                                Absolutely! A being is "what" we are, but WHO we are is our "person." Our personality, or consciousness, as it were.

                                So GOD is WHAT the Trinity is, but WHO the Trinity is, is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is it, in a nutshell, would you not say, Theo?

                                Glad you are back by the way.
                                "It is easy to fool a man, but almost impossible to get him to admit he was fooled." (attributed to Mark Twain)

                                "If the truth hurts--it's working." (Anonymous)

                                "Let the wife make her husband glad to come home and let him make her sorry to see him leave." (Martin Luther)

                                "A layman who has the Scripture is more than Pope or council without it."
                                (Martin Luther)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X