apexviper13

Members
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

apexviper13's Achievements

  1. http://www.freewebs.com/nell0/Ehrman,%20Bart%20D.%20-%20Misquoting%20Jesus%20%5BThe%20Story%20Behind%20Who%20Changed%20the%20Bible%20and%20Why%5D.htm "Charges of this kind against "heretics"—that they altered the texts of scripture to make them say what they wanted them to mean—are very common among early Christian writers. What is noteworthy, however, is that recent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts points the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with the orthodox tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their "misuse" by Christians affirming heretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion." The very real danger that texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning: I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book; and if anyone removes any of the words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove his share from the tree of life and from the holy city, as described in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19) This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words." Since many of our critics like to use these verses I figured I'd bring up the real purpose John had for writing these verses. In early Christianity many copyists, the people who would copy the sacred text found on the ancient scriptures, would alter, add, and even delete words and/or entire phrases from the text. Not just the people who were considered heretics but also those who would be considered "orthodox" Christians by people of today. Although the book of Revelation is mostly apocalyptic, this part, however, is not. Notice how this threat is at the end of the book. At this point John was done speaking about the future. The final apocalyptic verse is Revelation 22:5. The threat in verses 18-19 were to the copyists. John was warning them to leave his words alone. If not, the violators would be plagued.
  2. Same here. Usually, when someone says certain people aren't "orthodox" Christians they're referring to the people that don't believe in the creeds.
  3. St. Irenaeus: "God became what we are in order to make us what he is himself," "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is." Clement of Alexandra: "yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." Justin Martyr: "[by Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest." St. Gregory of Nazianzus: "become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake." Hyppolytus: "Thy body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as thy soul. For thou hast become God."
  4. My problem, aside from the "trinity" concept itself, is people saying you must believe in this concept in order to be considered a Christian. At the same time, some trinitarians don't bring up the need to believe in Jesus Christ himself. Another thing that I see as a problem is trinitarians claim if you don't believe in the "trinity" concept you're denying the deity of Christ. Paul, Jeremiah, John, Isaiah, James, Abraham, Peter, Ezekiel, and the other men of God in the Bible couldn't have believed in the "trinity" concept because this doctrine didn't exist until the debate between Athanasius and Arius started which led to the Nicene Creed of 325 which pretty much didn't include the Holy Ghost.
  5. Difference between the "plurality of gods" and polytheism: Clean Cut (with a Coke): The Doctrine of a Plurality of Gods Is Not Polytheism
  6. The Catholic version has the Holy Ghost proceeding from both so this seems to be more in line with all 3 being of the same substance. With the Orthodox version it seems the Father and Son are of the same substance because the Son is the begotten of the Father, the Father and Holy Ghost are of the same substance because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, yet at the same time, the Orthodox version excludes the Son in regards to who the Holy Ghost proceeds from. So its as if the Father and Son are of the same substance and the Father and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance but somehow the Son and Holy Ghost aren't of the same substance according to Eastern Orthodox standards. I'm not a trinitarian because I believe scripture teaches contrary to the trinity but if I were a trinitarian I'd definitely believe in the Catholic version where the Holy Ghost proceeds both the Father and the Son.
  7. I believe many of us that are LDS would disagree here due to our belief in the pre-mortal life. To me, the fact that the scriptures talk about Eternal Life with the Father and Son can refer to a pre-mortal life as well. After all, eternity is without beginning and without end, not just without end. Psalm 82:6/John 10:34-35 Thought I'd mention both since John quotes Psalm. I'd compare the usage here to Psalm 89:6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? This is something I was referring to in the other thread. While the Catholic Nicene Creed states the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and Son, the Eastern Orthodox version has the Holy Ghost just proceeding the Father. I do have a question. Maybe you can clear this up. Many trinitarians I've encountered have said Joseph Smith's teaching of the "plurality of gods", calling each member of the Godhead, is considered blasphemous. My question is why do they see it to be blasphemous? The reason I ask is because to me its no different from saying "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit/Ghost."
  8. Most trinitarians I've talked to described it as 3 beings in 1 person that is God.
  9. Which proves my point that trinitarians are not in unity with the "trinity"concept.
  10. You haven't but I have heard people describe it that way. 3 beings being 1 person in God. I've heard the alternate: God being 1 being in 3 persons. I've heard people that claim they believe in the "trinity" to describe it as Modalism. Just because you people don't hear some mention it this way doesn't mean nobody says they're 3 beings in 1 person that is God.
  11. How is it hard to believe that's how most trinitarians believe? Yes, most do believe they're a 3-being-in-1-person God. I understand the "trinity" concept. The official declaration is described in the Nicene Creed albeit the concept has changed over the years. The official belief is they're of one substance. Actually its more developed in the Athanasian creed. Especially when it comes to the Holy Ghost. The original Nicene Creed said this much about the Holy Ghost: "And in the Holy Ghost." That's it. By the way, do you believe in the Catholic version or the Eastern Orthodox version?
  12. Yes, many do say they're 3 beings in 1 person. And these 2 verses are great against the "trinity".
  13. In these particular verses, no. They don't say anything about the Father having a body. Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; While mankind is created in the image of the Father, Jesus Christ is the express image of the Father. What Christ looks like is what the Father looks like. Since the Son is the express image of the Father and has a body of flesh and bone then the Father has a body of flesh and bone as well.
  14. Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. When us LDS bring up Acts 7 many try to say "Stephen only saw the glory of God." Verse 56 shows otherwise. Being on the "right hand of God" refers to position and glory. He stands at the right side of the Father. While you may find it hard to believe that the Father and Son are 2 beings, Stephen, in Acts 7, saw the 2 separate being: the Father and the Son.
  15. John 17 is a chapter that denies the trinitarian teaching. Like Justice said, this chapter describes how they're one. Verse 3 is a major one. Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God."