The Godhead

[Dr T]

Thanks Justice. :) I still see people interpreting LDS scriptures too and think if I hear, "we have people tell use what it really means" then that sort of takes of of your responsibilty out of it in some sense. What do u think of that Justice?

[Traveler]

You know, I have come to realize that the idea of the Trinity might be more intelligent than I ever gave it credit.

It uses mostly the same words as the way we describe the Godhead.

But, since they have branded it as incomprehensible, anyone can interpret and understand it however they want and can't be proven wrong.

Fascinating.

I believe you have come to the same interesting conclusion that I have. But it also appears to me that from the meeting at Nice that the Christian scholars were very heavily influenced by the Greek philosophers of the time. Woven into the concepts of the Trinity are very cleaver philosophies stepped in paganism. Using the tools of rhetorical logic above sacred scripture the Trinity scholars very carefully defined persons and the 3 in one concepts and then define the meaning of scriptures after the conclusion of the Trinity is established to give the impression that the idea is scriptural in nature to begin with.

One of history’s most classical arguments against the Trinity was started by accident when a Catholic priest asked how it could be that Mary was the mother of our L-rd. This is the basis of Nestorian Christianity but the priest was denounced as a heretic and forced to retract his question or be excommunicated. Most Asian Christian sects consider themselves non-Trinitarian Nestorian Christians with various views on this question.

Another historical argument of classic nature revolves around the interpretations of the Hebrew words “ehad” and “yhead” which both are translated into Latin and English as “one” despite the fact that they have different meanings. The Jews that preserved the Hebrew language have a rather different view concerning these terms that are unacceptable to Christian scholars. In essence all references to G-d as one G-d use the Hebrew word ehad. The Jews argue, with good reason that using the singular one for ehad means that there are no possible parts. So even though the New Testament makes the distinction of “G-d the Father” and “G-d the son” – Jews argue that the singular meaning of ehad implies no multiple distinctions which they claim is a hidden polytheism. This is why in the Trinity creed added the phrase that G-d has no parts – meaning divisible distinctions. Then when faced with the discrepancy of rhetorical logic multiple persons the Trinity scholars simply say G-d is incomprehensible. Thus the arguments are less conclusive and more of a ping pong match constantly going back and forth creating divergence rather than any common ground.

The Traveler

Edited July 16, 2009 by Traveler

[Justice]

Thanks Justice. :) I still see people interpreting LDS scriptures too and think if I hear, "we have people tell use what it really means" then that sort of takes of of your responsibilty out of it in some sense. What do u think of that Justice?

I think you have a very good point.

You say that as if it's all bad.

They do keep the basics in line, that's for sure.

But, there are many things you won't hear the General Authorities talk about.

To me, it's far better to keep some reigns on doctrine than to let it be tossed as the waves the sea. In fact, all the epistles in the New Testament were written to the churches to keep doctrine in line.

[Traveler]

It's like 1x1x1=1 not "+"

If one understand the full extent of number theory and the binary operations of addition and multiplication (multiplication being a special case of addition) this argument is flawed if "x" or "+" is used. However, if one understands the difference between whole and real numbers there is a different problem. If we consider G-d as a "whole" unitarily entity as the Trinity doctrine implies then a differentiation or a distinction of “G-d The Father”, “G-d The Son” and the “G-d Holy Ghost” as identified in scripture become a rhetorical nightmare of contradictions. And if someone refuses to recognize rhetorical contradictions there are no logical arguments that can persuade irrational opinions.

The Traveler

[Ezequiel]

....all the epistles in the New Testament were written to the churches to keep doctrine in line.

infact, most of them make reference to Jesus Christ and God the Father as separate beings in the very first few verses! Such as...

"Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

(1 Cor. 1:3)

"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort"

(2 Cor. 1:3)

"Paul, an aapostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ"

(Gal 1:1~3)

"Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ"

(Eph. 1:2)

"Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

(Philip 1:2)

It keeps going on for most, if not all, of the Epistles. I don't know why would Paul make such a mistake if they were the same being.

Its kind of strange that so many people can't accept something other than what was decided by those men at Nicea. The Lord Jesus Christ has said about these men...

"...they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

(Mat. 13:13)

and He was also heard saying:

"let him that readeth understand"

(Mark 13:14)

[beefche]

If one understand the full extent of number theory and the binary operations of addition and multiplication (multiplication being a special case of addition) this argument is flawed if "x" or "+" is used. However, if one understands the difference between whole and real numbers there is a different problem. If we consider G-d as a "whole" unitarily entity as the Trinity doctrine implies then a differentiation or a distinction of “G-d The Father”, “G-d The Son” and the “G-d Holy Ghost” as identified in scripture become a rhetorical nightmare of contradictions. And if someone refuses to recognize rhetorical contradictions there are no logical arguments that can persuade irrational opinions.

The Traveler

I've studied many languages (6, in fact), but I admit this is a language that escapes me. Math is really not a strength to me--unless it involves balancing my checkbook.

[Dr T]

Thanks Traveler,

All three called God yet we see over and over again "one God" and they are not gods but equal with God the Father, it brings me to the conclusion that it's the three in 1 concept. I don't see why that is taken as illogical. For example, some things can be 100% one thing and also 100% something else such as 100% Red and 100% Round and it can still be a ball without a problem.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Dr T
changed mistake from "with to without"

[Traveler]

I've studied many languages (6, in fact), but I admit this is a language that escapes me. Math is really not a strength to me--unless it involves balancing my checkbook.

Math is a very simple language based on unambiguous syntax and grammar. It is also very powerful in that if someone attempts to use the language improperly or to lie the language itself will reveal both the lie and the level of understanding the individual has to what they are addressing in conversation. I personally view mathematics as the language given to man that most resembles the language of G-d.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Thanks Traveler,

All three called God yet we see over and over again "one God" and they are not gods but equal with God the Father, it brings me to the conclusion that it's the three in 1 concept. I don't see why that is taken as illogical. For example, some things can be 100% one thing and also 100% something else such as 100% Red and 100% Round and it can still be a ball with a problem.

First off I am not aware of any scripture where Jesus indicates that he is equal with the Father. I do know of scriptures where Jesus indicates that the Father is in reality greater than him.

If we understand the use of “ehad” in reference to G-d in the same manner that “ehad” is used to indicate that a man and woman are one in the covenant of marriage then I am in agreement. This is the plural meaning and understanding of “ehad”. However, in marriage the man and the woman are not “equal” in that they are different – one being male and the other female and together in covenant they are then whole. Which among other things with a joint wholeness have power to create life and replicate themselves. Which is the reason I personally reject the concepts of the Trinity – because they deny the power to G-d to replicate G-d thereby creating a heresy that man, redeemed in heaven, is more powerful than G-d because we can do what G-d cannot.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

First off I am not aware of any scripture where Jesus indicates that he is equal with the Father. I do know of scriptures where Jesus indicates that the Father is in reality greater than him.

If we understand the use of “ehad” in reference to G-d in the same manner that “ehad” is used to indicate that a man and woman are one in the covenant of marriage then I am in agreement. This is the plural meaning and understanding of “ehad”. However, in marriage the man and the woman are not “equal” in that they are different – one being male and the other female and together in covenant they are then whole. Which among other things with a joint wholeness have power to create life and replicate themselves. Which is the reason I personally reject the concepts of the Trinity – because they deny the power to G-d to replicate G-d thereby creating a heresy that man, redeemed in heaven, is more powerful than G-d because we can do what G-d cannot.

The Traveler

Traveler,

Your last post built to the conclusion that it is heresy that man can do something that God cannot and is therefore more powerful than God. That does not follow sir. There are things that man can do that God cannot and it shows nothing of power. Any form of sin cannot be done by God; does that make me more powerful than God? No, it doesn't. He can't lie and I can, I can have offspring the way He designed it and just because He can't, does that really make Him less powerful? I don't think so. Thanks for your thought on that Traveler

[Traveler]

Traveler,

Your last post built to the conclusion that it is heresy that man can do something that God cannot and is therefore more powerful than God. That does not follow sir. There are things that man can do that God cannot and it shows nothing of power. Any form of sin cannot be done by God; does that make me more powerful than God? No, it doesn't. He can't lie and I can, I can have offspring the way He designed it and just because He can't, does that really make Him less powerful? I don't think so. Thanks for your thought on that Traveler

First off - I enjoy talking with you - it allows me to think and consider my own thoughts more carefully. However, you mised some very important points from my post that if you had considered them may have resulted in you considering something different in your answer. I did not say any man - I said a santified man living with G-d in heaven. I do not consider the creation of human life a sin at all. Only the missues of that power - which (speaking of that specific power) I believe is a divine power that is basic to the power of that which is G-d.

Something else you ought to also consider is that for many the primary reason they worship G-d is because the believe he is the creator. The scriptures do tell us that among his creations that there was one creation intended to be in every way his very image and likeness. It was from the beginning, G-d intented to make man free (to do anything that G-d can do - realizing that everything G-d does is good and right and an act of freedom). I do not know of any scripture that indicates that G-d intends to withhold goodness and rightness from those that believe and trust in him. I believe that it is Satan that desires that man should not be free to do anything and everything that is good.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

First off - I enjoy talking with you - it allows me to think and consider my own thoughts more carefully. However, you mised some very important points from my post that if you had considered them may have resulted in you considering something different in your answer. I did not say any man - I said a santified man living with G-d in heaven. I do not consider the creation of human life a sin at all. Only the missues of that power - which (speaking of that specific power) I believe is a divine power that is basic to the power of that which is G-d.

I agree with you sir. I do not see it as a sin either and I don't know where u got the idea that I was saying that it was a sin.

Something else you ought to also consider is that for many the primary reason they worship G-d is because the believe he is the creator. The scriptures do tell us that among his creations that there was one creation intended to be in every way his very image and likeness. It was from the beginning, G-d intented to make man free (to do anything that G-d can do - realizing that everything G-d does is good and right and an act of freedom). I do not know of any scripture that indicates that G-d intends to withhold goodness and rightness from those that believe and trust in him. I believe that it is Satan that desires that man should not be free to do anything and everything that is good.

The Traveler

Yes, God is the creator, I agree with that claim.

...among his creations that there was one creation intended to be in every way his very image and likeness.

The last quote I'm not sure of. I'm familiar with the "we shall make man in our image" idea but the "in every way" part is something I'll need to think on a little. Man, being able to do anything and everything that is good" is a great concept. I do not think that that would be "having the ability" to do anything and everything that is good is possible. I think of the possibility of "action" and contrast it with "essence". I know that I am flawed and therefore not perfect (as God is perfect because of who He is) and therefore take this as not being given the liberty or power to create a universe as God did. I take the creation of offspring no more than like God said about seed bearing plants creating more seed bearing plants or animals creating animals. I do not see (within my power) the ability to create matter, to make a rock, for example or to create a tree. I think those things are inate within how we have been made. Thank you God.

[Traveler]

I agree with you sir. I do not see it as a sin either and I don't know where u got the idea that I was saying that it was a sin.

Yes, God is the creator, I agree with that claim. The last quote I'm not sure of. I'm familiar with the "we shall make man in our image" idea but the "in every way" part is something I'll need to think on a little. Man, being able to do anything and everything that is good" is a great concept. I do not think that that would be "having the ability" to do anything and everything that is good is possible. I think of the possibility of "action" and contrast it with "essence". I know that I am flawed and therefore not perfect (as God is perfect because of who He is) and therefore take this as not being given the liberty or power to create a universe as God did. I take the creation of offspring no more than like God said about seed bearing plants creating more seed bearing plants or animals creating animals. I do not see (within my power) the ability to create matter, to make a rock, for example or to create a tree. I think those things are inate within how we have been made. Thank you God.

If you come up with something of G-d that is not good or right for man to follow in the image of – I would be most interested. I have not found anything. Including creating a universe; as long as we follow his example and his divine reason and purpose (image and likeness) – it seems most logical to me that the more there is of the things that G-d does invest in and do, the better period. That seems to me to be our purpose and destiny and why we are in his image and likeness.

Another point of your concern is your “flaw”. But I submit that your only flaw comes through the fall and that is why the gift of grace overcomes the flaw of the fall. Without the flaw of the fall there would be no need for a Savior or Redeemer. I believe the scriptures inform us that once we become partakers of the redemptions of Christ to remove that flaw of the fall that we become heirs to all G-d has. If there is an exception to anything G-d possesses, like creation as a possible exception, I have not found it in the scriptures. So if that exceptions is true, the scriptures are flawed to have not included that most important point which is taught by many Traditional Christians anyway - even though it is not in scripture – which having been taught such, though not in scripture, I assume, is the reason that you believe it to be true doctrine anyway. For me I see no reason to make such an exception thinking G-d can’t do it.

My thinking – if G-d is the creator it makes sense that he include that which is good in his creation. If G-d is good he must include that which is good in his creation. If G-d does not include the creation of other G-ds then there are only two possible reasons. First – G-d is not really good and therefore does not create that which is the “best” good. Second – G-d is not really good and therefore to create other G-d in the image and likeness of himself would actually be a very bad thing. If you can think of another reason not to create other G-ds in the image and likeness of G-d I would be most interested in exploring such logic.

If you are considering Lucifer desiring to be like G-d I think there is a flaw in understanding. Lucifer (Satan) wants to be a G-d but not a G-d in the image and likeness of G-d the Father. It is his intension to be a very different “kind” of G-d in a very different image and likeness.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hi Traveler,

If you come up with something of G-d that is not good or right for man to follow in the image of – I would be most interested. I have not found anything. Including creating a universe; as long as we follow his example and his divine reason and purpose (image and likeness) – it seems most logical to me that the more there is of the things that G-d does invest in and do, the better period. That seems to me to be our purpose and destiny and why we are in his image and likeness.

Good thought there and gets into exactly what I was trying to distinguish between in my last post. Those two things are acting godly vs being God. Yes, I'd say anything that is godly is good (for His purposes and toward His ends). The issue that I'm not getting across to you very well is "between" vs. "doing or action."

Another point of your concern is your “flaw”. But I submit that your only flaw comes through the fall and that is why the gift of grace overcomes the flaw of the fall. Without the flaw of the fall there would be no need for a Savior or Redeemer. I believe the scriptures inform us that once we become partakers of the redemptions of Christ to remove that flaw of the fall that we become heirs to all G-d has. If there is an exception to anything G-d possesses, like creation as a possible exception, I have not found it in the scriptures. So if that exceptions is true, the scriptures are flawed to have not included that most important point which is taught by many Traditional Christians anyway - even though it is not in scripture – which having been taught such, though not in scripture, I assume, is the reason that you believe it to be true doctrine anyway. For me I see no reason to make such an exception thinking G-d can’t do it.

I say I am flawed because of any sin I have committed in my life (no matter the size). Yes, you are correct because of the fall and the error of our ways we do need salvation and that is Christ. I see becoming an heir to God's kingdom and yes, that comes only through Jesus' redemption. The last line is where I'm caught. What is it that God cannot do with respect to what you said? I think it is that God cannot make another being, just like Himself, that has always existed, is perfect, without flaw ever, just as I see God as unable to cease to exist. I do not think that God can create a proof of His non-existence, do know He cannot be imperfect and the like. I also do not think He shares His glory apart from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, since I believe the three are one God as described in scripture. That's where I come down on those issues. :)

My thinking – if G-d is the creator it makes sense that he include that which is good in his creation. If G-d is good he must include that which is good in his creation. If G-d does not include the creation of other G-ds then there are only two possible reasons. First – G-d is not really good and therefore does not create that which is the “best” good. Second – G-d is not really good and therefore to create other G-d in the image and likeness of himself would actually be a very bad thing. If you can think of another reason not to create other G-ds in the image and likeness of G-d I would be most interested in exploring such logic.

If you are considering Lucifer desiring to be like G-d I think there is a flaw in understanding. Lucifer (Satan) wants to be a G-d but not a G-d in the image and likeness of G-d the Father. It is his intension to be a very different “kind” of G-d in a very different image and likeness.

The Traveler

[JohnnyRudick]

Arguing over the trinity has already been done in past threads. A search on previous threads will find multiple posts for and against the trinity. I posted just to clarify that there is a correct definition of the trinity; making the trinity into something it is not serves no purpose.

There is no one here creating a straw dummy to shoot down.

You are teaching the dame doctrine that the Jesuits teach to non Catholic investigators.

What many of us are familiar with are the teachings of many so-called (I say so-called

as they really aren't anymore) Protestant churches.

We have discussed our Church with many of them and also they have invited many of

us into their churches.

I have been one who have taken many of them up on their invitation and have learned

much over the years.

The most often version of the so-called Doctrine of the Trinity we hear today is that the three are indeed one in substance and three in manifestation.

Say what you will but that is the practice of what we run into in the churches in general

through out Christiandum.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Well for one thing, trinitarians believe in the trinity doctrine, LDS do not. :) Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is a God, trinitarians believe Jesus is the one and only God.Trinitarians do not believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Christ's body is glorified. It is obvious we both see the Godhead differently.

I have see you people over and over again "walk in the noon day Sun and declare

that the Sun does not shine."

You will swear one thing and then like some double minded man switch gears and

say you are consistent in logic and spirit.

Even in the face of Scripture you say you believe in.

Another poster I consider my friend, has posted that we need to lay religion aside and read in the Spirit.

I agree.

But we must be certain that the spirit we choose to follow will read the same book

we read.

You say

"Trinitarians do not believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones."

Well, Trinitarians do not agree with Scripture.

Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why

do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:

handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye

see me have.

Luke 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his

hands and his feet.

Luke 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and

wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

Luke 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of

an honeycomb.

Luke 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Bro. Rudick

Edited July 18, 2009 by JohnnyRudick

[Maureen]

You say

"Trinitarians do not believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones."

Well, Trinitarians do not agree with Scripture.

Luke 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why

do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:

handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye

see me have.

Luke 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his

hands and his feet.

Luke 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and

wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

Luke 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of

an honeycomb.

Luke 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

JohnnyRudick, yes I said that I (and other trinitarians) do not believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. The scripture you have posted is referring to Christ. It is Christ talking (God the Son), not God the Father. You have misunderstood what I said with what you think I said.

M.

[Dr T]

I thought the same thing as I read those passages M

[JohnnyRudick]

JohnnyRudick, yes I said that I (and other trinitarians) do not believe that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. The scripture you have posted is referring to Christ. It is Christ talking (God the Son), not God the Father. You have misunderstood what I said with what you think I said.

M.

I'll just re post what I said earlier;

There is no one here creating a straw dummy to shoot down.

You are teaching the same doctrine that the Jesuits teach to non Catholic investigators.

What many of us are familiar with are the teachings of many so-called (I say so-called

as they really aren't anymore) Protestant churches.

We have discussed our Church with many of them and also they have invited many of

us into their churches.

I have been one who have taken many of them up on their invitation and have learned

much over the years.

The most often version of the so-called Doctrine of the Trinity we hear today is that the three are indeed one in substance and three in manifestation.

Say what you will but that is the practice of what we run into in the churches in general

through out Christiandum.

Bro. Rudick

Edited July 18, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
missed a key;)

[Justice]

I think the point is being made that Christ has a body of flesh and bones, and He is glorified, exalted, and perfect.

How could the Father be glorified, exalted, and perfect, if He did not have a body like His Son?

If the Father is exalted, glorified, and perfect and does not have a body, why does the Son have to have one in order to be like the Father?

[Dr T]

Good question Justice. See, in your above post you have some assumptions from what you've been taught in your church. I do not believe that there is such a thing as being exalted, not eternal progression, no need for a body to "become" exalted and therefore there is no need for the Father to get any better than He already is. He just IS and He is perfect from the begining and forever.

[Traveler]

Hi Traveler,

Good thought there and gets into exactly what I was trying to distinguish between in my last post. Those two things are acting godly vs being God. Yes, I'd say anything that is godly is good (for His purposes and toward His ends). The issue that I'm not getting across to you very well is "between" vs. "doing or action."

I say I am flawed because of any sin I have committed in my life (no matter the size). Yes, you are correct because of the fall and the error of our ways we do need salvation and that is Christ. I see becoming an heir to God's kingdom and yes, that comes only through Jesus' redemption. The last line is where I'm caught. What is it that God cannot do with respect to what you said? I think it is that God cannot make another being, just like Himself, that has always existed, is perfect, without flaw ever, just as I see God as unable to cease to exist. I do not think that God can create a proof of His non-existence, do know He cannot be imperfect and the like. I also do not think He shares His glory apart from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, since I believe the three are one God as described in scripture. That's where I come down on those issues. :)

I would like to explorer a few things in your last post to me. You made reference to “acting g-dly” and being a “G-d”. It appears that you are attempting to define G-d by the creation. Or that G-d being the creator is what distinguishes G-d as unique and therefore something that cannot be replicated. I realize this is a very good argument except for one small oversight. That oversight is that G-d identifies himself as G-d outside of him being the creator. In other words G-d does want us to understand that without being a creator the title of G-d can and should be bestowed on a being such as himself.

Let us look first at John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.” Here we see that at the point which the scriptures identify as the beginning G-d as G-d already existed. Now consider Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.” In Genesis we see that the “beginning” was before creation. In the most simple of terms – creation needs a G-d. But to be a G-d does not require creation. To make being a creator as a requirement of what it is to be a G-d becomes flawed on so many levels. It would mean that until the creation G-d was not yet a real G-d. It would also meant that he was not whole, holy or perfect if we tie the meaning of G-d being whole, holy and perfect to require that such things only come from being the creator.

It also appears to me that you think that G-d is our “eternal” G-d. This makes sense only if G-d was our G-d before creation and the only way that could be true is if something of us existed for which G-d was G-d before the creation of man as described in Genesis. This misunderstanding of this principle has been the source of great traditional Christian discussions concerning free will verses determinism. The problem is that if nothing of us existed prior to G-d’s creation then he alone is the cause of what we do and who we are – therefore we have no say but to be what G-d alone has created and there is no free will. This also makes G-d a grand hypocrite and perpetrator of injustice because we are punished for sins that we cannot avoid and that he only is the source of.

The only way around this dilemma is if G-d is not the source of evil. And the only way that such a thing is possible is if evil had place among us before G-d had hand in creating us and that in creating us he allowed that evil among us to remain by our choice alone – not his; but if the essence of that choice did not exist before the creation of man then it was by him that such a thing became part of us in the creation; thereby making him the actual and only source of evil within us. Therefore it would be unjust that G-d damn man for what he alone is responsible for and the source of.

And so it is not so much the concept of the Trinity – in and of itself; it is all the baggage, contradictions with scripture that can only be explained by irrational arguments that define G-d and his children in ways that cannot be applied to reality. And in the end there is no benefit and nothing enlightening by which G-d accomplishes his (by his own admission) greatest achievement. When all is said and done concerning the Trinity – I am left with the distinct feeling that G-d in all his wisdom and glory could have done much better. An so I have come to understand – That he has – and it is as true as light overcoming darkness; that with G-d all things are possible – the only limit a those that we bring and that we insist on.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

I would like to explorer a few things in your last post to me. You made reference to “acting g-dly” and being a “G-d”. It appears that you are attempting to define G-d by the creation. Or that G-d being the creator is what distinguishes G-d as unique and therefore something that cannot be replicated. I realize this is a very good argument except for one small oversight. That oversight is that G-d identifies himself as G-d outside of him being the creator. In other words G-d does want us to understand that without being a creator the title of G-d can and should be bestowed on a being such as himself.

Yes, I agree with the concept of God being God regardless of Him creating or not. I did not intended to imply that He was not God if He didn't create. That was not my intetion at all. He is God because of His essence and that's it. He IS. I was using an example only to show that we are not like God in that we cannot matter like He did. I'm guessing that you think God didn't create it either and only organized prexiting matter but I may be wrong. What do u think of that concept? (that way I know for sure and do not speak for you).

Let us look first at John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d, and the Word was G-d.” Here we see that at the point which the scriptures identify as the beginning G-d as G-d already existed. Now consider Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.” In Genesis we see that the “beginning” was before creation. In the most simple of terms – creation needs a G-d. But to be a G-d does not require creation. To make being a creator as a requirement of what it is to be a G-d becomes flawed on so many levels. It would mean that until the creation G-d was not yet a real G-d. It would also meant that he was not whole, holy or perfect if we tie the meaning of G-d being whole, holy and perfect to require that such things only come from being the creator.

Yes, I love that verse. That is a verse all about Jesus and how he was God from the begining! He was around before creation, infact, he created everything. Read down to vs. 14 I think it is to see "the word became flesh and dwelt among us. That is because Jesus took on humanity to be born on Earth. Ok, my son is waiting for me so I'll come back later. Thanks

[Justice]

Good question Justice. See, in your above post you have some assumptions from what you've been taught in your church. I do not believe that there is such a thing as being exalted, not eternal progression, no need for a body to "become" exalted and therefore there is no need for the Father to get any better than He already is. He just IS and He is perfect from the begining and forever.

This is why we cite the proof that Christ has a resurrected, glorified, perfected body. He went from a mortal state on earth to an immortal state and was given all that the Father hath. Call it what you want, but that is exalted. That is the issue you need to argue agaist, not any interpretation. Your view is but an interpretation also, but you have no proof God does NOT have a physical body. I offer the evidence that His perfect Son was resurrected and now has a body and that He is like His Father.

We can agree that Christ is perfect AND that He has a body?

The logic that the Father has a body is pretty strong there. All you have is an interpretation that the Father doesn't need one to be perfect because He is "different."

It's in the Bible for all to see. You don't have to go to my church to hear it taught. You just have to open your Bible and read.

[Justice]

As far as God bringing anything into existence from nothing, show me one verse in the Bible that says "God brought everything into existence from nothing."

In fact, it says it took God 6 days to "create" the heaven and earth. If He spoke it into existence from nothing, why did it then take Him 6 days to "create" it? How long does it take to say "Let there be light?" Or, are you saying He has the power to speak it into existence, but only in unorganized elements?

No, the Creator, in the beginning, showed the same characteristics He did when He was born among us. He spoke and wind and sea obeyed Him. In the beginning God spoke and the elements obeyed. They existed, but were unorgainzed. He spoke and they organized.