St. Athansius and Gods


Moksha
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Moksha,

Athanasian Creed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

I'm not sure where Athanasius said we could become gods (do you have a link?) but the above creed seems to say the opposite.

Also Isaiah 43:9-10 Let all the nations be gathered together, And let the people be assembled. Who among them can declare this, And show us former things? Let them bring out their witnesses, that they may be justified; Or let them hear and say, "It is truth."

10."You are My witnesses," says the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

Also Isaiah 44:6

."Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's helpful to realize that "theosis" or "deification" is a major tenet of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, though I venture to say that it receives more attention in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy than it does in the West. That quote of Athanasius is actually referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.""

Theosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theosis - OrthodoxWiki

Partakers of the Divine Nature - FARMS Occasional Papers (Dissertation by a former Catholic priest turned LDS)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10."You are My witnesses," says the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

Also Isaiah 44:6

."Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

Thanks

Isaiah 43:10 seems to make the point clearly enough -- at least the English version of it does. If we go back to the original Hebrew, we find that "before me" is being taken from the Hebrew equivalent "to the faces of me." So the intended meaning seems to be location rather than speaking in the past-tense. This is the same translation into English we find in Exodus 20:3 when Israel is commanded to "have no other gods before me." Hebrew words that amount to "on faces of me" and "to faces of me" become "before" in English -- a word with multiple meanings. But the original language of the passages do not refer to time.

[the Hebrew gets murdered here because not all characters can be copied and pasted]

עֵדַי _ נְאֻ יְהוָה י5 וְעַבְ ִ ר_ אֲ ֶ י_ חָרְ ִ _ָ – לְמַעַ # דְע _# וְתַאֲמִינ לִי# וְתָבִינ אֲנִיא# הלְפָנַילאֹצַר ! נאֵלוְאַחֲרַילאֹיִהְיֶה

Athm od•i nam ieue u•obd•i ashr bchrthi lmon thdou u•thaminu l•i u•thbinu ki ani eua l•phn•I la nutzr al u•achr•i la ieie

You(plural) witnesses-of•me averment-of Yahweh and•servant-of•me whom I-chose so-that you(p)-shall-know and•you(p)-shall-believe to•me and•you(p)-shall-understand that I he to•faces-of•me not he-was-formed and•after•me not El he-shall-become

10. Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa43.pdf

As far as this universe is concerned, LDS doctrine holds that outside of Eloheim (Hebrew for "the Gods" and referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost), there is no other God in this existence/universe/reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's helpful to realize that "theosis" or "deification" is a major tenet of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, though I venture to say that it receives more attention in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy than it does in the West. That quote of Athanasius is actually referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.""

Theosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theosis - OrthodoxWiki

Partakers of the Divine Nature - FARMS Occasional Papers (Dissertation by a former Catholic priest turned LDS)

This is from the Wikipedia link you provided.

Eastern Christian theology

St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "God became man so that man might become god." [the second god is always lowercase] (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192). His statement is an apt description of the doctrine. What would otherwise seem absurd—that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy—has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even part of God (of the three existences of God called hypostasis).[citation needed] Most specifically creatures (created beings) can not become God in his transcendent essence (called ousia), hyper-being (see apophaticism). Such a concept would be the henosis or absorption into God of Greek pagan philosophy.

The "theosis" that I believe being taught here is the restoration and reintegration of the "image" or "likeness" of God, seriously distorted by the fall, in the children of God. In this life Christians grow more and more into the very likeness and character of God, as God was revealed in the man Jesus Christ.

Also most call this sanctification

Thanks

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isaiah 43:10 seems to make the point clearly enough -- at least the English version of it does. If we go back to the original Hebrew, we find that "before me" is being taken from the Hebrew equivalent "to the faces of me." So the intended meaning seems to be location rather than speaking in the past-tense. This is the same translation into English we find in Exodus 20:3 when Israel is commanded to "have no other gods before me." Hebrew words that amount to "on faces of me" and "to faces of me" become "before" in English -- a word with multiple meanings. But the original language of the passages do not refer to time.

[the Hebrew gets murdered here because not all characters can be copied and pasted]

עֵדַי _ נְאֻ יְהוָה י5 וְעַבְ ִ ר_ אֲ ֶ י_ חָרְ ִ _ָ – לְמַעַ # דְע _# וְתַאֲמִינ לִי# וְתָבִינ אֲנִיא# הלְפָנַילאֹצַר ! נאֵלוְאַחֲרַילאֹיִהְיֶה

Athm od•i nam ieue u•obd•i ashr bchrthi lmon thdou u•thaminu l•i u•thbinu ki ani eua l•phn•I la nutzr al u•achr•i la ieie

You(plural) witnesses-of•me averment-of Yahweh and•servant-of•me whom I-chose so-that you(p)-shall-know and•you(p)-shall-believe to•me and•you(p)-shall-understand that I he to•faces-of•me not he-was-formed and•after•me not El he-shall-become

10. Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa43.pdf

As far as this universe is concerned, LDS doctrine holds that outside of Eloheim (Hebrew for "the Gods" and referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost), there is no other God in this existence/universe/reality.

Faded,

I am no Hebrew scholar, in fact I won't claim to know a single Hebrew letter so I must rely on those who do. There are 16 different translations of Isaiah 43:10 here

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Respectfully, what does this verse mean to you exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

I am no Hebrew scholar, in fact I won't claim to know a single Hebrew letter so I must rely on those who do. There are 16 different translations of Isaiah 43:10 here

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Respectfully, what does this verse mean to you exactly?

You seem to have taken the "road well traveled" when you picked this passage to argue. I called this "verse shooting" and it is a very silly sport. Before you throw out a scripture text, you MUST consider the "context".

The scripture (context) is directed at Israel to stop worshiping false gods and idols. Since YHWH is eternal, all creation of every kind post date Him. and is subject to Him. So even other heavenly beings, for example, within the divine councils in heaven (gods?) (Ps 82:1 and 86:5-8) are subject to Him. It is clear from Revelation and Hebrews that we are heirs with Christ of eternal life and exaltation and partakers of all the Father has. But we will always be subject to Him. Absolutely nothing challenges the supremacy of YHWH, especially not His own creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

I am no Hebrew scholar, in fact I won't claim to know a single Hebrew letter so I must rely on those who do. There are 16 different translations of Isaiah 43:10 here

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Respectfully, what does this verse mean to you exactly?

I thought I was clear and I'm sorry if that was confusing.

The Hebrew word that is being translated into "Before" literally means "to the faces of me." In simpler terms, "before my face."

One important thing to note about 16 different translations -- or a billion different translations if you want to go that route: Virtually all of them are translated by Trinitarians or Unitarians (which would include most Jewish scholars.) So odds are that they're going to have a bias for translating things to fit within their pre-conceived understanding of what God is like. "I already know that God is like _____ so this passage must have been intended to say ______."

What do I think it's talking about? Obvious. It's talking to Israel during the lifetime of Isaiah, and at that time, Israel was constantly falling into worship of false gods. Imagine God looking down on Earth and saying, "I don't see any other gods here. There are no other gods here. There isn't going to be any other gods here at any point in the future. I am God, and these other made-up deities (Baal for example) don't actually exist. You are my witnesses that I am the only true God."

There are many popular verses used to try to tell members of the Church of Jesus Christ that we're wrong about this point of doctrine of that point of doctrine. In virtually all cases, I don't have to look any further than the verse of scripture being quoted to demonstrate the point they are trying to establish is not actually what the verse is saying at all. There are countless examples of this phenomenon.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded please forgive me, I am trying to understand your view.

So are you saying a literal translation would be something like "to the faces of me no god was formed"? Or "before my face no god was formed"?

I don't see it changing the meaning of the verse but the reason I gave the 16 translations - there are surely more - is that those translators must know something of Hebrew or else why would they be comissioned to do it?

Also to be fair, do you know for certain the preconcieved beliefs of all those translators?

Do you know of a translation that states it as you say?

I get that He is saying (among other things) all other gods are false ones. (See 2 Kings 19:15-19) I agree as you said "There isn't going to be any other gods here at any point in the future". But if there is only one true God - and scripture is very clear there is only one - then by logic all others that are called gods would be false ones. I believe the verse in context with all others that tell of Almighty God is plainly saying that 10 "before Me there are/were no Gods (I said "are" no Gods because aren't Gods by nature eternal?) made because I AM the eternal God (Psalm90:2) nothing comes before Me and I am The Creator of all things and I haven't made any gods 11 I'm the one and only LORD who can save you.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many `gods' and many `lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

I'm sure this has been asked before but if there is only one true God, and the Father and the Son are seperate beings then wouldn't that make two true Gods? And the Holy Spirit three? This may be better discussed in another thread.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

I am no Hebrew scholar, in fact I won't claim to know a single Hebrew letter so I must rely on those who do. There are 16 different translations of Isaiah 43:10 here

Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

Respectfully, what does this verse mean to you exactly?

This goes back to an ancient Semitic concept that Isaiah understood. In the days of Peleg, God divided the nations, assigning all 70 nations to one of his divine sons.

Jehovah was given Israel as his kingdom. Next door among the Canaanites, their original god Yam was dethroned by Baal. Jehovah was stating that, unlike the Canaanites, he was the only God Israel ever had. He never was toppled nor ever would be.

That does not mean, however, that there aren't other gods. Just there are no other gods over Israel. The traditions shows that Jehovah overcame other gods of other nations, and became God of the earth. You can see one of the challenges in Job 1, where sons of El go to challenge Jehovah over primacy of Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded please forgive me, I am trying to understand your view.

So are you saying a literal translation would be something like "to the faces of me no god was formed"? Or "before my face no god was formed"?

What the English says is "before". The misuse of the passage is all about implying that the word before is indicating time, when it isn't. Trinitarians point to this scripture and say, "See, it says right here that there were never any gods prior to the God of Israel." But is that really what the original Hebrew of the passage means?

If I was born before my brother, then time is implied. I was born first and have been around on this earth longer than he has. If I set a meal before someone, I'm not creating it before they existed. I'm putting it in front of them and time is not implied. In this second definition, I'm putting a meal in front of their face. We know the Hebrew word equates to, "To the faces of me." That second definition of the English word "before" lines up accurately with the original Hebrew. So using "before" in the translation is accurate -- but only insofar as it is understood which definition of the word "before" is implied. The passage is saying "in front of" or "before my face."

I agree as you said "There isn't going to be any other gods here at any point in the future". But if there is only one true God - and scripture is very clear there is only one - then by logic all others that are called gods would be false ones. I believe the verse in context with all others that tell of Almighty God is plainly saying that 10 "before Me there are/were no Gods (I said "are" no Gods because aren't Gods by nature eternal?) made because I AM the eternal God (Psalm90:2) nothing comes before Me and I am The Creator of all things and I haven't made any gods 11 I'm the one and only LORD who can save you.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many `gods' and many `lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

I'm sure this has been asked before but if there is only one true God, and the Father and the Son are seperate beings then wouldn't that make two true Gods? And the Holy Spirit three? This may be better discussed in another thread.

Thanks

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost repeatedly refer to themselves as One God. So while it would be true that all three are God in their own right, all three also have indispensable roles in this Universe. They act in perfect harmony, each playing their role and at all times they are so completely one that (unlike false pagan gods are described) there is never the slightest chance of separate agendas or working separately. We do not refer to them as "three gods" because they do not refer to themselves as such, so you'll generally get nothing but looks of puzzlement if you tell a member of the Church of Jesus Christ that they believe in three Gods.

There is a Trinity thread open in the Mormon Beliefs section that might offer some better insight.

as indeed there are many `gods' and many `lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

I would like to know what this passage is saying to you. To me, it says that there really are other gods (god the fathers?) and other lords (messiahs?), but that they are not relevant to us here. As far as we need concern ourselves, there is One God and One Lord. This would line up with our understanding and teachings about eternal progression and potential for man to become the same type of being that God is currently.

I presume it says something entirely different to you, otherwise I don't think you'd have quoted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soninme

Faded please forgive me, I am trying to understand your view.

So are you saying a literal translation would be something like "to the faces of me no god was formed"? Or "before my face no god was formed"?

What the English says is "before". The misuse of the passage is all about implying that the word before is indicating time, when it isn't. Trinitarians point to this scripture and say, "See, it says right here that there were never any gods prior to the God of Israel." But is that really what the original Hebrew of the passage means?

If I was born before my brother, then time is implied. I was born first and have been around on this earth longer than he has. If I set a meal before someone, I'm not creating it before they existed. I'm putting it in front of them and time is not implied. In this second definition, I'm putting a meal in front of their face. We know the Hebrew word equates to, "To the faces of me." That second definition of the English word "before" lines up accurately with the original Hebrew. So using "before" in the translation is accurate -- but only insofar as it is understood which definition of the word "before" is implied. The passage is saying "in front of" or "before my face."

Faded,

all I can get from this is "before my face no god was formed" or "before Gods face no god made" or "in front of Me no god made". Still no gods made in front of God or set in front of God. If you are implying that God was/is being set before Israel then who is setting Him before them? We would have to say the Almighty is setting Himself before the nation of Israel and then we would have to logically ask why isn't He setting Himself before all nations? Did He set the "other gods" over the other nations? Isn't He God of all? Is He just the God of the Israelites and only they have to seek and obey Him. Of course not. God for sure has revealled Himself to all nations since the beginning. If God is saying "I am the only one for you Israel, don't replace Me" then why would he say this in Isaiah 44:8? Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

If He is saying "don't replace Me" then who would you replace Him with? Isa. 45:20"Gather together and come; assemble, you fugitives from the nations. Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that cannot save.

21.Declare what is to be, present it-- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of interesting logic going into what you're saying. You've got my whole point and everything I was saying so confused that I don't even recognize it anymore, LOL.

It is very much the same passages and logic that Jewish Scholars use to conclude that Trinitarianism is just polytheism that tries to call itself Monotheism, making it blasphemy. So while I understand where you're going with your logic, if you're a defender of the Trinity, then you need to maintain the plurality of God in some fashion.

One might easily conclude that "there is none but me" destroys the notion that there are three persons in God. After all, you're not claiming that God is all one person, are you?

Where the Church of Jesus Christ can agree with Trinitarians is this: There is plurality to God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Where we differ is how we recognize that plurality.

What I'm saying about all the verses that you have quoted and will quote is that God is trying to get Israel and other nations to stop falling into the worship of false and idol gods. So the whole intent of what is being said is entirely different from what you are implying that it means.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Faded

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost repeatedly refer to themselves as One God. So while it would be true that all three are God in their own right, all three also have indispensable roles in this Universe. They act in perfect harmony, each playing their role and at all times they are so completely one that (unlike false pagan gods are described) there is never the slightest chance of separate agendas or working separately. We do not refer to them as "three gods" because they do not refer to themselves as such, so you'll generally get nothing but looks of puzzlement if you tell a member of the Church of Jesus Christ that they believe in three Gods.

From Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991),

"There are three Gods--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." [T]hree separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a god, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only gods we worship."

And

"There are three Gods...separate in personality, united in purpose, in plan, and in all attributes of perfection" (Mormon doctrine p.270).

This from James Talmage "This [the Trinity] cannot rationally be construed to mean that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and person" (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.40)

This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism McMillan:1992 page 552

On June 16, 1844, in his last Sunday sermon before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith declared that "in all congregations" he had taught "the plurality of Gods" for fifteen years: "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" (TPJS, p. 370).

It is very much the same passages and logic that Jewish Scholars use to conclude that Trinitarianism is just polytheism that tries to call itself Monotheism, making it blasphemy.

:confused: This is my look of "puzzlement"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you aren't reading the scriptures.

2 Nephi 31

Mormon 7

Doctrine and Covenants 20

You are also taking McConkie, Talmange, et. al. way out of context. When they talk about the "purality of gods" they is specifically addressing St. Thomas Aquinas' statements about the Trinity and the "plurality of persons in God." And in context, that plurality exists in both LDS and traditional concepts.

Here's some light reading:

Online Library of Liberty - QUESTION XXX.: THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN GOD. ( In Four Articles. ) - The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Part I QQ XXVII-XLIX. Vol. 2 (Treatise on the Trinity, Treatise on the Creation)

Of course, after reading that explanation of God, it's my turn to have a look of puzzlement.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because you aren't reading the scriptures.

2 Nephi 31

Mormon 7

Doctrine and Covenants 20

You are also taking McConkie, Talmange, et. al. way out of context. When they talk about the "purality of gods" they is specifically addressing St. Thomas Aquinas' statements about the Trinity and the "plurality of persons in God." And in context, that plurality exists in both LDS and traditional concepts.

Here's some light reading:

Online Library of Liberty - QUESTION XXX.: THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN GOD. ( In Four Articles. ) - The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Part I QQ XXVII-XLIX. Vol. 2 (Treatise on the Trinity, Treatise on the Creation)

Of course, after reading that explanation of God, it's my turn to have a look of puzzlement.

You should really go back and honestly read those quotes again.

From Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991),

"There are three Gods--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." [T]hree separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

So he didn't mean; 3 Gods, 3 persons, he meant 1 God 3 persons?

Also McConkie; "There are three Gods...separate in personality,

So again he didn't mean; 3 Gods, 3 persons, he meant 1 God 3 persons?

James Talmage "This [the Trinity] cannot rationally be construed to mean that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and person"

So he didn't mean the Trinity can't be 1 in substance? How many substances/Gods can the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be?

From Joseph Smith "these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods"

So again he didn't mean 3 persons, 3 Gods, he meant 3 persons and 1 God?:rolleyes:

Also those three prophets were "specifically addressing St. Thomas Aquinas"???:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should really go back and honestly read those quotes again.

From Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991),

"There are three Gods--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." [T]hree separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

So he didn't mean; 3 Gods, 3 persons, he meant 1 God 3 persons?

Also McConkie; "There are three Gods...separate in personality,

So again he didn't mean; 3 Gods, 3 persons, he meant 1 God 3 persons?

James Talmage "This [the Trinity] cannot rationally be construed to mean that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and person"

So he didn't mean the Trinity can't be 1 in substance? How many substances/Gods can the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be?

From Joseph Smith "these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods"

So again he didn't mean 3 persons, 3 Gods, he meant 3 persons and 1 God?:rolleyes:

Also those three prophets were "specifically addressing St. Thomas Aquinas"???:huh:

And you really need to understand that "three gods' are the same as "One GOD". LDS Scripture is very clear on that fact. So LDS use the phrase "three gods' while trinitarians use the phrase "three persons in God" Three persons, three gods, tomato, tomahto. The real question is why to do you use your interpretation of non-canonical sources ABOVE canonized scripture? Why are you ignoring the scriptures? Oh, yeah, because they discredit your argument.

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you really need to understand that "three gods' are the same as "One GOD".

:eek:

This is like saying that "three beings or essences" are the same as "one being or essence" which is nonsence. We don't say that "three persons" are the same as "one person" that too makes no sense.

I'm not ignoring the scriptures, the Bible is crystal clear there is only one TRUE God, (John 17:3) which is the point I've been trying to make from my first post.

I was told this;

We do not refer to them as "three gods" because they do not refer to themselves as such, so you'll generally get nothing but looks of puzzlement if you tell a member of the Church of Jesus Christ that they believe in three Gods.

so when I read of LDS prophets using the term "three Gods" and 'three personages"to describe the Godhead, ya I'm puzzled

The real question is why to do you use your interpretation of non-canonical sources ABOVE canonized scripture

The only "non-canonical sources" I have given are LDS prophets. Are you saying what they teach is not correct? I merely quoted them because they use the term "three Gods" the Bible never uses that term, nor does any of the early church fathers, does the BOM or D&C or POGP use that term? If those prophets were truly addressing Aquinas' statement on the Trinity and the "plurality of persons in God", :lol: as you say, then it would seem very likely they would need to differentiate between persons and nature as that is the point of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unless they didn't know the difference.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not ignoring the scriptures, the Bible is crystal clear there is only one TRUE God, (John 17:3) which is the point I've been trying to make from my first post.

THe Book of Mormon and the D&C are equally crystal clear.

I was told this; so when I read of LDS prophets using the term "three Gods" and 'three personages"to describe the Godhead, ya I'm puzzled

I don't know why you are puzzled. The scriptures are clear. The Trinitarian hoops to define itself as monotheistic, are as confusing, if not moreso than LDS belief.

The only "non-canonical sources" I have given are LDS prophets. Are you saying what they teach is not correct? I merely quoted them because they use the term "three Gods" the Bible never uses that term, nor does any of the early church fathers, does the BOM or D&C or POGP use that term? If those prophets were truly addressing Aquinas' statement on the Trinity and the "plurality of persons in God", :lol: as you say, then it would seem very likely they would need to differentiate between persons and nature as that is the point of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unless they didn't know the difference.....

The Bible also never uses the term "trinity." Are you prepared to abandon it because it is non biblical? And the OT (Genesis) certainly uses plural terms to describe God. "Let US create man in OUR own image."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term, "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. The term, "Godhead" is:

  • Acts 17: 29

    29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

  • Rom. 1: 20

    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

  • Col. 2: 9

    9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

There is One Godhead, made up of 3 individual persons: the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When the Bible, Book of Mormon or other scriptures tell us they are "one God" it means there is one Godhead. They are one in all things, except for their physical/spiritual bodies.

We can understand this by what Christ tells us in John 17, during his intercessory prayer. He asks that his disciples can be one, even as the Father and Son are one. Well, from a Trinity perspective, this would mean they would have to be one being with many persons. From a Godhead perspective, they are separate beings with a heavenly unity that binds and bonds them together.

Many early Christians understood this concept. Origen taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father, yet still divine.

We see the physical differences in Jesus' baptism, the crucifixion, and Gethsemane.

In baptism, we have the physical Jesus, the Father's voice, and the Spirit descend from heaven. In the crucifixion, we have Jesus asking, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" which would be meaningless if Jesus and Father were the exact same being. And in Gethsemane, Jesus prays "not my will, but thine be done." This shows two separate beings, as they do not have the same will (which in a Trinity, one would have).

Finally, we have Stephen and others seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Either he saw this, or the Bible lies, and he didn't see it. And if Jesus stands on the right hand of God, then we have physically separate beings.

But one Godhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Faded

From Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991),

"There are three Gods--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." [T]hree separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a god, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only gods we worship."

And

"There are three Gods...separate in personality, united in purpose, in plan, and in all attributes of perfection" (Mormon doctrine p.270).

This from James Talmage "This [the Trinity] cannot rationally be construed to mean that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance and person" (A Study of the Articles of Faith, p.40)

This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism McMillan:1992 page 552

On June 16, 1844, in his last Sunday sermon before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith declared that "in all congregations" he had taught "the plurality of Gods" for fifteen years: "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" (TPJS, p. 370).

:confused: This is my look of "puzzlement"

You say "three persons" we say "three personages." Your understanding of the plural nature of God as found in the doctrine of the Trinity makes you a polytheist in the eyes of any Jewish scholar. If you doubt me, ask one. But you do not view yourself as a polytheist.

We would say the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God. You would say the same thing, but you mean something very different by it.

One of the first messages of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ was this: "their creeds are an abominations before me." "They teach for doctrine the philosophies of men." In other words, the Nicene Creed and other creeds of faith were mistaken. The teachings regarding the very nature of God were flawed -- "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof."

A tremendous amount of time is spent by our leaders working to defend what God has revealed to us about his nature against the incorrect traditions held by traditional Christian denominations. Christ rebuked the Jews for their own false traditions, doctrines and teachings. One would expect that history can and too often does repeat itself.

We do not disbelieve the Trinity on the basis of scriptural debate, nor philosophical banter. We believe it because God set the record straight on the matter by revealing himself and explaining his nature to his modern day servants directly. The only thing remaining is for you and I to seek God and find out if this answer (as described in the Godhead doctrine) was really from God. I am confident that virtually every Latter Day Saint here on this forum has their answer from God on the matter. So trying to philosophize and debate to the contrary is pretty pointless. How do you tell a person they are wrong about something when God has already told them directly and personally that they are right?

The fact that our view is supported by what we believe is a more correct interpretation of the Bible and other Scriptures is just a nice extra.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there is a language barrier between us that I am not understanding. You say any Jewish scholar would consider me a polytheist. Would they consider LDS polytheists? Please tell me what in these creeds Athanasian Creed Historic Church Documents at Reformed.orgHistoric Church Documents at Reformed.org (Nicene creed) are an abomination / unbiblical as regarding their definition of the Godhead/Trinity? I believe those creeds to be Biblical and am willing to politely show why. I also am confused as to the different definitions I believe I'm getting from some LDS posters, although I know they are being sincere in their efforts. From the last post of Rameumptom, I don't see his objection to the creeds, though he must have some.

On a personal note, I have have been a Christian now for 22 years and the Lord is AWESOME. He has brought me through many difficult trials to say the least. His love and mercy have changed my life and daily I pray for His wisdom and guidance in all things. There truly is no greater joy than being in His presence. When I first came to Him a verse He has kept on my heart is John 8:24 "for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." so I have been asking Him to reveal Himself to me ever since and I KNOW He has done just that. I will truly be amazing to praise and worship Him for all eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your description and assertion that the creeds and councils held 300 years after Christ as "biblical" denotes your limited knowledge of the subject. Those traditions are no different from the rabbinic hedge and traditions the Jewish rabbis developed that the very Christ publicly rebuked and chastise. They were based on theo-sophical and historical interpretations rather than revelation and truth.

Nobody questions your devotion and faith. All we are saying is that by your very words based on your adherence to the the creeds, a Rabbi would declare you a polytheist since you claim that there is a Father-God, a Son-God and a Spirit-God. And that definition in itself was "decided" by men in a political compromise forced by a pagan-unbeliever despot-emperor. It may serve you well to research the facts surrounding these political events before you base your understanding and declaration of faith on who and what God is when HE has declare and shown HIS own nature, in fact and thru revelation.

Of course, your argument is not new and there are hundreds of threads on the very same subject here in the forum. But since you already made up your mind on the matter the exchange may have limited value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share