Who is Jesus?

[Dr T]

Hi Windseeker. Your last post raises a lot of good issues. I believe you have a misunderstanding though that complicates it for you. For example, You said, "It would have been cool at this point if a voice came from Heaven saying

"Will? You have no Will!" and then "Wait a minute...why am I talking to myself?"

The error there is Jesus was not talking to himself, he was talking to God the Father. God the Father is not God the Son. It's like this image: Redirect Notice

I hope that worked. I've wrestled with this whole "Pos nonpecarre" or nonpos pecarre" issue a lot. This is about was Jesus not able to sin? or "Was Jesus able to not sin?" You lay out some good verses to consider. They are what the Bible says. I think Jesus' humanity really wrestled with his decision to follow God the Father's plan and we see he was being obedient and humbled himself. That is why I see him really struggling but ultimately gave into the Father's will, even to the point of suffering. I understand you see Jesus difficulty in the garden as something different. I wont put words into your mouth but it is a different view. Thanks

[Vort]

Hi Windseeker. Your last post raises a lot of good issues. I believe you have a misunderstanding though that complicates it for you. For example, You said, "It would have been cool at this point if a voice came from Heaven saying The error there is Jesus was not talking to himself, he was talking to God the Father. God the Father is not God the Son. It's like this image: Redirect Notice

I hope that worked. I've wrestled with this whole "Pos nonpecarre" or nonpos pecarre" issue a lot. This is about was Jesus not able to sin? or "Was Jesus able to not sin?" You lay out some good verses to consider. They are what the Bible says. I think Jesus' humanity really wrestled with his decision to follow God the Father's plan and we see he was being obedient and humbled himself. That is why I see him really struggling but ultimately gave into the Father's will, even to the point of suffering. I understand you see Jesus difficulty in the garden as something different. I wont put words into your mouth but it is a different view. Thanks

How is that picture different from LDS theology, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all God, but are three distinct personages?

[Spartan117]

How is that picture different from LDS theology, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all God, but are three distinct personages?

The difference is 1 God to 3 Gods. If a belief about the nature of God does not build off of 1 God and 1 God only, nothing else is relevant.

[Dr T]

The God of Christianity is 1 God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Those three make up the 1 God as revealed in the Bible. I do not know the inner workings of how it all works but I apprehend it is what is taught in scripture. That's what I meant. :) If there are other god, as there are many, that is not the one true God and if we say there are three God's then it is polytheism which I can't do. It is the one God in three personages that I worship. :)

Edited October 13, 2011 by Dr T
I wrote wrote the wrong "there" :( Oops

[Vort]

The God of Christianity is 1 God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Those three make up the 1 God as revealed in the Bible. I do not know the inner workings of how it all works but I apprehend it is what is taught in scripture. That's what I meant. :) If there are other god, as their are many, that is not the one true God and if we say there are three God's then it is polytheism which I can't do. It is the one God in three personages that I worship. :)

So this is purely a word game, then. There is no real, underlying truth under debate. You don't like the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each "God"; rather, they together form "God". Okay, whatever. But as I understand Trinitarian theology (and I do not claim to understand it well), that is in fact what they believe.

I have little interest in pursuing a discussion about whether one man's word description of a concept makes him heretical in another man's eyes when he believes essentially the same thing as the other man. Words can be useful tools, but I don't worship them.

[Spartan117]

The God of Christianity is 1 God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Those three make up the 1 God as revealed in the Bible.

I wasn't aware the Trinity was taught in the Bible! Since the God of Christianity is is one God in three personages as "revealed in the Bible" I would love for you to show me the scriptures teaching the Trinity :)

[Dr T]

That's fine with me Vort. I think words are very important because they mean things but language is sorely lacking many times. Many things cannot be encapsulated by words. It is not my thoughts that have any real power anyway. It is all about God and what He does with what we believe and worship that is important really. :) I didn't mean for that to sound trite it's just the way it is.

[Dr T]

Hi Spartan,

I've been here for years and many people have tried to explain from the Bible the reasons why we believe the Bible teaches it. Those people are often banned from this site, not listened to and considered antimormans or something. I don't really want to do that righ now. I cannot convice you anyway. If it has not been revealed to you then that's the way it is. I know the word Trinity is not in the Bible but I believe it is. There are other topics that I've written on that do not have the word in your scriptures but LDS teach so I'll leave that right there. Thank you for reading what I've written Spartan.

[Spartan117]

Hi Spartan,

I've been here for years and many people have tried to explain from the Bible the reasons why we believe the Bible teaches it. Those people are often banned from this site, not listened to and considered antimormans or something. I don't really want to do that righ now. I cannot convice you anyway. If it has not been revealed to you then that's the way it is. I know the word Trinity is not in the Bible but I believe it is. There are other topics that I've written on that do not have the word in your scriptures but LDS teach so I'll leave that right there. Thank you for reading what I've written Spartan.

You got it.

[Justice]

I don't care where something started.

My point is that where it started has the key to understanding the symbolism.

The term "right hand" probably started with the fact that it is the strongest arm on most people, therefore representing power. I don't really care. What matters is how it is being used; what meaning is being conveyed. For one to take this as meaning that God the Father has a right arm (whether he does or not) is to miss the meaning intended to be conveyed. But I don't really care. If it makes you feel better then believe what ever you want to believe.

Again, "probably" doesn't cut it here if you're making your final decision about hwo God is based on the symbol.

It's just as likely that the Savior's throne is on the right hand, or right side of God's body, and when prophets saw them in heaven (like Stephen) they were just telling it like they saw it. All symbolisms are still the same as you believe, but when you understanding that the right hand in the covenant making hand, and that Christ is on that right hand, it has a deeper and abiding meaning. If it's just fancy wording, and CHrist really isn't on the Father's right hand, then it just doesn't have the same meaning.

[SteveVH]

My point is that where it started has the key to understanding the symbolism.

Again, "probably" doesn't cut it here if you're making your final decision about hwo God is based on the symbol.

It's just as likely that the Savior's throne is on the right hand, or right side of God's body, and when prophets saw them in heaven (like Stephen) they were just telling it like they saw it. All symbolisms are still the same as you believe, but when you understanding that the right hand in the covenant making hand, and that Christ is on that right hand, it has a deeper and abiding meaning. If it's just fancy wording, and CHrist really isn't on the Father's right hand, then it just doesn't have the same meaning.

Okay, Justice.

[bytor2112]

How is that picture different from LDS theology, where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all God, but are three distinct personages?

I think because God the Father ...in their view...doesn't have or need a physical body and is still the spirit essence that feels the immensity of space, that is everywhere and no where present, incorporeal, uncreated and .... incomprehensible. Frankly, if that is their god....I'll pass.

Edited October 13, 2011 by bytor2112

[SteveVH]

I think if you understood it you would be able to explain it to me in a way I can understand it.

Its a little funny that if you do not agree with me it is because I don't understand what I'm talking about and don't have the ability to explain it properly. When the reverse happens, when I don't agree with a Mormon poster, I am told it is because I don't have the ability to understand as I am not as spiritually enlightened as they are; if I were only Mormon the Holy Spirit would enlighten me.

I'm sorry you don't understand. I don't know how to explain it more clearly. What I do know is that you approach the Trinity with a pre-disposition that is opposed to the very idea. I think we all do that to some extent, so I don't hold it against you. It is a natural reaction when someone challenges our belief system. But it would be nice if we could all be a little more objective in our approach and not dimiss something out of hand without considering, objectively, the point being made.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe that after we die, and assuming that one is heaven bound, that they will be more themselves then they ever were in this life. Our souls contain our intellect and our will and join God and all of the saints and angels in heaven, not as part of some heavenly blob, but as ourselves, as individuals, united with God and each other. On the last day, however, we will be rejoined with our bodies which have been glorified, and have become spiritual bodies. Not only will our immortal soul live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again. But to answer your real question, we remain humans whose nature has been elevated to a state of divinity, being a part of the Body of Christ and participating in the life of God. So I will always be me, but perfected by the grace of God.

The way you describe this is really not that far off from what we believe. Our beliefs throw in more details.

Not trying to be offensive but to me, your arguments about this is as if someone is saying calculus can't be true because addition, subtraction and multiplication are what is really true.

I can almost agree with everything you said in this paragraph but would add that our spirit lived before this life and the essence of our spirit has existed forever. Even if you just took that little idea as truth, it wouldn't clash with anything you're saying to any big degree.

[SteveVH]

I think because God the Father ...in their view...doesn't have or need a physical body and is still the spirit essence that feels the immensity of space, that is everywhere and no where present, uncorporal, uncreated and .... unknowable. Frankly, if that is their god....i'll pass.

So will I. That is not our God.

[SteveVH]

The way you describe this is really not that far off from what we believe. Our beliefs throw in more details.

Not trying to be offensive but to me, your arguments about this is as if someone is saying calculus can't be true because addition, subtraction and multiplication are what is really true.

I can almost agree with everything you said in this paragraph but would add that our spirit lived before this life and the essence of our spirit has existed forever. Even if you just took that little idea as truth, it wouldn't clash with anything you're saying to any big degree.

But it would clash with logic and reason. Nothing exists of its own power other than God, the uncreated from which all else came into existence. Please expain to me how this is possible.

Edited October 13, 2011 by StephenVH

[bytor2112]

So will I. That is not our God.

So....God is....created? Or uncreated?

He has a body or is incorporeal?

Is he a Spirit and is everywhere or not a spirit?

The Trinity IS comprehensible? (changed from unknowable)

Because if He is not these things....then what is He?

[Spartan117]

Its a little funny that if you do not agree with me it is because I don't understand what I'm talking about and don't have the ability to explain it properly.

It's more than just a "little" funny.

When the reverse happens, when I don't agree with a Mormon poster, I am told it is because I don't have the ability to understand as I am not as spiritually enlightened as they are; if I were only Mormon the Holy Spirit would enlighten me.

It doesn't seem like you're here to try and understand anything. You're trying to prove a point. That's fine, that's how everyone has responded to you as well. You take the Catholic model for religion and apply it to Mormonism, then blame Mormonism for not meeting the standards of the Catholic model. We haven't done that to you though, we just question the standards used in the model itself.

I'm sorry you don't understand. I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

No one can explain the Trinity clearly. That's the point. It doesn't make sense to us, but it doesn't make sense to you either and that's what I don't understand. So the "mystery of faith" gives you a free pass. Would you accept that answer from a Mormon regarding ANYTHING found in Mormonism? Why are we held to different standard than you?

What I do know is that you approach the Trinity with a pre-disposition that is opposed to the very idea.

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."—New Catholic Encyclopedia.

I think we all do that to some extent, so I don't hold it against you. It is a natural reaction when someone challenges our belief system. But it would be nice if we could all be a little more objective in our approach and not dimiss something out of hand without considering, objectively, the point being made.

I like I asked earlier, in what instance of Mormon doctrine, history or theology would you accept an answer like: "it's a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible." as given by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler in their book, Theological Dictionary? If you hold our faith to a double standard, you don't get to cry foul too.

"There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors." —New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Doesn't scripture tell us differently?

1 Cor 14:33: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

[Traveler]

Did I say that the Father was not God?

I am now confused by what you have said. Is Jesus G-d? or is the Father G-d? How many G-ds do you believe there are? If the Father is G-d seperate from the "person" who is Jesus then is Jesus in the Father also G-d? Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you think a persons is and what a G-d is. But please be consistant. For example if you say a G-d is a creator then prior to the creation there would be no G-d a "person" being withoout the creator nature that has yet to be developed. The point here has to do with "changing" nature that you imply that G-d's nature never changes thus creator cannot be a nature of G-d that is eternal - and you imply that the true nature of G-d is eternal.

There is nothing ambiguous at all about the term "person". One definition is that it is a composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality. That person can be divine, or human, or angelic. It implies a conscious, living, rational being.

Well, you are just flat out incorrect here. A corporation is not "legally a person". A corporation is a legal "entity" as opposed to a "person". That is why laws concerning corporations are different from laws concerning people. The term "person" refers to a "who" rather than a "what", a "someone", rather than a "something". A corporation is a "something" not a "someone". Can you have dinner and a conversation with a corporation?

You need to consult a lawyer and review the tax code - But as a engineering consultant specializing in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence you definition of a person and consciousness says that an individual human ceases to be a person when not conscious and is also ambiguous concerning developing artificial intelligence - which will by definition make man a creator of persons. You may think you are winning an argument with me as a religious person but as a scientist - well I can see why most consider themselves atheistic rather than Trinitarians.

If man has to "acquire" something, it means that he does not already possess it. I agree that we will have a divine nature after the resurrection, not because we already possess it, but because God transforms our human nature by infusing it with his divine nature.

I strongly disagree. The flaw is in the example everywhere around us as well as contrary to scripture. One could argue that a seed does not have the nature of a tree or a child does not have the nature of a parent because a child must learn and acquire an adult nature or a seed must be planted and grow before it “acquires” the nature of a tree. I believe the scriptures are clear concerning man’s creation being by nature of the creation - like G-d and indeed in the very image of G-d. This goes back to a previous statement of mine that I strongly object to the doctrine of the Trinity because those that believe this doctrine contradict the scriptures to justify their understanding.

The idea that an eternal divine being, all powerful and all knowing, who created our human nature, could then transform that very nature into something greater, is illogical to you? Do you not believe that he is all-powerful (omnipotent). I think your notion of what it means to "be one" is flawed. We will be one with God because we will share his very life by sharing in his divinity. He was always divine. That is his nature. God transforms human nature to become like his divine nature because we do not, in our natural state, already possess it. It is something that must be given to us because we cannot attain it on our own.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts." (Isaiah 55: 8, 9)

I believe you are so wrong here. Our fallen state is not our "natural" state in which we were created. It is not a matter of changing us so much as restoring us to that state and nature from which we have fallen. Again, it appears to me that the arguments of the Trinity contridict the scriptures concerning the fall of manking.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Why can't I find StephenVH's page when I click on his name? When I search for his name it comes up with no listing either. What's the deal there?

[SteveVH]

Why can't I find StephenVH's page when I click on his name? When I search for his name it comes up with no listing either. What's the deal there?

The deal is that I have tried several times to register and can't seem to get an email back in order to accomplish this. I was told that they were having some problems, so I should probably try again.

[estradling75]

The deal is that I have tried several times to register and can't seem to get an email back in order to accomplish this. I was told that they were having some problems, so I should probably try again.

Stephen,

After 7 days of not have the Profiled verified it auto deletes.

This deletion should have locked you out completely, but the system is a Hybrid and it looks like that didn't happen.

Recreate your StephenVH account and try again. Once you do everything it prompts you (or when it just stops) Then use the Contact US link at the bottom and to the Right of every page. This will get you Pam and she will walk through the verification Manually.

Once this is completed your account should be fully functional

[SteveVH]

I am now confused by what you have said. Is Jesus G-d? or is the Father G-d? How many G-ds do you believe there are? If the Father is G-d seperate from the "person" who is Jesus then is Jesus in the Father also G-d? Perhaps you can explain the difference between what you think a persons is and what a G-d is.

Let me try one more time. There is only one God. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; three distinct "persons" only in relationship with each other, but the same divine being. God, in his essence, is a family. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son. The Son is eternally the Son to the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son which is so real that it constitutes a distinct person. Where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy SPirit is, there also are the Father and the Son. They are one being. God cannot be thought of in human terms. He is divine, we are not. God is not solitary, but rather a Trinity of persons in relationship with each other. The Father does not act independently from the Son or the Holy Spirit. The same is true for the Son and the Holy Spirit. They have one divine will (not three divine wills in agreement with each other) and consist of one divine essence. God is the only being that possesses the divine essence as his nature. We do not.

For example if you say a G-d is a creator then prior to the creation there would be no G-d a "person" being withoout the creator nature that has yet to be developed. The point here has to do with "changing" nature that you imply that G-d's nature never changes thus creator cannot be a nature of G-d that is eternal - and you imply that the true nature of G-d is eternal.

I have never heard of a "creator nature". God has a divine nature in which he is all powerful and able to do anything he chooses, including the ability to create, from nothing, all that exists, as the scriptures tell us. "All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be." (John 1:3)

I have no idea how you arrive at the conclusion that if God is a Creator then prior to creation there would be no God. That is like saying that prior to the Grand Canyon there was no Colorado River. It is God that caused creation therefore he had to exist before creation. Prior to creation there was nothing but God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is all-powerful and eternal, without beginning or end and is not dependent upon any other thing for his existence or his creative power. He said "Let there be..." and it was. That is the difference between our belief in the nature of God. You believe he was created and had to progress to the point where he could create. But what you then have is an eternal regression of gods, without end, and without anyone starting the process; not one, eternal, uncreated God. And yes, God is unchanging. He has been and will be God from eternity. He did not change through some sort of progression. He did not "become". He has always possessed all of the glory and power that he now has. He is not an exalted human being. He is God and is fundamentally different in his nature than his creation. Through the gift of his love and mercy he allows us to share in his divinity. He elevates our human nature to the divine nature which is something we do not possess on our own. Only God possesses divinity as his original nature, we do not.

You need to consult a lawyer and review the tax code - But as a engineering consultant specializing in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence you definition of a person and consciousness says that an individual human ceases to be a person when not conscious and is also ambiguous concerning developing artificial intelligence - which will by definition make man a creator of persons. You may think you are winning an argument with me as a religious person but as a scientist - well I can see why most consider themselves atheistic rather than Trinitarians.

My background is in title. I deal with different entities and breathing human beings all the time. There is a great distinction between an artificial entity (corporation, LLC, Limited Partnership, etc.) and a living, breathing person. I think most people would make that distinction without confusing the two. If you can't tell the difference then I don't know what to say.

I strongly disagree. The flaw is in the example everywhere around us as well as contrary to scripture. One could argue that a seed does not have the nature of a tree or a child does not have the nature of a parent because a child must learn and acquire an adult nature or a seed must be planted and grow before it “acquires” the nature of a tree.

Well, one may make that argument but it would be a false argument. A child has a human nature, exactly as its parents do. A seed contains within it the very nature of the tree it will become. Its nature does not change. God has a divine nature and that nature is his alone. We receive it from him, not from our own nature. Our nature is human. God's nature is divine. I have asked this before and it has just been ignored. Maybe you could give it a shot. Why do you think that Jesus is called God's only Son? Are we not also sons and daughters of God? Why do you think he makes that distinction? Why do the scriptures tell us that we are sons and daughters by adoption rather than natural offspring of the Father?

I believe the scriptures are clear concerning man’s creation being by nature of the creation - like G-d and indeed in the very image of G-d. This goes back to a previous statement of mine that I strongly object to the doctrine of the Trinity because those that believe this doctrine contradict the scriptures to justify their understanding.

And isn't it strange that I would come to the same conculsion concerning your beliefs?

Our fallen state is not our "natural" state in which we were created.

You are correct. It is not. Man was not created in a fallen state. Our fallen state is the result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. However, every person subsequent to Adam and Eve are born into a fallen state. The state of the world around us is proof of that. Human nature changed from the state in which it was first created, and not only nature, but all of creation.

It is not a matter of changing us so much as restoring us to that state and nature from which we have fallen. Again, it appears to me that the arguments of the Trinity contridict the scriptures concerning the fall of manking.

Things are not always as they appear, especially when influenced by what we want to believe or have been taught to believe. That goes both ways.

Edited October 13, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Stephen,

After 7 days of not have the Profiled verified it auto deletes.

This deletion should have locked you out completely, but the system is a Hybrid and it looks like that didn't happen.

Recreate your StephenVH account and try again. Once you do everything it prompts you (or when it just stops) Then use the Contact US link at the bottom and to the Right of every page. This will get you Pam and she will walk through the verification Manually.

Once this is completed your account should be fully functional

Thanks. I'll try again.

[Seminarysnoozer]

But it would clash with logic and reason. Nothing exists of its own power other than God, the uncreated from which all else came into existence. Please expain to me how this is possible.

It clashes with your logic as, of course, spiritual things are not discerned by logic, they are discerned spiritually.

I cannot "logically" discern a God by Himself and of Himself. To be a God, He has to be a God of something. He has to have dominion over something. Either God has always had dominion, i.e. - there have been things around that are co-eternal with God, or there was a time where God was not really a God as there was nothing He was over. To be a Kingdomless God is not very logical either.

That would be as logical as a King who is by himself with no kingdom or subjects or family history or family. That person alone would have no right to any title by themselves. Why did He take on the title of God, why not "the eternal dentist" as a title, it wouldn't make any difference. He is only God the moment He has within His dominion things that are co-eternal. That is the only logical conclusion.