Who is Jesus?

[Soninme]

Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?

volgadon

What does it mean to you, why would the prophet word it that way?

Who "father" is is not the emphasis of my question but rather, "one". Why did Malachi not say, for instance, "hath not "the Gods" or "the Lords" or "..... plural form" created us?

When God speaks to men or a biblical writer speaks of God why does he always use a singular connotation yet when the Father and Son speak to each other they use plural terms?

Thanks

Edited October 7, 2011 by Soninme

[Dr T]

That, to me, is the beauty of the Trinity. One God, 3 personages. :)

[Justice]

volgadon

What does it mean to you, why would the prophet word it that way?

Who "father" is is not the emphasis of my question but rather, "one" Why did Malachi not say, for instance, "hath not "the Gods" or "the Lords" or "..... plural form" created us?

When God speaks to men or a biblical writer speaks of God why does he always use a singular connotation yet when the Father and Son speak to each other they use plural terms?

Thanks

Because the Father is ultimately responsible for it all. Jesus Christ gives Him all the praise and glory, and state the Father is greater than He. Christ came to earth to do the will of the Father, not His own will.

Where do they use plural terms when speaking to each other?

[Soninme]

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another,.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Where do they use plural terms when speaking to each other?

Gen. 1:26 “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

John 17:11 "that they may be one as We are."

Just to name a few.

[Soninme]

Because the Father is ultimately responsible for it all. Jesus Christ gives Him all the praise and glory, and state the Father is greater than He. Christ came to earth to do the will of the Father, not His own will.

Jesus in the NT does not cease to mention and praise the Father yet in Isaiah - I am referring especially to 43:10 " Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me" and 44:8 "Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one’” - He makes no mention of His Father.

So Who is the one God for us? Jesus because of Isaiah 43:10 or the Father because of 1 Cor 8:4? Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father,.

Thanks

[Justice]

Yes, that's a couple of them.

Those verse tell me they are 2 Beings, one in purpose, not body.

in the creation story, it's interesting that "God said" many times and "things" were done or created. Yet, when He got to man He makes this different statement. Why?

[Soninme]

Just to name a few.

Yes, that's a couple of them.

Woops, and I didn't even have to take my shoes off.

Those verse tell me they are 2 Beings, one in purpose, not body.

That is the point of my question. If Jesus is the one Being/God for Israel, of which He knows of no other,(Is. 44:8) why would Paul, an Israelite, say the one God is now the Father?(1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father)

Where do you get 2 Beings?

in the creation story, it's interesting that "God said" many times and "things" were done or created. Yet, when He got to man He makes this different statement. Why?

To reveal more about Himself.

[Justice]

That is the point of my question. If Jesus is the one Being/God for Israel, of which He knows of no other,(Is. 44:8) why would Paul, an Israelite, say the one God is now the Father?(1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father)

Where do you get 2 Beings?

To reveal more about Himself.

Or, because through the atonement we are now adopted sons of God through Him.

Remember, that beacuse of the fall mankind was cut off from the presence of the Father. So, it had to be a different Being who appeared to the prophets in the Old Testament. At times Jehovah spoke for the Father in first person because He was being told what to say, not because Jehovah and Eloi are mystically the same Being.

[MrShorty]

That, to me, is the beauty of the Trinity. One God, 3 personages. :)

That, to me (a Mormon) is the beauty of the LDS Godhead: One god, 3 personages.

My problem, in Mormonism, if you believe Jesus is a God then that makes mormonism a polytheistic religion.

The "Trinity" doctrine is itself a violation of monotheism. Ask any Jew or Muslim.

How exaclty is it in violation of monotheisum? Christians worship one God, but He is unified in three persons.

Monotheism vs. polytheism. It seems to me that those with the most monotheistic view of "God" are the Modalists. One person/personality/being who is God who wears three different "masks:" A Father "mask", a Jesus "mask", and a Holy Spirit "mask" depending on what "mode" he is in at the time. This seems to me to be the most monotheistic picture of the Christian God, the easiest to defend against claims of polytheism, and doesn't require a lot of rhetorical hand waving. Trinitarians, though, seem to reject this view (though a lot of days in discussions just like this one, they sure come across sounding like Modalists to me).

Trinitarians, as I understand, are like LDS in this respect. They claim each member of the Trinity is an individual person/personality/being. And this is where the rhetorical hand waving starts. How do you make three separate beings (each being referred to as God) come together to be one God? I don't have the rhetorical skills and know-how to make those arguments, but I suspect that the same (or at least very similar) arguments Trinitarians use to defend their monotheism are used to defend LDS monotheism.

It seems to me that the differences between LDS and Trinitarians in discussing the nature of God are focused in deeper, more obscure concepts like "creation ex nihilo" and "eternal nature" that Vort mentioned in post #5.

[Soninme]

Or, because through the atonement we are now adopted sons of God through Him.

Remember, that beacuse of the fall mankind was cut off from the presence of the Father.

I agree but how do you get that from Gen. 1:26?

So, it had to be a different Being who appeared to the prophets in the Old Testament. At times Jehovah spoke for the Father in first person because He was being told what to say, not because Jehovah and Eloi are mystically the same Being.

Then in your view, Who is speaking on Whose behalf in Is. 44:6-8?

[Soninme]

Originally Posted by Dr T

That, to me, is the beauty of the Trinity. One God, 3 personages.

That, to me (a Mormon) is the beauty of the LDS Godhead: One god, 3 personages.

MrShorty

Do you agree with this view?

“There are three Gods – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Three separate personages" "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.” Bruce McConkie Mormon Doctrine pages 317 & 576

It seems to me that the differences between LDS and Trinitarians in discussing the nature of God are focused in deeper, more obscure concepts like "creation ex nihilo" and "eternal nature" that Vort mentioned in post #5.

I agree.

Just for fun, my thought though on post #5;

In any case, the hang-up appears to center in the idea that, if Christ had been poofed into existence like everything else, then logically he couldn't be God, who is the only self-existent being.....

Suffice it to say that if God is "all-powerful" in the way that most Christians suppose, then God can indeed create a being equal to himself. If he can't, then he's not "all-powerful", is he? So the whole house of cards immediately collapses....

I believe God is all-powerful in the sense that God can do anything that is doable. But there are plenty of word combinations that describe impossible things, and no, God CANNOT do them. Because they are nonsense. For example, can God:

· make a thing exist at a location and simultaneously not exist at that location?

The answer in each case is: Of course not. The "thing" described is self-contradictory, impossible by definition.

If something or someone is created then it/they "CANNOT" be eternal because they in fact had a beginning. So no, God can't create a being equal to Himself. That creation wouldn't/couldn't be eternal. (From eternity)

Thanks

[Snow]

MrShorty

Do you agree with this view?

“There are three Gods – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Three separate personages" "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.” Bruce McConkie Mormon Doctrine pages 317 & 576

Guess it all depends on who you want to believe... Bruce R McConkie or Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Moses, Joseph Smith... not to mention James, Paul, Mark, etc

..And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21)

The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, (Mosiah 15:3-5)

Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. (Alma 11:28-29)

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7)

And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. (Ether 2:8)

For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. (2 Nephi 11:7)

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C Section 20:28)

etc

[Soninme]

Guess it all depends on who you want to believe... Bruce R McConkie or Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Moses, Joseph Smith... not to mention James, Paul, Mark, etc

Hello Snow

The quotes from Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Moses, ... not to mention James, Paul, Mark,(not listed) etc. I find no contradiction to one God, three Persons.

However, I will add to McConkie's statement some from Joseph Smith.

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

Also

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—-three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. Joseph Smith History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 473-479

I find those statements and those you gave from the BOM to be contrary. Anyone else?

Thanks

[MrShorty]

MrShorty

Do you agree with this view?

Which view: DrT's or Elder McKonkie's?

I "paralleled" DrT's statement, because it is a concise and accurate statement of how I view the Godhead.

As for Elder McKonkie's and Joseph Smith's statements, I'm not quite sure how to respond. I'm not very skilled at debate and rhetoric, so I often find that I can't make airtight arguments for what I think (and I really hate it when someone takes what I say and twists it into something different). In a hypothetical sense, I can see each individual as a god (note lower case g) in His own right. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost each as full-fledged gods without further qualification. But, the scriptures are pretty clear that that is just a hypothetical picture. But it's only hypothetical, because I can't accept that any one of them would act independently of the others. Christ said he didn't do anything of his own will, but what He had seen the Father do.

It's an imperfect explanation, I know. As I said, I'm not good at explaining myself -- especially if you expect the arguments to be air-tight.

Soninme, let me ask you -- is my basic assessment of Trinitarianism in line with your understanding -- Three distinct persons/personalities/beings in one God? Or is your understanding more like Modalism -- One being with three modes/masks/roles?

[Snow]

I find those statements and those you gave from the BOM to be contrary. Anyone else?

Thanks

Then I guess that depends on whether or not the parties in question all had the same clear, precise, contextual, theological language and meaning behind their writings - that is, when Joseph Smith said (according to your quote) "...and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," that he meant that in a way that was contradictory to his other statement in D&C "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God..."

Is that what you think - that he meant to contradict himself?

Or do you suppose that none of the writers in question were professionally trained theologians with precise concepts and language developed over thousands of years of ecclesiastical grounding behind them?

[Justice]

If something or someone is created then it/they "CANNOT" be eternal because they in fact had a beginning. So no, God can't create a being equal to Himself. That creation wouldn't/couldn't be eternal. (From eternity)

This is so easy to discredit, I almost hated making this post. Obviously, you are a thinker and seeker of truth, but you have not thought this through very far. You are believing statements of people who interpret scripture into their beliefs, instead of making their beliefs fit scripture. The danger of doing this is their will always be inconsistencies. Often, people think they are being taught by the Spirit, when indeed they are being taught by their own dogma and traditions.

I will use scripture if I have to, but I'm confident you will understand the truths without posting Biblical references.

The Bible teaches that man can attain eternal life. Since, according to you, man is "created" in the sense that he had a beginning, this contradicts the statement you just made that say that if something has a beginning it cannot be eternal.

Don't feel bad, though. I know many who apply this truth to man, but not God, and are comfortable in their belief in doing so. Maybe you are as well. But, you should revise your statment so that it does not contradict the Bible's teachings about man's destiny.

[Snow]

If something or someone is created then it/they "CANNOT" be eternal because they in fact had a beginning. So no, God can't create a being equal to Himself. That creation wouldn't/couldn't be eternal. (From eternity)

Thanks

I see that someone has already addressed this but I chime in.

You would have us believe that the one and only definition of "eternal" is the one that you prefer... eternal = no beginning.

A quick check of a dictionary shows that is untrue, as does a check of John 17:3:

"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

Obviously the author of the Gospel of John disagrees with you - for him "eternal" isn't related to having no beginning, but rather is determined by whether or not one knows God.

[Soninme]

Justice and Snow

This was the comment I was answering from post #5, especially the bolded part

In any case, the hang-up appears to center in the idea that, if Christ had been poofed into existence like everything else, then logically he couldn't be God, who is the only self-existent being..

Now I believe God, Who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the self-existent uncaused Cause of all that is. Whatever is/was or could ever be created could not possibly be self-existent or from eternity past as God is.

I guess I could have been more clear than just putting it in parentheses

That creation wouldn't/couldn't be eternal. (From eternity)

I believe I have a beginning and have not existed from eternity but I will exist for eternity either in the presence of God or out of it.

Snow

You would have us believe that the one and only definition of "eternal" is the one that you prefer... eternal = no beginning.

Do you believe God has a beginning?

[Soninme]

Then I guess that depends on whether or not the parties in question all had the same clear, precise, contextual, theological language and meaning behind their writings - that is, when Joseph Smith said (according to your quote) "...and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," that he meant that in a way that was contradictory to his other statement in D&C "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God..."

Is that what you think - that he meant to contradict himself?

I don't think anyone means to contradict themselves.

I just wonder how there can be one God and three Gods.

"Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No." (Alma 11:28-29)

Or do you suppose that none of the writers in question were professionally trained theologians with precise concepts and language developed over thousands of years of ecclesiastical grounding behind them?

Many biblical writers weren't professionally trained theologians with.... either.

[Soninme]

Then I guess that depends on whether or not the parties in question all had the same clear, precise, contextual, theological language and meaning behind their writings - that is, when Joseph Smith said (according to your quote) "...and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods," that he meant that in a way that was contradictory to his other statement in D&C "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God..."

Is that what you think - that he meant to contradict himself?

I don't think anyone means to contradict themselves.

I just wonder how there can be one God and three Gods.

"Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No." (Alma 11:28-29)

Or do you suppose that none of the writers in question were professionally trained theologians with precise concepts and language developed over thousands of years of ecclesiastical grounding behind them?

Many biblical writers weren't professionally trained theologians with.... either.

[Justice]

I believe I have a beginning and have not existed from eternity but I will exist for eternity either in the presence of God or out of it.?

OK, this is different than what you said.

I'm not going to argue what you said, because you said it. But, the dilemma remains. If you believe you cannot be eternal if you have a beginning. then man cannot be eternal. The from and for are synonomous when it comes to eternal in your view, right?

You may need to explain to me then how we can be eternal and have a beginning, because I don't understand your logic.

[Snow]

Snow

Do you believe God has a beginning?

I don't have an opinion. Since God hasn't chosen to speak up on the matter, I trust it doesn't much matter what one believes.

[Snow]

Many biblical writers weren't professionally trained theologians with.... either.

Many? You mean some of them were? Which ones?

[Justice]

I just wonder how there can be one God and three Gods.

No, you believe there is One God with 3 beings in one. That's much more confusing to me.

There can be 3 Gods that are one in purpose, as described CLEARLY in John 17.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So clear it's unmistakable.

There can be The Father who is greatest of all, and the Son who is the Firstborn, who has subjected His will completely to the the will of the Father and showed us the way back to the Father. No mystical triune make up, just a Godhead in complete unity, desiring that we unite ourselves completley with Them.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Justice

[Soninme]

Which view: DrT's or Elder McKonkie's?

I "paralleled" DrT's statement, because it is a concise and accurate statement of how I view the Godhead.

MrShorty

I was asking about Elder McKonkie.

I believe as DrT does and don't read anywhere in the Bible where the Godhead is referred to as "they" or "them" or "the Gods". I just think if we are to view the Godhead as "three Gods" as McConkie and Joseph Smith teach then a biblical prophet or apostle would have done the same.

As for Elder McKonkie's and Joseph Smith's statements, I'm not quite sure how to respond. I'm not very skilled at debate and rhetoric, so I often find that I can't make airtight arguments for what I think (and I really hate it when someone takes what I say and twists it into something different).

No problem. As I have said before I am no expert and I don't understand everything I know.

Soninme, let me ask you -- is my basic assessment of Trinitarianism in line with your understanding -- Three distinct persons/personalities/beings in one God? Or is your understanding more like Modalism -- One being with three modes/masks/roles?

I believe the Bible teaches God has revealed Himself as one in essence or substance (being), but three in subsistence (personhood). In terms of what God is (essence), God is one; in terms of who God is (subsistence), God is three eternally distinct Persons, which would rule out Modalism because the Father is always the Father, the Son is always the Son and the Holy Spirit is always the Holy Spirit from eternity past to eternity future. (Psalm 90:2)

Confusion comes from equating "Being" and "Persons". It has been said God is "one What" and "three Whos"

"Being" would be the "what" (God) and "Persons" would be the "who"( Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

Hope that helps.

Thanks