Who is Jesus?

[Windseeker]

Having spent the summers of my youth in a Baptist Bible camp I have to admit I have no love for the Trinity quagmire concept. I’ve often wondered what is going thru the minds of those who believe in the Trinity as they read the Bible and encounter the Savior telling people to pray to and worship the Father our Father (himself?), and that we are created in his image.

There are many religions that have God/Gods who created man, none that I know of outside of Christianity and some Native American Lore refer to him as Father. Does Father have any meaning? Do we not resemble our Fathers and eventually grow up to be like our Father. Is not the greatest accomplishment an all powerful supreme being can ever accomplish be to create another like being?

I don’t believe those who proclaim the Trinity desire that we know God or have a relationship with God. They want to keep him and his purposes a mystery and create a dependence on clergy.

I had the privilege to share the gospel of Jesus Christ in a land where most people were unfamiliar with Christian creeds, dogma and lettered theologians. To those that picked up a Bible and simply read it, the concept of 3 distinct individuals, One being God our Father whom we worship, one being Jesus Christ his Son, our brother and Savior and the other being the Holy Ghost needed no discussion, explanation, or debate.

[SteveVH]

In that joining though, we will no longer be "man" or "human".

From the Catholic view, actually, we will be more human than ever before. God does not change our humanity, he transforms it from the fallen state in which we find ourselves to the being we were truly created to be. God completes our humanity by our sharing in his divine life. We will always be human, for the rest of eternity. Angels will be angels for the rest of eternity. God does not change who we were created to be, he lifts us up so that we may attain the fullness of what it means to be human.

Before you were saying that LDS believe that "man" and God are both divine. I am clarifying that we don't believe that. We do not believe that "man" is divine even though the spirit of man could be. We believe the spirit of man, which is who we really are, is the same species as God.

Our "spirit" is part of what it means to be human. This is what I mean when I say that you do not seem to distinguish between divinty and humanity? Our "spirit" was created, therefore it is not divine in and of itself. Do you believe that God is fundamentally different in his being than we are? We are speaking of our nature as opposed to God's nature. From what I understand, the Mormon belief is that the only difference between us and God is the level of progression or exaltation, not a fundamental difference in the "stuff" of which we are made. This why Jesus is called God's only Son. If we are all God's sons and daughters, why then is Jesus called God's only Son. We become God's sons and daughters by adoption because we are created human beings, not divine beings with no beginning. We will live for the rest of eternity with God, but our existence begins at a point in time because divinity is not part of our nature. It is something added to our nature at the resurrection, a gift from God that allows us to share in his divine life.

If you believe we will be transformed, then transformed to what? "Supernatural human beings"? What does that mean? Then you are no longer taking about "man". You are taking about us in our non-man state. I think if you are going to disagree with that view then you are obligated to define what is meant by "supernatural human beings" and where you get that view. What if, "supernatural human beings" is the same as being divine? .... then you would agree with our view, just that you are using a different term.

"Supernatural" means "above" our human nature. Divinity is not something we naturally possess. It is a gift of God given at the resurrection to those who will spend eternity with him. So we are always talking about "man". God will infuse our human nature with his own divinity so that we can be in his presence and share in the love between the Father and the Son. We were created for this purpose.

It seems, though, that you would agree with the idea that being human or being "man" is just a temporary state and not our real selves. This life is an temporary, fallen, corrupted state from our real selves, our spirit self.

I am glad that you recognize that we now exist in a fallen state. And I agree that we are now less than what we were created to be and that we will become what we were truly created to be. Our relationship to God, broken in the Garden of Eden, will be restored. Our life on this earth is a temporary state in that it will end someday, but our nature is not a temporary nature. We will always be human. A glass of milk does not cease to be a glass of milk because one adds chocolate to it. It is now a glass of milk with the sweetness and flavor of chocolate. Divinity, which is a different nature from humanity, transforms human nature to become like itself through the reception of the divine Word, Jesus Christ. So, in my faith tradition, we become "like" God through the reception of his gift. God and man are not the same "species", so to speak. God adds the sweetness of divinity to our humanity so that we rise above our natural human state.

Edited October 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Having spent the summers of my youth in a Baptist Bible camp I have to admit I have no love for the Trinity quagmire concept. I’ve often wondered what is going thru the minds of those who believe in the Trinity as they read the Bible and encounter the Savior telling people to pray to and worship the Father our Father (himself?), and that we are created in his image.

If my understanding of the Trinity was your understanding of the Trinity I would reject it as well. What you have described is not the Trinitarian view at all, so it appears that you were taught incorrectly at your Baptist Bible camp.

If you understood the Trinity you would understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons; that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, for starters. It was quite proper and good that Jesus told people to worship his Father. Your statements create a false premise upon which you attempt to build an argument.

I don’t believe those who proclaim the Trinity desire that we know God or have a relationship with God. They want to keep him and his purposes a mystery and create a dependence on clergy.

Yes, I'm sure you are correct. The bishops of the Catholic Church have spent over 2,000 years in back rooms, twisting their moustaches, while they plan and plot to destroy faith in the one, true God. Give me a break.

I had the privilege to share the gospel of Jesus Christ in a land where most people were unfamiliar with Christian creeds, dogma and lettered theologians. To those that picked up a Bible and simply read it, the concept of 3 distinct individuals, One being God our Father whom we worship, one being Jesus Christ his Son, our brother and Savior and the other being the Holy Ghost needed no discussion, explanation, or debate.

Your Bapist background, with its notions of private interpretation, seems to still be ingrained in you. And I am sure that you have arrived at your current belief system by picking up a Bible and coming to that conclusion with no influence from the leaders of your church. In my tiny little town of about 10,000 people I have witnessed the Baptist Church split into four separate churches within the last ten years, because anyone can pick up a Bible and understand it with no discussion, explanation or debate. They are their own infallible authority.

[SteveVH]

Revelation 19:11 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Ezekiel 1:1 - In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.

Acts 10:11 - And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth

Revelation 4:1 - After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Acts 7:56 - And said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

I'm not quite sure what you think you have proven with these passages. They were all "visions" and therefore cannot be taken literally. Peter had a vision of unclean animals of which he was to eat. The vision actually had to do with preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. That is the nature of a vision. John had visions of strange beasts as described in Revelation. Do you think they were real, or did they mean something else? And how do you reconcile this with the fact that Scripture tells us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart (mind) conceived of what God has planned for those who love him"? Please address that specifically if you don't mind.

I have no doubt that Stephen saw what he described, just before his death. It certainly does not translate into God the Father having a body of flesh and bone. God does have a body, the body of Jesus Christ. Standing at God's right hand is an idiom used to describe power and glory, it doesn't mean that the Father literally has a right hand.

And thanks, your "smilie" was a nice touch.

Edited October 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[Windseeker]

If my understanding of the Trinity was your understanding of the Trinity I would reject it as well.

Well, I'm a Latter Day Saint not Baptist. I don't speak for the Baptists but I did attend Baptist Summer School. My parents sent me there every summer to get me out of their hair.

Let's just say this is NOT how I view the Trinity

<Mod Edit to remove image>

Edited October 12, 2011 by estradling75
removed image

[Spartan117]

I'm not quite sure what you think you have proven with these passages.

Why do we try and describe heaven when God has told us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived of what God has planned for those who love him."?

Do you get it now?

[SteveVH]

Do you get it now?

Oh, I get it. But you have not answered my question:

Originally Posted by StephenVH

And how do you reconcile this with the fact that Scripture tells us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart (mind) conceived of what God has planned for those who love him"? Please address that specifically if you don't mind.

[Traveler]

...

If you understood the Trinity you would understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons; that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, for starters. It was quite proper and good that Jesus told people to worship his Father. Your statements create a false premise upon which you attempt to build an argument.

...

I find nothing in scripture to distinguish the Father as person rather and not G-d. As I understand and believe in G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. It appears to me that the definition of “Person” is far too ambiguous a definition for even a sentient entity. For example, a corporation is legally a person but a corporation is not a sentient entity therefore I find the definition of person to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be severely insufficient both scripturally and according to rhetorical logic.

However, the main objection I have to proponents of the Trinity is the idea and concept that the nature of G-d is distinctively different than the nature that man can acquire through G-d and being one with G-d - or in other words the intended destiny of man to fulfill the purpose of G-d in creating man. This idea is very illogical to me and can only be explained away with faulty logic void of scripture content. If man cannot acquire the “fullness” of G-d’s nature then man cannot be one with G-d and since G-d commands and intends man to be one with him - then the doctrine of distinct nature is either false or G-d lies. And I find both unacceptable.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Well, I'm a Latter Day Saint not Baptist. I don't speak for the Baptists but I did attend Baptist Summer School. My parents sent me there every summer to get me out of their hair.

Let's just say this is NOT how I view the Trinity

<Mod Edit to remove image>

I find this highly offensive.

Edited October 12, 2011 by estradling75
removed image

[Seminarysnoozer]

From the Catholic view, actually, we will be more human than ever before. God does not change our humanity, he transforms it from the fallen state in which we find ourselves to the being we were truly created to be. God completes our humanity by our sharing in his divine life. We will always be human, for the rest of eternity. Angels will be angels for the rest of eternity. God does not change who we were created to be, he lifts us up so that we may attain the fullness of what it means to be human.

Our "spirit" is part of what it means to be human. This is what I mean when I say that you do not seem to distinguish between divinty and humanity? Our "spirit" was created, therefore it is not divine in and of itself. Do you believe that God is fundamentally different in his being than we are? We are speaking of our nature as opposed to God's nature. From what I understand, the Mormon belief is that the only difference between us and God is the level of progression or exaltation, not a fundamental difference in the "stuff" of which we are made. This why Jesus is called God's only Son. If we are all God's sons and daughters, why then is Jesus called God's only Son. We become God's sons and daughters by adoption because we are created human beings, not divine beings with no beginning. We will live for the rest of eternity with God, but our existence begins at a point in time because divinity is not part of our nature. It is something added to our nature at the resurrection, a gift from God that allows us to share in his divine life.

"Supernatural" means "above" our human nature. Divinity is not something we naturally possess. It is a gift of God given at the resurrection to those who will spend eternity with him. So we are always talking about "man". God will infuse our human nature with his own divinity so that we can be in his presence and share in the love between the Father and the Son. We were created for this purpose.

I am glad that you recognize that we now exist in a fallen state. And I agree that we are now less than what we were created to be and that we will become what we were truly created to be. Our relationship to God, broken in the Garden of Eden, will be restored. Our life on this earth is a temporary state in that it will end someday, but our nature is not a temporary nature. We will always be human. A glass of milk does not cease to be a glass of milk because one adds chocolate to it. It is now a glass of milk with the sweetness and flavor of chocolate. Divinity, which is a different nature from humanity, transforms human nature to become like itself through the reception of the divine Word, Jesus Christ. So, in my faith tradition, we become "like" God through the reception of his gift. God and man are not the same "species", so to speak. God adds the sweetness of divinity to our humanity so that we rise above our natural human state.

Thanks for your response. This is reason that when we talk about God and man though, we are talking about apples and oranges. You obviously have a hard time separating our current existence from who we really are. If we can't get beyond that, then we are talking about two different things. I think "human nature" only pertains to our current fallen body. It does not pertain to my spirit. Those two things are separate. We do not believe in turning dust into something more than dust.

You still haven't explained where the spirit comes from other than God gave it. In your opinion the spirit of man is not a being? The spirit of man is nothing more than our animalistic natures? Then we are not anything more than a lion or bear or any other creature. If you think we have something more than what our carnal body would provide, more than the natural instincts of what being human is, then what is that essence?

To us, that ability to reason, choose and take responsibility for our choices is not "human" it is given by our spirit being. An animal cannot sin because it does what it is programmed to do, what comes naturally. Man is different, in that we have responsibility. That responsibility does not come from our carnal, animal being. If it did then how does that make us different from any other animal. There has to be something more, and there is, it is our spirit being. Adam was created in the image of God and then God blew in his spirit. What do you think God blew in if Adam was already in His image? Just the ability to live? It was Adam's individual spirit that existed before to make Adam now the first man, man = a dual being of both body and spirit together.

Jesus is the Only Begotten in the flesh. Not, Gods only spirit child.

Our body can never become God, human nature can never become God because that includes our carnal body. When we discard the human carnal body and transfigure into a body of Celestial glory then we can become like God. So, long as you are just talking about our carnal, corrupted body by itself or in combination with the spirit, then it is limited to its current realm. We are mostly talking about the next phase of our growth, outside of this existence when we talk about our potential to be like God. If one thinks human nature continues beyond death then they don't understand what 'come unto my rest' means.

[Vort]

They were all "visions" and therefore cannot be taken literally.

Visions are not literal? Really? Is this standard Catholic doctrine?

Peter had a vision of unclean animals of which he was to eat. The vision actually had to do with preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. That is the nature of a vision.

Yet Christianity has no "unclean beasts". Guess the vision was literal, after all.

John had visions of strange beasts as described in Revelation. Do you think they were real, or did they mean something else?

Of course they were literal. That they were used as symbols does not make them less than literal.

And how do you reconcile this with the fact that Scripture tells us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart (mind) conceived of what God has planned for those who love him"?

Your question does not make sense. How does having a vision from God of literal things mean that we have glimpsed and/or heard and/or conceived of God's plans for those who love him?

I have no doubt that Stephen saw what he described, just before his death. It certainly does not translate into God the Father having a body of flesh and bone. God does have a body, the body of Jesus Christ. Standing at God's right hand is an idiom used to describe power and glory, it doesn't mean that the Father literally has a right hand.

Of course it does. Please give other scriptural examples of the phrase "standing at the right hand" meaning "power and glory" to establish your point.

[Traveler]

...

Our body can never become God, human nature can never become God because that includes our carnal body. When we discard the human carnal body and transfigure into a body of Celestial glory then we can become like God. So, long as you are just talking about our carnal, corrupted body by itself or in combination with the spirit, then it is limited to its current realm. We are mostly talking about the next phase of our growth, outside of this existence when we talk about our potential to be like God. If one thinks human nature continues beyond death then they don't understand what 'come unto my rest' means.

Sorry but I disagree - our body can be resurrected in glory (meaning like G-d). You may have a correct idea but the expression "can never become God" appears to me to contridict your expression, "transfigure into a body of Celestial glory then we can become like God."

Perhaps it would help me if anyone could explain what is the difference between being like G-d and being G-d.

The Traveler

[Spartan117]

Oh, I get it. But you have not answered my question:

And how do you reconcile this with the fact that Scripture tells us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart (mind) conceived of what God has planned for those who love him"? Please address that specifically if you don't mind.

I don't. I didn't write the book, Stephen. If there are contradictions with your understanding of scripture then you have to figure that out for yourself good sir.

Alright, I'll give you a hint ... the verse you quoted above and asked me to reconcile for you, it isn't in conflict with the verses I posted. You left out the part that was wrong!

... okay:

I'm too nice.

Why do we try and describe heaven when God has told us

Paul isn't talking about heaven.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

[SteveVH]

I find nothing in scripture to distinguish the Father as person rather and not G-d.

Did I say that the Father was not God?

As I understand and believe in G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. It appears to me that the definition of “Person” is far too ambiguous a definition for even a sentient entity.

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.

For example, a corporation is legally a person but a corporation is not a sentient entity therefore I find the definition of person to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be severely insufficient both scripturally and according to rhetorical logic.

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?

However, the main objection I have to proponents of the Trinity is the idea and concept that the nature of G-d is distinctively different than the nature that man can acquire through G-d and being one with G-d - or in other words the intended destiny of man to fulfill the purpose of G-d in creating man.

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.

This idea is very illogical to me and can only be explained away with faulty logic void of scripture content. If man cannot acquire the “fullness” of G-d’s nature then man cannot be one with G-d and since G-d commands and intends man to be one with him - then the doctrine of distinct nature is either false or G-d lies. And I find both unacceptable.

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)

Edited October 12, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Perhaps it would help me if anyone could explain what is the difference between being like G-d and being G-d.

The Traveler

I'll give it a shot. A candle is "like" the sun in that it gives off heat and light. But a candle is not the sun and will never have the "glory" that the sun has.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sorry but I disagree - our body can be resurrected in glory (meaning like G-d). You may have a correct idea but the expression "can never become God" appears to me to contridict your expression, "transfigure into a body of Celestial glory then we can become like God."

Perhaps it would help me if anyone could explain what is the difference between being like G-d and being G-d.

The Traveler

Well then I would add the clarification, in that state. When the mortal body is no longer mortal, then it is not a mortal corrupted body any more. It has changed from an apple to an orange, so to speak, it is something different.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Our "spirit" is part of what it means to be human.

(See my previous response to your post as well.)

This is obviously where we differ the most. I think most LDS see "human" as being part of what it means to be spirit as opposed to the way you put it.

I am curious what you think happens at death. Do you still exist at death even though the body is gone? If you do exist, are you you, or something else? If you are still you as a spirit then it would sound like you didn't need the body to be you, right? Or do you believe you can only be you with a body? Are you a 'being' still the moment your spirit leaves your body at death? What kind of being are you at that moment? I don't think you would still say that that being is man, or human. So what type of being are we at death before we are resurrected? Is there no existence between death and resurrection for you?

[SteveVH]

(See my previous response to your post as well.)

This is obviously where we differ the most. I think most LDS see "human" as being part of what it means to be spirit as opposed to the way you put it.

I am curious what you think happens at death. Do you still exist at death even though the body is gone? If you do exist, are you you, or something else? If you are still you as a spirit then it would sound like you didn't need the body to be you, right? Or do you believe you can only be you with a body? Are you a 'being' still the moment your spirit leaves your body at death? What kind of being are you at that moment? I don't think you would still say that that being is man, or human. So what type of being are we at death before we are resurrected? Is there no existence between death and resurrection for you?

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.

[Spartan117]

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?

A corporation has a legal name, I can take a corporation to court, it can take me to court. It can enter into contracts, pay tax go into debt, has the right to free speech, and can even be convicted of crimes. The laws governing a corporation, are in fact the same laws and rights applied to a person in most instances. There are corporate laws, but the freedom of speech exercised by uninformed Catholics is the same law extended to corporations. A corporation doesn't have civil rights, it can exercise human rights though, and it has constitutional rights. The First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been applied to corporations. So lets review.

First, Stephen, you are confusing a "Legal Person" with a "Natural Person." A legal person is a non-human entity regarded by law to have the status of a person. A natural person is simply a human being.

Second, "legal entity" is a general term that describes all entities recognized by the law, including both juristic and natural persons, and corporations.

Third, Corporate law varies, but a corporation usually has 4 characteristics, Legal personality (where it becomes a legal person) Limited liability, Transferable share and a Centralized management under a board structure.

Yeah.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Spartan117
Manners

[Justice]

If you understood the Trinity you would understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons; that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, for starters.

I think if you understood it you would be able to explain it to me in a way I can understand it. This 3-in-1 is foreign to me. You say there are three, because there are, they each have a name. But, you say they are one in body as well, just to fit your idea of "One" in the scriptures.

Read John 17.

As far as divine belonging only to God, here is a scripture...

2 Peter 1:3-4:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

What does this mean to you?

[SteveVH]

Visions are not literal? Really? Is this standard Catholic doctrine?

Visions are symbols of reality, they are not reality themselves. They represent persons, things, events, etc. to convey a real message. Do you think that when you see Jesus in heaven that he will look like a lamb?

Yet Christianity has no "unclean beasts". Guess the vision was literal, after all.

Peter was a Jew. The Gentiles were thought of as the "unclean". The vision of unclean animals was a vision concerning the Gentiles, not pigs. How can you say it is literal? Do you think God was trying to tell him to eat pork?

Of course they were literal. That they were used as symbols does not make them less than literal.

The fact that they are symbols is exactly why they are not literal; they are symbols. The phrase "right hand of God" does not mean that God has a literal right hand, whether you believe he has a physical body or not. That is not what is being conveyed. That he has power and authority is what is being conveyed by the term.

Your question does not make sense. How does having a vision from God of literal things mean that we have glimpsed and/or heard and/or conceived of God's plans for those who love him?

Sorry, I really don't understand your question.

Of course it does. Please give other scriptural examples of the phrase "standing at the right hand" meaning "power and glory" to establish your point.

The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position. Many things should be taken into consideration for this phrase to make sense. The phrase "right hand" is a metaphor. We read of God exercising his authority by his right hand. This is a Hebrew idiom and cannot be taken in its literal sense. It is a sign of something literal, but so is the phrase "kicking the can down the road". We are not suppose to think that someone is literally kicking a can down the road, but that they are procrastinating.

Right after Peter writes of the resurrection he says 1 Pt.3:22 "Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having made subject to him". The second part of the sentence explains the first. It is a sign of power and authority, not a literal right hand. So it is as in Mt.28:18 all authority was given to him in both heaven and earth. This is something he did not have as he came to earth in a state of humility (Phil.2:5-8).

Jesus returned to Father sitting down, which symbolizes that his work is done. Jn.14:28, 16:16,17, 20:17. There is now a man at the right hand of God the Father, who is God the Son. Acts 2:32-35, Heb.10:12, Eph. 1:20, 1 Pt. 3:22.

[Justice]

The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position. Many things should be taken into consideration for this phrase to make sense. The phrase "right hand" is a metaphor. We read of God exercising his authority by his right hand. This is a Hebrew idiom and cannot be taken in its literal sense. It is a sign of something literal, but so is the phrase "kicking the can down the road". We are not suppose to think that someone is literally kicking a can down the road, but that they are procrastinating.

In your attempt to "swallow a camel" you're missing the most basic and simple points of what people are trying to tell you.

The phrase kicking the can down the road is a REAL thing. It has other meanings, but it BEGAN with it's literal meaning.

Christ on the right hand of God has a LITERAL meaning. It has other meanings, but it began with the literal meaning.

You're trying to overcomplicate something simple.

[SteveVH]

I think if you understood it you would be able to explain it to me in a way I can understand it. This 3-in-1 is foreign to me. You say there are three, because there are, they each have a name. But, you say they are one in body as well, just to fit your idea of "One" in the scriptures.

Please show me where I said they were "one in body". If I did then it was a complete accident. I said they are one in being. Having said that, I will say that where ever the Father is, the Son and the Holy Spirit are also. Where the Son is, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also. Same with the Holy Spirit. They cannot act independently of one another because they are one being. That is why Jesus can only do his Father's will. The Father's will is Jesus' will and the will of the Holy Spirit.

Justice, we are speaking of God. A God greater than we can possibly understand. It is not easy for any of us to wrap our minds around the infinite, eternal God. We get castigated, especially by Mormons, for using the term mystery, as if we could fully grasp God within our finite minds. But God is a mystery, meaning a truth that we have not fully grasped.

Read John 17.

As far as divine belonging only to God, here is a scripture...

2 Peter 1:3-4:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

What does this mean to you?

I completely agree that we will be partakers of the divine nature. That is what I mean when I say that we will share in God's divinity. The difference is that we receive divinity as a gift. God has always been divine by his very nature. We have not. Therefore there is a difference between God's divine nature and our human, mortal nature. We do not possess that nature independent of God. It is his nature, not ours, that we share in.

So I completely agree with the scripture passages you quoted.

[SteveVH]

In your attempt to "swallow a camel" you're missing the most basic and simple points of what people are trying to tell you.

The phrase kicking the can down the road is a REAL thing. It has other meanings, but it BEGAN with it's literal meaning.

Christ on the right hand of God has a LITERAL meaning. It has other meanings, but it began with the literal meaning.

You're trying to overcomplicate something simple.

This seems like a pretty silly argument. I don't care where something started. 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.

[Windseeker]

They cannot act independently of one another because they are one being. That is why Jesus can only do his Father's will. The Father's will is Jesus' will and the will of the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus can only do the Fathers will what was the whole point about being tempted by Satan? Is it even possible to be tempted if you have no choice??

“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8); and he “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

So Christ did not voluntarily offer up his life, since it was not a choice and he can only do the will of the Father. Why do we say Christ overcame sin, there must not have been much to overcome if he had no agency in the matter. Doesn't overcome imply there's a struggle of some sort.

“And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” (Matt. 26:38–39.)

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?"

Edited October 13, 2011 by Windseeker