Son of God?

[Justice]

I read the post about person and being not meaning the same but the semantics don't change the fact that there can't exist three of something and one of something at the same time. Either it's three or it's one.

Or even worse, both 3 and 1 at the same time.

"One in purpose and will" cleanly solves the puzzle because one is no longer a number that contradicts 3.

[Justice]

2 Thess 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Galatians 1:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The Apostles had their hands full trying to keep false doctrines from entering the church. The first that I'm familiar with is that those who were converted Jews felt Gentiles need to enter Christ's gospel through the Law of Moses, and they needed to be circumcised, and everything else under the Jewish law. They had a very hard time with that one.

These verse show that the Gentiles also were bringing in false doctrines and the Apostles corrected them and put down the false teachings.

It's very easy to see that decades after they were gone, there's no telling what kind of false beliefs and teachings entered the church.

But, as I said before, the primary reason for the falling away was that of authority, which is no longer believed to be needed. A reformation could correct some false teachings, but a restoration was needed for authority to be replaced on the earth again.

[Snow]

Shelly,

Would you please answer the question I poised before: If the modern Trinity view of God is correct, why doesn't anyone from the Bible, not God, not Jesus, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James or anyone from the OT demonstrate any awareness of it?

Or, if you won't answer that question, since it was unimportant enough to the prophets and apostles that they didn't address it, why worry about it now?

[Vort]

There is also apparently a differing definition of "one" between the two groups. With the LDS members saying that the "one" in the Bible refers to a oneness of unity, as in, the Godhead is a single unit, who are similar in purpose. The non-LDS members feel this is a stretch (is it possible for the word "one" to be interpreted to mean "oneness in purpose?' Well, I guess so, but since I don't have the Greek in front of me right now, I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Let's just leave it at: LDS interpret it one way and non-LDS interpret it another.), and simply take the word "one" to mean "one:" there is one God.

Please explain the meaning of John 17:20-21:

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

Please explain how we are to be one "in Person" with Christ, exactly as Christ is one with God. Remember, this is not a oneness "in purpose" that we are talking about -- at least not according to your beliefs.

[Shelly200]

Why is it a stretch? It is, afterall, a valid use of the word. Plus, I'll again, have you read John 17 lately?

I feel like this is a point we can agree to disagree on. Once again, it is a matter of interpretation; you feel the non-LDS are interpreting it incorrectly, and the non-LDS feel the LDS are interpreting it incorrectly. Like I said, I guess it could be interpreted to mean "one in purpose," but we do not see it that way. At this point, I feel like it's not getting anyone anywhere to continue in the circle of the definition of "one." You now know how we interpret it and how that affects out view of the Trinity, and I now know how you interpret it and how that affects your view of the Godhead.

I feel like that's as far as we can get on the subject.

[Shelly200]

Or even worse, both 3 and 1 at the same time.

"One in purpose and will" cleanly solves the puzzle because one is no longer a number that contradicts 3.

Like I said earlier: when I try to say that 3=1 (Trinity), then I am told it is impossible... when I try to say that 3=3 (non-LDS view of the LDS Godhead), I am told I am also incorrect.

What I say to 3 cannot equal 1: With God all things are possible. And also- we're not saying that 3 gods equal 1 god. We're saying that 1 God has 3 Persons. Different concept, even if you choose not to believe it.

We completely disagree on the Trinity concept. That's fine. I'm just trying to explain, in the best way I know how, what the concept is; how the non-LDS churches interpret Scripture that differ from how the LDS church interprets it.

[Shelly200]

2 Thess 2:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Galatians 1:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The Apostles had their hands full trying to keep false doctrines from entering the church. The first that I'm familiar with is that those who were converted Jews felt Gentiles need to enter Christ's gospel through the Law of Moses, and they needed to be circumcised, and everything else under the Jewish law. They had a very hard time with that one.

These verse show that the Gentiles also were bringing in false doctrines and the Apostles corrected them and put down the false teachings.

It's very easy to see that decades after they were gone, there's no telling what kind of false beliefs and teachings entered the church.

But, as I said before, the primary reason for the falling away was that of authority, which is no longer believed to be needed. A reformation could correct some false teachings, but a restoration was needed for authority to be replaced on the earth again.

The Protestant churches would mostly agree with you on Authority: their only Authority is the Bible. The Catholic Church, however, does not believe that the Apostles' Authority died with them. Instead we believe that it was passed down through the Apostolic Succession.

For example: Christ specifically says that He is the Son of God and has the Authority to forgive sins. Then He gives that Authority to the Apostles (What sins you forgive shall be forgiven them...). The the Apostles go around preaching, baptizing, and forgiving sins. While they're at it, they ordain priests and bishops with that same Authority. When all of the Apostles die, the priests and bishops are still living, preaching, baptizing, and forgiving sins. While they're at it they ordain more priests and bishops with the same Authority. On and on and on until today. (Through the laying on of hands and the Holy Spirit.) Today, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes are ordained through the same power and Authority; when a bishops lays his hands on a man being ordained to the priesthood, we believe it is the same as Christ laying His hands on him, because the bishop can be traced back through the bishop before him, the bishop before him, the bishop before him, all the way back to the Apostles, and finally to Christ. This is Apostolic Succession.

Of course, you can believe this or not. But this is the Catholic view of things.

Not to say that all bishops, priests, and popes have been perfect. All men (except Christ and, if you're Catholic, Mary) are subject to sin. However, we believe that, through the power of the Holy Spirit (and the gates of Hell not prevailing...) that the Church is infallible in regards to doctrine. A pope can say that World War II never happened, and obviously be completely wrong. But if he makes a statement ex cathedra, then he cannot make an error, because the Holy Spirit guards and protects the doctrine of the Church from error.

Of course, you can believe this or not. But this is the Catholic view of things.

[Shelly200]

Please explain the meaning of John 17:20-21:

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

Please explain how we are to be one "in Person" with Christ, exactly as Christ is one with God. Remember, this is not a oneness "in purpose" that we are talking about -- at least not according to your beliefs.

I found an explanation of this very idea on the web recently. As it explains it in a much better way than I could, I'll copy it here for you.

"Take the example of an engaged couple. They're the kind who get along perfectly, can complete each other's sentences, etc. - you know the type. They're "one in purpose." Then they get married. Genesis 2:24 says that in the marital union, the two become one flesh. Now they're something more than one in purpose, through the power of the sacraments. That's the distinction that you need to understand for John 17 to make sense. Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27 and the rest describe the Church as "the Body of Christ." It's being much less metaphorical than it seems. Through Baptism we enter into union with Christ. Not a mere union of purpose, where we root for His team, but a genuine indelible unity that can never be undone. In Ephesians 5:25-32, Paul speaks of the Church as the Bride of Christ, and compares Her quite dramatically to the union of a married couple, calling it a "Profound Mystery." This Profound Mystery is something far beyond a simple unity in purpose. In Galatians 2:20, Paul declares:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

So my first point is that the relationship between the Church and Christ isn't a mere unity of purpose. To no one was this more clear than to St. Paul. And he should know: Acts 9:1-5 says that when he set out to persecute the Christians of Damascus, he was stopped on the way by a voice asking:

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?"

When he asked, "Who are you, Lord?" Jesus responded: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" - that is, Jesus identified Himself so completely with His Church that although already Ascended into Heaven, He still considered any persecution of the Church as a direct persecution of Himself.

Now, if the unity between Christ and the Church isn't a mere unity of purpose, then the unity within the Church isn't, either. We're organically connected in a way we don't fully understand, like spokes around the hub of Christ. That's why the Body of Christ image is so potent: we're connected and organized within a single organic Being... and that Being is Christ Himself. The early Christians understood this, and called themselves members of "The Way," a Divine title (John 14:6). And given this, the unity being spoken of in John 17 isn't a mere unity of purpose, either amongst members of the Church or between Members of the Trinity. Rather, it's a bond St. Paul describes as a Profound Mystery (which "unity of purpose" certainly isn't)."

As always, agree with this statement or not. It's simply the way the Catholics interpret it.

[Vort]

I found an explanation of this very idea on the web recently. As it explains it in a much better way than I could, I'll copy it here for you.

You cannot actually believe this, especially since you declaim the very idea of God as a sexual being. Surely you do not believe we will be having sex with God, and thus be one with him.

You may have thought this quote would explain it better than you could, but the quote did a very poor job indeed of explaining it in a comprehensible manner. Comparing how we and Christ will be one as similar to how a man and wife are one through sex just is not clear -- especially since Christ specifies, "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."

So again, I ask: Will you please explain in what sense we become one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father?

[prisonchaplain]

That's not a straightforward reading at all. That sets up all sorts of criteria that are not in found in the context of the original text:

If I am a pagan or an atheist and I read text that a religion says are holy, and the reading goes: The gates of hell will not prevail against this church, I would assume it meant nothing bad will succeed in destroying it.

I suppose suspend does not mean destroy, but again, if I were an outsider, and somebody told me, "Well it wasn't destroyed, but it was powerless for 1700 years," I'd think that gates of hell had prevailed for a good long time.

[volgadon]

You cannot actually believe this, especially since you declaim the very idea of God as a sexual being. Surely you do not believe we will be having sex with God, and thus be one with him.

I think you've misunderstood. Sexual metaphors have been used to describe the mystical relationship with God fora very long time.

[Vort]

I think you've misunderstood. Sexual metaphors have been used to describe the mystical relationship with God fora very long time.

Perhaps this is the problem. I am not looking for a mystical metaphor. I want a clear explanation. Jesus' words were crystal clear: "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." I want an equally clear explanation how this is possible and what it means, given that, in Shelly's belief system, God and Christ are "one in Person".

[Hala401]

Shelly:

I have to say that you say it is the Catholic view on things as if we should all subscribe to it. One of the things that drove me away from Christianity is that non-LDS folk seem to take pride in attacking others to include each other.

Catholics talk about other denominations as if they are the lost sheep. And many protestant denominations talk about everyone else as not really christian, and they really say awful things about the Catholic Church. So, 6 years ago, I decided that I'd had enough of them and their plastic bobble head Jesus.

I was Muslim when I started all this with the LDS, and Hagee once said on his TV show that all Muslims were going to Hell. So, is he God that he would know.

In my talks with the LDS, not once have the Missionaries attacked another denomination, no not even the Catholics. That is one thing that I could not ignore and finally had to face the idea that American Christianity is bizarre.

So, if you are Catholic, why are you here on an LDS page? Are you searching for some thing? I doubt that any LDS person will tell you that they feel lost and need to search a Baptist page.

If you have not attended an LDS church and talked to LDS missionaries, you don't really have much to go on, do you?

Hala

[jayanna]

But he hasn't prevailed, he can't prevail, he has never prevailed. It was us that was the problem, not Satan, we did it by killing the apostles who had the true priesthood. He didn't prevail, because Jesus lives! He is a living God, who exists in a place where Satan cannot touch Him. He can return and restore (as He promised He would) what He had started.

Some might say Satan prevailed, just as they might have thought at the time of Jesus birth when His people had become corrupted once again, when John the Baptist was beheaded, when Lazarus died, when Jesus died on the cross. Little did they know that the whole thing had been known, it had been planned for, death has been overcome, sin has been overcome, a Savior has taken our sins and lives again. HE died and rose Himself up! He tore down His temple and He built it up again. He resurrected Himself! Who else could do that than the literal begotten son of an immortal being?

As long as we have a Living Christ, Satan cannot ever prevail. Our Savior is not in the past only, not just words on some dusty pages in a language none of us can read. He is not sleeping, not tired, not busy somewhere else. He is here and present with us, directing us, guiding us. If it seems for a moment that He has left us, that Satan has temporarily overtaken us, it is only because we have distanced ourself from Christ, and we can return to Him. He is constantly waiting. If it took us hundreds of years to figure it out, to become humble enough, to distance ourselves from the state our predecessors where in when they martyred God's own Son and His very apostles, that only speaks to me of the seriousness of those acts. Satan prevail? Huh! That's what those murderers thought they could do when they killed Joseph Smith...did they prevail? Has the church stopped? It grew. Why? Because our Savior Lives! He has already won! He won the moment He rose up inside that now empty tomb!

[prisonchaplain]

Shelly:

I have to say that you say it is the Catholic view on things as if we should all subscribe to it. One of the things that drove me away from Christianity is that non-LDS folk seem to take pride in attacking others to include each other.

Catholics talk about other denominations as if they are the lost sheep. And many protestant denominations talk about everyone else as not really christian, and they really say awful things about the Catholic Church. So, 6 years ago, I decided that I'd had enough of them and their plastic bobble head Jesus.

I was Muslim when I started all this with the LDS, and Hagee once said on his TV show that all Muslims were going to Hell. So, is he God that he would know.

In my talks with the LDS, not once have the Missionaries attacked another denomination, no not even the Catholics. That is one thing that I could not ignore and finally had to face the idea that American Christianity is bizarre.

So, if you are Catholic, why are you here on an LDS page? Are you searching for some thing? I doubt that any LDS person will tell you that they feel lost and need to search a Baptist page.

If you have not attended an LDS church and talked to LDS missionaries, you don't really have much to go on, do you?

Hala

You've said this kind of thing twice now. My take is that Shelly is having a great conversation with several LDS posters here. No one else is taking offense at her posts. She has not condemned anyone to the fiery pit. That she is open about saying her viewpoint is Catholic is a plus.

I'm a pentecostal Christian--a minister at that. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed conversations and friendship here for more than five years. I get to share and I get to learn. My guess is that 15-20% of the posts here are non-LDS. I sense that some LDS posters quite enjoy having us around to keep things interesting.

BTW, if I am not mistaken, the Catholic view today is that we Protestants re not "lost." We are "separated bretheren." I'm okay with that.

[Snow]

If I am a pagan or an atheist and I read text that a religion says are holy, and the reading goes: The gates of hell will not prevail against this church, I would assume it meant nothing bad will succeed in destroying it.

I suppose suspend does not mean destroy, but again, if I were an outsider, and somebody told me, "Well it wasn't destroyed, but it was powerless for 1700 years," I'd think that gates of hell had prevailed for a good long time.

So here's the problem...

You, a while, North American, 22nd century Protestant from a low context culture interpret one translation of what an anonymous author, from a high context culture who never met Jesus wrote down about the content of a private conversation Jesus had 5 to 6 decades after the fact and you think it's all rather straight forward.

It's nice to be certain, even though God is silent on the matter.

Another interpretation is that there was an apostasy but the gates of hell haven't prevailed at all. The Church is here and more relevant than ever.

[Snow]

BTW, if I am not mistaken, the Catholic view today is that we Protestants re not "lost." We are "separated bretheren." I'm okay with that.

That may be the current thinking. Lucky you didn't live hundreds of years ago when you might have been condemned to a fiery hell, tortured and killed for good measure because of your beliefs.

[Traveler]

If I am a pagan or an atheist and I read text that a religion says are holy, and the reading goes: The gates of hell will not prevail against this church, I would assume it meant nothing bad will succeed in destroying it.

I suppose suspend does not mean destroy, but again, if I were an outsider, and somebody told me, "Well it wasn't destroyed, but it was powerless for 1700 years," I'd think that gates of hell had prevailed for a good long time.

As a Christian do you believe that the House of Israel has been restored - Has the gates of Hell prevailed against the covenants G-d made with Abraham, Issac and Jacob been destroyed?

I believe there is a type and shadow here that plays out in the lives of every individual - like the lost sheep - Hell has not prevailed with any of us when we sin if we repent and are allowed to be recovered.

Anciently in scripture the term is a remnant is recovered in the "Last Days". The interpretation of remnant is quite interesting. Like the fall and death of Adam delivered Adam and all his offspring to the grave (hell) - through the resurrection (restoration) hell has not prevailed. And thus a remnant is preserved.

The Traveler

[Hala401]

You've said this kind of thing twice now. My take is that Shelly is having a great conversation with several LDS posters here. No one else is taking offense at her posts. She has not condemned anyone to the fiery pit. That she is open about saying her viewpoint is Catholic is a plus.

I'm a pentecostal Christian--a minister at that. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed conversations and friendship here for more than five years. I get to share and I get to learn. My guess is that 15-20% of the posts here are non-LDS. I sense that some LDS posters quite enjoy having us around to keep things interesting.

BTW, if I am not mistaken, the Catholic view today is that we Protestants re not "lost." We are "separated bretheren." I'm okay with that.

Prison Chaplain:

In the years 1974 to 2004, I was a one of those, and I got pretty tired of the hate speech, the Rock Music, the misinterpretation of the gift of tongues, and so many other things. I hope that your experience with Christianity has been better, and that you find fulfillment in serving in the Prisons. God knows that we need something good to happen there.

So, I am sorry. I suppose I am still reacting to my previous experience with Christianity. Your admonishment serves to remind me that I am not there yet and need to pray more, and learn to love again.

Much peace

Hala

[Hala401]

That may be the current thinking. Lucky you didn't live hundreds of years ago when you might have been condemned to a fiery hell, tortured and killed for good measure because of your beliefs.

Yes, and just having read about LDS history in the founding years, the LDS suffered persecution that I think is unprecedented in American history. Every time I read more, I feel astonished.

[Traveler]

Yes, and just having read about LDS history in the founding years, the LDS suffered persecution that I think is unprecedented in American history. Every time I read more, I feel astonished.

The LDS are not the only to suffer nor have we suffered the most. Native American populations in north America (USA) were about 40 million when Christians arrived. Their numbers are about 4 million now. There are some native peoples (like Lucayans - blond hair blue eyed natives that never - not even one individual - converted to Christianity) what have been completely removed and forgotten - genocide at the hands of Christians.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

That's a rather generous interpretation, but the reformation was, from the Protestant point of view, about corruption that was so rampant and ubiquitous, that they, that became the Protestants, couldn't be Catholic any more - it wasn't merely that some nice things had lapsed.

I won't pretend to be an expert, but my understanding is that Luther was a most reluctant protestant. He wanted reform, but was told to recant or be put out. At that point he could not stay. He was forced to deny the corruption existed, which he could not, or be put out of the church he loved and fought for.

When he left, and others followed, one thought is that Catholic leadership realized that at least some of the matters Luther had criticized needed addressing. Thus the theory that Luther helped save the Catholic church by driving it to remove some very pervasive dross.

[maiku]

The LDS are not the only to suffer nor have we suffered the most. Native American populations in north America (USA) were about 40 million when Christians arrived. Their numbers are about 4 million now. There are some native peoples (like Lucayans - blond hair blue eyed natives that never - not even one individual - converted to Christianity) what have been completely removed and forgotten - genocide at the hands of Christians.

The Traveler

I don't think that was her point. I'm pretty sure she was just referring to our Church's history and not necessarily comparing it to other tragedies.

[prisonchaplain]

Shelly,

Would you please answer the question I poised before: If the modern Trinity view of God is correct, why doesn't anyone from the Bible, not God, not Jesus, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James or anyone from the OT demonstrate any awareness of it?

My take is that the prophets did address the belief that there is only one God. The disciples, and I'd say Jesus himself, also insist that Jesus is God. The three vying theologies as to how that can be so are the Trinity, Modalism, and the LDS Godhead. Since none of these explanations were at issue during biblical times, the details never got addressed. These options arose in the second, third and nineteenth centuries.

[FunkyTown]

The LDS are not the only to suffer nor have we suffered the most. Native American populations in north America (USA) were about 40 million when Christians arrived. Their numbers are about 4 million now. There are some native peoples (like Lucayans - blond hair blue eyed natives that never - not even one individual - converted to Christianity) what have been completely removed and forgotten - genocide at the hands of Christians.

The Traveler

That's... Quite a claim, that the Lucayans were blond haired, blue eyed natives. Can you quote source?