Aog Look At Cojclds - Revisit Of Question #3

[shaka]

I find prisonchaplin's post # 4 rather interesting. He concludes that the word 'image', in relation to the creation of man; must be defined as he says it is by giving 3 supporting premises.

Premise 1: Christ taught a distinction of persons in the godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Premise 2: The said distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained.

Premise 3: Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

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

Conclusion: So, if we are created in the image of God--as he is revealed to us in the Bible, then that image is all about character, not biology, not physical essence. So the stress on goodness and uprightness.

I, and the Bible, agree with your premise 1; however, on its own, it does not offer support to your conclusion.

Your premise #2 does not have any scriptual backing. Therefore, I can only assume that this is something that you came up. Again, on its own, it does not offer support for your conclusion.

Your premise # 3 is two fold: first you offer a premise: "Man was created good and upright"; after which you offer a subconclusion: "For God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" And again, on its own, it does not offer support for your overall conclusion.

So what happens if all three premises were put together...would they support your overall conclusion. Well...let's see it in the following:

The Godhead is expressed in specific terms of relationship, but this relationship is incomprehensible. However, we do know that man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Sorry chaplin, even put together, they don't support your overall conclusion. Which is as follows:

Therefore, if we are created in the image of God--as he is revealed to us in the Bible, then that image is all about character, not biology, not physical essence. So the stress is on goodness and uprightness.

How are your premises linked to your overall conlcusion? It's illogical.

[JoshuaFKon]

I have to agree with Shaka, if "image" and "likeness" referfered to the "character" and "morals" of God, then Adam and Eve would have known Good from Evil.

I think it refers to humans haveing a spirit and being self-aware

Josh B)

[prisonchaplain]

I think the WHOLE BIBLE contridicts istelf. Havn't you ever heard the saying, "if you prove something with this book, I can prove the oppisite with the same book?"

It's not that the Bible really contradicts itself, it's that Protestant Christianity allows for various contradictory interpretations. Methodists and Presbyterians disagree about what the Bible says about predestination, for example. This problem scandalized Joseph Smith, leading to his famous, "Which of them is correct, which church should I join?" question.

In Protestantism we "agree to disagree." In the COJCLDS you don't have to. There is one authoritative voice. So, you look at Protestants, with our differing opinions about Scripture, and say, "See, the Bible is contradictory."

In reality, we people are. Our solution--sloppier than yours--is to determine what teachings are essential, and to seek fellowship with other churches that hold those core truths in common.

[Dr T]

Hello P.C./all,

From what I'm learning though, is yes, LDS has one voice (the prophet) but they can accept or not accept their words and they can be changed. I'm ready for correction if that is not true.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think the WHOLE BIBLE contridicts istelf. Havn't you ever heard the saying, "if you prove something with this book, I can prove the oppisite with the same book?"

It's not that the Bible really contradicts itself, it's that Protestant Christianity allows for various contradictory interpretations. Methodists and Presbyterians disagree about what the Bible says about predestination, for example. This problem scandalized Joseph Smith, leading to his famous, "Which of them is correct, which church should I join?" question.

In Protestantism we "agree to disagree." In the COJCLDS you don't have to. There is one authoritative voice. So, you look at Protestants, with our differing opinions about Scripture, and say, "See, the Bible is contradictory."

In reality, we people are. Our solution--sloppier than yours--is to determine what teachings are essential, and to seek fellowship with other churches that hold those core truths in common.

She didn't say, "other churches interpretation of the Bible is contradictory" she said "The Whole Bible" contradicts itself.

Josh B)

Hello P.C./all,

From what I'm learning though, is yes, LDS has one voice (the prophet) but they can accept or not accept their words and they can be changed. I'm ready for correction if that is not true.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Since this seems to be true, I wonder why the D&C is held up as being "scripture" in the same way the Bible and the BoM are....

Josh B)

[prisonchaplain]

I find prisonchaplin's post # 4 rather interesting. He concludes

First, Shaka, you summarized the post rather well, but may have missed, that this is a reworking of question #3 of a post I did earlier. The arguments you cite are not my own, but come from official doctrinal statements from the General Council of the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal Christian denomination). Nevertheless, I will address your concerns, since I am a member and minister of that movement. :-)

that the word 'image', in relation to the creation of man; must be defined as he says it is by giving 3 supporting premises. Premise 1: Christ taught a distinction of persons in the godhead which He expressed in specific terms of relationship, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Premise 2: The said distinction and relationship, as to its mode is inscrutable and incomprehensible, because unexplained. Premise 3: Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

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

Conclusion: So, if we are created in the image of God--as he is revealed to us in the Bible, then that image is all about character, not biology, not physical essence. So the stress on goodness and uprightness.

I, and the Bible, agree with your premise 1; however, on its own, it does not offer support to your conclusion.

Your premise #2 does not have any scriptual backing. Therefore, I can only assume that this is something that you came up. Again, on its own, it does not offer support for your conclusion.

The portion you call premise #2 was not meant to specifically refute the LDS teaching on the corporeal nature of the Father. Rather, it suggests that when Scripture does describe the nature of God and the interrelationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, those depictions are in terms of character, not physical description. Keep in mind, the purpose of the post was not to hold up a debate, with two sides, but rather to demonstrate the contrast, with short but sufficient descriptions.

Your premise # 3 is two fold: first you offer a premise: "Man was created good and upright"; after which you offer a subconclusion: "For God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" And again, on its own, it does not offer support for your overall conclusion.

Since the "premises" were not meant to support a polemic, but rather, to explain a viewpoint, they might indeed fail, on their own, in a debate format.

So what happens if all three premises were put together...would they support your overall conclusion. Well...let's see it in the following:

The Godhead is expressed in specific terms of relationship, but this relationship is incomprehensible. However, we do know that man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Sorry chaplin, even put together, they don't support your overall conclusion. Which is as follows:

Therefore, if we are created in the image of God--as he is revealed to us in the Bible, then that image is all about character, not biology, not physical essence. So the stress is on goodness and uprightness.

How are your premises linked to your overall conlcusion? It's illogical.

Actually, you stated it quite well. What the Bible does describe of the interaction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is primarily related to their character, not any physical description--nor any explication of their physical essence. Therefore, we conclude that God is revealing his character both TO us and THROUGH us.

There was no attempt in this string (nor the original) to insist on the superiority of the AOG position. It was simply at effort to explain the differences, so we might learn about each other a bit--and ourselves.

[Princess3dward]

How about this (I havn't gone to seminary yet).. but we can put that saying to the test. You prove one thing with the bible, and I will prove the oppisite with it. (No one says I have to look up a new verse. I onnly will if necessary )

[Traveler]

There was no attempt in this string (nor the original) to insist on the superiority of the AOG position. It was simply at effort to explain the differences, so we might learn about each other a bit--and ourselves.

PC: There are a couple of concepts and ideas that confuse the (heaven?) out of me when it comes to discussions of G-d, persons, the G-dhead and the Trinity based on the doctrine of the Trinity.

First: What is a person? Is a human a person? How about a dog - is a dog a person? Can a person have multi personalities or is a personality a person all by itself? Can a dog have the same personality as a human? Please note that person is a part of the word personality. Can a human ever be more than one person? Can you? Is a spirit a person? Is each individual unclean spirit angel that followed Satan a separate person? If a human has more than one spirit present in their physical body are they one person are many persons? If a human has more than one person (personality) can one person go to heaven and the other person go to Hell? If a human can be divided by their persons - which person is the real human and defines the human?

Second: What is a G-d? If a G-d is defined by what they do then are they not a G-d if they have not done it yet? For example: If we say G-d is the creator - does this mean that G-d did not exist prior to creation? If G-d is not defined by what he has done or what he will do - then what is G-d? If we define G-d by qualities is any one that possesses those qualities a G-d?

Third: What is the Trinity? Is it one being possessed by three spirit being persons? Is it a title given to 3 unique different persons that get along really well? What is the difference between the persons - what according to scripture distinguishes the 3 persons of the Trinity that makes them unique and not the same "one"? If man was created in the "image" and "likeness" of the persons that as individual persons are not G-d but together are G-d - what then is the difference between the person of man and the persons that are G-d? If man in his person becomes "one" with the persons that are G-d then are we (man), with them as one (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost), G-d?

To be honest the Trinity confuses me and makes no real sense when I try to visualize what it is and how it applies to real things that I do understand that make real sense. If the Trinity is this unknowable thing that does not, nor can, make any real sense - why do Trinitarians try make sense of it to us non-Trinitarian types or even themselves? Every time I have a discussion with a Trinitarian about G-d, I carefully ponder their comments and wonder if they really have any ideas that make sense to them and really believe what they are talking about or just say stuff they have memorized that makes no sense to them either but they have to say something to stay in the discussion and appear knowledgeable?

I do not necessarily intend to criticize - I just do not get it.

The Traveler

I find prisonchaplin's post # 4 rather interesting. He concludes that the word 'image', in relation to the

Premise 3: Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

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

Conclusion: So, if we are created in the image of God--as he is revealed to us in the Bible, then that image is all about character, not biology, not physical essence. So the stress on goodness and uprightness.

Waite a minute. Was man (meaning everybody) created equally good and upright or was that just Adam; the only one or is some created good and upright and some not?

The Traveler

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Personally, I'm still not sure what you think...

I know what you think...

Ray, you can't have it both ways.

You cut my words too short, Maureen. In your first quote of what I was saying I was saying that I'm still not sure what Tommy thinks about God, and in your second quote of what I was saying I was saying that I know Tommy thinks that God cannot be comprehended.

In other words, I'm still not really sure what Tommy thinks about God even though I know Tommy thinks God cannot be comprehended, so I still don't really know if Tommy agrees with me, and other LDS, or if Tommy has some other idea about who or what God is.

I'm being very anal-retentive at the moment.

Yes, I can see that, Maureen. But don't worry, I always cut you some slack. And whether or not it's good to be "anal retentive" I'll let you and others decide for yourselves. :)

[JoshuaFKon]

How about this (I havn't gone to seminary yet).. but we can put that saying to the test. You prove one thing with the bible, and I will prove the oppisite with it. (No one says I have to look up a new verse. I onnly will if necessary )

Ok, you can't mean "anything" in the Bible can be proved different:

(1) There is at least one God

Mark 12:29

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

(2) Humans have sinned in the past.

John 8:34

34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

(3) Jesus is the Son of God.

Luke3:22

22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

So, I am going to give you the benift of the doubt and assume you were refering to "Prodestant Theology" and not the "Whole Bible" (of course you did say "The Whole Bible"):

So...

(1) We are saved by grace through faith, apart from the works of the law.

1. (Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast."

2. (Rom. 3:20,28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

3. (Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

(2) There is only one God.

(Deuteronomy 6:4) - "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"

(Isaiah 43:10) - ". . . Before Me [YHWH] there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."

(Isaiah 44:6) - ". . . there is no God besides Me."

(Isaiah 44:8) - ". . . And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Best of Luck! :)

Josh B)

[Ray]

To be honest the Trinity confuses me and makes no real sense when I try to visualize what it is and how it applies to real things that I do understand that make real sense. If the Trinity is this unknowable thing that does not, nor can, make any real sense - why do Trinitarians try make sense of it to us non-Trinitarian types or even themselves? Every time I have a discussion with a Trinitarian about G-d, I carefully ponder their comments and wonder if they really have any ideas that make sense to them and really believe what they are talking about or just say stuff they have memorized that makes no sense to them either but they have to say something to stay in the discussion and appear knowledgeable?

Ditto to what Traveler is saying... and it's what I meant in the first place, in other words.

I still am not sure what Tommy thinks about God and from the sound of things he isn't either.

And btw, I also agree with every word from Traveler in that post... or with the thoughts he expressed in his words.

[prisonchaplain]

Traverler asks: First: What is a person? Is a human a person?

Perhaps it would be useful, first to consider three views of God on a spectrum.

United Pentecostal Church (Modalism): God is absolutely one person, one being, who reveals himself in three modes or roles.

Assemblies of God (Trinity): God is three persons in one essential being.

Church of Jesus Christ LDS (Godhead): God is three persons, three essentials beings, who are united in purpose as one godhead.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, a person has independent feelings, thoughts, and autonomy. For example, the Holy Spirit, as a person, can be grieved. Jesus expresses anguish to his Father (Why have you forsaken me?).

To be overly simplistic, then, Trinitarians say the Modalists have gone too far to insist on the oneness of God, by denying the distinct personalities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Likewise, Trinitarians say that the Mormon view of godhead goes too far by denying the essential unity of God, and instead arguing for a God that is, in essence, a God family.

Second: What is a G-d? If a G-d is defined by what they do then are they not a G-d if they have not done it yet? For example: If we say G-d is the creator - does this mean that G-d did not exist prior to creation? If G-d is not defined by what he has done or what he will do - then what is G-d? If we define G-d by qualities is any one that possesses those qualities a G-d?

God is the Creator of heaven and earth and all that is. He, and He alone is worthy of worship. And, He is essentially one.

Third: What is the Trinity?

I'm going to answer these questions 1 by 1:

Is it one being possessed by three spirit being persons?

The word 'possession' seems out of place here. Possession is something that happens to someone. It almost insinuates an overpowering. The doctrine is God IN three persons.

Is it a title given to 3 unique different persons that get along really well?

More than that. These three persons are one essential being.

What is the difference between the persons - what according to scripture distinguishes the 3 persons of the Trinity that makes them unique and not the same "one"?

The three persons can act invidually. They can receive and perceive independently. They do fulfill different roles.

If man was created in the "image" and "likeness" of the persons that as individual persons are not G-d but together are G-d - what then is the difference between the person of man and the persons that are G-d?

Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are one. There is no 'not being God.'

If man in his person becomes "one" with the persons that are G-d then are we (man), with them as one (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost), G-d?

Reconciliation with God does not mean that creation can become essentially one with the Creator. We gain peace, communion, fellowship. However, as creation, we remain a species. God is beyond being a species.

To be honest the Trinity confuses me and makes no real sense when I try to visualize what it is and how it applies to real things that I do understand that make real sense. If the Trinity is this unknowable thing that does not, nor can, make any real sense - why do Trinitarians try make sense of it to us non-Trinitarian types or even themselves? Every time I have a discussion with a Trinitarian about G-d, I carefully ponder their comments and wonder if they really have any ideas that make sense to them and really believe what they are talking about or just say stuff they have memorized that makes no sense to them either but they have to say something to stay in the discussion and appear knowledgeable?

The Mystery of the Trinity is not in what it says, but in that this 3 in 1 is beyond our experience and understanding. We can grasp it, but not master it. Nevertheless, there is so much of God that I can bask in, that I need not be frustrated by that which is beyond me.

In reality, if I could just master the revelation of: God is love, I'd have more than enough to get me through this brief sojourn.

I do not necessarily intend to criticize - I just do not get it.

To those not raised in the belief, it is very difficult for us to grasp the Mormon Godhead (Father and Son with eternally separate bodies, and the Spirit also acting with complete independence of being) as being in compliance with the repeated biblical insistence that God is one. Prof. Stephen Robinson (BYU) more or less tells us that by definition, Mormons are monotheists, despite language that to most evangelicals sounds, at least, tri-theistic.

Most educated trinitarians have an elemental grasp of the teaching, but how much believers choose to dwell on this aspect of God's nature is a very individual matter.

Waite a minute. Was man (meaning everybody) created equally good and upright or was that just Adam; the only one or is some created good and upright and some not? The Traveler

The image of God that is in us is good. However, that image has been distorted by the Fall. That is why redemption, salvation, being "born again" is required. Spiritual rebirth is the restoration of God's image in us.

[prisonchaplain]

Ditto to what Traveler is saying... and it's what I meant in the first place, in other words. I still am not sure what Tommy thinks about God and from the sound of things he isn't either. And btw, I also agree with every word from Traveler in that post... or with the thoughts he expressed in his words.

Ray, you're being a bit coy here. You may have converted, but you grew up a Church of Christ preacher's kid. Surely you have an elemental understanding of the Trinity?

If I've done nothing else with this post, however, the thought of bringing you into greater unity with Traveler is, somehow, gratifying.

BTW, I know terms like "inscrutable" and "unknowable" go against the grain of LDS teaching (Jehovah's Witnesses too, btw). However, understand that what we mean is not that God is confusing, or that He's hiding from us. Rather, that He is so far above and beyond us, that we marvel that He interacts with us at all, and are grateful for what He has shown us. We do not expect or demand to be given the full revelation of His glory until the day of his chosing.

[Maureen]

...And whether or not it's good to be "anal retentive" I'll let you and others decide for yourselves. :)

You are too kind Ray!

M.

[Ray]

Ray… You may have converted, but you grew up a Church of Christ preacher's kid. Surely you have an elemental understanding of the Trinity?

Okay, again, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to share how I feel.

When I "grew up a Church of Christ's preacher's kid", I really didn't know what the ‘Church of Christ’ taught to be that church's concept of God. I heard about God... the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... and I also heard the concept THAT God is "one", but I wasn't really taught about HOW God is one, or what their concept of “God” really was.... it wasn't taught in that church.... the church I grew up in... the church my Dad was a “preacher” in... the church my Granddad was also a “preacher” in … and the church my Dad is a “preacher” in now… not knowing what “God” really is.

It wasn't until I heard from a member of this church that I started to think about those issues,and when I asked what my Dad thought, and what other members of that church thought, I really didn't know what they meant.

So I did what the member of this church said I should do, I asked God to help me know more about Him, and well… I think you know what happened to me then. I am now an active member of this church.

I think what Traveler was trying to say, and what I’m still trying to say, is that we STILL don’t know what you really think. And you don’t seem to know either. You just seem to keep saying you think God is "incomprehensible" as you keep trying to share those same thoughts. And what we're try to tell you is that we do know HOW and we do know what “God” really is... as we try to tell you that you can know all this too, if you ask God to help teach you even more.

And btw, you may not like this, and you may not agree with me, but this situation reminds me of a particular scripture. And if you promise to not get angry, or think that I’m being offensive, you may know what I think by clicking this

And I think all the scriptures that surround those two verses may also be helpful to you too...

... but then again, they may not...

... Ponder verse 21 and the references in verse 24, if you decide that you want to find out. :)

[Traveler]

Waite a minute. Was man (meaning everybody) created equally good and upright or was that just Adam; the only one or is some created good and upright and some not? The Traveler

The image of God that is in us is good. However, that image has been distorted by the Fall. That is why redemption, salvation, being "born again" is required. Spiritual rebirth is the restoration of God's image in us.

PC: I know I asked a lot of questions and I do thank you for trying to answer. Rather than go back through all my questions for shallow answers lets consider just the answere above and try to get some clearity. It is obvious to me that some of G-d's human creations are more good and upright than others. Lets look at this step by step and try to get a clear perspective of exactly where it is Trinitarians differ from us members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS or Mormons).

1. Was all man created equally good and upright or was that just Adam? I know about the creation of Adam and Eve and I know what happened when they fell. Can you show clearly in scripture how Adam's "image" was distorted - then how G-d's immage was restored by Adam's rebirth. If rebirth is important for and to Adam how come the scriptures do not mention it for 4,000 years? I find no reference in scripture that the image of Adam was changed or that he was reborn. I find no reference that more of G-d's image was created in some than others. Why then is there a difference in the uprightness of men? I know how LDS handel this - I just trying to get a grip on how Trinitarians explain it by scripture or where it is they come up with the answer.

2. The scriptures say "Man" was created in the image of G-d; not just Adam. Does this mean then that all men created prior to the fall and then "distorted" when Adam and Eve fell? Or does it mean that all men created after the fall are not created in the image of G-d but in some other image? If, for example, you were created after the fall; how is it that you are distorted by the Fall? Especially since it was not your fall? and were you born in the image of G-d or did that not occure until you were reborn? Can you support your concepts with scripture? or are we guessing and making up answers?

3. It is obvious that not all men are the same as farr as good and upright. It is also obvious to me that not all Christians that claim to be born again are good and upright. It is also obvious to me that many non-Christians are good and upright. Is this because they are what G-d created them to be what they are or has the fall had slightly different effects of some people?

One last thing you said that really bothers me (I would not bring this up because I do now want to wander all over the place with our discussion but this one reall causes a lot of confusion):

Reconciliation with God does not mean that creation can become essentially one with the Creator. We gain peace, communion, fellowship. However, as creation, we remain a species. God is beyond being a species.

I do not know what you mean by species - the scriptures do not talk about that (as near as I can determine the concept of species is 100% a human notion) - but scriptures do talk about his image. We know his image can be created and that only man is that image. Is there anything else in heaven in the image of G-d? What of G-d is beyond his image (not included in his image)? and where does the concept come that there is something beyond his image?

The Traveler

[Ray]

Reconciliation with God does not mean that creation can become essentially one with the Creator. We gain peace, communion, fellowship. However, as creation, we remain a species. God is beyond being a species.

Please explain what you think the "atonement" really is?

I believe, through Jesus Christ, we can become "at one" with God.

Please expand on that thought and share what you think.

Are there any ways we can never be "one"?

How will we be if we do become "one"... will we then become as God now is?

If not, please explain, and please quote from scriptures, without adding any of your own thoughts.

[prisonchaplain]

It wasn't until I heard from a member of this church that I started to think about those issues,and when I asked what my Dad thought, and what other members of that church thought, I really didn't know what they meant.

So I did what the member of this church said I should do, I asked God to help me know more about Him, and well… I think you know what happened to me then. I am now an active member of this church.

It's not totally beyond belief that the Trinity was no something your church spent a great deal of time on. In a way, it's like going from the kiddie pool to the deep end, without transition. 10-year olds can understand:

Father = God, Son = God, Holy Spirit = God, here is one God. Three persons, one God. We call this Trinity.

Yet, theologians and philosophers cannot wrap their minds around this, and some sects and religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, rabbinic Jews) go ballistic over it.

I think what Traveler was trying to say, and what I’m still trying to say, is that we STILL don’t know what you really think. And you don’t seem to know either. You just seem to keep saying you think God is "incomprehensible" as you keep trying to share those same thoughts. And what we're try to tell you is that we do know HOW and we do know what “God” really is... as we try to tell you that you can know all this too, if you ask God to help teach you even more.

What I wrote above is what I think: God is one--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, one God, one essential being. I perceive our difference is that you believe that the one God is three essential beings, two of whom are eternal corporeality.

And btw, you may not like this, and you may not agree with me, but this situation reminds me of a particular scripture. And if you promise to not get angry, or think that I’m being offensive:

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22 Ye worship ye aknow not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall aworship the Father in spirit and in btruth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 aGod is a bSpirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in ctruth.

25 The woman saith unto him, I know that aMessias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will btell us all things. (Hey, KJV is public domain anyway).

Scripture doesn't anger me, Ray. But, if you think that your apprehension of the godhead is better than my apprehension of the Trinity, and therefore that you know what you worship, and do not then I'd say something you've repeatedly said to me,

"You don't know me as well as you think you do." Furthermore, my humble approach to God--both knowing and forever learning, may well be superior an approach that thinks it's reached saturation point on understanding our Master.

[Princess3dward]

Ok, you can't mean "anything" in the Bible can be proved different:

(1) There is at least one God

Mark 12:29

29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

(2) Humans have sinned in the past.

John 8:34

34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

How does this mean humans have sinned in the past?

(not to say they didn't... I am just saying)

(3) Jesus is the Son of God.

Luke3:22

22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

So, I am going to give you the benift of the doubt and assume you were refering to "Prodestant Theology" and not the "Whole Bible" (of course you did say "The Whole Bible"):

So...

(1) We are saved by grace through faith, apart from the works of the law.

1. (Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast."

2. (Rom. 3:20,28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."

3. (Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

(2) There is only one God.

(Deuteronomy 6:4) - "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"

(Isaiah 43:10) - ". . . Before Me [YHWH] there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."

(Isaiah 44:6) - ". . . there is no God besides Me."

(Isaiah 44:8) - ". . . And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Best of Luck! :)

Josh B)

AHHHH! YOU TYPE SOO MUCH!

Okay.... a little bit at a time.....

The three in the beginning can be taken more than one way....

Explain this to me, and I will take it one quote at a time.

Humans have sinned in the past.

John 8:34

34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

ps. there isn't AL LEAST one God...

There IS one God.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

You're holding up admirably under all of our questions PC. I wanted to add my own comments after reading all of this.

The main problem alot of people have with the trinity notion is that it is incomprehensible. In what way? Well you have one God, made of one essence...yet there are three individuals within that one God who are each God? It's the ontology that gets us, I think. At least if I understand what ontology is (essence or nature of beings).

By essence or nature, do you mean "species" as per your earlier conversation with Traveler? Just what is this essence that is the crux of the matter? And where in the scriptures do we learn of this ontological distinction between God and man?

[Ray]

Father = God, Son = God, Holy Spirit = God, here is one God. Three persons, one God. We call this Trinity. Yet, theologians and philosophers cannot wrap their minds around this, and some sects and religions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, rabbinic Jews) go ballistic over it.

Tommy,

I'm clear on that part, okay? I totally understand and accept as fact that:

There are 3 who are God... and I'm referring to our Fahter in heaven, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost

and

God is one... or those 3 are one.

Okay.

What you haven't explained yet and what I am TRYING to explain is:

HOW they are one

and

what God is

... which is more than you seem to be offering, based on the fact that you are NOT saying:

HOW God is one

or

WHAT God is

And from what you are saying, it seems, you are saying that you really don't know.

That's part of what you seem to be talking about when you say something like:

"God is incomprehensible"

You don't know, and you claim to not know.

If that's wrong, then please explain what you know.

What I wrote above is what I think: God is one--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, one God, one essential being.

I asked you before, but you seem to have missed it:

Where does the Bible say God is one essential being???

As far as I know, and I have read the Bible, those words are NOT in the Bible.

That is your interpretation of what you think the Bible is teaching... but those words are NOT in the Bible.

Can't you teach what you know without adding to the Bible?

I'm not asking for your interpretations.

I perceive our difference is that you believe that the one God is three essential beings, two of whom are eternal corporeality.

I am not adding to the Bible, Tommy.

What I'm saying is what's written in the Bible.

I'm saying God is one

and

these 3 are one... our Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Do you know HOW those 3 are one?

Do you know WHAT God is, and will be?

If so, then say so, and quote from the Bible.

I'm not asking for your interpretation.

Let's cut all the crap and get totally serious. I'm willing. Are you?

What does God say?

[JoshuaFKon]

AHHHH! YOU TYPE SOO MUCH!

I can't help it!!! :)

Okay.... a little bit at a time.....

The three in the beginning can be taken more than one way....

How? please "prove" something else.

Explain this to me, and I will take it one quote at a time.

Humans have sinned in the past.

I'm saying...somewhere, sometime, someone, "sinned"

ps. there isn't AL LEAST one God...

There IS one God.

(1) From what I know of LDS Theology, God the Father was once a man like us, He had a "god" as did His "god" before Him. thus....there do exist more than one god (also I am under the impression that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are considered "Gods" in there own right...could be wrong on that point though...)

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

AHHHH! YOU TYPE SOO MUCH!

I can't help it!!! :)

Okay.... a little bit at a time.....

The three in the beginning can be taken more than one way....

How? please "prove" something else.

Explain this to me, and I will take it one quote at a time.

Humans have sinned in the past.

I'm saying...somewhere, sometime, someone, "sinned"

ps. there isn't AL LEAST one God...

There IS one God.

(1) From what I know of LDS Theology, God the Father was once a man like us, He had a "god" as did His "god" before Him. thus....there do exist more than one god (also I am under the impression that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are considered "Gods" in there own right...could be wrong on that point though...)

Josh B)

There IS ONLY one God.

And lol. That doesn't say that "somewhere someone sinned".

Sorry this isn't any neater...

But I am getting really tired...

I am having a really long week...

and it is starting to take its toll...

I can still respond, but not as pretty as I nornally do. lol

[JoshuaFKon]

There IS ONLY one God.

Desiré, was God once a man? did he once have a God?

And lol. That doesn't say that "somewhere someone sinned".

Oh no! prehaps I am beginging to understand you because I am becoming confusing myself!

Sorry this isn't any neater...

But I am getting really tired...

I am having a really long week...

and it is starting to take its toll...

I can still respond, but not as pretty as I nornally do. lol

no hury...take you time :)

Josh B)

[Princess3dward]

There IS ONLY one God.

Desiré, was God once a man? did he once have a God?

It's amazing.

I have been a member for a year,

and you are asking me things that people don't even figure out until they get endowed. lol

Ask someone else...

LH is kind of confusing though......

I believe he has a body though!