Was Jesus A Man Before He Became God?

[Princess3dward]

Knowing that Jesus is our saviour and that we have a Heavenly Father and a Holy Spirit to guode us seems sufficient at this point in my life to serve God sufficiently.

I can learn other aspects of my faith too.

There is more to God that that one part.

I believe I know what I need to know right now.

[Dr T]

Since we are going down this analogy road, that might be like saying as a kindergartener, "I know all I need to know after all-I have learned my alphabet." "What else is there?" Staying with teh ABC's will not be all that is needed.

Dr. T

[Princess3dward]

I don't see the comparison, since I said I was still learning more, to BUILD ON TOP of what I know.. not bashing what I know in with other peoples opinions.

[Dr T]

That is a weak argument, Des. If you build on the sand...

[Princess3dward]

It wasn't an arguement.

I was curious on where you compared me to an infant who only knows their alphabet, but by all means, if that seems like a fair arguement.

[Dr T]

I've seen you end conversations like the one we are having by not following along Des. Go back and read the thread again.

[Princess3dward]

Whatever.

I am not bothering anymore anyway.

[Dr T]

I figured Des.

[Latter Days Guy]

It can be explained. Do you want a link? M., is good at that kind of thing (resourceful) :)

Can it? None of my teachers at bible college would explain the trinity because of the lack of any biblical evidence for such a doctrine.

[CaptainTux]

And with that last comment so full of love and tolerance for other beliefs under the Christian umbrella...well.....

Cheers

[Latter Days Guy]

And with that last comment so full of love and tolerance for other beliefs under the Christian umbrella...well.....

Cheers

Sorry, I fail to see what that has to do with what I said.

[Dr T]

Like I said, maybe Maureen will post a link that outlines the concept that we can all review. I often see LDS post definitions in error about the trinity on this site. Maybe that would be fun.

Thanks

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

It can be explained. Do you want a link? M., is good at that kind of thing (resourceful) :)

Can it? None of my teachers at bible college would explain the trinity because of the lack of any biblical evidence for such a doctrine.

I find that very hard to believe.

M.

[Latter Days Guy]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

It can be explained. Do you want a link? M., is good at that kind of thing (resourceful) :)

Can it? None of my teachers at bible college would explain the trinity because of the lack of any biblical evidence for such a doctrine.

I find that very hard to believe.

M.

They would say that there are scriptures that could be interpreted as pointing to the concept of the trinity but there is no firm biblical evidence of it. That did not mean that they believed any less in the doctrine, only that there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God.

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

It can be explained. Do you want a link? M., is good at that kind of thing (resourceful) :)

Can it? None of my teachers at bible college would explain the trinity because of the lack of any biblical evidence for such a doctrine.

I find that very hard to believe.

M.

They would say that there are scriptures that could be interpreted as pointing to the concept of the trinity but there is no firm biblical evidence of it. That did not mean that they believed any less in the doctrine, only that there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God.

Okay, I can agree that there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God, but that is not the same as saying there is no firm biblical evidence for the trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine is based on Biblical evidence.

M.

[Latter Days Guy]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

It can be explained. Do you want a link? M., is good at that kind of thing (resourceful) :)

Can it? None of my teachers at bible college would explain the trinity because of the lack of any biblical evidence for such a doctrine.

I find that very hard to believe.

M.

They would say that there are scriptures that could be interpreted as pointing to the concept of the trinity but there is no firm biblical evidence of it. That did not mean that they believed any less in the doctrine, only that there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God.

Okay, I can agree that there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God, but that is not the same as saying there is no firm biblical evidence for the trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine is based on Biblical evidence.

M.

If there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God, then by that definition there is no biblical evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.

[Maureen]

If there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God, then by that definition there is no biblical evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.

That is not true. The word Trinity is used as a definition in describing who God is and how he exists based on Biblical scripture. It is a succinct word to describe God. A different but similar example would be Plural Marriage. No where in LDS scripture do you find the words plural marriage. But we know it is an LDS doctrine based on D&C 132. The doctrine has never been removed from LDS scripture, therefore it is a legitimate doctrine and succinctly described by the words plural marriage.

M.

[Holly3278]

<div class='quotemain'>

If there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God, then by that definition there is no biblical evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.

That is not true. The word Trinity is used as a definition in describing who God is and how he exists based on Biblical scripture. It is a succinct word to describe God. A different but similar example would be Plural Marriage. No where in LDS scripture do you find the words plural marriage. But we know it is an LDS doctrine based on D&C 132. The doctrine has never been removed from LDS scripture, therefore it is a legitimate doctrine and succinctly described by the words plural marriage.

M.

What is plural marriage? Is that polygamy? I thought the Mormon Church banned polygamy?

[Maureen]

What is plural marriage? Is that polygamy?

Hi PaladinGirl02, welcome!

Yes plural marriage is polygamy.

I thought the Mormon Church banned polygamy?

Yes, it ran its course from around 1833 (some say it may have started as early as 1831) till 1890 when the Manifesto was presented:

...The final element in President Woodruff's revelatory experience came on the evening of September 23, 1890. The following morning, he reported to some of the General Authorities that he had struggled throughout the night with the Lord regarding the path that should be pursued. "Here is the result," he said, placing a 510-word handwritten manuscript on the table. The document was later edited by George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency and others to its present 356 words. On October 6, 1890, it was presented to the Latter-day Saints at the General Conference and approved.

While nearly all Church leaders in 1890 regarded the Manifesto as inspired, there were differences among them about its scope and permanence. Some leaders were understandably reluctant to terminate a long-standing practice that was regarded as divinely mandated. As a result, a limited number of plural marriages were performed over the next several years by those struggling to understand the scope fo the change. Not surprisingly, rumors of such marriages soon surfaced, and beginning in January 1904, testimony given in the Smoot hearings made it clear that plural marriage had not been completely extinguished. The ambiguity was ended in the General Conference of April 1904, when the First Presidency, under President Joseph F. Smith, issued the "second manifesto," an emphatic declaration that prohibited plural marriage and proclaimed that offenders would be subject to Church discipline. They declared that any who participated in additional plural marriages, and those officiating, would be excommunicated from the church...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage

M.

[Latter Days Guy]

<div class='quotemain'>

If there is not a distinct or specific scripture that says God is a trinitarian God, then by that definition there is no biblical evidence for the doctrine of the trinity.

That is not true. The word Trinity is used as a definition in describing who God is and how he exists based on Biblical scripture. It is a succinct word to describe God. A different but similar example would be Plural Marriage. No where in LDS scripture do you find the words plural marriage. But we know it is an LDS doctrine based on D&C 132. The doctrine has never been removed from LDS scripture, therefore it is a legitimate doctrine and succinctly described by the words plural marriage.

M.

No, the word trinity is a non biblical word that came to be used to describe how a consensus of 2nd/3rd century church bishops understanding of God based upon Greek philosophy.

Yes the words plural marriage do not appear, but the doctrine in plainly taught and expressed within the scriptures. Not so with the trinity, which has no scriptural support based upon distinct or specific scripture.

[Maureen]

No, the word trinity is a non biblical word that came to be used to describe how a consensus of 2nd/3rd century church bishops understanding of God based upon Greek philosophy.

Yes the words plural marriage do not appear, but the doctrine in plainly taught and expressed within the scriptures. Not so with the trinity, which has no scriptural support based upon distinct or specific scripture.

I disagree.

If anyone is interesting, here's an article regarding The Trinity:

The Trinity (Triunity) of God

By: J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M.

Introduction

Because the word trinity is never found in the Bible some wonder about whether this is a biblical doctrine or not, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not biblical. The issue is, does the term accurately reflect what the Scripture teaches? In reality, due to the incomprehensible nature of the truth this term reflects, some believe it is a poor word to describe exactly what the Bible teaches us about this truth concerning God. When anyone studies a doctrine like this, reads about it in a theology book, or in an article like this one, it may appear that the writer is saying, “Here are the doctrines we believe, and this is what you must believe, so believe them!” But as Ryrie points out, “If that’s the case it is only because you are looking at the results of someone’s study, not the process”1 that led to their position on a particular doctrine.

The goal is to investigate the facts of Scripture so one can see from the process of investigation presented in this study just what the Bible teaches us about how God exists. Historically, the church has believed that He exists in Holy Trinity or Triunity. The tri-personality of God is exclusively a Christian doctrine and a truth of Scripture. It is this doctrine that will be investigated in what follows. Our purpose, then, is to demonstrate that the doctrine of the trinity (triunity) of the Godhead is another biblical revelation that teaches us more about the nature of God or how He exists. The Bible teaches us that God not only exists as a personal Spirit being, but that He does so in Holy Trinity....

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215

M.

[Latter Days Guy]

<div class='quotemain'>

No, the word trinity is a non biblical word that came to be used to describe how a consensus of 2nd/3rd century church bishops understanding of God based upon Greek philosophy.

Yes the words plural marriage do not appear, but the doctrine in plainly taught and expressed within the scriptures. Not so with the trinity, which has no scriptural support based upon distinct or specific scripture.

I disagree.

If anyone is interesting, here's an article regarding The Trinity:

The Trinity (Triunity) of God

By: J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M.

Introduction

Because the word trinity is never found in the Bible some wonder about whether this is a biblical doctrine or not, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not biblical. The issue is, does the term accurately reflect what the Scripture teaches? In reality, due to the incomprehensible nature of the truth this term reflects, some believe it is a poor word to describe exactly what the Bible teaches us about this truth concerning God. When anyone studies a doctrine like this, reads about it in a theology book, or in an article like this one, it may appear that the writer is saying, “Here are the doctrines we believe, and this is what you must believe, so believe them!” But as Ryrie points out, “If that’s the case it is only because you are looking at the results of someone’s study, not the process”1 that led to their position on a particular doctrine.

The goal is to investigate the facts of Scripture so one can see from the process of investigation presented in this study just what the Bible teaches us about how God exists. Historically, the church has believed that He exists in Holy Trinity or Triunity. The tri-personality of God is exclusively a Christian doctrine and a truth of Scripture. It is this doctrine that will be investigated in what follows. Our purpose, then, is to demonstrate that the doctrine of the trinity (triunity) of the Godhead is another biblical revelation that teaches us more about the nature of God or how He exists. The Bible teaches us that God not only exists as a personal Spirit being, but that He does so in Holy Trinity....

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=215

M.

Interesting article, that does exactly what I have stated before. It takes ambiguous scriptures and states that they teach the concept of the trinity.

[Maureen]

Interesting article, that does exactly what I have stated before. It takes ambiguous scriptures and states that they teach the concept of the trinity.

I and about 2 billion non-LDS Christians disagree with you.

M.

[Serg]

Well Maureen, lets please not get too technical, for then your arguments(including the one of the so called Hampton) will terribly fail. The exquisit use of this concept of trinity(by GB-UK) as to compare it with plural mariage(in terms of both terms' undefinite description in Scripture) is more than certain. In no sense does it appear in Scripture so sistematycally portrayed the "trinity", in comparison with the Athanasious Symbol, Or the Nicean Creed, in vain will argue he who does, in ralation with how justified it is of a concept in Scripture, for nowhere does it appear , at least, in hellenistic jewish terms(as in Catholic tradition). Now, this is not to speak evil of our beloved philosophy, just that if he argument of "no, that x is not in Scripture; hence is non-doctrinal" would work, it would cut many ways, and the trinity concept will be overrun as well. Do you see the non-practical charasteristic of bad hermeneutics?

This is what one gets, when one shouts the door for further revelation.

Also, it matters not if 2 billion disagree with GB-UK, for more than 400 disagreed with Elijah, and, the biblical record says that the whole nation(and it's priests) were WRONG. Sorry M, It's happened before

[Maureen]

Well Maureen, lets please not get too technical, for then your arguments(including the one of the so called Hampton) will terribly fail. The exquisit use of this concept of trinity(by GB-UK) as to compare it with plural mariage(in terms of both terms' undefinite description in Scripture) is more than certain. In no sense does it appear in Scripture so sistematycally portrayed the "trinity", in comparison with the Athanasious Symbol, Or the Nicean Creed, in vain will argue he who does, in ralation with how justified it is of a concept in Scripture, for nowhere does it appear , at least, in hellenistic jewish terms(as in Catholic tradition). Now, this is not to speak evil of our beloved philosophy, just that if he argument of "no, that x is not in Scripture; hence is non-doctrinal" would work, it would cut many ways, and the trinity concept will be overrun as well. Do you see the non-practical charasteristic of bad hermeneutics? This is what one gets, when one shouts the door for further revelation.

Also, it matters not if 2 billion disagree with GB-UK, for more than 400 disagreed with Elijah, and, the biblical record says that the whole nation(and it's priests) were WRONG. Sorry M, It's happened before

Hi Serg, sorry but I'm not following you very well. I know English is a second language for you, but could you re-phrase your post because I really don't know what you're trying to say.

M.