Gods And Goddesses

[Dr T]

Night Traveled one

[CrimsonKairos]

Wait just a darn minute Doc...are you saying I can't worship my Canon XL2 miniDV camera?

Blasphemy!!!

[a-train]

Dr. T,

Your answer is good and no LDS would disagree (including the from eternity to eternity part), my question was bad. I should have asked: 'Is God only the God of 'false gods'? Or, can He be the God of 'false gods', but NOT be the God of any 'real gods'?

Do you believe that Jesus is Jehovah? In other words, is Jesus that I Am? Is he Yaweh? Is Jesus the being whose name is the Tetragrammaton? These are all the same question stated differently.

Anyone else chime in one this, but doesn't mainstream Christianity or most of Christianity believe that Jesus is Jehovah? Or do they believe, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Father is Jehovah?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

They believe the Trinity, which conveniently allows the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be whatever is necessary to sustain their theology and Biblical interpretation.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. I'm just callin' it like I see it, y'all know I love and respect you, even if you disagree with me.

[Dr T]

:) CK,

What was that again? You said something Medusa and applying their own standards to their own beliefs. When you said,

They believe the Trinity, which conveniently allows the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be whatever is necessary to sustain their theology and Biblical interpretation.

I'd have to argue here that it is not merely a justification, although it is justification for my own belief, but it is a description of what I've come to know of God through reading the Bible. That example is also no different then what we all do, sustain our theology, from interpretation of scripture. For example, when you add, "...that we worship" to "there is only one God," are you not, "conveniently interpreting scripture to justify your own theology," CK? I wonder if that is how Michelangelo made those beautiful statues? Obviously no stone turning there but fundamentally, we all use interpretation to justify our theological beliefs.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. I'm just callin' it like I see it, y'all know I love and respect you, even if you disagree with me.

I respect you (and like you) too, CK. I too, am only calling it the way I see it. That's what's great about this Forum. We can exchange ideas about our beliefs and have fun doing it. :)

===

A-train,

That is a good question. I remember readin something about Jehovah-jireh (God will see or provide; or something like that) and there are others like Jehovah Rohi (Shepherd) and Jehovah Melekh (King). In that sense, then YES, Jesus can be called Jehovah. In fact, there are a number of verses where he was called Jehovah.

Psalm 23:1, for example, says, "Jehovah is my shepherd." Jesus very clearly applied this passage to Himself in John 10:11, 14 when He said, "I am the good shepherd." And the writer of Hebrews also applied this passage to Christ in Hebrews 13:20, when he wrote, "The God of peace . . . brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord"— Jesus our Jehovah.

In Isaiah 6:5, when Isaiah saw his vision of heaven, with the Lord high and lifted up, he said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts." Yet the apostle John, referring to this same incident, writes that Isaiah saw Christ's glory, "and he spoke of Him" (Jn. 12:41).

In the famous prophecy of John the Baptist found in Isaiah 40:3, Jesus is called Jehovah: "A voice is calling, 'Clear the way for [Jehovah] in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God."

And in Jeremiah 23:5-6, a very crucial text for the doctrine of justification by faith. This verse introduces a new name for God, Jehovah Tsidkenu, "Jehovah our righteousness." Notice to whom it is applied: "Behold, the days are coming," declares [Jehovah], "When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. [This is very clearly a messianic prophecy.] In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, '[Jehovah] our righteousness'" (Jer. 23:5-6).

Here's a very familiar passage, Joel 2:32: "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of [Jehovah] Will be [saved]." Both Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 quote that passage, applying the title Jehovah to Christ.

The distinction between Names of God (Elohim, Jehovah which I've seen here and Adoni) is really interesting to me. I am not an expert theologian so I hven't done the research but that sounds like a good study for me to do some day. As a kid, I studied with my neighbors (Jehovah Witnesses) for a little while. They taught me to memorize all the books of the Bible in a short period of time. When they would talk about Jehovah, they would be talking strictly of the Father. That is what I tend to associate with that name but as I've shown above, "depending on the interpretation" it clearly fit with Jesus the Christ too sometimes.

My four cents...

[Shade]

We should not consider time and space as antecedent to God. They are among the “all things” made by Him (Ps. 90:1-2; John 1:3; Heb. 1:3 [literally, “through whom He made the ages”]). Thus we see that eternity means far more than endless time. We may speak of eternity without end, and of an eternity past without beginning, but this is not yet the eternity of God. To Him there is no past, present, or future. He does not live in time, but beyond it in eternity and, as the eternal God, He is not subject to time (Deut. 33:27; Isa. 40:28; 57:15).

The eternity of God, as the Eternal I AM, is a part of His self-existence. He is uncaused and must therefore be without beginning. As such, He transcends the whole chain of causes and effects and, as He is without beginning, so He can never cease to be.

This is the way I see God.

hey Dr T:

Eternity is quite a mind-boggling thing to contemplate, indeed! Eternity is the Lord's: His wisdom, His love, His power, His wrath, His glory, His kingdom, His creation. if these are all His then they must all be eternal.

do you believe that we too are eternal? and what is your understanding of us receiving eternal life, through Christ's atonement? are we to become eternal beings and live for all eternity with the Father?

if so, in what was would our experience of eternity differ from His? in fact, COULD it differ, if He is all that is eternal? could we possibly differ from Him in any way if we are to be truly eternal beings?

[think]

Heres a question: If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate individuals (as stated in Mormon theology) then wouldn't that make 3 gods? Oh and than I got another one: Which God should you worship Heavenly father, Jesus, or both.

[Shade]

Heres a question: If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate individuals (as stated in Mormon theology) then wouldn't that make 3 gods? Oh and than I got another one: Which God should you worship Heavenly father, Jesus, or both.

if you read back to the beginning of this thread, you're bound to notice that these questions have been answered a few times already...

as a "secular humanist", what is your own opinion? do you worship any deity at all or do you consider this to be contrary to the more traditional "secular humanist" tenets that rituals, ceremonies, religions and worship are unnecessary and pointless, even superstitious and dangerous? what specifically is your stance on gods and deities specifically, but not limited to, God and the Trinity. do you believe in enlightenment, rituals or religion in any form? what is your philosophic position regarding the church and state? are you a sympathiser, neutral or an antagonist?

oooops. off topic there, aint i? oh, wait, not really.

THINK: do you believe in God or any "other gods", or are we just being silly and superstitious? DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION about the original topic?

[think]

<div class='quotemain'>

Heres a question: If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate individuals (as stated in Mormon theology) then wouldn't that make 3 gods? Oh and than I got another one: Which God should you worship Heavenly father, Jesus, or both.

if you read back to the beginning of this thread, you're bound to notice that these questions have been answered a few times already...

I'll admit I didn't read the long posts. I was just wanting the short and quick answer. I'm a big fan of Occam's razor. So does anyone have the simple explanation?

[Shade]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Heres a question: If God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate individuals (as stated in Mormon theology) then wouldn't that make 3 gods? Oh and than I got another one: Which God should you worship Heavenly father, Jesus, or both.

if you read back to the beginning of this thread, you're bound to notice that these questions have been answered a few times already...

I'll admit I didn't read the long posts. I was just wanting the short and quick answer. I'm a big fan of Occam's razor. So does anyone have the simple explanation?

OOPS, sorry, you missed my edit. i was too quick to hit the button. there are no quick answers, btw. come one now... i would expect more than that from a Humanist... go back and read the whole thread already!!!

oh, and do you know that William of Ockham was a monk who DID believe in God?

PS: lex parsimoniae!!!

[think]

Well I guess you should know as a secular humanist, like most, I do not believe in god, gods, or goddesses. So in answer to my own question regarding the trinity; I believe it to be all superstition. In all honesty, I do respect others beliefs and there right to worship how they want rather it be one god or multiple gods. Truly some of this stuff sounds so bogus (to me) that I like to ask simple questions to get simple answers.

[a-train]

Dr. T,

With those verses you gave and the seeming mountain of others that are throughout the scriptures, I can't see how anyone could argue that Jesus was NOT Jehovah. I would ask though, wouldn't Christ automatically be Jehovah in the mind of adherents to the Nicean Creed because He would therefore be Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

Now bare with me here, but do you see the LDS teaching that God was once a man to be contrary to the truth that He is Eternal, from all eternity to all eternity, I Am, etc.?

This is a typical anti-mormon statement on the issue: "The Mormons believe in a god that has a body of flesh and bone who was once a man, but Malachi 3:6 says: 'I am the LORD, I change not' and Psalms 90:1-2 says 'LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Jesus also said 'God is a Spirit' (John 4:24) and 'a spirit hath not flesh and bones; (Luke 24:39). The True God is an Eternal God of Spirit and he was never a man."

Now I admit that when Joseph Smith taught that the Father had lived a mortal life and now sits enthroned in yonder heavens an exalted man it was revolutionary even in the minds of the LDS, but had he said that about Jesus only it would have been nothing new at all, for the Bible is more than sufficient to demonstrate that Jehovah was once a man on earth who died and rose again and sits enthroned in heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Now the big question mark in my head is: why would this be a leap of logic at all for advocates of the Nicean Creed? If God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are all the same Being, then didn't that Being live on the earth as man, die, rise from the grave, and ascend to heaven to sit enthroned over all? Would they even need a modern revelation to believe such?

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[Dr T]

Hello all,

A-Train,

You said,

I should have asked: 'Is God only the God of 'false gods'? Or, can He be the God of 'false gods', but NOT be the God of any 'real gods'?

Sir, I think I hear what you are asking here but I'm not sure. There might be a false premise in your argument here. I'm not sure how much logic courses you have taken or if I'm just too sleepy to really read what you are asking here.

I'm sorry I don’t have much time to really work on this fun exercise right now-I’ve been working all day and am supposed to be working right now. So a quick review of logic seems to be in order. Can you please go through this and review your question to see if you want to revise your question or explain to me how I'm missing it. I will try to look at it tomorrow too but I need to get back to work right now so I'll quickly lay it out.

P=Premise

C=Conclusion

P1: All men are mortal

P2: Dr. T is a man

C: Dr. T is mortal.

Does that follow? Is it valid?

OK, so then if we are investigating the formal validity it would look like this:

P1: If Dr. T is a man then he is mortal

P2: Dr. T is a man

[therefore]

C: Dr. T is mortal.

Lets go back to some basic logic (bare bones if you will)and stripped away the details and get right down to the mechanics or the form of logic.

P1: If p then q.

P2: p.

[therefore]

C: q.

Conversely, then, in order to show that an argument form is invalid we only need to show how another example of that argument form is clearly not valid. This is called “refutation by counterexample” and is the most straightforward yet powerful type of argument.

P1: If p then q

P2: q

[therefore]

C: p.

Notice the subtle difference here? Let’s put the flesh back on the bones:

P1: If all LDS Talk members are American then Dr. T is an American.

P2: Dr. T is an American.

[therefore]

C: All LDS Talk Members are American.

Does something look wrong here? Hint: ask Maureen what she things :) Try asking yourself:

- Is the argument an example of the logical form shown above?

- Are the premises true? (I actually am American, if you didn’t know)

- Is the conclusion false?

Obvious answers to those questions:

- Yes

- Yes

- Yes

Let’s look at another example then:

P1: If p then not q

P2: Not p

[therefore]

C: q.

Interesting. Something doesn’t seem right here either when applying your premise of God being God of false gods but not real gods. It seems to me that a prerequisite of "being a real god" must be established before God could be a God over them. Without there being real gods then God would have a nonexistent being to be God over which is absurd.

K. I really need to get back to work. Please go back and work through your question about God and false gods and God being only the God of false gods vs. "real gods" and straighten out my thinking if you see it. This has been really fun.

Thank you for your thoughts

[Serg]

Now I admit that when Joseph Smith taught that the Father had lived a mortal life and now sits enthroned in yonder heavens an exalted man it was revolutionary even in the minds of the LDS

-Atrain

We can challenge this statement with a reevaluation of his teachings...

[a-train]

It seems to me that a prerequisite of "being a real god" must be established before God could be a God over them. Without there being real gods then God would have a nonexistent being to be God over which is absurd.

Without yet establishing any of the prerequisite as mentioned, your statement in bold is exactly what my question is getting at. I think we now sufficiently understand one another. I think we all believe in a certain omnipotence and an all powerful characteristic of Diety. Ex Nihilo adherents believe God creates everything from nothing as He wishes. Could he not therefore create 'real gods'? We would be extremely narrowly viewing God's creative power to say that He could not.

As you stated, it's absurd to think that God is God over nonexistent beings. We say that the Devil is the Father of Lies, is God the God of lies? Well, technically He is the God of all and therefore He is the 'God of lies' because He is the God of the Father of Lies, but He is certainly not a liar. But if I were to ask a Christian: 'Is God the God of Lies? I am certain they would typically answer: 'No, He is the God of Truth, Satan is the Father of Lies.'

Just the same, if I came without any context to a Christian and asked: 'Is God the God of 'false gods'? They would typically say 'no' because the question seems to ask if God propigates false gods and we all know His in not an idolator. God is not telling us to worship phony gods, Satan is. Any notion of Jehovah presiding over idols is ridiculous, although his creation provided the useless graven images, they are nothing more. He presides over the universe in which is mankind, a magnificent heavenly host, and innumerable other life-forms. He is the God of the living, and has nothing to do with such 'non-existant beings'.

So the statement that God is 'God of gods' gives one the question: 'Who are these gods God presides over?

Perhaps many interpret the statement to mean He is 'the only God'. But I don't see how.

I think we understand one another.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[a-train]

Serg,

Boo Hoo.

Whether Joseph Smith taught it or not could be debated until the cows come home, but the fact remains that it was reported that he did and the saints believed he did. So whether he did or not, the doctrine is true and we don't even need to prove he taught it to believe it.

As man is, Jesus once was. As Jesus is, man may become.

If this is not true, then neither is the Bible.

Jesus is God.

So the above statement could just as easily say: 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'

Now any debate over who is on first should be left to Abbot and his poor funny friend. The Bible is sufficient alone to demonstrate that Christ lived on this earth in every manner of manhood and was subject to all the same trials, temptations, and facets of human condition. If you don't like the saying that Jesus is a man, then you will have to take that up with Paul who said: 'The gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.' (Romans 5:15)

It is just as clear also that man's ultimate goal is to stand resurrected at the throne of God, to enter into the joy of the LORD, and to 'rule over many things'. (Matt 25:21) For Jesus told John: 'To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.' (Rev. 3:21)

So what about the Father? If the Nicean Creed is right, then Jesus is the Father and the debate was over before it started. If you are LDS and can't handle the idea that the Father could have passed through mortal probation as the Son did, then remember this: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.' (John 5:19)

Now if God's passing through manhood in the flesh be blaspheming, then every Christian since Christ himself stands guilty and we need not start lopping heads with Joseph Smith. Now it could be debated to what extent the Saviour does what the Father does, but if it be no blasphemy to say Jesus passed through mortal probation, then let us not cry blasphemy to them that say the Father could have also.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[think]

O.K. so from reading all the posts here on this topic this is what I see:

1. Mormons are polytheists - There is more than one God out there. i.e. They can become Gods, God can create Gods, and the fact that they believe God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost to be 3 seperate individuals.

2. Christians are monotheists - God is...well God and only the God and no one else is God. I understand where it can be confusing saying that God and Jesus are the same individual, but I can see how thats the only way to have no other Gods before him i.e. 1st Commandment.

Please let me know if I'm wrong on any of this. I'm trying to understand everyones point here, but it can get a little confusing.

[jimradictis]

O.K. so from reading all the posts here on this topic this is what I see:

1. Mormons are polytheists - There is more than one God out there. i.e. They can become Gods, God can create Gods, and the fact that they believe God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost to be 3 seperate individuals.

2. Christians are monotheists - God is...well God and only the God and no one else is God. I understand where it can be confusing saying that God and Jesus are the same individual, but I can see how thats the only way to have no other Gods before him i.e. 1st Commandment.

Please let me know if I'm wrong on any of this. I'm trying to understand everyones point here, but it can get a little confusing.

Think,

Take a look at this post for more clarification

Do We Honor Jesus And Worship God

[Dr T]

'Who are these gods God presides over?

Perhaps many interpret the statement to mean He is 'the only God'.

:) Yes, God is the only God.

My brain must have been full last night. I finally see what you are saying here about "God is the God of gods" statement. If they do not exist, as I am arguing, then "What are those fake gods, if they don't exist, why did it just say God is God over them?" I'm sorry I didn't get it and took you through all of that A-train. I don't see that as a problem. Baal, for example, is a false god yet many believed him to be god. That quote is establishing amongst those to whom it was written, the preeminence of the one true God.

Like I said, I'm not a theologian and my profession is not steeped in scholarly scripture study so this may not be accurate but I've come to a conclusion based on my own thinking and formulation of what I believe. I've talked to other Christians who do not like the line of reasoning that I give for this but I'll let you know anyway. I know that scripture tells us that God "can do all things." From my perspective, I see it as "God can do all things that are possibly done." Don't get me wrong, God can obviously do things that humans cannot, like when Jesus walked on water, being a burning bush that does not consume, raise the living and, yes, in my opinion, create ex nihlio, etc. Just because we can't it, it doesn't follow that an all powerful being could not change the laws of physics, like creation for example. (These things show how God goes beyond our feeble capacities. There in is his majesty. God is different, from his creation.) This comes to a limit however, in doing something that is not really possible when it comes to an absurdity like the old collage question, "Can God make a square circle?" or "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" Maybe someday I'll explain my justification for this belief.

I see the difference in our belief about God's nature as I see God always being God, forever before us and forever after us. I see God as uncreated and eternal both sides of the present. I see people on the other hand as created and as such, are finite creatures. Our natures are not eternal in the same way God is. I have a problem with the concept of transgressing an actual infinite series of events (as we've talked about on this site in the past) like "going back forever, gods begetting gods." Our eternal life is from birth through the afterlife. I see people’s lives as everlasting in the sense with God or separately from God but not on the other side of birth as LDS believe about the preexistence. Sorry for the rambling. There are so many fun things to talk about and they all rush to my brain. I have to get back to work now. I look forward to your ideas A-train.

[Shade]

'Who are these gods God presides over?

"Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?"

my absurd answer to such absurd questions is "yes and yes. He can create such a rock and He can lift it, too."

I see the difference in our belief about God's nature as I see God always being God, forever before us and forever after us. I see God as uncreated and eternal both sides of the present. I see people on the other hand as created and as such, are finite creatures. Our natures are not eternal in the same way God is. I have a problem with the concept of transgressing an actual infinite series of events (as we've talked about on this site in the past) like "going back forever, gods begetting gods." Our eternal life is from birth through the afterlife. I see people’s lives as everlasting in the sense with God or separately from God but not on the other side of birth as LDS believe about the preexistence. Sorry for the rambling. There are so many fun things to talk about and they all rush to my brain. I have to get back to work now. I look forward to your ideas A-train.

i was asking you earlier about your stance on the eternal nature of God. i have never heard of different "types" of eternity before. i have always thought of it as being only available in ONE standard flavour. lol

i'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion that eternity is somehow different from one eternal being to the next eternal being. do you have any biblical/scriptural references to support this belief?

just a couple that speak of eternal life follow below, i've just picked a couple i found in a scripture search page and i really did look out for any which might support what you are saying, but to no avail:

John 17: 3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Rom. 6: 23

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

John 21: 6-7

6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

the first two speak of attaining eternal life through Christ as a gift from His Father. and the last one is one that i am sure you have seen quoted before by LDS in support of the idea that we may become like / receive the glory of our Heavenly Father and His Son. but as i say, none of the verses i encountered separate this exaltation into past, present and future, which by definition would contradict the inherent nature of eternity, as would the idea that God has "different" versions of "all things" to be inherited.

[Dr T]

Hi Shade,

I reject the Yes Yes answers to the absurd questions because the question has no truth value to it-again, it is an absurdity. I'll explain why some time.

My understanding of the difference is that humans are eternal from birth onward. Like a line. It starts at a point and continues on infinitely. Envision an arrow. That is like people while God has an arrow in both directions. By his nature, he is an eternal being. We were created (that is the starting point for the arrow) while God simply always was. Like I said, the only uncaused being-that would be God in my mind.

[Shade]

Hi Shade,

I reject the Yes Yes answers to the absurd questions because the question has no truth value to it-again, it is an absurdity. I'll explain why some time.

My understanding of the difference is that humans are eternal from birth onward. Like a line. It starts at a point and continues on infinitely. Envision an arrow. That is like people while God has an arrow in both directions. By his nature, he is an eternal being. We were created (that is the starting point for the arrow) while God simply always was. Like I said, the only uncaused being-that would be God in my mind.

haha. yes, well, the whole point is that the question is absurd.

upon what teaching/s is your understanding of this difference in our eternal natures based? i'm just trying to get my head around the possibility of different types of eternities existing in the same space as God, His Son and the Holy Ghost. especially if you are speaking about eternal being His / Their "nature". it makes any other sort of eternity sound unnatural.

[Maureen]

...I would ask though, wouldn't Christ automatically be Jehovah in the mind of adherents to the Nicean Creed because He would therefore be Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

I am guessing you have never read the Nicene Creed. As for the name Jehovah, it is the proper name of God. Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. It is found approx. 6000 times in the OT either alone or in combination with another Divine name. The name Adonai was usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

For example, 2 ways to translate Deut. 6:4:

KJV: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

ASV: Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:

If the Nicean Creed is right, then Jesus is the Father and the debate was over before it started.

Here’s the Nicene Creed for you to read. Nowhere does it say that Jesus is the Father. The Trinity is clear that Jesus is the Son and only the Son.

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

International Consultation on English Texts translation

as printed in: The Lutheran Book of Worship

The Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal)

M.

[a-train]

Maureen,

I have read it, but perhaps (from the sound of your post) it isn't interpreted as I thought. Don't most of the believers in it take the part about Christ being 'of one Being with the Father' to mean they are the same Being? Or is that just a common misinterpretation? Perhaps this Creed is not so One-in-Three-Three-in-One as I thought? Aren't the Catholics among the most fervid protectors of the notion of the threefold personality of the one Divine Being?

What do Lutherans believe? Three Beings? One Being? I've found that the answers to that question seem to be more personal in most Christian Churches, rather than being a matter of authoritative assertion from Church leadership.

I was talking about whether Jesus was Jehovah in my shop the other day and one very Christian friend of mine (Baptist) believed that the Trinity is all the same Being so Jehovah can be applied to all Three. Another man in my shop, a non-denominational minister ardently disagreed. While his postion was more difficult to be certain of, he at least didn't like the idea of Christ being Jehovah, but felt that Jehovah was a name for the Father only.

Perhaps after all this discussion, it might seem strange to say that Mormons believe in One True God. We simply believe that the One True God is three physically seperate Beings united in one Godhead. I have found many Christians actually agree with that, although that might be unorthodox (whatever that means).

Is my thought unreasonable that if the Holy Trinity are only three personalities of a single Divine Being, then Jehovah once suffered the human condition as we are now?

What do Lutherans say?

-a-train

[a-train]

I see the difference in our belief about God's nature as I see God always being God, forever before us and forever after us.

OK, First I love talking to you. You are great!

Second, Mormons actually believe God was/is/will be God 'from all eternity to all eternity'.

Check what King Benjamin (Book of Mormon) said about 124 BC: 'For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.' (Mosiah 3:5)

He went on to state unequivically that the Lord Omnipotent he is talking about shall be called Jesus Christ and His mother will be Mary.

Now, Third, LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah, that the God that spoke to Moses and gave those commandments and so forth was Jesus of Nazereth. The name of the Tetragrammaton which means 'I Am' signifies unchangeable. He bares this name because of all those who would endure human life on this earth He and He alone would do so sinlessly (this is but one of many reasons).

As Alma said of Christ: 'he cannot walk in crooked paths; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; neither hath he a shadow of turning from the right to the left, or from that which is right to that which is wrong; therefore, his course is one eternal round.' (Alma 7:20)

Now, as you can see, to the LDS, the idea that Christ (who was already God before His birth) came to earth and passed through the womb of a mortal mother and endured the mortal probation of man unto death doesn't harm His Godhood, but manifests it mightily.

So my question here is: Does the average Joe Christian think that to say 'God was once a man', or that 'God once endured human life', is blasphemous?

That is what I am having trouble understanding here. If Jesus is Diety, then the saying must be true, yes?

-a-train