Guest Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 The LDS Godhead and the Trinity are essentially the same. Arguments end up being about semantics, like what's the difference between a person and a being. Ultimately, it's not about the Trinity or the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but what their relationship is with Man. Are we literally in the image of God? Are we the offspring of Deity? Is God of the same species as Man? Can we achieve the same state of being as God. Is our ultimate destiny to become one with God? And what is the nature of our being one with God. So, when one argues that we believe in a different Jesus, I understand they don't really mean that it's because of our interpretation of the Trinity even though it's always presented that way. And it's not really about what is the species of God. It's ultimately about our "heretical" belief that we can literally be gods. All other arguments are red herrings. By the way, this is the exact same argument that Jesus was accused of, and why he was crucified. The reason we don't use the term Trinity, is because God is not limited to three persons. God is much larger than that. But the three we call the Godhead fits very well within Trinitarian definitions.To LDS it is semantics. To Trinitarians it is not. For LDS - Trinitarians do not know exactly what ousia God is, so why not a Godhead unity?For Trinitarians - They do not know exactly what ousia God is but they are sure it is not simply a Godhead unity.The becoming gods is just a by-product of the fundamental difference of understanding in what God is. It is enhanced by the biblical belief that Satan merely changes one little thing to make us think everything is the same when we start walking down the path to hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishcolleen Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 The Bible doesn't mention anyone 'answering natures call' either, shall we assume no one ever did?LOL, actually it does. In 1 Sam 24:3 it says Saul went in to "cover his feet". That is a euphemism for "answering natures call". Additionally, David talks about killing all who "piss against the wall" which means exactly what it says. Just saying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durzan Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 LOL, actually it does. In 1 Sam 24:3 it says Saul went in to "cover his feet". That is a euphemism for "answering natures call". Additionally, David talks about killing all who "piss against the wall" which means exactly what it says. Just saying...HA HA HA HA! The bible certainly does seem to have a sense of humor....and there is your obscure biblical fact for the day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 The Book of Acts shows the importance of individuals having authority to perform particular ordinances. Phillip baptized in Samaria, but had to send to Jerusalem for John and Peter to lay hands on people for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Paul asked a dozen men who had been baptized if they had received the Holy Ghost. When they said they never heard of the HG, he then questioned who baptized them. They received a baptism similar to John the Baptist's baptism, they replied. Paul explained that John the Baptist spoke of the Holy Ghost, implying that whoever baptized them did not have proper authority. Paul then rebaptized them and gave them the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.So the Bible does show the importance of priesthood authority.I haven't seen this addressed yet and would like to since it segues nicely into Ananias' authority. He not only has authority to heal and baptize, but he also has the authority to bestow the Holy Ghost (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/9.17-18?lang=eng#16)! So Ananias is a poor example to use for the "priesthood of believers" as he held the reserved authority that was demonstrated by apostles in the example above.*Jinc, I don't know if this is where your position comes from, but usually hear it argued from the Great Commission (if this is unrelated, then just treat it as the straw man it is):https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/16.15-18?lang=eng#1415 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.Please note that the commission to preach and baptize is expressly given to apostles , not lay members (see vs 14, compare with https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/28.16-20?lang=eng#15) - baptized saints are granted authority to speak in tongues, heal the sick, even cast out devils! But theirs is not to baptize.*So long as we're making arguments based on silence, I can't find any references to Ananias' own baptism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darbuccarly Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 · Hidden Hidden check out this top online casino games Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.