Sign in to follow this  
Queolby

The Bible is simply an LDS book

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I was referencing the Apostasy and any Biblical prophesy and historical fulfillment.  

 

The Traveler

Well, then you were talking about something I did not call fruitless.  So not sure really where you got that from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Not sure what you mean by "very easy to resolve".  If you're thinking that explanation will easily resolve the matter in the minds of Trinitarians, then that is wrong.  It can't resolve because the substance of God is what makes God God in Trinitarian teaching.  And that substance is unique to God (one God) and, therefore, it is not present in "all things".

There's no issue in resolving the matter in LDS Teaching.  We already believe there are Three Persons in One God and that Man may BE God through the Atonement of Christ without changing the fact that there is One God.

In case you haven’t thought about it. the New Testament repeatedly informs its readers that the Holy Ghost (aka the Holy Spirit), who is just as much a member of the Godhead as the Father and the Son, is assigned to dwell within the saints, growing progressively in measure, strength and intensity in that indwelling until the true followers of Christ are filled with all the fullness of the power and glory of God. In the same manner the New Testament also testifies we can be filled to eternal fulness with the very same Spirit of holiness that animates Jesus Christ.

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with ALL THE FULNESS OF GOD. (Ephesians 3)

Trinitarians  may hedge the above plainly stated and unambiguous quote, which asserts that through Christ man can possess all that God possesses, including his Spirit, by claimimg the verses actually mean that man, who by very nature can only receive a portion of God’s glory, cannot receive of the very substance that makes God God. But this is nothing more than sectarian nonsense that grows out of incorrect doctrine.. 

The fact of the matter is that over and over again the New Testament teaches us that the true followers of Christ will eventually be filled with the very divine substance, or divine nature, that makes God God (the uncreated divine Spirit of truth and holiness) and inherit ALL that he possesses. 

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 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. (Revelation 3)

Question: How in all righteousness could God allow human beings, who according to the Trinitarians cannot partake of the substance that makes God God, be granted the right by God himself to sit, rule and reign upon very throne of his rulership, might, intelligence, wisdom and eternal power? I’ll tell you how — it’s because the saints will then be filled with all the fulness of God, “unto the measure of the statute of the fulness of Christ.”

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jersey Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

In case you haven’t thought about it. the New Testament repeatedly informs its readers that the Holy Ghost (aka the Holy Spirit), who is just as much a member of the Godhead as the Father and the Son, is assigned to dwell within the saints, growing progressively in measure, strength and intensity in that indwelling until the true followers of Christ are filled with all the fullness of the power and glory of God. In the same manner the New Testament also testifies we can be filled to eternal fulness with the very same Spirit of holiness that animates Jesus Christ.

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with ALL THE FULNESS OF GOD. (Ephesians 3)

Trinitarians  may hedge the above plainly stated and unambiguous quote, which asserts that through Christ man can possess all that God possesses, including his Spirit, by claimimg the verses actually mean that man, who by very nature can only receive a portion of God’s glory, cannot receive of the very substance that makes God God. But this is nothing more than sectarian nonsense that grows out of incorrect doctrine.. 

The fact of the matter is that over and over again the New Testament teaches us that the true followers of Christ will eventually be filled with the very divine substance, or divine nature, that makes God God (the uncreated divine Spirit of truth and holiness) and inherit ALL that he possesses. 

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 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. (Revelation 3)

Question: How in all righteousness could God allow human beings, who according to the Trinitarians cannot partake of the substance that makes God God, be granted the right by God himself to sit, rule and reign upon very throne of his rulership, might, intelligence, wisdom and eternal power? I’ll tell you how — it’s because the saints will then be filled with all the fulness of God, “unto the measure of the statute of the fulness of Christ.”

 

 

 

 

And herein is one more proof.

You're, once again, using Scipture that supports Trinitarian teaching to tell Trinitarians they're wrong.  Fruitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

And herein is one more proof.

You're, once again, using Scipture that supports Trinitarian teaching to tell Trinitarians they're wrong.  Fruitless.

I'm with @anatess2 on this one: trying to disprove the Trinity with the Bible alone is fruitless.  Trying to "prove" anything with scripture alone is fruitless.

As LDS people, we know that it is the Holy Spirit which testifies of Truth, not man & his arguments.  We also know that it is continuing revelation that guides us, not just the Bible alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And herein is one more proof.

You're, once again, using Scipture that supports Trinitarian teaching to tell Trinitarians they're wrong.  Fruitless.

How so? Please elaborate line by line and kindly demonstrate how the scriptures I quoted are specifically addressing the unity of the Godhead and not for the most part speaking of theosis, or how men and women may become like God through the power of Christ’s infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice? Even the great and final sacrifice wherein Christ sacrificed all he possessed as the son of God that his brethren and sisters might become joint heirs with him in the possession of the eternal fulness of all things he has inherited from the Father, including possession of the divine nature.

It was the apostle Peter who said that through Christ we have the exceedingly great and precious promise that the faithful saints will be made partakers of the divine nature. In Peter’s specific usage of the word ‘nature,’ he’s referring to “the inherent basic constitution of a person or thing” (dictionary definition), in this instance he’s speaking of God’s most basic and fundamental constitution. Is not the most basic characteristic of God’s constitution the spiritual substance the scriptures call his “intelligence, or the light of truth?” Well the scriptures are full of promises that we too can eventually receive the same fulness of the uncreated Spirit of truth that Christ enjoys.

Is a Latter-Day Saint supposed to neglect these imminently demonstrable Biblical truths so as to allow the Trinitarians to remain ignorant of the truth so that the will they persist in believing the unity of the Godhead, and the divine substance that makes that perfect unity possible, are unknowable, unfathomable mysteries without the opportunity to consider what enlightening and logical things the Latter-Day Saints have to say on the subject? 

Edited by Jersey Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

How so? Please elaborate line by line and kindly demonstrate how the scriptures I quoted are specifically addressing the unity of the Godhead and not for the most part speaking of theosis, or how men and women may become like God through the power of Christ’s infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice? Even the great and final sacrifice wherein Christ sacrificed all he possessed as the son of God that his brethren and sisters might become joint heirs with him in the possession of the eternal fulness of all things he has inherited from the Father, including possession of the divine nature.

It was the apostle Peter who said that through Christ we have the exceedingly great and precious promise that the faithful saints will be made partakers of the divine nature. In Peter’s specific usage of the word ‘nature,’ he’s referring to “the inherent basic constitution of a person or thing” (dictionary definition), in this instance he’s speaking of God’s most basic and fundamental constitution. Is not the most basic characteristic of God’s constitution the spiritual substance the scriptures call his “intelligence, or the light of truth?” Well the scriptures are full of promises that we too can eventually receive the same fulness of the uncreated Spirit of truth that Christ enjoys.

Is a Latter-Day Saint supposed to neglect these imminently demonstrable Biblical truths so as to allow the Trinitarians to remain ignorant of the truth so that the will they persist in believing the unity of the Godhead, and the divine substance that makes that perfect unity possible, are unknowable, unfathomable mysteries without the opportunity to consider what enlightening and logical things the Latter-Day Saints have to say on the subject? 

Your challenge is in explaining to everyone - LDS and Trinitarians both - that Divine Nature is exactly synonymous to ousia. 

For LDS it is.  You're gonna have to explain how it can be that we have God ousia but not God.  It would pose the same challenge as pro-choicers explaining to a pregnant mother how her fetus is human but not a person. 

For Trinitarians, it is not.  Because, if it is, then right now, right this very minute, we are God.

(Pro tip:  The divergence is not found in the Holy Bible but in Joseph Smith's First Vision and the restored gospel - something Trinitarians don't accept as true - and is focused on what makes God God.  So the only way you can convince a Trinitarian of the Godhead is through a testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and nothing else).

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Your challenge is in explaining to everyone - LDS and Trinitarians both - that Divine Nature is exactly synonymous to ousia. 

For LDS it is.  You're gonna have to explain how it can be that we have God ousia but not God.  It would pose the same challenge as pro-choicers explaining to a pregnant mother how her fetus is human but not a person. 

For Trinitarians, it is not.  Because, if it is, then right now, right this very minute, we are God.

(Pro tip:  The divergence is not found in the Holy Bible but in Joseph Smith's First Vision and the restored gospel - something Trinitarians don't accept as true - and is focused on what makes God God.  So the only way you can convince a Trinitarian of the Godhead is through a testimony of the truthfulness of the restored gospel and nothing else).

I’ll be delighted to respond, but before I do I’d like you to answer my previous question. Please elucidate how the Bible verses I quoted, that speak specifically to men becoming like God, are somehow actually speaking of the divine nature of the Trinity? Please go back and copy and paste at least two of those verses, if you will,  and defend your assertion that they’re focusing primarily on the Trinity, not theosis? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

I’ll be delighted to respond, but before I do I’d like you to answer my previous question. Please elucidate how the Bible verses I quoted, that speak specifically to men becoming like God, are somehow actually speaking of the divine nature of the Trinity? Please go back and copy and paste at least two of those verses, if you will,  and defend your assertion that they’re focusing primarily on the Trinity, not theosis? 

 

See, this is why your kind of "discussion" aimed at non-LDS is a completely fruitless endeavor.  You can't even understand me.  And I'm LDS.

There's no theosis without the foundational knowledge of the ousia of God and the ousia of Man - a knowledge that differs between Trinitarians and LDS which renders those same verses with different implications supporting either of their established foundational knowledge making the understanding of the process of theosis completely divergent between the two.

There's no need to defend my assertion.  The proof of the pudding is all over you.  There's a reason that @prisonchaplain is not LDS regardless of how long he has been discussing gospel topics with us.  There's a reason that even the Eastern and Roman Catholics do not completely agree on the subject of theosis, how much more for a Catholic and an LDS.  You can clobber a Trinitarian with verses from his own Bible, it is NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  Because the FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE NEEDED to interpret the Bible the LDS way is found ONLY in the restored gospel.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 There's a reason that @prisonchaplain is not LDS regardless of how long he has been discussing gospel topics with us.  

 

Woe...check it out...that's me...all blue-highlighted and everything. How cool is that?

In all seriousness, I've perused this string, though not word for word. As FYI, for me the biggest difference between the Trinity and LDS Godhead is that the latter allows for so much distinction between the three persons that Father and son have separate corporeal bodies. Yes Son prays to Father. Yes, out of Son's respect for Father, He declares Abba to be "greater." No, Jesus was not saying He had betrayed himself when He called out, "Father, why have your forsaken me?" The three persons are distinct, yet truly one--truly the one God.

Muslims and Jews accuse us of tritheism, and reject our explanation of God's oneness. Our concern is that the LDS Godhead, with its "oneness in purpose" approach lends some justification to the Judeo-Islamic criticism. We've discussed this before, and I know there are some very scholarly and profound defenses of the LDS teaching, but just as many Evangelicals in particular (my camp) misstate the Godhead doctrine, so I sense that some LDS misapprehend the Trinity. Trinitarians do not deny that there are three distinct persons. We are not Oneness--'Jesus Only'--modalists. On the other hand, in saying that the Father is spirit, and that only Jesus has been and is corporeal, we contend that our "one God" is one in essence, despite being three distinct persons. The LDS view may be easier to understand, but to Protestant/Catholic ears, it is much harder to categorize as monotheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Woe...check it out...that's me...all blue-highlighted and everything. How cool is that?

In all seriousness, I've perused this string, though not word for word. As FYI, for me the biggest difference between the Trinity and LDS Godhead is that the latter allows for so much distinction between the three persons that Father and son have separate corporeal bodies. Yes Son prays to Father. Yes, out of Son's respect for Father, He declares Abba to be "greater." No, Jesus was not saying He had betrayed himself when He called out, "Father, why have your forsaken me?" The three persons are distinct, yet truly one--truly the one God.

Muslims and Jews accuse us of tritheism, and reject our explanation of God's oneness. Our concern is that the LDS Godhead, with its "oneness in purpose" approach lends some justification to the Judeo-Islamic criticism. We've discussed this before, and I know there are some very scholarly and profound defenses of the LDS teaching, but just as many Evangelicals in particular (my camp) misstate the Godhead doctrine, so I sense that some LDS misapprehend the Trinity. Trinitarians do not deny that there are three distinct persons. We are not Oneness--'Jesus Only'--modalists. On the other hand, in saying that the Father is spirit, and that only Jesus has been and is corporeal, we contend that our "one God" is one in essence, despite being three distinct persons. The LDS view may be easier to understand, but to Protestant/Catholic ears, it is much harder to categorize as monotheism.

Just so you know - PC.  I follow you very closely and not just for single threaded reasons.   There are some points that I believe are important concerning this particular issue.

Point #1. It is critical that the nature of G-d or G-ds be defined by G-d or G-ds through pure divine revelation.  It may be important  for many in various religious communities (particularly for Traditional Christians) to discuss and logically defend their beliefs but this issue pales in comparison to pure divine revelations from G-d.   The engine for believable doctrine is not and should not be to conditional upon any scholarly criticism.  In Latter-day Saint circles the idea of mingling the philosophies of men with scripture is seen only (and I would emphasize this) as the prime method of Satan to influence (confuse) critical and important truths - especially truths pertinent to G-d.  

Point #2.  Logic is a great tool when discussing truth - but we humans have learned by sad experience that everything that is logical is not always true.  This creates a great paradox for anyone searching for truth - especially for the truth of G-d which can defy empirical evidences.  Let me state this point again to insure it is understood correctly.  "The truth can always be logically defended but not all things that can be logically defended are true".  Often when discussing inconsistencies with various notions of G-d - I often get the response that G-d is mysterious and defies logic.  This is most difficult for me to understand why some in the religious community would purport such a thing and then attempt to logically explain and defend their particular believe in G-d.

Point #3 There must be correct principles understood concerning the nature of G-d in order to have the kind of faith in G-d that will hold up through difficult experiences and criticism.  If our understanding of the nature of G-d is weak (on a weak foundation of sand as opposed to a strong foundation of stone) then it will not stand in a strong storm of experience and criticism.  It is foolishness and not faith to think our belief structure is still standing through a storm when it has, in reality, collapsed.  So the most critical question concerning one's belief in G-d (from those that believe and support a notion of G-d to those that neither believe or support any particular notion of G-d) - how do you know your particular notions of G-d are true and accurate?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

It is critical that the nature of G-d or G-ds be defined by G-d or G-ds through pure divine revelation. 

Today I asked my middle child how her U.S. History class was going. She has a very young professor, and has previously told me that the class is easy. I prodded her on content. Finally, she said that the professor tries to sound objective, but clearly is not. He is antagonistic towards Christians. I asked how she came to that conclusion, and she responded that he, "Flat-out called creation stories myths." "Oh," I said. "He's actually right. 'Myth' does not mean false in history and in English literature. It means that the story cannot be proven, but is widely believe by particular faith communities."

My daughter's experience relates well to your point. Who God is must be something we come to know by revelation. When the revelation lacks details, we must be convinced that subsequent explanations are vetted by the anointing and discerning of the Holy Spirit. If the academic disciplines of humanity lend some credence to our understandings, how nice. At the end of the day, though, @Traveler is spot-on. We must know and know that the faith we hold dear has come to us by divine revelation.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 I asked how she came to that conclusion, and she responded that he, "Flat-out called creation stories myths." "Oh," I said. "He's actually right. 'Myth' does not mean false in history and in English literature. It means that the story cannot be proven, but is widely believe by particular faith communities."

Sometimes, though, the thing grates depending on how the person says it.  Like the Christ's Church private school in our neighborhood that teaches Mormonism is a Cult.  I'd be like, yea, that can be accurate... but then they say cult with the connotation of sinister... ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sometimes, though, the thing grates depending on how the person says it.  Like the Christ's Church private school in our neighborhood that teaches Mormonism is a Cult.  I'd be like, yea, that can be accurate... but then they say cult with the connotation of sinister... ya know?

It is interesting to consider the evolution of words which often start out as accurate representations but evolve to mean something different.  For example the term fan comes from fanatic.  But the term fan can be anyone that likes a particular person or team - thus the term has evolved slightly from fanatic even though the two terms are still very similar.   Likewise also the term "cult" which is derived or short for culture.  I like to bring up this point when faced with those that wish to denigrate our sacred beliefs and culture surrounding what we hold sacred - then proceed to remind them that a culture of Saints preparing for the return of the Messiah will not be any more popular with traditional religious folks than Jesus and his followers were to the Pharisees (which were the traditional religious folks of his day).   BTW, the Pharisees loved to degrade with similar ambiguous terms - which is why they called Jesus a Samaritan.   Sometimes with a bit of sarcasm, I thank them for not stoning or putting me to death as was done anciently and for a long time in history by Christians that did not like the beliefs of others.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sometimes, though, the thing grates depending on how the person says it.  Like the Christ's Church private school in our neighborhood that teaches Mormonism is a Cult.  I'd be like, yea, that can be accurate... but then they say cult with the connotation of sinister... ya know?

True that. My guess is that academics often pull this exactly to trip up religious students. When one gets upset and says, "The creation story is not a myth! It's true. The Bible says so," the professor/teacher gets to respond condescendingly, "But, of course you believe the creation myth. After all, myths are religious stories and teachings, not necessarily verifiable by science or history. You knew that, right?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this