Please can I ask your advice on finding a church to attend with my girlfriend.

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, AbramM said:

He was addressing God the father. Jesus is God the Son and he became God the father's servant. 

“He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and came in the likeness of men,” Philippians  2:7.

The son is telling the father that the father's will is to be done as the son is the servant.

Okay, but how is that not describing the disparate wills of two different beings?

4 minutes ago, AbramM said:

The father and the holy spirit forsook the son. 

The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath, and instead of pouring it out on us, he pours it out on him. That necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. That is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins.

Also, it could be argued (I don't really believe this but some people do) that Christ was quoting Psalm 22. Rather than praying.

While I agree with what you said here, that also sounds like a discussion of separate beings.

4 minutes ago, AbramM said:

God the father said that. Jesus is God the son he is not God the father or the holy spirit. Of course it makes sense for the father to say that. 

---Taken from Eliot's pulpit commentary. 

At Christ's baptism there was a manifestation of the three Persons in the sacred Trinity. The Father confirming the Son to be Mediator; the Son solemnly entering upon the work; the Holy Spirit descending on him, to be through his mediation communicated to his people.

And again, sounds like a description of three separate Beings.

4 minutes ago, AbramM said:

I know it can be confusing to understand but there are lots of scriptures I could show you that prove the trinity. 

 

Such as?

Because so far, in all of these examples I agree with what you said about who is saying or doing what.  The difference is that my interpretation is that we are seeing the words and actions of three divine Beings here, whereas the trinitarian position is trying to interpret this as being a single being in three manifestations, which is not the implication I see here.

I used to be Catholic, so I am competently versed in the trinitarian views on the matter.

[AbramM]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

It is good to talk to people, and seek wise elder's advice.

However, it notable that not all clergy of group X are experts on group Y.  In fact, I find a lot of the time a clergy person of group X will have really poor quality about group Y.  Which isn't to say that that person is a bad pastor (not at all!  Some of them are FANTASTIC pastors), just that they don't always have good information on another's perspective.  

He gives good advice and he is very kind. We just have a small congregation of 400ish people so he knows everyone really well. 

[prisonchaplain]

9 hours ago, Mores said:

Stubbornness I certainly understand.  But I wonder how one has confidence in something that they don't understand.  I, myself, have less confidence in those parts of my faith that I don't understand.  It is when I come to an understanding of a principle that I have confidence in it.  Prior to that, I may say I have faith.  But that alone cannot remain forever.  And the more fundamental/core/basic the principle, the more important it is to gain a great understanding of it.

"The louder they insist the less certain they are." Reminds me of a joke. Pastor had his sermon notes laid out on the podium. At one point, there was a note on the side:  WEAK POINT...CALL FOR AN 'AMEN.'

In other words, sadly, people are often most confident about that which we least understand. Just watch CNN/MSNBC or FOX for a few minutes. You'll see what I mean.

[prisonchaplain]

8 hours ago, AbramM said:

If she wants to stay LDS then I will tell her we can't get married. 

I know that this was easy counsel for us to give, and that for you this is real life, and beyond difficult. You carry a heavy cross right now. Just know, your reward will be great. God really is good--all the time.

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

The trinitarian answer to all 3 of those is "Himself."  Is that your answer, and does it make sense?

 

First, @AbramM has indicated that he is very hesitant about trying to discuss his faith doctrines in a predominantly LDS forum. I suspect he may learn a bit, but if the doctrine is something confusing, he'll end up seeking counsel from his spiritual advisers, and perhaps some good literature. Second, the MODALIST answer might be along the lines of Jesus was simply working through what lay ahead. The TRINITARIAN response would be that the Son was praying to the Father--three persons, one God.

[prisonchaplain]

27 minutes ago, AbramM said:

He gives good advice and he is very kind. We just have a small congregation of 400ish people so he knows everyone really well. 

In the Pacific Northwest we call a 400-person congregation a megachurch. Just sayin' . . .

[AbramM]

20 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Okay, but how is that not describing the disparate wills of two different beings?

29 minutes ago, AbramM said:

 

20 minutes ago, unixknight said:

While I agree with what you said here, that also sounds like a discussion of separate beings.

29 minutes ago, AbramM said:

 

20 minutes ago, unixknight said:

And again, sounds like a description of three separate Beings.

29 minutes ago, AbramM said:

 

The thing is with the examples you gave God the son is on earth and whilst Jesus was on earth he emptied himself of some divine rights. Also, he had the mind of a human as well as God. So when it seems like 2 different beings to you, that is because God the father is interacting with the man of God the son not the divine nature of God the Son. In other words, the human mind and will of God the son sometimes interact with God the father and it seems like they are 2 different beings, but that is not so. 

Below isn't my writings it's an article I read a couple of years ago, but it explains a little bit what I mean. 

 

----

 

Jesus also has a human mind. We have only experienced one mind, and simply cannot fathom what it would be like for one person to have both a human mind and a divine mind. Two key texts press us toward this mind-boggling truth:

Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52)

“Concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

The second verse, of course, is striking for those of us with a high view of Christ. And it is, of course, from the mouth of Christ himself. For Christians who affirm his deity, Mark 13:32 seems like trouble. But what looks difficult at first glance proves, with some thorough reflection, to be a glorious confirmation of Jesus’s full humanity. Perhaps put most provocatively, the question goes like this: If Jesus is truly God, and God knows everything, how can Jesus not know when his own second coming will be?

The mature and carefully formulated answer of church history is this: In addition to being fully divine, Jesus is fully human. His one person has both an infinite, divine mind and a finite, human mind. He can be said not to know things, as in Mark 13:32, because he is genuinely human and finite — and human minds are not omniscient. And Jesus can be said to know all things, as in John 21:17, because he is divine and infinite in his knowledge.

Paradoxical as it is, the Scriptures plainly affirm that Jesus both knows all things as God and doesn’t know all things as man. For the unique, two-natured, singular person of Christ, this is no contradiction, but a peculiar glory of the God-man. 

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/jesus-is-fully-human 

[AbramM]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I know that this was easy counsel for us to give, and that for you this is real life, and beyond difficult. You carry a heavy cross right now. Just know, your reward will be great. God really is good--all the time.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? Matthew 16 verse 26  

I always want to put God first but I feel sad and heartbroken. If God is testing my faith then I want to pass 
 

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, the distinction between the LDS doctrine of the Godhead and the traditional Trinity cannot be well-understood without also addressing the nature of humanity. Traditional Christian teaching is that God created humanity out of nothing. Only God is eternal. LDS belief is that human intelligence is eternal, and that we existed prior to our birth in mortality. So, the three God-beings are not one in essence (though they are perfectly united in purpose) and humanity's nature is much closer to God's, in LDS belief. Those are the primary difference in belief, as I see it. 

[AbramM]

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

In the Pacific Northwest we call a 400-person congregation a megachurch. Just sayin' . . .

haha there's a Southern Baptist church my cousin goes to in Texas that has 60,000 members and has 10,000 people at their services on Sundays. 

There are a few churches around me that are 1,000 people attending on Sunday. So 400 seems relatively small. The church I grew up going to was about 400 people too. 

[Alia]

42 minutes ago, AbramM said:

We just have a small congregation of 400ish people so he knows everyone really well. 

When I said my brother is a minister of a small congregation I meant sub 100 people 

[Alia]

4 hours ago, AbramM said:

I always won the memory verse competitions at Backyard Bible club. 

I loved backyard bible club but whoever's mom was hosting the final session fixed it so their kid would win something 

[Alia]

10 minutes ago, AbramM said:

I always want to put God first but I feel sad and heartbroken.

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Matthew 5:4. 

[AbramM]

Just now, Alia said:

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Matthew 5:4. 

Amen sister

[AbramM]

4 minutes ago, Alia said:

When I said my brother is a minister of a small congregation I meant sub 100 people 

I don't know if I will ever be a minister but if I was the size of the congregation wouldn't matter to me. Whether you preach to 100 people or 400 people or 10,000 people I don't think it makes a difference. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, AbramM said:

Please I don't have a Baptist faith I'm a Christian who attends a baptist church. My faith is in Christ and not in the baptist church. 

I'm not saying that your faith is any where by Christ.  

A Baptist = a Christian who processes the Baptist faith.  

The Baptist faith = a specific interpretation of Christianity.  

 

[Jane_Doe]

 

2 hours ago, AbramM said:

He was addressing God the father. Jesus is God the Son and he became God the father's servant. 

“He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and came in the likeness of men,” Philippians  2:7.

The son is telling the father that the father's will is to be done as the son is the servant. 

The father and the holy spirit forsook the son. 

The judgment was to have God the Father pour out his wrath, and instead of pouring it out on us, he pours it out on him. That necessarily involves a kind of abandonment. That is what wrath means. He gave him up to suffer the weight of all the sins of all of his people and the judgment for those sins.

Also, it could be argued (I don't really believe this but some people do) that Christ was quoting Psalm 22. Rather than praying. 

 

God the father said that. Jesus is God the son he is not God the father or the holy spirit. Of course it makes sense for the father to say that. 

An LDS Christian would give you these^ exact same answers.

2 hours ago, AbramM said:

I know it can be confusing to understand but there are lots of scriptures I could show you that prove the trinity. 

Showing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 persons in one God is not enough.  You must also cite verses that say they share a substance, and describing the difference between "person" and "being".  

2 hours ago, AbramM said:

Exactly. The father is not the son, the son is not the father etc. You have a good understanding of the trinity.

JohnsonJones is not a Trinitarian at all, because he rejects the Athanasian Creed and it's statements about ousia (which are the lynchpin of the Trinity). 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

First, @AbramM has indicated that he is very hesitant about trying to discuss his faith doctrines in a predominantly LDS forum. I suspect he may learn a bit, but if the doctrine is something confusing, he'll end up seeking counsel from his spiritual advisers, and perhaps some good literature. Second, the MODALIST answer might be along the lines of Jesus was simply working through what lay ahead. The TRINITARIAN response would be that the Son was praying to the Father--three persons, one God.

*thumbs up*

2 hours ago, AbramM said:

He gives good advice and he is very kind. We just have a small congregation of 400ish people so he knows everyone really well. 

I am glad.  May he help guide you, and help you deepen your relationship with Christ.  

[Maureen]

5 hours ago, unixknight said:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus said "Not my will, but thine be done" who was He addressing?

Who did Jesus say forsook Him as he was dying on the cross, when He said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

When Jesus was baptized, who was it that said "Behold my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased?"

The trinitarian answer to all 3 of those is "Himself."  Is that your answer, and does it make sense?

I don't know if anyone else has commented on this quote, so this may have already been mentioned but, as an ex-Catholic @unixknight you should know that the trinitarian answer would be the Father, the 1st person of the Trinity.

M.

[Maureen]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

...whereas the trinitarian position is trying to interpret this as being a single being in three manifestations, which is not the implication I see here.

I used to be Catholic, so I am competently versed in the trinitarian views on the matter.

You definitely are not describing trinitarianism you are describing modalism.

M.

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, AbramM said:

Yes it has to be how God is one.

Ok.

So HOW is God one?  Bible verses would be awesome.

[person0]

Even if @AbramM could adequately elaborate the doctrine of the Trinity, more importantly than that, he would then need to elaborate the authority by which that interpretation is given, which would also be insurmountable.  Our paradigm is more foreign to him than his is to us; many of us have either converted to the Restored Gospel, or spent much of our lives understanding the differences between our faith and other Christian denominations sufficient to support our beliefs at a minimum to ourselves, and often in discussion with others.

Most of the self-acclaimed Christian population lack the profundity of gospel knowledge required to sustain their belief system amidst serious scrutiny; in my experience, the lack of adequate answers is less often sufficient to prompt a protestant to serious introspection and study than a latter-day saint.  Why?  I speculate that it is because they are used to not having adequate answers to core foundational doctrinal beliefs (i.e. the Trinity, original sin, authority, etc).  This, in effect, can have the result that the lack of answers to support their existing paradigm is less important than the requirement of answers from a new paradigm.  While it can rightfully be argued that this type of occurrence is a general aspect of human nature, for the reasons mentioned above, I surmise it is easier to produce those effects in individuals who are accustomed to a lack of answers.

[AbramM]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Ok.

So HOW is God one?  Bible verses would be awesome.

Okay I will post some this afternoon. I have to go to finish an assignment this morning that is overdue 😂

[AbramM]

11 hours ago, person0 said:

Most of the self-acclaimed Christian population lack the profundity of gospel knowledge required to sustain their belief system amidst serious scrutiny;

That's a big statement to make based on something as biased as 

 

11 hours ago, person0 said:

in my experience

 

[unixknight]

15 hours ago, Maureen said:

I don't know if anyone else has commented on this quote, so this may have already been mentioned but, as an ex-Catholic @unixknight you should know that the trinitarian answer would be the Father, the 1st person of the Trinity.

M.

Exactly, as though He were a separate person.

15 hours ago, Maureen said:

You definitely are not describing trinitarianism you are describing modalism.

M.

Then what, functionally, is the difference between trinitarianism and the Godhead as we see it?