Jonah

Not believing in the traditional Christ

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't see people becoming gods in John 10:34-35.   Do you believe "Ye are gods" is the same thing as
"Ye will become gods"?I

Obviously those to whom Jesus was speaking were not g-ds at the moment he spoke to them.  The symbolism of the scripture is as clear as it is obvious - Jesus was speaking prophetically of the potential of man.  There is no other rational interpretation.  Especially in light of other scriptures that indicate we will be like Him (G-d) when we are resurrected in glory and we also inherit "ALL" he (G-d) has.  But there is something else that we see in John chapter 10.  Even though Jesus prophesied by referencing scripture - The Jews did not believe it.  Why do people that profess to know and believe scripture not believe what the scriptures (holy prophet and Jesus) teach.  Here I will make another reference to the prophet Isaiah to give reason why the Jews - even though they knew the scripture - did not believe.  It is a reference of Isaiah before King Ahaz when Isaiah said in essence - if you do not believe it - it is because you are not loyal.

Quote

could not give a good explanation myself for being one with God, but I found
 https://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/BECOMING-ONE-WITH-GOD.HTML

Cheers

One thing I have learned about attempting to clarify any doctrine by the scripture - that scripture by itself is not evidence enough to clarify any doctrine - especially among "experts" and "scholars".  Your link is as excellent an example as can be given.

 

The Traveler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:21 AM, mordorbund said:

What if my belief is that serious error should be corrected, and that an incorrect understanding of God is a serious error?

Well, I've been trying to find out what "serious error" means. No one seems to want to answer that question. I assume it means condemned to hell. If it does mean that, then teaching trinity doctrine or plurality of gods doctrine are not serious errors. Teaching that drinking Koolaid laced with arsenic is the way to heaven, is a serious error, but the consequences are temporal. I'm not going to stand around and watch them drink the Koolaid, I'm going to teach that it's a serious error and I'm going to preach against those who try to teach it. 

So, the debate has been, or should be, why is teaching the trinity doctrine or teaching theosis or teaching that God is a spirit, why are any of those a serious error? Can you prove to me that I'm in error? If we are not able to prove it, why would God condemn a person (if that is what a serious error means) simply because they didn't know? There is no way for them to know. He is not here. We can't see him, can't touch him, can't hear his voice (not talking about the still small voice). Why would God condemn a person for not knowing? 

The problem I'm trying to address is that as soon as a person undertakes to claim that someone who believes differently than he does is condemned, they step in to the realm of false godhood, believing that they have some knowledge that others don't. What if your belief is that serious error? Well, how would anyone know that for sure?

We have an eye witness that told us that God and his Son are separate beings. We believe that based on what he told us, none of us have actually seen it. it makes more sense to me that they would be separate beings, else how can one be the son of the other? It seems like a retarded question, but our critics seem to think that it's not. I think they are wrong and I argue to convince them that they are, but it has never occurred to me to tell them that they are in jeopardy of being condemned to hell if they don't believe what I do. But reverse that situation and we are condemned because we don't believe what they do. The question that started all of this for me, was; why is teaching these things a serious error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Well, I've been trying to find out what "serious error" means. No one seems to want to answer that question. I assume it means condemned to hell. If it does mean that, then teaching trinity doctrine or plurality of gods doctrine are not serious errors. Teaching that drinking Koolaid laced with arsenic is the way to heaven, is a serious error, but the consequences are temporal. I'm not going to stand around and watch them drink the Koolaid, I'm going to teach that it's a serious error and I'm going to preach against those who try to teach it. 

From reading previous posts, "serious error" means falling into a path that actually leads a person away from God (or at the very least impedes true worship). It happens by "diverting too far one way or the other". In this sense, worshiping God polytheistically when Israel was expressly told to leave those other gods alone seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

On 12/2/2019 at 1:29 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I'm confused by the challenge, in the first place. The question was why would it matter if the LDS Godhead were polytheistic. My understanding is that nearly all LDS thinkers reject the accusation and defend the Godhead as monotheistic. @Traveler, for example, believes that a socially-unified Godhead would fit the understanding of some Jewish rabbis. The reason a polytheistic understanding of the true God (in other words, a gods understanding) would be wrong is that God is indeed one. If God has revealed Himself as one and we worship Him as three then we are not worshiping Him as He reveals Himself to be. We are not worshiping in Spirit and in truth. Then, we would be wrong. That would be bad. What am I missing?

Oh, looks like PC covered that already.

 

5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

So, the debate has been, or should be, why is teaching the trinity doctrine or teaching theosis or teaching that God is a spirit, why are any of those a serious error? Can you prove to me that I'm in error? If we are not able to prove it, why would God condemn a person (if that is what a serious error means) simply because they didn't know? There is no way for them to know. He is not here. We can't see him, can't touch him, can't hear his voice (not talking about the still small voice). Why would God condemn a person for not knowing? 

First, I'll point out that if revelation says we ought to do something, then disciples are going to strive to do that regardless of whether or not the why was revealed as well. (Surely God doesn't declare a person "unworthy" simply because he has a cup of coffee in the morning, or drinks green tea for his health).

Second, for the specific argument you raise, there has been further apostolic counsel given. Paul writes that nature itself grants sufficient understanding of God that even non-believers should be able to follow core principles.

On 12/2/2019 at 1:48 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Since I believe in God's justice I believe God will reveal Himself sufficiently to each soul, and they will be judged on their response. Romans 1 says that we are without excuse because we see and know there is a Creator. There are even some who believe that general revelation (i.e. creation itself, the drive in humans to do good amidst so much trouble, etc.) can be enough for a person to be converted. Where these deeper conversations we are having come is among those of us who do have access to scriptures, God's spirit, and significant teaching. We have this blessing and then see others embracing seemingly different understandings. So, we hash out our understandings in places like this. 🙂

Oh, looks like PC covered that already.

 

5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

The problem I'm trying to address is that as soon as a person undertakes to claim that someone who believes differently than he does is condemned, they step in to the realm of false godhood, believing that they have some knowledge that others don't. What if your belief is that serious error? Well, how would anyone know that for sure?

This is why I quipped "What if my belief is that serious error should be corrected, and that an incorrect understanding of God is a serious error?" You are stridently arguing against the notion of "serious error" as though belief in it is itself a serious error. Just now you compared it to "false godhood", which the revelations have a term for that: idolatry. Even if you term it differently, this sounds like a path that leads to condemnation.

 

5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

We have an eye witness that told us that God and his Son are separate beings. We believe that based on what he told us, none of us have actually seen it. it makes more sense to me that they would be separate beings, else how can one be the son of the other? It seems like a retarded question, but our critics seem to think that it's not. I think they are wrong and I argue to convince them that they are, but it has never occurred to me to tell them that they are in jeopardy of being condemned to hell if they don't believe what I do. But reverse that situation and we are condemned because we don't believe what they do. The question that started all of this for me, was; why is teaching these things a serious error?

First off, even though you earlier correctly stated that the belief in the Trinity is 3 persons 1 being, you're here conflating the two terms. But, specifics aside, if you really want to understand why believing in a false god is a very bad thing, I suggest rereading the previous posts (not just from PC, others have weighed in as well). To those arguments I briefly add that when Jesus taught the woman at the well, he pointed out how confused her worship was (ye worship ye know not what) and testified that it was more of an obstacle (salvation is of the Jews).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

From reading previous posts, "serious error" means falling into a path that actually leads a person away from God (or at the very least impedes true worship)

Fine. Then neither teaching is a serious error. It would be if taught among people who dont teach that doctrine, but not because of the message. The reason it would be serious error is because of the contention it would cause. If the venue doesnt allow for the discussion of other ideas, such teachings would be disruptive. It would be like the person who hollered out in GC to stop protecting ... referring to the MTC incident. He's entitled to his opinion and he may be right, but it was not the proper time and place for it.

On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

this sense, worshiping God polytheistically when Israel was expressly told to leave those other gods alone seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

That is not the context of my question. I understand it would be serious error if trinity doctrine was taught in a LDS sunday school lesson. The point of the question, is why would it be serious error for mormons to teach that God the father is a physically separate being that is the son? Further, why would modern Christians be in serious error teaching trinity doctrine? Neither group has proof that God is one or the other. Would God hold either in contempt for believing the doctrines they were taught? If so, how is that just?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

First, I'll point out that if revelation says we ought to do something, then disciples are going to strive to do that regardless of whether or not the why was revealed as well. (Surely God doesn't declare a person "unworthy" simply because he has a cup of coffee in the morning, or drinks green tea for his health).

Second, for the specific argument you raise, there has been further apostolic counsel given. Paul writes that nature itself grants sufficient understanding of God that even non-believers should be able to follow core principles

I'm not sure what u r referring to. There is nothing in the quote u appear to be responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

This is why I quipped "What if my belief is that serious error should be corrected, and that an incorrect understanding of God is a serious error?" You are stridently arguing against the notion of "serious error"

Nope. I'm arguing to find out what serious error means in this context. The problem hers is that u dont know ur belief is anymore correct than mine is. Are u a witness urself? Did u ask God and get an answer about how both He and Jesus are both Gods and yet we still can claim to be monotheistic? No? Well then it's just ur belief against mine. How can either one of us be in serious error when we have no proof?

 

On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

Just now you compared it to "false godhood", which the revelations have a term for that: idolatry. Even if you term it differently, this sounds like a path that leads to condemnation.

 

🤣

Making the claim to be God and idolatry are not the same thing. And I've just made the same blunder most modern Christians do ... if I don't agree with ur belief the I'm on the path to condemnation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

First off, even though you earlier correctly stated that the belief in the Trinity is 3 persons 1 being, you're here conflating the two terms.

First off, I was stating what the belief is. I do not agree with it. Secondly, u say I'm conflating the two terms but I only see one term. Unless u mean the terms person and being.

 

On 1/16/2020 at 8:30 AM, mordorbund said:

if you really want to understand why believing in a false god is a very bad thing,

That isn't the context of my argument either. How can u presume to tell me that the Fod I worship in a false God when, like the woman at the well, u also dont know the God u worship. U believe u know, but u don't. U, like most of the rest of us rely on someone else's testimony. My argument is that worshiping the best we know within our capacity to know is not serious error. It may be wrong or some aspect of it may be wrong, such as spirit or body, 3 or 1. But I dont see how that is serious error until God tells us so that there is no confusion on the issue. 

Taking the stand that one idea is right and all other ideas are serious error is simply wrong if u really dont know.

Share this post


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

No? Well then it's just ur belief against mine. How can either one of us be in serious error when we have no proof?

This Christmas was the first time I had heard of the apocryphal anecdote of St. Nicholas "slapping" Bishop Arius at the Council of Nicea over Bishop Arius's view of the Trinity. prisonchaplain mentioned (here in this string or in another) a split within his denomination over Nicean Trinitareanism versus Modalism. It has made me curious just how many schisms in the course of Christian history have been over some detail about the mystery of the Trinity.

I agree with you -- it doesn't seem like these different interpretations of the Trinity merit full schism over. And yet, Christian history is evidence that Christians on the whole have decided that the triune nature of God -- however mysterious and incomprehensible to mortal minds -- is worth schisming over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This Christmas was the first time I had heard of the apocryphal anecdote of St. Nicholas "slapping" Bishop Arius at the Council of Nicea over Bishop Arius's view of the Trinity. prisonchaplain mentioned (here in this string or in another) a split within his denomination over Nicean Trinitareanism versus Modalism. It has made me curious just how many schisms in the course of Christian history have been over some detail about the mystery of the Trinity.

I agree with you -- it doesn't seem like these different interpretations of the Trinity merit full schism over. And yet, Christian history is evidence that Christians on the whole have decided that the triune nature of God -- however mysterious and incomprehensible to mortal minds -- is worth schisming over.

I am of the mind that it is not just the trinity - that somewhere in Christian history there has been a schism over every possible Christian doctrine that has ever existed.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This Christmas was the first time I had heard of the apocryphal anecdote of St. Nicholas "slapping" Bishop Arius at the Council of Nicea over Bishop Arius's view of the Trinity. prisonchaplain mentioned (here in this string or in another) a split within his denomination over Nicean Trinitareanism versus Modalism. It has made me curious just how many schisms in the course of Christian history have been over some detail about the mystery of the Trinity.

I agree with you -- it doesn't seem like these different interpretations of the Trinity merit full schism over. And yet, Christian history is evidence that Christians on the whole have decided that the triune nature of God -- however mysterious and incomprehensible to mortal minds -- is worth schisming over.

Trying to explain the Trinity is too difficult.  I have a hard time comprehending that God has
always existed.

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