DNA Vs Mormonism

[xixxvmcm85]

Bible version

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Trinity version
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Me, the hour is come; glorify Me, that I also may glorify Me:
2 As I hast given Me power over all flesh, that I should give eternal life to as many as I hast given Me.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Me the only true God, and Me , whom I hast sent.
4 I have glorified Me on the earth: I have finished the work which I gavest me to do.
5 And now, Me, glorify thou me with my own self with the glory which I had with me before the world was.

I could keep going but I think this makes the point.

Thanks. You’ve just demonstrated that there are indeed separate persons in the trinity, however you haven’t demonstrated that these three persons are of a separate substance.

So far, this verse aligns nicely with Catholic teaching.

Now what about John 1:1?
Is the Word God? or is the Word one of three Gods?

If you answer the latter, then how do you reconcile that with Deut 6:4?

 

[ibkc]

Bible version
Trinity version
I could keep going but I think this makes the point.

Not really; I am totally confused by “Bible version” and “Trinity version.” Instead of posting things in piecemeal and expecting everyone to read your mind, could you please just post your argument in full, with supporting scripture, and speak plainly?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Not really; I am totally confused by “Bible version” and “Trinity version.” Instead of posting things in piecemeal and expecting everyone to read your mind, could you please just post your argument in full, with supporting scripture, and speak plainly?

“Trinity Version” is just his own little parody of how he perceives trinitarian beliefs to be illogical. Essentially (it seems) that he is claiming that Jesus “wouldn’t pray to himself, ergo there are 3 gods”.

 

[ibkc]

“Trinity Version” is just his own little parody of how he perceives trinitarian beliefs to be illogical. Essentially (it seems) that he is claiming that Jesus “wouldn’t pray to himself, ergo there are 3 gods”.

Yep, I got that much. But I still would like him to stop speaking cryptically and just lay his argument out in full. If he is able.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Jehovah Witnesses make a similar claim, saying that Jesus could not have resurrected Himself. These concepts show a fundamental lack of understanding of the Trinity.

But it actually makes sense from a Mormon point of view. What is happening is that people are trying to explain the nature of God in human terms, trying to make God more like themselves. Humans are familiar and tangible whereas the nature of God is intangible and more difficult to grasp, so it makes it easier to explain God in human terms. Since Mormons view God as an exalted Man, this makes for a fairly unified theory.

One flaw in this way of thinking is that God can’t be like us and still be God. I suppose someone could to explain to interested Mormons about the humanity of God in the person of Jesus. But as long as any request for evidence of early Mormonism is viewed as an anti-Mormon attack, I don’t know how such a dialog is going to proceed. Interesting how the rabid anti-Catholic rhetoric on this forum is not necessarily viewed as anti-Catholic

 

[teancum79]

Yep, I got that much. But I still would like him to stop speaking cryptically and just lay his argument out in full. If he is able.

It would take a very long time to write every little scripture that relates to the issue, but I can’t think of a single reason for Christ to talk to himself at length and speak of himself as though he where not himself. Which is the version of the trinity that both catholic and protestants have tried time and time again to convince me is the nature of God.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

It would take a very long time to write every little scripture that relates to the issue, but I can’t think of a single reason for Christ to talk to himself at length and speak of himself as though he where not himself. Which is the version of the trinity that both catholic and protestants have tried time and time again to convince me is the nature of God.

Oh you mean like how he did in the verse that you cited? (Notice that Jesus doesn’t refer to himself as “me” but as “Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent”).

Maybe you haven’t yet seen my previous post, but all this demonstrates is that there are indeed three different persons in the Trinity who are nonetheless all equally the ONE God.

Again I request your interpretation of verses such as John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:30-33, Matthew 1:23, Romans 9:5, Colossians 1:16-17 among many other NT verses that explicitly claim that Jesus is God?

 

[Eden]

I’m not sure given that most of the apostles where dead by 100 AD I’d say that would be a good time frame to start from. It was not a single event though Peter’s death was a major one.

As far as teachings:

Baptisms for the dead referenced by Paul and done by some before the CC decided they don’t like it.

God and Christ are separate people not a big mussy shapeless thing.

These are of course denied by the CC, but the Bible speaks to them as valid.

I don’t understand how Mormons can believe that an apostasy occured within the first century of the Church and yet trust in the authority of the Church several hundred years later to set the Biblical Canon.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t understand how Mormons can believe that an apostasy happened within the first century of the Church and yet trust in the authority of the Church several hundred years later to set the Biblical Canon.

I raised that question here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=238010&page=15

to which I have still received to answer. Some LDS have answered as to how the Bible in general can still be trustworthy (to say the least) yet as to how the Catholic church miraculously (coincidentally?) chose the correct BOOKS to place into the canon I’m still left wondering.

 

[Eden]

I raised that question here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=238010&page=15

to which I have still received to answer. Some LDS have answered as to how the Bible in general can still be trustworthy (to say the least) yet as to how the Catholic church miraculously (coincidentally?) chose the correct BOOKS to place into the canon I’m still left wondering.

That just has me scratching my head. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they are trusting in the authority of the Catholic Church to have chosen the correct books. There is no way around that fact.

 

[teancum79]

That just has me scratching my head. Whether they acknowledge it or not, they are trusting in the authority of the Catholic Church to have chosen the correct books. There is no way around that fact.

No we accept that they picked some good ones and wish they would have done a better job.

 

[Eden]

No we accept that they picked some good ones and wish they would have done a better job.

Which books were the Catholic bishops mistaken in including and excluding from the Bible? Do you have Joseph Smith’s list of Catholic Canon errors that I can see?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

No we accept that they picked some good ones and wish they would have done a better job.

Well then in that case one would think Joseph Smith would have “done a better job” however his JST Inspired Version has THE EXACT SAME CANON as the Protestant Bible (which itself came from the Catholic Ecumenical Councils of both Hippo and Trent).

If the Catholic Church missed any books or included erroneous ones, then why doesn’t the JST demonstrate that by having a UNIQUE CANON?

Here is the canon for the Joseph Smith “Inspired Translation” which is found in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

 

[teancum79]

Oh you mean like how he did in the verse that you cited? (Notice that Jesus doesn’t refer to himself as “me” but as “Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent”).

Maybe you haven’t yet seen my previous post, but all this demonstrates is that there are indeed three different persons in the Trinity who are nonetheless all equally the ONE God.

Again I request your interpretation of verses such as John 1:1, John 8:58, John 10:30-33, Matthew 1:23, Romans 9:5, Colossians 1:16-17 among many other NT verses that explicitly claim that Jesus is God?

John 1:1 In the beginning Christ was with God and Christ was also a God. (I’m paraphrase here to save space).

John 8:58 Thats Easy Christ and I am (aka Jehovah) are the same guy. They are the Son of God.

John 10:30-33 Christ and his father are united perfectly. Declaring himself to be God’s Son would make him equal to God more or less and had it not been Christ he would have committed blaspheme.

Matt 1:23 same as John 8:58

Romans 9:5 you’ll have to explain what your looking at here.

Col 1:16-17 Christ was the creator.

I’m not real sure what you where getting at in Romans, but LDS accept Christ as the creator the savior and redeemer of man kind. He is also the middle man between us and The Father. Christ The Father and The Holy Ghost can all be called correctly God. They share some titles. Much like I can be correctly called son because I am the son of my father and father because I have children. They are often referred to as One God because of their total unity.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

John 1:1 In the beginning Christ was with God and Christ was also a God. (I’m paraphrase here to save space).

John 8:58 Thats Easy Christ and I am (aka Jehovah) are the same guy. They are the Son of God.

John 10:30-33 Christ and his father are united perfectly. Declaring himself to be God’s Son would make him equal to God more or less and had it not been Christ he would have committed blaspheme.

Matt 1:23 same as John 8:58

Romans 9:5 you’ll have to explain what your looking at here.

Col 1:16-17 Christ was the creator.

I’m not real sure what you where getting at in Romans, but LDS accept Christ as the creator the savior and redeemer of man kind. He is also the middle man between us and The Father. Christ The Father and The Holy Ghost can all be called correctly God. They share some titles. Much like I can be correctly called son because I am the son of my father and father because I have children. They are often referred to as One God because of their total unity.

Great! Now we’re on the same page:

Catholics: One God in 3 persons
Latter Day Saints: 3 individual Gods in 1 purpose.

I just needed you to explicitly say this so that it doesn’t appear that I’m putting words in your mouth.

Now. How can there be 3 gods when the Old & New Testaments time and time again describe there only being one God?

 

[teancum79]

Great! Now we’re on the same page:

Catholics: One God in 3 persons
Latter Day Saints: 3 individual Gods in 1 purpose.

I just needed you to explicitly say this so that it doesn’t appear that I’m putting words in your mouth.

Now. How can there be 3 gods when the Old & New Testaments time and time again describe there only being one God?

Because they are in total unity. in theory (and I know this is a stretch because they fight like cats and dogs) the US federal government is a single government. Yet there are 3 very separate parts.

 

[Eden]

Because they are in total unity. in theory (and I know this is a stretch because they fight like cats and dogs) the US federal government is a single government. Yet there are 3 very separate parts.

Who fight like cats and dogs? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

 

[teancum79]

No the Feds

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Because they are in total unity. in theory (and I know this is a stretch because they fight like cats and dogs) the US federal government is a single government. Yet there are 3 very separate parts.

Then under this model of “God” not any one single member of the Godhead ALONE can be called God (just as any of the three branches of our government are not fully “the government” in of themselves).

Is this what you are saying?

 

[teancum79]

Then under this model of “God” not any one single member of the Godhead ALONE can be called God (just as any of the three branches of our government are not fully “the government” in of themselves).

Is this what you are saying?

no I’m saying that you could correctly address any branch of government as government.