LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy

[SteveVH]

I’m not sure what Mormons believe. There seems to be conflicting views on God or eternity.

Beneath the surface there also seems to be a need to avoid these areas or to use language that appears to be in line with Christianity (i.e. God in three persons). In any event, their true beliefs seem to be hidden and there appears to be no one who will just jump out there and state it plainly. It makes it very difficult to converse when the words we use are the same, but the meaning is completely different.

At this point, I’m also unsure of Mormon belief in just about every aspect.

 

[KathleenGee]

Steve168, SteveVH,

I am tending to agree with you after engaging with Mormons for the past year or so. It is also confusing for me with the different takes on the Koran from different Muslims who come in.

I also think Scipio (spelling), also had a more precise statement that the ‘apostasy’ happened well before Christianity into Judaism. I did ask Mormons before if they have ever consulted with the Jewish rabbis in regards to its various beliefs, but it didn’t catch their interest.

I find Mormonism evasive and changing and covering up…they can get a copy of our Catechism that is based on Christ and morality. There many teachings in the catechism that goes back 2000 years that are the same.

St. Thomas and the erudite tradition helped bring the use of reason into the creed; St. Athanasius, early Church Father, also exhorted Christianity to seek education within faith.

As said here many times before on CAF, there were many heresies and apostates since Christ’s ministry even, there were those Jews who rejected the true faith walk in Judaism.

To state that the true understanding of Christianity came 1800 years does not stand up to reason or history.

There are so many aspects of Mormonism that willfully chooses not to be in any semblance to Christianity that it does continue to place itself in remaining in the same mindset of others existing today in the Restorationist Movement of the 1800’s, with some fundamentalist movements that are use a strong thrust of their zeal and actions as reactionary to the Roman Catholic faith and mainline Protestantism.

Just as I saw little good coming from dialogue with Muslims in terms of finding common ground, I am seeing it now after all this time with Mormons. The best we can do is affirm the truth of our faith and with charity. Whatever you say will be rejected because we are considered apostate.

If people coming here lurking decide to see us as Apostates…it is the fact that God created us all with different ‘soils’ on which our beliefs systems take root. I pray people use good faith, reason, and historical facts, and prayerfully study and discern the different roots and their manner of expressions between early Christianity and its development with early Mormonism and its development.

As we are now coming to the time of the birth of Our Savior. May all who have come here have a most Blessed Christmas and Happy New Year.

 

[HowNich]

I’ll ignore your last statement. As for the first, you know very well that we also believe in three persons. This is the perfect example of playing with words. You believe in three separate beings. We believe in ONE being in three persons. Big difference. Lets at least keep that straight.

What is the difference between person and being? What is the difference between saying that there are three different persons and three different beings?

Are you saying that heaven is a physical place somewhere way out there in the universe?

I’m not sure about it being “in the universe”, but Heaven obviously must have some sort of physicality to it, since we all agree that Jesus Christ is bodily resurrected, and ascended to Heaven with His body, and that after the Resurrection, the saved will be in Heaven with their resurrected bodies as well.

How could he see anything if God had covered his face? Especially, how could he see God’s “back parts” if God was in the form of a man and had his hand covering Moses’ eyes? This does not mean what you think it means. Again, it is a literary device meaning that God had to hide His glory from Moses because it was too great, for him or for any other man to witness.

If we go back to Exodus 33, we see that it says that God says that He will cover Moses with His hand, then He will take away His hand, and Moses will see His back parts, but not His face. Your sentence “,** it is a literary device meaning that God had to hide His glory from Moses because it was too great, for him or for any other man to witness**.” doesn’t provide any conflict with LDS teaching, since we would agree that God had to hide His glory, hence why Moses could only see His “back parts”, and not His face. In addition, stating that God had to hide His glory seems to imply that His glory is something that is physical, which obviously conflicts with traditional belief.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is all about context…

Should there be another thread about what words mean?

Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the theophany at the baptism of Jesus at the River Jordan.

God named Himself I Am Who Am…this name so sacred Jews do not repeat it.

The universal Catechism, and St. Thomas’ Summa have separate books on God and most profound.

 

[Stephen168]

A being is anything that is. To be is to be a being.

What is the difference between person and being?

I would say it is the difference between a sheep and a human. The sheep is a being. A human is a person and a being.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveVH
I’ll ignore your last statement. As for the first, you know very well that we also believe in three persons. This is the perfect example of playing with words. You believe in three separate beings. We believe in ONE being in three persons. Big difference. Lets at least keep that straight.

What is the difference between person and being? What is the difference between saying that there are three different persons and three different beings?

Nothing. It boils down to proper usage of terminology to describe the Trinity and some people give the impression the three distinct persons of the Trinity are three gods.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is an additional meaning of Person as well…it is in Catechism…and I have St. Thomas’ Summa on God…but it is very heavy work to glean and then pull out keeping full picture in tact…I am starting my Christmas celebration now…

Blessings!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveVH
I’ll ignore your last statement. As for the first, you know very well that we also believe in three persons. This is the perfect example of playing with words. You believe in three separate beings. We believe in ONE being in three persons. Big difference. Lets at least keep that straight.

Nothing. It boils down to proper usage of terminology to describe the Trinity and some people give the impression the three distinct persons of the Trinity are three gods.

There is a distinction between the two terms - person and being.

Anything that exists is a being. A rock is a geological being. A homo-sapiens is a human being. A tree is a being. A dog is a canine being, etc, etc.

But the concept of personhood is separate from mere being. A classical definition is that a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. (Boethius) Every intellectual substance which is complete in itself, uncommunicable and existing for itself, is a person. Essential to the “person” in theological terms are intelligence and substantiality, wholeness in oneself and especially individuality. (Catholic Dictionary) From individuality flow such features of personhood as distinctiveness, incommunicability, and uniqueness. (Ibid.) Among human persons there are also elements of responsibility, and possession of distinctive rights. (Ibid.) [Throughout history, denial of a human being’s status as “person” has been the justification for slavery, genocide, and lesser degradations of the human person.] Personhood is an important theological understanding that defines our relationship to God, and to each other and separates us from the baser elements of nature.

We know that all human beings are persons [despite the actions of some throughout history]. Angels are also persons under this definition, although they lack physical substance (their substance is pure spirit).

So, because we know of beings that are zero persons (tree, rock, dog) and beings that are one person (human being, angels), we can grasp the concept of a being that is more than one person.

It is revealed to us by OT scripture that God is a single being. Yet, the NT reveals to us God in three separate persons (Father, Son, Spirit). Conceptually, therefore, it makes sense to conclude that God is one Being in three Persons. It is hard to actually imagine it, however, because in our present state such a Divine Being is beyond our experience.

The LDS fundamental mistake of describing the three persons of the Trinity as three separate beings is that it violates the scriptural imperative that there is One God. God is not a construct of three (or more) divine beings that are unified in thought purpose and action. God - who is one in being, but three distinct persons - is the harmonization of the OT and NT descriptions of the same God of Abraham.

From my understanding, the LDS faith really gets this wrong by positing the notion of multiple divine beings and, as such, other errors (such as eternal progression) have crept in. This fundamental error makes it ever more distinct from the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles. All of this is, of course, just my opinion after spending years studying the issue. I welcome any LDS response.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Nicea325]

There is a distinction between the two terms - person and being.

Anything that exists is a being. A rock is a geological being. A homo-sapiens is a human being. A tree is a being. A dog is a canine being, etc, etc.

But the concept of personhood is separate from mere being. A classical definition is that a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. (Boethius) Every intellectual substance which is complete in itself, uncommunicable and existing for itself, is a person. Essential to the “person” in theological terms are intelligence and substantiality, wholeness in oneself and especially individuality. (Catholic Dictionary) From individuality flow such features of personhood as distinctiveness, incommunicability, and uniqueness. (Ibid.) Among human persons there are also elements of responsibility, and possession of distinctive rights. (Ibid.) [Throughout history, denial of a human being’s status as “person” has been the justification for slavery, genocide, and lesser degradations of the human person.] Personhood is an important theological understanding that defines our relationship to God, and to each other and separates us from the baser elements of nature.

We know that all human beings are persons [despite the actions of some throughout history]. Angels are also persons under this definition, although they lack physical substance (their substance is pure spirit).

So, because we know of beings that are zero persons (tree, rock, dog) and beings that are one person (human being, angels), we can grasp the concept of a being that is more than one person.

It is revealed to us by OT scripture that God is a single being. Yet, the NT reveals to us God in three separate persons (Father, Son, Spirit). Conceptually, therefore, it makes sense to conclude that God is one Being in three Persons. It is hard to actually imagine it, however, because in our present state such a Divine Being is beyond our experience.

The LDS fundamental mistake of describing the three persons of the Trinity as three separate beings is that it violates the scriptural imperative that there is One God. God is not a construct of three (or more) divine beings that are unified in thought purpose and action. God - who is one in being, but three distinct persons - is the harmonization of the OT and NT descriptions of the same God of Abraham.

From my understanding, the LDS faith really gets this wrong by positing the notion of multiple divine beings and, as such, other errors (such as eternal progression) have crept in. This fundamental error makes it ever more distinct from the Catholic faith that comes to us from the Apostles. All of this is, of course, just my opinion after spending years studying the issue. I welcome any LDS response.

Peace,
Robert

Indeed many things are beings.

 

[SteveVH]

What is the difference between person and being? What is the difference between saying that there are three different persons and three different beings?

The difference is this. We believe that the three persons are one in being. That being is God. A more descriptive word may be essence, the divine nature. My favorite analogy is water. Water may exist as a liquid, a solid (ice) or a gas (vapor), each with a distinct character, but all consist of the same being or essence, that being water. Hope that helps. The main thing is that they do not operate independently of each other. Everything comes from the Father, through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. They are not three separate gods, but three persons in one God, the Holy Trinity.

I’m not sure about it being “in the universe”, but Heaven obviously must have some sort of physicality to it, since we all agree that Jesus Christ is bodily resurrected, and ascended to Heaven with His body, and that after the Resurrection, the saved will be in Heaven with their resurrected bodies as well.

“Resurrected bodies” is the key word here. Jesus has a glorified body and we will too. This is entirely different than our current physical body. The Catholic teaching is that heaven is more a state of being than anything else. It is living in the presence God and sharing in the divine life of the Trinity. We refer to it as the “Beatific Vision”. Since heaven exists in eternity, therefore necessarily outside of space and time, we do not believe it is just another place somewhere in the universe which is subject to space and time, but rather an entirely different existence.

Originally Posted by SteveVH
How could he see anything if God had covered his face? Especially, how could he see God’s “back parts” if God was in the form of a man and had his hand covering Moses’ eyes? This does not mean what you think it means. Again, it is a literary device meaning that God had to hide His glory from Moses because it was too great, for him or for any other man to witness.

If we go back to Exodus 33, we see that it says that God says that He will cover Moses with His hand, then He will take away His hand, and Moses will see His back parts, but not His face. Your sentence “,** it is a literary device meaning that God had to hide His glory from Moses because it was too great, for him or for any other man to witness**.” doesn’t provide any conflict with LDS teaching, since we would agree that God had to hide His glory, hence why Moses could only see His “back parts”, and not His face. In addition, stating that God had to hide His glory seems to imply that His glory is something that is physical, which obviously conflicts with traditional belief.

It is still a literary device and not a literal meaning. God could not show Himself completely to Moses or Moses would die. He did, however, allow Moses to experience Him in a lesser manner that none of us will probably ever understand. Earlier, scripture tells us that God spoke to Moses “face to face”, yet we know that it cannot be taken literally because God subsequently informs Moses that anyone who sees God’s face will die. It must be looked at in the context of the entire book, at least in the context of the entire chapter.

 

[Javl]

What is the difference between person and being? What is the difference between saying that there are three different persons and three different beings?

A person is a individual separate and apart from any other. A being is an entity that is of one or more individuals ( persons ). This is basically the Christian theological definition.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[KathleenGee]

Robert in SD,

Thanks…also to others here in supporting follow-up comments. Christmas busiest time for mothers…and for the others…

Mormonism does a very thorough job of replacing the almost 2,000 year old history of apostolic Christianity that draws from ancient Salvation History. It seems like all these differences keep popping up…

My father studied in the seminary for several years…and discerned he did not have a calling to the priesthood…but he had always studied religion and ecumenism. He told me his impression of Mormonism draws around the concept of ‘fruit of one’s loins’…and the great exaltation of purpose and function of marriage and procreation, as well as its rejection of the celibate priesthood and its non-recognition of consecrated virgins.

Many young women in ancient Christian times refused to marry and live only for Christ. All this is attributed to the spirituality of the Eucharist. It is also implied by later Church Fathers that the Apostles most likely lived more celibate lives considering the demands of establishing the Church and evangelizing, persecutions, apostles going out into different directions, and the constant issue of early gathering abuses and misunderstandings, heresies and apostates, as well as the relationship with their fellow Jews, and Roman Empire.

Hermeneutics…gives light to the mysteries of the Old Testament found fulfilled in Christ…and the Hebrew Catholics are pointing out symbolisms of the OT that are point to the Church. The Hebrew Catholics are those who are Catholic but also Jewish. They say they now experience their Judaism within Catholicism than without it!

www.salvationisfromthejews.com is a fascinating site!

 

[ParkerD]

There is a distinction between the two terms - person and being…

It is revealed to us by OT scripture that God is a single being. Yet, the NT reveals to us God in three separate persons (Father, Son, Spirit). Conceptually, therefore, it makes sense to conclude that God is one Being in three Persons. It is hard to actually imagine it, however, because in our present state such a Divine Being is beyond our experience.

The LDS fundamental mistake of describing the three persons of the Trinity as three separate beings is that it violates the scriptural imperative that there is One God. God is not a construct of three (or more) divine beings that are unified in thought purpose and action. God - who is one in being, but three distinct persons - is the harmonization of the OT and NT descriptions of the same God of Abraham.

… All of this is, of course, just my opinion after spending years studying the issue. I welcome any LDS response.

Peace,
Robert

Robert in SD,

Peace to you also. I suppose that with your study you have carefully looked at the Old Testament verses that provide the scriptural proof that “God is a single being”? (You might look at them again, using the KJV translation, and compare with all the Savior’s teachings that He is the Promised Messiah, the Savior, the Christ spoken of in the Old Testament, and how the Jewish scholars rejected Him because they could not accept that He could be their Jehovah, their God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–yet He was in very Person, standing in front of them teaching them. When He re-taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus, He pointed out all the scriptures that were promises of His coming and of His mission and resurrection.)

Since Christ prayed in His great Intercessory prayer that “we” could become “one with Them”, then what I honestly don’t understand is why someone cannot comprehend the possibility that the New Testament could be providing greater insight about God, about His Beloved Son, and about the Holy Ghost than the Old Testament provided–particularly since the Jews had the writings that became the Old Testament and yet rejected the very Christ who was their One God, their One Savior?

It can be easily surmised that Pharisees converts and other Jewish converts prevailed with their insistence that there needed to be “One Being” to match their teachings from the mouths of their rabbis, even as they finally accepted Christ as their promised Savior. This insistence departs from the teaching that is clear and unmistakeable in the Savior’s Intercessory prayer, since we mortals become included in the loving embrace of being “one” with Them if we choose to live up to that promise of becoming “one”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD,

Peace to you also. I suppose that with your study you have carefully looked at the Old Testament verses that provide the scriptural proof that “God is a single being”? (You might look at them again, using the KJV translation, and compare with all the Savior’s teachings that He is the Promised Messiah, the Savior, the Christ spoken of in the Old Testament, and how the Jewish scholars rejected Him because they could not accept that He could be their Jehovah, their God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–yet He was in very Person, standing in front of them teaching them. When He re-taught the disciples on the road to Emmaus, He pointed out all the scriptures that were promises of His coming and of His mission and resurrection.)

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I’m not denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Just the opposite, in fact. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the triune godhead. He is the One God just as much as the Father and the Holy Spirit are each the One God. My point is that they are one in being, but separate Persons.

ParkerD:

Since Christ prayed in His great Intercessory prayer that “we” could become “one with Them”, then what I honestly don’t understand is why someone cannot comprehend the possibility that the New Testament could be providing greater insight about God, about His Beloved Son, and about the Holy Ghost than the Old Testament provided–particularly since the Jews had the writings that became the Old Testament and yet rejected the very Christ who was their One God, their One Savior?

Again, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. If one looks as the OT and NT, it appears that one of the major emphases of the OT is to teach that there is One God, especially given all of the prohibitions and penalties associated with idolatry. Once the Jewish people seemed to accept that, then Jesus came and revealed, among other things, the triune nature of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I don’t see how one can review the NT and not see references to the Divine Being with respect to three separate personages - Father, Son, and Spirit - which is not the case in the OT.

ParkerD:

It can be easily surmised that Pharisees converts and other Jewish converts prevailed with their insistence that there needed to be “One Being” to match their teachings from the mouths of their rabbis, even as they finally accepted Christ as their promised Savior. This insistence departs from the teaching that is clear and unmistakeable in the Savior’s Intercessory prayer, since we mortals become included in the loving embrace of being “one” with Them if we choose to live up to that promise of becoming “one”.

You seem to be infering a great deal that is not explicit in scripture here. In John 17, Christ is praying: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” (Jn 17:22-23) This does not speak of any human person becoming a separate divine being as some sort of reward for a good life or temple ordinances. Rather, the passage speaks of all who were called to Christ to become one through Christ’s presence in them, and through Christ the Father is also present. The Gospel’s author seems to be speaking of the presence of the Holy Spirit in those chosen by Jesus Christ, the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and is also one-in-being with each of the other Persons of the Trinity. This seems entirely consistent with what I posted above - we are the followers of One God in three (and only three) persons. I do not see how the passage supports the conclusion that somehow each of us will shake off our human natures and become separate divine persons. It is much more consistent to say that our unique human personhood will receive the glory of which Christ is speaking (but that glory is not individual divinity). I would not, based on this description, start looking for my own private Kolob.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ParkerD]

… I would not, based on this description, start looking for my own private Kolob.

Peace,
Robert

Robert in SD,

I see that it’s either just not something you want to really consider by looking at the Old Testament passages and looking at the exact words of the Intercessory prayer without any embellishment, or that you don’t want to “go there”.

That’s fine–I assure you I certainly am not “looking for my own private Kolob”–nor was Abraham when he saw the vision including the plan presented by the Father and endorsed by the Son and brought about by Him through His loving atonement for all of us–even those who follow the Jewish traditions about there being “One Being” and only “One Being” as the Godhead.

It is not idolatry to say that the Intercessory prayer was literal, and that Christ is truly the Son of God, Jehovah come to earth as God with us, and that He taught that the Holy Ghost would be sent to be the Comforter with us also.

By the way, Abraham was indeed looking for “a better country, that is, an heavenly: …for he hath prepared for them a city.” Even the “city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:16, 10)

 

[PJM]

=soren1;6860360]On the new mormon.org, there is a timeline indicating the major dates in Church history, which puts the Great Apostasy right at the death of the Apostles around 70 a.d. While that has been the dominant opinion among Mormons for a long time, this is the first time I know of that a strictly Church-controlled media has been that specific. The text reads:

Because of intense persecution, the Apostles were all martyred except for John, who was taken away by the Lord. The churches were left without the leadership of the apostles and this authority to govern His church and conduct needed ordinances were lost. This “falling away” as prophesied by Paul to the Thessalonian saints (2 Thes 2:3) is called the Great Apostasy.

They surely don’t mean 70 a.d. as a strict date, but they have clearly gone with the view that no successors followed the original Apostles. The persecutors of the early Church won.

Has anyone but me actually read there monthly passouts. Absoutly ??? [can’t used the word I had here.] Filled with either a complete lack of understanding or something POSSIBLY more synster. It is clear that they have targeted our Catholic church.

What do they provide as far as historical evidence of there claims? Just there word for it? Were they there or was a Mormon represenative there? NOPE!

St. Justin Martyr in **155 AD **wrote a letter explaining the already well establised practice of a MASS, that is remarkably similar to out Novus Ordo Mass of today… CCC #1345

History itself provieds an abundence of the Ealry Fathers Teachings, not to mntion that we are on Pope # 265… in a consecutive and Contineous line of leadership.

Further it ignores at last thre bible passages I can think of without opening my bible.

Matt. 28:19-20, John 14:16-17 and John 17: 14-19… as well as ignoring the 72 additional leaders Christ appointed, and Paul and Matthesis.

Since I have actually taken time to review thre publications I am GREATLY disapointed in ther lack of candor and honesty. And Yes I have responed in charity and TRUTH to it.

Here is the bible verse in a fuller context that they use: 2 Tess.2:1-3" [1] Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, [2] not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. [3] Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition"

This say’s not a word about what they claim… I caution all to take with GRAINS of salt, there unusua and unsupportedl opinions. If challannged we ought to just ask them to PROVE IT.

They sure need our prayers and THE TRUTH!

God Bless,
Pat

 

[flyonthewall]

I agree with Nicea325 about your misunderstanding of “eternal”. But I will answer your questions in the hope that you may try to understand.

1. It is true that there is nothing in scripture about Lucifer and his horde’s rebellion, But the Apostles taught it and it is mentioned in the Epistles in the Bible. Therefore we know that it happened and that it most likley was before the creation of man. Lucifer, or Satan, is an angel and therefore is a created being. He, along with all the angels were created during the creation just before man.
2. When we die we no longer continue in our physical existence but continue in a spiritual one. Our soul, which Christians believe was created by God at the time of conception, returns to God. He is the Creator and therefore is its judge, He determines its destination and fulfillment of its existence. The ultimate for the soul is the Beatific Vision and worship of God. This we believe is the reason for its existence. The soul is immortal, God alone is eternal.
3. As for the need of a body, only God in His infinite wisdom determined that. Many have tried to answer but with no results. We will find out when we meet Him.

So you have no idea why the resurrection is important? Only that God determined it? Kinda like nailing down a definition of “eternal”.
I will throw this question out there concerning “eternal”…Can you obtain eternal life? Can someone be subject to eternal damnation?
Scriptures say both these are possible for us…but how can that be if we are not eternal? If eternal means without beginning or end, then eternal life is not possible for us, and neither is eternal damnation.

 

[Cruxis117]

So you have no idea why the resurrection is important? Only that God determined it? Kinda like nailing down a definition of “eternal”.
I will throw this question out there concerning “eternal”…Can you obtain eternal life? Can someone be subject to eternal damnation?
Scriptures say both these are possible for us…but how can that be if we are not eternal? If eternal means without beginning or end, then eternal life is not possible for us, and neither is eternal damnation.

As you have rightfully noticed, Scripture disagrees with your opinion. For:

Mark 10:27
"27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With human beings this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

We need God in order to have eternal life, this is a necessity. And in reference to "nailing down a definition to the word eternal, this link should help:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal

To gain eternal life by ourselves is impossible, this is true. However, with God all things are possible. For God is an eternal being, who does have no beginning and no end, as stated in Isaiah 43:10-12:

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no savior.
12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—
I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “that I am God.

And in this sure conviction, we know that all things are possible with God, and that we are able to, with his grace and with our actions (as stated in Romans 2:6-7) are able to reach eternal life, or recieve eternal damnation.

 

[KathleenGee]

Revelation of God was completed with the death of the last apostle…

God was now fully revealed with John’s death…there was to be no more revelations about God and Who He Is…

The next movement was now Christ’s Bride…in union and guided by the Holy Spirit…Who Christ promised would teach us many things after Christ’s Ascension into heaven.

Our greatest feastday in the Catholic Church is ordinary, weekly Resurrection Sunday.

For us mortals, the word is ‘perpetual’…eternal is that which reflects the Lord, “I Am Who Am”.

(waiting for the boys to complete Christmas dinner…they are all here tonight)…

 

[flyonthewall]

I’ll ignore your last statement. As for the first, you know very well that we also believe in three persons. This is the perfect example of playing with words. You believe in three separate beings. We believe in ONE being in three persons. Big difference. Lets at least keep that straight.

Instead of ignoring it, why don’t you clarify what you meant? The way you phrased your response, that is the image that entered my mind.

I think the word “being” has been used differently than it’s common usage. I am a being. My dog is a being. My cat is a being. A being is simply a life form. Each person or living entity is a separate being. Thus, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each a separate being from the other, united in function and purpose.

Yes. You act as if this is a justice issue. Its not. The laws of physics are a good thing, but why would God subject Himself to the laws of physics? We require them in order to live. He does not. This is not like “the Govenor is not above the law”. You need to imagine a God that is so high above your ability to conceive that any human attempt to describe Him can only diminish the truth of His glory and majesty. His ways are not our ways. God does not need us nor anything that He has created. He existed before anything that has existed, therefore it would not make sense for Him to subject himself to something he has created. He has done it out of love, to show forth His glory. I guess what I am saying is that He is greater than that. He is greater than some being that is subject to the same physical laws to which his creation is subject.

So if I am understanding you correctly, God is not bound by rules or laws. Does that mean God is not bound by Justice? If He is not bound by justice, then He cannot be just, which would contradict scripture about Him.
God is only as good as His word. If God is not even bound by His own word, then that makes for a lot of contradictions. God is Holy, but not bound by Holiness. God is righteous, but not bound by righteousness. God is Love, but is not bound by Love.

Where did He say that He would subject Himself to the laws of nature?

Where did He say He would not?

Are you saying that heaven is a physical place somewhere way out there in the universe?

Heaven can be a place or a state of mind.

That is exactly what I and a lot of others have been trying to discern. What is your comprehension of eternity? It seems that you always have to qualify the term “eternity”. It is from a perspective, or a degree of comprehension. Maybe we could just define it so that we at least understand each other.

Well, if we go by your definition, without beginning or end, then it is not used consistently in the scriptures. As I pointed out before, we are promised eternal life or eternal damnation. Both are impossible for us by your definition. So, did God lie about eternal life and damnation? or maybe your definition is quite accurate.
Eternal can be relative. Eternal can be a description of “a long time”. Eternal can simply be beyond concrete understanding for us, but we use it anyway because there isn’t a better undertood term.
Numbers are said to be infinite. Infinite is another term that means without beginning or end. There are an infinite number of positive numbers and an infinite amount of negative numbers. Yet, there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but there is a definite beginning and end between 1 and 2.

I would define eternity as being outside of space and time. One who is eternal has always been and will always be. No beginning and no end. The Alpha and the Omega. History unfolds at once; no yesterday and no tomorrow. Can you give me your understanding of “eternity”?

Eternity simply means beyond my ability to see or comprehend, outside of my scope of vision.

You are free to say anything you wish to say, but it seems a little arbitrary. I would say that a candle is in the image and likeness of the sun. They are both “fire”. They both give off light. They both give some degree of warmth. Multiply that “image and likeness” an infinite number of times and we still would not match the glory of God. Being made in God’s image and likeness does not mean we are made equal in any way. Most of all it means we have the ability to love.

I am not saying we are equal, but that we look like God. God is perfected and exhalted, we are not.

It’s a literary device that conveys a truth deeper than the words. It means we shall know God as He truly is. It doesn’t mean we’ll have our face pressed up against His. “Face to face” means to be in His presence. To see God’s face was certain death.

How is it that God has a presence? If He has no body, and is everywhere, then we are continually in His “presence”, or He has no presence at all.

.

I can walk by someone and cover their eyes with my hand so that they only see my back.
The Glory of God, was seen by many in the Bible
Ex. 16:10, Lev. 9:23, Deut. 5:24, Ex. 24:17, Ex. 40:34
Your explaination does not fit. There were many that saw this “invisible” God, and His glory.