Trinity and Mormon godhead

[mfbukowski]

Original sin is as much as state as it is a sin. It manifests itself with a drifting away from God unless his Grace keeps us close to him. Jesus did not have original sin and would never drift from God

Not an issue, neither had it.

He was not tempted as we are. His temptations were external, not in his heart and mind. The Devil himself appeared and tempted him. WIthout original sin, his will was focused on God so that ONLY external forces would tempt him

No, he could not have sinned as to do so would have been contrary to his nature as God.

If he couldn’t sin and could only be tempted “externally” how is he fully God and fully man, and then how far did the incarnation go?

How can we relate to him as human if he did not undergo what we have to undergo?

Lastly, I think your position is not scriptural.

**Hebrews 4
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 2
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. **

 

[mfbukowski]

If he couldn’t sin and could only be tempted “externally” how is he fully God and fully man, and then how far did the incarnation go?

How can we relate to him as human if he did not undergo what we have to undergo?

Lastly, I think your position is not scriptural.

**Hebrews 4
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 2
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels**; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

And here is that pesky word “nature” again –

I don’t know - it is you guys who are into “faith and reason” but no one seems to want to “reason together”

 

[nebula]

All I am looking for are some definitions.

I’ve given you my definitions. I’d just be repeating myself, again.

 

[ronald_g_w]

Don’t let yourself be biased by an archaic translation (the KJV). It says that Jesus is “the express image of His [the Father’s] person”.

 

[mfbukowski]

PaulDupre;4296495:

Tell you what I’d rather rely on an archaic translation (the KJV). than later / more modern translations especialy when you claim that all revelation stoped with the Apostles as it will definately be closer to the real thing. Did you ever play the game as a child where you tell someone something and they pass it on and on and on till it comes back to you, man the truth is distorted.

A Thought. ?
If Jesus is God as you see things then you should have absolutly no complaint that he is the …“express image of his person”…has exactly the same body as they are one. “for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Another thought ?
Lets look at KJV first, this plays into the hands of mormon thinking

Philippians 2:5,6
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

I am saying from the perspective of becoming gods

The Holy Bible Catholic edition

5 have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.

Oposit to the KJV. What I read in the latter is that even Jesus did not put himself on an equal footing with the Father.

In both of the above scripture cases from what I am understanding Jesus is clearly seperating himself from the Father, Why would he do this if he was God in the full sence or could it be because he knew that he was a son, a God none the less as we all know.

It’s ironic that Catholics have no problem with God and the Son having “one being” but give them “one face” and they have problems. Pretty weird.

 

[PaulDupre]

ronald g w;4308706:

It’s ironic that Catholics have no problem with God and the Son having “one being” but give them “one face” and they have problems. Pretty weird.

Only weird when, like the Mormons, you can’t distinguish between “beings” and “persons”.

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4309215:

Only weird when, like the Mormons, you can’t distinguish between “beings” and “persons”.

Please define the difference for me. I could not understand Nebula’s definitions.

Are animals beings?

Insects?

Viruses?

Rocks? Someone said that once –

Chairs?

I think they said “anything that exists” or something close.

I am glad to take this issue on any time, because I don’t get it.

How can you have 2 persons and one being? While you’re at it, make it 3 persons. Can you have more persons with one being?

We can take these questions one at a time. I am in no hurry.

 

[RebeccaJ]

PaulDupre;4309487:

Please define the difference for me. I could not understand Nebula’s definitions.

Are animals beings?

Insects?

Viruses?

Rocks? Someone said that once –

Chairs?

I think they said “anything that exists” or something close.

I am glad to take this issue on any time, because I don’t get it.

How can you have 2 persons and one being? While you’re at it, make it 3 persons. Can you have more persons with one being?

We can take these questions one at a time. I am in no hurry.

All this is one question, what does it mean to be? So, what does it mean to say that you are a human being? How do you describe what it means to be mfbukowski?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

guys, guys, guys,

If I might chime in.

God is a being/entity NOT like anything or anyone. So right there, in attempting to describe God, we are going to have some problems. In 2,000, people have done their best to bring the TOTALLY incomprehensible God into the understanding of finite minds. So, we have language that has sought to describe God (a triune being) who is very unlike we humans (unitary beings).

So, we have, according to the Bible, this ONE being, who actually exists as three Persons (or centers of consciousness). These three centers of consciousness have identity, interact, and share the same divine essence (or in the Greek, “stuff”). They ARE the one God. In other words there is one “WHAT” and three “WHOS.”

The analogy I use is TIME. Time is a single entity/concept. However, it is something actually made up of three unified, yet distinct aspects, which all share the same essence – i.e. the essence of whatever time is.

We have past, present, and future. They all exist simultaneously. They all are distinct. And yet, they all are actually one in essence. They ARE time – collectively, as well as individually. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE God – collectively, as well as individually.

I hope this helps.

R. Abanes
evangelical

As for Mormonism, it chooses the plurality of God at the expense of God’s unity, and ends up with polytheism. This is done by radically re-interpreting (and erroneously, I might add), the passages that clearly point to the existence of only one TRUE God.

 

[PaulDupre]

Please define the difference for me. I could not understand Nebula’s definitions.

Are animals beings?

Insects?

Viruses??

Yes, because they are alive.

mfbukowski:

Rocks? Someone said that once –

Chairs?

No these are not alive, so they are mere objects.

How can you have 2 persons and one being? While you’re at it, make it 3 persons. Can you have more persons with one being?

a dog = 1 being, 0 persons

mfbukowski = 1 being, 1 person

God = 1 being, 3 persons

It is God’s nature to exist as a family of 3 persons. God is singular in this regard. God is the only one of His kind - there is only one God.

It is the nature of humans, as designed by God, to be a single person in a single being. God could have designed us to be two persons in one being if He had chosen to do so. But in His infinite wisdom, He decided to make us 1 to 1.

You are a person because, unlike your dog, you are made in the image and likeness (personhood) of God.

 

[nebula]

guys, guys, guys,

If I might chime in.

God is a being/entity NOT like anything or anyone. So right there, in attempting to describe God, we are going to have some problems. In 2,000, people have done their best to bring the TOTALLY incomprehensible God into the understanding of finite minds. So, we have language that has sought to describe God (a triune being) who is very unlike we humans (unitary beings).

So, we have, according to the Bible, this ONE being, who actually exists as three Persons (or centers of consciousness). These three centers of consciousness have identity, interact, and share the same divine essence (or in the Greek, “stuff”). They ARE the one God. In other words there is one “WHAT” and three “WHOS.”

The analogy I use is TIME. Time is a single entity/concept. However, it is something actually made up of three unified, yet distinct aspects, which all share the same essence – i.e. the essence of whatever time is.

We have past, present, and future. They all exist simultaneously. They all are distinct. And yet, they all are actually one in essence. They ARE time – collectively, as well as individually. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE God – collectively, as well as individually.

I hope this helps.

R. Abanes
evangelical

As for Mormonism, it chooses the plurality of God at the expense of God’s unity, and ends up with polytheism. This is done by radically re-interpreting (and erroneously, I might add), the passages that clearly point to the existence of only one TRUE God.

Richard,

Thanks for throwing in your two cents, I think it should help.

mf,

Re-Richard’s post do you get a better picture of being vs person? That is the what vs the who?

 

[ralphinal]

If he couldn’t sin and could only be tempted “externally” how is he fully God and fully man, and then how far did the incarnation go?

How can we relate to him as human if he did not undergo what we have to undergo?

Lastly, I think your position is not scriptural.

**Hebrews 4
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 2
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. **

According to Scripture, the enemies of the soul are the flesh, the world, and the devil. We know (at least it seems clear) that the flesh did not temp Jesus. He had no impure thoughts and did not engage in sexual activity with anyone. He was unmarried, so sex was off limits. The world cannot temp He who rules the universe, so there are two. The last, the Devil, is only present outside of Jesus.

He was tempted, Scripture shows that. It never says that he thought impure thoughts, doubted God, or any of those internal ones. It shows where the Devil HIMSELF tempted him.

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4310093:

All this is one question, what does it mean to be

? So, what does it mean to say that you are a human being? How do you describe what it means to be mfbukowski?

Gorsh, I don’t know. I’m a guy. We don’t talk about stuff like that.



Seriously, who ever talks about that? Obviously, it’s a long story.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ;4310560:

Gorsh, I don’t know. I’m a guy. We don’t talk about stuff like that.



Seriously, who ever talks about that? Obviously, it’s a long story.

There are philosophies that didn’t originate in the west. Men and women alike have not only studied them, but millions of people base their entire beliefs on them. (It’s ok to broaden your horizons, no one will think you’re a sissy.)

You seem to have moved into a “zone” lately where your response is to many things, ridicule. (“yeah I could consider that if I were stupid enough! yuk yuk”) Perhaps it is time for a break.

 

[mfbukowski]

guys, guys, guys,

If I might chime in.

God is a being/entity NOT like anything or anyone. So right there, in attempting to describe God, we are going to have some problems. In 2,000, people have done their best to bring the TOTALLY incomprehensible God into the understanding of finite minds. So, we have language that has sought to describe God (a triune being) who is very unlike we humans (unitary beings).

So, we have, according to the Bible, this ONE being, who actually exists as three Persons (or centers of consciousness). These three centers of consciousness have identity, interact, and share the same divine essence (or in the Greek, “stuff”). They ARE the one God. In other words there is one “WHAT” and three “WHOS.”

The analogy I use is TIME. Time is a single entity/concept. However, it is something actually made up of three unified, yet distinct aspects, which all share the same essence – i.e. the essence of whatever time is.

We have past, present, and future. They all exist simultaneously. They all are distinct. And yet, they all are actually one in essence. They ARE time – collectively, as well as individually. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE God – collectively, as well as individually.

I hope this helps.

R. Abanes
evangelical

As for Mormonism, it chooses the plurality of God at the expense of God’s unity, and ends up with polytheism. This is done by radically re-interpreting (and erroneously, I might add), the passages that clearly point to the existence of only one TRUE God.

Oh yeah. Perfectly clear. The past and future exist simultaneously. Thanks for that one. Silly me, I thought the past was past and the future was the future.

And don’t try to tell me what I believe or don’t believe

 

[mfbukowski]

Richard,

Thanks for throwing in your two cents, I think it should help.

mf,

Re-Richard’s post do you get a better picture of being vs person? That is the what vs the who?

I have a real problem with “what” or “who” being used as nouns. They are not.

I will now retreat to my where. See you when! But my how might get in the way.

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4315604:

There are philosophies that didn’t originate in the west. Men and women alike have not only studied them, but millions of people base their entire beliefs on them. (It’s ok to broaden your horizons, no one will think you’re a sissy.)

You seem to have moved into a “zone” lately where your response is to many things, ridicule. (“yeah I could consider that if I were stupid enough! yuk yuk”) Perhaps it is time for a break.

Well maybe you are right. Be my guest.

I am just tired of having my religion criticized by people holding positions that are incomprehensible who cannot explain themselves because they don’t understand the implicaitons of their own positions.

I need to be more charitable, and I thank you for pointing that out, as has lacer, who is clearly LDS.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ;4315621:

Well maybe you are right. Be my guest.

I am just tired of having my religion criticized by people holding positions that are incomprehensible who cannot explain themselves because they don’t understand the implicaitons of their own positions.

I need to be more charitable, and I thank you for pointing that out, as has lacer, who is clearly LDS.

People understand their own positions, they just happen to not agree with yours.

And yeah, I take quasi-breaks, where I read and respond only where I think I can do so without being grumpy.

 

[nebula]

I have a real problem with “what” or “who” being used as nouns. They are not.

I will now retreat to my where. See you when! But my how might get in the way.

mf,

Why are you trying to take things so literally? I get the feeling that you have no desire to understand or that you’ve decided the whole thing is nonsense and therefore cannot make sense at all. Trinitarians aren’t the only ones who have to struggle with the concept of personhood you know-- anyone who is alive does.

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes, because they are alive.

No these are not alive, so they are mere objects.

a dog = 1 being, 0 persons

mfbukowski = 1 being, 1 person

God = 1 being, 3 persons

It is God’s nature to exist as a family of 3 persons. God is singular in this regard. God is the only one of His kind - there is only one God.

It is the nature of humans, as designed by God, to be a single person in a single being. God could have designed us to be two persons in one being if He had chosen to do so. But in His infinite wisdom, He decided to make us 1 to 1.

You are a person because, unlike your dog, you are made in the image and likeness (personhood) of God.

Thanks Paul. I think this moves it forward. I have always liked your “family” description. Of course, I feel that your position is more Mormon than Catholic, so I am not surprised.

But a “being” is not a “family”. I don’t think anyone would say that “beingness = familyness” or that “beingness = aliveness”

I think it just cannot be made clear. And I think that because it cannot be made clear, the trinity is false doctrine.

As I have said before, it is like saying that because we can ask the question “what color is virtue” we think that there is an answer. There is no answer to that question, because virtue does not have a color. There is no such thing as “whatness” or “who-ness” even though we can make up the words.

I think my point is that there is neoplatonic philosophy just totally impregnating your whole use of language. Because there are persons you believe that there is some quality of “person-ness”
or because we have a verb “to be” that existence itself has a quality of “being”

I don’t buy Platonism, neo or otherwise. I think christians should have no business thinking that way. I think that modern logic has totally destroyed that whole way of thinking, so moderns have no business thinking that way.

Next time you get sick, would you go and get bled, or go to have your humors adjusted?

So Paul if we are to go down that road, are apes made in the likeness of God?

If God does not have a body, and is only a spirit, how do we know what his image or “person-ness” consists in? Two arms, legs, head and body? Apes have those.