- Status
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Elder Holland, as is SOP for Mormons, misrepresents historic Christian teaching on the Trinity. I havenāt the time to spell them all out now, but hereās one glaring error:
When will Mormon leaders stop lying to their people?
Paul
Christians do not believe that Jesus (God the Son) is āwithout body, parts or passionsā. Jesus is fully God and fully Man, with a resurrected, glorified physical body. As a man, He definitely has body, parts and passions.
When will Mormon leaders stop lying to their people?
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
has the Son always existed as Jesus?
Like is the name āJesusā eternal? And has the Son always possessed a human body?
Like is the name āJesusā eternal? And has the Son always possessed a human body?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Yes!
Yes!āmeaning a body in the human form. He has not always possessed body of flesh and bone. He acquired after His incarnation. But He has always had a spirit body in the human form.
zerinus
D
dosdog
Guest
How can I make it look like I believe the same way you do and fail miserably - Milk before Meat
PS READ MY BLOG
moronismusings.blogspot.com/
PS READ MY BLOG
moronismusings.blogspot.com/
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I quoted him directly. What do you think he said?
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
You did not. You quoted out of context, and you omitted a lot of stuff in the middle. What do you think, people are stupid? You donāt seem to have a lot of respect for the intelligence of your fellow Catholics. I donāt think they will be very pleased if you keep treating them like they were idiots.
zerinus
P
PaulDupre
Guest
They can go read the quote in its entirety and see that I took nothing out of context. You are just embarrased by the continually heretical pronouncements of your divinely inspired General Authorities. Face it - the LDS Church does not represent your beliefs.
And you didnāt answer my question - what do you think he said? Please correct me if my reading was inaccurate.
Paul
And you didnāt answer my question - what do you think he said? Please correct me if my reading was inaccurate.
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
He said what he said, which is not what you made out he said. Anyone can read it for themselves, and find out what he said.
zerinus
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Not to mention that he takes things entirely out of context. St. Serapion is the monk who wrote:
āWoe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.ā
Holland fails to inform his audience of just who this monk was, or the circumstances surrounding his utterance. For the fourth century monk was the heretic Serapion, and the reason why he cried out was that he discovered that the āAnthropomorphiteā god that he had been worshiping turned out to be a false god.
When Serapion is confronted with the error of his thinking, according the Early Church Father, John Cassian, Serapion āwas drawn to the faith of the Catholic tradition.ā During a prayer of thanksgiving Serapion was so emotionally overcome that āhe burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groaningsā his woeful statement. Therefore, a little context always helps to understand just what is going on, rather than a mere emotional special pleading, and misleading people into thinking something that is contrary to fact.
B
bogeydogg
Guest
OK I grew up in the Mormon Church and reached the level of high priest (not as exciting as it sounds I was 14).
What the elder is denying when he says āOur first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is āWe believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.ā2 We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.ā is the idea of homoousious being, or that Christ, the Father and the Spirit are consubstantial or of the same substance.
The Nicene Creed puts it this way
that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father.
On the same grounds we admitted also the expression ābegotten, not madeā: āfor made,ā said they, āis a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance. Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.ā
That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.
Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture contains the expressions, āof things which do not exist,ā and āthere was a time when he was not,ā and such other phrases as are therein subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable to utter and teach them: and moreover this decision received our sanction the rather from the consideration that we have never heretofore been accustomed to employ these terms.
The creed affirms, which BTW Alister E. McGrath at Oxford University noted that, āonly when the divinity of Christ could be treated as an agreed and assured starting point could theological speculation on the nature of God begin.ā, that Christ is Divine, not made, co-eternal and of the same substance as God without Godās (the Father) substance being altered.
In other words. The Bishops convened to discuss the teachings of Arius, which the Mormon and JW churches have adopted more or less, which essentially said that Jesus was divine but had become so and was not eternaly God. The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus was the Archangel Michael in the āpre-existsenceā and that He only became God when He assumed the mantel by perfect obedience to the Father. This teaching is also vaguley flavored by the later teachings of Pelagius whom Augustine swept aside. The LDS Church absolutely denies the co-eternal nature of the Christ and in doing so steps away from a doctrine which was established and agreed upon before Nicea in 325. In fact this question began when John wrote āand God was the Wordā in John 1:1.
Because the LDS Church denies the co-eternal, consubstantiality of Christ with the Father they also, de facto, deny His Godhead and by extention His Divinity. The Nicene Fathers knew Arius had done this which is why the pronounced anathema to him. The LDS church is no different.
Do not be decieved.
What the elder is denying when he says āOur first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is āWe believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.ā2 We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.ā is the idea of homoousious being, or that Christ, the Father and the Spirit are consubstantial or of the same substance.
The Nicene Creed puts it this way
that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father.
On the same grounds we admitted also the expression ābegotten, not madeā: āfor made,ā said they, āis a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance. Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature.ā
That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father.
Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture contains the expressions, āof things which do not exist,ā and āthere was a time when he was not,ā and such other phrases as are therein subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable to utter and teach them: and moreover this decision received our sanction the rather from the consideration that we have never heretofore been accustomed to employ these terms.
The creed affirms, which BTW Alister E. McGrath at Oxford University noted that, āonly when the divinity of Christ could be treated as an agreed and assured starting point could theological speculation on the nature of God begin.ā, that Christ is Divine, not made, co-eternal and of the same substance as God without Godās (the Father) substance being altered.
In other words. The Bishops convened to discuss the teachings of Arius, which the Mormon and JW churches have adopted more or less, which essentially said that Jesus was divine but had become so and was not eternaly God. The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus was the Archangel Michael in the āpre-existsenceā and that He only became God when He assumed the mantel by perfect obedience to the Father. This teaching is also vaguley flavored by the later teachings of Pelagius whom Augustine swept aside. The LDS Church absolutely denies the co-eternal nature of the Christ and in doing so steps away from a doctrine which was established and agreed upon before Nicea in 325. In fact this question began when John wrote āand God was the Wordā in John 1:1.
Because the LDS Church denies the co-eternal, consubstantiality of Christ with the Father they also, de facto, deny His Godhead and by extention His Divinity. The Nicene Fathers knew Arius had done this which is why the pronounced anathema to him. The LDS church is no different.
Do not be decieved.
D
Dauphin
Guest
L
lukewarm
Guest
He quoted word for word from the text. a āā¦ā insinuates words come after it. Again what was wrong with Paulās rendering of the text you provided?
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Wow, canāt argue with thatā¦PaulDupre:
He said what he said, which is not what you made out he said. Anyone can read it for themselves, and find out what he said.
zerinus
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
This is what Paul said he said:
āthe Council of Nicaeaā¦declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passionsā¦ā
This is what Elder Holland had actually said:
āthe Council of Nicaea to addressāamong other thingsāthe growing issue of Godās alleged ātrinity in unity.ā What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creedsāand others to come over the centuriesādeclared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passionsā¦ā
Did you manage to get your head round it this time?
zerinus
PS: Okay, perhaps I got it wrong. Maybe his āfellow Catholicsā are not always as intelligent as I had thought. We can always hope against hope, canāt we.
D
dosdog
Guest
How can I make it look like I believe the same way you do and fail miserably - Milk before Meat
PS READ MY BLOG
moronismusings.blogspot.com/
H
Hellisreal
Guest
I fail to see how Paul did anything but relay the manās statements in context.
Could you be more specific Zerinius, rather than to attack my brother in Christ?
Could you be more specific Zerinius, rather than to attack my brother in Christ?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Okay, look back; I have spelled it out in black and white for you this time (or red and blue I should say). See if that makes more sense to you.
zerinus
H
Hellisreal
Guest
- Status