This seemed like a relevant post given the recent discussion on Jehovah.
[swf]http://www.youtube.com/v/bGgCHRpHLNM&hl=en&fs=1&fmt=18,480,295[/swf]
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
I have gone through the first 10 minutes of this video.
I am wondering why this gentleman fails to explain why the Nicean creed has the word “and” after each member of the Godhead. This is screaming for at least some comment or glancing explanation, but nothing! Is that word insignificant? If it is not significant doesn’t it warrant some explanation? Doesn’t it’s very presence indicate they are different beings? If I thought Aaron, Sharon, and Falcon were the same being I would say I believe in Aaron, aka Sharon, or Falcon.
Next he jumps into this sovereignty issue saying that the Mormon God does not have juristiction over the whole universe. This is not our doctrine. We believe He is Lord of all the Universe. He should at least say they believe he has all power, knowledge, etc. but that doesn’t make sense. Instead, he misstates the doctrine from the get-go. How do I take him seriously now?
Nevertheless, If God promises us “all that the Father hath” Rev 21:7 does that make Him anything less than His is (like He gave up some of the pie)? One would have to say that He doesn’t really intend to do that (deny the scriptures) or that God must intend to divide up the power( becoming less of a God). If He did inherit the universe and all power therein from another God, does that make him any less powerful or sovereign? If I master the principles of Physics does that steal knowledge from my professor and thus strip him of his title?
I may watch the rest later, but so far this guy is not scoring any points for me
DoF,
Trinitarians have always believed that the Divine Three are three interrelated persons who have eternally been in perfect, intimate, passionate fellowship. In fact, part of the reason we say they are one being, one God, one essence, is that they are essentially and necessarily in full relationship with each other. Mormonism has held to the position that the Godhead consists of three who are in a non-essential, accidental unity (and I’m using the term “accidental” in the philosophical sense). In other words, their very existence hasn’t been always dependent on being in a divine unity with the others in the Godhead.
This seems like an issue of semantics. I assume Huggins is using the term universe to refer to absolutely everything that exists everywhere. The point is that the Mormon God is a local or tribal deity in the sense that he is one among potentially trillions of other gods that have their own particular dominion with worlds and spirit children, etc. But I think you already know that.
Why? Not all Mormons believe that. You’re referring to the Prattian position. The Brighamite position does not hold that God has absolutely all knowledge or power, as Brigham held that God eternally progressed in knowledge and power. See more on this here. That article also deals with the inheritance issue:
You should definitely watch the rest of the video. And can we please stay away from the language of “scoring points”? It sounds chesty.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
PS I encourage everyone to get a Gravatar so your mug doesn’t look like “Mr. Anonymous”. Sorry, I know some of you already did this with the IntenseDebate commenting system, but you’ll need to do it again.
Aaron,
Not trying to keep score, just making the point that is someone is going to use a creed to support a position then the creed, in its entirety, should be fair game. To me the word “and” is important here. Since I cannot ask him ?’s, I am hestitant to consider his position when he leaves something like that out.
Nevertheless.
I just don’t understand your definition of the Godhead. I can accept everything you said except that they are one BEING. I don’t see where the scriptures ever say that.
Huggins says that the early Christians believed the scriptures that said God created “all things”. That they believe the scriptures for what they say and don’t try to change the meaning like Mormons do. If that is the standard, then how did the early Christians, according to Huggins, view such verses as “Let US create man in OUR image” or “the man is become as one of US”? Isn’t this a double standard? Did the early Christians try to make that conform to a trinitarian view or just take it for what the scripture actually says?
I will look into your article a little more on the power issue. I know of noone in the LDS church that does not believe God has all power and all knowledge. If Brigham believed that God reached that station, how would that detract from the fact that He has it now?
Put simply, I agree with DoF. This man’s presentation skips important parts of this creed, in which LDS would take issue with.
Two disputes can be made in regards to the Nicene Creed:
1. “…that is from the substance of the Father…” and “…of one essence with the Father….” I noticed that this individual in the video does not even comment on this but asserts that 1 Corinthians 8:6 is parallel to the creed. We take issue with these statements. The Bible gives no reference to God and Jesus Christ being of one substance or essence.
2. This dispute revolves around the whole point of the Nicene Creed in the first place. Why would a group of people have the need to convene and come to an agreement about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in the first place? Surely these questions would have already been declared by the Apostles who walked and talked with the resurrected Savior in the first place. To convene together to talk about the basic building blocks is simple proof in and of itself that knowledge was lost.
DoF, if God has a father, and his father has a father, and on and on and on, where are those fathers now? Aren’t they all on individual planets still increasing in knowledge? If they’ve had more time to increase in knowledge than their descendents (namely God), than wouldn’t that make them more powerful than God? Or, if they’ve reached a certain level (I guess perfection in this case), wouldn’t that make them equivalent to God? If you are saying that God is all-powerful NOW, what happened to the other gods (his ancestors) on their respective planets? Did they just fade away into oblivion, leaving God as king of the hill? Or, let’s say you live a worthy life, and go to the CK, and gradually grow in knowledge until you reach perfection, and then you get your own planet to populate with spirit children from your numerous wives. So once you reach perfection, what happens to this God? It’s okay because you’ll have your own planets? Kind of a “you stay in your backyard, I”l stay in mine” kind of thing?
I know it sounds like I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not making fun of you. I’m serious, how does this kind of thing work? These are the kinds of questions I’ve been wondering ever since I found out Mormons believe God has a father, and the doctrine of humans becoming gods. Please don’t say that we can’t understand such things on earth, but we’ll find out in eternity.
Megan,
You are asking questions that God has simply not revealed. You mentioned time. I will not get into Relativity here, but eternity knows no time. That is something God has created to accomplish His purposes.
When the Lord says he has ALL knowledge. I believe that. He is not increasing in knowledge. He says he has ALL power and I believe that. I do believe His glory continues to increase which is why He has created this earth. Just because He has all power and all knowledge doesn’t mean that He doesn’t intend to give us the same Luke 12:44.
Your assumption is that if God has ALL power that noone else can possess the same. Splitting up the pie scenario. Would you say that since I am a master of Physics (which I am not) that no one else can possess the same knowledge and all the power that would come from that? If I give you all my knowledge does that make you more knowledgable or better than me, or somehow diminsh the knowledge that I now have because I gave it to you? Sound ludicrous?
God can give us all that He has and still retain everything, especially His power and knowledge.
FoF, God accepts no one as His equal. He HAS no equal, He never has, and He never will. He shares some of His power with us (yes, we are made in His image), but it is HIS image. Everything we possess or will possess in the future is what He deigns to share. We will never surpass Him, and there is no one who has ever or ever will surpass Him. You believe that God posseses all knowledge. Good. But you also believe that at one time He did not possess all knowledge, but was a weak, sinful person and that He progressed to His current state of perfection.
You say that God has not revealed these mysteries yet. But what about the mysteries He has chosen to reveal about Himself already, namely His claim to having always been God, and there being no other gods?
I have to go….but I hope to be on tomorrow. I would really like to get into all the Bible verses describing God’s unique nature and claim of being the sole God of the universe.
I still think that the Nicean creed was a failed attempt to migrate Christian theology towards a concept of God that was more socially acceptable in Greek culture. Once the real Christians were killed and the gift of prophecy destroyed, the true concept of God was next on the chopping block.
The extent of this change is illustrated by the Harvard Theological Review’s recent publication of a skillful article by BYU’s David Paulsen, which documents that “ordinary Christians for at least the first three centuries” after Christ believed that God had a body.
David L. Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 105.
It was 3 greek doctors who defined a new God for Christianity, and they claimed no gift of prophesy, just a commitment to greek philosophy. It took a true prophet WITH the gift of prophesy to bring the true concept of God back to the world. Every ancient document we can find dated prior to the Nicean creed continues to prove that point.
Megan,
You have mentioned as have others that we believe God was once a sinner. I don’t want to go off topic, but I cannot let that stand. We do not. There is absolutely no basis for that believe. Yes, we believe “As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.” But we believe He was like us only in the sense that Christ was “like us.” He had a mortal experience, but never sinned. Christ said he “did only those things which the Father did.” The doctrine is that Christ was like His Father, who too once had a perfect, sinless mortal experience.
Now back to your discussion!
Huggins point about Colossians.
He is definitely making a big point about God being the creator of ‘ALL” things. His point is that LDS minimize God’s status.
However, verse 15 states that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of ALL CREATION.
Wiki definitions: Birth is the ACT OR PROCESS of bearing or bringing forth OFFSPRING
Create: To put into existence To manufacture To design, invest with a new form, shape
If Jesus is God in every sense that Huggins is suggesting than that would make Him the CREATOR of ALL things, period, even before He himself (Jesus) was created. How can Jesus be the Firstborn of ALL creation and still be the Creation God that created ALL things? Jesus can be the Firstborn and the Creator of all things, just not by Huggins defintion.
FoF: Sorry, I wasn’t aware that Mormons believe God, while human, was never sinful. I am always glad to learn something new! But wait, I have a question: If human beings are sinful, how can Mormons hope to become gods with their own planets some day? Wouldn’t Mormons bound for the CK and subsequent godhood have to be sinless in this life? I realize that LDS do not believe in original sin, but even they have to admit that there is no human who is going to live a sinless life (apart from Christ, who was sinless because He was God in the flesh).
Megan
DOF,
Your citation of Col 1:15 is supported by Jesus.
In Rev 3:14 Jesus declares Himself to be “. . . the beginning of the creation of God.”
Megan,
I find it interesting that some TOC’s such as yourself have a problem with the Mormon belief that God (the Father) was born of a mortal woman, lived a mortal life, died and was resurrected, when you believe that the “One and only” God (in the personality of the Son) was born of a mortal woman, lived a mortal life, died and was resurrected.
Please explain to me what the difference is.
Megan and others:
Quite possibly, this is a case of
THE OLD GREAT GOD(S) JUST AIN’T WHAT THEY USED TO BE.
had to throw it in……..cause I’m sinful, no doubt.
Mr.GERMIT
MDavis,
That is exactly the point I wanted to make, but for some reason was unable to post yesterday.
I could only stand to listen for about 10 min. At that point it was obvious to me that the presenter wasn’t going to address the real disagreement that we LDS have with the creed.
A quick search for “essence” in the KJV found NO hits.
And although I did find numerous “substance”, not a single one of them was in the context of the relationship of the Father to the Son, but only in the context of something tangible (usually material wealth).
So I don’t see how the full Creed is supported by the Bible.
“…the Beginning of the creation of God…” (Revelation 3:14)
According to Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, the Greek word used here (arche) and translated “beginning” carries the meaning of “one who begins,” “origin,” “source,” or “first cause.” Recognizing that our word “architect” comes from this same Greek word also helps us understand that Jesus is the architect of all creation, not a product of it.
Regarding Colossians 1:15 and the statement that Jesus is the “firstborn,” Geisler and Rhodes say, “Firstborn does not carry the meaning ‘first created.’ In biblical times the word meant ‘first in rank’ or ‘preeminent.'” See Psalm 89:27 where Jesse’s last-born son, David, is called “firstborn” due to his preeminence as king.
Defender
When you write: Did the early Christians try to make that conform to a trinitarian view or just take it for what the scripture actually says? You know you’re creating a false dichotomy correct? You are saying that Genesis 1:26;3:22 cannot, in a very plain sense, be a Trinitarian passage, thus you’re assuming polytheism from the beginning.
As for Christ being the firstborn over all creation, you are engaging in the root word fallacy. According to your logic butterflies must be flies made out of butter. Firstborn can not only refer to a physical birth, but also first in eminence as seen with Jacob and Esau. Also if we follow this logic then we must say that Jesus created Himself which is absurd since he is created and all things were created by him and for him (v.16) Try not to fall into the group Peter warned about. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Lautensack
The simplest explanation of the Trinity I have read is as follows:
* Heavenly Father is God
* Jesus Christ is God
* The Holy Ghost is God
There is only one God.
That’s pretty short, but I think it helps to explain this.
What do the LDS people believe about this? I’ve found it varies quite a lot depending on the individual you are talking with. For instance, one person I know of believes that God is not all-knowing, and did not create everything. Evidently, this stems from the LDS god being neither self-existent nor unique. Pretty depressing. Yet I have no doubt that others of the LDS faith would be surprised by such assertions.
I seems to me that if one’s god is a glorified man, one is left with a very little god. A god that bears no resemblance to the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible.
Well said, Lautensack, and a similar mistake made by several surrounding Ps.82. How could Jesus POSSIBLY be referring to this group of judges as “gods” in the sense off Almighty deity when verse 7 clearly says
“Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes.”
the inability to take scripture AS A WHOLE, and in context, leads to all kinds of silliness: i.e.: Jesus suggesting that we , as men, are intended to grow up to be just like dear old Dad, Deity and all. The nature of men, AND God, get horribly garbled in our inability to rightly divide the Word.
I think these kinds of mistakes happen when someone holds to a view, and then looks to scripture to support it, instead of getting the meaning of scripture FIRST.
DOF:
I would say that your post contains at least two presuppositions:
ONE: we have the ability, or capability, to hold, have, or contain all of WHO GOD is, or we can GAIN that ability. In other words, if GOD wants to give us HIS divine attributes, we have the ability to take that gift in.
TWO: God has the desire (GOAL) of giving us all of Himself in a way that reproduces Himself in us. Perhaps put another way: God Himself wants to generate more gods/goddesses, that is HIS goal in having children.
would you care to comment on, and amend these two comments ???
I think if you look both Paulsen’s and Robinson’s theories have been contested as most of the references they use are in fact referring to the Incarnation of Christ not the Father having a human body.
What 3 Greek doctors defined a new God for Christianity? Think carefully before you answer.
Brian,
As you stated:
The simplest explanation of the Trinity I have read is as follows:
* Heavenly Father is God
* Jesus Christ is God
* The Holy Ghost is God
However, that is three not one. Most other religions (Islam, Hindu, Judaism etc.) look upon Christianity as definitely being polytheistic. This is an understandable conclusion given the Christian formulation of God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. It take considerable mental gymnastics to reconfigure the three personages as one being.
Only in the Hellenistic formulation of the Nicene Creed do we get such a complete illogical and self-contradictory description of God. It makes no sense – but that’s the beauty of it!
FoF: Okay, this will take many posts but I might as well get started. If the Bible taught these 2 facts, that 1. God is 3 persons, and 2. Each person is fully God, there would be no logical problem. (This would be the heresy Tritheism; 3 gods). However, the Bible is adamant that there is one God.
We can get into the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit too, later on. For now….
There is one God. The three persons of the Trinity are not only one in purpose and in agreement on what they think, but they are one in essence, one in their essential nature.
Deut. 6:4-5 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” This is the famous “shema”, meaning “hear”, emphasizing God’s unity. This passage states that there can only be one all-powerful, infinite, limitless and perfect God. Christians believe that God is a tri-unity, or Trinity–one being expressed in 3 persons. Jesus, the Son, is identified with Yahweh, (the LORD) God the Father, in both the OT and the NT.
Is. 45:5 “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.”
Is. 45:6 “…men may know there is none besides me, I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
Is. 45:18 “I am the LORD, and there is no other…..I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.”
Cont:
Is. 45:22-24 “…I am God, and there is no other. BY MYSELF I HAVE SWORN, my mouth has uttered in ALL INTEGRITY a word that WILL NOT BE REVOKED: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, “In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.”
Or what about this one, gods-in-training?
Is. 46:5 To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?”
Is. 46:9-10 “…I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is noone like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.”
Is. 40: 13-14 “Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor? Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?”
Is. 40:25 “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.”
Is. 40: 28 “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. ”
I know many of these verses say the same thing over, (namely, there is one God, and there is none like him), but I think it is important to see the wealth of verses that state these truths. God has testified over and over as to who He is in the Bible. More verses tomorrow!
SteveH,
Hellenistic? Prove it. Greek culture was so much a part of life in Palestine of the first century that everything was “influenced” by it. The NT was written in Greek.
The Old Roman Symbol (Creed) is essentially in the Nicene formula and dates from the 2nd century. Not the 4th century.
Tertullian wrote in Latin, not Greek, and was a Berber. He first used the term “Trinitas” not the Greek fathers. He did this in the 2nd Century not the 4th. Justin, Theophilus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Origen; second and third centuries. Each of them struggling with the complexity of how the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all God and the fact that there is only one God. Did these men use extra-biblical language? Yes. So what. Did these men er? Yes. So what. Did these men defend the Church from the heresies of their day? Yes. Thank God!
Your Church has chosen to ignore this mystery, your prophets tell of heretofore unknown gods and goddesses, of worlds and spirits, of rituals and signs. The Christian Church has chosen another path, we have embraced and trusted in God’s revealed Word.
Through all of Redemptive History God has chosen to Name Himself. First to bring about the Abrahamic Covenant he calls himself El Shaddai “God Almighty” Gen 17:1. Then to Moses bringing about the Covenant of the Law he reveals his name as ’Ehyeh “I am that I am” Ex 3:14. Now in the Covenant of Grace he tells us his name “Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” Matt 26:28.
“Listen, Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” (Deut 6:4) and his name is “Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:27).
You do as you wish, “But as for me and my house we will serve the LORD.”
And please when you do respond use more of David Paulsen’s or Kent Jackson’s work.
I can’t figure out why Mormons don’t just worship one of the higher gods in the Mormon pantheon of gods since the Mormon god is progressing just like all of the other gods. Why not go for the grandfather god? He’s further up the spiritual chain. Orson Pratt said that “in worshipping any one of these Gods, we worship the whole”.
The Mormon logic here is that they have to believe two different theories at the same time. First, they belive they are co-eternal with the rest of the gods. On the other hand, they believe they were born spiritually to the God Elohim and existed as spirit children in heaven before they came to earth to take on a body. So throughout the universe men are becoming gods, receiving dominion over their own planets and conceiving spirit children in heaven so they can send them to earth to be born in mortality and repeat the process.
See this stuff is clearly taught in the Bible…..oops…..the giant conspiracy left it all out along with plural wives, priesthood, free masonry temple rites, sacred undergarments and magic rocks that can be used to translate ancient writings when placed in the bottom of a hat…….that is when the magic rock isn’t being used to find Captain Kids treasure.
Sharon,
1) Implicit in your response is the admission that the Bible is insufficient to self interpret. Thanks!!!
2) Norman L. Geisler is a Christian apologist and Ron Rhodes has authored (banned phrase, hence forth referred to as “LDS hyper critic”) books. As I have come to understand from MRM, apologists can’t be trusted and as I have come to understand from interacting with them, “LDS hyper critics” can’t be trusted either.
3) The Greek word arche is used in;
Matt 19: 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mark 1:1 THE beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Philip 4:15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Heb 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
2 Pet 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Just to show a few. From the context of these verses it is clear that Geisler and Rhodes are biased and sloppy “scholars”.
4) “Firstborn” in Col 1:15 is translated from the Greek word “prOtotokos” which literally means “BEFORE-most-BROUGHT-FORTH”, which certainly expresses “preeminence” among a larger group (or set). One can NOT be preeminent among a group (or set) of one.
This is verified by Paul in Col 1:18 and Rom 8:29
5) I think it is obvious that Psalm 89:27 is referring to Jesus not David. And yes it is Jesus that is called “firstborn” due to His preeminence as King of kings and Lord of lords.
GB,
Apparently wordpress limits the amount of replies aloud to a specific post, however in your post on December 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm you wrote:
First no one is saying Christ is preeminent among a group of one. He is preeminent over creation as specific to Col1:15ff, though He is also preeminent over the church (Rom 8:29), the resurrection (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), and His second coming (Heb 1:6). Also you are still engaging in the root word fallacy, that is you are assuming that the word πρωτότοκος means of πρωτς + τἰκτω. This hermeneutic would require butterflies to be flies made of butter (it is neither) and the root of “nice” is the Latin word for “ignorant.” According to your hermeneutic all nice people must be ignorant? Clearly this isn’t the case. Also the theory that one must be in a group to have preeminence over it is just silly. The Vice president isn’t a senator but he does have preeminence over it.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
I am making no such assumption. I am merely using as my source the work of non-LDS Christian scholars, who have bent over backwards to keep bias out of their work.
Do you not trust unbiased non-LDS Christian scholars?
Just look at the definition of preeminent. It clearly implies the membership of a group (or set).
“having paramount rank” pretty much says it all. But hey, don’t let the real meaning of words deter you in your “hyper critical” mode. Other “hyper critics” don’t.
Merry Christmas.
And as the Apostle Paul would say “Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. “
It will come as no surprise to anyone here that my confidence level in LDS scholarship is about zero when it comes to translating Hebrew or Greek or any other language with the possible exception of Reformed Egyptian. And even when translating Reformed Egyptian it was necessary for that linguistic expert Joseph Smith to use a magic rock in a hat to get the job done. I don’t know if, like Frosty the Snowman’s hat, Joseph Smith’s hat had any magic properties, but I do know that just like our buddy Frosty, Mormon scholarship melts when the light and heat of real scholarship is turned on it.
The bottom line is that until Mormons can bring themselves to acknowledge that they are indeed polytheists, this discussion is going nowhere. I don’t care how many gods they worship. They can worship the whole lot or pick their favorite one, but anytime there is a claim that there is more than one god, the religion is polytheistic. Christianity and Judism from which it comes, are monotheistic religions. I challenge our Mormon friends (again) to go and find an orthodox Jewish rabbi and ask him about the nature of God, specifically how many Gods there are. For that matter go and ask a Muslim how many Gods there are or a Hindu. Joseph Smith took a little from column A and a little from column B and came up with a mish mash doctrine regarding the nature of God. It’s not what the Jews of the OT believed about God nor first century Christians. It’s not exaltation to godhood and a personalized planetary system that awaits our Mormon friends in the here after. God has demonstrated that He does not deal lightly with those that worship other gods.
GB, I disagree with your conclusion (Dec 17th comment above) about the scholarship of Giesler and Rhodes regarding the Greek word “arche.” Nevertheless, non “hyper critics” also grant that “origin” or “active cause” is (at times) a valid interpretation of “arche.” See Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
Folks here would know that my interest in interpreting anyone’s writings (including the Bible) is to try to discern what the author was thinking when he (or she) committed pen to paper (or parchment, or whatever).
I also believe in the principal of consistency; each Biblical author was consistent with himself and that the various Biblical authors formed a consensus on the nature and character of God. The trick, of course, is finding what that consensus was. However, some things are abundantly clear, for instance, there is only one God, he created all things, and it is this God that enters into a covenant relationship with Israel.
So, its rather surprising to me to hear how inconsistent Joseph Smith was with himself. It seems he starts with the monotheism of the Book of Mormon, and ends with the polytheism of the Book of Abraham.
My conclusion is that Joseph believed none of this. He adopted monotheism to start with in order to establish his credentials in a Christianized culture, and later adopted polytheism to prop up his increasingly convoluted theories about eternal progression.
The reason why Joseph declared all creeds an abonimation was that they stood against his ambition to rule the Church.
Laut,
My point has nothing to do with a polytheistic presupposition. Huggins is saying that Mormons are different than early Christians because “they took the scripture for what they say”. I am just playing the game. If he is saying that the early Christians were “literalist” then what did they think of the very first book of the Bible? If they take “all” to mean “everything that was ever created” in a literal sense, then on what basis can they interpret the Genesis account stating “us” in the “man has become one of US” or “let us created man in OUR image”. Huggins has now bound the early Christians into accepting those scriptures just as literal. He cannot now switch and say “oh that is just allegorical or symbolic of God preeminence”.
As far as your root word fallacy theory. Are you seriously telling me that God is using the term Firstborn to state His preeminence? How does that make any sense? Why would He use that term if it didn’t have some Eternal significance? Why were the Israelites so big on the Firstborn anyway? Where did they get the idea? Because the Firstborn (in a very real sense) was to deliver them.
Even if I take Firstborn to symbolize preeminence (which I do) the scripture still says “the Firstborn OF all creation”. OF being the key word here, meaning being a part of creation itself. If He was the Creator of ALL things then He could not be OF creation.
DOF says “Even if I take Firstborn to symbolize preeminence (which I do) the scripture still says “the Firstborn OF all creation”. OF being the key word here, meaning being a part of creation itself. If He was the Creator of ALL things then He could not be OF creation.”
…then Scripture is at war with itself. Surely, you have read the following verses “or by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Col 1:16-17). Do you really think Paul would say one thing in verse 15 and then flatly contradict it in the very next sentences?
In the video, Huggins makes a very good point about not separating words from their meanings. Surely, “all things”, means “all things”?
I grant that the term “firstborn” makes us pause for thought, but I would agree that you’re on the right track in thinking in terms of “pre-eminence”, or perhaps even the “heir”.
The use of “firstborn” in a figurative sense is entirely consistent with the corpus of Biblical terminology. God calls Israel his “firstborn” in Ex 4:22, but he irony is that the literal “firstborn” was not Jacob(a.k.a. Israel) but Esau (Gen 25:25-26). The question that the author of Genesis points us to is not who was born first, but who was it that inherited the promise of his forefather, Abraham?
Similarly, Paul points us not to a question of whether Jesus got created first, but whether he is the inheritor of his Father’s work. If we read on and find that “all things” will be passed into the Son’s hands as his rightful inheritance, then we’re right on track with Paul’s line of thought.
Sorry GB, I completely missed your question until now. The reason why Jesus was born of a woman, lived, and died, is because he was God in the flesh, the god-man. That was the whole point of Him coming to earth…..to be born, just like we humans were, to live, and to die and save us on the cross. That is why God sent Himself to us, because the only way to save us from our sins was for God Himself to be the ultimate sacrifice. God was the sacrificial lamb. I realize that Mormons believe Jesus’ death also exonerates us, but they believe that God was once a human who worked His way to godhood. In contrast, Jesus was not born to work His way to godhood, He already was God. He did not earn anything. His whole purpose of being born as a human was to tell us how to be saved, and to be the sacrificial lamb. Fully God and fully man.
John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
I know we’ve already been over these verses before (I’m willing to bet that every person on this blog knows these verses), but look at them again. Jesus is the Word. So the verses say, Jesus was in the beginning (borrowing the language of Genesis 1:1), He was with God, and, most notably, He WAS God. All things were made through him (Genesis 1).
Jesus was fully God and fully man. That is why in the gospels He displays God-like characteristics. But He also displays human characteristics too. He got tired, scared, angry, etc. He even got hungry, just like us! John 1:14 refers to Jesus as the Word again: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Jesus, the Word, became flesh and dwelled among us. God came to earth to dwell among us.
Continuing on….
It’s important to remember that Jesus, God the father, and the Holy Spirit have different roles and functions. Jesus has many roles, (great high priest, sacrificial lamb, co-creator of creation, our mediator, etc), but one of his roles is as the Son.
In Heb. 1:3 says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. ” There’s that reference to the logos (like in John 1). The Greek word for exact representation in this verse is the word “charakter”, meaning “exact representation or exact duplicate. All the attributes/powers God the Father has, God the Son has as well.
Oh, and I just found a wonderful passage for you, GB. I know Mormons interpret this differently: Heb. 2:14-15 “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil–and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” Vs. 17-18 “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” Compare that last sentence to Heb. 2:10 “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.” (“Made perfect” refers to Christ being ideally suited to His task, or having completed His mission).
I am sure there is more that could be covered, but this is what I came up with.
Joseph Smith reduced God to a managable size. He took the majestic diety of the Bible and turned Him into a super man. Basically, Joseph Smith’s god is a reflection of what Joseph Smith saw hmself to be; not a mere mortal but a god in embryo. The sadness of all of this, of course, is how willing people were then and today to abandon God and settle for a lesser god in the hope that they too can become one. Mormons don’t even understand the first commandment. These are truly lost people. In reality they are no different than people who carve images in wood and worship them.
Sharon,
After seeing that the people at “antioch” have said that the scriptures are “God breathed”, I have absolutely ZERO respect for their scholarship.
No real scholar would profess such drivel.
But thanks for the entertainment.
As John would say “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”
Megan,
You failed to answer my question and instead posted a lot of non-interesting self contradicting mumbo jumbo.
Until you got to the “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way”, which again confirms what I have been saying. Thank you for sharing it.
“For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way”, clearly expresses that an independent (in person/being) and greater power (that would be God, the Eternal Father) “made” Jesus “like his brothers in every way”. That is very interesting.
This phrase also clearly expresses that Jesus had brothers. This is very interesting also. Do you even believe what the Bible says?
Merry Christmas,
And as John would say “Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”
GB, please give me the benefit of the doubt. I thought your question was, what is the difference between the LDS belief that God the Father was born of a woman and lived a human life, vs. the Biblical teaching that Jesus (we would say God the Son) was born in human form on earth. I am sorry if you found my reply to be “self-contradictory mumbo jumbo”, but perhaps it would help if you re-stated your question. As far as Jesus being our actual, literal brother (meaning, we have the same mother and father), that is a figurative term, meaning he became a part of the human race, and is also our advocate. We could discuss that term further if you would like.
Also, would you please try to remember that there is an actual human being on the other side of this computer?
If God was not once a sinner, then you are not like him. His path is not your path; he didn’t need a saviour but you do.
Unless, of course, you are not a sinner (1 John 1:8). But then you wouldn’t be like me.
Megan,
If its any consolation, I liked your posts.
I also think its quite important, in the context of this discussion, to bang on an on about the monotheism of Second Temple Judaism, which stood in stark contrast to the polytheism of surrounding pagan cultures (not too dissimilar from today’s western culture). “Hear, Oh Israel, the LORD your God is one God…”.
I was reminded about this last night in the Nine Lessons and Carols service that we went to. One of the readings was from Genesis 22. In Gen 22:16, God says “By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD…”
Why does he swear “by himself”? Because there is nothing greater for him to swear by. Never was, never will be.
…then I suggest listening to the rest of the video.
I grant that you won’t find a discussion on “essence” in the Bible, but neither will you find a discussion on “refined matter”. You certainly won’t find a discussion about God living on a planet near a star called “Kolob”, or about his wives and forebears.
Another important point needs to be made; that the Nicene Creed, and others, is subordinate to Scripture. It is derived from Scripture, and it does a pretty good job of describing the God that is described in Scripture. I have some sympathy with the perceived problems folks might have with the Creeds or the Trinity (though these problems are usually associated with some dissatisfaction with orthodox churches) , but I still maintain that they are much better than any of the various alternatives that have been advanced since NT times.
The pathetic state of Biblical hermanutics within Mormonism is one of the reasons the faithful buy into these absurd and truly blasphmous characterizations of the nature of God. Their dependence and arrogance concerning their supposed “revelation” leads to scriptural interpretations that remind me of amateur night at a third rank comedy club.
When speaking of the traits of God, A.W. Tozer said: “….words which are proper and necessary when we are considering created beings but altogether inappropriate when we are thinking about God. We must break ourselves of the habit of thinking of the Creator as we think of His creatures. It is probably impossible to think without words, but if we permit ourselves to think with the wrong words, we shall soon be entertaining erroneous thoughts; for words, which are given us for the expression of thought, have a habit of going beyond their proper bounds and determining the content of thought. ‘As nothing is more easy than to think, says Thomas Traherne, ‘so nothing is more difficult than to think well.’ If we ever think well it should be when we think of God.”
Mormons do not “think well” when they think about and express who they say God is. I want nothing to do with a concept of God that reduces Him to nothing more than a more refined version of ourselves, those He created. Mormons, in their pursuit of God have nothing more than an image of familiar Mormon male friends. They’ve traded gold for fools gold.
Thanks, Martin, but I do need to remind myself not to take comments personally on here.
In any case, GB, do you think you could be more specific in your reply? You said that my comments were “self-contradictory”? How so? If you make a blanket statement like that, it would be very helpful if you explained exactly why. I gave an exegesis of specific passages that describe Jesus’ role and function as the Son of God. Would you care to explain the parts you disagree with? Looking for further discussion.
Liked your post and the insight on JS’ inconsistency. And if I were to make a ‘description list’ for JS, his work, his writing, his thinking, INCONSISTENCY would be in the top five for sure. This may strike most newcomers as just plain weird, but really , it’s not any different than many a “huckster” in both business and religion. The goal is not consistency, or staying true to a message, the goal is being BELIEVABLE to your target audience, and JS was able to pull that off, as was Elmer GAntry, etc,.etc.
This fluctuation of message, the prophet’s message for today’s generation, is as good a place as any to land on a start a discussion. Those with ears to hear will take note, and pull on the first of many a thread.
One irony is that the believing LDS take what is really a character flaw and turn it into a “plus”: God is just tailor making the message to THIS generation……that is just SLICK
Examine everything, hold fast to that which is good (after it has been well examined).
For the benefit of other readers, Antioch (web site) did not produce Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words. They merely posted the information. Here is info about the scholar who compiled the dictionary: “The late W.E. Vine (1873-1949) is recognized as one of the world’s foremost Greek scholars. His expository dictionary, first published in 1939, represents the fruit of his lifetime labors and is an unsurpassed classic in its field.”
DOF said “You are asking questions that God has simply not revealed. ”
I contend that God has not revealed these things because they are not true. In fact, what he has revealed is the exact opposite, for example (and for the seventy times seventh time), Isaiah 44:6 “…apart from me there is no God”.
Why is this so difficult to understand? If Joseph Smith got it right, then Isaiah got it wrong. If Isaiah got it right then Joseph Smith got it wrong. Why carry on the charade? Why not honestly acknowledge that the two cannot be reconciled?
Sharon,
(Nevertheless, non “hyper critics” also grant that “origin” or “active cause” is (at times) a valid interpretation of “arche.”)
Clearly shows that the usual interpretation of “arche” is NOT “origin” or “active cause” but beginning or original.
I find it interesting that you and others are pushing the unusual interpretation to try to show that the usual interpretation is inaccurate.
Just because Grace “is (at times)” a persons given name doesn’t mean that a given use of it was referring to a person and not a gift.
At the risk of getting a little off-topic, I as ruminating on the idea of the Son, being the “first-born”, or rightful inheritor of the father’s work (e.g. Heb 1:2).
The trinitarian view provides, I think, a very powerful argument against the skeptics who say that God is self-centered or self-serving. The trinitarian view holds that the Father creates the cosmos through the Holy Spirit in order to give it to the Son. The Son comes into his inheritance by giving himself in perfect obedience to the Father. This reciprocal giving and obedience is anything but self-centered or self-serving; it looks more like perfect love. And so we can safely conclude that God is love, because it is his very nature to give.
I suggest that the current slew of atheist propaganda has been allowed to fester because the trinity has been de-emphasized by the church (in the broadest sense). Chief among the villains, then, is the LDS leadership, which claims to represent the true Christian Gospel with its anti-trinitarian message.
Martin, I guess I am re-stating some of your comment, but here’s some of what I have:
God the Father spoke creative words to bring the universe into being, but it was God the Son, the Word, who carried out the creative decrees. (John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col 1:16, Heb. 1:2)
There are also distinct functions in the work of redemption. God the Father planned redemption and sent his Son into the world (John 3:16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:9-10). The Son obeyed the Father and accomplished redemption for us (John 6:38, Heb. 10:5-7, etc.) God the Father did not come and die for our sins; neither did God the HS.
The role of the Father in creation and redemption has been to plan and direct and send the Son and Holy Spirit. The Father and the Son relate to each other as a father and son relate to each other in a human family. The father directs and has authority over the son and the son obeys and responds to the directives of the father. The HS is obedient to the directives of both the Fathe and the Son.
The persons of the Trinity are equal in all their attributes, but they differ in their relationships to the creation. The Son and HS are equal in deity to God the Father, but they are subordinate in their roles.