Discourse On The Trinity Mystery With Three Questions:

[Squirt]

It seems to: "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." unembodied...meaning He once had a body, but now does not? Where is that idea even found in Scripture? That possibility isn't even hinted at. A spirit is something that is immaterial.FerventGodSeeker

I'd love to address these issues, GodSeeker, but it's late and I'm leaving to go out of town on business for a week. I must finish packing and get a semi-decent night's sleep. However, I think you misunderstood me on at least one issue and that's concerning what "unembodied" means. It is simply referring to a spirit that exists outside of or independently of a physical body. I never said and do not believe that God once had a body but no longer does.

Anyway, when I get back, if this thread is still active, I may address the points you raised. I'll just have to see how deep it's buried by then. I'll also be looking for your final post in our one-on-one debate. You've been back for two weeks now, I believe. It seems to me that that should have given you sufficient time to wrap things up.

 

[jaareshiah]

There are many who feel that God, Jesus and the holy spirit are "one" in a "Godhead". However, the Bible does not support this thought. Here are some Scriptures to show that Jesus is indeed God's Son, subject to his Father.
At Hebrew 5:7-10, it says "In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." Questions - If Jesus is God, then why did he have "godly fear" and who heard him ? If Jesus is God, then how was it that he "learned obedience" ? Does God have to become obedient to anyone ? Since God is perfect, setting the standards for perfection, then how could Jesus be "made perfect" if he is God ? How could Jesus be God and yet be "called by God" for the position of "a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." ?
At Matthew 24:36, Jesus said concerning the moment the "great tribulation" will begin that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Since God has all knowledge, even able to foretell the future thousands of years in advance, then how is it that Jesus was not aware when the "great tribulation" would break lose, if he is God ?
At Matthew 26:39, Jesus says in prayer that "my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." How could Jesus be God and yet pray for not his "will" to take place but his Father's ?
At John 14:28, Jesus said that "my Father is greater than I."(King James Bible) If Jesus were God, would the Father be greater than him ?
At John 17:3, Jesus said that "this means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." How could he be God and yet pray to the "only true God" ?
At John 20:17, Jesus said to Mary: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’" How could Jesus be God and yet ' ascend to his God ' ?
At John 8:28,29, Jesus said that "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." How could Jesus be God and yet be "taught" ? Furthermore, how could Jesus be God and yet do "nothing of (his) own initiative " ? Too, how could Jesus "always do the things pleasing to him (God)", if he is God ?
Too, at Philippians 2:9, the apostle Paul wrote that "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"(King James Bible) How could Jesus be God and yet be "exalted" or be given a "name which is above every other name" ? Is there any "name" higher than God's ?
The apostle John said some sixty five years after Jesus death and resurrection, that "at no time has anyone beheld God." (1 John 4:12 ) Did not the apostle John see Jesus in the flesh and yet how could he say that " at no time has anyone beheld God" ?
At Colossians 1:15, the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" How could he be God and yet be his "firstborn" ? At 1 Corinthians 15:24, Paul wrote that Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." How could Jesus be God and yet "hand over the kingdom" to him ? In verse 28, Paul says that after the "last enemy, death is... brought to nothing", then he says that "when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone". If Jesus is God, then how is it that "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone" ?
The apostle John wrote of Jesus that "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"(John 13:3 King James Bible) How could Jesus be God and have "come from God" and then "went to God" ?
Some will turn to 1 Timothy 3:16, which according to the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have incorrect, really tampered with. John James Wetstein (1693-1754), while he was examining the Alexandrine Manuscript in London (a Greek manuscript dating from the fifth century C.E., which contains most of the Bible), made a startling discovery. Up till that time, according to the King James Version (1611), 1 Timothy 3:16 was rendered: "God was manifest in the flesh." This rendering was reflected in most other Bibles in use.
However, Wetstein noticed that the Greek word translated "God," which was abbreviated to TC, had originally looked like the Greek word OC, which means "who." But a horizontal stroke showing through faintly from the other side of the vellum page, and the addition by a later hand of a line across the top, had turned the word OC ("who") into the contraction TC ("God"). Other manuscripts now confirm Wetstein’s reading, accurate modern translations read: "He was made manifest in flesh," or "He who . . . ," referring to Jesus Christ. (American Standard, Moffatt, Weymouth, Spencer, The New English Bible)
This was later reaffirmed by Konstantin von Tischendorf, for in 1859, he found what was the oldest known complete copy of the Greek Scriptures in a monastary at the base of Mount Sinai, now known as Codex Sinaiticus and probably produced about 350 C.E. Because Sinaiticus was among the oldest original-language manuscripts, it not only revealed that the Greek Scriptures had remained essentially unchanged but also helped scholars to uncover errors that had crept into later manuscripts, such as the one at 1 Timothy 3:16, for the Sinaiticus reads: "He was made manifest in the flesh." Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading "God." Thus, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text.
And of course there is John 1:1, in which many will say this proves that Jesus is God. However, this is not the case. Because many Bibles render it as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", most believe that the "Word", who is Jesus, is God. Literally the Greek text reads: "IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD. THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD." (John 1:1,2 ) In looking at the koine Greek in which it was written, the first mention of "god" in this verse is preceeded by the Greek definite article ton, which literally means "the". But in the second occurrence of "god", there is no definite article. Why did John use "the " before the first God (theos), but not before the second occurrence of it ? Is there a difference between asking for "the" black suit and "a" black suit ? Yes there is. Likewise with the apostle John using the identfying article of "ton" (the) before the first use of God. He intentionally used it to separate who is meant by "god". How else would one distinguish between two individuals, except by saying "the man", as opposed to "a man" ?
By use of "the"(ton), John is speaking of a specific person - God, whereas in using "god" without a definite article, he was identifying the "Word" as being godlike,or having a godly quality, thus describing the nature of the Word. Therefore, Philip B. Harner, in his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate (without definiteness ) preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite."
The apostle John, in using the Greek article "ton" (the) before the first occurrence of God at John 1:1, but not in the second occurrence, was thereby pointing toward the Word as having the quality of godlike ones, but not the person of God.
If John had said ton theos en ho logos, (the God is the Word) using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos [the Word] with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, more of an adjective than a noun.
Therefore, Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, for how can someone be be begotten and yet have no beginning, as God does ?(Psalms 90:2; John 3:16 King James Bible) Hence, Jesus had a beginning, for Revelation 3:14 calls him the "the beginning of the creation of God;"

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

At Hebrew 5:7-10...Questions - If Jesus is God, then why did he have "godly fear" and who heard him ? If Jesus is God, then how was it that he "learned obedience" ? Does God have to become obedient to anyone ? Since God is perfect, setting the standards for perfection, then how could Jesus be "made perfect" if he is God ? How could Jesus be God and yet be "called by God" for the position of "a high priest according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek." ?

First of all, notice something about this verse. It refers to events in "the days of His flesh". This by definition indicates that Jesus had days out of His flesh as well. The Bible indicates this about Jesus: "who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men." Phillippians 2:6-7 Christ, as God, willingly humbled Himself into the form of a man and submitted Himself on earth to the will of the Father. Recall that in Trinitarian theology, Christ is fully man and fully God. On earth, He at different times acted in one of His two natures. Thus, sometimes He acted and spoke as God, other times He acted and spoke as a man. Thus, Christ could learn obedience to the Father and have godly fear in accordance to His human nature and willing subservience to the Father. Christ was "made perfect" physically when He rose from the grave in His glorofied body. The Hebrews 5 verse refers to "Him who was able to save Him from death", indicative of the Father. However, notice what Jesus Himself says about His resurrection. "Jesus said, 'Destroy this temple (reference to His body), and I will raise it up.' " Thus, we see that, while the Father did in fact resurrect Christ, Christ also raised Himself up. They worked cooperatively to perform this miracle. It is no wonder that when Jesus said, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." (John 5:17), that the Apostle John clearly knew that it was a claim to equality with the Father (see verse 18).

At Matthew 24:36, Jesus said concerning the moment the "great tribulation" will begin that "concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." Since God has all knowledge, even able to foretell the future thousands of years in advance, then how is it that Jesus was not aware when the "great tribulation" would break lose, if he is God ?

In Matthew 24:36, Jesus is speaking in the realm of His human nature. Remember, Jesus willingly submitted Himself and limited Himself to humanity. However, when Jesus acted in the realm of His divine nature, He was omniscient:
"Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You." John 16:30
"And he(Peter) said to Him (Jesus), 'Lord You know all things; You know that I love You.' " John 21:17

At Matthew 26:39, Jesus says in prayer that "my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." How could Jesus be God and yet pray for not his "will" to take place but his Father's ?

Because, along with Jesus' human nature came a human will and human desires. Thus, obviously, Jesus didn't want to be falsely accused, tortured, and executed. However, in accordance with His divine will, Jesus knew that it was necessary.
"Then He (Jesus) said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,' " Luke 24:46

At John 14:28, Jesus said that "my Father is greater than I."(King James Bible) If Jesus were God, would the Father be greater than him ?

Yes, the Father would be greater than Him in Christ's human nature, since Christ humbled Himself into human form. However, in Christ's divine nature, He said, "I and My Father are One." John 10:30, and also demanded, "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:23

At John 17:3, Jesus said that "this means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." How could he be God and yet pray to the "only true God" ?

Because He was praying to the Father, another member of the Godhead. The Father is equally divine as He is, and thus He is called "the only true God," since they are One and the same God. Jesus is also called, "our great God and Savior" (Titus 2:13)


I'll respond to the rest in another post.


FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

No, I didn't say that. I said God was not Spirit-only, I did not specify God the Father. The Son is the image of the invisible God, who took on a human nature, not the Father. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not have bodies.

So according to your belief God the Father does not have a body. OK, now back to my original question. Why didn't He create us as spirit-only beings like himself? Could we not follow him as spirit-only beings?

That's not true. Light is immaterial, yet we see it. Dreams are immaterial, yet we can see them in our minds (recall that God revealed Himself a number of times in dreams and visions). Sounds are immaterial, yet we hear them.

Actually that's not exactly true. Light is made of particle-waves called photons -- we don't know for sure if they have mass or not. The sound we hear is based on the changing pressure of air waves -- air is not immaterial. Either way according to physics as we currently understand it, neither light nor sound can be generated from something that is immaterial.

"And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him (Jesus), and a voice came from heaven which said, 'You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." Luke 3:22
Jesus and the Holy Spirit, both fully God, are seen distinctly from one another. The Father, also fully God, is heard distinctly from the other two.

Sorry this example is not going to hold any water for me -- I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate beings, which easily explains how all three could be seen/heard distinctly from one another.

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." John 3:13
While this is not an instance where God is witnessed in two places at once, it is an indication of God's literal omnipresence. This verse is Jesus speaking on earth...yet He, while on earth, says that He is in heaven. This clearly indicates that He is able to be in more than one place at one time.

In this verse I interpret Man to be a title for God -- who is in heaven. Jesus wasn't the son of man he was the son of God for which "Man" in this context is a title. We could all be considered sons of man, but only Jesus is the son of Man -- who is indeed in heaven. By no means does this clearly indicate that He is physically in more than one place at one time.

The Greek word in both verses is pneuma...you would have to indicate how the word means different things in the two verses.
No, you couldn't say that. You could say you HAVE a spirit, that doesn't mean you ARE a spirit...big difference. You also have a body, but you are not JUST a body. Saying you ARE a spirit WOULD indicate that you don't have a physical body, as Jesus explained in the verse I just cited, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

I completely disagree. Because my spirit is what gives me life I can appropriately say I am Spirit. That does not necessarily mean that I am a spirit-only being. Just as saying I'm a physical being doesn't imply I don't have a spirit.

Yes, I believe Jesus is God. He has both a human nature and a divine nature. In His human nature, He has a physical body. However, in His divine nature, He is Spirit, and therefore is able to be omnipresent.

So are Jesus and God the Father the same being?

You'll have to demonstrate how references to God's wings are different than references to His mouth, face, hands, etc. All seem quite figurative to me.

"Keep me as the apple of Your eye; hide me under the shadow of your wings," Psalm 17:8
"When I consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained," Psalm 8:3
"Do not hide Your face from me; do not turn your servant away in anger; You have been my help; do not leave me or forsake me, O God of my salvation." Psalm 27:8
"Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit." Luke 23:46

It's impossible for you to effectively demonstrate that ALL references to God's body parts are figurative. I'll admit some are figurative, but I also believe some are literal. If God has no body, why would he state that he would make man in His image in the context of a physical creation? Also, when Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, are you suggesting that he saw Jesus standing next to some cloud-like presence?

"Before Me there was no God formed." Even if directed at us, that couldn't be any more point blank clear. He is telling US that there was no God formed before Him. It has nothing to do contextually with us just worshipping this God, or just knowing about this God...it says point blank that no Gods were formed before Him. It also says there will be no Gods formed after Him. Even if you're going to claim that it is only directed conditionally at us, that would still mean that none of us will become Gods.

All statements must be interpreted in context. Because He is speaking to us, HIS creations, his statement is perfectly valid -- there never was and never will be any other God than Him. Even though we have the potential to become gods, for us there will never be another God -- He alone can bring about our salvation and nothing will ever change that.

It's not my opinion, it's the nature of language and the definition of words. Becoming "like" something does not mean literally BECOMING that thing. An offspring is not identical to its parent, nor is an heir identical to the one from whom he receives his inheritance.

Yeah, it is your opinion. That language implies that we have the potential to become gods. I never said we'd be identical to God (we are separate individuals), but the terms offspring and heir imply we have the potential to become a god and inherit all He has.

What does "everlasting to everlasting" mean to you? We are told that He has been God "from everlasting to everlasting". Again, this has nothing to do with us or our perspective, it is a point blank statement.

Sure it has to do with our perspective -- the words are directed to us.

How can a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, holy, righteous, and true, possibly increase in stature or power?

His creations increase and as a result His glory increases.

And again, as we've covered, becoming "like" the Father doesn't mean becoming equal to Him or exactly as He is.

I'm curious then, in what way do you believe we can become "like" him?

Then you obviously consider God to be self-centered, who says point blank that He alone is God and no other Gods will be formed after Him.

Actually, no I don't. I don't believe that God is content to restrict us to a state of existance considerably less than His own.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

So according to your belief God the Father does not have a body. OK, now back to my original question. Why didn't He create us as spirit-only beings like himself? Could we not follow him as spirit-only beings?

Sure we could. We could also follow Him as purple polka-dotted beaver ghosts on Pluto. God could have created us in any infinite number of ways for us to serve and worship Him. I have no idea what motivated God to create us as physical beings, I don't pretend to know, nor does it really matter to me. The point is, for whatever reason, He DID create us as physical beings, and we are to serve Him.

Actually that's not exactly true. Light is made of particle-waves called photons -- we don't know for sure if they have mass or not. The sound we hear is based on the changing pressure of air waves -- air is not immaterial. Either way according to physics as we currently understand it, neither light nor sound can be generated from something that is immaterial.

And what about dreams, visions, mirages? Are those material too? Recall that brain wave is not a physical thing.

Sorry this example is not going to hold any water for me -- I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct and separate beings, which easily explains how all three could be seen/heard distinctly from one another.

You asked for an example where God was tangibly witnessed in two places at once. I gave it to you, and you can't dispute that God was in fact seen in more than one place in that scene. I don't know what more you want from me.

In this verse I interpret Man to be a title for God -- who is in heaven. Jesus wasn't the son of man he was the son of God for which "Man" in this context is a title. We could all be considered sons of man, but only Jesus is the son of Man -- who is indeed in heaven. By no means does this clearly indicate that He is physically in more than one place at one time.

How did you come to the conclusion that Man is a title for God? "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent." Numbers 23:19
The titles Son of Man and Son of God have historically both been ascribed to Jesus by the Church. As I understand it, one emphasizes His human nature while the other emphasizes His divine nature.

I completely disagree. Because my spirit is what gives me life I can appropriately say I am Spirit.

Your lungs also give you life, are you going to call yourself a Lung now, too?

That does not necessarily mean that I am a spirit-only being.

Yes, it does, as you still haven't explained Jesus clear definition, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

So are Jesus and God the Father the same being?

They are the same God. They are different persons.

It's impossible for you to effectively demonstrate that ALL references to God's body parts are figurative. I'll admit some are figurative, but I also believe some are literal.

And conveniently, of course, all the ones regarding His wings just happen to be the ones that are figurative, while the rest must be literal, right? You'll have to demonstrate that certain references to God's body parts should be taken literally, and how such passages differ from ones which mention God's body parts that you admit are figurative.

If God has no body, why would he state that he would make man in His image in the context of a physical creation?

In your last post, you said, "Just as saying I'm a physical being doesn't imply I don't have a spirit." By the same token, just because a reference to God's "image" was made in the context of a physical creation doesn't mean there wasn't some spiritual reference being made. What evidence do you have that "image" in that context is a reference to physical resemblance?

Also, when Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, are you suggesting that he saw Jesus standing next to some cloud-like presence?

"The right hand of God" is a figurative expression indicating power:
"Your right hand, O LORD, has become glorious in power; your right hand, O LORD, has dashed the enemy in pieces." Exodus 15:6
"Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; he will answer him from His holy heaven with the saving strength of His right hand." Psalm 20:6

Jesus is indeed seen in great power in heaven; particularly saving power, as He is the Savior of the world. This does not literally mean He was seen on the right side of the Father's physical body

All statements must be interpreted in context. Because He is speaking to us, HIS creations, his statement is perfectly valid -- there never was and never will be any other God than Him. Even though we have the potential to become gods

That is simply a contradiction. You say there will never be any other Gods, yet we later have the potential to become Gods...can't you see the contradiction there?

for us there will never be another God -- He alone can bring about our salvation and nothing will ever change that.

God isn't simply defined as the Savior. He is not just our God because He saves us, He is our God because He is the Creator who always was, always is, and always will be.

Yeah, it is your opinion. That language implies that we have the potential to become gods. I never said we'd be identical to God (we are separate individuals), but the terms offspring and heir imply we have the potential to become a god and inherit all He has.

As I just demonstrated, the terms to not mean that. If you're saying that we won't be identical to God, and you're also saying that no Gods will be formed after our God, how can you say we may become Gods?

Sure it has to do with our perspective -- the words are directed to us.

Again, what does "from everlasting to everlasting" mean to you? This clearly means He has ALWAYS been God, whether we realize it from our perspective or not. God is God, and always has been, regardless of how we see it or whether we worship Him or not. God doesn't need us.

His creations increase and as a result His glory increases.

God is totally glorious without any creations, don't you agree? Do you think God is dependent on us to make Him more glorious? I don't. God is totally self-sufficient and complete without any of us.

I'm curious then, in what way do you believe we can become "like" him?

I believe we can become like Him when He cleanses us and when we are sinless and righteous in heaven, and have glorified bodies. This does not make us gods.

Actually, no I don't. I don't believe that God is content to restrict us to a state of existance considerably less than His own

You just said we will never be equal to Him, and that no Gods will be formed after Him...Our existance will always be lower than His, and we will always be completely dependant on Him and serve Him.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

Sure we could. We could also follow Him as purple polka-dotted beaver ghosts on Pluto. God could have created us in any infinite number of ways for us to serve and worship Him. I have no idea what motivated God to create us as physical beings, I don't pretend to know, nor does it really matter to me. The point is, for whatever reason, He DID create us as physical beings, and we are to serve Him.

True, as purple polka-dotted beaver ghosts on Pluto we could be obedient to His commandments and progress in some sense. But if we were polka-dotted beaver ghosts we would merely be His creation, not his children, and we would never be able to become like Him. He is not a beaver ghost. He is a glorified, perfected man -- our Father. The fact that we are His children and not merely his creation is a very important point -- we have divine potential.

And what about dreams, visions, mirages? Are those material too? Recall that brain wave is not a physical thing.

I don't think we fully understand what brain waves are either. Are you suggesting that everytime God has ever been witnessed it was done so in a dream or a mirage?

You asked for an example where God was tangibly witnessed in two places at once. I gave it to you, and you can't dispute that God was in fact seen in more than one place in that scene. I don't know what more you want from me.

If that's the best example you have then that's all I need to hear -- it in no way implies that God the Father has ever been observed in multiple places at once.

How did you come to the conclusion that Man is a title for God? "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent." Numbers 23:19
The titles Son of Man and Son of God have historically both been ascribed to Jesus by the Church. As I understand it, one emphasizes His human nature while the other emphasizes His divine nature.

The God I believe in is not a genderless, faceless being -- He is a perfect, exalted, and glorified Man.

Your lungs also give you life, are you going to call yourself a Lung now, too?

Good one. Though I have lungs, without my spirit I would not exist.

In your last post, you said, "Just as saying I'm a physical being doesn't imply I don't have a spirit." By the same token, just because a reference to God's "image" was made in the context of a physical creation doesn't mean there wasn't some spiritual reference being made. What evidence do you have that "image" in that context is a reference to physical resemblance?

Those verses in Genesis are describing the physical creation of the earth, plants, animals, etc. The context is all concerning the physical creation. Why are we to assume that the reference to create man in God's image is not at least in part a reference to the physical?

Jesus is indeed seen in great power in heaven; particularly saving power, as He is the Savior of the world. This does not literally mean He was seen on the right side of the Father's physical body

So you're suggesting that Stephen actually only saw one being -- Christ, and the reference to God was just a figurative description of Christ's status?

That is simply a contradiction. You say there will never be any other Gods, yet we later have the potential to become Gods...can't you see the contradiction there?

No I don't see a contradiction -- we're basically beating a dead horse here. Though we have the potential to become gods, we will always only have one Father and one God that we are subject to.

God isn't simply defined as the Savior. He is not just our God because He saves us, He is our God because He is the Creator who always was, always is, and always will be.

Right. He will always be our creator, our God, our Father, the means of our existance and our salvation.

As I just demonstrated, the terms to not mean that. If you're saying that we won't be identical to God, and you're also saying that no Gods will be formed after our God, how can you say we may become Gods?

What? Please explain how being the offspring of God and heirs to God does not imply that we have the potential to become as He is -- even gods. The offspring of lions become lions, the heir to a King has the potential to become a king. One lion isn't necessarily exactly like its father, nor is one king exactly like his predecessor, but that doesn't mean they aren't lions or kings. Similarly just because we may never be exactly like our Father doesn't mean that we can't become gods. The offspring of a god by definition has the potential to become a god.

God is totally glorious without any creations, don't you agree? Do you think God is dependent on us to make Him more glorious? I don't. God is totally self-sufficient and complete without any of us.

Sure, even without His creations He is glorious. But His creations and the progress of His children add to His happiness and glory. I believe we, His children, are His greatest creation and the source of His greatest joy, and unfortunately at times the source of His greatest sadness.

I believe we can become like Him when He cleanses us and when we are sinless and righteous in heaven, and have glorified bodies. This does not make us gods.

So why would he end there, or cause our progression to end there? Is He not powerful enough to endow us with even a portion of His godliness? Or will He simply not ever trust us enough even though we'll have eternity to gain His trust?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

At John 20:17, Jesus said to Mary: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’" How could Jesus be God and yet ' ascend to his God ' ?

Jesus can ascend to His God because He was referring to the Father, as the context clearly indicates with the interchangeable references to "Father" and "God". Again, He was speaking as a man here. Notice something esle about this passage. Notice that He says, "My Father and your Father and My God and your God." (bolding added) Why doesn't He just say, "Our Father and Our God"? It would mean the same thing, right? In English, yes it would. However, in the language of the day, it would not. Jesus constantly referred to God as His Father, denoting a special relationship between the two. In fact, this is a reference of equality between the two in the language of the day, as is revealed by John 5:18: "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." (bolding added). It is interesting that those who do not believe in the deity of Christ constantly point to this verse as proof that Jesus is not God, yet in fact, the language of the verse is ironically a direct evidence that Jesus claimed to be equal to the Father.

At John 8:28,29, Jesus said that "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him." How could Jesus be God and yet be "taught" ? Furthermore, how could Jesus be God and yet do "nothing of (his) own initiative " ? Too, how could Jesus "always do the things pleasing to him (God)", if he is God ?

Again, these references have a very simple answer: Jesus is fully man as well as full God. Thus, Jesus learned and was taught things on earth as a human. He did nothing of His own initiative, in reference to His human will, because He totally submitted Himself to the Father. As we already discussed, in His humanity, jesus did not want to die. However, in His divine will, He knew it was necesary and thus did it. In reference to how Jesus could always do the things pleasing to the Father, this again is evidence of Jesus' deity. Jesus could only be perfect and always do what is right if He is divine. Every human is imperfect and sinful, yet Jesus was not. The only one who always does what is right is God. Thus, Jesus must be God.

Too, at Philippians 2:9, the apostle Paul wrote that "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"(King James Bible) How could Jesus be God and yet be "exalted" or be given a "name which is above every other name" ? Is there any "name" higher than God's ?

Your question disproves your own thesis . No, there is no name higher than God's, and yes, Jesus is the name above all other names....Thus, Jesus must be God.

The apostle John said some sixty five years after Jesus death and resurrection, that "at no time has anyone beheld God." (1 John 4:12 ) Did not the apostle John see Jesus in the flesh and yet how could he say that " at no time has anyone beheld God" ?

I believe that this reference is to God the Father, as John 6:46 says, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father." We know from the Old Testament that some people have truly seen God, as in Exodus 6:2-3: "And God spoke to Moses and said to him, 'I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I was not known to them." And also in Exodus 33:11, "So the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend." However, clearly God the Father was not the one being seen, as John 6 says. I believe these appearances of God were of the pre-Incarnate Christ.

Colossians 1:15, the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" How could he be God and yet be his "firstborn" ?

"Firstborn" does not always mean that He was literally "the first to be born". Rather, it is a title of pre-eminence and authority.
"I have found David; with My holy oil I have anointed him,...Also I will make Him my firstborn(recall that David was the youngest child in his family), the highest of the kings of the earth." Psalm 89:20,27
"...For I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn." Jer. 31:9

In Colossians 1, we are told that Christ is the "firstborn" over all creation, because He has total authority and power over it. Why? Because He created it all: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (verse 16) If Jesus were a created being lesser than the Father, then according to this verse, which says He created everything, that would mean He created Himself...that doesn't make much sense to me.

At 1 Corinthians 15:24, Paul wrote that Jesus "hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." How could Jesus be God and yet "hand over the kingdom" to him ?

First of all, the Greek does not say "His" God and Father, it simply says "God the Father" or "God, even the Father". Jesus can hand over the kingdom to Him because they are different persons. Yet, this to not mean that they are not One God.

In verse 28, Paul says that after the "last enemy, death is... brought to nothing", then he says that "when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone". If Jesus is God, then how is it that "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone" ?

Notice that the Son willingly subjects Himself to the Father, while all other things are "subjected to Him". Christ, as equal with the Father, will willingly submit Himself to the Father in His human nature, because they are One in their divine nature. God may be all in all, because Christ submits His human role, and Christ is all in all as well: "...but Christ is all, and in all." Col. 3:11

The apostle John wrote of Jesus that "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;"(John 13:3 King James Bible) How could Jesus be God and have "come from God" and then "went to God" ?

Again, we see in context that God the Father is being referred to. Christ came from the Father and returned to the Father, as Trinitarian theology teaches.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Some will turn to 1 Timothy 3:16, which according to the King James Bible reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." This Scripture, with the words "God was manifest in the flesh" has been found to have incorrect, really tampered with...

My personal Bible (New King James), says "God" in the verse, but in a footnote says that the original Greek literally says "Who". Therefore, I would concede that this verse is not a direct evidence of the deity of Christ (however it's not a verse I typically use when arguing for the deity of Christ, so I don't really need it, lol).

And of course there is John 1:1, in which many will say this proves that Jesus is God. However, this is not the case. Because many Bibles render it as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", most believe that the "Word", who is Jesus, is God. Literally the Greek text reads: "IN BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD, AND GOD WAS THE WORD. THIS WAS IN BEGINNING WITH THE GOD." (John 1:1,2 ) In looking at the koine Greek in which it was written, the first mention of "god" in this verse is preceeded by the Greek definite article ton, which literally means "the". But in the second occurrence of "god", there is no definite article. Why did John use "the " before the first God (theos), but not before the second occurrence of it ? Is there a difference between asking for "the" black suit and "a" black suit ? Yes there is. Likewise with the apostle John using the identfying article of "ton" (the) before the first use of God. He intentionally used it to separate who is meant by "god". How else would one distinguish between two individuals, except by saying "the man", as opposed to "a man" ?...

Your explanation simply fails to understand the meaning and grammar of the Greek text. As you correctly note, the portion translated "And the Word was God." in English literally says, "and God was the Word." This is due to the fact that the predicate of the sentence is placed before the subject for emphasis. We know the Word is the subject because John is telling us in context what the Word is, not what God is. While in general, you are correct, a Greek noun without an article is assumed to be indefinite (in English, "a" or "an"), in this case it was unnecessary because of the grammar of the sentence. We already know from the preceding statement of the verse that THE God is in question, and there is no other God, as is amply stated in Scripture. Therefore, due to the fact that "God" without an article is the predicate of the sentence, there is no article needed, and it is already known that the One True God is what is in question. If John had repeated "The God was the Word" , that would contradict His prior statement (The Word was with God) which distinguished God and the Logos as different persons. However, the next statement clarifies, by omitting the definite article for the predicate "God", that, while they are different persons, they are one in nature or essence: God is the Word. This perfectly aligns with Trinitarian theology once again.

Therefore, Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, for how can someone be be begotten and yet have no beginning, as God does ?(Psalms 90:2; John 3:16 King James Bible)

Just so that we are on the same page, "begotten" simply means "born". Jesus took on a human nature and was physically born. This does not, however, negate His divine nature, which existed eternally prior to His Incarnation. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." Rev. 22:14.

Hence, Jesus had a beginning, for Revelation 3:14 calls him the "the beginning of the creation of God;"

The Greek word for "beginning" there is arche, and it is the same word from which we get the English word "architect." Christ, as I've already discussed from Colossians 1, created all things, and thus He is the initiator or "beginning" of all creation, since He began all creation by creating it. It is not an indication that He is a created being Himself...otherwise, as I already pointed out, that would mean, per Col. 1, that He created Himself.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

FerventGodSeeker,

I don't know if you failed to see my last post or have just burned out on this topic (if you have just say so and I'll let it die). But if you're interested I have another question for you.

As is the case with many Bible-based debates, this comes down to who has the most correct interpretation. There are many passages that when taken at face value are simply contradictory. We are left to attempt to understand the context, implied conditions, figurative expressions, all without knowing for sure what the author actually intended. For example, the statement "there shall be no Gods after me" seems to contradict Paul's teachings that we are "offspring of God" and therefore "heirs to God", which to me implies we have the potential to become gods. Similarly Jesus' statement "the Father is greater than I" seems to contradict His statement that He and the Father are one. Obviously neither of us believes that they actually contradict each other. We claim to understand certain implied meanings that we use to make sense of the seemingly contradictory statements.

So the question is... who has the most correct interpretation? Who is divinely authorized to interpret scripture and is sufficiently inspired to do so? If the true Apostolic authority indeed continued in succession as the Roman Catholic Church claims then your interpretation is the only one that represents the truth. The doctrine of the Trinity as you understand it is truth and anything that deviates from that is not. However if the Apostolic succession was broken and an Apostasy occurred, as the LDS claim, then your interpretation carries no authority. In that case, the LDS claim of a restoration of truths and authority gains validity and with it the correct interpretation of scripture and the proper understanding of the Godhead. I started a thread on this topic several weeks back in the General Religious Debates Forum entitled "Scriptural evidence for the Apostasy" and would be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Hi, Polaris!
Sorry this took so long; I didn't see your post because I placed a response after it in answering the claims of another gentlemen.

True, as purple polka-dotted beaver ghosts on Pluto we could be obedient to His commandments and progress in some sense. But if we were polka-dotted beaver ghosts we would merely be His creation, not his children, and we would never be able to become like Him. He is not a beaver ghost. He is a glorified, perfected man -- our Father. The fact that we are His children and not merely his creation is a very important point -- we have divine potential.

This is simply a point of disagreement between us....I do not believe the Father is a man. The distinction between man and God is repeated numerous times throughout Scripture, as I have shown you. I believe that Christ, God the Son, took on a human nature/body 2,000 years ago in order to pay the human sacrifice for sin, but before this time, I see no reason Scripturally or otherwise to believe that God, specifically not the Father or Holy Spirit, have ever had physical bodies. I do not believe we are His literal children as you do....God's ways are higher than our ways, I don't believe that God needs to literally have sex as we do in order to create "children". Lastly, I do not believe we have "divine potential" in the sense that we can someday become Gods. God is the one and only true God, and Scripture never suggests that we will become Gods.

I

don't think we fully understand what brain waves are either. Are you suggesting that everytime God has ever been witnessed it was done so in a dream or a mirage?

No, although He did reveal Himself in that way at times. I am merely saying that God does not need to be physical in order to be perceived by us. Even if He did, as you already pointed out, He can violate or alter the laws of physics in order to make it possible as an immaterial being. My original point (which was nearly lost to me for a while, lol) was that, yes, you're right, God could violate the laws of physics and be omnipresent and still have a physical body. However, in doing so He would be constantly violating His own physicality in order to be omnipresent, and thus He would not be physical in any real, practical sense, since He would be constantly acting as an omnipresent immaterial spirit.

If that's the best example you have then that's all I need to hear -- it in no way implies that God the Father has ever been observed in multiple places at once.

Oh, you wanted an example where God the FATHER was witnessed in multiple places at once? You didn't specify that before, I thought we were just talking about "God" in general, which pertains to all three members of the Godhead. Unfortunately, you will not find such a verse in the Bible, because as Jesus said, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father." John 6:46 No human has ever seen the Father, and thus, asking for a verse where He is witnessed in more than one place cannot be answered. However, we can see that the Father is in more than one place at once. I believe that Mormonism teaches that generally the place where the Father resides is in heaven. I would agree that the Father is in heaven, and the Gospels indicate as much several times over. However, notice what Jesus says, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." John 14:10 The Father who is in heaven dwells in Jesus while He is on earth. Also, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23 In addition, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. 4:6 These verses demonstrate how the Father indwells Christians, personally dwelling in them all. This is only possible if He can be in more than one place at one time.

The God I believe in is not a genderless, faceless being -- He is a perfect, exalted, and glorified Man.

God's not genderless....so what gender is God? Male, I assume? If you believe that that the "image" that humans are created in is a literal physical similarity, then, you must believe that God is some sort of hermaphrodite, since recall that both males AND females are created in this image.

Good one. Though I have lungs, without my spirit I would not exist.

Without your lungs, or any number of other vital organs, you wouldn't exist either....but again, you don't call yourself by those organs, you simply say you HAVE lungs, or a heart, etc...you HAVE a spirit, but you cannot say that you ARE a spirit, which does not have flesh and bones.

Those verses in Genesis are describing the physical creation of the earth, plants, animals, etc. The context is all concerning the physical creation. Why are we to assume that the reference to create man in God's image is not at least in part a reference to the physical?

Again, simply because it is in the context of something physical does not mean that something spiritual cannot be meant. As a Catholic who sees God as immaterial, I assume that the context is not physical because I believe God is not physical. You assume it is physical, because your God is physical.

So you're suggesting that Stephen actually only saw one being -- Christ, and the reference to God was just a figurative description of Christ's status?

Yes, that's precisely what I'm suggesting.

What? Please explain how being the offspring of God and heirs to God does not imply that we have the potential to become as He is -- even gods.

Because children do not always become what their parents are (nor do they need to), and because heirs don't always become what the person who gave them their inheritance was (nor do they need to, either). Again, becoming "like" God is doe snot mean becoming "who" God is, or ever reaching the point that God is...i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

The offspring of lions become lions, the heir to a King has the potential to become a king. One lion isn't necessarily exactly like its father, nor is one king exactly like his predecessor, but that doesn't mean they aren't lions or kings. Similarly just because we may never be exactly like our Father doesn't mean that we can't become gods. The offspring of a god by definition has the potential to become a god.

Again, the problem with your analogy is that it simply doesn't take into account the other factors involved when dealing with God. There are no other Gods but the One True God, nor will there ever be after Him. While we are God's spiritual "children", we are never promised to become divine. We are promised to SHARE in God's divine glory and righteousness, which is His free gift to us, but this does not make us divine.

So why would he end there, or cause our progression to end there? Is He not powerful enough to endow us with even a portion of His godliness? Or will He simply not ever trust us enough even though we'll have eternity to gain His trust?

He endows us with a portion of His godliness by making us sinless and righteous. However, again, this does not make us Gods, as He is the One and Only God. While we have no idea what is in store for us in heaven, it has never even been suggested in orthodox Christian teaching that we will become Gods ourselves, populate our own planets, etc etc etc. These teachings are simply inaccurate, and in my opinion offer a false sense of hope and self-importance to those who follow them.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FerventGodSeeker,

I don't know if you failed to see my last post or have just burned out on this topic (if you have just say so and I'll let it die). But if you're interested I have another question for you.

I do just want to say that I have greatly enjoyed my discussion with you on this issue...you have made me think through and re-examine a number of issues, which is always good. While I haven't "burned out", I think we have reached a point where it is becoming more difficult to progress in our dialogue because we simply have irreconcilable differences. You view Scripture one way, and I view it another way, and thus we will never convince one another of each other's position by simply quoting Bible verses back and forth.

As is the case with many Bible-based debates, this comes down to who has the most correct interpretation. There are many passages that when taken at face value are simply contradictory. We are left to attempt to understand the context, implied conditions, figurative expressions, all without knowing for sure what the author actually intended. For example, the statement "there shall be no Gods after me" seems to contradict Paul's teachings that we are "offspring of God" and therefore "heirs to God", which to me implies we have the potential to become gods. Similarly Jesus' statement "the Father is greater than I" seems to contradict His statement that He and the Father are one. Obviously neither of us believes that they actually contradict each other. We claim to understand certain implied meanings that we use to make sense of the seemingly contradictory statements.

Yes, I would basically agree with you there.

So the question is... who has the most correct interpretation? Who is divinely authorized to interpret scripture and is sufficiently inspired to do so? If the true Apostolic authority indeed continued in succession as the Roman Catholic Church claims then your interpretation is the only one that represents the truth. The doctrine of the Trinity as you understand it is truth and anything that deviates from that is not.

Correct

However if the Apostolic succession was broken and an Apostasy occurred, as the LDS claim, then your interpretation carries no authority. In that case, the LDS claim of a restoration of truths and authority gains validity and with it the correct interpretation of scripture and the proper understanding of the Godhead.

Also true, although if this was the case you would also have to validate your interpretations over and above the other churches which claim to be the reconstruction of God's "True Church" from a "Universal Apostasy": e.g. the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Christ, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc., which is a hefty challenge in and of itself.

I started a thread on this topic several weeks back in the General Religious Debates Forum entitled "Scriptural evidence for the Apostasy" and would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Well obviously, as a Roman Catholic, I do not believe in a "Universal Apostasy". While I do believe that the Church has experienced high points and low points (many Catholics believe that the Church is again reaching a high point), I do not believe that the chain of Apostolic Succession has ever been broken. If you wish to attempt to prove that such an Apostasy took place at some point in the past 2,000 years, you may of course do so, and I'd be interested in what you had to say. Here is the list of the Catholic Popes for the past 2,000 years: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm If you were going to attempt to explain when, how, and why this Apostasy took place, I would ask you also to point out where in this unbroken 2,000 year old chain you believe the Apostasy occurred.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

However, notice what Jesus says, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." John 14:10 The Father who is in heaven dwells in Jesus while He is on earth. Also, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23 In addition, "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. 4:6 These verses demonstrate how the Father indwells Christians, personally dwelling in them all. This is only possible if He can be in more than one place at one time.

Yet another example of a literal vs. figurative interpretation.

If you believe that that the "image" that humans are created in is a literal physical similarity, then, you must believe that God is some sort of hermaphrodite, since recall that both males AND females are created in this image.

No, actually the passage specifically says "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Woman was formed later. It's also interesting to note that later in reference to one of Adam's sons, Seth, we see the same description "in his own likeness, after his image".

Because children do not always become what their parents are (nor do they need to), and because heirs don't always become what the person who gave them their inheritance was (nor do they need to, either). Again, becoming "like" God is doe snot mean becoming "who" God is, or ever reaching the point that God is...i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.

True an offspring or heir may not always become as it's predecessor, but it does have the potential to become such. I'll repeat, the offspring of a god by definition has the potential to become a god.

 

[Polaris]

I do just want to say that I have greatly enjoyed my discussion with you on this issue...you have made me think through and re-examine a number of issues, which is always good. While I haven't "burned out", I think we have reached a point where it is becoming more difficult to progress in our dialogue because we simply have irreconcilable differences. You view Scripture one way, and I view it another way, and thus we will never convince one another of each other's position by simply quoting Bible verses back and forth.

I agree 100%. And I have also enjoyed this discussion. Even though we don't agree on some of these points I do have a lot of respect for your views and beliefs.

Also true, although if this was the case you would also have to validate your interpretations over and above the other churches which claim to be the reconstruction of God's "True Church" from a "Universal Apostasy": e.g. the Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Christ, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc., which is a hefty challenge in and of itself.

True and that's why I said our position gains validity.

Well obviously, as a Roman Catholic, I do not believe in a "Universal Apostasy". While I do believe that the Church has experienced high points and low points (many Catholics believe that the Church is again reaching a high point), I do not believe that the chain of Apostolic Succession has ever been broken. If you wish to attempt to prove that such an Apostasy took place at some point in the past 2,000 years, you may of course do so, and I'd be interested in what you had to say. Here is the list of the Catholic Popes for the past 2,000 years: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm If you were going to attempt to explain when, how, and why this Apostasy took place, I would ask you also to point out where in this unbroken 2,000 year old chain you believe the Apostasy occurred.

The bottom line is this: we believe that as the early Apostles were persecuted and eventually killed (somewhere near the end of the 1st century or shortly thereafter), the Apostolic authority was also taken along with the rights to general revelation. From other discussions I've had it seems most Catholics and Orthodox claim that the Apostolic authority was simply passed on to the Bishops, which to me doesn't make sense because in my belief the offices of Apostle and Bishop are completely different offices of authority and Apostolic succession should have proceeded with a succession of Apostles.

The thread I referred you to makes other scriptural based arguments for the apostasy, but again they are dependent on the interpretation of scripture, which can rarely settle any doctrinal dispute. Really the foundation of my belief is in my conviction that Joseph Smith was who he claimed to be -- and that was only attained through study and answer to prayer. I firmly believe that he was a prophet of God and therefore all other questions (apostasy, nature of God and the Godhead, etc) simply flow from there (though I will add that there is biblical support for nearly all doctrines that Joseph revealed).

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

No, actually the passage specifically says "let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Woman was formed later. It's also interesting to note that later in reference to one of Adam's sons, Seth, we see the same description "in his own likeness, after his image".

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." God created mankind in His own image, as two different genders: male and female. Again, a literal image reveals God as some hermaphrodite, which I simply don't buy.

True an offspring or heir may not always become as it's predecessor, but it does have the potential to become such.

In ordinary cases, you'd be right. However, God is obviously unique and His position unique. He alone is God, and will remain so for all eternity, with no other Gods beside Him.

I'll repeat, the offspring of a god by definition has the potential to become a god

And I'll repeat, there's simply no reason to assume that references to Christians as God's "children" are literal. If anything, our sonship to God is adoptive, not biological or direct. "to redeem those who were under law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Gal. 4:4; "having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will," Eph. 1:5

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

The bottom line is this: we believe that as the early Apostles were persecuted and eventually killed (somewhere near the end of the 1st century or shortly thereafter), the Apostolic authority was also taken along with the rights to general revelation.

Where did you get the idea that when Apostles die, they're authority is taken along with them? You have Apostles in the Mormon church, right? When an Apostle dies, does their authority go along with them with no one to take their place, or is another person chosen?

From other discussions I've had it seems most Catholics and Orthodox claim that the Apostolic authority was simply passed on to the Bishops, which to me doesn't make sense because in my belief the offices of Apostle and Bishop are completely different offices of authority and Apostolic succession should have proceeded with a succession of Apostles.

As I understand it (I'm no expert, I'll have to check this out to be sure), Apsotolic authority was passed on to all the Magisterium, most notably the Pope himself. The succession of the Magesterium has been continuous for 2,000 years, as I showed you in part with the complete unbroken list of Popes.

The thread I referred you to makes other scriptural based arguments for the apostasy, but again they are dependent on the interpretation of scripture, which can rarely settle any doctrinal dispute. Really the foundation of my belief is in my conviction that Joseph Smith was who he claimed to be -- and that was only attained through study and answer to prayer. I firmly believe that he was a prophet of God and therefore all other questions (apostasy, nature of God and the Godhead, etc) simply flow from there (though I will add that there is biblical support for nearly all doctrines that Joseph revealed).

And that is truly what it comes down to. You believe in Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, and thus you believe in the Apostasy. I deny the Apostasy due to the fact that historically I just haven't seen any evidence of it. Rather, I see ample evidence of the fact that the Catholic Church has had an unbroken chain of authority for 2,000 years, all the way back to Christ and the Apostles.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

Where did you get the idea that when Apostles die, they're authority is taken along with them? You have Apostles in the Mormon church, right? When an Apostle dies, does their authority go along with them with no one to take their place, or is another person chosen?

If all the apostles die before having the opportunity to gather and ordain individuals to specifically fill the vacancies (similar to that done in Acts 1 with Matthias), yes the Apostolic authority is taken with them. In our church when an Apostle dies the rest of the Apostles meet to select and ordain another to fill the vacancy.

My point is this true Apostolic succession did not happen in the early centuries as is evidenced by the lack of Apostles.

As I understand it (I'm no expert, I'll have to check this out to be sure), Apsotolic authority was passed on to all the Magisterium, most notably the Pope himself. The succession of the Magesterium has been continuous for 2,000 years, as I showed you in part with the complete unbroken list of Popes.

From what I understand Linus was presumably the first Bishop of Rome. I've never heard any indication of him being an Apostle and I doubt there is any evidence of such an Apostolic ordination. The office of Pope didn't come along until much later.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

If all the apostles die before having the opportunity to gather and ordain individuals to specifically fill the vacancies (similar to that done in Acts 1 with Matthias), yes the Apostolic authority is taken with them. In our church when an Apostle dies the rest of the Apostles meet to select and ordain another to fill the vacancy.

So if, at a meeting of all 12 of the Mormon Apostles, someone bombed the building and all 12 of them died, then the Mormon church would basically be invalidated?

My point is this true Apostolic succession did not happen in the early centuries as is evidenced by the lack of Apostles.

What lack of Apostles? As you mentioned from Matthias' selection in Acts, the Church from the very beginning initiated Apostles as others died. When Peter died, Linus was chosen to take His place as head of the Church. I'm not sure where you're seeing a lack of Apostles.

From what I understand Linus was presumably the first Bishop of Rome.

No, Peter was.

I've never heard any indication of him being an Apostle and I doubt there is any evidence of such an Apostolic ordination. The office of Pope didn't come along until much later.

On the website list of Popes that I gave you, when you click on St. Linus, it begins the description of him like this:
"Pope St. Linus:

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus. "​

 

[Polaris]

So if, at a meeting of all 12 of the Mormon Apostles, someone bombed the building and all 12 of them died, then the Mormon church would basically be invalidated?

That's a good question. The Quorum of the Seventy would then take over as the presiding body, but they do not hold Apostolic authority. I don't believe God would let such and event occur as we believe this to be the last dispensation to usher in the Second Coming of the Lord.

What lack of Apostles? As you mentioned from Matthias' selection in Acts, the Church from the very beginning initiated Apostles as others died. When Peter died, Linus was chosen to take His place as head of the Church. I'm not sure where you're seeing a lack of Apostles.

Yeah in the beginning it did, but at some point (whether by choice or force) it did not continue. There is no evidence that Linus was given Apostolic authority -- he was a Bishop.

Peter was an Apostle and it appears that he helped get the church established in Rome. No where in scripture does it indicate that he was a Bishop -- though he called others to the office of Bishop.

On the website list of Popes that I gave you, when you click on St. Linus, it begins the description of him like this:
"Pope St. Linus:

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus. "​

This actually support my claims. Peter is always referred to as Apostle and Linus as Bishop. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would found and establish the church in Rome and then turn it over to a Bishop (local authority) to take it from there so the Apostles could attend to more global church issues.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That's a good question. The Quorum of the Seventy would then take over as the presiding body, but they do not hold Apostolic authority. I don't believe God would let such and event occur as we believe this to be the last dispensation to usher in the Second Coming of the Lord.

And I don't believe that God would ever let such a thing happen to His Church at any time in its history . Just as the Quorum of the Seventy would take over and begin to make decisions, most likely establishing other Apostles, even if it were true that all the Apostles were dead at one point in early Church history, it wouldn't invalidate the Church at the time. The highest authorities would come together and begin re-establishing Apostolic authority.

Yeah in the beginning it did, but at some point (whether by choice or force) it did not continue.

Says who? What historical evidence do you have of this?

There is no evidence that Linus was given Apostolic authority -- he was a Bishop.

You realize that Bishops can become Apostles, right? Peter was referred to as the Bishop of Rome, yet He was an Apostle. The two terms are not exclusive of each other. Linus was appointed as the Bishop of Rome, the Head of the Church after Peter.

Peter was an Apostle and it appears that he helped get the church established in Rome. No where in scripture does it indicate that he was a Bishop -- though he called others to the office of Bishop.

In the Church, one cannot call someone to an office higher than themselves. A priest cannot appoint a Cardinal. If Peter was calling people to the office of Bishop, he was at least a Bishop himself. Again, Apostle and Bishop are not exclusive terms.

This actually support my claims. Peter is always referred to as Apostle and Linus as Bishop. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would found and establish the church in Rome and then turn it over to a Bishop (local authority) to take it from there so the Apostles could attend to more global church issues.

Sure, but you're forgetting an important detail. The local Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Church. Rome was the center of the Christian Church, and was honored and obeyed with authority above all other churches. Due to the fact that Linus was appointed as Bishop of Rome, he was appointed as head of the Church, just as Peter was head of the Church.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Polaris]

And I don't believe that God would ever let such a thing happen to His Church at any time in its history . Just as the Quorum of the Seventy would take over and begin to make decisions, most likely establishing other Apostles, even if it were true that all the Apostles were dead at one point in early Church history, it wouldn't invalidate the Church at the time. The highest authorities would come together and begin re-establishing Apostolic authority.

Well, there are scriptures that prophecy of an apostasy though you would probably interpret them differently.

Seventies cannot call and ordain Apostles -- Apostles are of higher authority. The only ones who can call and ordain Apostles are Apostles or a Prophet called by God to do so.

Says who? What historical evidence do you have of this?

The evidence is that in the early Christian church (post 1st or 2nd century)there was no official office of Apostle -- there were just a group of Bishops.

You realize that Bishops can become Apostles, right? Peter was referred to as the Bishop of Rome, yet He was an Apostle.

Where is Peter referred to as Bishop of Rome?

The two terms are not exclusive of each other. Linus was in fact a Bishop, and was later made head of the Church with Apostolic authority after Peter.

In the Church, one cannot call someone to an office higher than themselves. A priest cannot appoint a Cardinal. If Peter was calling people to the office of Bishop, he was at least a Bishop himself. Again, Apostle and Bishop are not exclusive terms.

That's right. Peter was an Apostle which is a higher authority than a Bishop. Apostle and Bishop are not the same office of authority -- Apostle is a higher global authority while Bishop is a local authority. Apostles call, ordain, and oversee Bishops.

Sure, but you're forgetting an important detail. The local Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Church. Rome was the center of the Christian Church, and was honored and obeyed with authority above all other churches. Due to the fact that Linus was appointed as Bishop of Rome, he was appointed as head of the Church, just as Peter was head of the Church.

Where is it stated that Rome was the center of the Christian church during the time of the Apostles? In the NT it sounds like Jerusalem was still regarded as the center. Everything you've showed me indicates Linus may very well have been ordained as Bishop over Rome, but that is not the same as Apostle of the church. Even the center of the church could have its own Bishop (under the Apostles) so that the Apostles could concentrate on the more global church issues.