• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Cross

M

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
comprehend said:
Actually, the very sound doctrine you share above IS taught in sunday school. I am a sunday school teacher and that is the very first scripture addressed in the manual's lesson on the Godhead (see manual). This scripture is explaining that they are one in purpose, not one essense. According to LDS doctrine they are most definitely not three manefestations of the same personage and mormon doctrine is very clear on this point. Those who believe in the trinity believe that God, Jesus, and the HG are all of one essense, if one were destroyed, all 3 would be destroyed. We do not believe that. The first vision makes it quite clear for LDS doctrine that God the Father and Jesus Christ have separate bodies and are distinct individuals.(to echo MM again, my apologies if I have improperly described the trinity).

edited for spelling error
Click to expand...
Actually it's the forth scripture:D . Sorry, I had to. I know what our doctrine is; I've spent my life, thus far, studying the Gospel, one of the many reasons why I'm studying the NT and early Christianity for my career. The way that the Trinity has been explained to me is that the 3 are different manifestations of the 1 God; I wasn't suggesting that that was our doctrine. I was simply pointing out, that for the more than 200 years of apostacy that preceded the Council of Nicea, they were able to get fairly close to the right doctrine.
 
R

reyjamiei

Member
JamesThePersian said:
By the way, crosses don't concentrate on Christ's death. You could argue that crucifixes do (i.e. ones with a corpus), but an empty cross celebrates the fact that He is no longer crucified - in other words it celebrates the victory over death and not Christ's death itself. Just thought I'd end by trying to clear up a misconception you seem to have about what the symbol means.

James
Click to expand...

An empty cross doesn't signify Christ's death but as it was used for crucifiction it would be a symbol for death. An empty cross would not celebrate the fact that Jesus is no longer crucified or his victory over death, because the cross was empty before he was crucified and it was empty when his crucified body was taken from the cross and placed in the tomb. Therefore an empty cross could signify that he wasn't crucified at all.
 
Arabis

Arabis

see me run
mormonman said:
Actually it's the forth scripture:D . Sorry, I had to. I know what our doctrine is; I've spent my life, thus far, studying the Gospel, one of the many reasons why I'm studying the NT and early Christianity for my career. The way that the Trinity has been explained to me is that the 3 are different manifestations of the 1 God; I wasn't suggesting that that was our doctrine. I was simply pointing out, that for the more than 200 years of apostacy that preceded the Council of Nicea, they were able to get fairly close to the right doctrine.
Click to expand...

Getting "fairly close" is a problem within itself. Satan has successfully counterfeited several versions of the truth. He likes to change what the truth is and get people to accept the "fairly close" version, because then they aren't accepting the truth. Small things that are changed, such as the trinity, have caused a serious problem with people knowing who and what God really is.
 
Comprehend

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
mormonman said:
Actually it's the forth scripture:D . Sorry, I had to. I know what our doctrine is; I've spent my life, thus far, studying the Gospel, one of the many reasons why I'm studying the NT and early Christianity for my career. The way that the Trinity has been explained to me is that the 3 are different manifestations of the 1 God; I wasn't suggesting that that was our doctrine. I was simply pointing out, that for the more than 200 years of apostacy that preceded the Council of Nicea, they were able to get fairly close to the right doctrine.
Click to expand...

well, that is fine of course but you are wrong (about the scripture). As you will notice when you look at the link again, that while as you so astutely noticed that Mosiah 15 is the forth (sic) scripture LISTED, it is the first scripture talked about in the lesson, so.....like I said, it is "the very first scripture addressed." :cool: So I'll count that as a swing and a miss.

I understand that you were saying that the idea of the trinity was close. I was disagreeing that it is in anyway close. What part of the trinity would you suggest is right? the names? Anyway, I didn't really have a problem with your opinion that the trinity is close to our doctrine. My problem was that you were portraying Mosiah 15 as something that it clearly isn't. It does not describe the trinity. It is completely consistant with mormon doctrine. Secondly I objected to your claim that (to paraphrase) the doctrine from this scripture is not taught in sunday school. So I clearly demonstrated that the scripture IS taught in sunday school despite your claim, and then showed that it does not say what you argued it said (that it was describing the mainstream christian trinity). Those two claims about LDS doctrine was what I took issue with.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
mormonman said:
I was simply pointing out, that for the more than 200 years of apostacy that preceded the Council of Nicea, they were able to get fairly close to the right doctrine.
Click to expand...
I think you're right. I find this period of Christianity to be absolutely fascinating. It really intrigues me to see how "Christian" doctrine evolved. Have you read, "Restoring the Ancient Church" by Barry Bickmore? I bet you'd really like it!
 
Comprehend

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Arabis said:
Getting "fairly close" is a problem within itself. Satan has successfully counterfeited several versions of the truth. He likes to change what the truth is and get people to accept the "fairly close" version, because then they aren't accepting the truth. Small things that are changed, such as the trinity, have caused a serious problem with people knowing who and what God really is.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think this is an important subject and it matters that we understand the nature of God. In addition to the Lectures on Faith, this is some of what Joseph Smith had to say about understanding God in the King Follett discourse:

Joseph Smith said:
The Character of God

In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning-to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Elohim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right.

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into a more lofty sphere and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.
Click to expand...
 
arielmessenger

arielmessenger

Member
The Christian Cross used to be the most powerful religious icon on earth but that is history now with the world's most powerful icon for peace, Paxcalibur, the Sword made into the Peace Symbol. You cannot go to any country on earth now without people knowing what the Peace Symbol means, and unlike the Cross, the Peace Symbol is universally accepted. Christian history of mistreatment of non-Christians have ruined forever the Cross's ability to be received favorably by non-Christians. And the Jewish Star of David or the Muslim Crescent moon and star? Forget universal acceptance for them as well. Only the Peace Symbol is free of negative history which is why Paxcalibur in Jerusalem will become the universal Abrahamic religious icon and symbol of peace on earth, goodwill to all humankind. :bow:
 
arielmessenger

arielmessenger

Member
Pax_on_the_Jordan_bank.jpg
 
arielmessenger

arielmessenger

Member
in 2003. Pax rests now in the Church of St. Mary in Nazareth. I have been invited back to once again bear Paxcalibur through the streets of Nazareth in their annual Easter procession. This time around the Story of Paxcalibur will be written in Arabic so the Nazareans know the full story which they did not know in 2003 which only goes to show the power of this icon to communicate something God wants people to know--everything people make into weapons against peace must be sacrificed. Pax symbolizes the circumcision of weaponry, it is God's way of telling us that in order to bring peace into the world, the sword as a weapon must go.

Rev 19:15 "Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron."

Paxcalibur is that sharp sword made of iron but transformed into a moral victory for peace that strikes the nations at war.
 
Comprehend

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
hey guys look what I found on Ariel messenger. He has his own prophet website. very cool.

I really enjoyed the part about the "age of aquarious" maybe this is where SB Habbakuk is coming from too....
 
M

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
reyjamiei said:
An empty cross doesn't signify Christ's death but as it was used for crucifiction it would be a symbol for death. An empty cross would not celebrate the fact that Jesus is no longer crucified or his victory over death, because the cross was empty before he was crucified and it was empty when his crucified body was taken from the cross and placed in the tomb. Therefore an empty cross could signify that he wasn't crucified at all.
Click to expand...
It seems that you're accusing all of Christiandom that has a cross in their home or on their person, including myself, of denying the actuality of the death of Christ. Peter sure didn't see the cross in that manner. When he described Christ as a cross (see my openning post), did the cross have Christ on it? I really don't think so.
 
M

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
arielmessenger said:
The Christian Cross used to be the most powerful religious icon on earth but that is history now with the world's most powerful icon for peace, Paxcalibur, the Sword made into the Peace Symbol. You cannot go to any country on earth now without people knowing what the Peace Symbol means, and unlike the Cross, the Peace Symbol is universally accepted. Christian history of mistreatment of non-Christians have ruined forever the Cross's ability to be received favorably by non-Christians. And the Jewish Star of David or the Muslim Crescent moon and star? Forget universal acceptance for them as well. Only the Peace Symbol is free of negative history which is why Paxcalibur in Jerusalem will become the universal Abrahamic religious icon and symbol of peace on earth, goodwill to all humankind. :bow:
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the hippies used the peace sign as their symbol, and they did some pretty bad things. Anyway, the cross to me does not represent Christianity as a whole; it represents Christ.
 
Comprehend

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
mormonman said:
Actually, I think the hippies used the peace sign as their symbol, and they did some pretty bad things. Anyway, the cross to me does not represent Christianity as a whole; it represents Christ.
Click to expand...

arielmessenger is a hippie. check out his website, he says he is a "veteran of the 60's counterculture revolution" it is VERY good reading....:areyoucra
 
R

reyjamiei

Member
mormonman said:
It seems that you're accusing all of Christiandom that has a cross in their home or on their person, including myself, of denying the actuality of the death of Christ. Peter sure didn't see the cross in that manner. When he described Christ as a cross (see my openning post), did the cross have Christ on it? I really don't think so.
Click to expand...

It may seem that way but that is not at all what I said. I said that an empty cross could signify that he wasn't crucified, not that it does signify that. Alot of people throughout history have been crucified on crosses and their crosses were empty as well. Some people could take an empty cross to mean that he wasn't crucified at all.
 
M

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
reyjamiei said:
It may seem that way but that is not at all what I said. I said that an empty cross could signify that he wasn't crucified, not that it does signify that. Alot of people throughout history have been crucified on crosses and their crosses were empty as well. Some people could take an empty cross to mean that he wasn't crucified at all.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, it could mean that, but in the context of how people display it, it doesn't carry that meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top