Apostolic

[Booko]

If Booko says so, she raised the earlier objection.

Y'all are just discussing, which is what DIR is for. When it gets to "you're wrong because of X" then it gets into debate. If it stays "I believe Y (with explanation) they everything's cool.

 

[*Paul*]

Y'all are just discussing, which is what DIR is for. When it gets to "you're wrong because of X" then it gets into debate. If it stays "I believe Y (with explanation) they everything's cool.

That's cool then Booko, i'm not actually interested in winning an arguement here or starting a new one, I was only interested in how The Apostolic preachers and the mormons position on who God is matches up which includes His name, what I believe is irrelevant to this discussion just what the two aforementioned parties believe.

 

[Katzpur]

I have never heard a mormon say there is one God and His name is Jesus. It was a simple query and I am still suprised that you can't see how I would be confused by it.

Okay, I can see why you would have initially been confused. I thought I actually explained it pretty well, though, so I'm not so sure why you're still confused.

That is why I was / am confused, how can you agree with his statement that there is one God and His name is Jesus when you believe in 3 Gods each with different names who are only one in purpose?

I'll ask again: Do you believe the Father is God? Do you believe the Son is God? Do you believe the Holy Ghost is God?

Do you also believe that the Father is His own Son and that the Son is His own Father? I'd ask you to present some biblical evidence that this is the case, but that probably would be crossing the line into a debate. (I'd love to debate you on this, incidentally.)

Only one in purpose? You say that as if it were an insigificant detail. What greater unity could there possibly be?

Can you seriously not see my confusion here? Am I missing something? I had no intention of starting a debate on the topic (I still don't) but I have made an effort to understand your doctrines by reading your documents and thought that I knew what you believed, that there are 3 Gods who are one in unity and pupose each distinct and called different things. I would have expected you to come back and say, oops I must have overlooked that (perhaps blinded by the sinless life statement), but instead you seem to insist you are in agreement.

I'm not agreeing that they are "one in substance" but that they are "one in will and purpose, one in mind and heart." They are "one God" in the same way that my husband as I are "one flesh."

Thats what I believe to absolutley, but if thats what you believe then what you are saying is we believe in 3 Gods and one of them is called Jesus who is one in purpose and unity with the other two ( and are one in that sense). Not that there is one God and His name is Jesus. Wouldn't that be correct? I'm only trying to understand what you believe here not discredit it, as I said I have taken time to read quite a bit of your church documents so I could understand what you believe rather than have a Christian tell me what you believe and thought I had reached an understanding but clearly I haven't , it must be more complicated than what I previously thought which is why I asked for a someone to clear this up for me.

I'm not really trying to debate the point either. I'm simply trying to help you understand that there is more than one interpretation for the two-word phrase, "one God." If I haven't explained it to your satisfaction by now, I'm probably not going to be successful.

 

[Katzpur]

That's cool then Booko, i'm not actually interested in winning an arguement here or starting a new one, I was only interested in how The Apostolic preachers and the mormons position on who God is matches up which includes His name, what I believe is irrelevant to this discussion just what the two aforementioned parties believe.

Actually, I suspect that a lot of trinitarians would agree with me that Jesus is the name of the Son, and not of the Father or the Holy Ghost, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[*Paul*]

I'm not really trying to debate the point either. I'm simply trying to help you understand that there is more than one interpretation for the two-word phrase, "one God." If I haven't explained it to your satisfaction by now, I'm probably not going to be successful.

Thanks for trying anyway Katzpur but we just aint synchronizing here. Nevermind.

I suspect we'll speak again soon.

 

[*Paul*]

Actually, I suspect that a lot of trinitarians would agree with me that Jesus is the name of the Son, and not of the Father or the Holy Ghost, but I could be wrong about that.

I think they all would as do i.