AV1611 said:
Let's assume you have a jug of water. You pour some of it into a glass, an earthen vessel, so to speak, and set it outside. (This is a crude example.) Now suppose the glass gets cracked and brought back into the house, whereupon you set it on a pedestal without pouring the water back into the jug. Do you see how the "substance" is back where it came from (the house), along with the earthen vessel it inhabited?
Thanks for the analogy, AV. Analogies are worthwhile, and I often use them myself. Of course, whenever I do, someone zeros in on some stupid little detail and rips the entire analogy to shreds. Obviously, I don't appreciate that, so I'm not going to do the same thing to you. I will, however, mention thing about your analogy that doesn't make sense to me:
If I were to drop a few drops of food coloring into the glass of water, it would change color. The water in the jug, however, would remain clear. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to the glass of water which will simultaneously affect the jug of water. With this is mind, I can't really say that both the jug and the glass contain the "same substance." They do, however, contain "like substances."
I'm starting to think that the problem lies in the use of the word "substance." Would you please tell me what you mean when you use that word? I think that would go a long way towards helping me understand your position.
If, by the word "substance," you are referring to the qualities and attributes of God that make Him divine (i.e His love, mercy, knowledge, wisdom, power, glory, light, truth, etc.), then I would agree with you that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "of one substance." But, you already said that God's substance must be "something unknown to man." That leads me to believe that by "substance," you are referring to God's physical make-up. (We do, after all, know what wisdom, love, power, etc. are.) If, however, you are using "substance" as a synonym for "physical make-up" and are saying that God's physical make-up is "something unknown to man," I see a significant problem in your interpretation. If Jesus Christ has a physical body of flesh and bones, this body is part of His physical make-up. I can't imagine how you would argue against that! So, how do two beings, one corporeal and the other incorporeal, share the same physical make-up?
Okay, thanks. The Masons have their own KJV bible too, with footnotes and Q & A sections in it. So I know where you're coming from.
I'm not sure you do. I think you're still implying that my KJV is somehow less real, less authentic than yours. I could use one without the footnotes and it would say the same thing. What is it you are really saying?
Debate LDS? No, I was just answering your questions. I have no wish to attack someone else's religion here.
I know you don't. That's why I like you. (You might want to check out the thread entitled, "Kindness Award Nomination.")
I still haven't read them. The Bible is enough reading for me. Although I may just do that sometime. I would expect that if someone came out with a creed based on the Bible, that it would not contradict it; but like I said, if it does, it's wrong.
That's my point entirely. The creeds were not based on the Bible, but on neo-Platonic philosophy that describes God almost exactly as you have described Him.
That's why we have four Gospels, and not just one. So we can compare spiritual things with spiritual, rightly dividing the word of truth. They stand as lighthouses guiding us into all Truth.
Here's the same passage in Luke 8:38-39:
NOW THE MAN OUT OF WHOM THE DEVILS WERE DEPARTED BESOUGHT HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WITH HIM: BUT JESUS SENT HIM AWAY, SAYING, RETURN TO THINE OWN HOUSE, AND SHEW HOW GREAT THINGS GOD HATH DONE UNTO THEE. AND HE WENT HIS WAY, AND PUBLISHED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CITY HOW GREAT THINGS JESUS HAD DONE UNTO HIM.
If you had a brother who sent me an e-mail and said "My sister got baptized today" --- and another brother who sent me an e-mail and said "Kathryn got baptized today", I can assume one of two things: both your brothers are talking about two different sisters, or both your brothers are talking about the same sister.
Given the fact that they have only one sister, though; and I can deduce that 'my sister' and 'Kathryn' are one and the same.
I agree. But then I have never said that Jesus wasn't "God." All I've said is that He is not God the Father.
Kathryn