1. 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!

Poll: Who Believes in the Trinity?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Katzpur, Jun 26, 2005.

?
  1. Yes, as this doctrine is described in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

    13 vote(s)
    21.7%
  2. No, but I do believe in divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

    11 vote(s)
    18.3%
  3. No. I believe that Jesus, while a great teacher, can in no way be considered "God."

    17 vote(s)
    28.3%
  4. Other. Please explain.

    19 vote(s)
    31.7%
  1. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    AV, you can "sound off" in the most gentlemanly way of anybody I know. :162:

    Well, I've got to admit, you certainly got me there. :eek:

    Okay, let me ask you then, in what way do you believe they are "one"? Are they all part of a single substance? Or are they perhaps "one" in some other way? You see, I too use the KJV, so I also believe that they are "one."

    In a previous post, you said you are unfamiliar with the creeds I mentioned. And yet it appears to me that your understanding of the nature of God corresponds exactly to what the Creeds say He is. In other words, you may claim to believe what the Bible says about the relationship between the Father and the Son, but I find it hard to believe you'd have come to the conclusions you did without a whole lot of "help" from clergymen who are very, very familiar with the creeds and what they have to say about the nature of God.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the phrase "the Lord" is speaking of God and that, at the same time, refers to Jesus Christ. Consequently, you see God and the Son of God as being one and the same?

    Kathryn
     
  2. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Sorry for the long, long delay in getting back to you, Victor. Somehow, I missed this post entirely and just noticed it for the first time. Tell me, if you would, why you believe that "inspiration and public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle." I would appreciate it if you could back up your reasons with some kind of biblical rationale for God suddenly deciding to stop talking to us. Did He warn the people that He was going to stop revealing Himself to them or did He just suddenly lapse into silence?

    Also, since you don't believe the creeds to be inspired, what makes you so sure they are true?

    I don't really want to give you a link (partly because I don't know of one that would specifically address your question). But I would be more than happy to try to explain in my own words. I just can't do it right now, because it's going to take a bit of preparation and thought. Watch for a reply sometime tomorrow (8/28), though.

    Kathryn
     
  3. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    I really don't know, Katzpur (may I call you Katz?) It must be some type of substance unknown to man. God didn't chose to tell us that, and I respect His silence.

    Yes, but, correct me if I'm wrong. It has to have an embossed seal of the LDS church on it, right?

    Also, don't you view 'The Book of Mormon', 'Doctrines and Covenants', and 'Pearl of Great Price' as just as authoritative as the KJV? And isn't it true that where the KJV differs from the Book of Mormon, the KJV is wrong? Example: Jesus being born in Jerusalem, vs the AV's Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

    It's been years since I've debated Mormons, Gary Gilmore, and the Parchment of Abraham - (supposedly burned up in a fire).

    I can honestly say I do not know those creeds at all. I may have read them once, but I really don't know what they say. Nor do I care. If they differ from the Bible, they're wrong.

    That is correct.

    p.s. I still love that Kitty Cat you've chosen as your avatar.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Radar

    Radar Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +30
    I'm agnostic so the evidence would point towards no. You know how the agnostics can be we don't know and we don't care. I don't know, is always an acceptable answer. Especially when it is unknowable.
     
  5. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian


    Katz is fine with me, as is Kathryn or Kate (Pah calls me Kate.) Now, what may I call you –- other than AV?

    Okay, on another thread, you indicated that you believe Jesus ascended in bodily form into Heaven. You also stated that since that time, “nothing” has happened to His body. I’m assuming you mean that He still has it. That body was one of flesh and bones, as He pointed out to His Apostles the first time they saw Him after His resurrection. So how do you reconcile the belief that Jesus has a body of flesh and bones to the belief that He and His Father, along with the Holy Ghost, are part of an “unknown substance”?



    I’m not sure what you mean. The “embossed seal of the LDS Church”? It’s the KJV. Period. One and the same as yours. We have an edition that has some very useful footnotes in it, but the text is identical to every other KJV in existence today.



    Yes, we do consider all four books to be God’s word. One is as authoritative as the other. I’ve actually never found an instance of the KJV and the Book of Mormon as contradicting one another, and don’t really expect to. After all, they both testify of Jesus Christ and teach the same gospel. If you don’t mind, I’m going to address your example (concerning the birthplace of Jesus) under the Latter-day Saints forum, so watch for it there. If I were to answer it here, I would be sabotaging my own thread, and I don’t want to do that.



    I have a feeling you’re about to debate one again. But Gary Gilmore? What on earth could you have found to debate about him?



    Well, they say almost exactly what you’ve been saying.



    1 Corinthians 8:6 says, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

    There is one God (the Father). There is also one Lord (Jesus Christ). So, I believe that in Mark 5:19-20, “the Lord” is referring to “Jesus” and not to God the Father.




    Thanks a lot! :) I thought it was kind of cute. I love cats, but I also love dogs. Right now I have one cat (Annie) and two Collies (Jasmine and Ginger). Jasmine has a very strong herding instinct. She just loves to herd Annie around the house. It’s quite comical to watch. :biglaugh:

    Kathryn
     
  6. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Oh heck, you're no fun to debate! :D
     
  7. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659


    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?




    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.




    Debate LDS? No, I was just answering your questions. I have no wish to attack someone else's religion here. We can skip Gary Gilmore for the reason cited.



    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 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.
     
  8. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    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?

    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?

    I know you don't. That's why I like you. (You might want to check out the thread entitled, "Kindness Award Nomination.")


    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.

    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
     
  9. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    Well, by "substance" I mean His physical make-up. In your analogy, the food coloring would certainly change the color of the water, but it would still be H2O, - BUT - remember: I said the glass corresponded to His physical body, not the water in it. Thus the H2O in the glass represents that stuff I can't name.

    As far as exactly what the substance is. Again, I don't know. I've heard it called ectoplasm, which is pretty close. I've heard Him referred to as Tachyons, Electro-magnetic Radiation, yada-yada.

    But the best explanation I've read (yet I question that, too) is that this Universe consists of at least 10 dimensions, which if true, and one could freely navigate these dimensions, then God could could be very easily explained --- as well as how He walked on water, resurrected, etc. Again, though, that is highly suspect.

    God, Himself, has chosen not to tell us.
     
  10. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    AV,

    Maybe we're getting somewhere. So Jesus' substance (his physical make-up or his body) is the glass, as opposed to the water? But God's substance is the water in the jug, as opposed to the jug itself?

    Okay, obviously it's getting to be time for us to simply agree to disagree on this! ;) The day I will ever think of God as ectoplasm, will be the day I become an atheist or something!

    I disagree! ;)

    Kathryn
     
  11. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,928
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    The Book of Mormon has no such power to "trump" the Bible. The reference you cite is extremely important, though, so I've started my own thread on the topic. Suffice it to say that this disagreement disappears with the help of some historical background.

    Back to the topic of the thread, the best Biblical reference I can find for my beliefs regarding the Godhead can be found in John 17:

    20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
    21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
    22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
    23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    If we begin by assuming that these scriptures are historically true, there follow two natural conclusions:
    1--The believers spoken of became one in the same manner that God and Jesus are one.
    2--Jesus' prayer was ineffective; the results that he prayed for did not happen.

    If we assume the first, there follows the conclusion that we can look to the condition of the believers after the prayer to find the relationship that best describes God and Jesus Christ. Some of the possibilities are:
    1--The believers became one in body--there were melded into a single physical body.
    2--The believers became one in mind, but not in body--many bodies with one mind.
    3--The believers became one in purpose, united in vision and guided by a shared mission.
    4--Any of the previous three, only it's an ongoing process; it hasn't happened yet.

    There may yet be other possibilities, but based upon this scripture I believe we can look at the state of the apostles afterward to learn in what sense the Father and Jesus Christ are 'one.' I believe their unity was in their singleness of heart (condition 3, above).
     
  12. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    That's real cute --- I like that.

    You start out this post saying the best you can find regarding the Godhead, then you fill a whole screen showing it's not talking about the Godhead at all.

    Now you see why I use 1 John 5:7.
     
  13. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    That's just what we need to correctly interpret Scripture, isn't it?

    Historical backgrounds, more threads, Strong's Concordance.

    Where would we be without those?

    Clears that stuff right up, doesn't it?
     
  14. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    AV,

    1John 5:7 says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one." It doesn't even begin to address the way in which they are "one." The entire 17th chapter of John, however, gives us some powerful insights as to what 1John 5:7 actually means. I'm surprised that you weren't able to see this. I realize that you personally believe them to be "one in substance." You claim that this doctrine is taught in the scriptures, but you have not been able to provide any evidence that this is the case. On the other hand, the concept that they are "one in mind and heart, one in will and power" is clearly taught in John 17.

    Kathryn
     
  15. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    You would be surprised at the light some historical background would shed on the subject! :eek:
     
  16. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    That's true! But, speaking from 24 years of experience, there comes a time when a mature Christian finally stops looking for science and history to confirm Scripture. That, IMHO is one of the biggest differences between a new-born believer and a mature believer.

    A good example of this is the "discovery" of the empires of the Medes and Hittites, which people swore never existed.

    Like I said before, if I turned on the news and saw that they've found Noah's Ark, I just think to myself, "It's about time".
     
  17. chariot of fire

    chariot of fire New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    14
    Ratings:
    +1
    can we find the word trinity in the Bible?? how about Holy One? if which of the two could be seen in the Bible, that is the true revelation about God
     
  18. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,672
    Ratings:
    +2,659
    Trinity: no; Holy One: yes.

    The true revelation about God is not just in His names, but the entire Bible from cover to cover.
     
  19. Omer

    Omer Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Ratings:
    +4
    Hi everyone, Katzpur, AV1611, Maize and others;

    Been reading all the posts, and i'm quite educated about the LDS belief in God and what more:)
    I chose the third one, and I think like Maize, the Unitarian belief in Jesus Christ as a teacher makes enough sense. What's more, he was a prophet, and one of the greatest prophets, the world has ever seen.
     
  20. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,234
    Ratings:
    +5,925
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'm not talking about artifacts. I'm talking about historical accounts of what took place in 325 A.D. None of these accounts are disputed by the Catholic Church or any of the Protestant Churches. What happened happened.

    I'm with you on that.

    Kathryn
     
Loading...