Bignate603
Lifer
I just wanted the 700th post 🙂
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Is the Mormon religion a cult?
Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Who raised Jesus from the dead?
God the Father:
Romans 6:4, Ephesians 1:19-20
Jesus Himself:
John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"
John 10,17-18 "The Father loves Me, because I lay down MY life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, I lay it down of My own free will,and as it is in My power to lay it down, so it is in My power to take it up again: and this is the command that I have been given by My Father."
The Holy Spirit:
Romans 8:11 "and if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you,then He who raised Jesus from the dead will give life to your own mortal bodies through His Spirit living in you."
In other words: He is a Triune God. Three distinct personages in one - not three seperate gods.
Isaiah 9:6
All of His names and persons in one place:
"For a child is born to us, a son given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
God the Father:
Romans 6:4, Ephesians 1:19-20
Jesus Himself:
John 2:19 "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"
John 10,17-18 "The Father loves Me, because I lay down MY life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, I lay it down of My own free will,and as it is in My power to lay it down, so it is in My power to take it up again: and this is the command that I have been given by My Father."
The Holy Spirit:
Romans 8:11 "and if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you,then He who raised Jesus from the dead will give life to your own mortal bodies through His Spirit living in you."
In other words: He is a Triune God. Three distinct personages in one - not three seperate gods.
Isaiah 9:6
All of His names and persons in one place:
"For a child is born to us, a son given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
Ok, let's try an analogy with your "team" and "one purpose" thought.
Suppose that you (fish for short) have two co-workers, John and George. Suppose all of you build computers. Suppose one day a person buys a computer from you and you tell him that you built it yourself. Later, when picking up some accessories, George tells him that he personally put it together. Later, when he brings it in for a hard drive upgrade, Jonh says to him that he knows that machine... he put it together with his own hands. Since you all are on the same "team" and have "one purpose" (to build computers) would it be correct in any way for each of you to say that you personally did the work or only the one of you who did it?
That's why the Mormon interpretation doesn't work. As MadRat alluded to and farscape expanded on, and as I have posted previously, the Bible is full of things said expressly about Jesus, about The Father, about the Holy Spirt, about "GOD" generally.... when only one incident occurred. Either the Bible is mistaken, or the person's of the Holy Spirit, The Father and Jesus are all the same being even though they are three persons.
Once more... the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, it teaches that The Father is God, and it teaches that the Holy Spirit is God... and it teaches there is only one God and that no other gods exist. The ONLY way that this is possible is that there are three persons who comprise being who we know as God.
Joe
SirFshAlot
Elite Member
What's the difference between "being" and "person"?
I considered them to mean the same, and maybe that is why I am being confused by the explanations.
I considered them to mean the same, and maybe that is why I am being confused by the explanations.
There isn't one... if you are talking about humans. But we aren't talking about a human, we are talking about an eternal being (no beginning and no end) who is all knowing, all powerful and exists everywhere at once. Since "being" is litterally something that exists (it be's), lets use the term "something that exists" instead of being.
God is "something that exists" that is made up of three persons. The "something that exists" is only one "thing", but it is made up of three "who's". We cannot relate this directly to humans, because we are finite and have a one to one ration of existance to person.... each of us is made up of one "thing" and one "who".
It's not a perfect analogy, but who do you think you are, your body, your mind, or your soul? They are three distinct and seperate and complete things by themselves, but there is only one you. When you think, do you say that your mind is thinking or that you are thinking? If you stuff your toe do you say that your body stubbed its toe or that you did? This isn't a perfect analogy though because your body is nothing without your soul and humans aren't any better than animals with the spirit, whereas God is perfect in all three persons.
Joe
SirFshAlot
Elite Member
found an interesting read from the mormon site when I did a search on the trinity
whether it cites legitimate references is not for me to say
The defenders of the church in the late second and third century were Christian apologists and scholars, many of whom were trained in Greek philosophy and in rhetoric and logic.
They brought the classical culture of Greece into the church for two reasons: first, to rhetorically and logically ?prove? the Christian gospel to a world steeped in Greek culture; second, to make Christianity intellectually respectable. Their efforts were an understandable human reaction to counteract the persecution that the church had suffered for two centuries. But it made the church compatible with the very culture the church had once disdained.
The synthesis of Greek philosophy and the Christian gospel is well documented. H. I. Marrou describes how Origen and others caused the church to embrace Hellenistic culture and ideas. (A History of Education in Antiquity, tr. George Lamb, New York: Mentor Book, 1956, pp. 424-29.) Edwin Hatch, in his definitive work on the subject, wrote that the early Christians? study of Greek philosophy created a certain ?habit of mind?:
?When Christianity came into contact with the society in which that habit of mind existed, it modified, it reformed, it elevated, the ideas which it contained and the motives which stimulated it to action; but in its turn it was itself profoundly modified by the habit of mind of those who accepted it. It was impossible for Greeks, ? with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity.? (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, New York: Harper & Row, 1957, p. 49.)
As the church entered the third century, many ridiculed Christianity because they regarded it as polytheistic?that is, it had a theology of three Gods: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. By this time the more sophisticated had rejected polytheistic pagan deities and had become monotheistic, accepting but one God. So the issue for the church was how to make Christian theology accord with respectable opinion.
Tertullian, a lawyer, offered this solution: The true God was composed of immaterial spiritual substance, and though the three personages that comprised the Godhead were distinct, this was only a material manifestation of an invisible God. As for how three persons could be one, it was explained that the persons were legally conceived entities, ?just as a corporation is composed of various people though it is not the people.? (T. Edgar Lyon, Apostasy to Restoration, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1960, p. 113.)
Fusing the ideas of church theologians, such as Irenaeus, Origeu, Tertullian, and Athanasius, the Trinitarian formula of three spirits in one was finally accepted as official doctrine by the council of Nicea in A.D. 325. (Lyon, pp. 144-53; Barker, pp. 249-71.)
The key issue through these early centuries was whether Christians would accept a God who was corporeal and material, or one who was pure spirit. Here Greek philosophy prevailed, with its antipathy to materialism, opposition to polytheism, and revulsion to the idea that God had a body.
The unsurpassed intellectual in Christian history was Augustine. He was the one who thoroughly fused the theology of the New Testament with Platonism. In examining Christian doctrine, Augustine confessed to a strong preconception?a repugnance to the idea that God had a body. (The Confessions, V, x:19-20; VII, 1:1. In Great Books of the Western World, vol. 18, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, pp. 32, 43.) He acknowledged that he had labored on the thesis of the Trinity for fifteen years without ?ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion.? (Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954, p. 86.)
Finally he rationalized that if one accepts the Platonic idea that spirit essence is the purest manifestation of reality and that matter is the most corrupt, God must therefore be an immaterial being. He was then able to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. (Confessions, IV, xvi:29, 31; V, x:19-20; VI, iii:4-iv:5; The City of God, VIII, ch. 5-6. In Great Books, vol. 18, pp. 26, 32, 36, 267-69.) As Plato had done before him, Augustine decided that since God is the ultimate good, he cannot be associated with anything material.
Augustine?s personal theology became that of the Roman Empire and remains an influence in historic Christianity to this day. Such is the basis for traditional Christianity?s teaching on the Trinity?a belief described by modern clerics as a mystery.
whether it cites legitimate references is not for me to say
The defenders of the church in the late second and third century were Christian apologists and scholars, many of whom were trained in Greek philosophy and in rhetoric and logic.
They brought the classical culture of Greece into the church for two reasons: first, to rhetorically and logically ?prove? the Christian gospel to a world steeped in Greek culture; second, to make Christianity intellectually respectable. Their efforts were an understandable human reaction to counteract the persecution that the church had suffered for two centuries. But it made the church compatible with the very culture the church had once disdained.
The synthesis of Greek philosophy and the Christian gospel is well documented. H. I. Marrou describes how Origen and others caused the church to embrace Hellenistic culture and ideas. (A History of Education in Antiquity, tr. George Lamb, New York: Mentor Book, 1956, pp. 424-29.) Edwin Hatch, in his definitive work on the subject, wrote that the early Christians? study of Greek philosophy created a certain ?habit of mind?:
?When Christianity came into contact with the society in which that habit of mind existed, it modified, it reformed, it elevated, the ideas which it contained and the motives which stimulated it to action; but in its turn it was itself profoundly modified by the habit of mind of those who accepted it. It was impossible for Greeks, ? with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity.? (The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, New York: Harper & Row, 1957, p. 49.)
As the church entered the third century, many ridiculed Christianity because they regarded it as polytheistic?that is, it had a theology of three Gods: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. By this time the more sophisticated had rejected polytheistic pagan deities and had become monotheistic, accepting but one God. So the issue for the church was how to make Christian theology accord with respectable opinion.
Tertullian, a lawyer, offered this solution: The true God was composed of immaterial spiritual substance, and though the three personages that comprised the Godhead were distinct, this was only a material manifestation of an invisible God. As for how three persons could be one, it was explained that the persons were legally conceived entities, ?just as a corporation is composed of various people though it is not the people.? (T. Edgar Lyon, Apostasy to Restoration, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1960, p. 113.)
Fusing the ideas of church theologians, such as Irenaeus, Origeu, Tertullian, and Athanasius, the Trinitarian formula of three spirits in one was finally accepted as official doctrine by the council of Nicea in A.D. 325. (Lyon, pp. 144-53; Barker, pp. 249-71.)
The key issue through these early centuries was whether Christians would accept a God who was corporeal and material, or one who was pure spirit. Here Greek philosophy prevailed, with its antipathy to materialism, opposition to polytheism, and revulsion to the idea that God had a body.
The unsurpassed intellectual in Christian history was Augustine. He was the one who thoroughly fused the theology of the New Testament with Platonism. In examining Christian doctrine, Augustine confessed to a strong preconception?a repugnance to the idea that God had a body. (The Confessions, V, x:19-20; VII, 1:1. In Great Books of the Western World, vol. 18, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, pp. 32, 43.) He acknowledged that he had labored on the thesis of the Trinity for fifteen years without ?ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion.? (Hugh Nibley, The World and the Prophets, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954, p. 86.)
Finally he rationalized that if one accepts the Platonic idea that spirit essence is the purest manifestation of reality and that matter is the most corrupt, God must therefore be an immaterial being. He was then able to accept the doctrine of the Trinity. (Confessions, IV, xvi:29, 31; V, x:19-20; VI, iii:4-iv:5; The City of God, VIII, ch. 5-6. In Great Books, vol. 18, pp. 26, 32, 36, 267-69.) As Plato had done before him, Augustine decided that since God is the ultimate good, he cannot be associated with anything material.
Augustine?s personal theology became that of the Roman Empire and remains an influence in historic Christianity to this day. Such is the basis for traditional Christianity?s teaching on the Trinity?a belief described by modern clerics as a mystery.
Such is not the basis for the teaching on the Trinity. The belief in the Trinity was, is, and will always be from the Bible itself.
"For a child is born to us, a son given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
Notice from this verse the fact that Christ is called the Eternal Father even though he is the Son. If I may, how can there be an Eternal Father without an Eternal Son, and how can the Son be Eternal unless He always existed with the Father, and how could they have always existed simultaneously unless they were One.
D
"For a child is born to us, a son given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
Notice from this verse the fact that Christ is called the Eternal Father even though he is the Son. If I may, how can there be an Eternal Father without an Eternal Son, and how can the Son be Eternal unless He always existed with the Father, and how could they have always existed simultaneously unless they were One.
D
SirFshAlot
Elite Member
it's not the bible that is posting responses in this thread, nor is it the bible that interprets itself
throughout time, it is MAN that speaks about the bible
"belief in the Trinity" is of MAN
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
Your argument is now that they are both eternal, so they must be one? What about the Holy Spirit?
We believe in the premortal existence of Jesus. I don't see a contradiction there in what you believe. Again, the only issue you have is against Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit being three beings. And again, the mystery of the Godhead is above my complete understanding. But there is far more proof in the Bible for the Godhead existing as three than as one. For every single verse you find that refers to Jesus as God there are 10 that say Jesus is the Son of God. It sounds to me like you are trying to grab onto a single part without realizing the whole.
That's nice. Historical Orthodox Christianity doesn't believe in the premortal existance of Jesus. The eternal existance of The Word is accepted and Jesus is the Word incarnate, but Jesus (the INCARNATION of The Word) didn't exist until He was conceived in the Virgin Mary.
You are right... and since both are Scripture, both must be true... wouldn't you agree with that? So again, if the Bible says there is ONLY one God, but that Jesus is God, the Father is God and The Holy Spirit is God... how do you manage to say they are not all the ONE AND ONLY GOD?
Joe
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
This is a pretty shallow argument. The Bible says that God raised Jesus. The verses you quote above refer to the power of God raising Jesus.
And I'm not saying that there are three separate Gods, only one God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit work through the power of God.
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
You are juggling semantics while we are both saying the same thing.
We believe in the premortal existence of Jesus.=The eternal existance of The Word is accepted and Jesus is the Word incarnate, but Jesus (the INCARNATION of The Word) didn't exist until He was conceived in the Virgin Mary.
Let me ask you, did *you* exist before your mortal birth?
The evidense is starting to get overwhelming. You continue to dodge and even say that obvious verses don't mean what they say. Either you are steadfastly entrenched and brainwashed by the teachings of the LDS or you are purposefully forcing yourself to reinterpret Scripture to match LDS theology so you don't have to suffer the pain of knowing that you believe a sham.
What good does it do to show you where Scirpture refutes LDS teaching if you just say Scripture doesn't mean what it says?
You won't exclude the workings of Smith as a prophet even though he is Biblically shown to be a false prophet.
You won't accept the Trinity even though the Bible teaches it.
You believe in the preexistance of people even though the Bible doesn't teach it.
Why not just come clean and admit that the whole thing is the work of a con artist that got bigger than the criminal himself?
Joe
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
You're only reading into this what you want to. Continue the verse, Jesus says he will raise up as God commands him. I have not been shown that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. I do accept the Trinity in that the Godhead is made up of three beings. The Bible does teach preexistance.
Num. 16: 22 (Num. 27: 16) God of the spirits of all flesh.
Job 38: 7 all the sons of God shouted for joy.
Eccl. 12: 7 the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
Zech. 12: 1 Lord . . . formeth the spirit of man within him.
John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.
Acts 17: 28 poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Rom. 8: 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.
Eph. 1: 4 chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.
Heb. 12: 9 subjection unto the Father of spirits.
Jude 1: 6 angels which kept not their first estate.
If you believe that God is omnipotent, how can you say anything is above his power? Now who is ignoring the obvious?
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
How do you respond to:
Jer. 1: 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
But you shouldn't let your beliefs cloud what is written in the Bible. I've given you a dozen verses regarding preexistence, can you give me Biblical proof that your spirit did not exist prior to your mortal conception on this Earth?
SeaSerpent
Platinum Member
cult
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
Why?
Some Questions to the LDS members:
Since Polygamy was abolished in 1890, and the curse upon the Black race lifted in 1978, why has your church changed their position on these (and other) issues when it clearly states in Alma 41:8 "the decrees of God are unalterable"?
It was Joseph Smith's teaching that man could be closer to God by following the precepts found in the Book of Mormon. Since marriage in a Mormon temple is a requirement for exaltation, why is this not taught in the Book of Mormon? While I am at it..... why does the Book of Mormon fail to mention the plurality of gods, the word of wisdom, a heavenly mother, baptism for the dead, the three degrees of glory, etc...etc...?
If you are indeed worshiping the God of the Bible, why does your heavenly father know of other gods, when the God of the Bible states in Isaiah 44:8 that there is NO God besides Him?
EDIT: composition
EDIT: That should have been Isaiah 44:8, not 44:18...
Since Polygamy was abolished in 1890, and the curse upon the Black race lifted in 1978, why has your church changed their position on these (and other) issues when it clearly states in Alma 41:8 "the decrees of God are unalterable"?
It was Joseph Smith's teaching that man could be closer to God by following the precepts found in the Book of Mormon. Since marriage in a Mormon temple is a requirement for exaltation, why is this not taught in the Book of Mormon? While I am at it..... why does the Book of Mormon fail to mention the plurality of gods, the word of wisdom, a heavenly mother, baptism for the dead, the three degrees of glory, etc...etc...?
If you are indeed worshiping the God of the Bible, why does your heavenly father know of other gods, when the God of the Bible states in Isaiah 44:8 that there is NO God besides Him?
EDIT: composition
EDIT: That should have been Isaiah 44:8, not 44:18...
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
Here is the Church's official position on polygamy:
Up to this point I've made an effort to rely solely on the Bible for debate purposes since it is more readily known and understood by the general population. Obviously, we follow teachings in other works as well. Joseph Smith wrote out a declaration which is commonly referred to as the Articles of Faith. The 12th Article of Faith reads as follows: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Inasmuch as polygamy was outlawed, the Church no longer condones polygamy. Many of the issues you have mentioned are referred to in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I can help you find specific references if you wish. There are some practices, however, which are considered sacred to LDS and are not exposed to the public for further condemnation or ridicule. For an explanation you have to look no further than the anti-Mormon rhetoric distributed by those excommunicated by the Church.
BooneRebel
Platinum Member
Isaiah 44:18 reads They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
