Re: JS-History 1:19

"John S. Colton" <colton.idislikespam.john@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11casjvftn5ts6d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>>>It has been claimed over and over that the Father and the Son,
>>>>each God, have "physically separate bodies".
>>>
>>> Yes, so? Yet they are One God.
>>
>>Yes, but again, you seem to be redefining what it means to
>>be, "One God".
>
> You seem to be assuming that there is only one definition of
> "God"--why is that?

As I've tried (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain to David,
communication is *meaningless* unless we understand the
words in the same way, to mean the same things. Otherwise
they are simply words, devoid of meaning.

I find it remarkable that so much effort is being spent right
now to argue "other definitions", and "the right to redefine",
etc. etc. etc., and I have to wonder if *ANY* such concern
is shown when LDS missionaries witness to non-LDS.

When LDS missionaries tell non-LDS that:

- They believe in "the Trinity";
- They believe in "one God";
- They believe that "salvation" is by "grace";
- etc. etc.

Do they go around making sure that those quoted terms and
phrases are correctly *defined*, and correctly *understood*
in terms of conveying the meaning behind them, according to
what LDS actually believe?

I tend to think that such is not the case, that LDS missionaries
only want Christians to "hear" that their "assertions" are
in conformance with what the Bible proclaims, *regardless*
of what is actually meant behind the words.

And I think that's sad.

But no, John, I don't believe that I am forcing "my" <chuckle>
definition of "god" on you, I am allowing *LDS* to define
what they mean by "god", and "who" they identify as "god[s]".

> (And further, why do you also seem to assume that *your*
> definition happens to be the correct one?)

I use the dictionary definition, which is the meaning understood
by the vast majority of the population. It isn't even an exclusively
"Christian" definition.

What definition would you suggest as an alternative?

>>> I recall that our resident Catholic, Daniel, also believes that the
>>> Father and Son are physically separate.
>>
>>Not only do I not remember reading that (and I'm sure I would
>>remember if Dan ever made such a claim), I can't imagine Him
>>ever saying such a thing.
>>
> "The Greek word for "physical substance" is "hule" which the Church
> Fathers obviously did not use to describe the Godhead. They
> are not one God *physically*, but supernaturally, the Son being
> the exact expression of the Father (Hebrews 1:3), so any
> characteristic of the Father can be said about the Son, but
> they remain unique persons." (emphasis added)
> http://snipurl.com/vieira1

Okay, the above does not say "physically separate".

What Dan seems to be stating is that "physicality" is not an
*appropriate* term to be used in this context. Perhaps you
neglected to note that Dan's comment (whichyou emphasized)
was a *negation*, not an assertion.

> "It is proper to say that the members of the Godhead are unique and
> distinct from each other. It is also permissible to say that they are
> "seperate," if we mean by that they are *seperate in locus*, but
> remained united in essence... The Son really sits bodily at the right
> hand of the Father. The Holy Spirit is at work now while the Son is
> in Heaven physically." (emphasis added)
> http://snipurl.com/vieira2

The ellipsis you added above replaces the *context* of Dan's
statement, where he was denying the belief in modalism.

The rest of the post you lifted this from seem to deny the meaning
you are trying to insert here.

At any rate, I don't believe that Dan's beliefs are relevant to a
discussion of Mormonism.

> John

--
Jeff Shirton jshirton at cogeco dot
ca
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"[T]he gospel is not that man can become god,
but that God became a man." -- James White
Challenge me (Theophilus) for a game of chess at Chessworld.net!

.

Relevant Pages
Loading