Differences between Mormon & Christian theology

[_Fortigurn]

I guess the Jews of the Maccabean era didn't get the memo:

2 Maccabees 7:
28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

That was written in the 2nd century BC, nearly 400 years before the date you gave.

You couldn't read it from your post, but you made a good point, so I wanted to clarify for you, the small text in this quote says "God did not make them out of things that existed." Thanks for the post!

It seems this board has a different font size command to the one I'm used to. I've fixed it in this post.

[_maklelan]

Creatio ex nihilo did not exist in the Jewish or Christian worlds until the second century AD. Not a respectable scholar in the world thinks otherwise. You may believe they taught it originally, but no facts support that theory.

I guess the Jews of the Maccabean era didn't get the memo:

2 Maccabees 7:
28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.

That was written in the 2nd century BC, nearly 400 years before the date you gave.

There was a misunderstanding on my part. It was evident in Jewry before Christianity (and my post didn't make that clear), but your verse is being interpreted incorrectly. On the surface it appears to support your idea, but it reflects very Platonic ontology and refers to the idea that matter does not belong in a plane of real existence. See Maren Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis,” Harvard Theological Review 99.1 (2005): 44.

[_maklelan]

Before addressing this drivel, I would like to point out again, that this is not a response to my original argument, and I suggest reading the argument before remarking “try again,” as I was successful in proving the point I set out to prove. I argued simply that the “God” of Mormonism is not the same being as the Christian God, who among other things is defined as Trinity.

I understood you perfectly, but you conflate the "Christian" God with the Catholic God, and you seem to think that the Catholic God is biblical. Everyone knows the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with Mormon theology, and that's because the doctrine of the Trinity is an apostate Greek doctrine.

Maklelan is like a shoddy magician; he attempts to distract his audience from my argument with ostentatious language, yet fails because his tricks are in view of even the sightless. Answer me Maklelan, what argument do you have that the God of Christianity (Trinitarian, all powerful, etc.) is the same as the “God” of Mormon doctrine?

This is an idiotic straw man. Who cares if the Catholic God is the same as the Mormon God? I don't. Scholarship knows perfectly well that the Catholic God is a marriage of Greek and Christian theology.

I believe you fear the truth; that any argument against this you make will not be compelling to even the ignorant. Or is it that we are in agreement on my point? If this is so, concede to this before our readers, instead of cowering behind Da Vinci Code-like historical nonsense, which entices the imagination of fools, yet fails to represent anything true or accurate, in an attempt to muddle the truth in my argument.

That's an excellent way to dance around and wave your arms without producing a teaspoon of evidence to support your assertions.

However, I will humor you with a Biblical defense of the Trinity, only so those reading will know that even amateur thinkers (like myself) can use solid theological reasoning based on revelation found in scripture to make a good argument for this doctrine.

1) According to scripture, there is only one God (1 Timothy 2:5)

Well according to more scriptures (Exodus 22:28 - Thou shalt not revile the gods; Psalm 82:1 - God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods; Psalm 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods; John 10:33-34 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?) say there are many. Now, do we dive headfirst into the hermeneutic circle by using onoe scripture to interpret the other, or do we try to figure out what was really going on? You clearly choose to wander aimlessly in the hermeneutic circle.

2) According to scripture, Jesus Christ is God (Exodus 3:13-14 and John 8 57-59)
3) According to scripture, the Father is God (John 4:21-24)
4) According to scripture, the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5: 3-4)
5) Thus, The one God must be the persons of Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit (The Trinity)

Not if you read the Bible. There is only one scripture in all the Bible that explains in exactly what why the three of them are one. It's in John 17 when Christ prays that we may all be one in Christ as he is one with the Father. Unless your theology believes that we will all morph into one consubstantial uber-God, then you are mistaken. We must figure out how the three are one in a way that agrees with this scripture. The only way to reconcile them is to understand that the three are one in purpose, perfection and glory, but not in substance. Your logic is flawed on so many levels.

The rest of your scriptures fall apart in light of the above.

Maklelan, “try again.”

Your turn, only this time I'd appreciate it if you're actually engage my evidence.

[_Fortigurn]

There was a misunderstanding on my part.

Yes, your misunderstanding was this:

Creatio ex nihilo did not exist in the Jewish or Christian worlds until the second century AD. Not a respectable scholar in the world thinks otherwise. You may believe they taught it originally, but no facts support that theory.

Every single sentence in that paragraph was wrong. Certainly what I would call a 'misunderstanding' on your part.

It was evident in Jewry before Christianity (and my post didn't make that clear)...

Not only did your post not make that clear, your post explicitly denied it.

...but your verse is being interpreted incorrectly. On the surface it appears to support your idea, but it reflects very Platonic ontology and refers to the idea that matter does not belong in a plane of real existence. See Maren Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis,” Harvard Theological Review 99.1 (2005): 44.

I'm sorry, but I can read it for myself. I don't see any discussion of 'Platonic ontology' there, and I see a very explicit statement that the heavens and earth and all things in them which God made were not made out of things that existed. Nothing about 'matter does not belong in a plane of real existence'.

[_Fortigurn]

I understood you perfectly, but you conflate the "Christian" God with the Catholic God, and you seem to think that the Catholic God is biblical.

Unfortunately, what you call 'the Catholic God' is the God of the majority of non-Catholic denominations, as Aquinas pointed out.

Everyone knows the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent with Mormon theology, and that's because the doctrine of the Trinity is an apostate Greek doctrine.

Great, at least half of this sentence agrees with Aquinas. Now you only have to prove that the trinity is not the God of Christianity. How are you going to define 'Christianity'?

[_maklelan]

No it isn't, and no it wasn't. The Nicene Creed says nothing about a trinity. It was intended to settle the dispute between the Arians and the Athanasians as to the nature of Christ. The Nicene Creed as it was formulated in 325 was an ineffective compromise, which enabled the Arians to confess to an ecumenical creed. It was for this reason that Christological disputes continued, and the Creed was added to and finally replaced. By the 5th century, the doctrine of the trinity had become orthodox, but this doctrine was not expressed in the Nicene Creed.

Actually, it was. The Greek word homousios (consubstantial) was decided upon by Constantine to define the relationship of God the Father to Christ. He had the formula drawn up and everyone was forced to sign it under penalty of banishment. A couple of bishops tried to quickly insert a iota in the text so it would read homoiusios, which means "of like substance" instead of "the same substance." They were caught. After all the bishops returned home Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote the following at the request of several bishops. Only a few of them (Eusebius of Nicodemia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicaea) had the nerve to sign it: "We have committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you."

[_Fortigurn]

Actually, it was. The Greek word homousios (consubstantial) was decided upon by Constantine to define the relationship of God the Father to Christ. He had the formula drawn up and everyone was forced to sign it under penalty of banishment. A couple of bishops tried to quickly insert a iota in the text so it would read homoiusios, which means "of like substance" instead of "the same substance." They were caught. After all the bishops returned home Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote the following at the request of several bishops. Only a few of them (Eusebius of Nicodemia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicaea) had the nerve to sign it: "We have committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you."

It seems you didn't read my post. I made no comment on the inclusion of the word hOMOUSIOS. I addressed my comments specifically to this part of your post:

...the bold item [trinity] is part of the Nicene Creed, which was instituted originally in AD 325 at the request of a pagan emperor.

As I said, the trinity is not part of the Nicene Creed, which was not instituted at the request of a pagan emperor.

[_maklelan]

I'm sorry, but I can read it for myself. I don't see any discussion of 'Platonic ontology' there, and I see a very explicit statement that the heavens and earth and all things in them which God made were not made out of things that existed. Nothing about 'matter does not belong in a plane of real existence'.

Let's not let language or history get in the way of your assumption of what the author was really trying to say. Excellent example you're setting for religious scholarship and for people seeking the truth.

[_Fortigurn]

I'm sorry, but I can read it for myself. I don't see any discussion of 'Platonic ontology' there, and I see a very explicit statement that the heavens and earth and all things in them which God made were not made out of things that existed. Nothing about 'matter does not belong in a plane of real existence'.

Let's not let language or history get in the way of your assumption of what the author was really trying to say.

It's ok, I'm not. But thanks for checking.

[_maklelan]

As I said, the trinity is not part of the Nicene Creed, which was not instituted at the request of a pagan emperor.

I see the trinity as the focus of the Nicene Creed. The goal of that creed and that council was to establish once and for all the nature of Christ's relationship with the Father. Arius promoted a subordinate Christ and the rest promoted an equal Christ. The most ridiculous round of philosophic aerobics that was ever executed by mankind took place in an attempt to reconcile three gods and one god together. The result was the Nicene Creed.