From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Why Anthony Rose Wouldn't Answer
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:13:16 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual


Anthony, your response was in good spirits. Thank you for making a genuine
effort to communicate at a meaningful level. It was a pleasure to read
your response. I know that you do believe differently then I do, but I also
know that we can learn a lot from each other.

Anthony Rose responded to my post regarding the meaning of "one" as used in 
John Chapter 10 and 17.

>The Greek word for "one" that you are having such a problem with is:
>
>"HEIS"  =  One in Unity.  For example, one room has three aspects, height,
>           width and length.  While each of these three aspects are
>           separate, the height fills the whole room, the width fills the
>           whole room, and the length fills the whole room.  They are all
>           three, the whole room separately, yet there is only ONE room.

Thank you for the information. Now, for your information, the prophet
Joseph Smith thought this understanding over 150 years ago.

>You were using this verse to say, "The Father and Jesus are one, and we
>and Jesus are one, therefore, we can become Gods".  THAT is what I was
>referring to when I said that you can't support that from the Greek,
>because of the meaning of the word "one".

I was using this verse in opposition of the concept of Trinity. If you remember,
I said that Jesus himself resolved the Trinity issue. Jesus never said that
he was "one" with his Father, as we understand what one means in English.
What he said, as you so well expressed, is that he and God the Father is
"one in unity". This is anti Trinity, because it allows for two separate
personages, God the Father and God the Son, but they still remain "one God"
because of the perfect unity which exist between them. This is the LDS
doctrine regarding the Father and the Son. We do not believe that the concept
of the Trinity is Biblical.

The second issue which you raised about us becoming "gods" is another subject.

>The issue of the Trinity is not simple to understand.  However, Scripture
>makes it really clear to us that there is ONLY ONE GOD, and then it calls
>the Father God, The Son God, and The Holy Spirit God.  

Except what "one God" means must be understood in the context of what
Jesus said regarding his relationship with his Father. My argument is that 
his relationship, as he defined in the Bible, is not the same as the EC 
understanding of the Trinity.

>We are forced to
>the conclusion of the Trinity.  

I believe that the idea of the Trinity was generated by the leaders of the 
church under the direction of a pagan emperor, who did preside over the church
and the meeting. I am suggesting a different way of looking at the Godhead,
which is if fact easy to understand, and does make sense. Jesus himself
thought it.

>I grant it that it is not easy to
>comprehend.  I'll admit that I don't fully comprehend it.  Anyone who
>tells you they do is lying.  

In view of what Jesus said, an incomprehensible God is not acceptable for me.

John 17:3
=========
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and 
Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

What is wrong with the simple explanation, which Jesus himself used in John 10:30?
 
>However, if a room can have these attributes,
>then certainly the creator of the room can without any problem.  The
>Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not THREE GODS as Joseph Smith believed
>and taught, and the LDS church teaches today.  Scripture tells us that
>there is ONLY ONE GOD.

Joseph smith never thought that the individual members of the Godhead were
three *different* gods. What he taught that we have three separate personages,
the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are Gods in perfect unity,the same way 
as Jesus defined his relationship with his Father in John chapter 10:30, which 
should read as follows:

I and the Father are in unity, or, I and the Father agree, or, ???. It is definately
not "I and the Father are one".

May I suggest that the Bible translators are Trinitarians, therefore, their 
translation will be colord by their theology.


With brotherly love,

		Frank
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc