From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Date: 18 Dec 92 19:34:07 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Dec16.213650.12067@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|In article <78381@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec12.001327.26196@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
|>|In article <77904@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
|[...]
|>|>I think you are wrong - I haven't followed this, but in I John
|>|>we are told that if one doesn't have the Son, then one doesn't
|>|>have the Father.  It also says that anyone who denies that THE
|>|>Christ has come in the flesh is not to be followed or listened to,
|>|>for they are the antichrist.
|>|
|>|Ah, but one needn't have the Father in order to come to the Son, right?
|>
|>If you don't have the Father AND the Son, then you've missed it.
|
|This may be, but it ignores my question.  What I wanted was verification
|of the following sequence:
|
|    (neither) -> Son -> Father+Son

I don't follow your statement.  Are you asking if you go from neither
to the Son and then to the Father and the Son?  

One goes through the Son to the Father - the Son is the mediator and
the Father sees us through what Jesus has done.

You may want to restate your question.

|Now, your statement, that if one doesn't have the Son, then one doesn't
|have the Father, implies that the following sequence doesn't happen:
|
|    (neither) -> Father -> Father+Son

Agreed.

|Now, if neither sequence is possible, then the only possible sequence is:
|
|    (neither) -> Father+Son

I think I understand and agree - one has both the Father and the Son,
when you come to God though Jesus, else you aren't coming to the Father
and that is what one is too accomplish - coming to the Father.

|But that sequence implies nothing about the mechanism behind achieving the
|goal which is at the end of the sequence.

The Son is the mediator and we go through Him and reach the Father.
Jesus work for us (his life, death, and resurrection) is the mechanism
behind it - that is what made this available to all.

|>|More to the point, unless it is explicitly stated that one must have
|>|the Son *while alive on Earth* in order to get to heaven, then it follows
|>|that it is possible to get to heaven by having the Son after death, but
|>|before judgement.
|>
|>The Scripture tells us that it is appointed to ALL men to die and
|>after that the judgment.  I'm not sure there is any loophole there.
|
|In short, you don't know one way or the other.  Good enough for me.

See below.

|>The people that know the message of Jesus and the cross before they
|>die condemn themselves.  
|
|At least, until they accept the message.  What isn't clear is when one
|can accept the message.

Jesus said that he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven
in this age or the age to come.  There are questions about this, but
I think this does say that if you deny the Holy Spirit's conviction
here in this age, then you are out.  This passage is why I think it
may be possible for some (those who haven't heard) to come to the Father
through the Son, for every knee will bow and every tongue confess that
Jesus is Lord.  It has been said that some will do this gladly (for they
knew it before) and some will do it out of loss because they now know what 
they denied/rejected and some could do it as their first and only 
opportunity, I believe.

|...
|>|>|I couldn't agree more. 
|>|>|Why is it that Tony Rose can't seem to grasp this concept?
|>|>|<he asked rhetorically>
|>|>|
|>|>|Isn't the important thing that one is trying to live ones life
|>|>|and do what they think God wants them to? (ie: have faith,
|>|>|believe in God, repent from sin, seek the guidance of the Holy
|>|>|Spirit, help others, etc.)
|>|>
|>|>You have to come to THE Jesus and not a Jesus.
|>|
|>|So tell us: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus and THE
|>|Jesus?
|>
|>Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh - he is God - he walked the
|>earth as Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, he died on
|>the cross and was raised bodily/physically from the grave on the
|>third day according to prophecy.
|
|This is what is believed by the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
|Catholics, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, etc., etc.  Yet there are 

No.  The first two differ from those of orthodox Christianity.  They
don't believe Jesus is God Almighty, but just a god - a good guy and
all of that, but not God Almighty.

|many disagreements between these various factions (if not the individuals
|within them as well!) over things like the consequences of non-belief,
|the actual content of the message(s) of Jesus, the sinfulness (or lack
|thereof) of such things as homosexuality, the personality of God, etc.,
|etc.

I understand what you are saying, but the personality of God is not
a point we can easily disagree on.  Sin (whatever action or lack thereof)
is not in living a life worthy of the calling of God - we are to
honor God with our lives and not be the cause of any blemish.

|So once again I ask: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus
|(e.g., a Jesus associated with one of the above factions) and THE
|Jesus?

Examples of "a" Jesus and not THE Jesus: one who didn't both die and
rise from the dead physically, one who is just one of many gods, one
who is not God Almighty, one who is just a good teacher, one who has
achieved Christ consciousness like others - just better, etc.

Does that help?

|>|And who are these "other" Jesus people you refer to, anyway?
|>
|>Are there not advertisements in you USA today and other places that
|>tell of the Messiah/the Christ being alive today and living in a secret 
|>place?  Some even teach that they are trying to reach a christ 
|>consciousness and that Jesus, himself, just was a christ or that he
|>reached this consciousness.  Scripture tells us that Jesus is THE
|>Christ come in the flesh.
|
|You seem to think that these are mutually exclusive.  This wouldn't be
|because they're using the term "christ" in a way that you don't like,
|would it?

What is the term "christ" mean to you?

|>|Anyone wonder why heaven is supposedly a "kingdom" instead of a democracy?
|>|:-)
|>
|>Because God reigns supreme - we are his servants. :-)
|
|Ah, but why is this?  Don't you find it strange that your God wants
|servants, and yet (presumably) gives free will (whatever that is) to
|those that would be his servants?
|
|Entities with free will tend not to make very good servants, for the very
|purpose of a servant is to do what he/she/it is told rather than what
|he/she/it wants (that the two may converge at times is simply a matter of
|luck).

Maybe God wants us to serve him out of love for him.  Jesus told us that
we are not to be heavy handed, but be as servants - the lowest of all,
for that is what he gave us as an example by his life here on earth.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6