Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Second Volume - The Holy Trinity
Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 08/27/2010 9:45:47 PM PDT by GonzoII

The Holy Trinity



519. Let us turn to your abstract and intangible dogmas; and firstly the doctrine of the Trinity.

Though no human mind can fully comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the concept is not unintelligible. It certainly conveys a definite meaning to Christians. In revealing Himself to us God had to employ terms on our own level which could not but be inadequate to express His infinite perfection. But the terms used are not nevertheless without meaning. We know what a nature is, and we know what a person is. It may be, and in fact must be, that the Divine Nature, and the real character of Personality in God will be mysterious to us. But that does not mean that our ideas are wrong, or that they have nothing in them. It only means that if our ideas are right as far as they go, they do not go far enough to completely exhaust the reality.

520. To the lay mind it seems a hair-splitting of terms which cannot be of supreme importance.

I can but assure you that the matter is of supreme importance. For if the doctrine of the Trinity be false, that would be the end of the Christian religion.

The very essence of the Christian religion is that the Eternal Son of God became man for our salvation. If there is no Trinity of Persons in God, there would be no Eternal Son to become man at all, and the whole of Christianity would be built on a mere flight of fancy. If I believed the doctrine of the Trinity to be false, or in the least uncertain, I would abandon Christianity altogether. That would be the only logical thing to do. So from the Christian point of view you can see that it is no question of hair-splitting, but a matter of supreme importance.

521. Wherein lies the significance?

The doctrine of the Trinity lifts the notion of God, and carries it beyond the most powerful created intelligence, as befits the dignity and majesty of God. By it, God takes life instead of being the great unknown X of the universe. One, He is not solitary. And the multiplicity of the universe is but the shadow of the diversity of God in Himself according to the Trinity of relationships. How conceive of God save as knowing and loving? And how conceive of thought and love in God save as God Himself, yet distinct as operations? How conceive of God as happy without society and reciprocal activity, before the universe; and after its creation, since the universe adds nothing to God Himself? The Trinity gives us a living rather than an abstract God, individualizing Thought and Love in Him, giving interior multiplicity with His eternal unity. If my thought became myself intimately and adequately, and my happiness in myself were essentially identified with myself, I would be a trinity while remaining myself. But what is not possible with me is a fact with God; and His living unity is the Trinity.

522. Isn't it merely ways of thinking of God, drawn from Plato?

The philosophy of Plato has contributed towards explanations of the subject, as it has contributed much towards many other departments of human thought. But the dogma of the Trinity in no way came from Plato, or from any other merely human source. The Trinity of Persons in God was taught as a fact by Christ to explain His own Person and work. He gave the dogma, and the dogma gave rise to philosophical explanations of it. Nor does the doctrine merely give ways of thinking of God. Aspects of our own thinking would not be Divine Persons. The dogma tells us of God's own intimate life within the Divine Nature.

523. Are the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, merely different titles of the one Being?

They are not merely three different titles of the one Being as if they were names only and in no sense realities. They are three relative personal aspects of one absolute and substantial Being. One and the same Absolute Being can have relative aspects distinct from one another. In God, of course, we meet with what should not be an unexpected mystery. The three relative aspects of the one Divine Nature are Personal. Our experience of finite and created man is of one nature and one person. But our knowledge of finite and created man cannot give us an adequate knowledge of the Infinite Creator unless we are prepared to work on a very crude and anthropomorphic basis. The fact that in the one Absolute God there are three relative Personalities, distinct in virtue of their relationship to each other, yet identically possessing the Divine Nature, is known to us by revelation alone. And we know the fact without being able to comprehend it fully, not because of any defect in God, but because of the defect in our finite selves.

524. Who first promulgated the doctrine that Christ is equal to the Father in power and glory?

That doctrine was first promulgated by Christ Himself, as recorded in the Gospels. Thus Christ said, "I and the Father are one." The doctrine was also clearly taught by St. Paul. Against various heretics in the early Church again and again the Bishops re-declared the truth both implicitly and explicitly. The General Councils of Nicea, and of Ephesus, as well as other Councils, excluded all ambiguity as to what Christ had revealed by their specific definitions and formulas.

525. Can you find one Scripture text containing the word Trinity?

No. Nor is there any need to do so.

526. Can we suppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible, yet no such word is there?

There is no question of supposition. The doctrine is clearly given by Christ in His words, "Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Mt 28:19.

527. The recurring genitive indicates a plurality of names, so that we should say, "In the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost." In that case the one name does not indicate one Divine Nature.

The one name of the Three Persons was certainly meant to indicate the unity of God despite triple Personality.

528. If you discount grammar in the interests of a particular exegesis words lose the power to prove anything.

Our exegesis involves no violation of grammar. And all danger of distortion is removed by the use of the usual safeguards of exegesis; namely, the analogy of faith, the interpretations of the Fathers, and the constant tradition of the Catholic Church. No argument based on grammatical form arises where the baptismal formula is concerned; nor can any such considerations rob the words of their trinitarian value.

529. When St. John says, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God," God was the subject of attribution where His word was concerned just as your hand is the instrument of your own conduct.

The Word of God was personal. My hand is not a person. The Word was with God, because the Second Person of the Trinity is distinct by personality from the Father and the Holy Ghost; yet the Word was God because possessing the same Divine Nature with them. To suggest that the Word of God is no more personal than my hand is quite opposed to the truth. St. John, who declares that the Word was with God, and was God, says also that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us; that in "Him" was life; that "He" was in the world; that "He" dwelt amongst us; that we saw "His" glory, and of "His" fullness we receive grace. The Word was the Eternal Son of God, every bit as personal as the Father.

530. God the Father is explicitly stated.

It is also explicitly stated that the Word is "the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father." God may act in a fatherly way towards us men, but He is a true Father to the only-begotten Son, generated in the same Divine Nature, and equally the uncreated God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

531. When Christ said, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?", whom did He address? Was He speaking to Himself?

He was addressing His heavenly Father, and in virtue of the sufferings of His created human nature.

532. What did the expression imply?

It did not imply any distinction between Himself and His Father so far as the Divine Nature was concerned. It implied that, in His human nature, He experienced that sense of dereliction by God which man deserved. If man abandons God he deserves to be abandoned by God. Jesus took the place of sinners, and suffered the sense of dereliction deserved by sinners.

533. I certainly do not understand the mystery of the Trinity.

Centuries ago St. Augustine replied to a similar complaint with the words, "If you do understand, then that is what God is not." He meant, of course, that no human being can fully comprehend God. We cannot exclude mystery when speaking of God, for if He came within the limits of our finite intelligence He would be finite and not God at all. At the same time, we can understand on our own level what the doctrine of the Trinity means. The idea of personality is not foreign to us, nor is the idea of a given nature. If the Trinity is a mystery it is because both the Nature and the Persons in God transcend all our notions of these things, our ideas giving but a faint and most inadequate reflection of the truth. It is also a mystery because our experience is limited to a single nature with a single personality. A single Divine Nature with a threefold Personality is not on the same plane as any of our ordinary experiences, and is known by revelation alone; and even then only insofar as human words can express the transcendent truth. But the terms are not meaningless, and we do find a profound significance in the doctrine.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvoltwo; trinity

Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"


By RT. REV. MSGR. FULTON J. SHEEN, D.D

 

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.

It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the ‘doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me.’ I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."

 

 

Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies" Vol One

 

Radio Replies TAN BOOKS

"Radio Replies" TAN Books

"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.

My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.

The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.

A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.

I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.

From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

Source

 

 

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.


1 posted on 08/27/2010 9:45:50 PM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; Graing; bboop; ...
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


2 posted on 08/27/2010 9:47:21 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

The Radio Replies Series: Volume Two

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume Two: Proof of God's Existence
Radio Replies Volume Two: God's Nature
Radio Replies Volume Two: Supreme Control Over All Things and the Problem of Suffering and Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume Two: Destiny of Man/Death
Radio Replies Volume Two: Immortality of Man's Soul & Pre-existence Denied
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Human Free Will
Radio Replies Volume Two: Determinism Absurd

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume Two: Necessity of Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Salvation of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume Two: Voice of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: Religious Racketeers
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divine Revelation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Revealed Mysteries
Radio Replies Volume Two: Existence of Miracles

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume Two: Gospels Historical
Radio Replies Volume Two: Missing Books of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Bible Inspired
Radio Replies Volume Two: Biblical Account of Creation
Radio Replies Volume Two: New Testament Problems

Radio Replies Volume Two: Supposed Contradictions in Sacred Scripture

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Source of Christian Teaching
Radio Replies Volume Two: Jewish Rejecton of Christ
Radio Replies Volume Two: Christianity a New Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Rational Foundation for Belief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of Unbelief

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Divisions Amongst Christians
Radio Replies Volume Two: Schisms Unjustified
Radio Replies Volume Two: Facing the Problem
Radio Replies Volume Two: Wrong Approach
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is One Religion as Good as Another?

Radio Replies Volume Two: Obligation of Inquiry
Radio Replies Volume Two: Charity and Tolerance

Chapter Seven: The Protestant Reformation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Meaning of "Protestant"
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of the Reformation
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholic Reaction
Radio Replies Volume Two: Reformers Mistaken
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Idealization of Protestantism
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Catholic Estimate

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume Two: Meaning of the Word "Church"
Radio Replies Volume Two: Origin of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Catholic Claim
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Roman Hierarchy
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Pope

Radio Replies Volume Two: The Petrine Text
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter's Supremacy
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter in Rome
Radio Replies Volume Two: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume Two: Infallibility

Radio Replies Volume Two: Unity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Holiness of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholicity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Apostolicity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Indefectibility of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Obligation to be a Catholic

Chapter Nine: The Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholic Attitude Towards the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is Bible Reading Forbidden to Catholics?
Radio Replies Volume Two: Protestant Bibles
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholic Douay Version
Radio Replies Volume Two: Principle of Private Interpretation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Need of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church

Chapter Ten: The Dogmas of the Church

Radio Replies Volume Two: Revolt Against Dogma
Radio Replies Volume Two: Value of a Creed
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Divine Gift of Faith
Radio Replies Volume Two: Faith and Reason
Radio Replies Volume Two: The "Dark Ages"

Radio Replies Volume Two: The Claims of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Holy Trinity

3 posted on 08/27/2010 9:48:46 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Oops, my mistake...I thought I had logged into a conservative website...I’ll try to be more careful in the future.


4 posted on 08/27/2010 9:50:32 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush
The doctrine of the Trinity is false and baseless. It is thoroughly derived from deep Pagan traditions. There are numerous scriptures that truly testify of the actuality, uniqueness, and permenance of the Personhood of Jesus Christ. Read the whole chapter of John 17. The term "ONE" in that chapter clearly shows it has to do with "UNITY OF PURPOSE". Not "Sameness of Persons". This term "ONE" is also applied to His Apostles and also to all faithful and true Christians. God the Father (who is the Supreme God) made His Son Heir of All Things. The righteous who faithfully follow the Son will also be joint heirs with Christ. Please consider the following scriptures: Heb. 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed HEIR of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" Rom. 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and JOINT-HEIRS with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Job 38 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? God the Father is a real person who loves and cares for each of us, just like a father would. Jesus Christ is also a real person whose mission was to come down to Earth to bring about the Atonement so that we have the opportunity of repenting of our sins and to embrace the healing power of His Atonement and to be able to return to the presence of God the Father. The Holy Ghost is also a real person whose mission is to testify of truths of God in our hearts and to energize each of us with the power of His Spirit. These three make up the "Godhead" which is ONE God. The Father is Supreme. Jesus has TESTIFIED numerous times that He came to DO THE WILL of the Father. Therefore Jesus and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father. These are plain truths that Lucifer had worked hard to obscure. Satan was able to snooker Emperor Constantine to embrace this false doctrine of the Trinity in the Council of Nicea back in the 4th century! Repent all ye ends of the Earth! Your brother in Christ . . . .
5 posted on 08/28/2010 12:07:15 AM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples

Sounds to me like you have your own trinity thing going, but...

You still have the problem of “the Word was God” ... “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”


6 posted on 08/28/2010 1:42:52 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“The super-essential nature of God is not a subject for speech or thought or even contemplation, for it is far removed from all that exists and more than unknowable . . . incomprehensible and ineffable to all for ever. There is no name whereby it can be named, neither in this age nor in the age to come, nor word found in the soul and uttered by the tongue, nor contact whether sensible or intellectual, nor yet any image which may afford any knowledge of its subject. . . None can properly name its essence or nature if he be truly seeking the truth that is above all truth.” +Gregory Palamas


7 posted on 08/28/2010 7:02:12 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Yes, it is profoundly true that Jesus was and is and will continue to be the Word. It is not a problem.

God the Father commanded and assigned Jesus to create this Earth, the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and the stars (with their planets). Being the Word means that Jesus carried out the WILL of His Father, who is our Supreme God. Jesus also brought to Earth the GOSPEL, the Good News, which is the “Word” of God.

John 6:38 “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”

Did you know that God’s commandment for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac had a two fold purpose? One was to test Abraham’s faithfulness and ability to trust. The second was to “foreshadow” the Great and Last Sacrifice in which Jesus performed the Atonement. Abraham foreshadowed God the Father, whose name is Elohim. Isaac foreshadowed Jesus, whose name is Jehovah (also known as “I AM THAT I AM), the God of the Old Testament!


8 posted on 08/28/2010 2:53:01 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“The super-essential nature of God is not a subject for speech or thought or even contemplation, for it is far removed from all that exists....”

This statement is rooted in the hyper Paganism of the time of Constantine. Please accept the loving kindness and the deeply personal caring that God has for each of us! He is not an abstract being that cannot be comprehended. He is a real Person! We were created in His IMAGE! We wants us to love Him in a very real and personal manner. Just like a son or daughter should love the earthly and mortal parents, we are privileged to love our Creator.

John 14:7 “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

John 17:8 “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.”


9 posted on 08/28/2010 3:13:34 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples

“This statement is rooted in the hyper Paganism of the time of Constantine.”

Who taught you this nonsense? What is this based on? Read Homilies LXXIII & LXXXI on the Gospel according to John by +John Chrysostomos.

As for the quote I posted, it’s from the 14th century, not the 4th.


10 posted on 08/28/2010 3:44:44 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples

Of course, I’m aware of the typology of Issac.

I’m curious about your trinity. Is this of your own discovery or is there a particular theology or denomination associated with it?


11 posted on 08/28/2010 3:47:24 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Radio Replies Second Volume - The Holy Trinity
The Blessed Trinity {Ecumenical}
A Mystery for Eternity (Reflection on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity)
On the Trinity (Angelus Address from 5/30/2010)
Mystery of the Trinity
The Trinity: More Than Just Doctrine
Origen on the Trinity: A Man Ahead of His Time
Why Mormon Baptism Is Invalid: Sect´s Concept of the Trinity Differs from Christian Notion
Radio Replies First Volume - The Holy Trinity
‘We live to love and be loved,’ teaches Pope while reflecting on Trinity (absolutely beautiful!)

Deathbed Request: 'Tell me About the Trinity’
Catholic Doctrine on the Holy Trinity
The Most Holy Trinity
What You [Catholics] Need to Know: Trinity [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Holy Trinity (excerpt from the Light of Faith by St. Thomas Aquinas)
The Concept of the Most Holy Trinity - The Relationship between the Three Persons in One God
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 3: God and the Holy Trinity
Sheed on the Trinity (Catholic Caucus)
The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity - Greek and Latin Traditions About the Filioque
Trinity Facts

The Real Trinity
We believe in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Brief Reflections on the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, and the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura
Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?
The Holy Trinity
Trinity Sunday (and the Trinity season)
Trinitarian Mystery
HaSheeloosh HaKadosh: The Holy Trinity
MARY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRINITY
The Divine Trinity

12 posted on 08/28/2010 8:21:06 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“As for the quote I posted, it’s from the 14th century, not the 4th.”

Much of the Catholic church literature is based on the mistakes and wickedness and corruption of Emperor Constantine who was strongly rooted in the Paganism of his time, namely the 4th century A.D. All the Catholic literature have continued with the same confusion. I do not have time to read the homilies of your various church fathers from various time periods. My convictions is based on my extensive readings and searchings of the King James version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

The prophet Daniel was able to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The last part had to do with the feet of the image that was part iron and part clay. This was probably meant to represent the Roman Empire in its decline. The Catholic church was part of that. Then we see that in Daniel 2:34 “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.”

That stone that smashed the image is represented by “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” which was established on April 6, 1830 under the direction of Jesus. I am a member of this church.


13 posted on 08/28/2010 10:45:32 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“I’m curious about your trinity. Is this of your own discovery or is there a particular theology or denomination associated with it?”

A much better term than “Trinity” would be the “Godhead” which truly represents three distinct beings who are actual persons in whose image we were created. Not some abstract or undefinable entity.

Please refer to post 13 for my answer to your question.


14 posted on 08/28/2010 10:53:55 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples; Kolokotronis

So, you’re LDS.

That would mean multiple gods, polytheism.

I think your use of the epithet “pagan” on this thread is a little ironic.


15 posted on 08/28/2010 11:08:50 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples; D-fendr
"My convictions is based on my extensive readings and searchings of the King James version of the Bible and the Book of Mormon....“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” which was established on April 6, 1830 under the direction of Jesus. I am a member of this church." How's that "Native Americans are a lost tribe of Jews" thing working out for you guys?
16 posted on 08/29/2010 4:41:33 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“That would mean multiple gods, polytheism. I think your use of the epithet “pagan” on this thread is a little ironic.”

I sympathize with your concern about the “apparent” irony.

However, Mormons have no trouble in understanding the clear hierarchy of the Godhead, consisting of God the Father, named Elohim, the Supreme God, and Jesus Christ, named Jehovah who is the Word and the “Right Hand of God” and subordinate to the Father. We have no question about the perfect harmony (unity) between the 3 members of the Godhead. We object strongly to different churches’ attempts to teach that the 3 beings are part of one substance or other similar mumbo jumbo.

There is an interesting statement that Jesus made in John 10:34 “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (See Psalms 82:6) Jesus is not teaching polytheism but is supporting our potential to be joint-heirs with Him (see earlier posts).

There is no similarity with Greek or Roman pagan belief of polytheism with its chaotic array of competing and contentious gods.

I apologize for the “epithet” because I am not interested in attacking other people. There is no question that there are numerous Catholics and Protestants who are stellar Christians that give truly Christlike service, such as Mother Teresa. However, I will not shy away from denouncing the false doctrine of the Trinity which is blatantly obscuring the wonderful personhood of the 3 members of the Godhead.


17 posted on 08/29/2010 10:01:09 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“How’s that “Native Americans are a lost tribe of Jews” thing working out for you guys?”

If you are referring to the controversy having to do with the DNA evidence, question of Asians coming over the land bridge to America, and other issues, the jury is still out.

There are still several unknowns. Such as whether there were other peoples already inhabiting the America continent at the time the “Book of Mormon” people arrived from the old Jerusalem. We do not even know where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place on the American continent. If you are interested, you can search out these topics in www.fairlds.org.


18 posted on 08/29/2010 10:14:08 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples; Kolokotronis
We have no question about the perfect harmony (unity) between the 3 members of the Godhead. We object strongly to different churches’ attempts to teach that the 3 beings are part of one substance or other similar mumbo jumbo.

"Unity in purpose" is the way I've heard it put for LDS. But so do the boy scouts, so this isn't unity as in monotheism. You have God the Father having a simple location. And you have three gods.

This is polythesim.

And, it's a very immature theology. Gods on planets, etc. This is the stuff of early paganism. Zeus and Thor aside, you have multiple Gods existing at a definite location up there in the sky/universe. This is the stuff of primitive societies, a childish view left behind by Judaism millennia ago. You are pre-Judaic in theology.

I think LDS has a ways to go to even begin to understand monotheism, much less the Holy Trinity.

19 posted on 08/30/2010 12:40:22 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples; Kolokotronis

I’m sorry, “You have three gods.” was a mistake.

I believe in your theology there’s, what, thousands more, counting LDS?


20 posted on 08/30/2010 12:42:13 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples; Kolokotronis
We do not even know where the events described in the Book of Mormon took place on the American continent.

It was remarkably like the area where Joseph Smith lived, down to the place names.

Book of Mormon

Northeast US

However, LDS where unsuccessful in finding any archeological record of the major civilizations and battles of the BOM there. So the hunt continues forever Southward. I believe they're down to Central America now…

21 posted on 08/30/2010 12:54:18 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts and perspectives on the scriptures cited previously: whole chapter of John 17 (ONENESS of Godhead with Apostles and with followers of Christ), Rom. 8:17 (joint-heirs with Christ), and John 10:34/Psalms 82:6 (Ye are gods)?

The fact that Jesus is the Heir indicates that He is a distinct person and will continue to exist as a person for Eternity. If Jesus and God the Father were of the same substance (or same entity), then it would not make sense for Jesus to proclaim that He came to do the Will of the Father (John 6:38).

What does it mean to you that we were created in the IMAGE of God? It is recorded in scripture that a number of prophets have talked with God “face to face” which indicates that God has an anthropomorphic appearance. Also, it is recorded that God has feelings and passions and determination, which is further evidence of the Personhood for each member of the Godhead.


22 posted on 09/04/2010 6:33:49 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

“It was remarkably like the area where Joseph Smith lived, down to the place names.”

This is humorous. However, most Mormons believe that Lehi and his family traveled from the Midian Peninsula (present day Saudi Arabia) eastward to the west coast of the Americas. I don’t think they would have marched 2 or 3 thousand miles to the Great Lakes area.

There is an Aztec legend of the visitation of Quetzalcoatl, often referred to as The Bearded White God. Mormons believe this is based on the actual visit of Christ in the Americas.

See John 10:
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Here is Jesus talking about His intention to go visit the “other sheep” located in a different place. Mormons teach that this was in the Americas.


23 posted on 09/04/2010 7:03:05 PM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples
You can see very simply that Smith took the place names and geography of his area - yet the truth just goes right past you.

However, most Mormons believe that Lehi and his family traveled from the Midian Peninsula (present day Saudi Arabia) eastward to the west coast of the Americas.

Absolutely no archeological evidence for the events in the BOM. Huge civilizations, armies, huge battles, no evidence at all. Unlike biblical evidence for Judaism and Christianity.

There is an Aztec legend of the visitation of Quetzalcoatl, often referred to as The Bearded White God. Mormons believe this is based on the actual visit of Christ in the Americas.

Or it could be Moses, or a Viking, or anything you like. The Central American civilizations bear no resemblance to the BOM civilizations. LDS is grasping at any straw. As I said, after North America (which the original Mormons believed was the site), was debunked, the search continued Southward - and still no evidence.

Mormons teach that this was in the Americas.

I know they do. The main topic of Smith's time was "where did the Indians come from?" (American Indians). Smith used this as part of the story. Until the real origin was proven - and it wasn't anywhere near Smith's story. The Central American Indians origin is not according to BOM either; it a red herring.

Smith has been completely debunked. His "translation" of the Book of Abraham is more than sufficient proof of fraud, and yet there's much more proof. The LDS will tell you to go with your burning in your heart or some such, when faced with solid evidence that the whole thing is bunko.

24 posted on 09/07/2010 1:03:25 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TrueConstitutionalPrinciples
He is a distinct person

The Trinity consists of three persons in one Godhead. But not persons as "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity." "The one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

One substance (not in the sense of a material substance), rather than the one in "purpose" as LDS teaches.

The Word became flesh." God did not become another God or create another God or beget another God.

What does it mean to you that we were created in the IMAGE of God?

Primarily that we know the difference between good and evil.

It is recorded in scripture that a number of prophets have talked with God “face to face” which indicates that God has an anthropomorphic appearance.Or a burning bush. It would be something that man could see, could even be something familiar, but God is not contained by the burning bush or any other physical object.

Also, it is recorded that God has feelings and passions and determination, which is further evidence of the Personhood for each member of the Godhead.

We anthropomorphize God. Full comprehension of God is always beyond any man. Attributing passions would necessitate and changing God. God is unchanging and not subject to passions.

25 posted on 09/07/2010 1:17:35 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
You can see very simply that Smith took the place names and geography of his area - yet the truth just goes right past you.
Your saying so does not make it so.

However, most Mormons believe that Lehi and his family traveled from the Midian Peninsula (present day Saudi Arabia) eastward to the west coast of the Americas.
Absolutely no archeological evidence for the events in the BOM. Huge civilizations, armies, huge battles, no evidence at all. Unlike biblical evidence for Judaism and Christianity.
I'll just say a few things:
1. Please go to fairlds.org for a number of findings in Central America.
2. There were cataclysmic earthquakes: 1811/12 New Madrid, Missouri (covered several states); tremendous upheavals in the Americas at time of the Crucifixion.
3. The name of a village not known in Joseph Smith's time. The Book of Mormon indicates that Lehi's family stopped by Nahom on their way to SE corner of Saudi Arabia. This name was only later found by archeologists. Joseph had very little education, he had no way for coming up with this village name (see http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Arabia_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html).
4. You should refrain from using the word "absolutely". It is unscientific.

The LDS will tell you to go with your burning in your heart or some such, when faced with solid evidence that the whole thing is bunko.
Millions of Mormons, including myself, have received a witness of the spirit. I have thought seriously about my experiences. I know that I cannot turn it "on and off" on my own and I know that this experience is separate from my emotions. All I can say is for you to follow the suggestion of the Savior in John 7:17 (obtain your witness by reading the Book of Mormon, you can get a complimentary copy by going to lds.org).

What does it mean to you that we were created in the IMAGE of God?
Primarily that we know the difference between good and evil.
This does not make sense. How does this relate to our appearance as "humanoids" with heads, arms, legs, etc? Good and Evil has to do with actions or choices, not appearance. When God created Adam and Eve, He made them to have the same form as His "appearance".

It is recorded in scripture that a number of prophets have talked with God “face to face” which indicates that God has an anthropomorphic appearance.
Or a burning bush. It would be something that man could see, could even be something familiar, but God is not contained by the burning bush or any other physical object.
God used the burning bush to draw Moses up the mountain so he could be alone with Him. But Moses most likely did not see God at first, he only heard His voice. Later, as he gained more experience and purification, he was permitted to see the face of God.

Also, it is recorded that God has feelings and passions and determination, which is further evidence of the Personhood for each member of the Godhead.
We anthropomorphize God. Full comprehension of God is always beyond any man. Attributing passions would necessitate and changing God. God is unchanging and not subject to passions.
There are numerous references in the Bible where God refers to Himself as having body parts (in the IMAGE of the humanoid):
Exodus 33:11,23
Isaiah 6:1
Amos 9:1
John 14:9 (the earthly appearance of Jesus is like that of Heavenly Father)
There are also numerous references that show God as having many kinds of strong feelings (passions both joyful and angry):
Exodus 32:10
Isaiah 65:2-3,19
It is quite disturbing that people would prefer to theorize of an abstract entity that has no feelings and did not create man in His IMAGE. Satan is delighted if he can hoodwink people into believing this which would cause them to become more alienated from God.

26 posted on 09/11/2010 4:36:00 AM PDT by TrueConstitutionalPrinciples (speak out against the corruption of humanists and hedonists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson