The author asserts that: “Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as “substance”, “person”, and “in two natures” are post-biblical novelties.”
Really? Postbiblical? Let’s take an NT quote straight from Christ’s mouth: John 10:30:
“I and the Father are one.”
Let’s examine that grammatically.
There are two subjects in the sentence: “I” and “Father”, one personal pronoun and one proper name. In grammatical terminology, these clearly specify two separate persons: “I” is a different person than “you” or “he”. That’s why we call them personal pronouns.
Next is the plural...note plural....of the verb “to be” indicates that we are defining some quality of the two things already specified. The two subjects both share some quality. What’s that quality? Well, the predicate follows the verb and tells us *what quality* they share: “one”. Cryptic. They share the quality of one? Well, it means that that they share *everything*. “We are one”...means you and I are the same thing. But despite being same thing, we *still* are individual persons.
Christ could have said any number of things differently here. He could have said “I am the Father”: two names, but one person and one nature. He could have said “I and the Father are separate”: two persons with two natures.
But he said none of those things. He mentioned two separate persons in the sentence, and he said that those separate persons are one, i.e. that they share the same nature.
Nicaea resolutely and boldly defended this idea that—though incredible perhaps—came straight from the mouth of Christ Himself. It changed nothing.
Bump. Excellent!
“Really? Postbiblical? Let’s take an NT quote straight from Christ’s mouth: John 10:30:
“I and the Father are one.””
Note that it doesn’t say ‘one substance’ or ‘one being’. Nowhere is there any discussion of God’s ‘substance’ or any difference drawn between a ‘person’ and a ‘being’ made in the Bible. These are concepts that come out of Greek philosophy and hence are post-biblical novelties. Also note that the source of the quote you are objecting to is not Mormon.
“But he said none of those things. He mentioned two separate persons in the sentence, and he said that those separate persons are one,”
And in John 17 he says:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Was Christ praying that his disciples become one being of the same substance? No, he wanted them to have the same kind of unity and oneness he has with the Father, on oneness of heart and mind and purpose, much as how a husband and wife should also be one. Again, not one being, not of one substance, the very idea of that kind of oneness doesn’t exist in the Bible.
“i.e. that they share the same nature.”
It doesn’t say that, you are reading that into it.
Claud,
You are somewhat new to mormon threads here (I say that,
not having seen your name before), so I’d like to give you
at tip...
You wrote, “Let’s examine that grammatically.”
This of course, would be good advice for anyone who actually
was interested in hermeneutics, in Biblical interpretation,
in knowing what the Bible actually says and then means -
and at times, narrowing down what the Bible cannot mean.
In this context however (talking with adherents of mormonism),
you might as well talk about Barney the Dinosaur and his take
on the Bible.
They have no need for grammer
They have no need for sentence structure
They have no need for verb tense or meaning
... or historical context
... or any context
... or historical usage of Greek or Hebrew words
... or systematic theology
... or ANYTHING!
There is only one thing they need.
The mormon church leadership to tell them what to believe.
Once the leadership has spoken, facts no longer matter - unless
you can twist facts to seem to support what the leadership
has said. The hive’s job is to believe and defend.
The mormon understanding of “Bible Study” is to find similar
words in English, regardless of the items above and then
assume they always mean the same thing. Simply “see and say”.
You will not find serious Bible scholarship in the mormon
world. It is unneeded and unwanted. If someone dares speak
or publish facts that go against the leadership, they are
evicted. Not unlike any totalitarian regime. You might as well
speak out in North Korea. In the mormon church, you do not
run the same risk of being killed, just evicted from the
hive.
(ColorCountry, do you want to add anything to this here??)
They do this through a wide variety of published material
which is accessible online through the “Mormon See and Say”
database, which you can see is being quoted non-stop.
Your post was entirely correct though. My point is that to
a mormon, once they have the great subjective experience,
they will insist Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and that
the “latter day revelation” is supreme... without need for
troublesome “Bible study” or showing yourself “approved
as a workman”.
Welcome to the threads.
best
ampu