Evangelicals Against Mitt

You be careful up there on the slopes.

Yes...

Sometimes death is only inches away.

Once while cutting thru the woods between groomed trails, I fell into a tree well. Not at any speed at all, just got to close to it and the edge collapsed on me.

I was folded up pretty good and luckily was able to get the bindings to release.

I steer WAY clear of those now.

Former ABC Correspondent McWethy Dies after a skiing accident.

Hi DU! Tough day!! Did you mean to address this to Tant?

I Said: And the Refutations of The Hellinistic, Trinitarian, Modalist refutations were not often preserved...unless you go back 60 to 100 years, for the church did not preserve the records of the Vanquished.

U Said: Nice ploy DU, care to back it up with a little more than just your say so? Marcion's challenges are preserved, so to Valentious and numerous others are available for study. Shucks modalists are still around even today, so much for vanishing huh. Heretics were present even during the apostles time - dare say Paul would refute you throughly.

Sure, anyone know where I can get a copy of Noetus's argument as written by him? How about a copy of Arius' argument as written by him? No? All we know of their position is what was preserved in the opposition, or Victor's records.

There hi an old saying (which does not make it true, just interesting. "History is written by the Victor."

U Said: "A person who claims the doctrine of the Trinity is false because the word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture is as foolish as someone who claims 3½ inches, or, say, 5¼ centimeters do not exist because his ruler only shows whole numbers. The doctrine of the Trinity is presented in Scripture clearly enough for spiritual people to recognize, and solidly enough for unspiritual people to stumble over. Anton Hein"

Nice quote, unfortunately, it is also fallacious, because it claims the "Doctrine is in the Scriptures" when Clearly it is not, the Doctrine of the Godhead is in the Scriptures. What's the Difference? Oneness, we accept Jesus's analogy, you do not. your analogy of the Ruler leads me to believe you just might understand analogies. Let me quote you one of Jesus' analogies. U Said: Wow - actually agree that the modalists are wrong in this interpretation.

And the Trinitarianists for the same reasons...

U Said: That leaves Trinitarian doctrine or mormon polytheism.

Since Mormonism is not poythiesem, I'll correct your statement to read "That leaves Trinitarian doctrine or the Mormon Godhead". Now you are correct.

U Said: Once again DU cherry picks a verse out of context and then leaps illogic in a single bound to say he has disproven Trinitarian doctrine.

Actually, I have taken no leap, it's obvious...

In post # 2805 I quote Matthew 27:46 Which I also Give a refence to:

46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I think I gave the anylsis This makes no sense in either trinitarian, or in Modalisem for you cannot "forsake" yourself.

Consider this sentence if I am speaking to myself... "MySelf, myself, why have I forsaken myself?" This makes no sense if God and Jesus are one in substance regardless of whether it is Modalisem, or Trintarianism. Jesus also commands the Disciples to go and baptize in the name of the father and the son and the Holy Ghost. Lets render that as the same substance would. I command you to go and baptize in the name of me, myself and I. It's ridiculous to think that Jesus the best teacher ever to walk the face of the earth, couldn't have done better, either he is intentionally misleading here, or he is speaking of three different persons.

"anyone who says otherwise is selling something" -- Princess Bride

U Said: Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time.

I completely agree with your Psalmic treatise here, however, it's a red herring (which is why you went on for so long.) So I'll snip it here.

The reason this is a red herring is that it makes no sense as either psalm, or a thing to say if Jesus and God are of the same substance, it makes perfect sense if they are separate personages who are one in the way one is used throughout the Bible.

Some Examples of one Genesis 2: 23 - 24

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matt. 19: 5-6

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Judg. 9: 2

2 Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem, Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, which are threescore and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you? remember also that I am your bone and your flesh

Ezek. 11: 19

19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

1 Cor. 6: 15 - 17

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Eph. 2: 13 - 18

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were far off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

John 17: 22

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jesus Gives the last example, and specifically draws an analogy with his oneness and the Fathers, How you can ignore this I don't know, but it's obvious to every one with a mind open to the scriptures, not closed to God. Pray about it, ask God, he will answer a sincere prayer from one of his children.

U Said: You really need to come up with better material that Mormon 201 for this stuff fluffy.

Now you start calling me fluffy? an Argumentum ad Hominem is basically an admission that you have a weak argument. Besides, ad homonym attacks are specifically not allowed on this site. calling someone a name is specifically an ad homonym attack.

Thanks, but we haven't even gotten past Intro To Mormonism on this thread, however I notice that you miss so much of Christainity's history that you might not be ready for that either.

It's simple, Jesus talks about God the father in the third person all the time, why? Jesus talks about the Holy Ghost in the third person too. Why? Why mislead? why confuse? If God is the Trinity, why not define it that way and start saying me myself and I? If God the father and Jesus are separate people who are one in heart might mind and strength now the way things are said start to make sense. God and Jesus are discrete persons, anything else just does not meet up with the reality of the Bible, which is what the Linguist here is saying.

You guys just don't understand, and that would be OK, except, then you won't lear eahter and insteda want to teach herrisy

Besides, ad homonym attacks are specifically not allowed on this site.

HA HA HA!

I Said: Besides, ad homonym attacks are specifically not allowed on this site.

Said: HA HA HA!

I knew that wouod be your reaction...

U Said: Great quote, DU. Thanks.

U Said: ~”...having made you even God unto His glory!”~

U Said: The best part is that is written by at the time, the official voice of the Catholic Church. (That's gonna leave a mark...)

Thanks!

The Catholics have a ton of stuff that talks about the Deification of man from the early church...

McCain takes CA. Ah, what a relief. I am now officially disinterested in Presidential politics. See you in ‘12.

Bingo! My thoughts when Fred Bowed out.

The question now is, do I vote for McCain and possibly have eight years of crap from one of "our" guys. or vote for Obama / Clinton and only have four.

I just have to decide which is better for the country.

Can anybody give me a good reason for McCain to drop out after four years?

I knew that wouod be your reaction...

And I can see why you would know that!

an Argumentum ad Hominem is basically an admission that you have a weak argument. Besides, ad homonym attacks are specifically not allowed on this site. calling someone a name is specifically an ad homonym attack.

Tell it to Old Mountain Man, not me!

Hasn’t this loud mouthed lout spouted enough this year?

Yes, you do promote Satan very well in all you do.

Elsie, perhaps you should stick your nose into your own church, whatever it is, and stop trying to tell us what we are doing wrong. It makes you appear to be an idiot.

Yep, you are still a first class hater. You must be one of those once-saved, always-saved people because you are incapable of showing mercy or charity as the Lord requires of us. Of course, you probably don’t believe Jesus gave out commandments either, do you?

What kind of doctor? A tennessee baptist preacher doctor?

Ah, so you and Nana are one and the same person? Haters to the end!

You, sir, are one sorry excuse for a human being, but since I am a Christian and try to obey the Lord’s commandments, I forgive you. He will forgive who He will forgive.

Gosh, you haters are out in force today, eh?

You should get an award for picking the most nits in one day. Is your wit commensurate?

Possibly the same reason baptists try to convert Catholics? Or are you just being dense trying to make some stupid point?

You poor, pitiful, hate-filled thing, you.Oh, sorry, I forgot, you are incapable of answering simple or complex questions and so get a pass on everything.

And you are a known dingaling.

His own statements that are worth more than the entire body of your own bloviations.

And to Mr. Invincibly Ignorant, too...

What the hell do you know?
Huck is done. Now that Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas & Tennessee are out of the way he's run out of bigots.
Thanx to some bigots in the south we no longer have a conservative in the race.
Oh we understand it quite clearly. Its just that coming from a troll like you, who has done nothing but dump crap relentlessly for days on this moral individual, the message its devoid of credibility.
Politics or not your constant badgering and gloating crosses the line. Not very Catholic of you.
How much are you being paid by the McCain campaign?

Electile Dysfunction : the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.

Of course, you’ll have to choose for yourself. Given the importance of the downticket elections, I think only idiots would simply boycott the elections. I do, however, intend to be a write-in vote for the presidential race. At this point, I can foresee nothing that will change my mind.

If McCain is elected, there is no reason to think he’ll only run once. That means that, while we are only guaranteed 4 years (2 if we take back Congress) in the wilderness if he loses, we are guaranteed 8 years and possibly up to 16 in the wilderness if he wins.

That’s why I’m hoping for a McCain defeat in November.

Don’t give up yet ... if God be merciful to us, He will allow John Insane to blow up on camera showing America how dangerous he is to place in the White House, before it is too late to nominate someone more qualified to serve conservative requirements.

Who knows? Perhaps in the long view, a Clinton or Obama presidency will eventually be the best thing for our country? It’s been thirty years since the folly of liberalism has been on full display. Perhaps this is the best way to ensure another thirty years.

In his most recent post, Du goes to great pains to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity through the posting of many verses by confusing the identity of Jesus, with his union of will with the Father. It is humorous that Du quotes so extensively from a bible that he himself has said is not translated correctly and is unreliable. As usual, du gets the cart before the horse, since he assumes that mormon definition of god is the correct one. So before we can examine these other relational issues, we must establish a foundation of what the Bible really says about God on a broader sense, and specifically look at the mormon definition versus the Biblical standard. Let us first look at the mormon definition of god.

Mormon Definition of God
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. ... We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea ... he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3 (1844)

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also, but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us" (D. & C. 130:22).

Joseph Smith also said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three gods" (T. of P.J.S., p. 370).

Talmage said that the Holy Ghost "is a personage of Spirit" (A. of F., p.42; see D.& C. 130:22), but later he claimed an immaterial being or body cannot exist (A. of F., pp. 43, 48). Thus, the Holy Ghost must have a "material" or "tangible body," or He does not exist!

Bruce McConkie declared, "Three separate personages - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods" (M.D., pp. 576-577).

In summary, mormon theology is polytheistic by definition (http://www.answers.com/topic/polytheist-1), in that they worship at least three gods and acknowledge the presence of countless others. These gods are finite is that they by definition have a physical (tangible) body (note their trouble with the Holy Spirit – can it be a real god?), non-eternal (had a beginning as a spirit child, then as a human and eventually progressing to godhood), and are constantly changing.

Jewish Foundations For The Understanding of God
One must first come to grips with what the Hebrew Bible teaches us about the nature of God; and then upon that foundation we can establish a clearer understanding of God as derived from the New Testament witness. Perhaps no truth is more fundamental to the religion of the Old Testament than the revelation of Deuteronomy 6:4: "shema yisrael YHWH elohenu YHWH echad" ("Listen, Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!"). Notice the word "one" in this verse. It must be noted that there are two words for "one" in Hebrew: echad and yachid. Echad, the word that is used here, "stresses unity, while recognizing diversity within that oneness." For instance, we have one army, but within it there are many members. The context of the oneness described in this verse does not suggest a "oneness of purpose," but a singleness of Being. The word yachid could have been used to designate one that does not allow for a plurality within the oneness.

The Oneness of God is made clear in the following verses:
Isaiah 43:10,11. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [Jehovah] and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD [Jehovah]; and beside me there is no savior.
Note from these verses that there are several things which God wants us to know, believe, and understand: (1) There is only one God (Elohim) and Jehovah is that one true God. (2) There were no Elohims formed before Jehovah. This means that Jehovah does not have a Father. That is, no God (Elohim) preceded him, by whom He was procreated. (3) There will be no Elohims formed after Jehovah. Some say that Isaiah 43:10,11 is talking about idols. But that cannot be true for there certainly have been idols and false gods made and worshiped since this passage was written. Therefore, when God said no gods would be formed after him, it must mean no real, true Gods.

Isaiah 44:6,8. Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God [Elohim] ... Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God [Elohim] beside me? yea, there is no God [Elohim] I know not any.
The emphatic "Thus saith Jehovah" in the above verse commands our attention. The following points are made under authoritative declaration: (1) Jehovah is the first Elohim and the last Elohim. There can be only one first and only one last. Again, this rules out the possibility of any other Gods existing throughout all of eternity past and all of eternity future. It also again shows that Jehovah and Elohim are not different Gods. (2) Jehovah is the only God (Elohim) that exists. This again rules out the possibility of other sovereigns existing. (3) No reasonable person would challenge the intellect of God. When He says that He does not know of something, this certainly does not imply any limitation in the scope or capacity of His knowledge. On the contrary, when He says He does not know of something, we may be assured this means that thing does not exist. So it is plain that when God says He does not know of any other Gods it is because they do not exist. Thus, these verses affirm in the clearest possible terms that no other Gods exist, nor will exist, throughout all of time and space, in this universe or any other. See also Is 45:5, 55:5

Many other scriptures make it clear that God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and spirit (not tangible). I will leave these out for now, but if du chooses to challenge these, they can be revisited. However, the above references totally gut mormon claims about the biblical support for mormon polytheism. Remarkedly, monotheism has managed to survive thousands of edits to the bom and other mormon standard works over the years:
Moroni 8:18--"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." Also see Mormon 9:19, II Nephi 29:9, III Nephi 24:6, Mosiah 3:5, D & C 20:12,17. Remarkably, this counters mormon eternal progression of the gods and agrees with Malachi 3: 6a For I, Jehovah, change not;

Alma 11:26-29 "And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No."

The bom clearly teaches One God. Not "one in purpose"- a term which is not found anywhere in the bom; not "of this world", but one God period. In the Bible we are taught that God is the God of the entire universe, not just this planet. Thus it is clear that the polytheism of mormonism is rejected by the bible as well as the bom itself. Imagine that!

New Testament Witness
Our first understanding of the revelation of the mystery of the Trinity begins with Jesus. When the Lord Jesus was asked by a Jewish scribe what was the most important commandment of all (entole prote panton), he replied: "The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The LORD our God is one LORD’" (Mark 12:29). Jesus clearly recites the monotheism of Judaism. But that is not all Jesus had to say.

John 4: 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Jesus refutes the definition of the mormon god by stating clearly that God is spirit, not possessing a tangible body. As such God is not constrained by the physical or temporial.

The Father and the Son mutually indwell one another (John 14:10-11 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.) Mormon committee of gods cannot mutually indwell each other as they are completely separated individuals.
They share the same non-contingent Life (John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am.)( " I am (egw eimi).” Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God.)
Jesus told Thomas, "If you had known me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him" (John 14:7). This does not mean that Jesus is the Father, as though there were no personal distinction between the two; but rather it means that the Son is one in essence with the Father (John 10:30 I and the Father are one.). One (en). Neuter, not masculine (eiv). Not one person (cf. eiv in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumuv (separate persons)

The Jews clearly understood Jesus to make claiming to be God, as seen by their response: "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (John 10:33). John records their statement very carefully. What is at stake is a question of "being" (Greek, on). The Jews insist on Jesus being merely a man; the rhetorical contrast which John intends the reader to pick up insists on Jesus being God; which is exactly what the Jews understood his claim to be. Hence the oneness which Jesus claims with the Father in 10:30 is best understood ontologically as a oneness of Be-ing. It is this same identity of Be-ing which Jesus claims in John 8:58: "prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi" ("before Abraham came into being I AM" cf. Exodus 3:14). In 8:54, Jesus identifies his Father as the one whom the Jews claim as their God; hence this I AM statement asserts an ontological equality (con-substantiality) between Jesus and the Father. Again, this should come as no surprise, since this echos the words in the very first verses of John’s gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2). The copulative verb eimi occurs four times (in the imperfect tense) in the space of two verses, which tells us that the identity between God the Father and God the Word (the Son) is a matter of ontology, or being. Jesus, God the Son is not distinguished respect to Deity (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) theos not merely theios.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commands: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." This baptismal creed from Christianity’s origin taught by Jesus – who affirmed Judaism’s monotheism, yet sets forth the triune teaching of three Persons who compose the One God, and not a committee of three gods.

Each member of the Trinity (Godhead) is called God: the Father in John 17:3, the Son in John 1:1, and the Holy Spirit in John 4:24 and Acts 5:3-4. But the Bible does not teach that there are three Gods. From beginning to end it teaches that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; Is. 44:6, 8; Mark 12:29)!

Jesus can speak for God
Rev 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 22:13 I (Jesus) am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

mormon agreement
Mormon canon also agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity as stated by Christianity

"This is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (II Nephi 31:21)

The D. & C. 20:28 teaches that the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." mormons say this means "one in purpose," but not one God. They also claim their scriptures clarify things the Bible is unclear about. But, mormon scripture says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God," but it never says they are "one in purpose." Other mormon scripture that shows this concept of Trinity see II Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Mosiah 16:15, D & C 20:28, Alma 11:38-39, Alma 11:44. So, mormon doctrine is contradicted by their scripture!

Du bleats
Since Mormonism is not poythiesem,

Since mormon authorities cited earlier acknowledge the polytheism of mormonism, suffice it to say du does not not know what his faith teaches. Or if he does, he is being dishonest in its presentation. Du also tries to use Jesus’ quote of Ps 22 on the cross as evidence against the Trinity arguing that:

Consider this sentence if I am speaking to myself... "MySelf, myself, why have I forsaken myself?" This makes no sense if God and Jesus are one in substance regardless of whether it is Modalisem, or Trintarianism.

Here du polytheism kicks in and overrides any coherent understanding of the nature of the Persons and their relationship in the Trinity. In fact, he sounds Jehovah witnessish. But after agreeing that Jesus is citing the psalm in its messianic message and du logic train derails. First, the Psalm does not say “Myself, myself” so it is silly to try to superimpose that interpretation on it. Secondly, by citing it, Jesus was declaring the messianic fulfillment of the psalm as a witness to those who had him crucified, and as such was not a prayer in the formal fashion. Third, if this was a prayer, then it must be interpreted in accordance with biblical understanding of the relationship between God the Son and God the Father within the Trinity. Again – One God, composed of Three Persons sharing common divinity. God is Omnipotent and Omnipresent, so that God can be both on the Cross (as the Person of God the Son) and heaven (God the Father and God the Holy Spirit) at the same moment. Therefore, this passage fails as a proof text against the Trinity and actually supports it. The mormon finite definition of god forbids this and forces their Hellenistic polytheistic interpretation.

Next du chooses a lot of verses where the union or oneness under marriage and the desire for the disciples to be ‘one’ as the Trinity is One is put forth as a proof text against Christian Trinity. Once again, du shows that he cannot fathom biblical context when presenting an argument from a bible he believes has not been interpreted correctly. First off, these verses must be viewed within the same context of the other biblical passages that show that the use of ‘one’ within the Trinitarian context. They cannot be excluded from the interpretation as Du does. That there is One God composed of Three Persons fully sharing all the attributes of the One God, not a polytheistic committee of three (or more) gods. Within that context, what these verses show is that there is to be a shared purpose and thought in a similar manner that the Persons of the Godhead (Trinity – interchangeable) cooperate. As such, these verses do not deny the doctrine of the Trinity. However, du will argue that this is stronger support for mormon doctrine of unity in purpose. However, we have already shown that mormon scripture says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one God," but it never says they are "one in purpose." So not only does DU lack support from the bible in this instance, due to its monotheistic basis, but it is contradicted by mormon scriptures too.

It's simple, Jesus talks about God the father in the third person all the time, why? Jesus talks about the Holy Ghost in the third person too.

It is simple, although du falls back into mormon use of modalism and muddles it up. Ultimately, this false view results from attempts by finite minded human beings to fully understand and infinite God apart from the scripture (Romans 11:33-36). Modalism is the view that God variously manifested Himself as the Father (primarily in the Old Testament), other times as the Son (primarily from Jesus’ conception to His ascension), and other times as the Holy Spirit (primarily after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven). Under modalism, God is not three Persons. Rather, Modalism teaches the God has simply revealed Himself in three different modes. Thus, Du dishonestly tries to apply a false definition to that established for the Trinity with which to build a strawman to knock down, and fails miserably again. Because Trinitarism is not modalism, Jesus can refer to the Father and the Spirit in a third person manner as well as converse with the Father on a one-to-one basis. See also comments regarding Jesus’ quote of Ps 22 above. Mormon doctrine also suffers from modalism :
Ether 3:14: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son,"

If God the father and Jesus are separate people who are one in heart might mind and strength now the way things are said start to make sense. God and Jesus are discrete persons, anything else just does not meet up with the reality of the Bible, which is what the Linguist here is saying.

Du makes one more failed argument, restating polytheistic mormonism (separate people) in opposition to monotheistic Trinitarism. But what is really laughable is to say that anything BUT polytheism DOES NOT MEET UP WITH THE REALITY OF THE BIBLE is a real showstopper. Du needs to go back and reread the materials posted earlier to see that the opposite is true – the reality of the Bible (or the bom for that manner) is not polytheism, but Trinitarism.

Finally, on a lighter side:

I can see the poor Linguist cited above, chained to a desk in a dark, Catholic dungeon being forced to write contrary to his beliefs, snort! Your anti-Catholic bigotry is pretty well established enough to know you are misstating the section.

Now you start calling me fluffy?

I could call for a waaaaambulance, but that is not necessary. You are fluffy – for your arguments though voluminous, are full of gas and lack substance, thereby fluffy.

you won't lear eahter and insteda want to teach herrisy

Mr Spell checker is your friend. :)

Wow! That was a long post, but well worth it! We can now expect fluffy to post an even longer post, which most will wisely ignore given his posting history ... the spin is getting to great and nausea sets in.

Wow! That was a long post, but well worth it!

I wouldn't claim to challenge for the long beheamoths du posts.

I Said:

U Said: Unfortunately for you, we are dealing with a TRANSLATION of Greek and other languages.

But, but I've been told innumerable times that the KJV Bible is inerrant. Besides, The Article in question The Blessed Trinity IS written by a linguist, in English, published in an official publication of the Catholic Church, and get this, it says what I am saying. again, here is the opening quote:

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

With the following further down:

First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The Linguist does an exceptional job here of describing Mormon doctrine, God and Christ and the Holy Ghost are spearate distinct persons who are one in the Godhead thus all can be referred to singly or together in the singular God.

U Said: Second, even with low context language were I to say it is time to put it in the can, what do I mean by the word can?

It means you are inept at speaking English.

I Said: Person always means Person and has a limited number of possible meanings,

U Said: A dictionary only accounts for some of the definitions that can be applied, there are special cases where it is refined further within a religious context. However, I did provide a specific contextual application that apparently did not support your allegation.

Those who are Good at using the English language always define words that they are using in an out of the ordinary way. This is precisely my problem with the statements made by the anti's that Mormons are not Christians. Specifically, Mormons Believe in Jesus Christ, therefor by any normal definition, we are Christians. The anti's who state that we are not Christians typically have added requirements to that belief like a belief in the Trinity, Thus they equate trinitarian which we are not with Christianity which we are. literally, they are bastardizing the word Christian. If the Anti's who so insist on trying to tell others about us would say that we are not "Orthodox Christians" Mormons will generally not complain because it's actually accurate. Those who just say we are not "Christian" are simply put lying, and who would want to hear more of what they believe?

I Said: Just click the number of at the bottom of this post, and then the one at the bottom of that to see your post and what you said, LOL!

U Said: DU here reverts to claiming that he made a specific point, when in actuality all he did was show that he does not know how to read in context as I repeat below:

I invite the readers to check it out for themselves and tell them to check the record (how on earth do you lie by telling people to check the record?)

U Said: Here the glaring misdefinition and use of 'Persons' by DU becomes apparent. The Athanasian creed makes it the Trinitarian concept very clear - One God, not three as DU is trying to force. Within the context of the Athanasian creed, the use of 'Person' should be equated to the first part of the creed (as is the clear intent of the author(s) of the online Catholic encyclopedia): "The Father is God" = One Person", etc.

People can read, and they know what I said, your mis-definition of my speech not withstanding, people can go back and look. I have never said the "Athanasian Creed" was about separate people, I said it was wrong right along with the Nicene creed.

I Said: these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

I am stating the Apostolic view here, as reported in the Document we are discussing.

U Said: Now does this really????? Chuckle, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Let me help by highlighting the key portions:

<Snip>

U Said: Again, the definition of Person is clearly defined here. God the Father = Person; God the Son = Person; God the Holy Spirit = Person; 3 Persons = One God, not three gods. Again from the creed above "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons. This is really not that hard of reading level to understand for you is it?

No, I understand it perfectly, the problem comes when you say the oneness is of substance, and not of heart might mind and strength. Three persons are inherently separate, one substance is not three persons.

U Said: Here again, DU is cut by the very passage he tries to manipulate. First he tries to apply an incorrect, non-contextual definition to the term Persons

I am not "cut" by the verses, I am correct in what they mean. When you have to apply custom definitions tot he words in the Bible you are interpreting it and you can make it say anything. At least Mormons admit we interpret the scriptures sometimes, you just insist that everyone with a brain uses your custom definitions.

I keep seeing Al Gore talking about up and down...

U Said: then tries to ram the citation through using his definition

And you don't... LOL! (How do you "ram" something in text?)

U Said: like putting a square peg into a round hole.

Again you can't seem to make an argument without using Fallacies.

U Said: So in the real world, the one twisting the basics of English and reading comprehension is DU.

Thank you for the Analysis, I assume you will send a bill (LOL!) No really coming to a conclusion that I am wrong, WOW! glad to see you have an open mind.

I Said: That's because according to the Dictionary, the meanings are grouped in descending order of Common usage. in other words, the first meaning is statistically the right one, unless context tells you otherwise. in this case context says "Right on"

U Said: Please note that DU is stooping to statistics rather than dealing with the usage within its correct context, we will see how he further twists this into a pretzel

LOL! First I handled your objections, then I was teaching you haw a dictionary works because you were disparaging the "orthodox" way of finding the definition of words.

Now, I'm stooping to statistics, I suppose next I'll be reduced to facts and then devastated with Victory, LOL!

I Said: Whew, for a moment you had me worried, you see, stating things like "my opponent thinks", or "My opponent means to say..." are strictly forbidden here. I'm so glad you didn't break any rules.

U Said: When catching the short end of the stick, DU launches into accusations that cite me as saying things not said, especially when quoting the material immediately before. So if you are going to make such assertions, make sure you have properly cited me – just so you do not break any of your rules either :)

I guess, if I end up with the whole stick, I get the short end too..

Thanks, that's why I encouraged people to go back and look because I was exactly right on in my quotation (I went and looked before I quoted...), I can't help what you remember.

U Said: The following becomes difficult because DU failed to shut off the italics, so I will have to sort out his comments/

Sorry, you start with monster posts, and that will eventually happen... try going back to the post before to see what you and I said there.

I Said: And I quote:
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence.
Thus if a doctrine such as the trinity is not clearly and unequivocally taught in the New Testament, and Revelation ceases with the last Chapter of revelation than any doctrine, creed or even a definition must be abandoned as heretical.

U Said: How do we come to know anything about God? Through revelation and the Trinity is a revelation of God, something that had to be revealed via Divine revelation. This Divine revelation came first through the teachings of Jesus and followed by the apostolic teaching with the Holy Spirits guidance. These teachings are clearly presented in the NT. DU also erroneously assumes that the understanding of the teachings end with Revelation – of course he excludes bom. The triune nature of God are evident in the NT, both to the orthodox understanding, but clearly to challengers such as Marcion, Arius and others identified by the NT writers.

So, let me get this straight, The Nicene Council can receive revelation after revelations and it's OK because of who they are and Joseph smith can't be called of God because of who he is and therefore the book of revelations precludes him from receiving revelation not because revelation has stopped for everyone, just for those who you decide God can't speak to anymore, Got it, (ROTFLLOL) Let me make this simple of our readers:

Rev 22:18 says not to add to this book, or you'll be cursed with the plagues written in this book.
The Book of Revelations was originally it's own book, and was later added to the Bible, and was placed last.
The book of Revelations was not the last book written by John. (the Gospel of St John was)
The Book of Revelations was written about 60 AD.
The earliest estimate on the Compilation of the New Testament I have found is 170 AD.
Godzilla has held forth that Revelations makes all future revelation not of God (personal answers to prayer excepted).
The Trinity (where you see it as a Clarification, or creation of Man) happened in 325 AD) (after the Book of Revelations was the last book of the Bible).
Godzilla now says that this revelation in 325 AD, is acceptable because it was agrees with the Bible. (from his perspective)
Godzilla says the Book of Mormon does not agree with the Bible. (from his perspective)

This folks is a circular argument and a violation of Logic, if there is no further revelation, then the Trinity is not inspired, if the trinity is inspired then there is further revelation, thus Joseph Smith could have been inspired too.

I Said: The Trinity is Heresy by the catholic churches own tenets. (of course they will never admit this openly.)

U Said: What was that earlier about common knowledge lol.

It was a prophecy. U Said: Once again DU must resort to taking the whole paragraph this time out of context with the article and selectively quoting from it to come to his conclusion. For those who wish to see how erroneous DUs argument is (again) can go here and see The Article

I Said: I select what I think best represents the whole document, as I am sure you do.

U Said: No, you select what best represents you desired arguments, where you are applying a form of special pleading to try to make the text say what you want it to in spite of the fact it says the opposite

Readers, please note that people often accuse others of what they themselves are doing, I accuse Godzilla of being earnest and honest in his representations and excerpts. Godzilla accuses me of twisting the document, I urge all of you to go and read it for yourselves. thanks.

I Said: Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each.

U Said: Ah, but the simplicity of the mormon thought

I am after all trying to speak to your level...

U Said: and typical mormon perversion of the doctrine because all they can see things as is polytheistically. But we can work with that here. Du acknowledges that:
1. The Father is God 2. The Son is God 3. The Holy Spirit is God
DU identifies this initial understanding! But then he ignores the remaining teaching that :

4. There is only ONE God.

Actually, I have declared that there is but one God, for they are one in heart might mind and strength. You simple chose not to read that part, apparently to you if they are not one substance, they are not one which is an unbiblical, Hellinist, Greek concept which is exactly my point.

U Said: Thus only some one with DUs ignorance can try to twist a section describing the Trinity and presenting a biblical presentation for that doctrine into an anti-trinitarian thesis.

You can impugn all you want my intellect, I believe the readers can decide for themselves who is acting in an ignorant fashion

. U Said: This is typical mormon training where the mormon faith must rule inspite of all the evidence that show that they are completely wrong.

I could say the same of your training, but I won't bother.

U Said: Man made Mormonism goes the polytheistic route, guess Hellenistic influences colored Smiths thinking.

Pot, Kettle, only in this case, it's more of Pot accusing the canteen of being Black. (we hold the living water...)

U Said: Now before we look at DUs next reply, he finally faces the remaining 90% of the article. In typical fashion, he selectively picks out only a small fraction of the material in the sections. How he deals with these cherry picked passages will reveal much about his MO.

LOL! your posts and claimed insight into my mind reveals much about your MO.

I Said: Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity.

U Said: Here is his first error.

Wait, so what was the first part of your post agreement? LOL!

U Said: The trinity has a singular definition 3 Persons composing the one God. What he probably is trying to relate here are two other ways to consider God.

I'm sure to you, there is only one perspective that is allowed.

I Quoted: We may view the Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period.

U Said: To say that DU does not know what he is talking about. Above, DU links ” Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature with ” The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. Now what exactly DU means by Divine Nature is only conjecture however, DU is likely baiting here, relying upon mormonism dual definition. Since it is in relation to God, the mormon church currently teaches that God is, in effect, (1) a contingent being, who was at one time not God (not necessary and not eternally God); (2) limited in knowledge (not truly omniscient), power (not omnipotent), and being (not omnipresent or immutable); (3) one of many gods; (4) a corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at a particular spatiotemporal location and is therefore not omnipresent like the biblical God (respecting His intrinsic divine nature-we are not considering the Incarnation of the Son of God here); and (5) a being who is subject to the laws and principles of a universe He did not create.

I'm sure that would have been a really wonderful refutation of the "Mormon" position, if only that is what I was stating, I was in fact Quoting from the article we are discussing "The Blessed Trinity"

The fact that you just tried to "Destroy" the points made by this quotation from the article as how did you put it? "relying upon Mormonisms dual definition." I submit that you have no idea what this article is talking about, only a prejudice as to what the out come "must" be. You keep complaining when I refer to the Dictionary for the meanings of words which don't mean what you want them to. You keep giving arguments that are so fallacious that I can link you to the Fallacy Files rather than waste bandwidth here refuting them.

I do find it interesting that what I am saying the Linguist and I agree, and you refute his passage thinking it's Mormon doctrine, I guess since you can't tell the difference, I have been proven correct.

U Said: Thus, DU is trying to force hi definition in the guise of truth . He relates this definition was associated with Arianism.

Actually, since I am quoting the article, you are trying to force truth into the "Guise of Mormonism" Look, It fits like a glove!

U Said: Here DU fails again to do his homework. Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.
http://www.carm.org/heresy/arianism.htm

I never said Arius had everything right, just the part about God and Jesus being separate "Distinct" personages.

U Said: Thus DUs second bleat

Can you get more sophomoric? U Said: “we may consider the Son and the Spirit as deriving from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are fits the example of arianism. Arianism redefined the concept of God, therefore was not another view of the Trinity, but a completely different definition all together.

You really have no concept of our doctrine at all, do you.

U Said: But the bottom line is NEITHER consideration is valid because neither are an expression of Trinitarianism as taught in the NT. Now, after setting his strawman up by mis-defining the Trinity, lets see what hoops his logic leaps through.

Speaking of Straw men... Here's one! I Said: So the Doctrine Changed the meaning of God with the Conclusion of the Arian Heresy (Arian Controversy) which officially ended with the First council of Nicea, and the creation of the Nicene creed by the Soon to be Roman Catholic Church.

U Said: Here we see that Du builds a strawman, yet his resounding conclusion doe not even fit the argument he has made. The Arian heresy was not the first to challenge the church and the apostolic teaching regarding the Trinity, they only had not used the term by then (which did show up a lot sooner than 325 or so AD, but as early as 160s AD)

Said with no backup what so ever, I gave documentation some of which we are discussing here, forgive us if we don't take your word for it, but pray about it instead...(As the Bible tells us to)

Those who have the Spirit of God know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, those who don't make up mysterious Creeds.

U Said: This is laughable coming from a religious system that has secret (oops sacred) temple rites, special underware and other items.

The masons claim they got their ceremonies from the temple of Solomon, there are records indicating that ceremonies were performed that that were not recorded in the scriptures. Even if their weren't, so?

As for the Garments, have you seen a priests collar, nun's habit, or a friar's outfit and what is it with the Pope's hat? how about the Jews and their prayer shawls, The little hats the men wear and phylacteries and beards with curls? (Religious clothing is not new, nor funny).

U Said: However, this digresses.

LOL, after this wonderful sentence you'll probably call me illiterate!

U Said: DU is illiterate in NT studies.

Yes!

U Said: Mystery which the Encyclopedia article refers to (and the scriptures du cites) is found in the NT as (mysterion-greek) is associated with parables about God’s kingdom or truths disclosed. Du needs to get a decent bible dictionary. The word is always associated with a verb of revelation or proclamation. So here Du has to attack Jesus Christ (from the parables he cited) in order to fall on his face over this point.

Cherry picking your definitions again? How about this one: Rev. 17: 5, 7

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the Bmartyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great cadmiration.
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

That is the kind of Mystery I was talking about, and it's not a good thing.

I Quoted: It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developed by St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of Latin theology.

I Said: So, the Greeks changed their position too after pressure was brought to bear during the controversies.

U Said: Again, the reader/lurker will not know how this conclusion was reached with this selective citation of this much larger passage. However, what the authors of the encyclopedic article were presenting in this section was the Trinitarian doctrine was basically proven working from the Persons of the Trinity to the unity of the singular God. We will see that the Latins worked the other way.

Nice editorializing, devoid of quotations, supporting links, Etc. Forgive us if we give it all due consideration on that basis.

U Said: Du next cites snippets from each of the subject areas of the article.

Because you listed the names of the sections as if it proved something...

And you said I didn't even read the whole thing, LOL!

U Said: The way he compiles them are non-sequitur and make no sense absent the context they are placed in.

Actually, they make plenty of sense in the article too, just not a meaning you are willing to admit to.

U Said: and only serves to make the post longer. With that said, Du next tries to invoke the sinister, deeply hatched plot. Lets see how this plot thickens

I Said: Readers should note that this is a publication on a Catholic web site, and that the Catholic church created the Nicean creed and that the Writer had to be very careful in couching his words, I direct the readers to the Publication Information at the bottom of the article.

U Said: This is so bogus that it is laughable!

It was posted on a Catholic website, they did say they were censoring the articles.

U Said: Here Du tries to imply that the writer(s) of the encyclopedic entry are some how threatened, perhaps chained in some deep, dark dungeon and that their views do not reflect their real thoughts. So who is this nasty person???

I Said: ….Censor. Imprimatur….K

The writer knew his word would be censored, thus he wrote very carefully a balanced article that has to be read carefully to read his meaning.

U Said: If nothing else, Du brings in a lot of humor.

Glad I could be of service, I know some really good jokes about the Catholic priest, the Baptist minister and the Mormon who go fishing together... Maybe some other time. U Said: It is surprising that Du did not pull out his dictionary to even look up the term. Here is the applicable definition of Censor. Imprimatur;

I assumed that everyone on a political forum would know what a censor is.

U Quote: Censor A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. I.e. like an editor

U Said: An Imprimatur is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics. Ordinarily an imprimatur is granted by the bishop of a diocese (after a declaration of nihil obstat has been granted by a theologian in regard to the work).
http://www.answers.com/topic/imprimatur?cat=biz-fin

U Said: Since the writers were writing about Catholic doctrine, the good Bishop was overall responsible for the content. I remember DU lecturing me about something regarding the General Authorities and Bruce McConkie at one time………but there is no odor of under handedness towards hi authors hmmmmmmm?

The church could not stop Bruce R McConkie from publishing whatever he wanted, because he was not publishing it in a church publication. You guys really need to get a grip on what a church can and can't do.

in this case, the linguist was apparently hired by them and told what to find.

U Said: So, lacking anything substantial in the article to discredit it, DU resorts to a personal attack on the presiding bishop. No religious bigotry with that.

Personal attack? I defy you to quote anything that was a personal attack n the Good bishop, he was just doing his job, censoring church publications Which is the point, if this linguist wanted his work to ever see the light of day on this a Catholic run website, he needed to curb his criticism, and couch his terms carefully. I did not say it was sinister, just a fact of the publication. If I were writing an article critical of the LDS church for publication in say the Ensign (a church publication), I would have a similar problem.

I Said: Well that is precisely what a careful analysis of this document says he said, bedcase it's true, the trinity in word and in concept is not to be had in the Bible.

U Said: I never knew Jesus spoke about bedcases, must be that carpenter background again. While trinity as a word is not present, it is a lie to state that the concept is not present.

Bedcase was the Spell checker messing up because (which I had already messed up) The difference between the Trinity (oneness of substance and the Godhead oneness of heart might mind and strength) is not stated in the Bible. As a matter of fact the very point this author keeps making about the Discrete nature of the Members of the Godhead is exactly my point all along. I Said: The oneness spoken of in the Bible is explained by Jesus specifically. The oneness Jesus Spoke of in the Bible is also the oneness the apostles, and the saints are commanded to have.

U Said: You have not done a complete study on Jesus’s use of the word one in concept to His relationship with the rest of the Trinity. The prayer of unity within the context of praying for the Disciples.

From John 17:11 That they may be one (ina wsin en). Purpose clause with ina and the present active subjunctive of eimi (that they may keep on being). Oneness of will and spirit (en, neuter singular), not one person (eiv, masculine singular) for which Christ does not pray. Each time Jesus uses en (verses 11,21,22) and once, eiv en, "into one" (verse 23). This is Christ's prayer for all believers, for unity, not for organic union since the apostles could not become god.

MAn, how wrong headed can you get. Jesus drew analogy which is clear and simple to understand and you try to pick it apart and use special translations to get it to mean what you want. you are wresting the scriptures.

I quoted John 17:21-22

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:

This is the analogy that just cannot be ignored, you can mistranslate all you want, but the translators for the KJV did a better job, and I believe are more trustworthy than you. Jesus compares how he is in the father with how they should be in him. Jesus then says the disciples should be one in US, what Us, why God and Jesus that plural us. Then he draws an analogy on the oneness he has with God and the oneness the Disciples are to have with each other.

WOW! What a powerful testimony, and it seems to be wasted on you because you don't seem to want the truth, you seem to want what you have to be the truth in spite of evidence to the contrary.

U Said: However earlier Jesus relates His oneness in a John 10:30

I and my Father are one.
One (en). Neuter, not masculine (eiv). Not one person (cf. eiv in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature.

And Adam and Eve should be one, and the Disciples should be one and all christians should be one...

Pardon me for pointing this out, but you are off by one. Your whole trinity is based on a mistranslation of this one scripture, for you think it means of one substance even when Jesus says it's not. This is the reason for the need for the restoration for this crucial piece of information is missing, there are others too.

U Said: That’s what you get when you rely solely upon 1611 English.

I Said: This oneness is also commanded for Couples to have.

U Said: From Matt 19:6 What therefore God hath joined together (o oun o yeov sunezeuxen). Note "what," not "whom." The marriage relation God has made. "The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation" ( Bruce). The word for "joined together" means "yoked together," a common verb for marriage in ancient Greek.

But then under mormon polygamy, I can see why you would want to have sex with god.

I honestly have no idea where you got this, and I don't want to know, but no God abhors homo sexuality, so BZZT Wrong!

U Said: Interesting continuation of the worn out its not in the bible blab. The term Godhead only appears in KJV and another TRANSLATION. Modern translations use the word Deity. That being as it may, endowments, first president, general authorities, hi, moroni and eternal progression are not found in the Bible either

I have seen a "modern translation of the Bible with Jesus calling people "Dude" I just can't get into them, sorry. I believe the writers of the KJV were inspired and did a wonderful job. Oh and just for the record atonement only appears once in the KJV Bible too, it's still kind of important (don't you think?)

I Said: Not! So can I retranslate the Bible according to my understanding and call it more accurate. (Joseph smith Did that) Would you accept that? of course not, you don't believe he was inspired, so of course I am not going to accept your "new translation" because I don't believe you are inspired.

U Said: First off, I did not do the translation for the NIV, RSV, NLT and other translations. As far at the textural integrity of the Bible, it is supported by 30,000+ extant MS, far more than the bom.

LOL! So if I pick Joseph and want to use his translation (I didn't do it) will you accept that (not just no, but heck No!)

As for the Manuscripts, yeas, including several partial manuscripts for the Book of Enoch (here we go again)
:
U Said: Now the jst, that is a hoot! Smith claimed that he completed the translation in History of the Church, vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and in Times and Seasons, vol. VI, p. 802. But Smith was also commanded by the Lord to “publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth” (D. & C. 124:89). He never did publish it even though he lived for many years after he completed it.

He was martyred before he could have it published.
U Said: Why is it they have never accepted Smith’s translation as their official Bible. You still use the “corrupted” King James Version as your official Bible! Is that because there is not a single Greek or Hebrew manuscript of the Bible that support’s Smith’s “translation?” Since one of the official titles that Joseph Smith and every LDS President has had is “Translator,” why has the hi church translated a reliable Bible, if it is as bad as they claim? (crickets)

The KJV as published by the church contains all the differences in foot notes. Why do we just take excerpts? Because the Copyright stayed with Emma who gave it to another church. that's why.

U Said: Har har, the mormon church does not even believe the jst is inspired, so why should I?

IT's included in with our JST...

The longer passages are also in there in their own section. it's also on our web site, Here. Har Har your self.

I Said: So, you re-translate the inerrant Bible to make it more clear? LOL! so was it inerrant before or after it was retranslated.

U Said: Ah yes, the scholar in DU now comes out. Breaking forth the hidden mystery that the bible was originally written in 1611 King James English. Why did hi use deformed hieroglyphics the when he should have used 1611 English?

Classic Straw Man Argument, I never said that, or even intimated it. U Said: You guys crack me up.

The feeling is mutual. U Said: You get all in our face for saying the Bible needs to be translated correctly to be the word of God. So which is it?

Yes, the Bible is the word of God which has been passed through a the corruption of mortal caretakers who were imperfect both in selecting the Books and in translating them, however with prayer, God's will can still be fet through them.

U Said: Psssst, former missionary boy, languages used in the original writings surprisingly was not English!

Psst I knew that and never said it was English, see my strawman link above.

I Said: You cannot translate a work meaningfully without inserting your own beliefs into it. For proof of this, take any one of the pages from FR and feed it to Google's translation page. and translate it to say Korean, then translate that Back to English. Compare with the original text, laugh, and admit my point.

U Said: Invalid from the start since #1 I cannot force my beliefs into it, second, it is a mechanical translation and not a live one – it cannot discern the broader context of the passage.

Fine plug in whatever you want, how about translating your next post before posting it, it might make it more meaningful...

That is precisely my point with out a human mind reading meaning into a document mechanical translation is ineffectual, thus it's not translation, but interpretation. Thank you so much for proving my point.

U Said: Fact #1 is that the MS are there for comparison via textural criticism, same techniques used for the study of any other ancient document.
Fact #2 There are no extant MS for the bom.
Fact #3 Smitty did not go back to the MS for his so-called translation in fact it is totally unsupported – which may be why it NEVER has been canonized hmmmmm?

Click Here for 1. a partial list of the Changes the Dead sea scrolls say should be made to the KJV to bring it in line with the ancient texts found in Qumran.

2. We still have the Manuscript Joseph dictated, complete with his corrective notes.

3. Joseph Smith used the KJV and revelation, what God can say once, God can say twice, if he wants to. For Momrons and any honest questioner, the question is not Could Joseph correct the Bible, but is the Book of Mormon Gods word.

As I keep saying here, the bes way to know is for everyone to get a copy, and read and pray about it themselves.

U Said: Woe, woe to the unbeliever, gloom despair and agony on me, deep dark depression, excessive misery. Ladies and gentlemen of FR, before you stands the typical response I've seen when DU is actually forced to really read the material in context,and then realizes the ineptude of his position. Instead of stopping while he was ahead, he doggedly plows on. You have to admit it, he has a high pain factor.

I Said: I am not making a threat, I am pointing out that your threat should scare those on your side as much or more than you hoped it would scare me.

U Said: My threat???????? Bwwaaaaahhhhshaaaaahhhh ROTFLAICGU! Oh please tell us more, oh bane of Fluffy.

I'm sure you think calling me fluffy is a good argument, but it's only more Argumentum ad Hominem, as a Red Herring and it's basically an admission that I am winning whenever you do that.

Besides, you invited me to my Armageddon, did you not, did I misinterpret did you mean a BBQ in my honor?

I Said: Mormons have historically been nice about this on FR, this is the first time I personally have "fought back" about anything, I have just tried to state my position and explain why it was logical.

U Said: Du, you got called on your bluff,

I don't bluff, we autistics aren't good at it, therefore, I tell the truth, you should try it sometime.

U Said: just like the other times you have spouted off similar.

Like I said, this is the first time I have ever gone on the attack, and even then, I am not using the heavy artillery, just giving you facts where you say there are none.

U Said: You have not stated your position but have presented a most illogical defense through innuendo, intellectual dishonesty and pompous preaching. Your silly anti-Catholic bigotry from earlier is a clear example of that.

Wow, I don't know how you got there, let me be clear about what I believe

. I believe that the Catholic Faith went wrong shortly after Jesus left. Indeed, the apostles started battling apostasy almost immediately. The apostles prophesied that while the eternal church would never fall, the Church on the earth would and would have to be restored. I have listed scriptures where these prophecies appear, but the easiest two birds with one stone is 2 Thes 2:3-4 The protestant churches also have recognized this "Falling away" and have reformed trying to bring back the true Gospel. Unfortunately for them, it was not time yet for God to restore his church. Don't get em wrong, I have the utmost respect and admiration for those men, some were undoubtedly inspired with what they sought to do, indeed , God used them to prepared the way for his restoration. As for the Catholic Church which you accuse me of being bigoted against, I have friends who are catholic, we compare doctrines all the time, it's fun. I have much respect for those inside the church who try to preserve the doctrines of God, unfortunately, once the apostles left the earth with out ordaining replacements the authority to led the church was lost, and try as they might, men are not perfect, so they eventually fell away from the true Gospel.

John 17: 3

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

life eternal, is not just living forever, for Satan and the angles and indeed every man borne of woman will receive that, that was what the resurrection was all about. life eternal is living the way God does. Becoming a God is life eternal, and the Catholic church lost the ability to lead men to God when they allowed God to be redefined. Which I believe they did in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea.

There, have I stated my position clearly enough for you?, I will iterate my quotation of earlier:

As John A. Reiner, a Catholic Theologian said:
“You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”
Source : A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 3

Thus, I am not alone in my opinion, but am agreeing with a Catholic Theologian.

I Said: Now, thanks to you we are attacking back, and you don't seem to like it.

U Said: Not like it? I am laughing in your face. You show no intellectual prowess regarding the issues you claim to know and it is fun showing them to the world.

Then you are as intelligent as you seem, for I have handed you your head many times. However, I will not comment on your failures, I will merely smile as you seem to think you have won and bid you carry on.

I Said: That is the point, if you attack, you won't like the backlash you will receive, it was an object lesson learn it the first time, or the lesson will repeat.

U Said: Woe, woe, woe, the Delphiuser is preaching warnings again. But then if defending proper biblical interpretation against heretical belief systems is attacking – so be it.

At last, you admit that you interpret the Bible.

I Said: I am not trying to destroy Christianity,

I Said: Oh excuse oh mighty oracle, that is not what you were pronouncing earlier – another hi prophetic flip flop?

I am not the oracle, but she lives near by...

Pleas quote where I said I was trying to destroy Christianity, or admit you were wrong.

I Said: I am a Christian.

U Said: No you are a hi – a polytheistic belief system with a dash of Gnosticism pulled (literally) out of a hat by a swindler who’s life goal was power, not salvation.

LOL! Now who's reading minds? Better yet mind reading the dead, wait, isn't that how John Edwards won that lawsuit?

I will state this again, Mormons are Christians, I know it, Jesus knows it any anyone who cares to do any research at all knows it. You are free to state your belief, but that does not make it so.

I Said: This non Biblical man made creed, was tacked onto Christianity in AD 325 and the Apostles never believed or Taught it.

U Said: Ah contraire, you have already noted that the NT teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. The NT also teaches that there is only ONE God. Polytheism was not believed by the Jews or Christian church, but the Triune nature of God was as it reconciled the monotheism revealed in the OT with the additional revelation brought by Jesus in the NT. In fact, one of the first creeds was Trinitarian:

Mt 28:19* Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (KJV)

Name is singular yet the Father, Son and Spirit are together. Jesus commanded trinitarism.

I understand that that is how you hi the Bible, however, let's again refer to the linguist who's article we are discussing

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

The unity of God, not the substance of God. Mormons believe in the unity of God, not of God being of one substance. You try to say we are polytheistic, we are not, It makes at least as much sense to say the Oneness expressed here is the oneness used elsewhere in the bible (Marriage of Adam and Eve, oneness of the disciples, Oneness of all of us with God...) as it does to say they share the same substance. such misunderstandings as the Trinity, lead to further misunderstandings like Modalisem which would never happen directly from true doctrine like the distinct persons of the Godhead.

I Said: I have re-read the article again, and believe it is exactly as I stated, it is a refutation of the trinity coming from within the catholic church and the writer had to be very careful. The writers premise for the article and the refutations that he worked into just about every section prove he is not supporting the Trinity, but refuting it.

U Said: Well you learned obfuscation well in mormon 201 then. You have no proof of threats to the author, your refutation was based on innuendo and deliberate mis-translation and mis-definition of word and phrases. But then the reading level of the article may have been a little above where your are at.

You know, IMHO the little put downs you level at me don't accomplish what you think they do. I'm not going to get mad, and since you don't seem to be having fun, only make me wonder if you realize they may appear to others as a Red Herring and show you are aware of the weakness in your arguments. You of course will say there is no weakness, and probably will call me fluffy again, sad.

U Said: Dear Delphi...

my apologies, when I first responded to you I was under the assumption I was approaching someone who was somewhat reasonable.

Everyone believes they are reasonable...

U Said: Then I saw your post about how you were going to destroy all other religions.

I took a class (not at BYU) where every religion, including mine was placed on the rack of twisted logic that the instructor could contrive built out of the tennets of that religion, and destroyed, I know how it is done. I did not threaten to do it, I said I could be done, because I have seen it. BTW IMHO no atheist should be teaching a class on world religions...

U Said: Your posts are full of conspiracy theory and obvious contempt.

I am showing far more respect than I am receiving... IMHO

U Said: Clearly this is a waste of time,and as I have had more important matters come up these last few days, your groundless accusations are not at the top of my list, and I’m not interested in having a conversation with someone who is so delusional as to think they are going to destroy all non-mormon religions.
Here is the Post in Question and the Statement I made.

Let me break this down for you. I can destroy every religion out there from Buddhism to Hinduism to Catholics and everything in between by their own tenants. Religions are not perfect because they are for this world. If you start this "Armageddon" you will regret it because the way I read it, Armageddon as spoken of in the Scriptures is a cake walk for no one, sinners suffer right along side the saints.

I did not say I was going to, but I have seen it done, it's not a true destruction, for it is as unfair as the posts here are, to do it, you take every cheap shot, every purposeful misunderstanding that you can to logically destroy "faith" which by definition is not logical.

Seriously for a moment, can you logically defend Jesus walking on water? Healing the sick with a word? Defend with logic his raising the dead by yelling at them. These cannot be logically discerned, they must be spiritually discerned. All religions can be destroyed logically for they are not creatures of logic, they are creatures of faith. Why? Simple, we don't know everything, we don't know how Jesus was conceived and God's not going to tell us, we are not ready to know all things we need to believe and learn before we can be taught more truth, that's the way it is. Can I destroy any religion by studying it with that in mind? sure. That does not make them false. Let me make one last point, I did not exclude Mormonism, you assumed that.

U Said: Maybe you could look up Tom Cruise and have a lively discussion.

Adios.

Maybe I will, got his number?

Have a nice life...

Behemoth post ... You mean like this one? Bwahahahahaha