GZ -
Wow, I’m impressed. Lets see were this takes us.
Not really caring that you are impressed, but thanks, I guess.
GZ -
Well so far, so good. I am pleased you are seeking better sources for your definitions. However, Modalism was already defined in the article.
Since you praise my "Better source" and the article gives the author's opinion, I thought you would like an official definition.
GZ -
However, I see that you are going to try to divert and obfuscate the discussion of the article.
So going to a better source than the author's opinion is obfuscation and diversion? Why would you have that opinion? Maybe it's because the author bends his definition to include us and you are opposed to us. So much for intellectual honesty.
GZ -
The bom clearly teaches god in a modalistic manner So does the Bible, that's why it was such a difficult heresy to stamp out, so?
GZ -
That should be enough, folks know how to go to the article. It is pretty straight forward what the bom is teaching here is modalism.
ROTFLOL! It thought you were advocating actual scholarship, not this "I can string a bunch of quotes together", intellectual bottom feeding.
Godzilla, are you so ignorant of the Bible that you could not string together quotes to make it seem to promote Modalism?
Do you really believe that that is what it is teaching?
Then this is a completely illegitimate line of reasoning, and you are agreeing with it.
DU -
Mormons are not Modalists, or Sabellianists, in fact, in response to this article, I would say that Trinitarianism is the the most common theological error concerning the nature of God (i.e., who God is). However, I know that Trintarians everywhere disagree with me in the strongest of terms.
GZ -
I agree, NOW you are no longer modalists – you are polytheists.
Wait, didn't you just say the article was proven correct that we are modalists? What is this you are beginning to sound like Bagadad Bob "There are no American forces in Iraq, and if there are we are slaughtering them..." Keep your message straight, are me modalists, or polytheists, we can't be both, and since you don't seem to know what we are (which is my point) then people should not be listening to you about us, but should be coming to us about us, all you do by being wishy washy is muddy the water.
BTW, the bible says "
there be gods many, and lords many,", and it says "
Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Which two scriptures pretty much sum up the Mormon position on worshiping other gods and the existence of other gods, As for us and our house, we will worship the Lord.
GZ -
Had you bothered to read the article (where have I heard myself saying that before), you would see that change began around 1835.
You say that a lot, because any time i see something that you don't want seen you claim I did not read. It's a pitiful lament to argue that anyone who disagrees with you has not read, or they would agree with your opinion, on an opinion piece.
GZ -
Your opinion and 50 cents might get you a coke at walmart
Mormon remember? I avoid caffeine = no Coke, I'd love a sprite though.
DU -
The Trinitarians, Keep trying to "define" us in the terms of your Greek Hellenistic philosophies.
GZ -
Pretty simple and straight forward DU. Modalism teaches that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes” – hence the term modalism. You really need to get out of the bunker and read more.
It's really simple, God does not fit into your pidgin holes, so neither does our definition of him.
We are not Modalists or Polytheists (depending on which of your personalities is dominant at the moment). These pre-made Greek Hellenistic definitions do not apply to our definition of God because they did not know God. They and non Mormons IMHO incompletely understand him and none of their definitions is accurate, capisce?
DU -
They are not even aware of how pervasive your own culture is to you "Homoousion" Greek: of one essence or substance in the Nicene Creed for example. and you guys are not even aware of how this has altered your view of God.
GZ -
Yep, they got together and after examining the scriptures found the greek word that best described the nature of God.
it may be their best effort, but it's inaccurate.
GZ -
Yes DU, an incredibly fascinating article, too bad you failed to read it in its entirety to place the statement in its proper context (where have I said that to you before?) Here is some of what you missed.
Read the whole thing (I read at 1500 WPM remember?) and the point I was making is tha the meanings you keep trying to attach to waht we say are out of context. So finally, you get my point, but somehow, you think it supports your conclusion...
Ya just can't make this stuff up!
GZ -
So you see, the meanings of the word chosen was carefully examined and the meaning evaluated. Use a different word and Christianity would have fallen apart.
It did, it was prophesied to, perhaps you don't know this scripture:
2 Thes. 2: 3 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
There had to be a falling away, this was a big piece.
GZ -
Oh DU, please don’t miss this conclusion, since you selected this article to champion your cause:
By affirming the full divinity of Jesus, Nicea saved the church from the theological emphases, imbalances, and heresies of Greek philosophy and a Hellenistic worldview, whose supreme being, for example, so transcended the created world that no person or community could aspire to a loving relationship with such a deity.
Um, that is exactly what God has become in the trinitarian view, a being without Body Parts or Passions. A being who's relationship with us is not Father and God, exemplar of what we can become but GOD, un approachable, incomprehensible, inexplicable god who does things fro his purposes and you'd better not ask why or he'll notice you and crush you for your impudence.
That is the God of the trinitarian world as explained to me by priests and theologians.
GZ -
You basically impuned the integrity of the individual by claiming the quote was false and to stop using it, in spite of the fact that professonal lds apologists/polemists were using the exact same citation.
ROTFLOL! Oh please, I offended someone by asking for a citation, heaven forbid, what next will the Mormons actually expect to SPEAK at their inquisition?
With the scorn and abuse that is heaped on Mormons, I find it hard to muster much sympathy for those who take offense where none was intended. Maybe if they have such thin skins they should stay off the religion threads.
GZ -
Hello Du, not every reference is on the internet for starters. It was properly cited using ( )’s at the end of the quote, which, the last time I wrote a report requiring citations (just last week) was still the valid and proper format. This was on the internet,
Here. So the "Not available on the internet" excuse just went out the window. Not only that, but Mormons were then accused of "Scrubbing" their history, and low and behold, the citation was on a church website all along. (No apology for the accusations of scrubbing our sites was offered.) The Quote was taken out of context as could be seen by anyone now who wants to
go read the entire article.
GZ Quoted -
Du, how does it feel to use a quote found by Sandra Tanner?
. . . . I have never been embarrassed by my prophet, I have been embarrassed for those who misquote and misunderstand them.
DU Actually said -
I don't care who found it, I actually believe I stated I remembered the speech which is why I knew it was taken out of context. I have never been embarrassed by my prophet, I have been embarrassed for those who misquote and misunderstand them.
You edit my words just as you edit the Bible, and written words of my prophets.
If you have to hide eve a part the actual words of person's post to make your point, then you sir are no scholar.
GZ -
Very simple DU, next time – YOU find the citation if a link is broken (which is what happened to the original) and prove us all wrong. I guess that when the prophet has done the speaking, there is nothing else to say -
There was no link given to be broken. IF my link is broken, then of course I will find an alternate link, or stop using a resource. It is patently ridiculous for you to presume to assign your opponent to clean up your inacurate links.
If these posts were a paper being presented before a forum of Scholars these kinds of actions would get anyone run out of the college as a fraud.
GZ -
ROTFLAICGUBILMREO!!!!!!
There seems to be a problem with your keyboard.
GZ -
Excuse me DU, what church, outside of the true mormon church, in the eyes of mormondom is considered “Christian”. The article makes it very clear that your prophet was speaking of all Christianity when it says ” President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church . . . . .
Really? That is not what he said, that is not what I or any Mormon would understand. That thing you keep seeing? I don't think it's really there.
Momrons accept all who call on Christ as their redeemer as Christian.
DU -
We don't care what your definition is, only ours and Jesus' matter and what matters is that he accept ours, at least to us.
GZ -
Riiiiiggghhhhtt. Only mormonism's definition matters and what matters is that Jesus accepts it (meaning mormonism is superior to Jesus). LOL, cart before the horse.
A careful reading of what I said will reveal the you must have been wearing your excrement colored glasses again to get that from what I said.
DU -
Suffice it to say that if you really do comprehend the words you are using Godzilla, then you must have a completely erroneous understanding of what we believe.
GZ -
We will see as the post goes on.
I think most people avoid these posts between you and I because they have already "seen enough" of your words.
DU -
Thus we run right back to the central issue, Does the Nicene creed (a fourth century definition) have the power to define the God of the New testament. I believe not, and in another communication, Godzilla agreed with that at least in principle.
GZ -
Lets be clear about what I said – since you didn’t bother to link to what I said.
I believe you made that comment in a FM to me. Please tell me how to link to a FM... (which is why I said in another communication, not another post)
GZ -
They didn’t have the power to define God
My point exectly, if only you had stopped here.
GZ -
because God had already defined Himself in the OT and NT. They only took that definition from scripture and put words to it.
That is called interpretation, and I don't believe anyone who has read About the , would ever believe that compared to the apostles or a prophet's communication, it is not of God.
GZ -
God provided the definition, and we accepted His.
You keep saying that, yet where the Bible disagrees with you, you just close your eyes and ears like Golumn "Not listening, Not listening, Go away!" The truth just won't go away and when Jesus Comes and all the Trinitarians are the ones hearing, "I never knew you, depart from me" you will wish you had read the Book of Mormon all the way through, and prayed about it.
DU -
Label? Like this is simply about a trademark? Your a funny guy. My Christianity is not just a superficial label stuck on to cheat a just punishment, and I pity any who treat their "Christianity" that way.
GZ -
You are right to a limited degree. As a sinner I was bound to be punished. But God had other plans
So you are going to rely on the creations of men, Good luck with that, I'll come down and visit.
GZ -
No, mormonism applies the label of Christianity to mask it's unChristian doctrines as a marketing tool.
ROTFLOL! Wow how far seeing Joseph Smith was, he even knew to put Jesus Christ's name on the church so that later ("in the last ten years or so") we could decide to be Christian. (Do you know how bad this sounds... For you?)
GZ -
Or to warn away from impending judgment.
yes, we have tried to warn you.
GZ -
Yes, they are One to me, but not to Mormons, by definition.
Actually, we believe God was consistent in his use of he word one, as my page points out with
The Oneness of God. In order for your use of one to be consistent, married couples have to become one person, the apostles have to have joined together into one giant super apostle (Because Jesus drew analogy between their oneness and his and Gods
John 17: 11, 21-22.) The Bible defies you, the definition in the Bible is at odds with your "words" to define (or redefine) God.
GZ -
Context DU, focus, context. That goes with the previous portion. It would make better sense if you hadn’t chopped my quote up so badly.
Hey, at least I don't edit your words and only post part of them... so I can make my point.
DU -
LOL! So our other statements of belief in being saved by grace don't count? (you can see why the overly technical requirements of posting to Godzilla (Who seems to Strain at some gnats and yet swallows some camels whole) leads to monstrous posts.)
GZ -
You fail to cite your scripture fully DU, you seem to forget to add after all we can do. Hence mormonism places the bondage of works on you. Why hid that DU?
OK, I'll cite the scripture fully, but only because you asked so nicely.
Matt. 23: 24 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Oh, wait, that's not the one you wanted me to quote...
James 2:14 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Oh, wait, not that one either, the one you wanted was:
2 Ne. 25: 23-25 23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.
25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.
26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
OOPS! I'm sorry, i quoted too much and tuined your point, I keep doing that by bringing that gol durned context in to it, gosh darn, I apologise.
GZ -
The comment was being direct to Wintertime
Sorry, maybe you should adopt a notation for posting to multiple posters at once...
DU -
Please show where I have ever cut a quote from the CE in the middle of a sentence.
GZ -
Oh pluhleeese! You have added, redefined, and taken a lot out of context – a hatchet job by my definition.
But not by anyone else's but other anti's, fine, I can live (eternally) with that.
DU -
You said Joseph said that right after leaving the grove. He saw the first vision when he was fourteen, the Joseph Smith History was written months before his death when he was 38.
GZ -
Is not the “ “ used to mark what people say – and did not the official account use those to identify what smith relayed the personages said to him? it does, and the first words the official account has him saying after ht left the grove was “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” to his mother.
See here/ GZ -
What????? The prophet who spoke with god face to fact? But then I guess it is understandable, he had to go through multiple, contradictory accounts before he finally figured out what would work the best. So are you further saying the official account is unreliable too?
You really are desperate if you are resorting to the old state something false and then attribute it to me tactic.
Joseph was a story teller, most people were in the frontier days, it was expected, and it was the way people entertained themselves. FYI, there was no TV. Joseph, like any good story teller adjusted his story to his audience, going into detail where there was interest and skipping over parts that were not interesting. Joseph was also not a learned man, he had a third grade education, at best, and yet according to you, he wrote the Book of Mormon complete with monetary systems groups of people moving about, wars, etc. all withouth making a major blunder. As a reader of science fiction, I know how hard it is, entire dictionaries and web sites are devoted to the errors made by authors, while the Book of Mormon is proving to be
more and more accurate the more we learn about the Americas before Columbus.
Yours must be a daunting task saddled with more and more evidences for the Book of Mormon, people like
Keith Crandall, who when enlisted to check the DNA studies of the Book of Mormon, since they were using his work as their basis, Kieth reads the book of Mormon as part of his research and joins the church and now works at BYU. WOW What a setback for you guys!
If anyone wants to see some videos of his findings:
Part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNAPart 2 The Book of Mormon and New World DNAPart 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA DU -
The police know that if a suspect tells the same story to several different people, men and women, then it is a made up or at least practiced story, not a memory.
GZ -
This lame, oft repeated by you, defense is so outlandishly unbelieveable that it actually ruins your defense.
When logic is unassailable, claim it is not and do so loudly...
GZ - Police look for consistency and if the story and detail are the same – there is a chance the person is telling the truth. It is only when the stories don’t match up on key points (such as age of occurance, who appeared, where, why, etc) that falsehood is indicated.
Especially since many of these accounts are taken from other peoples writings, I do note that your site, like your posts does not have anything positive about the Book of Mormon. (they could find nothing good to say? why is that?) All the more reason to read (in it's entirety) a book claiming to be from God, and ask God if it's his words. (For anyone who wants to read the Book of Mormon, you can
Get a free Book of Mormon, and find out for yourself. Don't take my word for it, Don't take Godzilla's, ask God, he always tells the truth. (Later, I'll see you at church...) you see, this is what the anti's fear most. that people will actually check it out themselves and join. If they were *sure* people would not receive an answer, they would be out there with us telling people to read it and pray about it. (they don't do that, do they...)
GZ -
As a general rule of thumb, memories dull, become confused, and are generally less reliable as time passes.
Resisting with all my might the "Dull" "Confused" and "less reliable" jokes that have sprung to mind...
Having had an experience that came direct from God over twenty years ago, I can tell you that I can still smell the smells that were there in that room when I think of it. Experiences with God are more real than reality. I completely disagree with your fading over time thing. I think it shows you have a lack of experiances with God.
GZ -
When a story is told by the same person over the years the key items to approach with a greater degree of skepticism are the new items and the added details.
actually, the details come and go with the differing audiences, if all you read are anti sites you don't get all the information.
GZ -
While the added details may seem perfectly true to the person telling the story, they rarely are. They are created through later events, subsequent reflections on the original event, and overall neurological changes within the brain.
Now you offer your opinion on Joseph Smiths development neurologically? Is there anything you will admit you are not qualified to offer an opinion on?
GZ -
No, your so-called biblical argument against the Trinity sucks. And yes you are wrong, but that is a forgone conclusion.
What a scintillating, absolutely devastating argument! </sarc>
The Bible and the Trinity are obviously incompatible to any one who wants to read the Bible, not just interpret it. IMHO Tainting the Bible with the Trinity removes plain and precious truths from it.
DU -
If you want more to sift through, then by all means, just remember, none of this squares with the Mormons you know, so are they faking it, or is all this anti stuff just made up.
GZ -
Tough luck DU, it is very well documented from mormon sources and not fake or made up.
The Tanners are fake and made up.
The Fall of the Tanner's Arguments Against the Book of Abraham, or
Joseph Smith and His Accounts of the First Vision: Fatal Contradictions??, and I'll end with this one:
Faith Without Works Is Dead Lawrence Foster, an associate professor of American history at Georgia Institute of Technology, a scholar who is non-Mormon and who has spent a decade in intensive work on Mormonism, has said of the Tanners: Until they "are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians," and "the Tanners' own work falls short of history." Foster also stated, "The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs." Foster gives the Tanners credit for publishing old LDS documents, "but criticizes them for using unauthorized materials which" have been acquired leaving "much to be desired, ethically speaking." The Tanners often publish "scholarly works of living individuals without their permission," because "the end (destroying Mormonism) justifies the means." Foster continues, "The Tanners seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same — negative."
I guess the apple does not fall far from the tree, huh? I am a "liar" if I don't link, if a link can't be found by me (it's on purpose, and critics should not have to supply one), if the link was on a Mormon site, it was scrubbed, and when found and found to support my comments, well, ignore that off to the new criticism...
You guys are funny.
GZ -
You are just unable to refute your own prophets, apostles, scriptures and teachings.
I don't try to refute God's word, which is why I am "Unable to".
GZ -
So mormon Gospel Principles, Doctrine and Covenants , and Pearl of Great Price are all faked or made up (I think they are ultimately - but those are the sources used by the link)
LOL! I do not claim all the sources at the tanners site are fake indeed, linking to the LDS.org site, is probably the most accurate of the material they've got! However, the way the put things together (1 part scripture, 2 parts philosophies of men) should give any serious scholar pause, then again, IMHO Anti's of any stripe are only serious about being anti, not about scholarship.
GZ -
But to a degree, DU is being honest in that he believes that the Christ that you and I worship and call Savior winter, is something all together different in mormonism.
DU -
Godzilla, this is the second time on this thread you have proposed to tell others what I specifically believe. Stop doing it! It's against the rules.
GZ -
It is not mind reading to simply repeat what you have said multiple times over and over. You are specifically telling people what I believe, that is both making it personal, and Mind reading, especially since I disagree with what you said I believe. Stop the mind reading posts.
GZ -
Well, already showed that modalism is not necessarly hellenistic, but simplly descriptive. Sabellianism was named after Sabellius who taught it in Rome. Really DU, you need to get out and read more before you make these claims
I am quite sure that there are many "descriptive" terms that would not fit the person being described either. The point was that when someone such as yourself runs into a concept or a perspective they don't understand it's quite normal for them to try to use terms they are comfortable with to describe it, even if those terms are not accurate.
DU -
Mormons are not and never have been Sabellianist, or Modalists.
GZ -
Sorry DU, your history and scriptures say otherwise.
You apparently lack the perspective or knowledge of perspective to see that your statement is false, I am sure that to you, it fits your narrow concepts perfectly.
DU -
Godzilla, I could suggest several "New Names" for your persona here, they would probably be as welcome to you as your continuing attempts to label us as Polytheistic. Polytheistic religions are typified by Fertility God's rain God's and basically any Religion which assigns specific events to God's of one type or another.
GZ -
Polytheism is the belief in or worship of more than one god . While fertility religions may commonly be polytheistic, the definition is the belief in multiple gods (remember how to google?). Poly = many; theism = gods. Continued protestations on your part simply look foolish to the lurker who knows how to read a dictionary. Fertility religions…….well I guess smith hooked up with the definition, didn’t he?
actually polythiesim is the worship of more than one god.
OK, so By your definition if a book references more than one God it is Polytheistic?
1 Cor. 8: 5:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Whoops! I guess by your standards the Bible just became a polytheistic book.
My example was that polytheistic religions have more than one god they worship, while we worship the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
GZ -
While my comment was directed to winter, your analysis is as flawed as earlier stated.
Ya know you big lizard, if you agreed with me on something, I'd double check to see what I'd gotten wrong.
GZ -
You are breaking my heart DU, I thought you would say I was some partaker of filthy lucre again. But then a personal attack at this stage is right about on schedule.
You missed it! you already attacked me personally with the mind reading section of your post.
DU -
I do not dispute your knowledge of your own doctrine, however, I wish you would leave the explaining of ours to us, you know, the people who have studied our doctrine. GZ -
Oh yes you do, almost all the time. Well, unfortunately you believe you have the right to tell Christians what our doctrine is. Since Mormons are Christian, and I just said you don't speak for us, let me clarify. If you want to speak on behalf of your church (a church, not a faith) then I will have no problems with that and will applaud you, and defend you when anti's for your church show up.
As for speaking for all Christians, not even the pope can pull that one off, who are you? Oh yeah, an anonymous poster on an internet forum purporting to speak for all Christians. Right...
DU -
Actually, you have to be a member to become an Apostate, remember, you said "words mean things" and you said you know what they mean, so you knew what you were saying was wrong, thus I can only conclude that you meant to mislead by using a word incorrectly.
GZ -
No, mormonism claims I belong to an apostate church, as part of a worldwide apostasy from “Christianity”. So if I am a member of an apostate church – by definition I am also an apostate.
Now let me get this straight, you complained that I was calling you an apostate, I disagree (using a dictionary to back me up) and you come up with a twisted logic scenario so that you inherit the title of apostate? ROTFLOL!
Fine, call yourself an apostate if you want to, but don't say that we said so.
GZ -
Now I know that term is also such a loving and endearing reference to those who have seen mormonism as the spiritual fraud it is and left – but then that is just another definition.
actually, that is the definition I quoted... (
Apostate). DU -
That's just not true. however, we may have differing definitions on eternal, God and created being. Please give me your definitions so I can know for sure.
GZ -
Mormonism teaches that Jesus was formed out of preexisting stuff by heavenly father and mother and was birthed him as a spirit child. As such under mormonism Jesus is created, yet because mormomism rejects the biblical truth of ex nihlo creation in favor of a platonic view of eternal matter - the error perpetuates. Christianity defines Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity – the all eternal God with no beginnings and no endings, never created.
One of us has a comprehension problem, I thought I had asked for your definition... Yep, I did, it's you.
Since you again decided you have to try to define our beliefs for us, let me state that you are wrong and not get into specifics because this post will be quite long enough without following all the inaccuracies down and killing them. Please show where the bible says God created Jesus Ex Nihlo. (actually, that definition was created Ex Nihlo).
Still awaiting your definition of A) Eternal and B) God and C) Created being.
Oh, and Godzilla, leave us out of it, what is
your definition?
GZ -
Please take the time to read what I write, not just knee jerk.
Oh, Godzilla, I always read what you write, I am I guess your biggest fan. I'll bet nobody else reads all the stuff you write to me.
GZ -
And the doctrine of the trinity was taught hundreds of years before Nicea, as well as taught by the apostles, but don’t let the facts get in your way
LOL! If the Trinity was taught by the disciples, whe didn't they use the word Trinity? (because that is not what they were teaching.)
There are doctrines being taught that you
interpret as being trinity, but actually, they are talking about the God head, a word that does actually appear in the Bible because that is what they are talking about.
Was the doctrine of the trinity being discussed before First Council of Nicea? If not there would have been no Arian controversy to settle! Obviously, herises such as the Trinity were one of the reasons Paul wrote so many epistles, he was heading off apostasy with each letter, but then the letters stopped, the revelation stopped and the church fell. It's a sad story actually. But God's plan as recorded in the Bible was to rebuild his church in the latter days. And what do you know, here it is
. GZ - ROTFLAICGUBILMREO!!!!!!!! Polytheism = fertility worship.
Your keyboard is stuttering again... and I did not say polytheism = fertility worship, that's just editorial malpractice on your part again. I used fertility gods as an example of a god that might be worshiped alongside of other gods in a polytheistic religion. We worship the one God og Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.
GZ - DU, invest in a dictionary or at least google it, for heavens sake. If any one is misusing words now – after being shown the definition earlier– it is you.
Only when you editorialize it that way.
DU - We believe in the Godhead, a word that appears in the KJV, where trinity does not.
GZ - Neither does eternal progression, yada yada.
Red herring? LOL! GZ - Unfortunately, the context it appears in within the bible does not support mormonism's claim. The word used is theotes which is the state of being God – Diviniity. (Woops, there is that ‘as correctly translated’ clause). Paul, where ‘godhead’ is translated – Col 2:9, asserts that "all the plhrwma of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (swmatikwv), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Php 2:9-11), "the body of his glory" (twi swmati thv doxhv). The fullness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (Joh 1:1,18; Php 2:6), during the Incarnation (Joh 1:14,18; 1Jo 1:1-3). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Php 2:7)
Preemptive misquote? followed by Geek Greek, just to obfuscate? You are full of surprises, but they won't help. Acts 17: 29 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
So since we are the children of God we should not think the God head is made up of anything not like us.
And since you quote Col. 2: 9 I give you Col. 2: 8-9 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
So, beware of men who are learned, lest they elad you away into worldly (or wordy ness) Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead.
What is a fullness? Jesus in the Bible went from Pre-Mortal, to Mortal, to resurrected being.
Jesus is the perfect exemplar of our sojourn here on earth, and where we should be going. Now that's a fullness, a perfect example of why we are here as embodied by our Savior, our Lord, our God, WOW!
Oh yeah, you guys don't have that example because to you the resurrection is a fake, God can't have a body, that's why we are supposed to be happy he is cursing us with one for being good. The resurrection either means God has a body (problem for the Trinitarians) Or it was a trick and Jesus shed his immortal body somehow.
Mormons don't believe God resorts to tricking us, nor does he lie. as a wrap up to what I am sure is too long of a post, I'll post an "evidence" for the Book of Mormon Book of Mormon, being confirmed?
