Posted on 10/24/2010 9:10:56 AM PDT by Colofornian
Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself. - Irenaeus (Against Heresies) 1.2Theologically, Scripture teaches condemnation upon false doctrines and false teachers.
But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. - Gal. 1:8-9 (cf I Cor 16:22; II Cor 11:13-15; I Tim 1:18-20; Tit 3:10) NASBAlthough the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly taught in Scripture:
Strongly implied - Gen 1:1-3; 12:7 (cf. Col 1:15-17; Job 33:4); Isa 48:12-16.
Gen 1:1 (Elohim) a Hebrew plural noun that is unique to Hebraic thinking. It occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language. A principle of hermeneutics is that first references to terms are important with regards to interpretation and establishment of doctrine. It is extremely linguisticly unusual to utilize plural nouns with singular verbs, i.e., "created" (bara) and adjectives and pronouns (Gen 1:26; 11:7). This mechanism is never utilized in Hebrew in any other manner except with respect to the Godhead explicitely in Scripture.
Other references: Gen 48:15-16; Exo 31:3; Num 11:25; Jgs 3:10; Isa 6:8; 11:2; 42:1; 61:1
Clearly taught - Mat 3:16-17; 28:19; Luk 1:35; Jno 3:6-16; 14:16-17,23-26; 15:26; 16:13-15; Act 2:32-33; 5:29-32; Rom 8:16-17,26ff; I Cor 12:4-7; II Cor 1:21-22; 3:14; Eph 1:1-14; 2:17-22; 3:16-19; 4:4-6; Col 1:3-8; I Ths 1:2-5; II Ths 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; I Pet 1:2; I Jno 3:21-24; Jud 20-21.
implied in the word "Godhead": Act 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9
Other textual support of the doctrine:
Isa 63:7-11 references the trinity:
Num 6:24-26 (Three-fold Benediction) and similarly in II Cor 13:14 (Apostolic Benediction) seems to reference the triune nature of God.
It is a principle of hermeneutics that repetition in the scriptures implies that a particular doctrine is being stressed. The specific repetitions utilized makes allusion to the importance of the particular doctrine being emphasized, i.e., single word / phrase repeated in separate verses carries less emphasis than the same word / phrase repeated in the same verse. When something is repeated thrice, the doctrine is not only being emphasised, but it is being underscored. In these verses the triplet is significant not only individually, but the triplet is repeated in its entirely in seperate books of Scripture making them emphatic declarations. The fact that they are uttered in the old & new testaments makes the declaration universal.
Additional passages alluding to the doctrine include: Mat 3:16-17; Mar 1:9-11; Luk 3:21-22; Jno 1:32-34; Jno 14; 15:26; 16:7-14; I Cor 12:4-6; II Cor 13:14; Eph 1:3-14; 4:4-6; 5:18-20; II Ths 2:13-14; I Peter 1:2; Jud 20-21.
An intellectually honest appraisal of the Scripture results in the orthodox idea of the Trinity that God (the Father), Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously three distinct beings, and all the same being, none subserviant to another, all three with complete equality and a single will. There was no time when any did not exist. As such, the following are rejected as heretical doctrines:
Macedonianism
(named for Macedonius) Denied the diety of the Holy Spirit, asserting it was a servent, similar to the angels.Monarchianism
The denial of three seperate beings in the Trinity. A famous Monarchianist, Sabellian, claimed the three persons of God are three facets of one personality, in the way that the sun is simultaneously hot, round, and bright. He became so associated with Monarchianism, that in the early church, heresy of any kind was called Sabellianism.Modalist Monarchianism
Held that God was a single being, and that Father / Son / Spirit were simply three modes of the same being, only one being possible at a time. Taken to its logical extreme, it would have been impossible for the Spirit to descend as a dove and God’s voice to be heard during Christ’s baptism.Subordinationism
Any doctrine that subordinates one being of the Trinity to another.There's something seriously remiss with any theology that disavows the established doctrines regarding the nature of God. Its a virtual certainty that there will be serious error concerning other doctrines of, most likely, even greater significance. Other major heresies include:
Apollinarianism
(named for Apollinarius) Belief that Christ had no soul, but rather was filled with logos, or the Word, and was neither fully human nor fully divine.Arianism
(named for Arius) Belief that the Father existed before the Son, the Son was created by the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.Docetism
(from the Greek word dokesis, which means to seem) Belief that Christ was wholly God, and his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real.Dynamic Monarchianism
Claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God, and teaches that Christ “became” God.Ebionitism
Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divin. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings.Eutychianism
(named after Eutyches of Constantinople) belief that Christ had only a divine nature, not a human one.Monophysitism
This heresy denies the humanity of Christ. It removes the value of Christ’s redemptive work, because it denies that Christ suffered as a man. It declares that Christ had a single (mono), divine, nature. This doctrine is still taught by the Oriental Orthodox churches: Coptic Church of Egypt; Ethiopian Orthodox; Syrian Orthodox; Armenian Orthodox; and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox.Monothelitism
Belief that Jesus posessed one divine-human energia, not two cooperating (divine and human) wills. Still held by the Maronite Church in Syria.Nestorianism
(named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.Noeticism
(named for Noetus) Belief that God moved as a single spirit into Mary, and was transferred into Christ at birth. God himself was crucified and raised himself from the dead.
Sometimes it is hard to keep focus upon the larger picture. Thanks for the reminder.
The cult mind set is one of constant banging away with the same thing over and over, a spiritual "tossing it on the wall and seeing what sticks" confusion to hide the flaws.
For these folks it is not about debate, otherwise when clearly being shown the fallacy of their arguments, unless they are insane they would relent and cede the point.
How many times must one explain "In the beginning was the word" along with "The word made flesh" or the various scriptures where God tells us there is no other as clearly stating Christ is God and there is only one God, before even the densest person gets it? Continued debate over such simple clear realities means something else is afoot.
This is about winning converts by repetition and a smoke and mirrors blend of facts and fiction to confuse the lost and guide them "home" straight into the open arms and waiting coffers of the group.
It is not about truth but about "winning", not about being correct but being "right".
If it is any consolation I observe a growing desperation among the LDS apologist set, here and elsewhere. They are playing the victim card more readily, once arrogant they now mix such with pathetic pleas of "brotherhood" to unwary Christians who fall for such due to the very nature of Christianity itself. They know the game they are playing, the target audience and what buttons to push to generate sympathy.
It is all a game.
Do you imagine your pride will give off a particular spectrum of light as it is burned up?
I’ve done that countless times already DU. I’ll pause here since you repeat the same later.
Jesus himself gave an analogy for his oneness with the father, that analogy is found in John 17:21-22 here, let me quote you the text: 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: Jesus was very clear, he expected the apostles to be one even as he and the father are one, we know that the apostles did not join together in some giant pre-technological transformer, they stayed separate but joined together in heart might mind and strength. Jesus made the analogy, I'll take his word over yours any day, especially when it comes to his relationship with his father.
Lurkers will note that DU is a one-note johnnie on this point. Jesus spoke in many other instances about his relation to the Father than just this one – and this one passage does not repudiate the Trinity – but forms the basis for understanding the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity. Judaism was monotheistic –only one true God in existence. Yet they recognized that Jesus claimed to be that God, they recognized that Jesus claimed to be the earthly image of the invisible God and Jesus was worshipped as that same God. His disciples knew he was God – from the same Gospel of John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. It becomes easy to cherry pick verses then superimpose a theological dogma (such as mormon polytheism) upon them – eisegesis, then ignore the passages such as John 1:1 and others that place those passages into a different interpretation because of context.
I have never condemned Christianity, I am a Christian. I have condemned the perversion of the faith known as the DOGAMA of the Trinity.
You adhere to mormonisn – therefore you are a mormon, not a Christian, regardless of what you might like to ‘call’ yourself.
If you dismiss a rubbing of the Los Lunas stone as not authoritative, well, you stand revealed as a charlatan with this statement.
Lurkers will note – even the mormon church and its proxy – the Maxwell Inst/FARMS – reject the Los Lunas stone as an artifact of the bom era. It is further rejected by archaeologists and related societies as being a valid artifact as well. Only charlatans try to pass off fake artifacts as real.
[GZ]Lurkers will note that instead of facing the fact that the passage was cited with ample context.
[du]Context provided at an anti site, LOL! My how your standards for an "Authoritative source" have slipped.
The jod, linked, hosted by an ‘anti’ site (that contains the whole jod online) now invalidates the whole jod. Lurkers will note – there is no change in the material between the MRM hosted material and that of the mormon hosted http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/. MRM is much better organized and linkable. Further, it has attached pdf scans from the actual page of the hard copy book. Lurkers are recommended to go to the MRM site for themselves and see. . A scanned copy would be an image, this is text, I.E, not a scanned copy. I linked to another site where it references the supporting material from other sources for the King follet sermon, but you didn't look, did you?
Lurkers will note – DU occasionally fails to apparently read other websites. The link provides a clearly readable text, but has a link to the scanned copy,
for example, the first page of the King Follet discourse from JOD vol 6 can be followed at this link.. Lurkers – ever wonder WHY DU doesn’t want you to go to these sites? Because they contain the materials that mormonism wants white-washed and ignored.
Yep, if you go back and look, I didn't say it was authoritative either.
So provide an ‘authoritative source for King Follett – then prove to me that the content/context of what I posted is wrong. (crickets)
ROTFLOL, throwing prophets under the bus? No, you are the one who wants to throw Mormons, prophets and all under the bus, and one with eyes and reading comprehension can see that.
Oh really – so I cite a mormon prophet and you use an excuse that it wasn’t from an ‘authoritative’ source to ignore it. Other times it’s the ‘ol “its their opinion” scam. Both joey and young made definitive statements/teachings on what the definition of the gospel according to mormonism is – progression godhood via laws, rules, ordinances etc. So address it DU, or are you backing out again from sustaining the words of your prophets and apostles again?
The atonement took place on both the garden and the cross, but you always had a problem with more than one being one, yet still separate.
No, I have problems with mormon polytheism usurping the definition of the Trinity. LOL, for mormons the cross is nothing but the means of eventually death. In fact, death is completely not in the mormon formula.
Apostle James E. Talmage taught that the death of the Son itself was not an act of suffering or atonement – “ Christ’s agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. The thought that He suffered through fear of death is untenable. Death to Him was preliminary to resurrection and triumphal return to the Father from whom He had come, and to a state of glory even beyond what He had before possessed; and, moreover, it was within His power to lay down His life voluntarily. He struggled and groaned under a burden such as no other being who has lived on earth might even conceive as possible. ”( Jesus the Christ, 1962, p. 613) Lurkers will note that the actual death of Jesus was only a necessary event preceding his resurrection.
Joseph Fielding Smith taught that the atonement occurred BEFORE the cross (General Conference Address,” CR (October 1947): 147-148). This teaching is also echoed by Marion Romney (General Conference Address,” CR (October 1953): 34-35 ) and your cuz McConkie stated same “ But primarily the ransom was paid in a garden—for there eternal life was won for the obedient ” (The Mortal Messiah, p.128 )
As for works, either Paul preached a gospel that is compatible with the rest of the bible, or he has condemned the other apostles with Galatians, your choice. (They speak of works being important too.) When I get through commenting on your protestations, I'll give you a scripture where Paul says works are good too.
LOL, once again a false black/white comparison. Lurkers will remember the term eisegesis, and observe DU apply it to Paul’s teachings that were “important” and “good too”.
AOF 1 shows a belief in God and Jesus, AOF 8 shows a belief in the Bible (which kind of precludes proving us wrong by the bible since we revere it as scripture).
LOL, as far as it is ‘correctly translated’ eh DU. Of course, please ignore your constant attacks on the credibility of the bible – since it is the only way to ‘support’ mormon heresy. Nor do these two aof’s relate to the Gospel preached by Paul, in either specificity or accuracy. Grasping at straws.
A metaphor for... a place of preference, a position of honor of trust. but who is Jesus being Honored by? The metaphor is always in relation to two people or beings, one honoring, trusting, or exalting the other. If Jesus is God the father, they being one in substance, why would he honor himself by standing on (or at) his own right hand? why use such a confusing metaphor? The answer is simple Jesus and God the father are not the same substance.
The only other mormon option is Jesus standing literally on the very hand of God. Of course this poses no problem within the understanding of the interrelationships of the Persons of the Trinity – not the manner that you bastardize them.
As to Hell, is there one? Yes, is it a permanent place to be kept? No. Hell will exist forever, it is eternal, for that is one of God's names, but people will not be left in Hell forever. Consider David Acts 2:25-33 The Bible tells us that David's soul will not be left in Hell. So, if David a murderer and adulterer will be let out of hell... Well, where will he go? In "Orthodox Christianity" there is only Heaven and Hell... Hmmm.
Poor biblical scholarship is in evidence once again. Mormons never learn context, both within the passage, historical or the underlying Greek. Immediate context of Act 2 – Peter appealed to Psalm 16:8-11 to prove that David prophesied Messiah's resurrection in the Jewish Scriptures. Psalm 16 is perhaps the clearest prediction of Messiah's resurrection in the Old Testament. As earlier (verse 1:20), Peter saw that Messiah's (Jesus') experiences fulfilled David's words. So was Peter discussing where David went – no. But further regarding ‘hell’ is this the best translation? The Greek term is “hades”, which Vines notes the scriptural usage as "the region of departed spirits of the lost" (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ).” Further verse 27 shows that God will not condemn David to eternal punishment either. And the citation of the Psalm has David rejoicing that God will enable him to enjoy his presence eternally.
LOL! Is it now? Consider the following scripture:Titus 3:8-15 8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
Lurkers will note if the read the chapter in context Paul immediately before these verses wrote:
Tts 3:4 KJV - But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tts 3:5 KJV - Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tts 3:6 KJV - Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tts 3:7 KJV - That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Paul affirms, ONCE AGAIN, that works are not a qualifying component to salvation –as in mormondom. Now with these verses note what is said in verse 8 -” which have believed in God” Lurkers will note that the phrase is in the past tense, meaning that the belief came first and that any works are an outgrowth of our love for God (Tit 3:4).
Really DU, read the bible, not commentaries ON the bible.
Godzilla, pay close attention to James 2:19-20 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Faith without works is dead. Works with out faith is useless, you need both.
Lurkers will note – in the same fashion that Du has cherry picked verses out of context, so to he does it again. LOL, but there is but ONE true God. What comes first in James message – faith or works? DU ignores James 2:14 where James makes this clear - a saving faith will have as a natural outgrowth a change in behavior that follows the royal commandment – loving your neighbor as yourself (vs 2:8). Where in these verses do you find word of wisdom, temple ceremonies, ordinances, special underwear, celestial marriage, etc. NO, James is condemning how the readers were favoring the rich over the poor (kinda like how the mormon church recently treated its members in a church in Haiti).
Excuse me? Different person of the Trinity?
Lurkers will have to excuse DU on this point – it has been a life work to misrepresent the definition of the Trinity to the extent that he wouldn’t recognize the definition even if it came up and bit him on the rear.
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.
Nice, lets see if you understand what was written.
I don't see any dispensation for persons of the trinity, persons in the Godhead, yes, but not in the Trinity.
And you won’t, as long as you insist on your flawed definition over the definition used by those who you’ve cited. Since you cited the Nicean creed, if you bother ever to read it, you will see the Persons identified –Father, Son and Holy Spirit being “of the same substance” (homoousion). Of course you are very blissful in ignorance; let this later creed clarify -
The Athanasian Creed: "We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. [Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons still they] have one divinity, equal in glory and coeternal in majesty. . . .
It is embarrassing to have to continually expose this kind of ignorance on the part of mormons. Perhaps someday they will learn to at least accurately use the terms within the use of the authors, and not that of some peep-stone viewer. BTW, Du defines “Godhead” as a celestial committee of some sort – totally ignoring the Greek word it is translated from “theotēs” which is defined as the ‘state of being God’, not a committee or similar. Just further evidence of a challenged biblical understanding of DU.
Oh, please, so I have "Bad Scholarship" because my interpretation of the Bible differs from your "correct one" (even though you offer no evidence that yours is the correct interpretation other than you say so...). What a weak argument, again, I am embarrassed for you.
Lurkers will note that in the preceding presentation of scripture the shallowness of Du’s ‘interpretations’ such as ignoring context, Greek, other relevant scripture passages, etc. All evidence that the one doing the ‘say so’ is not myself, since I take the time to place my scripture usage and response by presenting context, etc. Lurkers will remember, that interpretations based upon eisegesis are flawed from the start, since a predefined ‘interpretation’ is forced on the passage – evident by the abundant LACK of DU’s application context, Greek, etc.
I guess you would know the king of double standard, you see him everyday in the mirror.
I only see myself in the mirror, not you DU.
GZ Thank you DU for proving my point – mormon salvation/gospel REQUIRES works before salvation. Let me restate the “math” for the fuller picture.
Actually, exactly why does God give commandments? So people don't keep them? Why command people to do work? So they won't do it? The Bible is replete with commands to do works, I quoted scriptures about being judged by works, you are the one denying the Bible, not me.
Lurkers will note once again – in DU’s citations the actual CONTEXT of the passage shows that the scripture passages were opposite of what was being represented by DU. Mormonism is like having only a hammer – making everything else look like a nail. I’ll type this slowly for you DU - first comes faith, next comes works out of love for the grace already given without merits or pre-qualifications. Mormonism requires you to be prequalified for that grace. Du should also read more closely in Galatians where Paul places the law in its proper context with grace. It is really all there in black and white DU, if you bother to read.
[GZ]What does this all boil down to? The mormon gospel we see belief + repentance + baptism + laying on of hands + temple work + mission work + church ministry + tithing + ceasing from sin + abstaining from the use of intoxicants and strong drinks and tobacco and caffeine + confessing Joseph Smith as Prophet + temple marriage + baptism for the dead + genealogy research, among many other works, laws and ordinances.
[DU] Actually, you'll find the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thank you DU for making my point again and finally agreeing with my statement. The ‘gospel’ of mormonism is a gospel of works just like bring’em young said:
"Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son" (JD, 13:233)
Lurkers will note – the gospel of Jesus Christ – confirmed by DU and prophet bring’em young – is a bloodless doctrine of works.
LOL! Yeah, so you know the "true interpretation of scripture", my church's doctrine better than any member, and I suppose you are also good looking, right and perpetually young.s
so far you’ve done an excellent job of trying to obscure the mormon church’s doctrines.
So... That is your irrefutable proof? LOL! I don't suppose you would think that I might have an alternate interpretation? Jesus was indeed the mortal, bodily fullness of the Godhead. Your interpretation of the scripture is wrong, but it's not the first time.
Lurkers, prepare yourselves for another trip down DU la-la land of bible interpretation.
As for collosians, you rendered it:
Jesus...being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness...he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross
The KJV renders it
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
There is indeed a big difference between being in very nature, God and being in the Form of God. I am in the form of God, so are you.
Lurkers, don’t you just love it when a mormon apologist tries to contrast translations, yet fails epically to actually go to the Greek behind the translations. LOL. Not sure just what bible DU is using – never heard of “collosians “ Why not try Philippians DU, it helps greatly when you get your scriptures straight. (Also using NIV fries mormon’s brains as well LOL)
Lurkers will note DU is trying to parse a difference between “form of God” and “nature of God”, the Greek is “morphē”. Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words remarks that morphe-
denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing; it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phl 2:6, 7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists . . . . Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ . . . . For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that
(1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and
(2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it . . . .
The true meaning of morphe in the expression 'form of God' is confirmed by its recurrence in the corresponding phrase, 'form of a servant.' It is universally admitted that the two phrases are directly antithetical, and that 'form' must therefore have the same sense in both." * [* From Gillford, "The Incarnation," pp. 16, 19, 39.]
So DU, there is indeed a big difference between form and nature – that difference is made manifest in the Greek from which the bible was translated from. KJV relies on older definitions and word usages, NIV on more current scholarship and understanding gained since the KJV was produced. You are not the NATURE of God DU, nor are you even the FORM of God as God is Spirit – or are you going to throw the words of Jesus under the bus as well?
[GZ]. . . Lurkers – an of you wonder why DU doesn’t have the same faith in the bible as he does the bom?
[DU] Now, to top it all off, you know how how much faith I have, truly you are a wonder.
You are stuttering again DU. Then why when confronted by biblical passages that completely refute mormonism do you always revert to attacking the credibility of the bible?
[GZ]Which of the nine different stories given by smithy should one believe.
[DU] How about, the only one Joseph smith was happy with?
LOL, lurkers, if you go to this mormon website , and read the various versions and background behind the evolving first vision stories, you may wonder just how happy he was about this.
The ‘favored’ first vision account was not written by smith, but by James Mulholland alledgedly in 1838, but not published until 1842. What DU doesn’t like to acknowledge is that there are earlier accounts in smith’s own handwriting that differ significantly. One in particular is an 1832 diary that smith kept – states he was 15 (not the official 14) years old; had determined on his own all churches were wrong (not the official ‘A local revival caused him to wonder which church was right, it had never occurred to him all were wrong’ version); has a ‘vision’ of Jesus (no heavenly father as in the official); and totally lacks the other aspects of the ‘official version.
Of course – if you go back earlier, you find smith’s first vision accounts associated with treasure seeking and gold plates. Liars change their accounts over time, and smith’s multiple versions prove him to be an unreliable source of testimony.
Actually, I was just reflecting your attack methodology, it's hard to find any "symbol" that has not been passed back and forth, if you look you can find whatever you are looking for.
LOL, Lurkers will note that DU was called on the carpet for claiming that Christians use a satanic symbol – the cross – totally ignoring Jesus’ words to “take up our cross and follow him”. Now it is ‘methodology’, LOL, sophomoric to the max.
James 2:14-26 anyone? James teaches works are necessary to salvation, exactly what I have been saying, exactly what you have been saying is against all that Paul teaches. Now you are saying they are in agreement? LOL!
Lurkers will note once again that DU can’t figure out what context is or simple reading comprehension. James never links works to salvation – James does note that works will be apparent after an authentic grace-based saving faith is present. Significant difference – evidence of mormons putting the cart before the horse once again.
[GZ] Each man had a very different perspective. Paul was declaring how a guilty, lost sinner could get right with God. James was writing about how a saved person could SHOW that his faith was real. As usual, mormons put the cart before the horse on this subject. What comes first – faith or works.
[DU] So, it's your assertion that we believe that Works come before faith? Who would do woks before they believed? That's ludicrous.
To put it more precisely, mormons place works before salvation (saving faith). Salvation is by grace alone – no works (see dozens of previous citations from Paul’s letters) in the mix. Mormon doctrine requires works BEFORE grace can be applied – even your AOF 3 states the same
MORONI 10:32: “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, . .
[GZ]As has been pointed out by DU, faith (salvation) can only come AFTER obedience to the laws and ordinances >(AOF 3).
[du]Again, your interpretation is flawed, as usual. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
LOL – Lurkers, here is aof 3 again -
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
Lurkers will note – salvation by the mormons is conditional (may be saved), and that condition is >, by obedience to the laws and ordinances Works must be accomplished prior to salvation. The Gospel that Paul taught is that salvation cannot be earned by laws and ordinances – but is received by grace, unmerited favor (It would do DU good to look up that definition).
We are indeed saved by grace, but judged by works. The Bible says so.
Lurkers will note the difficulty DU has with AOF 3 with states quite clearly that men will be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances - grace is nonexistant in the aof. Mormon doctrine also demands that one must be godly (that the law and ordinances MUST be obeyed perfectly) before BEFORE grace is sufficient. We will see how applicable DU’s scripture passage is to mormonism.
Revelations 20:12-13
Once again - eisegesis – mormons claim their salvation is based upon works, they cherry pick a verse to ‘prove’ it – and fail once again. Had DU read the chapter and received the context placed on his choice, a whole different interpretation would be found. Rev 20 teaches about TWO resurrections. The first Rev 20:4-6 is that of the Righteous – the first resurrection – all the saved individuals will be raised. Rev 20:12-13 present the SECOND resurrection- those unrighteous sinners – and God will show them just how filthy their works were and incapable of ‘earning’ their salvation. Mormons would be careful not to count on getting into heaven based upon this verse.
And since you have so much trouble interpreting scripture, let me help a bit. Without the atonement, all men are guilty of all the law, With the atonement, mercy can be applied by the grace of Jesus.
Jesus died for Adam’s transgression – I thought mormons believed that was a good thing. While your statement reflects mormonism – it doesn’t necessarily reflect the biblical teaching as well as some mormon doctrines. All men stand guilty of the law. Only those who by grace (not works) accepted by faith the sacrifice of Jesus are no longer guilty of the law (again – read Galatians – if you can find it in your bible). To say some aspect of mormon ‘mercy’ enters in is contrary to your doctrines (Moroni 10:32 for example).
Then again, my father told me "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
And the one who is truly blind is the one who won’t open their eyes.
Yeah yeah yeah, you keep trying to prove we think works will save us, I tire of proving you wrong it is too easy and endlessly repetitively recursive. Mormons believe in Being saved by grace, or not at all. We believe we are commanded to do works to show our faith, and we do them. The Bible says we all will be judged by our works.
Lurkers will note, now there is a backtracking on the works for salvation point – which earlier DU asserted was true. AOF 3 states clearly that obedience to laws and ordinances is a prerequisite for salvation, Moroni 10:32 is clear that all ungodlieness must be removed before grace can take effect. Bring’em young taught mormon gospel was laws and ordinances required to be completely obeyed as a prerequisite for salvation. Mormon ‘repentance’ is by definition “abandonment of sin” accomplished by the individual works. Spencer Kimball in the Miracle of Forgiveness states that there can be no forgiveness without repentance. .
Lurkers will note – the issue is salvation and is that salvation attained in any part by works. Mormons refuse to acknowledge the abundant references in the NT that salvation is by grace alone. DU has clearly stated that it is dependent upon works. Mormon doctrine and teachings are clear that works precede the application of grace. Lurkers will note – Du’s words ring hollow on this point , mormon doctrine and teachings state otherwise.
" Let me make this real simple for you GZ. Prove to me that the Trinity is Biblical, and I'll cease posting for a month. If you can't, then you (by virtue of your failure) admit that it's harder to prove your beliefs than it is to attack another's.
I will present the evidence for the Trinity – but refuse to accept your terms since you’ve proven to be – shall we say - less than honest and honorable in the past.
Since books have been written on this subject, I recommend the lurkers to go to the following sites for greater details (doubt that DU will).
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
THE NATURE OF GOD - THE TRI-UNITY OF GOD
A Christian Thinktank – The Trinity
WHAT IS THE TRINITY, Plus links.
Mormonism 201: Chapter 3 - The Trinity
The Trinity
Jesus as God's Wisdom, and the Trinity Doctrine
The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
The Doctrine of the Trinity
Boiled down to its very essence the doctrine of the Trinity has two simple components -
1. There is only one TRUE God - Deuteronomy 4:35, 6:4, 10:14, Psalm 96:5, 97:9, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6-8, 44:24, 45:5-6, 45:21-23, 46:9, 48:11-12, John 17:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, Revelation 1:8, (Hosea 13:4). He is not, in His essential nature, a man: Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19. All other gods are false gods.
2. There are three Persons - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit – each of which are identified as God.
a. Father - 1 Peter 1:2; Philippians 2:11
b. Jesus - 2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8
c. Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16-17
“Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance....And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.” —Athanasian Creed
Now if Du is earnest in his desire to understand and come to believe in the Trinity he will honestly study the materials presented in the links, read his bible, pray asking with a sincere heart, with real intent for God to testify of Jesus and ask God to reveal the truth of the Trinity and listen for God's response.
Somehow I missed your post! I think Freeper Diamond made a very similar post a few short years ago regarding the Biblical proofs of the Trinity, and it was offered then as edification for this same Momron, Delph, who rejected it then, alos. I doubt he even read the entire post. When one is determined to believe a lie, they must never allow truth to ‘light up’ the falsehood.
Somehow I missed your post! I think Freeper Diamond made a very similar post a few short years ago regarding the Biblical proofs of the Trinity, and it was offered then as edification for this same Momron, Delph, who rejected it then, alos. I doubt he even read the entire post. When one is determined to believe a lie, they must never allow truth to ‘light up’ the falsehood.
I stand more amazed everyday that there are those who think that something so clear as the Trinity or as straight forward as Salvation through God's grace alone can be obfuscated and twisted with smoke and mirrors and fancy language.
Of course like other Cults that cloak themselves in Christan ideas and terms, it is imperative for the LDS organization to perpetuate the distortions.
They must destroy the Trinity utterly so it can be replaced with a Polytheistic system that allows for they own exaltation to godhood. If there is only one God godhood goes right out the window.
An emphasis on works is a clear sign of a Christian off shoot cult, because when an organization ties salvation to Earthly accomplishment, there is no end to the things they can convince people to believe is their “calling’ and the amount of work they can get out of them. Even James is clear that good works come from the saved heart, it does not do the saving. Is faith without works dead, well it would be a good sign and warning. If we are not happy in doing God's will, the gift we received of his grace may no long have hold of us. So yes our faith may be dead.
But making works a component of salvation just screams cult as clear as the morning sun on a cloudless day.
Yet there are those so clouded.
And those who benefit from the clouds....
Vested in becoming a god is hard to break.
Of course like other Cults that cloak themselves in Christan ideas and terms, it is imperative for the LDS organization to perpetuate the distortions.
True for JWs, Christian Science, etc. Also helps when one cannot recognize the context of a statement even if it waddles up and bit them on the rear.
Even James is clear that good works come from the saved heart, it does not do the saving. Is faith without works dead, well it would be a good sign and warning.
It is very clear - works are a result of faith.
bttt
I do recall debating the doctrine of the Trinity with a person who eventually - after several weeks of back and forth - revealed they were Christadelphian. That was probably almost 3/4 decade ago; a lot has changed since then (both in my workman's ability and personal circumstances). In any event, unfortunately, as the case turned out in this particular encounter, I ended up rustling my robes and shaking dust off of my sandels for a particular reason that I cite below and will become apparent should you have the patience to read my entire post. To be fair in that regard, I've only read (and addressed 1/2 of your reply to me). I'm looking into the other half of your post.
Just as the Word declares the Lord to be longsuffering but His patience has limits, so does mine. In fact, given that I'm as lowly cretin that I am, there should be no illusions by anybody that my patience is as longsuffering as the Lord's. That most especially when it became clear to me the individual in question had no interest to hear or see the Truth of the Word; insisting on deliberate deaf or blindness; they being only interested in arguing for argument's sake. I don't have patience to engage in mental gynmastics - for argument's sake or intellectual excercise - and I haven't a clue whether I can convince you of the error inherent nontrinitarian doctrine (or is it dogma). I will, however, attempt to present as compelling apologia of trinitarian doctrine as I'm capable of. It is my fervent prayer that I'm a suitable tool for the Spirit in that regard. In Jesus' most precious and Holy name, Amen.
As far as 'dogma' - as you put it - of the Trinity, it is fundamental doctrine adhered to by various christian denominations (which incidently I believe fundamentally unbiblical). That notwithstanding, and that particular issue set aside, the crux of the matter isn't that of dogma by institutional religion (which I loathe), but what truth can be eisegetically discerned by reasonable, intellectually honest, independent study of the scriptures, with sincere prayer to the Spirit for illumination and edification from The Word?
Frankly I'm unfamiliar with whatever discourse we've had, but allow me to assure you that I have no interest in agitation or bomb throwing as you put it. I don't have the time to waste on such nonsense. In fact I need to address that issue forefront and center, right now, above all else, and just to make things crystal as far as that goes, and what not. O.k.? Jude 3 exhorts "...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
What's telling in that verse is how many faith's there are, how often it was dispensed and to whom.
The interlinear for "that ye should earnestly contend" is epagonizomai (Strong's #1864) attributed to the roots #1909 & #75. The latter (agonizomai, from #73; to struggle, literally (to compete for a prize), figuratively (to contend with an adversary), or genitive case (to endeavor to accomplish something):--fight, labor fervently, strive.
#73 agaon (from #71, i.e., to lead, bring, drive, bring forth), a contest; figuratively, an effort or anxiety:--conflict, contention, fight, race.
AT Robertson says of #1864: Late and rare (in Plutarch, inscriptions) compound, here only in N.T. A little additional (epi) striving to the already strong agônizesthai (agôn contest). Cf. I Tit 6:12 agônizou ton kalon agôna.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary states: "A strong argument for resisting heretical innovators (Jud 25). Believers, like Nehemiah's workmen (Neh 4:17), with one hand "build themselves up in their most holy faith"; with the other they" contend earnestly for the faith" against its foes." The latter is implying 'combat', somthing that Vines concurs with:
"to contend about a thing, as a combatant" the intensity infered through agon (the word "earnestly" added to convey the intensive force of the preposition).
Albert Barnes suggests that the word "is one of those words used by the sacred writers which have allusion to the Grecian games."
In his commentary regarding I Cor 9:24,25, he makes the case Paul is referring to
the well-known athletic games at Corinth...By the phrase, "know ye not," Paul intimates that those games to which he alludes, were well known to them, and that they must be familiar with their design, and with the manner in which they were conducted. The games to which the apostle alludes were celebrated with extraordinary pomp and splendour, every fourth year, on the Isthmus which joined the Peloponnesus to the main land, and on a part of which the city of Corinth stood. There were in Greece four species of games: the Pythian, or Delphic; the Isthmian, or Corinthian; the Nemean, and the Olympic. On these occasions persons were assembled from all parts of Greece, and the time during which they continued was devoted to extraordinary festivity and amusement. The Isthmian or Corinthian games were celebrated in the narrow part of the Isthmus of Corinth, to the north of the city, and were doubtless the games to which the apostle more particularly alluded, though the games in each of the places were substantially of the same nature, and the same illustration would in the main apply to all. The Nemean games were celebrated at Nemaea, a town of Argolis, and were instituted by the Argives in honour of Archemorus, who died by the bite of a serpent, but were renewed by Hercules. They consisted of horse and foot races, of boxing, leaping, running, etc. The conqueror was at first rewarded with a crown of olive, afterwards of green parsley. They were celebrated every third, or, according to others, every fifth year. The Pythian games were celebrated every four years at Delphi, in Phocis, at the foot of Mount Parnassus, where was the seat of the celebrated Delphic oracle. These games were of the same character substantially as those celebrated in other places, and attracted persons not only from other parts of Greece, but from distant countries. See Travels of Anacharsis, vol. ii. pp. 375--418. The Olympic games were celebrated in Olympia, a town of Elis, on the southern bank of the Alphiss river, on the western part of the Peloponnesus. They were on many accounts the most celebrated of any in Greece. They were said to have been instituted by Hercules, who planted a grove called Altis, which he dedicated to Jupiter. They were attended not only from all parts of Greece, but from the most distant countries. These were celebrated every fourth year; and hence, in Grecian chronology, a period of four years was called an Olympiad. See Anacharsis, vol. iii. 434, seq. It thus happened that in one or more of these places, there were games celebrated every year, to which no small part of the inhabitants of Greece were attracted. Though the apostle probably had particular reference to the Isthmian games celebrated in the vicinity of Corinth, yet his illustration is applicable to them all; for in all the exercises were nearly the same. They consisted chiefly in leaping, running, throwing the discus or quoit, boxing, wrestling.The implication here is an obvious aknowlegement that combative sports comprised these games. He goes on to say in his commentary of Jude 3:
"This word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It means to contend upon--i. e. for or about anything; and would be applicable to the earnest effort put forth in those games to obtain the prize. The reference here, of course, is only to contention by argument, by reasoning, by holding fast the principles of religion, and maintaining them against all opposers. It would not justify "contention" by arms, by violence, or by persecution; for:
Did you expect somebody to merely demure "hey, dropped something there." No. I'm calling you out on it. As far as I'm concerned: those are fighting words; I'm lathered up about it. With regards towards your comments about heretics:
A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, - Tit 3:10,11aAT Roberts says: "Heretical (hairetikon). Old adjective from hairesis (haireomai, to choose), a choosing of a party (sect, Act 5:17) or of teaching (II Pet 2:1). Possibly a schism had been started here in Crete. Is perverted (exestraptai). Perfect passive indicative of ekstrephô, old word to turn inside out, to twist, to pervert. Only here in N.T. "
Nontrinitarianism is a perversion of the common plain sense intimation of the overarching teachings throughout Scipture concerning the nature of God. You state that we can quote scripture at each other all day long and it won't mean anything. That's only true of what's being said is:
The Bible specifically states over and over again that there is only one God. This is why its incorrect to say that there are three Gods in one God. However, Scripture is clear that all three Persons of the Godhead are God and Lord in and of Themselves. God the Father is the first Person of the Trinity, His Son Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity. The Trinity as a unit is the Godhead.
There is no question that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three separate, complete and individual Persons with their own individual, unique identities. So why does God the Father keep stating that there is only one God in Scripture? This is one of the mysteries of the Trinity that many people have a hard time with.
One must keep in mind that given God is infinite and as such His true nature and characteristics are incomprehensible to mortal finite Man. However, aspects of His being can be comprehended in as far as He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Abraham desired to see His face, but God told him he could not bear it. However, He did allow Abraham to shield himself in a cleft of the rock and God showed His backside (whatever that is) to him. When Abraham returned He was glowing.
When asked what God's name was, He said: "I am that I am."
Since God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God and Lord Themselves – this means that all Three of Them are totally perfect in Their actual personalities and natures. And if They are totally perfect in Their actual personalities – then this now means They are totally capable of being perfectly one with one another.
Jesus keeps repeating the statement that He and His Father “are one.” In other words, They are perfectly one with one another, They are in perfect harmony with one another, They are in perfect agreement with one another, They are in perfect unison with one another.
Since the Two of Them are both God and Lord Themselves – this now means this divine union between the Two of them is a perfect divine union. This perfect divine union of oneness between the Two of Them is so perfect, that God the Father can now say that there is only one God – not 3 separate Gods.
The same thing goes for the Holy Spirit. He is perfectly “one” with both God and Jesus. And since the Bible specifically tells us that the Holy Spirit is God and Lord Himself – then this now means His personal, divine union with both God and Jesus is a perfect divine union. As such, He too can be included as being part of the Godhead – where God the Father can now state that there is only one God, but one God in three, separate, perfect Persons within the actual Godhead itself.
Since all angels and all humans are imperfect, this means that we are not capable of establishing any type of perfect, divine, God-union with either God Himself or with any other human. Only God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have the ability to establish a perfect divine union with either Themselves, with one of us, or one of Their angels.
I believe that this “perfect divine oneness,” this “perfect divine union” between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is so “God-perfect” – that God the Father can now state that there is only one true God – but one God in three separate, unique and individual Persons.
For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. - 1 Jno 5:7Is there any doubt that The Word is Jesus? John tells us that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one". This verse is telling us that we are specifically dealing with a God Trinity involving three, separate Persons – but with all Three of these Persons being “perfectly one” with one another!
And if They are all God and Lord Themselves, and above verse is telling us that They are perfectly one with one another – then the Holy Spirit has just given us perfect proof text that we are now dealing with a Holy Divine Trinity of one God in three Persons.
I believe that this dovetails perfectly with the Hebrew word for God, i.e., Elohim (a plural noun) which is derived from a singular verb root, i.e., eloah and always used with either a singular verb, adjective or pronoun (he, him or his and NEVER they, or them, or their, etc.).
I pray that Lord convicts you of the wisdom the words I've written is intended to convey. It is not my vain and puffed up knowlege which I attempt to persuade you with; the Lord is a respecter of no person and He is little impressed by those who profess themselves to be wise and learned (having letters to prove it). It is my sincere and fervent prayer that I can shew myself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, [having] rightly dividing the word of truth. God is my witness, that all I've said was in meekness, kindness and love for another wretched sinner as I (scrounging in the dumpster for a scrap to eat): here is some food! Here, eat, it is the bread of life.
In Jesus' name, Amen. Amen. And Amen.
The following will be 'a way' to understand the notion of the trinitarian nature of the Deity, not a strictly Biblical explanation, but one which is based upon and applicable to the teaching of the Bible. Here goes:
God The Father Almighty is greater than His creation, thus greater than dimension time and dimension space, or any other dimensions which He created, thus we may think of The Father Almighty as beyond time and space but not prevented from touching and indeed penetrating His creation.
The universe of space and time is likened to a bubble: what is inside the bubble is in time and space. But the nature of what is inside the bubble is only partially understood in modern Physics.
The Bible relates scenes which defy the simplistic notions we use for assumptive science. We'll get to that 'assumptive' notion shortly, but let’s make the statement that God The Father Almighty is as comfortable outside the bubble of His creation as He is inside the bubble.
Modern Physics has discovered that the balance of forces and tensions sustaining the universe necessary for human life to arise within the universe is extremely delicate, on the order of a mathematical improbability, represented as a 'one in less than' fraction so tiny that a one over a one followed by more than one-hundred zeros defines the probability that the whole thing remains in balance! [ We use the expression ‘a one in ten chance’ when describing some probability, or a one out of ten chance. The delicate balance of the universal forces is on the order of one in ‘a one followed by 100 zeros‘! I don‘t even know what such a number is called. ] Such a delicate balancing act is but one of the continuing 'works' of the Holy Spirit of God. It is by the Spirit of God, The Word, that the universe came into existence and it is said in the Bible that by His Spirit the whole is maintained.
But the Bible also states that The Word was with God in the beginning and was God. In John's gospel we find that Jesus is The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us. So, inside the bubble Created by God The Father Almighty, sustained by God The Holy Spirit, is the Word, God made flesh Who dwelt among us. The Creator does not stop being greater than His creation bubble, nor does His Spirit cease to sustain it all in balance, when Jesus comes in the flesh to dwell among us.
Here's an address to 'assumptive science limitations':
Now, when one reads the Torah/Old Testament, one finds scenes like the fifth chapter of Daniel where a being is in one spacetime 'where/when' reaching into another 'where/when' to write on the palace party central wall of Babylonian king Belshazzar. Just the forearm/hand is seen in the where/when of Belshazzar and the party folks, the rest of the being remains in 'another' where/when.
God The Father Almighty created this 'other' where/when, His Holy Spirit maintains its balance and separateness from our where/when, and Jesus has moved in and out of this other where/when: as shown when He resurrected from the tomb without rolling away the stone, just passing out of the tomb where/when, into 'another' where/when; then back into our where/when as He spoke to the women come to the sepulchre; and when He appeared in a locked and shuttered room with the disciples present; or appeared suddenly with the disciples walking on a road and broke bread with them then left our where/when to go to the 'other' where/when.
The trinitarian nature of God is shown in the Bible, even in the Torah. Trinity IS the nature of God as we have been given to know. Even in the Old Testament/Torah, we do have instruction on the Three-nature of God as Creator, Sustainer, and Deliverer. God Is manifested as three yet He is one, seen identified by 'the work He is doing'.
With each manifestation, we are given to realize His presence simultaneously as Creator--because we exist in the realm He created, as Sustainer--because the balance is too delicate to stand alone without His sustaining the separation and interdependence, and as God with us in the person of Jesus our Lord and Savior.
Fine. I see how ya are.
FWIW, ya missed ‘eisegesis’
Naw, I just didn’t want to seem ... are we havin’ fun yet? How ‘bout them Cowboys!
Cowboys are cool.
Lions are cooler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.