Done!
Delph
OK, your the Bible expert, prove to me that the Trinity is a doctrine that is in the bible. I defy you to prove it's there, for you cannot prove what isn't so.
GZ
I’ve done that countless times already DU. I’ll pause here since you repeat the same later. No, you haven't, you have proven it to your satisfaction, not to mine, big difference. I bolded three words in my post, for emphasis just now.
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.
So... It's not significant, then it forms the basis for understanding? Godzilla, the "usage" of telling people to be "one" is universal in the Bible all the way up to God the father and Jesus, then all the sudden it's in a different context? LOL!
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”.
In the preexistence Jesus (being the first born spirit of God) was with God the Father, then Jesus was in the grand council selected by God the father to be the savior and part of the Godhead, so Jesus was God.
It makes perfect sense to me, this does not disprove the time honored belief in the Godhead, nor is it proof of the Trinity, keep trying. The definition of one, as in ONE god is all over in the Bible, but you keep trying to redefine it as a one in substance, prove it to me, don't just state that it is so.
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.
It is just as "easy" to cherry pick verses and superimpose the Trinity on them, as you are doing. (You have to admit the possibility or show your double standards yet again.)
You adhere to mormonisn – therefore you are a mormon, not a Christian, regardless of what you might like to ‘call’ yourself.
ROTFLOL! So are Baptists not Christian? Lutherans? Methodists? Catholics?
Mormon is a nick name hung on us much like Yankee, on the colonists. like them we have adopted the name and made it something to be proud of instead of the ridicule it was originally intended to have. Mormon, The prophet in the Book of Mormon, was a Christian too.
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.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not seek to "prove" itself true with archeology. It never has. Faith comes from God, or not at all.
The point was that you dismissed archaeological evidence that "exists" as not proof to you. Prove
to me that the trinity exists in the Bible, if you can.
As for authoritative sources. Would you be happy if I linked the Bible on an Atheist site interspersed with their "commentary" as an authoritative source? Cite your quotations from authoritative sources, or admit that you have none.
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,
So, I have to accept a link to an anti site, read all the tripe that is there looking for an actual authoritative source? No, I will reject you out of hand sir, as linking doubtful sources, it is not my job to waste my time crawling some obscure website looking for the link you should have provided. If you want to start paying me, I'm sure you'll find my fees exorbitant!
BTW, I linked the
Journal of Discoursesearlier, just not from an anti Mormon site.
You want to quote the JOD, fine, just do it from an Authoritative site. and do it understanding that the JOD is not the cannon of the church.
So provide an ‘authoritative source for King Follett – then prove to me that the content/context of what I posted is wrong. (crickets)
OK,
Journal of Discourses volume 6 and type follet into the search box at the bottom.
It is the link I sent you earlier. BTW your crickets are laughing at you. Look that one just fell over it's laughing so hard. As for context, didn't look, not my job to fact check you, and you can't afford me. Not that it matters, the JOD is not cannon of the church, which doesn't mean it's not taught anywhere, it's just not doctrinally authoritative
Yes, yes, you are going to say "But their your prophets" and talk of busses...
Prophets do not speak for God when they order breakfast. Every lesson taught in every synagogue was not included in the Bible, nor was every eulogy, like the King Follet sermon (Eulogy). I would love to read those sermons, and eulogies given by Paul, but they just wouldn't compete with the bible, which was intended for instruction to the whole church.
Delph
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.
GZ
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.
So, your problem is that we apply the same definition of one as in marriage, membership in the church and that Jesus used when describing his relationship with Jesus' relationship with God? Sorry, can't work up much sympathy for ya on this one.
Lurkers will note that the actual death of Jesus was only a necessary event preceding his resurrection.
So... you have never discussed something with more than one aspect from only one aspect, right?
BTW, anyone wanting an actual link to the book
Jesus The Christ at project Gutenberg.
It's really not that hard Godzilla, go find sources to your stuff before you post it, or are you so lazy you just cut and post from anti sites without an attempt to validate context?
You quote but a small piece:
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.
A longer quotation, with a bit more for context proves you either didn't go to an authoritative source such as the one I posted, or you didn't care that you were out of context:
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. It was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused Him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore; but a spiritual agony of soul such as only God was capable of experiencing. No other man, however great his powers of physical or mental endurance, could have suffered so; for his human organism would have succumbed, and syncope would have produced unconsciousness and welcome oblivion. In that hour of anguish Christ met and overcame all the horrors that Satan, "the prince of this world" could inflict. The frightful struggle incident to the temptations immediately following the Lord's baptism[1238] was surpassed and overshadowed by this supreme contest with the powers of evil.
In some manner, actual and terribly real though to man incomprehensible, the Savior took upon Himself the burden of the sins of mankind from Adam to the end of the world. Modern revelation assists us to a partial understanding of the awful experience. In March 1830, the glorified Lord, Jesus Christ, thus spake: "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent, but if they would not repent, they must suffer even as I, which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit: and would that I might not drink the bitter cup and shrink—nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men."
From the terrible conflict in Gethsemane, Christ emerged a victor. Though in the dark tribulation of that fearful hour He had pleaded that the bitter cup be removed from His lips, the request, however oft repeated, was always conditional; the accomplishment of the Father's will was never lost sight of as the object of the Son's supreme desire. The further tragedy of the night, and the cruel inflictions that awaited Him on the morrow, to culminate in the frightful tortures of the cross, could not exceed the bitter anguish through which He had successfully passed.
Since you are constantly telling me what a great scholar you are, therefore I must assume that you knew, and if you knew, I guess it's A-OK to Mislead people about Mormons, cause they aren't Christians don't ya know... Such an attitude is unbecoming of one who would stand as a paragon of virtue and judge the religion of others. To me you sound like the reported belief of Muslims that it's OK to mislead infidels.
Now, salvation for the righteous... is it your contention that all men will be saved believer or not? God forbid.
Obviously, God being a Just being will save those who keep his commandments, one of those commandments being to believe in his only begotten son, Jesus Christ.
Paul would not recognize the salvation for the disobedient, that you are espousing here.
As for attacks on the Bible, I am more concerned with attacks on the Gospel it preaches through misinterpretation and interference by men. Men who gave us un-biblical doctrines like the Trinity and teach us it's truth when it's a lie.
Yawn, then you go into every nit pick that you can, making for a very long post that will be read by virtually no one. The best part is you have noting new.
I'm gonna jump past a whole lot of baiting and balderdash to the end of your truly monstrous post Godzilla
Yep, went to your sites, here is a quotation from
the first one "A proper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation."
Which I interpret as... If you don't come to the same conclusion as I do, your just not looking at it right.
Such persuasive logic...
Just for the record, his logic is suspect. Some of his proofs relie on "Satan is a liar, therefore everything he says is a lie." I believe that you can't even rely on Satan to reliably lie. He'd tell you a truth just so you'd disbelieve it.
The second link quotes first the Nicean creed, then the The Athanasian creed. While I like the Athanasian better (always have) I reallly can't logically get past "we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance" Which reads to me like "We want to eat our cake and have it too", BZZZT Wrong! Section IV. was actually pretty good, except for the obvious blinders that God had to share the same substance to be "one".
Christian think tank BTW is not exactly a clear and straight forward web site about the trinity as the first two were, I'll be going back there, but it was not particularly useful for your point.
I did however find
this little Gem:
In simplest terms, it is that there are three Persons who can accurately be called 'the One God'.
Now of course, the writer didn't come to the same conclusion I did from this :-)
I liked the analogy of the water being placed in a vacuum, but beyond that, well it's the same stuff I already heard, and I keep saying to my self, nope, they interpreted that wrong, yeah, I agree with the scripture, but not their interpretation...
Mormonism Research Ministry? Really, an anti site? See my list of tactics above... Anyway, I did like how they talked about Justin Martyr calling Jesus another God, and then dismissed it as Justin not getting the Gospel, I actually found that funny. It seemed to me to be more of a defensive piece than one proclaiming truth, maybe that's just me.
"The Trinity" was so boring, nothing new, no new takes, just the same, "here is a Scripture and what I think it means." format.
The Jesus as God's wisdom site was, well just weird. Jesus is just an attribute of God, his wisdom. To me if kind of ignored that he was ever born, had a body, etc. Jesus to me is more than just an attribute of God.
"The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity" actually had me excited... until I went there. It was mind numbingly laid out in an outline format, list of scriptures, no expository sections at all, and of course, at the end concluded that because the Trinity met all the criteria, the trinity was being taught there. (Did this guy never learn about subsets in math?)
Let's see:
A. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture 1. One God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons
B. The Bible does not forbid using extrabiblical language to define and describe biblical truth. The Bible teaches that "the faith" (which would include the nature of the object of faith, namely God) was "delivered once for all to the saints" (Jude 3). Therefore any religious movement that claims to have restored the true doctrine of God through any kind of revelation is unbiblical.
What a loose pile of thoughts! LOL!
Godzilla, if I were to post this "stuff" in support of my beliefs you'd have my rhetorical head!
Point one, all five points apply straight to the Godhead. Point two sub a) extra-biblical language, has this guy even read Galatians? With that opening, you can do anything you want with "Christianity" Flying saucers, Add in Buddha, hey it's extra-biblical, but the bible does not forbid extra biblical language, as long as we claim to find an inferred reference... Sheesh! Then he tries to slam the door shut (after slipping the Trinity in) with but in Jude the Gospel was delivered once to the saints, so it can't be delivered again... LOL, so how many times was the Gospel delivered to the church? As many times as it was restored in the Bible (which is a lot) he should have at least added in verse 4, LOL!
Needless to say this was at once the most boring and entertaining of the articles this far. On to the last in your list.
The expository content of the last one was superb, Wow, it was readable, concise listed scriptures, it followed the predictable form of "this is what the scriptures says and what we infer" and used (of course) a lot of the same scriptures, then you get down to this little gem "
Although the Bible does not explain to us how the three persons are the one God"... and it all falls apart.
Really Godzilla, I expected better.
I had expected that you would try to explain yourself, but I see now that, that won't happen as you get too long when you do, you tried to quote people who while they talked about the Trinity a lot, like a teenager, the never got over their beliefs to compare with others. At the risk of sounding patronizing. Godzilla, people will ask you this again, let me give you a few better sites.
The Godhead or Trinity
One or Three persons in God/Godhead
Biblical Godhead Vs term Trinity
And last, but not least, this one
This reference removed at the request of the moderator
Godzilla, I read the whole post (Yech!) and I am not convinced that the Bible supports the Trinity, sorry, you failed.
Care for a mulligan?
Delph
I see evidence of trans-kingdom evolution every time I see a post from career religious bigot. They are developing the brains God gave cabbages.
