One can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
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!
Understanding is driven by the context of the message. You cite a single passage and claim all other occurrences of the word "one" have to fit that singular description. For example -
Joh 10:30* I and my Father are one.
Context is clear, Jesus was NOT talking one in purpose. These words the Jews held to be blasphemy, and sought to stone him.
[GZ]Gospel of John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”.
[du]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.
Lurkers will note the incredible act of very stupid biblical presentation. The Greek "Theos" doesn't translate to a council, group or committee - it only translates to the singular God. Any other view of the use of Theos is intellectually dishonest - MO of DU.
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.
The requirement for proof is in your corner DU. "Theos" ( as well as Theon) do not support the mormon concept of godhead. Prove it to me DU - the greek and context says otherwise.
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.)
LOL, pending your evidence that I have taken the key passages out of context, I have applied no double standard.
ROTFLOL! So are Baptists not Christian? Lutherans? Methodists? Catholics?
In a word - YES.
The prophet in the Book of Mormon, was a Christian too.
LOL, fictitious make believe man in a make believe world.
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.
Lurkers will note - instead of proving that the text (as well as the scanned pages) of the JOD were some how different, DU cries about an authoritative site. Show me that my site failed to present the exact same material DU. It will be a VERY long wait, I know.
AFA 'doctrine' those thumping sound you Lurkers are hearing out there are the voices of the "living" prophets and apostles being thrown under the bus, who's teachings DU claims to sustain - yet conveniently discards when these superiors in the mormon faith to his teachings become uncomfortable with the bubble gum image he is trying to project of mormonism.
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:
Lurkers are welcome to compare the longer passage to what I posted. Does the longer passage refute my earlier claim - that the actual death of Jesus was only a necessary event preceding his resurrection.. Sorry DU, Talmadge made it clear in one sentence - Death to Him was preliminary to resurrection and triumphal return to the Father from whom He had come,. . . Talmadge says nothing more to associate the cross with the mormon concept of atonement - everything is garden, garden, garden. Nice try at obfuscation, but you really need to READ what you post to make sure it supports your point, rather than digging you deeper in the hole.
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 lie 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.
Since your expanded citation failed to prove that I had lied - you have no basis for your cry - do you need a tissue?
Now, salvation for the righteous... is it your contention that all men will be saved believer or not? God forbid.
Sorry DU, the contention that all men will be 'saved' is a mormon concept - not a Christian (or mine)
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.
Sorry DU, you don't know what the bible states on this subject at all. Again, Paul in Galatians puts the law and commandments in their proper place. Such a statement as you make would be completely foreign to him. Hebrews also dispels your claim. Read the Bible, it will do you good.
Paul would not recognize the salvation for the disobedient, that you are espousing here.
Since I've never espoused such an idea, you are past Uranus and orbiting kolob. If you are claiming that a man MUST become 'obedient' in order to be worthy of 'salvation', you are even more in the outer limits.
As for attacks on the Bible, I am more concerned with attacks on the Gospel it preaches through misinterpretation and interference by men.
Lurkers will note the highlighted portions. Yes indeed, the Bible DOES preach against the so-called gospel of mormonism through and through. Notice DU admits to doing exactly as I've pointed out time and again - when the Bible strips the foundation from mormonism, mormons must attack it.
The Godzilla playbook made simple:. . .
Did I miss any?
Du, you need to go back and check your notes - you inserted your playbook, not mine.
I'm gonna jump past a whole lot of baiting and balderdash to the end of your truly monstrous post Godzilla
Lurkers will note that instead of addressing the fact that DU stepped all over himself regarding the Nicean creed, the fact that mormons believe that one must qualify for salvation through strict adherence to so-called laws and ordinances, DU's wonderful bleat on collosians, his epic fail regarding the Greek word "morphē", and story telling about smith's first vision, DU calls his defense balderdash - well DU was right about that and is probably too embarrassed to deal with it.
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...
Well, so he went there to cherry pick in an effort to dismiss. Lurkers will note, DU didn't disappoint in his treatment or methodology. There is no evidence of any earnest attempt to study the materials and information present - only scan and seek a means to dismiss it. When mormon make the challenge of 'prove it', they don't actually want to have it proven to them. Lurkers will also note that DU dismisses the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Dollars to doughnuts DU doesn't have a clue to what he is dissing! Lurkers will note that the author defines the principles he is referring to - 1. The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. 2. The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. So in this case DU didn't even read past the fourth paragraph - really studying hard. Psst, your link failed BTW.
Some of his proofs lie in that 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.
There are only two references made about Satan, the first in reference to being like a god and the other that satan (and the angels) are not gods (and therefore satan is a false god). Satan is a liar and the father of lies - Jesus said so, but there you go again, throwing Jesus under the bus.
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"
Lurkers will note that the statement from the Athanasian creed provides the definition of the Persons and the shared God. Du may not like it - but that is the definition. Again, it is intellectually dishonest to substitute mormon definitions to replace those of the doctrine as Du does.
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.
Think tank is probably so far over your head you'll need oxygen. However, he covers in great detail the various aspects of the doctrine. Mormonism Research Ministry?
Again, evidence of a fail to study the material, just seeking that which can be dismissed.
"The Trinity" was so boring, nothing new, no new takes, just the same, "here is a Scripture and what I think it means." format.
Again, no earnest study evident, but Lurkers will note a pattern emerging from the scriptures - there are an abundance of passages that support the doctrine.
"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.
Guess DU isn't capable of handling a little meat and bible study. Too much to ask to open the bible and see if the passages mean what is being indicated.
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
One God - refutes mormon polytheism, there can be no more than ONE TRUE God. Not a bunch of them, not a council of the gods, but only ONE in all existance.
All three Persons are worshiped and possess the attributes of God (5 is redundant). Since there can only be one God and not three, again, mormon polytheism is repudiated and the Trinity supported.
The Bible does not forbid using extrabiblical language to define and describe biblical truth.
Research the development of the word "atonement" and tell me if that 'word' is in the bible or is extra-biblical
Godzilla, if I were to post this "stuff" in support of my beliefs you'd have my rhetorical head!
IF you posted this 'stuff' it would raise the IQ of your posts by 30 points. As I posted earlier - books have been written on the doctrine. Had I posted a book, DU would be crying again.
Point one, all five points apply straight to the Godhead.
Lurkers will note once again, DU is not defining Godhead biblically - "theotes" - but as a committee of gods - polytheism. For some reason DU will not admit to the documented teaching of his spiritual superiors (apostles and prophets) that a plurality of Gods exists. Logic fails epically to claim three separate Gods are also one God - simply from the basis of the definition of God
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.
Lurkers will note that from the 'quality' of DU's observations, he spent very little time examining or even comparing the concepts between sites. This will become evident in his recommendations for my study
The Godhead or Trinity
The type you stated was a It was mind numbingly laid out in an outline format This site holds nothing special over my list.
One or Three persons in God/Godhead
Is rather heterodox in its 'beliefs' almost modalistic. Like asking the JWs for a definition of the Trinity
Biblical Godhead Vs term Trinity
If by a primitive baptist minister and his article rejects an orthodox statement on the Trinity and is wishy-washy on his definitions.
THE GODHEAD
Wild site, KJV only and fails like you DU to consider the Greek. Definitely an outlier.
Lurkers will note of the 4 that Du so condescendingly provides for me, only one appears to be from a solid Trinitarian site - the booooooring outline one. Now lurkers who have followed Du's bleats to me will quickly recognize the fact that DU favors these heterodox sites for sources over those who are clearly orthodox in the teaching on the Trinity. The only possible reason is to obfuscate and confuse the reader.
Really Du, you selection is rather poor and do not reach the standard of 'better'.
You liked quoting the NIV to me, OK, knock yourself out, I don't accept it as scripture, neither do many other Christian churches, catch this quotation from this last document "The NIV Brutally Attacks Jesus' Deity" and "Now here's the damnable NIV... "
Yep, straight from your last 'recommendation'. Lurkers will note, a translation is a translation, and as a good mormon, DU should be concerned about whether it is translated correctly. The lack of referencing to the underlying Greek or Hebrew indicates a lack of conviction to that aof. Had the so-called scholar dissing the NIV evaluated the Greek passage (Phil 2:6 - Remember Du, the passage you couldn't find in your bible), he would have less to complain about. And everyone saw how you completely stepped all over your self.
Godzilla, I read the whole post (Yech!) and I am not convinced that the Bible supports the Trinity, sorry, you failed.
Lurkers will note that DU was given the challenge to study EARNESTLY the associated links. His post provides ample evidence that he didn't do this - noting also the quick turn around time. Du was also challenged to sincerely PRAY about the truth of the Trinity - woopsie, guess the big pray about it guy doesn't like to follow his own advice. Both of these point to the lack on sincerity to seek the truth - not a big surprise huh. Really Du, it would have been nice to see SOME effort put forth - but alas - you show no evidence of really wanting to know and just play lip service.
Or perhaps it is the study of the ontology and economic aspects of the Trinity that intimidates you - thus your search for quasi-Trinity sites to gain comfort from. But then the Lurkers out there see the double standard of mormon apologists and are see the deceptive tactics employed.
I've studied the doctrine of the Trinity, I've prayed about the doctrine of the Trinity, and God has shown me the truth of the doctrine. That is more than you can claim.
Godzilla,
Excellent post, very patient toward those who live
on FR pushing cultic stuff.
ampu
A. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in ScriptureGZ One God - refutes mormon polytheism, there can be no more than ONE TRUE God. Not a bunch of them, not a council of the gods, but only ONE in all existance.1. One God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
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.I did honestly study, I am earnest in my desire I have prayed about the Trinity, and not just yesterday, but many times. I attended many mass with friends when I was growing up, that is until the priest found out I was Mormon and asked me not to attend any more (He was trying to recruit me into the priesthood at a bible study group when he found out. I was asked not to attend the study group, and to stop attending mass. I thought it was kind of weird that he would kick me out, not try harder to proselyte me, but that's what he did) Anyway, this is not my first attempt to study the Trinity and understand it.