Not really, I cited an example that placed the understanding of “one” into a different framework than what you were inferring.
As for plural, what does theos have to do with it? Is Elohim plural or not?
Theos has a lot to do with it – particularly since in large part much of the proof text comes from the NT – which was written in Greek (Lurkers will note – it is comments like this that cause one to wonder if the standard mormon thought is the KJV was written by Paul in English). Theos is singular. Elohim is plural – however according to mormonism that is the personal name of heavenly father – an alleged singular being with flesh and bone. Further its use in the OT is always in the singlar - hmmmm the concept of composite unity. Were I to utilize a Trinitarian interpretation based upon the Shema that states in part that” Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah” is a precursor to understanding the Trinity – a singular God that has a plurality.
I know you like to play this card, but we are talking about what I believe, how I interpret the Bible. I'll happily prove my interpretation to you , right after you prove your interpretation to me. (Crickets)
Lurkers will note – Du consistently abuses the Greek definition of the word for ‘Godhead’ (theotēs) yet refuses to justify his use – other than his ‘say-so’.
Standards come in all shapes and sizes. You insistence that I have to use sources, and back up what I say with authoritative sources is unmatched by your own practice. Double standard.
LOL and your standards are to link to zotted sites that are rabid anti-catholic truther sites. Those are your “standards”. It must frustrate you to read a book DU – can’t click those sources. Prove yourself provide an authoritative ‘source’ to support your flawed greek interpretation of theotēs
Talmadge made clear that the crucifixion of our lord was the culmination of the atonement, and part of it. Reading comprehension problems? (Oh, wait, you cut that part out)
Lurkers will note – Talmadge states quite the opposite Death to Him was preliminary to resurrection and triumphal return to the Father from whom He had come,. . . Your citation does not support your claim in the slightest – everything was garden, garden, garden.
You can't have it both ways, either we believe in being saved by works (your assertion in earlier posts) or we believe all men are saved regardless. You can't say we believe both. (In fact we believe neither, but that's not my problem, I know what I believe you seem to be guessing.)
It is not my fault that mormon doctrine is schizophrenic when it come to the use of the word “salvation”. A general salvation to all, courtesy of the atonement, just meaning everyone will get a body at the resurrection. The more specific use is individual salvation commonly associated with exultation. While exultation is made possible by the necessary merits of Christ and blessings of his atonement, it is all based upon your works. One source for this is here..
So, it is your contention that Paul does not think we need to keep the commandments he is giving us? BwaHAhaHA!
My contention is that Paul clearly taught that commandments/works were not necessary to qualify or make oneself ‘worthy’ for salvation.
Face it Godzilla. You are saying we need faith then works (now) and I am saying you need faith and works (have been for a while). you are trying to say we have them in the wrong order... IMHO order, like semantics, is not worth arguing about. so whatever...
Easy DU, you will end up confusing yourself again. For individual salvation, Paul taught that salvation was by grace (UNMERITED favor) through faith and not of works. Paul also taught that ‘works’ would be the result of the changed life of the believer and a work of God in that life as well. For mormonism I’m just stating what your doctrine states – salvation MAY be possible only by following the laws and ordinances (works) – your AOF 3, supported by the teachings of your prophets (already cited) and your bom.
You said we believed only in salvation for the righteous, I agreed, and so would Paul.
Lurkers it would be interesting to see if DU can find an actual reference that quotes Paul saying that one must become righteous BEFORE qualifying for salvation. Were Du to actually study the matter, he would find that righteousness is automatically imputed by God to the individual at the same time the person is saved (see above), ie righteousness FOLLOWS salvation – not as a precursor as is demanded in mormonism.
IF you don't agree, then you believe in either no salvation for anyone (kind of defeatist, don't you think?) or you would have to believe in salvation for everyone either without regard to their faith and works, or in regard to some other attribute. Don't get mad, it's just logic.
If that is your ‘logic’ then the one that is mad (logically) would be you. It is not my fault you fail to actually read what I write in addition to what the bible actually states.
[GZ]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.
[du] What a simple trick, used by simpletons everywhere. Agree with me that the Bible does preach the gospel, (which is true) then state (with sophistry) that it is preaching against Mormonism, (which is false) and that I have finally admitted it. (which is also false.)
LOL, lurkers can see the twisting being done here. Du’s actual quote -
Your words – the bible attacks the (mormon) gospel.
LOL! when you can't answer, just claim your opponent "stepped on him/herself". Delphiuser on the Trinity
Oh yes, all that material you glossed over in your previous LOL.
Yes, he says that man cannot become "as the Gods" because Satan said it. For me it does not matter what Satan said, because, I won't trust him to be reliable about lying...
Yet you celebrate his deception in the garden in your temple ceremonies.
Delph I really 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"
GZ 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.
So... It's intellectually dishonest to Quote, and link, then give my opinion? Pray tell, what would someone who disagrees do to be intellectually honest? Be silent? (Double standards abound)
No the dishonesty is trying to pass off mormon definitions for those maintained for centuries prior to the mormons showing up on the scene.
I live at high altitude, both physically, and intellectually, thanks. Think tank was not a link to a specific article, again, you ask me to do your work for you... not paying me...
Oh, oxygen deprivation. There are nearly a dozen Trinity specific articles from the readily identifiable follow-on link at the site. Dozens other related links from that. But then you don’t do your work for you either.
Double standards again, you complained when I quoted a legitimate document from an anti christian site, remember?
LOL, Lurkers will notice the continued squirming on this point. Instead of showing that the material on the non mormon site was incorrect or distorted (hard to distort a scanned copy of the pages from the actual book), just more attempts to poison the well.
or, in this case, and abundance of people quoting the same scriptures...
And come to the same conclusion
No matter how often you say we are polytheists, it just won't make it so. The lord our God is one.
Lurkers will note the complete disregard for the common definition of polytheism, which simply put is the worship of OR belief in more than one God. Lurkers will also note that mormons have troubles with their conjunctions with OR causing the greatest. It is used to join two or more alternatives in a statement in which only one alternative needs to be true for the whole statement to be true. Depending upon which apostle or prophet is currently vogue, it is documented that mormons worship heavenly father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost – three separate gods in their pantheon of gods, conditionally meeting the first alternative. Mormon DOCTRINE claims “the Gods” (plural) created the heavens and earth (Abraham 4). Even smith taught “In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed ONE God for us... (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372)
Both are proof that the second alternative of the basic definition is fulfilled to a tee.
BTW, we meet all these criteria, I know what the scriptures quoted say, and I agree with them, I just don't agree with your interpretation. At least I tell the truth about what you believe.
LOL, don’t think DU meant it in this way, but yes mormonism meets both criteria stated above – it is polytheistic. Judaism and Christianity are both monotheistic, always have been, always will be.
[GZ]Research the development of the word "atonement" and tell me if that 'word' is in the bible or is extra-biblical
[du] Romans 5:11, Biblical. (And you question my scholarship? LOL!)
Lurkers will note – Rom 5:11 the word is “katallagē”, and represents reconciliation, not atonement. That is why I suggested he research the DEVELOPMENT of the word “atonement”. This word was created by the English centuries after Romans was written. Now if even a marginal degree of ‘scholarship’ were applied, one would have seen and known that the word ‘atonement’ is extra-biblical. NIV, NKJV, ESV, NASV, RSV, ASV, YLT, and Darby all use the more correct word – reconciliation. Once again, for a religion that makes as its doctrine the emphasis upon the correct translation, their adherents are very poor at its application.
I don't think you have any Idea of how I actually define the Godhead. I think you know how you want me to be defining it, and want to force that definition down my throat regardless of my protestations. It won't happen.
LOL, lurkers will note the sense that the shoe is on the other foot for du. Provides an amorphous definition of the Godhead. I guess the dictionary is now an authoritative source of mormon doctrine (writers must have borrowed the peep stone). Lurkers will note that the definition is founded upon the orthodox definition of the Trinity rejected by mormons. Another example of mormon ‘scholarship’.
Were an ‘authoritative’ source cited, Lurkers would see the disingenousness of the lack of effort. Time and again, DU has stated that the father, Son and Holy Ghost are completely separate individuals/gods – three gods. My Godzillaized interpretation – three gods that form a committee called the ‘godhead’. In fact, I’ve read that this mormon ‘godhead’ is similar to the First Presidency. Mormons say as much the same, only in mormoniese -
Lurkers may wonder – why didn’t DU present the mormon definition instead of a dictionary reference? Perchance because the mormon definition is what I’ve been stating all along.
LOL! I'm a speed reader, remember? I read your sites, and just wasn't impressed.
Speed reader – perhaps, speed comprehension – dubious.
Not one of your sites actually addressed the Godhead and why the trinity was a superior interpretation, they all said "Jesus is the word, Te word is God, God is one = Trinity" and addressed no competing interpretations to evaluate them.
Lurkers will note the failed nature of this statement. One site I recommended had about 700 scripture citations. Another that DU couldn’t bother himself to study has extensive sections responding to pushbacks by readers in addition to addressing competing interpretations in great detail. Being a speed reader is no good if you fail to READ the contents of the materials presented.
I graduated from a Buddhist monastery in Taiwan for one and only one reason, it made me a much better teacher over there.
What kind of “degree” did you receive for the few weeks you attended the monastery DU – you never really answered that question – was it something beyond a certificate of attendance?
If you want to be effective in teaching Mormons, learn what we actually believe and teach from there.
Lurkers will note – just from the above comparison of what DU passes off for a ‘definition’ of the mormon godhead, and what I’ve been presenting on the same pretty well says it all. Lurkers will also remember that DU also protested not too long ago that the King Follett sermon was not taught by the church, until confronted with it in Gospel Principles. In fact, I have yet to see any real mormon doctrine presented to support HIS view of mormon doctrine. Oh well.
If you want to be a punk on a website that gets high fives from your "home boys", well, teach from what you believe and hope we figure it out. Jesus said to go get the sheep, not call them from the fold. WWJD?
LOL, really trying to be personal now eh du? A punk, LOL is that all you got.
You dismissed the sites I posted. Fine, none were "Mormon" sites, but all addressed the Godhead and tried to compare that to the Trinity.
I could have addressed this then, but for those who believe in the Trinitarian doctrine of the ontology of God, the word “Godhead” is interchangeable with “Trinity”. At best, your ‘sources’ only were quibbling about the word to use – the ontology was the same. And I won’t even go into the FORBIDDEN site. Secondly, since the ontology was the same, none of the sites supported your ‘committee’ concept. Finally, since the ontology was the issue, trying to throw up (literally) an ‘issue’ of whether to use Trinity or Godhead was just a red herring and an attempt to move the goal posts in the discussion. Perhaps you are unable to defend your ontology of this ‘godhead’, but it was not an issue your well researched “sources”.
[du] Actually, in post #286 you said, and I quote:
[GZ] 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.
Very good DU, I knew you could swim up thread if you wanted to.
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.
Lurkers will note, DU leaves out the part to pray with a sincere heart with real intent for God to testify of Jesus and ask God to reveal the Truth of the Trinity. Lurkers would also note that DU’s FIRST response (before the zot) came less than a DAY after my post and DU has admitted to NOT studying the materials on those sites. Honest study or blowing it off?
I ma sure that Th lurkers are seeing double standards, and deceptive tactics, I'm not in agreement as to the source however.
Right, only ‘authorized’ sources huh du – don’t want to have to go to those anti sites and confess you’ve been there to your bishop during TR renewal eh?
Actually, I have studied the Trinity and the Godhead, I have prayed about both for years, and God has answered my prayers in a way the I both cannot deny, and cannot mistake.
The only ‘testimony’ relates to the so-called ‘truth’ of mormonism. No evidence to date has been presented that you have sincerely and earnestly prayed about anything else.
Du completes his bleat with his canned advertisement for mormonism. Would you want to follow a religion where its members cannot even provide their doctrine of the ‘godhead’, but rely rather on a dictionary? And for an apology that relies on a dictionary for its theology – the same rejects the dictionary definition of polytheism, when both articles of the definition find agreement with the doctrine and teachings of the same religion. Would you want to follow a religion that has such shallow scholarship that it cannot even evaluate the ‘correct’ translation of a passage – relying only upon apostates who translated the KJV, using even BASIC tools? Do you really want to follow a religion where you have to prequalify for worthiness before receiving God’s grace and salvation?
Or would you rather follow Jesus Christ of the Bible (and not of joseph smith), True God, who became a man to reconcile man to himself out of his abundant love and grace (unmerited favor) to those who believe by faith alone, and who at that very same moment makes us righteous before God. No secret temple ceremonies, no special underwear, no oppressive rules, regulations, laws and ordinances - just grace and grace alone.
Excellent post placemarker
Pleaee, either write a book or post this as a vanity. Do you really need to reply to a point with War & Peace?
You are having entirely too much fun playing with your food ... the rodent is dead. Either eat it or walk away from it.
Thank you, Zilla...
Great info...
:)
Thus, lexicons give expressions such as: divinity, deity, godhead, divine nature, divine being. But what do these expressions mean? An examination of some English dictionaries reveals that the meanings of these words is considerably broader than some Trinitarians would like them to be.So, I'm not alone, now I'm sure my critics will jump all over that this is a Jehovah's Witness site, but hey, they expected me to go read an anti Mormon site, right? so fair is fair, go read it and deal with it as an argument, not as a "non-christian" site.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.It's a simile, I know you have a problem with those, so let me translate for you.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.Therefore thou art inexcusable O Godzilla whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. We believe in each of them (A of F 1: 1). From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23). These three persons are one in perfect unity and harmony of purpose and doctrine (John 17: 21-23; 2 Ne. 31: 21; 3 Ne. 11: 27, 36).Really good stuff there, anyone who is actually interested, go red it, it's way clearer than what Godzilla's been saying and the links are live from it too.