Discovering the God of Christianity

142 Responses to Discovering the God of Christianity

1. falcon says:

   May 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm

   I appreciate Andy’s efforts above. I’ve gotten to know him since we both started posting on Mormon Coffee and have been impressed with his desire to get things right and do the necessary heavy lifting in researching the topics under discussion. I’m hoping that sometime he will report on his foray’s into the Mormon wards, sitting in on and interacting in the inquiry type classes there.
   I’ve been aware of this on-going interaction Andy has had with his Mormon friend. While this has been going on, I’ve been reading J.N.D. Kelly’s volumous work “Early Christian Doctrine”. One of the reviewers said about the book; “It (book) is invaluable for an understanding of the formative period when the main lines of Christian dogma were laid down; and it presents a balanced picture of the early controversies in the light of modern scholarship.”
   When Mormons make flippant comments about the Gospel being lost and spin tangled conspiracy theories to try and bolster their case, they display a total ignorance of what the early Church fathers went through to “get it right”. This would include the doctrines of the Trinity, the authority of the Bible and tradition, the nature of Christ, salvation, original sin and grace, and the sacraments. Mormons seem to be content to swallow whole any folk legend spun by the Mormon church in order to maintain a testimony that is 180 degrees out of phase with the Church fathers.
   I thought the comments of Andy’s Mormon friend were quite instructive. At least the Mormon friend appears to have a degree of intellectual honesty and curiosity. This is something the average Mormon doesn’t often display.
2. Ralph says:

   May 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm

   I have a question about this comment above –

   <blockquote.“God is omniscient. (Isaiah 40:13, 14, 28; Psalm 147:5; 139:1-4; 50:11). God is omnipotent. (Romans 1:20; Genesis 17:1; Rev 19:6). God is omnipresent. He is not isolated to one area (Mormonism’s god who resides near Kolob) and is everywhere all the time. (Psalm 139:7-10, Isaiah 66:1; Jeremiah 23:23-24; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Hebrews 4:13). The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are all omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.”

   What exactly does this mean? are they all omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent? Or is it a case of they have their seperate functions and qualities so ‘together’ they are all considered omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent but seperately they are not?
3. falcon says:

   May 21, 2009 at 1:46 pm

   I wish I could write like this but since I can’t I’ll quote:
   “The classical creeds of Christendom opened with a declaration of belief in one God, maker of heaven and earth. The monotheistic idea, grounded in the religion of Israel, loomed large in the minds of the earliest fathers; though not reflective theologians, they were fully conscious that it marked the dividing line between the Church and paganism. According to Hermas, the first commandment is to ‘believe that God is one, Who created and established all things, bringing them into existence out of non-existence. It was He who by His invisible and mighty power and great wisdom created the universe, and by His glorious purpose clothed His creation with comeliness, and by His strong word fixed the heavens and founded the earth above the waters’….For Clement God is the Father and creator of the entire cosmos…for Barnabas “our maker;. His omnipotence and univesal sovereignty were acknowledged, for He was ‘the Lord almighty;, the Lord Who governs the whole universe;, and ‘the master of all things;.”

   Contrast this view of God with that of Joseph Smith and Mormonism. In Smith’s system, men become gods, gods among a pantheon of gods. The Mormon god is puny. Merely a reflection of a better man, limited in time, space and existence. In making himself out to be a god, Joseph Smith rejected the God of the Bible. The God of the apostles. To sell his god, Smith concocted a lie that the Gospel had been lost and he was to restore it. No limited ego with this boy. In doing so, Smith rejected all of the work of the Church fathers and established himself as an authority. Smith was a loose cannon with a magic rock but it’s amazing how far one can go when people won’t bother to do the work of examining a person’s claims. Smith isn’t really all that hard to refute except for those who want so desperately to believe it’s true.
4. falcon says:

   May 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm

   Ralph,
   I absolutely love your question. It is very thoughtful and shows that you are going to a deeper level in the understanding of the nature of God. Now what I’m going to do is spend some time thinking through my answer and try to provide for you the thinking process and consideration of the Church fathers.
   Just off the top of my head; what needs to be understood is that the position of the Church fathers was that there was/is one God. Period. They were monotheist coming out of the Jewish tradition. So then who is this Jesus? There can’t be two gods or three or how ever many the pagans worshiped.
   As I work my way through studying the thought process of the fathers, I’m struck by how incredably picky they were and how they strained gnats to get the precise definitions of terms. An example:
   “Every alert reader must have noticed, and been astonished by, the extnet to which theological divisions at this time were created and kept alive by the use of different and mutually confusing theological terms. At the council it was formally recognized that what mattered was not the language used but the meaning underlying it. Thus the formula ‘three hypostases’, hitherto suspect to the Nicenes because it sounded in their ears painfully like ‘three ousiai’, i.e. three divine beings, was pronoucned legitimate provided it did not carry the Arian connotation of ‘utterly distinct, alien hypostases, different in substance from each other;, in other words three principles or three Gods;,…….it goes on to talk about the formula which became the badge of orthodoxy, ‘one ousia, three hupostaseis’.”
   Now I think what happens with modern folks is that this stuff makes their heads hurt so they’re looking for some easy finite way of explaining the infinite. Jesus being some sort of subgod, created being is easier for folks to understand. To understand what the Chruch fathers were getting at takes time, thought and mastering a new vocabulary.
5. Aaron Shafovaloff says:

   May 21, 2009 at 5:00 pm

   What exactly does this mean? are they all omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent? Or is it a case of they have their seperate functions and qualities so ‘together’ they are all considered omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent but seperately they are not?

   They are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent together as one being, not as separate beings who combine knowledge, power, and presence. Each person of the Trinity is fully and equally omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, but the wonderful thing about the Trinity is that the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit is a necessary and essential relationship. The Father cannot even exist apart from being in full relationship with the Son and Spirit, etc. The very being of God relational. Relationality is an eternal part of the very nature of God.

   The way I explain it on the street: Jesus never had to shake hands with God the Father and say, “hi, it’s nice to meet you.”
6. st.crispin says:

   May 21, 2009 at 5:08 pm

   OMG,

   Here we go again – the nature of God!

   A few points need to be established at the start:
   1. The Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” is wholly rejected by the Jewish tradition and Jewish scriptures. Just ask any rabbi.
   Thus one can say that the Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” is non-biblical.

   2. The Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” is viewed as being polytheistic by everyone else except of course Trinitarians.
   For example a common charge against the Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” made by Jews and Muslims alike is that it is polytheistic in form and substance.

   3. The various formulations of Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” (i.e. the various creeds) are fundamentally self-contradictory and illogical and constitute a mass of confusion. Is it any wonder that Jesus Christ Himself said that such creeds are an abomination.

   4. The Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” states that God the Father and God the Son are co-eternal. This statement effectively denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and constitutes a major departure from the bible.

   5. Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” speaks of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost being of one and the same “substance”. However, in all of the creeds of Christendom this mysterious “substance” is never defined or explained.

   6. The Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” is a purely philosophical construct (the vain philosophies of men) that runs counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles and Prophets.

   7. The Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” was a pure invention of the second and third century A.D. and was never ascribed to by the Apostles of Christ and the first Christians.

   The historical facts are plain and clear for all to see: Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” is non-biblical. Thus the “god” of evangelicals is NOT the living God of the Bible but a philosophical invention.
7. jer1414 says:

   May 21, 2009 at 5:54 pm

   1. Of course Jewish people reject Christ as the Messiah. That is a non-issue. To derive the Trinity is non-biblical because the Jewish people deny it is a logical fallacy and has no bearing on the issue.

   2. Those who view the Trinity as polytheistic have a foundational misunderstanding of the concept.

   3. Creeds are useful only in so far as they accurately reflect Scripture. Were creeds discussed in the post? Were they quoted? This sounds like a diversion. There is no use in discussing these types of accusatory blanket statements without specifics.

   4. Jesus Christ as the Son of God does not depart from the Bible and to suggest so indicates a complete misunderstanding on the nature of God and scripture.

   5. The Trinity as being the same in essence can be explained in a way we can understand, though we cannot force God into a box just to fit our human finite understanding (after all, God is not man, exalted or not, and His ways are not ours). However, the accusations set forth do not indicate any interest in hearing any.

   6. Scripture reveals a Trinitarian God, as described in the above post. No need to elaborate here.

   7. See #6 above

   The historical facts are plain and clear for all to see: Trinitarian conceptualization of God is derived from a careful study of the Bible. Thus the One True and Living God Christiandome IS the living God of the Bible and NOT the false god of Mormondom.

   For those who are sincerely seeking the truth, and for even these out to set up strawmen diversions, I pray as they study the Bible for themselves the truth will be revealed and that they would love the truth more than their religion.
8. shematwater says:

   May 21, 2009 at 6:40 pm

   Hello. A thought about the article. I mention only one point as space is limited.

   Point 1: God is revealed as three distinct persons, but is one God and not polytheistic.

   Besides being completely illogical and impossible to actually explain, not one of the verses references state this as being true. Let us examine them.
   Matthew 3:16 – Here we have the Son coming out of the Water, the Holy Ghost decending, and the Father speaking from heaven. This hardly puts them as the same being.
   Matthew 28:19 – Again, all three are mentioned separately, and no reference is made to them being one being.
   1 Corinthians 12:4-6 – While this does mention the same spirit, the same Lord, and the same God, each is given very distinct areas of influence. The spirit gives gifts, the Lord administers, and God sets forth the operations (or ordinances). Hardly proof that they are one being.
   2 Corinthians 13:14 – Again, each is given very distinct parts. Grace of the Lord, love of God, and Communion with the Spirit.
   Ephesians 4:4-6 – Again they are referenced as being separate. There is one body (meaning church), one spirit, one Lord, and one God over all. So the God is over the Lord and the spirit and the Body.
   Deut 6:4 and Mark 12:29 – Here they are referencing only Christ. As it says, Christ is God, but his title is Lord, which fits with what the rest of these references have been saying.

   Now, if we look at John 17: 22-23 we see that Christ is asking that the Apostles be made one, in the same way that the Father and the Son are one. If they are litterally one being how could the apostles be one in the same way? They couldn’t, so why would Christ ask this?
   He asked it because the Apostles could be one in the same way as The Father and the Son are one, because they are not one in being, but one in purpose, one in motivation, and one in spirit. Just as me and my wife are one in spirit and love, but are still two separate people.
9. shematwater says:

   May 21, 2009 at 6:41 pm

   I will post concerning other points momentarily.
10. st.crispin says:

    May 21, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    Jer1414,

    I take issue with your analysis:

    1. Given the fact that the entire Bible was written by Jews (except for the Book of Jude) and nowhere in the Bible do we find an explicit delineation of the Trinitarian conceptualization of “God”, plus the fact that Trinitarianism is anathema to the Jewish notion of God, it is abundantly clear that Trinitarianism is non-Biblical.

    2. Everyone (except Trinitarians) view the Trinitarian conceptualization of “God” as being polytheistic. Given the fact that Trinitarianism is a self-contradictory, illogical mass of confusion it cannot sustain scrutiny. It is Trinitarians who have a foundational misunderstanding of the true nature of God.

    3. Creeds (concerning the nature of God – the subject of this thread) constitute the foundational basis of a theology. If the creeds are a self-contradictory, illogical mass of confusion then the entire theology built upon such a shaky foundation is flawed.
    Jesus Christ Himself said that such creeds are an abomination.

    4. The Trinitarian notion that Jesus Christ is co-eternal with God the Father effectively denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The logic is as simple as it is clear: a son cannot be co-eternal with his father. Thus Trinitarianism is definitely non-biblical in its faulty interpretation of the nature of God.

    5. Trinitarianism clearly states that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are of the same substance or essence. This is as illogical as it is self-contradictory. The notion of communal “substance” or “essence” is a Hellenistic (Greek) philosophical construct which is at complete odds with the Jewish or Hebraic notion of God.

    6. Judaic scriptures in no manner or form give definitive support to the non-biblical notion of Trinitarianism. Only through the most distorted and tortuous reading of the scriptures can Trinitarianism be derived.

    The historical facts are clear: the Trinitarian conceptualization of God is non-biblical.
11. jer1414 says:

    May 21, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    1. The Bible was written by Jews. And? They do not accept the NT as scripture. So according to the logic you set forth, the NT wouldn’t be scripture? This point is nonsensical. There have been posts in the past about the Trinitarian God with scripture backing and for this short space I won’t elaborate.

    2. “Everyone”? Was there a poll? So though Mormonism teaches many gods exist, Mormons don’t see themselves as polytheistic. But everyone else does, therefore Mormons are polytheistic, which you must agree, according to your own logic (since “everyone else” makes the determination).

    Again this is a nonsensical point. Self-contradictory illogical mass, etc? More blanket accusations. I’ve heard the exact same verbage repeated before.

    3. Mormons seem more interested in creeds than anyone else. Again I say, creeds are only of value IN SO FAR AS they accurately reflect scripture. They weren’t mentioned above, only scripture was.

    Let the this nonsense come to a stop.… This type of rhetoric / intimidation tactics is a learned response ingrained in Mormon culture designed to keep them from the truth. There is no substance, no real conversation, just strawmen accusations, wildly accusatory blanket statements with no real discussion. This type of response is an example of what http://www.howcultswork.com speaks of.

    Scripture and the historical facts are clear: the Trinitarian conceptualization of God is certainly biblical. 4, 5, 6 – Please read the above scripture references in the post for yourself and may the living and active Word of God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart, penetrate yours (Heb. 4:12).
12. Michael P says:

    May 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    “The historical facts are clear: the Trinitarian conceptualization of God is non-biblical.”

    Actually, this is not so. To prove your point you will have to definitively describe what is Biblical, as well as prove that history shows, just as definitively, that the Trinity is non-Biblical.

    You cannot do that, and here is why: defining what is Biblical will take a deep study into the books that make it up, the history of the times in which they were written, and bringing all of that together to discern what it all means. The answer is really quite amazing, seemingly complicated, but in the end, really quite simple.

    It is said that the Jews don’t see a trinity in the Bible. OK, but they also don’t see a New Testament, either. So, are we to deny that because the Jews don’t think it is true?

    Why raise that question? Because the assertion that the Jews don’t see a Trinity is pointless. Of course they don’t. If they did, they would believe in Christ. But they don’t, so they also will not believe in the Trinity.

    As to the rest of ’em, same sort of thing– a denial of the Trinity by non-believers proves absolutely nothing about its veracity.

    It is akin to your beliefs and how you get to bent out of shape when others try to define them for you. This is so because it is natural for people who do not believe to view things differently. But as to veracity, it means nothing. Don’t you agree?

    We are here to explain the Trinity, as best we can. But for a discussion to be productive, you must be open to our explanations. This does not necessitate you agree, but if your mind is shut already the Trinity will never make sense.

    It seems some here are not open to it, which is fine. No one says that they have to be, but I will say this– if they get upset when we distort their faith, they should look at our reaction when they distort ours.
13. Rick B says:

    May 21, 2009 at 9:59 pm

    We read in Genesis 1:1 God (Elohim) this is a plural noun speaking of more than one person. Yet (Bara) is the Hebrew verb for Elohim but it is in the singular. We find 3 in one. We again find this in verses 3:22 where God says man has become like one of us. And we find it in 11:7 at the tower of babal, 3 in one. Then we read in the 10 commandments number 3 says You shall have no other gods before me.

    We read in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear 0 Israel the Lord our God is ONE.” God, Not 3 separate Gods. Now I know mormons claim we are not worshiping other gods, Just God the Father. But the scriptures clearly teach there are no other Gods period. Read Isaiah 45:6,14,18,21,22 46:5,9 47:8,10 and 48:12 these all teach their are no gods before me and none will be after me, God states I know of NO OTHER Gods. So if the mormon Godhead is true, and God was once a man as mormonism teaches then his Father would be a God, so God would know about him would he not? If Jesus and the Holy spirit are Gods, God the Father would know about them would he not? So if God the Father states their are no Gods before him or after him How can Worthy LDS members become gods, or how could God have a father who is a God, or how could Jesus or the Holy Spirit be Gods and God the Father not know about them? This tells me we can find the 3 in One Godhead (Trinity).

    Then we can read many places in the Old Testament Like Joshua 5 for example about the Spirit of the Lord. This angle of the Lord tells Joshua to remove his sandals for he is on Holy Ground, we read God saying the same thing to Moses in the burning bush. Here we find an (Angle) Saying your on Holy Ground and allowing a mere human to worship Him. Every case in the bible where God sent an angle to give a message to someone, and that person tried to worship the angle we find the angle saying get up, get up do not worship me. The one angle that wanted worship was lucifer and look what happened to him.

    Now we read in Isaiah chapter 6:3 The angles ar
14. Rick B says:

    May 21, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    Cont,
    The angles are flying and saying “Holy Holy Holy”, Now are they saying Holy to 3 different Gods Or One God but in the triune form? Now Read Revelation 4:8 again we find the angles Saying “Holy Holy Holy”, they are speaking about 1 God. We find the trinity. Read in Genesis 48:15 When Jacob is about to bless Josephs 2 Sons, Jacob mentions God twice then mentions the Angle who redeemed me, How can a plain angle redeem anyone? I see the Trinity here. Not 3 separate Gods.

    We read in Exodus, God speaks to Moses in the burning bush, God says “I AM” Read over in John 8:58 Jesus says “I AM”, this is the same “I AM”, God used in Exodus, Jesus is not saying he is a god, He IS saying He IS GOD. Even the Jews understood this, that is why they tried to stone him. We read in Exodus 17:6 God the Father told Moses to strike the rock and water will come forth, Then over in Numbers 20:8 We read Moses was supposed to SPEAK to the rock and water would come forth, instead he struck the rock again. Then we read in 1Corinthians 10:4 that Rock was Christ. The example God was trying to set up but Moses blew it was, Jesus was that Rock, he was crucified for us, The Rock was struck. From that point on we only need to speak to Christ (The Rock) Not crucify him all over again (Strike him again) Here we see hints of the Trinity.

    Know lets look at Verses that say Jesus is God, not a god.

    John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.”

    Romans 9:5 “Of whom are the fathers and from whom according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God, amen.” Notice it says Christ is the blessed God.

    Titus 2:13 “Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Here again we read Jesus is God.

    More Later. Rick b
15. falcon says:

    May 21, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    The Arian heresy was pretty simple as heresy goes. All Arius really said was that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son must have had a birth, and the conclusion is that there must have been a time when the Son did not exist. It follows, according to this heresy, that the Son came into existence by the will of the Father. The son would therefore be less than the Father. He would, however, be greater than man. So Jesus was really nothing more than a mediator between God and man. Christ would be nothing more than a great, virtuous, and godlike super hero.
    So what’s the big deal between Christ being the super hero mediator and Christ being God. Well it’s a very big deal! It’s important whether Christ is “homo-ousios”, the same substance or “homoi-ousios” like substance to God the Father. This is the basic question and the answer forms the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity.
    At the Council of Chalcedon, nearly 400 Bishops set the definition that has become chlassical orthodoxy. By answering the heretics they set and reafirmed the foundational Christian doctrine. Against the earlier heretic Arius, they affirmed that Jesus was truly God. Against Apollinarius that Jesus was truly man. Against Eutyches they said that Jesus’ deity and humanity were not changed into something else. Against the Nestorians they declared that Jesus was not divided but was one person. The heretics did the Church a great favor because they forced (the Church) to affirm what the apostles taught.
    This is the foundation of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: Since Jesus was a normal human being, he could fulfill every demand of God’s righteous law. Jesus could suffer and die a real death. Since Jesus was truly God, His death was capable of satisfying divine justice. God, by his grace, had provided the sacrifice.
16. Ralph says:

    May 21, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    I questioned that posit about the three being omniscient because if it can be shown that at least one of them is not omniscient, then the description of the Trinity is either incorrect or a false god. We find Jesus teaching in the Bible that He is not omniscient –

    Matt 24:36 ¶ But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

    If Jesus was omniscient and the Holy Ghost, then they too would know the day and hour of the Second Coming. But no ONLY Heavenly Father does.

    When Jesus was born on this earth the Bible teaches that He grew up and learned like everyone else. He was not born with all the knowledge and wisdom that God has. Or if He did He hid it quite well.

    Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

    Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

    Then there is the reference above of all three being CO-EQUAL. This means literally that they are all on the same level and they are just as great as each other. These verses from the Bible do not teach this idea. In the first one, Jesus mentions Himself first, then He mentions Heavenly Father – indicating that He is talking about 2 different beings and not just Himself in each case. Also note that just after Jesus says “My Father’ He then says “which gave them to Me” again indicating that Jesus is referring to 2 different beings. In other words if they were co-equal He would not have to make this distinction.

    John 10:28-29 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

    John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
17. Rick B says:

    May 22, 2009 at 12:11 am

    1st John 5:20 “And we know that the son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we me know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in his son Jesus Christ. This is the True God and eternal life.”

    Acts 5:3-9 Here we see How the Holy Spirit is God, Not a god.

    Act 5:3 “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?”

    Act 5:4 “While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.”

    Act 5:5 “And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.”

    Act 5:6 “And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.”

    Act 5:7 “And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.”

    Act 5:8 “And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.”

    Act 5:9 “Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.”

    We read here how he lied to God then he lied to the spirit and it made the spirit out to be God.

    So here again we find the trinity, God the father is God, we find the scriptures teach Jesus IS GOD, and we find scripture that states the Holy Spirit is God.

    We read in Matthew 28:19 Where it says to make disciples of all nations and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit, this is said in the singular not the plural.

    We see the trinity in the Death of Christ. Who was responsible for his death?
    The father, Jesus says in Psalm 22:15 You, this You is Jesus speaking of the father being responsible for his death. 22: “You have brought me to the dust of death.”
18. Rick B says:

    May 22, 2009 at 12:15 am

    John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that HE (God) Gave his only begotten Son.”

    Romans 8:32 “He (God the father) who did not spare his own Son.”

    But we know read Jesus was responsible for his death.
    John 10:18 “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down myself.”

    Gal 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ, It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me, And the life which I now live in the flesh ; I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and GAVE HIMSELF for me.”

    Now we read in Hebrews 9:14″how it was the Spirit of God who was responsible for the death of Christ.”

    9:14 “How much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the Eternal spirit offered himself with out spot to God.” Here we again find the trinity.

    Now lets find the trinity with in the creation. Who created the heavens and the earth?

    God the father. Psalms 102:25 “Of old You laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.”

    Jesus Created the Heavens and the earth, John 1:10-11
    10:”He was in the World, and the World was made through him, and the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own and his own did not receive him.”

    Colossians 1:16 “For by Him (the Him Is Jesus, read verse 15) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him.”

    The Sprit Created.
    Genesis 1:2 “The earth was with out form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”

    Job 26:13″By His Spirit He adorned the heavens; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.”

    More Later, Rick b
19. Ralph says:

    May 22, 2009 at 12:45 am

    MichaelP,

    You said … as well as prove that history shows, just as definitively, that the Trinity is non-Biblical.
    You cannot do that, and here is why: defining what is Biblical will take a deep study into the books that make it up, the history of the times in which they were written, and bringing all of that together to discern what it all means.

    I have found 6 sources now (yes everyone roll your eyes) which have looked at these things, including the historical aspect. All say definitively that the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is not found in the NT. That is the DOCTRINE, not the definition of the word nor the word itself. They go on to say that the doctrine is a POST-BIBLICAL era construction using Bible references. These dictionaries for your reference are –

    The Oxford Companion to the Bible
    A Dictionary of Christianity (Ed. Alan Richardson)
    The New Bible Dictionary
    Encyclopaedia Britannica
    The Penguin Dictionary of the Bible
    Harper’s Bible Dictionary

    None of these sources say that the Trinity is correct or incorrect, they just state that the doctrine is not found in the Bible. I leave it to whatever one wants to conclude for themselves about the Trinity. I know what I believe in and I know it is Biblically based, just like the Trinity is Biblically based but not in it.
20. Rick B says:

    May 22, 2009 at 12:55 am

    Ralph, everything I posted shows evidence for the trinity. here’s more.
    OK, Now lets move on to some verses in the Book of Mormon that show the Trinity.

    Under the page that states “an account written by the Hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi” it says near the bottom of the page in my copy, “And Also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD”

    Question, how can Jesus be THE ETERNAL GOD, if He is a separate God?

    Now under the testimony of the 3 witnesses, it ends by saying, “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, WHICH IS ONE GOD. Amen.”

    Here we read in the oringal 1830 edition, 1st Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father. Not only has this been changed from the oringal, but how can the Lamb of God (Jesus) be the eternal God?

    Read 1 Nephi 11:32 1830 edition “And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God (Jesus), that He was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.” Again the Son is called the Eternal God. why? also why the change or addition of words?

    Here is another very serious change, 1st Nephi 13:40 1830 edition. “And shall make known to all kindred’s, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.”

    Now here in a more recent edition, 1920, 2 Nephi 26:12b says, “Be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God.” Yet again Jesus is called the Eternal God.

    2 Nephi 31:21b says, “And now, behold, this is the Doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is ONE God, without end. Amen.”
    Notice they say they are ONE God and it is the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
21. Rick B says:

    May 22, 2009 at 12:57 am

    Here’s even more,

    Mosiah 7:26
    26 “And a prophet of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ.”

    27 “And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth.”

    28 “And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions?”

    In the verses Above we read that they killed people for teaching Jesus IS GOD, Not A God, But God.

    Mosiah 15
    1 “And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.”

    2 “And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son.”

    3 “The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son.”

    4 “And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.”

    5 “And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffered temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffered himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.”

    6 “And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.”

    More Later
22. Ralph says:

    May 22, 2009 at 1:01 am

    So RickB,

    If we substitute ‘government’ for ‘God’ in Acts 5:4 and the word ‘taxman’ for ‘spirit of the Lord’ in Acts 5:9, does this make the taxman the government and the goverment the taxman? No. The taxman is a representative of the government, but he is not the government itself. So that argument is moot – it does not prove what you want it too.

    The “Holy, Holy, Holy” cries from teh angels does not prove a Trinity. if the LDS version of God is correct, ie they are 3 seperate beings, then this cry could also fit inot this theology. Besides I sat down one day with a sock that had a hole in it and said ‘Darn, darn, darn.’ does that mean that there were 3 socks in one to darn? Repetition of a word means nothing. If you want to go on that, when Jesus entered Jesusalem the Jews were calling out ‘Hosanna’ only once (Matt 21:9) does this indicate Modalism as it is only referencing one being?

    I could go on and pick holes in most (not all) of the scriptures you have chosen but time and space do not permit.
23. Michael P says:

    May 22, 2009 at 1:56 am

    Yeah, Ralph,

    I said a complete study of it all, taking it all into consideration.

    You do list verses that suggest no Trinity, but Rick B has posted a lot saying there is, so what do we do?

    It seems your answer is not clear, but rather very much in question.

    I know you vehemently disagree… But alas.
24. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    May 22, 2009 at 3:27 am

    Andy Watson should be congratulated on putting together a pretty comprehensive list for his freind.

    I’d add one ommission in his decription of God, from 1 John 1:5 etc “God is light”, which I understand to mean that God has zero tolerance for “darkness”, or “falsehood”. It is also God how ultimately exposes things, and brings them to the light in His judgement.

    Remember Jesus saying “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12)? Isn’t he claiming to be something that only God is?

    The application is that however much the truth hurts, it can never hurt more than a lie.

    Anti-trinitarians really need to get to grips with Johannine literature (among the others).
25. Martin_from_Brisbane says:

    May 22, 2009 at 3:47 am

    One of the most disturbing aspects of the nature of the Mormon God, IMO, is to do with the question of choice.

    The Biblical view of God gives Him absolute freedom of choice. By contrast, our choices are always limited or constrained by our circumstances. The Biblical view states that God did not have to do things the way He did, but that is how He chose to do them, especially the pain and shame of the Cross.

    By making God out to be a product of the cosmos, the Mormon view up-ends this paradigm. The LDS position is that God emerged from the cosmos, starting out as a mortal man and working his way to the top. Whilst we have total freedom of choice (see the Articles of Faith), God’s choices are limited and constrained by the circumstances in which He finds himself.

    For example, if we do the right things (join the LDS movement, for example), then we expect to force God to accept us into his heaven as of right. Whatever happened to God’s rights?

    Also, if God worked his way up by complying with the ordinances of the Gospel, then it is the ordinances of the Gospel that controls what’s going on, not God’s own free choice.

    Though this might seem esoteric, the application is really profound. Ask yourself why God loves us. The Biblical view is God loves us because it is in his nature – there is nothing higher than God that causes Him to love us. That also means that there is nothing I can do to bend that love one way or the other.

    The Mormon God, by contrast, is compelled to follow a pre-described course of action, in the shape of the ordinances of the Gospel.

    The problem is that if love is coerced or forced in any way, then it is not love but something else. Now, we may be compelled to love God because we have been exposed to, or confronted by His love, but that’s the difference between us and it always will be.
26. Andy Watson says:

    May 22, 2009 at 3:56 am

    I want to offer a heartfelt “thank you” to those who gave me accolades for my post. For those that didn’t, I still say “thank you” for your reading my post, commenting and for just being here on this blog. It is my desire to drive all of us to God’s Word to see what He says about Himself. That was my desire for my Mormon friend and he eventually saw it that way himself too. My list above is actually a short list as I stated to him that it would be, but the list hits the main points. The verses that are given are definitely not conclusive by any means. Time nor space given will allow an exhaustive study at each point mentioned.

    As expected, I see that the “hotbed” topic among our Mormon friends is the Trinity while others seemingly are disgusted that this topic is even being discussed. For those that are angered about the subject of this post/topic they should really ask themselves why they would be? Nothing makes me happier than to talk about the God I love, worship and serve as was noted by my Mormon friend. He wanted to know about Him too. My Mormon friend wisely stated that he couldn’t think of a topic more worthy of his time. It’s unfortunate that our Mormon readers may not share the same conviction.

    Not surprisingly, our Mormon readers want to only talk about the Trinity references above. This post is much more than just a Trinity topic. Many points were made about the God of Christianity other than the Trinity. I hope our Mormon readers will look at those points as well.

    I made no mention of creeds in my post. I know that the creeds and the Trinity are the “knee jerk” responses by the LDS faithful for discrediting historical, orthodox Christianity. Mormons have canned answers on these topics taught to them at the wards, institutes and General Conference, but the LDS “can” is empty once a Mormon looks into it on their own outside of LDS comfort zones.
27. Andy Watson says:

    May 22, 2009 at 4:27 am

    I see that the usual words given by our Mormon friends here of “illogical”, “doesn’t make any sense”, etc., are typical when thinking of the Trinity. Does anyone with a human, fallible mind expect to understand the nature and essence of the Almighty God who is infallible? God says we can’t and that is logical to me (Isaiah 40:13-14; Isaiah 40:18; 28; Isaiah 55:8-9).

    My Mormon friend, like many I have talked to, said to me, “Andy, Mormonism just makes sense.” This is the lure of Mormonism. They rationalize and try to make sense with fallible human understanding all that there is about God. The Mormons have made a “god” that is similar to them: a man who was brought into existence by parents who sexually procreated him, who lived on an earth somewhere, a probable sinner who had to have a savior himself, died, was resurrected, etc. While that may make sense in the Mormon mental “wheelhouse”, that doesn’t find any scriptural support from God’s Word – the Bible. It’s an argument by the Mormons based on scriptural silence and that to me is illogical. It is my observation that if a subject doesn’t make sense to the Mormons mentally then they reject it. However, I find this rejection to be selective rejection. For example, can Mormons explain this to quote to me from Orson Pratt:

    “We were begotten by our Father in Heaven; the person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previously heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds, and as a last resort, we wonder in our minds, how far back the genealogy extends, and how the first world was formed, and the first father was begotten.” (The Seer, p.132)

    Who is the first god and his wife who started this whole thing? Why don’t Mormons worship him instead of the demi-god of this world?
28. Ralph says:

    May 22, 2009 at 4:44 am

    Andy,

    you asked “Why don’t Mormons worship him instead of the demi-god of this world?

    I have answered this in a previous topic and I will answer it again for you. First let me say that this is my opinion, as far as I know it is not LDS doctrine and I have not read anything similar to this idea. So if it does not make sense then blame me.

    We LDS see the word ‘God’ as a title. Our God is Heavenly Father and we commonly refer to Him as Heavenly Father rather than God. In looking at it from this perspective we worship Him because He is the Father of this world/creation and thus He is the only supreme being over all of this world/creation that we live in. It is like our earthly families – you have only one biological father and he is the only one you can call literally father. He is the only male figure that you can identify as literally your father. Even though he has a father and he has a father and so on, you do not acknowledge your great…grandfather from the 10th century as being your father. So that’s it, you have one and only one figure that you can call literally your father, and it is him who you ‘revere’ as the bringer of life to you (as well as your mother but that’s a different story).

    So we acknowledge Heavenly Father as our one and only Father and given Him the title of our God because He is the only supreme being that has created and rules over this world/creation that we live in.
29. Andy Watson says:

    May 22, 2009 at 5:01 am

    I made two requests of my Mormon friend in our discussions. These two requests would help me understand where the LDS members gather their information for doctrine. First, I asked him to show me from the Bible what Joseph Smith said in the “King Follet Discourse” was the “first principle of the gospel” and that is that God is an exalted man. I told him that I desperately needed to see that from the Bible and get that resolved before I could move on. Second, I wanted him to show me the word “Gods” (capital “G”; spelled exactly like that from every verse in Abraham 4) in the Bible. I told him that if he could I would convert to Mormonism. He was never able to show me either one. The LDS concept of their god was not able to be demonstrated from God’s Word. That is problematic and he even consented that point.

    The verses that I listed above for the Trinity are not conclusive by any means. The ones listed show that three distinct persons are named throughout: Father, Son, Holy Ghost. We don’t have “Gods” (capital “G”) in the Bible. We have God – singular. There is only one God. All three persons are called God and yet there is only one God. We are driven to conclude that they are one in essence and nature and are not three gods as Joseph Smith said they were which is unfounded scripturally.

    Yes, Jesus was omniscient during His earthly ministry (John 1:48; 2:24-25). He was also claiming to be omnipresent (Matthew18:19-20; John 3:13 – KJV). The Father, Son & Holy Ghost cannot separate themselves from one another in nature/essence. They share all the same attributes. The Father was in Christ on the cross (2 Cor 5:19; Zechariah 12:10 – note the words: “Me” & “Him”).

    John 17:22-23 is speaking of spiritual union – union with the Father & Son is obtained and kept up only by the Holy Ghost. The Mormons have to demonstrate that the Bible says there are three separate gods, but yet united only in purpose which is their belief.
30. Ralph says:

    May 22, 2009 at 5:06 am

    MichaelP,

    The verses I gave above contradict the descriptions of the Trinity – a couple saying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were/are not omniscient, unless there is a different meaning to that word; and a couple indicating that Jesus was subordinate to Heavenly Father, whereas the description of the Trinity given above, says that they are co-equal. That is why I asked my first question – Does the description of omniscient mean that together they are all knowing but seperately they are not, or that they are seperately all knowing? The answer I got back was that seperately they were all knowing/omniscient. So that is a contradiction if Jesus and the Holy Ghost do not know when the second coming is but Heavenly Father does – this explicitely states that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not omniscient. And if Jesus grew in wisdom and learned obedience while He was on this earth, then again He was learning things indicating that He was not omniscient, at least at one point in time.

    As far as the verses that RickB has been giving, many of them can support the Trinity, the LDS Godhead and Modalism. This brings back the sources that I refered you to that state that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the NT. Neither is the LDS Godhead doctrine fully stated in the NT. But both of our versions of deity are Biblically based. These sources fulfil totally the claim you made against St Crispin when you said “To prove your point you will have to definitively describe what is Biblical, as well as prove that history shows, just as definitively, that the Trinity is non-Biblical.

    You cannot do that, and here is why: defining what is Biblical will take a deep study into the books that make it up, the history of the times in which they were written, and bringing all of that together to discern what it all means.”
31. Andy Watson says:

    May 22, 2009 at 5:28 am

    Hi Ralph,

    You made mention of those Bible verses where the Son said that the Father was “greater” (John 14:28). I would like to share with you my conclusion on this from my personal study.

    The word “greater” is the Greek word MEIZON. This always refers to position. The Father was greater than Jesus in OFFICE – not nature – while Jesus was here on earth. Jesus claimed equality with God in essence in John 5:18 & John 10:30. The Father was also in a greater position by office because Jesus had taken on the form of a servant and came in the likeness of man for the suffering of death (Philippians 2:5-6). Jesus was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Hebrews 2:9). However, Jesus said He was God in John 8:58 in the “I Am” (Exodus 3:14). He was worshipped as God on earth and He never rebuked or rejected those that gave Him that honor. Matter of fact, Jesus said to those during His earthly ministry that they should honor Him (the Son) in the same way that the Father is honored (John 5:23).

    Let’s now look at the next part of this and it’s the word “better” in Hebrews 1:4. This is the Greek word KREISSON. This refers to NATURE. Jesus was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death (meizon – position), but He was better (in nature – God) than the angels. For example, Barack Obama is greater than I am because he is the President of the U.S. because of his office, but he is not better than me in nature because he is a sinner the same as I am (Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12).

    Jesus said in John 17:5, “And now, O Father, glorify thou with me with thine own self with the GLORY which I HAD with thee before the world was.”

    Notice that this is past tense. Think about that…the Son shared in that glory with the Father. Now look at Isaiah 42:8. The Father says that He will not give it to anyone else. Conclusion: the Father & Son are one in essence/nature – God – just as Jesus claimed.

    I hope this helps.
32. falcon says:

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am

    What I see with the hisorical heretics (that the Church fathers battled) and our Mormon friends who post here, is that the conclusion of their arguments has the effect of “lowering” God. Christians seek to keep God at His elevated status. Mormons and the other heretics, by their arguments, pull God down.
    Jesus becomes a created being not “thee” everlasting, almighty God. In the Mormon picture, God is just one of many gods, not greater in status as are those gods who are further along the evolutionary god track. Mormons who prove themselves righteous and qualify to hop on the god escalator will never catch any of the other gods further up the steps, but they will get to keep progressing.
    This is all clearly taught in the Bible, right? Well I keep looking and I can’t find it. Nor can I find any other aspect of Mormonism in the Bible. I won’t offer my list as I have on other occasions.
    “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God. Worship is pure or base as the worshiper entertains high or low thoughts of God.” (“The Knowledge of the Holy”; A.W. Tozer; p.1)
33. Ralph says:

    May 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    Falcon,

    You are correct in saying “This is all clearly taught in the Bible, right? Well I keep looking and I can’t find it.” I have never said that it is. I have said that we can find evidence that point towards our idology of God being 3 persons and that we can become like Him, and this then infers that there was a ‘line’ (for lack of a better word/phrase) before Him. But I have said that most of our ideology about God comes from modern-day revelation. In saying that, I have also shown that others out there in the Christian community as well as outside of it, can show that the doctrine of the Trinity is also not found in the Bible but comes from post-Biblical thought. Yes it was closer to the original apostles time, but it was post-Biblical. Now its up to you how you wish to take this evidence, but to say that you follow the doctrine of God from the Bible is not true as the doctrine in the Bible is very much open to interpretation. So now you can see why we still adhere to our doctrine because you can still adhere to yours despite the evidence given.

    Andy,

    I understand what you are trying to say about them being co-equal, but whether it is in an official capacity or even just a Father-Son relationship as evidenced in the Bible, one has to be sub-ordinate to the other thus making them unequal. Jesus was subject to God’s will, he called God greater than Him. John 5:18 still states that Jesus referred to Himself as The Son 0f God, it was the other’s perception that He was saying that He was equal. John 10:30 brings in the question of John 17:11 …Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. and John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

    John 5:23 can refer to an emmissary of a nation who should be treated with the same respect by the receiving nation as the King whom he represents would be given.
34. Michael P says:

    May 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Ralph,

    No, you have isolated a few verses at the expense of others. One of the difficult parts of the Trinity is to understand that Jesus was fully man and fully God, and by God I mean God, not a separate one.

    You may find this troubling, but I urge you to consider all the other verses provided.

    Jesus saying he is “I am” for instance is a great example. I know you believe this was a reference to Jehovah, who you see as a separate God, but this does not square with Jewish belief. You may suggest they did believe in a council of gods, and thus it fits, but ask any Jew if they believe in a council of gods.

    See, Ralph, a full study of the Bible will show something different than what you suggest.

    But to be fair, this is a difficult concept to understand. Might it be one of faith? Maybe, but if so, then you should understand the role faith plays in coming to a belief. But one difference between yours (following JS) and ours in the Trinity is the rest of the Bible.

    Do you sincerely wish to seek the answer out?
35. shematwater says:

    May 22, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Hello again.

    This whole thread seems to be very rediculous. Ralph has put it nicely. Neither the doctrine of the Trinity nor the Doctrine of Godhead are ever spoken of directly in the Bible. Every verse shown by either side of the argument can just as effectively be used by the other side. The real point is that both can be, and are supported by the Bible texts depending on how you wish to interpret the text. So, one who believes in the trinity will interpret the scriptures to support that belief. One who believes in the Godhead will interpret teh scriptures to support that belief. Neither truly has a stronger base than the other.

    To help clarify the LDS belief and interpretation of verious verses I would like to explain a few things.

    First, the God of the Old Testiment is Christ. He is the God that dealt with the human race after the fall. The Father does not deal directly with people, except to bare testimony of his Son. We see this when Christ was baptized.

    Second, let us get difinitions right. The term god can mean more than one thing. It is a term that refers to any person who has been exhaulted. Thus the Father is a god. At this time Christ is a God, as are Abraham, Isaac, Noah, and Adam. However, God also can be used as a Title, which is how it was used to refer to Christ in the Old Testiment (at this time Christ was still a spirit, so the first definition didn’t apply) and is the term used to refer to the Holy Ghost, as he is still a spirit. It was also used in this way to refer to earthly judges appointed by God.
    The term Lord is a Title, and is generally used to distinguish Christ from the Father, as being lower in authority.
36. shematwater says:

    May 22, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    (continued)

    Thus in Duet 6: 4 when it says the Lord our God in one Lord, it is speaking of Christ (the Lord) and giving him the Title of God, declaring that there is no other Lord.

    Also, in Ephesians 4: 5-6 we see that there is one Lord, but over this one Lord there is one God. Two separate and distinct persons.

    In general, the Old Testiment refers to Christ as Lord and God fairly interchangably, but in respect tot he titles. In the New Testiment is is almost always refered to as the Son of God, or Lord, but rarely as God. He is also given many other titles, such as King, or Judge, or the Lamb, the Good Sheepherd, and so on.

    With this basic understanding of the definitions that I have found in LDS teachings, I hope it will be easier for others to understand how we interpret the Bible.
37. Michael P says:

    May 22, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Shem,

    Trouble is that your idea of god as a title has no Biblical basis. That is a creation of man, I think to try to fit God into a box, something he can understand, and something that equates him to God.

    God is beyond us, though, and as you know, his ways are not ours.

    God is a great and loving God, not one who sits afar and lets his son run things. He is intimately involved in our lives, and when we fail to see that, we fail to see Him.

    I think that is one of the most important things He looks to see from us– that we recognize who He is. When we do that, and then let him into our lives, we see things that are so amazing that are beyond description. His amazing grace is wonderful, and requires just that we see who He truly is.
38. Rick B says:

    May 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Here is some more,
    we read here in Alma, a Mormon Prophet claiming Jesus is the eternal God and their is only One God, not Two or Three or more.

    Alma 11:21-41
    21 “And this Zeezrom began to question Amulek, saying: Will ye answer me a few questions which I shall ask you? Now Zeezrom was a man who was expert in the devices of the devil, that he might destroy that which was good; therefore, he said unto Amulek: Will ye answer the questions which I shall put unto you?”

    22 “And Amulek said unto him: Yea, if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord, which is in me; for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord. And Zeezrom said unto him: Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being.”

    23 “Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?”

    24″Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him.”

    25 “And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me—Behold these six onties, which are of great worth, I will give unto thee—when thou hadst it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great evil thou shalt have thy reward.”

    26 “And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?”

    27 “And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.”

    28 “Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?”

    29 “And he answered, No.”

    30 “Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?”

    31 “And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.”

    32 “And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?”

    33 “And he said unto him, Yea.”

    34 “And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him:
39. Rick B says:

    May 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Cont,
    34 “And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word.”

    35 “Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God.”

    36 “Now Amulek saith again unto him: Behold thou hast lied, for thou sayest that I spake as though I had authority to command God because I said he shall not save his people in their sins.”

    37 “And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.”

    38 “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?”

    39 “And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;”

    40 “And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.”

    41 “Therefore the wicked remain as though there had been no redemption made, except it be the loosing of the bands of death; for behold, the day cometh that all shall rise from the dead and store God, and be judged according to their works.”

    OK, Now I said the LDS Godhead is confusing and not the Trinity. Here are some reasons why this is so. I just gave much LDS scripture on the Trinity. Yet the LDS has made major changes to teach otherwise. Also I gave a discourse in Alma with a Mormon Prophet who is teaching ONE GOD ONLY.
40. Michael P says:

    May 22, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    Shem says this is a ridiculous discussion. Quite the contrary. Ralph admits his stance is not fully supported in the Bible and that his beliefs come from modern day revelation.

    I think these two positions state a lot about the beliefs of Mormons today.

    A discussion over the nature of God and how he presents himself is the most important discussion we can have. Everything we do or believe is based on who God is. There is no room for error if we get that wrong, because no matter what we do if our identification of God is wrong will always end in destruction. All the good works we have done, and all the worshipping and praying we do in our lives will be for naught if we get His identity wrong. So, a discussion such as this is hugely important.

    That the beliefs are not fully supported in the Bible is the second major error, and I think this stems from the first error of identifying God. It is much easier to go outside of the Bible when you view God as non-eternal and equate yourself with Him. But God, in all three person, is eternal, and his word is forever, not to be changed. Part of their belief is that God seemingly has changed direction more than once, ie with Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and so on. But when you look to what God wanted from each is the same, and the rules are the same. God wants us to love Him and know Him, and to do this we must remain clean. Christ makes us white as snow, and always has, but since he had not come to earth as man, God did set up rules to help His people remain clean. Following these acts were to remain clean, not about being worthy for anything.

    And all of that is revealed in the Bible, and nothing else is necessary to get the message. But because Mormons misidentify God, and then wrongly seek to supplant the Bible with a new and “restored” message, they miss the boat.
41. falcon says:

    May 22, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    In this discussion what we have are the Christians taking the part of the Church fathers defending orthodoxy and the Mormons taking the part of the heretics. The farce of the “restored gospel” is that there’s no record of what Mormons now lay claim to as the original Gospel of Jesus Christ. As-a-matter-of-fact, the paper trail is so extensive regarding the process and debate that led to the articulation of the Christian doctrine, that the Joseph Smith doctrine of God can be swept away with little effort. Had the prophet Smith been around in the first four hundred years of the Church, he wouldn’t have even been recognized as a decent heretic.
    From the beginning the broad outline of revealed truth was respected as a sacrosanct inheritance from the apostles. It needs to be recognized that over time the tendency to insist upon precise definition and rigid uniformity assert itself.

    Christianity is a religion of revelation. It claims a supernatural origin. The ultimate source, as perceived by early theologians was the Person, the works and the words of Jesus Christ. When we talk about revelation, Jesus is the climax (of the revelation). In defining the Church doctrine of God, the scriptures, the traditions, the catechism and the sacrements of the Church were all considered. There was a complex of belief and practice, a rule of tradition that went all the way back to Christ.
    So there is a standard, a criteria by which doctrine can be judged. When someone shows up claiming a “new” revelation, it can be tested by this criteria.
    If Mormons want to reject Christian doctrine, particularly that dealing with the nature of God, that’s fine. But please don’t be so ignorant of the facts of history to suggest the original Gospel of Jesus Christ has been lost. Mormonism didn’t exist until the 19th century. It’s not in the Bible. It’s not in the historical record. To suggest a grand conspiracy as an explanation for this is just plain ignorance and might I add, childish.
42. falcon says:

    May 22, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    So who was the ultimate author of the revelation? All of the early theologians pointed to one source and that is God Himself. God is the ultimate author of the revelation. In His time, God committed the revelation to His prophets and to His inspired lawgivers. Above all the apostles were eye-witnesses of Jesus, God’s incarnate Word. These apostles secured the revelation within the Body of Christ, the Church. So when the question is asked, “Where can we find the authentic faith?” the early fathers could say without question, “It is contained in the continuous tradition of teaching in the Church but most of all in the Scriptures.”
    By tradition is meant the doctrine that the apostles or Christ Himself committed to the Church. Athanasius referred to “the actual original tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord bestowed, the apostles proclaimed and the fathers safeguarded.” When the gnostics claimed to have “secret information” the Church fathers responded that their wasn’t any secret, unknown knowledge regarding the doctrinal truth.
    Clement wrote, “The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jeus Christ….Armed therefore with their charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full conviction of the Holy Spirit, they went forth with the glad tidings.” For Tertullian what was believed and preached in the churches was absolutely authoriatative. The revelation had been received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. Irenaeus believed that the Church preserved the tradition inherited from the apostles and this was passed on to her children. Again the Gnostics claimed “secret” tradition. The tradition of the church, by contrast was public and open. It had been entrusted by the apostles to their successors. It was then given to those who followed and was visible in the Church, as it is today, for anyone who cares to look.
43. falcon says:

    May 22, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    So, the revelation was given once and for all. There is no changing tide of revelation concerning the doctrines of the faith. The burden of proof is on those who claim new revelation. And what is this proof? It’s a flim flam type of con game that claims a “feeling” as confirmation of the truth. It has the effect, of course, of a person feeling super spiritual and magnificiently superior to all who have not received or believe in this confirming feeling. In the absence of verifiable evidence, the notion of a confirming feeling from God is a cult leaders dream. So the confident “knowing” based on a personal revelation needs no evidnence. The power of suggestion in the process captures the naive in the fantasy.
    Why go through all of the hard work of actually thinking about and digging through the historical record when all a person has to do is score an emotion?
    This is written for you questioners. Your suspicions are right. You need to act on them. That’s a “feeling” you should probably not ignore.
44. Ralph says:

    May 23, 2009 at 7:35 am

    Andy (cont’d),

    I tried posting this last night but I had gone over my 6 already.

    The references to Jesus being ‘I AM” I cannot answer at this time as I do not fully understand what the LDS church teaches about this.

    Hebrews 1:4 says nothing about Jesus being equal with Heavenly Father, it just states (and the rest of the chapter) that Jesus was given more over the angels as He was The Son of God. But still it refers to Jesus sitting on the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3) and being chosen to be called The Son – this still implies that Jesus is subordinate to God, not co-equal – but He was more powerful than anyone else in heaven as He was ‘the next in line’ so to speak because He was the right-hand-man. Also if Jesus was ‘chosen’ out of the angels, does this not infer that He is also not “co-eternal” with The Father? Note ‘infer’ not ‘prove’.

    John 17:5 shows that Jesus had glory before He came to earth – but the way its stated He lost it when He came. But then if we go to John 17:22 we read And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. This indicates that we can and will receive this glory as well and be one with Heavenly Father as Jesus is. Does this mean that we will become part of the Trinity? These verses actually point more to the LDS ideology don’t you think?

    The Isaiah verse is only pointing out that we should only glorify/praise the Lord, not other idols. It has nothing to do with The Father not giving it to anyone else – especially if you cross reference this with John 17:22. In fact in Romans 8:17 we are joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, meaning that we will receive any glory, authority, power, etc that Jesus receives from The Father.

    Finally if Jesus has a physical body how can He be omnipresent? That is the same question you have about our ideology of Heavenly Father. If Jesus cannot be omnipresent does that exclude Him from being part of the Trinity and a God?
45. Ralph says:

    May 23, 2009 at 7:44 am

    MichaelP,

    Could you please do a full quote next time as I said that both the LDS Godhead and the Traditional Christian Trinity are not fully supported by the Bible and I gave the evidence and references to back-up the latter. This evidence is from proper sources and a couple of them are from Christian sources. The way you paraphrased me sounded like I was only talking about the LDS Godhead.

    As far as when you said I had isolated a few verses at teh expense of others – I was replying to Andy’s list of verses. So it was his isolation of verses not mine.
46. Rick B says:

    May 23, 2009 at 9:56 am

    I gave much scripture from the Bible, Book of Isaiah Where God said their are no other Gods. Now we read in D and C 1:14 “And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people.”

    Are you listing to the Lord, The apostles, and the Prophets? I showed you what they said and teach. But lets add some more confusing LDS scripture. Read Pearl of Great Price, book of Moses 1:6b “But their is no God beside me, and all things are present with me.” Even the pearl teaches no Gods besides God alone.

    But then to add even more confusion we read in the book of Abraham chapter 4,”God says, Him and the other Gods that he sat in counsel with created the earth. So Did God and the prophet Alma lie when they said their are no other Gods? One Last confusing Tidbit. I own the oringal Doctrine and Covenants with the oringal Lectures of Faith included. They teach that the Holy Spirit is the Mind of God, not a God. So even though LDS no longer hold the lectures as Doctrine, It was taught by the (Prophet) Joseph Smith, And he taught the Holy Spirit is the Mind of God. Which is it? Was JS wrong? If so what else could he be wrong about. Rick B
47. Michael P says:

    May 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Ralph,

    Have you seen the list given? I still say you are isolating verses, and ignoring others, like I know of no other gods before me, etc.

    I know what you are talking about with reference to both sides. It doesn’t change my position.

    What I am suggesting is you take the whole thing, not just the parts you like, and figure it all out.
48. falcon says:

    May 23, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    I was reading in a text a section that talked about how the early Church fathers dealt with the heretics. It reminded me of the on-going conversation we are having here between those of us who believe in the orthodox doctrines of the Church and those who embrace “new revelation”.

    “Not surprisingly, many students have deduced that Tertullian made tradition (i.e. the Church’s unwritten teaching as declared in the regula) a more ultimate norm than the Bible. His true position, however, was rather subtler and approximated closely to that of Irenaeus. He was certainly profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field. He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indeispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape. But these ideas, expounded in his De praescriptione, were not intended to imply that Scripture was in any way subordinate in authority or insufficient in content. His major premiss remained that of Irenaeus, viz. that the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness….it was inconceivable that the churches could have made any mistake in transmitting the pure apostolic doctrine.”
49. Ralph says:

    May 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    MichaelP,

    I have ‘taken the whole thing’ into account as I have shown by looking at others’ opinions about the Trinity – some from Christian sources. I have asked about a few quotes from Jesus, Himself, that show that He does not know as much as Heavenly Father and that He learned to be obedient – indicating that He is not omniscient, that Heavenly Father is greater than Jesus and that Jesus is subordinate to God – indicating that they are not co-equal, and I have used your logic with the fact that Jesus has a physical body and thus cannot be omnipresent. These directly conflict with the above description of the Trinity and so far the only explanation I have been given is that I have taken a few verses from here and there and not considered the whole. No one has tried, except for Andy about Jesus being subordinate to Heavenly Father, to explain how these verses and Christian logic fit into the whole. Like I said, these verses are from Jesus Himself so I think I will take these as more official than someone else’s writings especially is they are not from the scriptures.

    As far as the “I know of no other gods before me” argument – we have answered that one many times, you either just do not want to accept or understand the answer.

    I don’t care if what I say does not change your mind. Arguing never does, neither does an anonymous discussion like this. The only thing that can change someone’s mind is a conversation that is lead by the Spirit – as it is the Spirit that converts, not people. You make up your mind what and in whom you wish to believe and I will believe in what God has confirmed to me to believe in.
50. falcon says:

    May 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    (cont)
    I thought the point regarding heretics that says “The skill and success with which they twisted its (Scripture) plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion….” is as true today as it was in the early centuries of the Church. One thing I’ve learned in my time here on Mormon Coffee, Mormons are among the worst students of the Bible (exegesis) I’ve come across. The major error they make is their inability to apply any sort of systematic approach to getting at the meaning of the Biblical text. This isn’t surprising since heretical groups thrive on “throw something up on the wall and see what sticks” approach to Biblical interpretation. Mormons are so emotionally invested in their testimony that it must be protected at all costs. That includes running away physically and intellectually if they start feeling uncomfortable. The other technique is to try and find something, anything from any where that can be forced to support their heretical point-of-view.
    For example, the idea of a great apostasy in the early Church whereby the truth of the Gospel was lost, is an unsustainable position based on the historical record. Another, that Councils like Nicea created the doctrines is ignorance beyond measure. But Mormons aren’t going to bother getting at the facts because the facts are too uncomfortable and will flip their testimony which will flip their world. Ignorance, for the Mormon, is indeed bliss.