On MRM’s February, 2013 trip to Turkey we stopped in Iznik – ancient Nicaea. Standing near the very spot where (it is believed) the Council of Nicaea was held in 325 AD, Pastor Cory Anderson (Shadow Mountain Church, West Jordan, Utah) explained the historical context of the Council and the importance of the Trinitarian doctrine it affirmed.
Pastor Anderson’s teaching in Nicaea (Iznik) is presented in the following 21-minute video. Because of wind and technical issues, the quality is not always the best, but the quality of the teaching is well worth the cost of putting up with the video’s mildly annoying imperfections.
Please watch the full video before joining the conversation on this thread.
Not to be trusted. Obviously, since you plagiarized those 50 or so sentences without understanding what you plagiarized.
How are you FOF,
you say,
I challenge anybody to show me how John 17 does not contradict the trinity.
I say,
I’m confused.
The doctrine of the Trinity is simply short hand for three plain Biblical truths.
1) There is one God
2) The Father, The Son and the Spirit are each fully God
3) The Father, The Son and the Spirit are not not the same person
Which of these truths does your interpretation of John 17 contradict?
peace
Old Man,
Wade Cox using dated historical material to discredit the Trinity is nothing new. This is what many Mormon “apologists” do. In fact from your link we read,
Of course FOF wouldn’t know this, because he simply plagiarized his response, because he apparently is too lazy or scared to actually research this for himself. As to Ignatius (30 A.D. – 110 A.D.), he taught,
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord. (Ignatius to the Ephesians
Ignatius was already battling the Gnostics, who taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh. He thoroughly understood that Jesus was God incarnate, (both made and not made), or begotten and unbegotten as the Nicaean Creed expresses.
Old Man-
You will notice that I never referred to any “lost century.” Please don’t put words in my mouth.
And what constitutes a “true historian?” How do you distinguish between Jesse Hurlbut and the Presbyterian publishing house that published “The Ante-Nicene Fathers?” I really want to know.
As far as the fathers you refer to, let’s look at a few more quotations from them.
Clement: “By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” For it is thus written, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.” And again He saith to Him, “Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
Mathetes (taught by the apostles): “As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him..”
Polycarp: “But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead.”
Ignatius said of the various false teachings: “For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.”
Justin: “..Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.”
and
“The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”
and
“Then I replied, “Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, — numerically, I mean, not in will.”
Irenaeus: “Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this (text following) does declare the same truth: “Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.” For the Spirit designates both (of them) by the name, of God —both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father. And again: “God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.” He (here) refers to the Father and the Son.”
Hippolytus: “Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. Ye see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him.”
So first we have run from the scriptures to defend the Trinity. And now you are running from these statements from the early church fathers.
grindael- you are not one to talk about other’s inability to understand quotations or text. Almost every single quotation you post is followed by an incorrect summary or interpretation from you. I think you would rather sling mud than engage actual text.
And do you know the definition of plagiarism? I suggest you look it up.
Again- now you are running from the text of the writings of the church fathers. Anything but deal with the actual words that are uttered or written- whether in the scriptures or from the fathers.
And yes- there was quite the silence after the apostles. Yes- you can name a limited few people who wrote letters in the several decades after the apostles. But given the challenges facing the church, its growth, and all that happened in those decades, I agree with many others that the period is not represented well in the documentary record. The First Letter of Clement is either the second earliest or itself the earliest post-apostolic document from the early church. And it dates to about 95 C.E. Maybe the Didache dates earlier. Outside those two, there are really not any other documents from this period- the decades which were essentially silent.
By the way, The Didache refers to Christ as the Fathers “Servant-Son.” There is nothing resembling the trinity doctrine in this document.
The bottom line is that the earlier you go back in church history, the less and less you find anything resembling the trinity doctrine. And that is why the Nicean Council and the decades immediately preceding it were so pivotal. That period really punctuated the apostasy even further.
You say,
Unless you can explain how multiple human beings can somehow take upon them a relationship as the Trinity doctrine maintains exists between the Father and Son, it is a lost argument.
I say,
Do you actually believe that Jesus is praying that we humans will have exactly the same relationship among ourselves as Jesus has with the Father?
For example do you honestly believe he asking that we beget each other like The Father begets the Son?
Peace
FoF said
So FoF are you a hypocrite? Or can you mention other things and not be asked about them?
So said
FOF,
What about the quotes you give contradicts the Trinity?
All Christians believe that the Son is sent by the Father and that he is subservient to the Father in the Incarnation? You are attacking a straw man here. You might want to do some research about the actual doctrine
Peace
fifth monarchy man,
I am well, thank you. And you?
I do not think that is a fair representation of the Trinity- your 3 points, that is. Because I could agree in doctrine with those three points. But I certainly do not believe the Trinity doctrine in that I believe Jesus Christ was truly, literally, the Son of Almighty God. I believe they are separate persons (as you listed). I believe they are individuals- not of the same substance as the Trinity dictates. Their ‘oneness’ is a characteristic of their loyalty, will, morality, intelligence, mercy, etc. This ‘oneness’ can also be said of some marriages- husband and wife are ‘one.’ But that is not what the Trinity doctrine is talking about. The trinity is very similar to the worship of Mithra in the Roman Empire- a sort of three in one hybrid entity. I mean no disrespect. But while both you and I can read those three statements that you listed and agree, we definitely disagree on what their ‘oneness’ really is.
John 17 uses the word ‘one’ in a way that can describe multiple people being “one.” Not the Trinity. According to Christ, human beings can be “one” in the same way Christ and the Father are “one.” And that contradicts the Trinity doctrine.
Oh, is it just me or do none of the quotes you just listed prove your point, FoF? I am not sure you get what the Trinity is.
FoF writes, “I challenge anybody to show me how John 17 does not contradict the trinity.”
This would be the part, I think, where I point to my preceding comment, where I addressed precisely that issue.
As for FoF’s treatment of the ante-Nicene Fathers, it’s exceptionally clumsy, to say the least. Note that the only historian he quoted (Jesse Hurlbut) was a man who died in 1930! I also defy FoF to enlighten us with more on this “trinity in Mithraism” he’s taken to babbling about now. Having some slight familiarity with the actual modern scholarship on Roman Mithraism myself, the entertainment value could at least be worthwhile.
At any rate, certainly the ante-Nicene Fathers stumbled a bit here and there as they attempted the intensely difficult task of conceptual translation and recontextualization – a labor that the LDS Church has never had the guts to really undertake, preferring more imperialist and colonialist approaches of exporting their pre-packaged ideology and parasitically relying on the previous accomplishments of genuine Christian missionaries. But what was produced at the Council of Nicaea, and by the next several ecumenical councils, was indeed a faithful conceptual translation of the New Testament teaching, transferred from a Second Temple Jewish intellectual context into a more purely Hellenic intellectual context in deeper dialogue with then-contemporary philosophical terminology. (Compare to similar conceptual translation efforts as undertaken by Indian Christian theologian Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya, drawing on the twin philosophical backgrounds of Thomism and Advaitavedanta to express Trinitarian theology in an Indian philosophical setting.) As one New Testament scholar (a living one, this time, not someone nearly a century out of date) rightly notes, it was Nicene theology rather than its alternatives that “expresses the christological monotheism of the New Testament” (Jesus and the God of Israel, page 59).
LOL FOF, here is what it is defined as (per wiki)
And here is another page that you plagiarized for your response, written by Bob Theil, (a believer in Armstrongism, as is Cox) where you got all your info from. And his credentials for all this? According to this bio by him, Thiel possesses a fully accredited Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Nutrition Science from the Union Institute and University, a Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine/Doctorate in Natural Health from First National University of Naturopathy (of the United States School of Naturopathy) the nation’s oldest and only federally-chartered naturopathic university), a Naturopathic Diploma from the International College of Naturopathy (a California State approved institution), an M.S. from the University of Southern California, and four other degrees.
Plagiarism is EXACTLY what you did. And my quotes are accurate, my COMMENTARY is my COMMENTARY, but BACKED UP by the quotes, which you of course disagree with because you don’t understand them, never having read them yourself in context. You would rather be dishonest and plagiarize. In fact you did it again, with this quote,
Where does that come from, FOF? Plagiarized from here. The ellipses give you away. It was taken from this translation, but you have failed to give the whole CONTEXT of what Justin wrote. If you read further he states,
I of course, gave this reference above (using another translation) but it says the same thing: “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” How is he GOD? Justin answers (same translation team) from Dialogue with Trypho (which comes later in the discourse from your cherry picked quote:
Clearly Justin teaches that Christ is OF the SAME SUBSTANCE as the Father. You can try to cherry pick all you want, but you can’t change the CONTEXT of what Martyr says. You just want to take out sentences and spin them. No one here is “running” from the scriptures. I quoted them. No one is “running” from the ECF’s. Don’t need to. But what we are not doing is trying to DECEIVE people, as you are with your out of context quotes and mistranslated Greek and plagiarisms.
This is simply naive. There are simply not enough extant writings from many of the very early ECF’s to prove this either way. For example Polycarp. Was he writing to the Church to DEFINE GOD in the extant letters we have? No. If he was, they would have been quite different. But he did write about the Gnostic problem, Jesus coming in the flesh. Later, more and more heretics tried to REDEFINE GOD, therefore we have more apologia in that regard. But there are links to the past, Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, and affirms that the doctrine he taught (the Trinity) was of impeccable linage.
Irenaeus ABSOLUTELY taught the TRINITY DOCTRINE. You obviously are trying to prove a point that you haven’t studied, or know anything about. Your deceptive tactics in plagiarizing anti-Trinitarians proves this.
I’ve been out of town for a couple of days so I haven’t had a chance to post but what I’m seeing here is no evidence presented by the Mormon posters that what the LDS church SLC version in 2014 is what the first century church believed about Jesus.
What we do know is that this current version of Mormonism teaches that there are many gods ruling their own private solar systems and popping out spirit offspring with their plural wives. We also know that one of Mormonisms great prophets, Brigham Young, taught that Adam was God and that this Mormon god had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary thus conceiving Jesus. This was Mormon doctrine mid-nineteenth century version. We also know that Joseph Smith’s version of god, about the fourth go at it, was the Egyptian fertility god Min who Smith depicted sitting on a throne exposing himself.
And these Mormons have a problem with the doctrine of the Trinity which goes back to the first century and is supported by Scripture?
Weird, I’d say. But that’s what cults do to the thinking processes of those who embrace their teachings.
FofF
I have to reply to both of your posts in the one letter so I hope because of it’s length I don’t get held up in mod jail for too long.
You said
“I never said that Luther did not believe in the trinity doctrine. He was referring to the term and its invention. But along with the invention of the term, the doctrine changed significantly over time in the early church.”
I’m aware of what you said I read it twice, I’m also aware of why you said it. You knew Luther was a Trinitarian but by using a partial quote out of context you hoped to throw doubt on the doctrine & that my friend is deception.
“Do you have any response to the other 50 or so sentences in my post? Or am I simply not to be trusted, therefore in no need of engagement or response? If so, that is very convenient”
I have posted another response concerning the deceptive way you quoted from Hurlbuts book but as for the rest of your post I believe that Grindael has adequately answered it & no further comment is needed from me. I think it’s a little hypocritical of you to demand answers to your post when RickB & I are still waiting for answers to the many questions we asked you on other topics?
IN your next post you said
“You will notice that I never referred to any “lost century.” Please don’t put words in my mouth.”
I never said you did, I was quoting a critics view of the book that were using in your argument. Don’t you think that people should have a balanced view?
Now, I really don’t have time to reply in detail to your references but all of the men you mention happened to be Trinitarians. None of the quotes you gave deny the Trinity & I’ll give you a couple of examples at random.
Ignatius said “The source of your unity and election is genuine suffering which you undergo by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our God….. There is only one physician-of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnate……”
In case you’re wondering, that’s the doctrine of the Trinity
Eventually you move on to quote Hippolytus who said:
“Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died.”
Hippolytus was NOT talking about the doctrine of the Trinity he was exposing a Heresy against it! NO Christian believes anything remotely like that. Using such quotes only betrays your lack knowledge & understanding of the doctrine.
Want to know what your problem is FofF you try to place God on a human level, Joe Smith reduced the one God to nothing more than an exalted man, one of an infinite number & you view the Trinity with the same mindset. Give it up man, the nature of God cannot even be imagined by the likes of you & me. Sometimes we just have to accept what we read from Gods word without trying to make it fit our oh so logical worldview. I’ll quote from Luther one last time.
“This word (Trinity) signifies that there are three persons in God. It is a heavenly mystery which the world CANNOT UNDERSTAND. I have often told you that this, as well as every other article of faith, must NOT be based upon REASON or comparison, but must be understood and established by means of passages from the Scriptures, for God has the ONLY perfect knowledge and knows how to speak concerning himself.”
You said
“By the way, The Didache refers to Christ as the Fathers “Servant-Son.” There is nothing resembling the trinity doctrine in this document.”
Christ took on the form of a man; He humbled himself & was known as a servant. (Isaiah 53) That state was temporary & for a definite purpose outside the scope of this topic. Read Philippians 2:8 Once again you show no understanding of the doctrine if you imagine that ‘servant-son’ invalidates it.
Incidentally, You mentioned Clement earlier in your post so let me tell you that in the Didache there are two letters from him where he mentions the Trinitarian formula. (Matthew 28:19)
There is one further point I would like to make, nothing to do with your post but everything to do with the Trinity. I do not say this to belittle you but greater men than you, far more learned men than you, have over many centuries tried & failed to do what you are now attempting to do so the question you & all apologists should really be asking is why did they all fail?
The answer is quite simple they failed because to deny the Trinity is to deny Scripture itself.
FOF says,
I could agree in doctrine with those three points. But I certainly do not believe the Trinity doctrine
I say,
This is exactly why the council was necessary. Dispute your claim it is obvious that you do not believe in the first of the three truths “there is only one God.”
Out of one side of your mouth you claim to believe in one God but any objective observer would recognize that in order to affirm that statement you must twist language beyond all recognition. That is why the Bishops needed to be very specific.
You say,
I believe they are individuals- not of the same substance as the Trinity dictates
I say,
Here is where your denial of this plain truth of scripture becomes apparent. Two substances can not be one God simply because Divine substance is not divisible?
quote:
Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.
end quote:
My wife and I share the same “human” substance so in a derivative sense we can be “one” however because human substance in not like divine substance it would be nonsensical for me to say…….
“To you it was shown, that you might know that the Fifth Monarchy Man is man; there is no other besides him.”
To speak in such a way would be to ignore my wife and billions of other humans. You would be justified in questioning my sanity.
On the other hand THE LORD (Jehovah Yahweh) can justifiably claim to be the only God and does so often in the pages of Scripture.
You say,
Their ‘oneness’ is a characteristic of their loyalty, will, morality, intelligence, mercy, etc. This ‘oneness’ can also be said of some marriages- husband and wife are ‘one.’
I say,
I’m sorry but you will never find a married couple who claims to “one” like Jehovah God claims to be “one” and the only God repeatedly in scripture. Because when it comes to human spouses such a claim would be nonsensical.
You say,
The trinity is very similar to the worship of Mithra in the Roman Empire- a sort of three in one hybrid entity.
I say,
Actually Ahura Mazda, Mithra and Apam Napat, and known as the “Ahuric triad”. A Triad has much more in common with the Mormon concept of godhead than the Christian Trinity.
You say,
But while both you and I can read those three statements that you listed and agree, we definitely disagree on what their ‘oneness’ really is.
I say
Actually you just twist language in a Clintonesque attempt to deny what God has plainly declared about himself in scripture.
quote:
I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
(Isaiah 45:5)
end quote:
peace
You know, I’m really disappointed in FOF. A few days ago he pledged himself to not examine the doctrine of the Trinity and the work of the CoN through the magic lenses of Mormonism. But what do we have? We have the same old Mormon song and dance. This is very disappointing.
grindael, as well as other posters, (many former LDS) have buried FOF and his twin clyde, in evidence regarding this most fundamental of all Christian doctrines. I’m beginning to think, as rick has pointed out many times, that FOF isn’t all that honest. There’s something within the spiritual DNA of these LDS members, that won’t allow them to be truthful, honest and straight forward.
You former Mormons help me out here. In your experience is this FOF/clyde approach typical of the average LDS member?
Here’s the thing we know however. There is a steady stream of LDS members flowing out of the “one true church”. It’s to such a degree that alarm bells are sounding in LDS HQ in SLC.
I’d say that’s good news!
Here you go, FOF. This details all the reasons why John 17 doesn’t work as an Anti-Trinity proof text. Saves me the trouble. Try reading it. The Trinity is NOT borrowed from the pagans.
NO. Only the insecure ones who can’t stand to have their “faithful history” narrative criticized.
grindael,
Now be realistic. How can FOF take you or any other former Mormon seriously when you are all sons of perdition destined to spend eternity in Mormon hell, outer darkness?
I hate to break it to you, but they see you folks in a worst light than the rest of us Christians. They won’t listen to you because you once had a testimony, were led astray and because you were over come by darkness, walked away from the “one true church”.
Think of all you gave up?
Not only did you give up the priesthood, eternal marriage and the bond of an eternal family, but you my friend, will not become a god.
Stop and think how totally diluted someone would have to be to think like our buddy FOF.
The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, discussed at length his former religious life. He said that what he lost was all rubbish compared to knowing the Lord Jesus Christ. Our discussion here on this post is really getting at who Jesus is. LDS believers like FOF give up Jesus……well they’ve never really known Him, for false promises and false hope.
You, and the other former Mormons, have the advantage of being able to compare your former life in Mormonism with your new status as a disciple of Jesus. FOF doesn’t know who Our Lord is and because of that is destined to repeat empty religious rituals invented by false prophets.
FoF,
I have no idea how any of your early church father quotes contradict the trinity or john 17. This is the thing, that nature of God the Father as quoted in scripture and by the early church fathers in not reconcilable with the LDS view of God the Father. The LDS view also contradicts the quotes that state that the Son and the Holy Spirit have always been with the Father as God. Your desire to believe them to be nothing more than “one in purpose,” is just that, a desire.
Jaxi,
The point exactly!
Can we find Mormonism any where in the writings of the Church Fathers? Nope! Even the heretics would have laughed at the Mormon false prophets.
The Mormon doctrine regarding the nature of God was a work in progress, not because of continuous revelation, but because these Mormon dudes would get blown this way and that by any thought that happened into their cranium. The only people who would accept their nonsense would be people for whom anything that tickles their ears appears profound and loaded with truth.
This is truly a case of the blind leading the blind.
Its pure conjecture on their restored gospel. There is nothing to support it. All they can do is throw doubt on our story and hope theirs is true. However, a true understanding of our beliefs changes their attempts to bring doubt into our story. They do this by suggesting the Trinity was not a part of the original church, but they misunderstand precisely what the Trinity is.
MJP,
Let’s try this. There is one United States Government with three co-equal branches; the legislative, judiciary and the executive.
These branches are distinctive but part of the One. There are distinct functions and characteristics but they are One.
Why is it that the Community of Christ is basically trinitarian in their view of God, the FLDS is basically Brigham Young followers of Adam-God, and the LDS are (?) who knows…..some hybrid of a goofy strain of thought of any number of Mormon leaders.
Here’s something the lurkers will find interesting. Seems to me that there is a whole lot of apostasy going on in Mormon circles.
http://blog.mrm.org/2012/04/a-mormon-denominational-walkabout/
Falcon,
Not sure what you are looking for in trying this. True, the US three branches of government make up one government, but they are all separate entities nonetheless.
The Trinity suggests a unity that surpasses the three branches of government do not possess. Take away the courts, and the government can run. Take away the prez, the government can run via a bicameral system. The prez just the same can make all the laws that the legislatures make. The Trinity cannot exist without its three parts without destroying the very nature of God.
FoF used quote by a Mr Hurlbut in an attempt to try and subtly introduce the Mormon
false notion that a of a total /universal apostasy from of the church established by
Jesus through His apostles 2000 years ago and from the gospel of salvation that
those apostles preached .
There was a line in that quote that is interesting however , because according to Mr
Hurlbut soon after the death of the apostles in the first century this happened :
” …we find a church in many respects very different from that in the days of St Peter
and St. Paul.”
That’s a good way to explain Mormonism , i.e. after the deaths of Jesus’ apostles ( 1700
years in the case of Mormonism ) , we find a church in many ways very different from
that in the days of Peter and Paul , despite the claim by Mormon leaders that their
church is the very same church of Jesus , in the exactly the same form as it existed
in the first century . Bottom line : the Mormon church is not Jesus’ church restored.
he said : ” Remove the names , and there is not much difference between the trinity
in Mithraism and the trinity of apostate christianity .”
We can also change names to see where Mormon leaders got the idea for their
virgin birth doctrine . Did’nt the god Zeus come down and have nooky with a mortal
woman , to produce the child Hercules ? Sure sounds a lot like how the Mormon God
Elohim getting together with the mortal woman Mary to produce a body for Jesus .
Right ?
he said , ” The Catholic church itself admits that the trinity doctrine is not to be
found in the Bible , but was a doctrine revealed after the closing of the canon .”
Does the Catholic church actually believe that the Bible does’nt not contain testimony
for assemblying the doctrine of the Trinity ? While it’s true that they will say that the
formal dogma was not presented until later , to say that the Bible does not contain
the truths about God that reveal the Trinity is another thing altogether, and it’s not
really accurate , in my opinion .
Fof F trots out the ” Comma Johanneum ” ( 1Jn 5:7-8 ) in an effort to bolster his attack
on the Trinity . I really don’t understand how this strengthens his case . What do the
earliest N.T. manuscripts read in 1 John 5 ? That would be one answer to a much later
copy which might contain a copyist error of any kind . This is really more of how FoF
likes to use a red herring tactic .
Here’s a question on 1 Jn 5: 7-8 . Setting aside the Trinity for a moment , what about
saying this to a class that they should remember what was said in the New Testament
times by the apostle John ….. and then I read verses 7-8 to them .
What’s wrong with saying that ? Am I doing the right thing ?
FofF , care to answer these questions ?
he said , ” the earlier statements from the fathers did not believe in the trinity as you
guys do .”
First off , they did’nt have to believe in anything other that what the scriptures revealed
about God to be in the truth . We have to be reminded that these men were not inspired
as apostles had been , and they struggled at times trying to describe how the Father ,
Son and Holy Spirit could fit in to the one true God and yet there still be only one God ,
not three Gods . They got deep and may have been talking past each other in doing so ,
but they wanted the truth to not be misunderstood about God . The church was
spreading out fast and was attracting attention from individuals who questioned
their beliefs , this only got more intense as years went by . It was not easy to meet this
challenge . The earlier creeds reflect a change in how a statement of faith was written .
Creeds before Nicea reflect a simpler description of the fundamental doctrines . The
apostles creed, for example was’nt as explicit as the Nicean creed , and that was because
it did’nt need to be at that time . But new attacks , new arguments , from those on the
outside , and some in the Christian community , demanded statements of faith to
clearly distinguish true beliefs from aberrant ones . By the time we get to Nicea the
creed was very descriptive . What was learned thru the past two centuries of defending
the faith was that one has to be not only clear enough to be understood , but must be
so clear that you won’t be misunderstood .
I think that your question then is missing the point because of the way you asked it .
The main thing to remember about the struggle by early believers who had to delve
into the scriptures and flesh out what it says about God in order to defend the truth
against multiple attackers , is that they were determined not to drift away from the
fact that there is only One God . That’s where I start with these men and with the
creeds they created . The term ” creed” is latin for ” I/we believe ” . That’s what
the early church confessed in their creeds .
Contrast that with what a latter day prophet had printed in his church’s paper :
” We believe in three Gods …” [ Times and Seasons 9-15-1842 , p 926 ]
The christian Godhead /Trinity is one God . It should be a red flag to those concerned
about being loyal to the Bible to steer clear of prophets /apostles whose creed is
” We believe in three Gods “
A couple fun facts regarding 1 John 5:7-8. First of all, Joseph Smith did not omit it from the JST; rather, he retained it in his ‘Inspired Version’. Second, because of its inclusion in the JST, some Mormon writers advocate for the inspiration of that passage (see Richard R. Hopkins in Biblical Mormonism and Dwight Monson in Shared Beliefs, Honest Differences; though the former takes a totally different approach in his later work). Third, oh, hey, look at what the Ensign printed in March 2008, and look at what’s first in the “From the Bible” column. Enjoy that, FoF. Also, it should be noted that the text probably did not originate from some desire to alter the Bible in order to support the Trinity; it was probably just a marginal gloss by a scribe that got accidentally introduced into the main text in one textual tradition (probably that of Spanish Latin manuscripts), and got popularity in English versions of the Bible thanks to the KJV’s use of later editions of Erasmus’ critical Greek text.
So let me ask again, where are you fof?
Did you run away?
Me and the oldman are waiting.
Plenty has been shared with you.
Clyde, can you reply to the topic and questions, or can you only complain that were asking where the mormons are?
You guys are always complaing we are wrong and don’t understand mormonism, yet you guys never correct us, run from honest questions, and some never even reply to topics at hand, just complain.
Hey MJP,
Here is a link from Pastor Wes Bently. This pastor runs the far reaching Ministrys and works with the Men in Sudan.
In this video he is talking about the Book Of Daniel and what Mens role in Society are. I love this video and Guy. His way of thinking and acting is also mine. This is something all the men on this site should watch. Do what you want with this, but I figure it fits what we were talking about before with men not being men, or people being PC. I’m posting it here becasue no matter what man here thinks, it is Gods word and it really needs to be heard.
If the link does not work, just cut and paste it.
http://streaming.ccphilly.org/video.aspx?id=G584
Thanks Rick. Good stuff. For what it is worth, I am starting up a small group in my church on the book “Stepping Up”. http://mensteppingup.com/
Men being men and proper examples is actually a big deal to me.
If you watched the video then let me know what you thought.
I had to Laugh when Pastor wes was talking about “Man Purses” and saying those two words should never be put togther.
rick,
Ah Nuts! I didn’t watch the video but I have two Man Purses. I had a guy stop me in the parking lot of a grocery store and ask me where I got my “bag”. Actually I got both of mine at Fossil at the Mall of America. I also have a Fossil messenger bag. I’m a confident guy!
Funny story, but true. My brother-in-law carried a Man Purse years ago. He was in a store walking along minding his own business when a man and a woman approached him and the woman asked him, “Why are you carrying that bag? Are you gay?” My brother-in-law looks at the woman and said, “Why, is your husband interested?” Almost caused a riot.
Funny, Falcon. I’m working away at the video. I rarely have an hour to sit and watch anything these days. So far it is quite good. He’s an impressive fellow– threatening to take on a couple Soviet military officers and their brutish bus driver and the time he spent abroad is significant doing what he has been doing.
It is important men stand up though. Far too many run away from any sort of real challenge.
Grindael,
Please read my posts. I never used John 17:3 in my argument (although it certainly leans toward my side). The passages I quoted specifically were those wherein Christ pleads with the Father that the apostles would be ‘one’ as the Father and Christ are ‘one.’ The article for which you provided a link did nothing to answer the question I raised. Try again, please.
To those who have said that none of the statements I quoted from the church fathers clearly spells out the Godhead as I claim. Well, the very same is clear in the other direction- none of them are clearly describing what the Council of Nicea articulated and decided. I get that you can read your interpretation into those statements, as I can. But the fathers, by a large margin, believed the following:
1. The Father was greater than the Son.
2. Christ was the Son of the True God. (Even Christ called the Father the “True God.”)
3. Christ was “second” behind the Father.
4. The Father and Son were distinct before Christ’s life on earth. They were separate, numerically, not just in will, as Justin stated. Christ was “second” even when He spoke to Moses on Sinai.
5. Christ was the “servant-Son” of the Father.
6. The Father “annointed” Christ before the world.
Now, of course you will insist that none of these things contradict your view of the trinity doctrine. So, I would ask you to define that doctrine- the trinity- so that I am not accused of misrepresenting your belief. Specifically, what does it mean that the Father and Son are of the same “substance?” And what does it mean to be one “being?”
How can they both be “equally God” if the Father is Greater than the Son? What does “equally God” mean? Also, what does it mean to be “uncreated, but begotten?”
It is quite difficult to review these statements and understand how vehemently our critics insist that our belief regarding the Godhead is heretical. I suggest that the statements from the post-apostle fathers are more in line with our doctrine than the trinity. The scriptures too.
FoF,
I ask you to define our doctrine of the Trinity as you understand it. I am not running away from the question, but it seems odd that you now ask us to define it for you.
Thanks.
Mike
FofF
“How can they both be “equally God” if the Father is Greater than the Son?
It’s clear that you have little understanding of Christian doctrine. You use John 14:28 in an attempt to prove that Christ is less than God so let’s have a look at a couple of verses which might help you understand, assuming of course that you want to understand.
Read Hebrews 2:9 where it’s made clear that our Lord was in a state of humiliation for the duration of the incarnation.
Now read Philippians 2:5-11 where Paul says that Christ “did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped” a more accurate translation than grasped would be ‘to cling on to’ in other words Paul is telling us that Christ in his Glory was equally God but ‘emptied himself’ i.e. gave up his glory to take on the form of a servant in His role as redeemer. It’s important that you read & understand what Paul is saying, especially in verse 7.
If you have read & understood those passages you should now know that the expression ‘greater than I’ in John 14:28 relates to Christ’s role, it DOES NOT refer to his essence.
Read chapter 53 of Isaiah, you will find that it is almost entirely concerned with this role (the suffering servant)
Hopefully by now you will have come to see that the LDS really do not understand the Trinity at all & that lack of understanding is due to a totally false view of the nature of God & Christ.
MJP- I just want you guys to have the final say on what the trinity is. I want to compare your doctrine of the trinity to the scriptures and the statements from the patristic fathers. It is not about what I think the trinity is.
Old man- your point depends upon Christ being equal to God before His incarnation. And I don’t think that can be supported, either in the scriptures or in the patristic writings. If Christ was both fully God and fully Human during His life, how was it possible for Him to be “fully God” yet God the Father be “greater” than Him? Christ Himself stated several times that the Father was greater than Him. I suggest that you are reading something into John 14:28 that is not necessarily in the text- how do you know that Christ was referring only to His role, and not His “essence?”
But back to John 17. Christ clearly prays that the apostles may be one “as” the Father and Son are one. In John 14, Christ speaks of Him being “in the Father,” and “in you,” and “ye in me.” I have yet to hear a good explanation of how people can be one in the same way the Father and Son are one without contradicting the trinity doctrine. It doesn’t work.
Maybe I don’t understand the trinity. So explain it to me.
FoF,
Ah. I had a similar conversation with Shem some time back wherein he wanted to compare notes on what Christians believed. This is a futile exercise, FoF, that shows no interest from you to understand our doctrine. This is the very definition of hypocrasy when you demand we get your faith correct.
You say it is not about us having the final say. You say it is not about what you think the Trinity is. You these as if there is no connection in this dicussion. That could not be further from the truth. An understanding of what the Trinity espouses is precisely the center of the discussion, and it is essential you understand what it is, not just using our words here but a deeper realization of precisely what we mean.
See, we can spout off the words, but all you are going to do is to compare without trying to grasp what is meant. The Trinity is explained in million places online, surely you can do some reasearch rather than set us up along your plan of attack. I’ll even provide a source describing the Trinity: http://www.mcleanbible.org/uploads/wk1JesusofChristianity.pdf. Also see: http://www.mcleanbible.org/uploads/WhatWeTeach.pdf.
Those sources notwithstanding, it is clear you have no interest in understanding our faith.
FofF
“Old man- your point depends upon Christ being equal to God before His incarnation. And I don’t think that can be supported, either in the scriptures or in the patristic writings. If Christ was both fully God and fully Human during His life, how was it possible for Him to be “fully God” yet God the Father be “greater” than Him? Christ Himself stated several times that the Father was greater than Him.”
Did you even bother to read what I said in my previous post? I used that verse from John because the gist of your argument is that God is greater that Christ. I then showed you two passages from scripture, one from Hebrews & one from Philippians that explain it all very clearly.
You said:
“I suggest that you are reading something into John 14:28 that is not necessarily in the text- how do you know that Christ was referring only to His role, and not His “essence?”
I didn’t say that Christ was referring to His role I said the verse relates to His role.
I’m one of those people, rare in the LDS, who understands context & the context of that & other passages make it clear that Christ was talking about leaving His state of humiliation & returning to the glory He had before the incarnation, that’s why he said to His disciples:
“If you loved me, you would have rejoiced”
Taking all those passages together & understanding the context along with knowledge of who Christ is, even a child would understand.
Your problem is really very simple & even though I’ve said it before I’ll say it again, you try to view God as some kind of super human & believe everything about God should be understandable from a human perspective. Well let me tell you, God isn’t some kind of glorified human & we can’t even begin to understand Him. You ask us to explain the Trinity in human terms because YOUR god is little more than that so forget it, I can’t explain it any more than Martin Luther could, but Like Martin Luther I believe it because Gods word tells me it is so.
Hey FOF
you said :
I have yet to hear a good explanation of how people can be one in the same way the Father and Son are one without contradicting the trinity doctrine. It doesn’t work.
I say,
perhaps you missed it. Way back at the beginning of this thread johnepistle explained it very clearly I’ll post it again.
quote:
In brief: In Second Temple Jewish writings, it was not uncommon for the divine unity of God to be connected in strict correspondence to the oneness of some other entity. For instance, both Philo and Josephus stress that, because there is only one God, therefore there can only be one temple to correspond to that one God. Similarly, Philo, Josephus, and other Jewish authors of that era argued frequently that, because there is only one God, so there ought only be one people, who by their astonishing unity would bear witness to the oneness of God. Even Paul uses this motif (see Ephesians 4:4-6). And that is precisely what Jesus is alluding to in John 17. But note: now the divine unity is fleshed out precisely as Father-and-Son unity, which entails (contrary to erroneous Mormon teaching) that the Father and the Son are one God, not two Gods
end quote:
Think about it… Ancient Jewish authors who held to strict monotheism had no problem advocating that there be one people of God because there is only one God.
You have it entirely backward you reason from the human to the divine instead of the other way around. You make the creation the standard instead of the Creator. That is idolatry.
We know what unity in the Church is supposed to be like by looking at the Godhead. But you try to understand what unity in the Godhead is like by looking at the Church. That is messed up logic!!!! The unity of God is the perfect reality and unity in the church is at best a derivative shadow.
Do you think that God’s righteousness is like yours because he commands us to be holy and perfect as he is?
use you head man
peace
FOF said
I want to compare your doctrine of the trinity to the scriptures and the statements from the patristic fathers.
I say,
Fair enough here are some statements from Tertullian
quote:
God, however must be One because that is God which is supreme: but nothing else can be supreme than that which is unique:…… and that cannot possible be unique which has anything equal to it: and matter will be equal with God when it is held to be eternal …….
and
But the christian verity has distinctly declared this principle “God is not if he is not One”
and
That which in the ordinary sense can be seen and handled and conceived, is inferior to the eyes by which it is taken in, and the hands by which it is tainted and the facilities by which it is discovered: but that which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our comprehensions-our very incapacity of fully grasping him affords us the idea of what he really is. He is presented to our minds in his transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown.
And this is the crowning guilt of men, that they will not recognize one of whom they can not possibly be ignorant
end quote:
Does that sound like a God who’s Oneness you can discover by looking at fallen human relationships?
peace
end quote:
peace
Fof F ,
I have to agree with MJP , he’s correct when he said that you have no interest in
understanding our belief ( Trinity ) . You are not new to this site and you are here
for one reason , and that’s not to understand anything . You’ve already determined
this is ” anti” site , and our belief about God ( Trinity) is nothing more than a false
doctrine created by apostate church leaders and put in a creed ( Nicean) .
You’ve stated some very ridiculous things on this thread in an attempt to prove
the Trinity false , some were subtle and some were no so subtle . Now you want to
go farther into discussing particulars of this doctrine ( meanings of certain terms used
to describe the relationship between members of the Trinity etc ) . Why would anyone
waste their time with this ? Why don’t you answer some of the replies to the silly
accusations you made so far ? What you said about 1 Jn 5:7-8 is one of the best
examples of the faulty assumptions you seem to consistently resort to on this blog.
You also cited a source that would infer that the apostasy of the church had occurred
from when Paul served as a apostle because by 120A.D. the church was allegedly
different in many aspects by then. That was a clever attempt on your part to divert .
Now it’s well known that Mormon leaders have taught that soon after the death of Jesus’
apostles that the great apostasy happened , gospel truth was altered and authority was
removed , the 1700 years later the church was restored in the exactly the same form
by God using Joseph Smith . Mormon leaders proclaimed loud and clear that they
were being personally directed by Jesus to correct the errors of men , the false views
that had infected ” Christianity ” since the ” apostasy” , and at the top of the list was the
view about God .
So we can evaluate that claim . We can look into the Bible and compare what it reveals
about God with what alleged latter days prophets have taught about God . I personally
feel that while the early church fathers writings provide us with insight on the life
of Christians after the apostles , ultimately it’s the authority that they submitted to
that we should also —-the teachings of the apostles . Now Mormonism claimed to have
the ” living prophets ” which superceded the dead prophets of the Bible . It was said
by these men that God had not only corrected false views about Himself by appointing
them to correctly interpret the scriptures in the Bible but that God had also chosen
them to reveal additional gospel truths destined to be revealed in the last days .
So we can either stick with the apostles teachings in the Bible or accept the gospel
preaching by men claiming to be the officers of His church 17 centuries later .
Mormon leaders have taught that they teach the true trinity: ” we believe in three Gods”
three separate Gods , all men ( ” exalted ” ) .
That is the place to start , and end, with Mormonism’s trinity , we really don’t need to
go any farther , because the early creeds taught one God , not three .
Wow. Is any of that truly satisfying to any of you? Do you consider any of those definitions or statements clear or full? Because I sure don’t. You essentially are saying that God is one- there is one God. And that my view, the LDS view, is heretical and wrong. For a site that claims to be all about “ministering” to LDS, that is a pretty lame explanation of the central doctrine of your faith.
I cannot see anything, really, that would demonstrate that I have no interest in understanding the trinity as you guys see it. I disagree with the doctrine wholeheartedly. But I allow you guys to define and explain your own beliefs and doctrines (unlike you guys do with me and my beliefs).
So maybe this will help. Can you explain what it means to be “co-substantial?”
fifth monarchy man- I thought the post from johnsepistle did absolutely nothing to clarify this issue. He appealed to Jewish historians to explain the trinity. I don’t think individuals who do not believe in Christ should really be relied upon to qualify or interpret Christ’s own words (a little ironic considering the common criticism here and among other critics that LDS rely upon a “middle man”). Christ clearly stated and prayed that His apostles would be ‘one’ “as” He and the Father were ‘one.’ So the apostles had the capacity to be one in the same way the Father and Son were.
All I need is a clear explanation of how the trinity is not contradictory to that teaching from Christ. And it is a complete cop-out to say you aren’t willing to try to explain it to me because I have no interest in truly understanding.
MikeR- among your rambling, you claim that my point about 1 John 5 is worthless. My point comes in the context of my claim that the very early church was very quiet after the apostles died. And the apostles could hardly maintain correct doctrine among the saints when they were living. Yet you guys insist that nothing was altered or changed or modified during that period. I appealed to the addition of the clause in 1 John 5 to demonstrate that a person or persons who wanted to modify something to add support to his particular theology (even the scriptures themselves) could certainly make the attempt with success. It is a general point about manipulation of doctrine.
FOF said,
So maybe this will help. Can you explain what it means to be “co-substantial?”
I say,
Again did you watch the video? This is exactly why the bishops needed to be so specific. No offense but the only reason that someone would need a definition of co-substantial is because they were trying to equivocate and twist the plain definition of “one” beyond recognition.
Everyone knows what “One” means but some rebels want to say that The Father and the Son can be One God and at the same time consist of different substances.
You say,
He appealed to Jewish historians to explain the trinity.
I say,
Wrong, he appealed to contemporary first century historians and the apostle Paul to help explain what Jesus meant when he spoke of God’s Oneness. I can think of no better folks to do that explaining can you?
You say,
Christ clearly stated and prayed that His apostles would be ‘one’ “as” He and the Father were ‘one.’ So the apostles had the capacity to be one in the same way the Father and Son were.
I say,
Christ also commanded people to be perfect as the Father is perfect does that mean that God’s perfection can be understood by looking at people?
use your head man
you say,
All I need is a clear explanation of how the trinity is not contradictory to that teaching from Christ.
I say,
in a phrase.
You see a contradiction because you are defining God’s oneness by what you see in humanity instead of defining the oneness that is ideal for the Church by what God reveals about himself.
That is nothing less than idolatry
peace
FoF,
God said that He is the only God and there are no other Gods, there are none before Him, and none will come after Him.
So How can God say there are no other Gods, if Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? Also God said, He can swear by no one greater, so He swore by Himself. So If God the Father has a father and their are other Gods that are greater than God and have been around longer than Him, than God should be able to swear by someone greater than Himself.
Then the devil according to the Bible is a created being, so if the devil is a created being, and according to Mormonism, Jesus and the devil are brothers, than it stands to reason Jesus was created. So again we have a problem, The Book of Hebrewes tells us that God the father never said to any angel, today you are my son. and if the Devil is a created angel, that makes Jesus an angel, and the Bible tells us that we will someday Judge the angels.
So Either the trinity is real and Jesus, God and the Holy spirit are One, and Jesus is not and never has been an angel, or you need to some how explain a lot of things that cannot be supported from the Bible.
The Couple of verses I posted, JS must have been fine with them, I checked the J.S.T bible and they were left alone, Joe never touched them.
FOF
A word to the wise should be sufficient
quote:
To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
(Isaiah 40:25)
and
beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves,……… in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
(Deuteronomy 4:16)
and
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man.
(Romans 1:22-23a)
end quote:
nuff said
peace
I have read your posts. I never said you USED IT. Where do you get that from? What I responded to was this that you said:
And so I said this:
I know it’s hard, but do try and keep up. And so sorry you didn’t get anything out of the link. I know you do have problems with comprehension, so I’m not surprised.
So the answer is no- nobody is willing to explain the trinity in their own words. Somebody linked to a site that showed a three leaf clover and other similar objects to explain the trinity. I am beginning to think that you guys don’t understand it all that well either.
.
How about you explain how the First Mormon God got the Priesthood FOF? Or became a God for that matter, if he had to have a father just like every other God. Let’s here it. I’m sure you can tell us all about it. I’m sure you understand it perfectly and this should be a piece of cake for you.. right?
Grindael- the material you linked to focused on verse three of John 17. It in no way addressed, passages, or the questions and issues I brought up. You are a funny dude!
“Is any of that truly satisfying to any of you? Do you consider any of those definitions or statements clear or full? Because I sure don’t. You essentially are saying that God is one- there is one God.”
Yes, yes I do, and I am saying there is one and only one God.
And keep in mind that us interpreting your faith and you ignoring ours is telling. At least we are engaged and attempting to decipher what yours says. We wish to dig in deeper and know more about what is going on. You’ll notice when we do we still find your faith faulty. You won’t even touch ours. Sure, you can say that we have preconceived notions of your faith, but at least we are engaged in a deeper understanding of it. (By the way, do not deny that you have preconceived notions of ours– you will be lying.)
How YOU understand our definition of the Trinity is vitally important. As I said above, we can recite all day and night how the oneness of God does not deny His three personages but until you engage with what we say in a meaningful way rather than some preplanned “trap” we will be spinning our wheels. I’ve been down that road before, as if you guys are taught to argue this way.
I even posted a couple of links with some more information to a common definition of the Trinity. I bet you skipped over it. There are plenty more out there, so if you wanted, you could hit up most any evangelical/traditional Christian church’s or organization’s site and find definitions you could post here and then outline your points here. But you are waiting for us to give you the bait. Why is that?
I am not trying to attack your person here, but your tactics seem empty and contrived. If you were really concerned with a more meaningful discussion, you would not rely on us to make your point. The information is out there, so use it.
This is a challenge, I suppose, to step up to the plate and make a coherent and strong argument on your own without relying on trapping people into some preplanned attack. Further, don’t think for a second God is not working in your life as we exchange thoughts. Don’t be afraid to test the spirits in your life. God is in control always. Yes, the One God, as described at Nicea millennia ago.
If you don’t believe me, ask God.
Always running away. You guys really can’t deal with one topic or real criticisms of your positions. I think it is very telling when a critic cannot stand being criticized. I have learned over time That the religious critics of the church have very deep issues and concerns about their own faith. That could not be more clear.
LOL, FoF, I posted the outline with the picture of the Trinity. Did you even read it?