Trinity diagram

[Pro-Truth]

I would like for any Mormon to find a single verse in the Holy Bible that contradicts the message of the following Trinity diagram:

http://www.dtl.org/trinity/images/picture/trinity.jpg

I have never been able to find one in the Bible; however, I know of p***ages in the Book of Mormon that do, which shows that they are not in harmony with one another. For instance:

Ether 3:14 (in the Book of Mormon) tells us, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son."

Also, Mosiah 15:1-5 "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. 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—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very bEternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

Both of those Book of Mormon p***ages contradict the diagram, but, not a single verse in the Bible does - that is, unless you can find one! I never have been able to.

[stemelbow]

My questioning would start with where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit called God?

then

I would wonder why in the world this diagram wasn't drawn as part of each creed. It must be an inerrant piece of the scripture long lost.

love,
stem

[nrajeff]

I have wondered how Evans can look at that diagram, and then reconcile it with the Bible claiming that Jesus is the son of God but the Bible also claiming that Jesus is the "I am," which allegedly refers to OT Yahweh. In other words:

1. Bible says Yahweh, the "I am" of Exodus fame, is the God of Israel.
2. Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
3. Bible says Jesus is the "I am."

Seems like it's saying that Jesus is the son of Himself. The JWs believe that Jesus is the son of Yahweh. But Evans don't believe that--they believe, similar to the LDS, that Jesus IS Yahweh. So, for Evans, how can Jesus NOT be the Most High God, the ultimate creator of everyone and everything? And if Jesus IS all that, how can He ALSO be the SON of the Most High God, the creator of everyone and everything?

[Russ]

My questioning would start with where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit called God?

Acts 5:1-11 (King James Version)

Acts 5

1But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3But 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?

4Whiles 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.




then

I would wonder why in the world this diagram wasn't drawn as part of each creed. It must be an inerrant piece of the scripture long lost.

love,
stem

This diagram is repeated in the creeds and in John 1:1, John 1:14 and Col. 2:9 where Jesus Christ is God almighty. The one and only.

[Pro-Truth]

My questioning would start with where in the Bible is the Holy Spirit called God?

As Russ shared, Acts 5:1-4 is one example that the Holy Spirit is called "God".

But, with that said, I'm confused why you would ask such a question. The reason being is that to my very well informed understanding is that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is actually accepted, at the very least, a "God". So, why does this question even come up in the first place? I'm a little confused...


then

I would wonder why in the world this diagram wasn't drawn as part of each creed. It must be an inerrant piece of the scripture long lost.

love,
stem

I'm unsure of exactly when this diagram was drawn, to be dead honest. I understand that the diagram is extremely old and it's certainly not anything that I personally came up with on my own.

Not to come across as patronizing, because I'm not that way, but, I can't but help and notice that you completely avoided what I asked in the opening post. I specifically asked for a single Biblical reference that you may see that contradicts the message in the diagram. I provided at least two p***ages in the Book of Mormon that do - so, I'm asking you just for one Biblical reference if you would try.

Thanks.

[Pro-Truth]

I have wondered how Evans can look at that diagram, and then reconcile it with the Bible claiming that Jesus is the son of God but the Bible also claiming that Jesus is the "I am," which allegedly refers to OT Yahweh. In other words:

1. Bible says Yahweh, the "I am" of Exodus fame, is the God of Israel.
2. Bible says Jesus is the son of God.
3. Bible says Jesus is the "I am."

Seems like it's saying that Jesus is the son of Himself.

Your perception isn't quite accurate and I can tell you why. The Trinity concept demonstrates that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all "God" but they are eternally distinct from one another. I'm not sure if you knew that or not, but, hopefully you know that now. I know that I'm not in the minority in this because I would go as far as to claim that not a single born again Christian on the planet will disagree with what I just stated.

The term "The Son of" literally means "In the Order of"...it doesn't mean that Jesus is the literal child of Heavenly parents as Mormonism teaches. Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father.


The JWs believe that Jesus is the son of Yahweh. But Evans don't believe that--they believe, similar to the LDS, that Jesus IS Yahweh.

You are correct that the JWs believe that Jesus is the "Son of Yahweh"; however, they dont' believe that in the literal sense that Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal Son of Elohim. I have a very good JW friend and have done much study on the subject of the JW religion and the Watchtower and Tract Society. The JW religion teaches that Jesus was a created angel - the same angel that is Michael, the archangel. The JW religion firmly believes that Jesus (or Michael, the archangel) was created out of nothing and; therefore, had a beginning.

As for Christians, Jesus is not only Yahweh, but, is also Elohim. Consider Hebrews 1:8 where we see the Father giving His own testimony regarding Christ's iden***y. Here, the Father is seen addressing the Son, and says, "thy thron, O God [Greek, Theos], is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (bolded for emphasis and brackets added). This is a direct quote from Psalm 45:6-7, where "God" is seen addressing "God" (using the hebrew word "Elohim"). That means that God the Father called Jesus "Elohim".


So, for Evans, how can Jesus NOT be the Most High God, the ultimate creator of everyone and everything?

He is. I'm not sure where you heard that He wasn't. Jesus is the Most High God, the ultimate creator of everyone and everything.


And if Jesus IS all that, how can He ALSO be the SON of the Most High God, the creator of everyone and everything?

As I stated before, Jesus is the "Son of God", which literally means "In the order of God". Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father in every way. The fact that Christ is called both Jehovah and Elohim in the Bible gives added significance to these words recorded for us in Matthew's Gospel: "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (bolded for emphasis). (Matthew 1:23)

Now, Jeff, in the opening post, I asked if a Mormon could find a single Biblical Scripture that conflicts with the message of the diagram. That's what I'm looking for - so far I haven't seen one, with all due respect.

[BroDave]

Pro Truth, you're wastin' yer time!! These guys will take you around the mountain but will not be able to answer your question.

[Russ]

Pro Truth, you're wastin' yer time!! These guys will take you around the mountain but will not be able to answer your question.

Wasting his time? Yes, perhaps with these on the WM board who insist Jesus is the brother of Satan. They can't see.

Others can, however, and will.

Jesus cannot be the brother of Satan because Jesus is God made manifest in the flesh. John 1:1, John 1:14 and Col. 2:9 remain unaddressed by LDS.

[Pro-Truth]

Pro Truth, you're wastin' yer time!! These guys will take you around the mountain but will not be able to answer your question.

It's never a waste of time planting seeds and then praying for God to water them. All to give glory to Him :)

[nrajeff]

Your perception isn't quite accurate and I can tell you why. The Trinity concept demonstrates that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all "God" but they are eternally distinct from one another. I'm not sure if you knew that or not, but, hopefully you know that now.
--I was already fairly familiar with what Trinitarianism teaches on a basic level. I have lately been trying to get into the deeper implications that it leads to, by discussing it with avowed Trinitarians in another forum.

I know that I'm not in the minority in this because I would go as far as to claim that not a single born again Christian on the planet will disagree with what I just stated.

--Oh, I believe that you in the vast majority on this.


The term "The Son of" literally means "In the Order of"...it doesn't mean that Jesus is the literal child of Heavenly parents as Mormonism teaches. Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father.

---Is there a Bible verse that supports that interpretation of "son"? If Jesus (the Person of the Son) is only metaphorically God's Son, doesn't that destroy the whole Nativity story that we retell each Christmas? You know, the Virgin literally giving birth to God's Son, etc.? Is God unable to procreate then, and is it forever His fate that His only children will be adopted ones?


You are correct that the JWs believe that Jesus is the "Son of Yahweh"; however, they dont' believe that in the literal sense that Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal Son of Elohim. I have a very good JW friend and have done much study on the subject of the JW religion and the Watchtower and Tract Society. The JW religion teaches that Jesus was a created angel - the same angel that is Michael, the archangel. The JW religion firmly believes that Jesus (or Michael, the archangel) was created out of nothing and; therefore, had a beginning.

--Interesting. So JWs are a type of Arian. But isn't it possible for Arians to believe that Jesus, though a created being, could still be the literal offspring of God? In other words, that God, a deity, could create a son who was an angel?


As for Christians, Jesus is not only Yahweh, but, is also Elohim. Consider Hebrews 1:8 where we see the Father giving His own testimony regarding Christ's iden***y. Here, the Father is seen addressing the Son, and says, "thy thron, O God [Greek, Theos], is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom." (bolded for emphasis and brackets added). This is a direct quote from Psalm 45:6-7, where "God" is seen addressing "God" (using the hebrew word "Elohim"). That means that God the Father called Jesus "Elohim".

--I think there could be more interpretations of it than the one you posted, although I think yours is widely believed. For one thing, theos is also used to refer to mortal men. Makes it hard to figure out what the word means at any given time. If only they'd used it to refer to the ultimate creator only and to no one else...

He is. I'm not sure where you heard that He wasn't. Jesus is the Most High God, the ultimate creator of everyone and everything.
---But if the Person of the Son (aka Jesus) is the Most High God, the ultimate creator of everyone and everything, then where does that leave the Person of the Father?


Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father in every way.

--How about when it comes to "having once been mortal"? If you REALLY believe the Father is equal to His Son in that dept., then you are on the road to LDS-ville, perhaps! :)


Now, Jeff, in the opening post, I asked if a Mormon could find a single Biblical Scripture that conflicts with the message of the diagram. That's what I'm looking for - so far I haven't seen one, with all due respect.

---Then it's a good thing the LDS believe all 3 Persons to be deity, huh? If we could find a verse that refutes that idea, we'd be in trouble....

[Russ]

---Is there a Bible verse that supports that interpretation of "son"? If Jesus (the Person of the Son) is only metaphorically God's Son, doesn't that destroy the whole Nativity story that we retell each Christmas? You know, the Virgin literally giving birth to God's Son, etc.? Is God unable to procreate then, and is it forever His fate that His only children will be adopted ones?

Yes, there is a Bible verse which supports that interpretation. Romans 8:28, 29.

"Firstborn among many bretheren." Firstborn, here, refers to preeminence. A state of being and / or rank, position. Who in the O.T. wasn't born first but was called of God "firstborn?" The birthright went to the one born second. I hope you'll look that up.

Christianity rejects the LDS notion that God and "Heavenly Mother" procreated Jesus and Satan as brothers.

When we speak of Jesus as the Son of God, there is no intention of speaking of Him as the literal offspring of heavenly parents, as LDSism would have us believe. "Sonship" is a matter of preeminence and importance. Col. 2:9

P.S. Jesus is also called the "Son of Man."

[nrajeff]

So you believe that God is unable to procreate, and it's His eternal fate that the only children He will ever have must be merely by adoption? I thought you believed that God is omnipotent.

[Trinity]

Hello nrajeff,


So you believe that God is unable to procreate, and it's His eternal fate that the only children He will ever have must be merely by adoption? I thought you believed that God is omnipotent.

I have the power to kill a mosquito but I would not kill you for this reason. That does not means that God wants to do anything.

Trinity

[Pro-Truth]

--I was already fairly familiar with what Trinitarianism teaches on a basic level. I have lately been trying to get into the deeper implications that it leads to, by discussing it with avowed Trinitarians in another forum.

I respect that, Jeff - I really do. Unfortunately, what I find most of the time are Mormons that deny the Trinity concept based on an incorrect definition. So, I respect that you're willing to, at the very least, attempt to learn what the concept actually is; therefore, making a more informed decision about it in your own mind instead of taking a non-Trinitarian viewpoint that isn't the actual definition. Know what I mean?


--Oh, I believe that you in the vast majority on this.

Yes - there are literally millions upon millions stacked upon millions of believers in the Trinity.


---Is there a Bible verse that supports that interpretation of "son"? If Jesus (the Person of the Son) is only metaphorically God's Son, doesn't that destroy the whole Nativity story that we retell each Christmas? You know, the Virgin literally giving birth to God's Son, etc.? Is God unable to procreate then, and is it forever His fate that His only children will be adopted ones?

I can't think of a better p***age than this:

Philippians 2:5-11 KJV: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (bolded for emphasis)

Of course, there are plenty of others, but, I love this p***age.

To answer the Nativity scene portion of your question: I'm actually confused. Why would that matter? Jesus humbled Himself by taking upon Himself to become a man and went through the worst possible torture to die for our sins. Afterward, He resurrected back to His full glory. How powerful! How profound! How glorious!

As for the virgin birth question: The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and she became pregnant in full purity, as a virgin. Jesus was the purist child ever to be born, of course.

As for your question about whether or not God can pro-create: I don't believe it's a matter about whether or not God can pro-create - I think it's a matter that God doesn't pro-create. By contrast, God creates - yes, completely out of nothing. He is that Almighty.


--Interesting. So JWs are a type of Arian. But isn't it possible for Arians to believe that Jesus, though a created being, could still be the literal offspring of God? In other words, that God, a deity, could create a son who was an angel?

Well, I think you may possibly be missing the entire premise from the beginning (no offense intended). The reason why I say this is because you may be thinking more with an LDS bias or understanding. You see, the JW's do not believe that angels were pro-created in any way shape or form, nor do they believe that God the Father (Yahweh) is married or has wives. They believe that God created angels out of nothing, much like Orthodox Christians do; however, the major difference is that the JW religion teaches that Jesus is merely a created angel (namely, Michael, the archangel).

Take a peak into the JW forum sometime and you'll see what I mean - when you get time.


--I think there could be more interpretations of it than the one you posted, although I think yours is widely believed. For one thing, theos is also used to refer to mortal men. Makes it hard to figure out what the word means at any given time. If only they'd used it to refer to the ultimate creator only and to no one else...

Well, here's the thing which I think you may have missed: As you know, the Book of Hebrews is in the New Testament, which you know the original language is Greek. So, when the Greek word Theos was used in reference to Jesus from the Father in Hebrews 1:8, keep in mind that this is a direct quote from Psalm 45:6-7. As you know, the Book of Psalms is in the Old Testament. Since we see the Father referring to the Son as "God" [Greek: Theos] and we know that it was a direct quote of the Hebrew written Book of Psalms, we can see that the word "God", in Psalm 45:6-7, is "Elohim". So, in other words, God the Father referred to Jesus as "Elohim" when consulting the Hebrew language.

This is hugely significant because we know that there is only one God - and we see that God the Father refers to Jesus Christ, quite directly, as being "God". This is enormous support for the concept of the Holy Trinity.


---But if the Person of the Son (aka Jesus) is the Most High God, the ultimate creator of everyone and everything, then where does that leave the Person of the Father?

You're right, Jesus is the ultimate creator of everyone and everything (John 1:3; Col. 1:15-17), but so is the Father (Isaiah 64:8) and the Holy Ghost (*** 33:4, 26:13).


--How about when it comes to "having once been mortal"? If you REALLY believe the Father is equal to His Son in that dept., then you are on the road to LDS-ville, perhaps! :)

lol, Jeff.... actually, just because the Father didn't become mortal, doesn't mean that I believe the Father is in any way inferior to the Son. I'm referring to the nature of God. When Jesus became mortal, He maintained His Deity as God; however, was also a man. In other words, Jesus is the God-man.


---Then it's a good thing the LDS believe all 3 Persons to be deity, huh? If we could find a verse that refutes that idea, we'd be in trouble....

Well, here's the thing, Jeff - when you look at the diagram, how many "Gods" do you see? I only see one, which is what the Bible says. There is only one God. Sure, the Bible says that there are those that may be "called" "gods" or "lords", but, that is far cry in comparison to actually "being" "God". I can think of about two dozen verses or p***ages in the Bible that refute the idea that each Person in the Godhead is a separate and distinct God. Why? Because the Bible says that there is only one.

As you can see, Jeff, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely Biblical. It's based on the simple Biblical fact that the Bible states that: 1. There is only one God, and 2. There are three Persons identified, referred to as, and accepted as "God". Therefore, God is three Persons.

[nrajeff]

Hello nrajeff,
I have the power to kill a mosquito but I would not kill you for this reason. That does not means that God wants to do anything. Trinity


--Well, on behalf of myself and all other Internet-capable mosquitoes, I thank you for letting us live when you could so easily kill us....

[Trinity]

--Well, on behalf of myself and all other Internet-capable mosquitoes, I thank you for letting us live when you could so easily kill us....


You missed my point. I do not know if you have missed it voluntary or accidently. God knows. Let me try again. God is omnipotent, and for this reason, he could be much more evil than Satan. However, he is making moral choices. To ***ume that God can do anything without discernment is wrong. We should not presume that God will do anything just because he can do it.

I hope I am more understandable.

Trinity

[Russ]

You missed my point. I do not know if you have missed it voluntary or accidently. God knows. Let me try again. God is omnipotent, and for this reason, he could be much more evil than Satan. However, he is making moral choices. To ***ume that God can do anything without discernment is wrong. We should not presume that God will do anything just because he can do it.

I hope I am more understandable.

Trinity

There are some things that God simply cannot do.

God is incapable of sin, wrong, tresp***, indiscretion, mistake, etc.

God cannot go against his own holiness. God cannot, by nature, be anything other than holy righteous. God doesn't make "moral choices." God is, by definition, completely moral and can be nothing else

complètement impossible

[Russ]

It's never a waste of time planting seeds and then praying for God to water them. All to give glory to Him :)

It is indeed never a waste of time planting seeds. Water, reap, sow and all that.

I also understand the objection. Folks such as nra-Jeff have seen the same dialog over and over, for like a decade, if I remember how long ol' Jeff has been around.

But, here we are, going back and forth, still crazy... after all these years. (I love that song.)

It's not crazy, though. If Jeff ain't listenin', others are reading and God's word will not return void. It will achieve it's intended purpose. (Paraphrased something or other from Isaiah.)

Mormons don't like John 1:1, John 1:14 and Col. 2:9 very much

[Trinity]

There are some things that God simply cannot do.

God is incapable of sin, wrong, tresp***, indiscretion, mistake, etc.

God cannot go against his own holiness. God cannot, by nature, be anything other than holy righteous. God doesn't make "moral choices." God is, by definition, completely moral and can be nothing else

complètement impossible

He created beings capable to do evil ( Lucifer + demons + the humankind + animals + and perhaps other creatures that I have no clue on it). That means he was not tricked by Lucifer. That was a moral choice. That was the choice of God. He knew that evil would have existed throughout his creatures or creation. Now, the issue is more a question of theodicy than of omnipotence or omniscience.

Trinity

[Russ]

He created beings capable to do evil ( Lucifer + demons + the humankind + animals + and perhaps other creatures that I have no clue on it). That means he was not tricked by Lucifer. That was a moral choice. That was the choice of God. He knew that evil would have existed throughout his creatures or creation. Now, the issue is more a question of theodicy than of omnipotence or omniscience.

Trinity

Indeed the problem of evil has intrigued the minds of mankind since the days of Adam. Who's fault is it? It's evil's fault, nothing more.

I posit that God is unable to tricked at all. His choice is only, by nature, to be 100% holy righteous and unable to be swindled by choice, reason or by any other means. I also posit that God's holy nature prevents him from having to make any moral decisions at all due to his inability to conceive of sin in any form.

God, being perfect, omniscient and omnipotent can do no other than tie himself to his holy nature. It's no mere choice. It's just who He is; how things have been, and how things will always be.

[Trinity]

Hi Russ,


Indeed the problem of evil has intrigued the minds of mankind since the days of Adam. Who's fault is it? It's evil's fault, nothing more.

I posit that God is unable to tricked at all. His choice is only, by nature, to be 100% holy righteous and unable to be swindled by choice, reason or by any other means. I also posit that God's holy nature prevents him from having to make any moral decisions at all due to his inability to conceive of sin in any form.

God, being perfect, omniscient and omnipotent can do no other than tie himself to his holy nature. It's no mere choice. It's just who He is; how things have been, and how things will always be.

I understand that God is holy, perfect and pure. However, concerning his omnipotence this is a circular reasoning. Can God create a rock he cannot lifted? The answer is yes. He can do anything that he wants. God has willingly created beings that turned to the evil side. He was not ignorant that angels and men would have failed. That was not a guessing. He knew everything before anything has happened. He knew that Lucifer would have rebelled and he knew that the humankind would have been a failure. He chose to let things go that way.

Trinity

[nrajeff]

To ***ume that God can do anything without discernment is wrong. We should not presume that God will do anything just because he can do it. I hope I am more understandable.
---Yes, that was understandable and I agree with you. Thanks. But I hope you will agree with me that anything that is good, God will do because it's good, and because God is able to do it.

[Russ]

Hi Russ,



I understand that God is holy, perfect and pure. However, concerning his omnipotence this is a circular reasoning. Can God create a rock he cannot lifted? The answer is yes. He can do anything that he wants. God has willingly created beings that turned to the evil side. He was not ignorant that angels and men would have failed. That was not a guessing. He knew everything before anything has happened. He knew that Lucifer would have rebelled and he knew that the humankind would have been a failure. He chose to let things go that way.

Trinity

Of course God knows the outcome of all things. That's not the question, mon frere. The question is: Can God do something contrary to his nature?

He cannot.

He does not make moral choices. His nature prevents him from being tempted in the slightest. Does God have to stop and think about which way to go? Does God have to make a decision about morality? Never. He is the author of it.

[Pro-Truth]

Russ brings up a point that is absolutely critical regarding the nature of God. God is literally incapable of sin. God is the very definition of "Holy"; therefore, He is literally incapable of sin.

Now, God did create those that have chosen to go against Him and His holiness: I am one of them. I am a pathetic sinner completely unworthy of Him in every single way; however, He loves me and Christ has made me justified before God by His blood. Christ's blood completely covers my sinful nature; therefore, justifying me before God.

I am a born again Christian because I am a pathetically weak sinner - not even qualified to be algae stuck on the side of a goldfish fish tank. I'm not a born again Christian because I am worthy to God. I'm worthy because of the blood of Christ - and only because of Him will I live in God's eternal Kingdom forever.

[nrajeff]

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, was Jesus able to give in to those temptations had He wanted to? Was He literally unable to give in to them?

[Trinity]

Of course God knows the outcome of all things. That's not the question, mon frere. The question is: Can God do something contrary to his nature? He cannot.

You are right.


He does not make moral choices. His nature prevents him from being tempted in the slightest. Does God have to stop and think about which way to go? Does God have to make a decision about morality? Never. He is the author of it.

You are not right. He is doing moral choices for every soul.

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?

Trinity

[nrajeff]

I agree with Trinity's statement. God makes nothing but moral choices because He is a very moral person.

[Trinity]

Hi nrajeff,


I agree with Trinity's statement. God makes nothing but moral choices because He is a very moral person.

I also agree with Russ that God would not act otherwise than by his ontological nature, and only according to the holiness of his being. There is no evil in Him. However, we experience pain, many sufferings and finally the death, because he has decided that for us. We are learning to live with infirmities and the adversity.

Trinity

[nrajeff]

Hi nrajeff,I also agree with Russ that God would not act otherwise than by his ontological nature, and only according to the holiness of his being. There is no evil in Him. However, we experience pain, many sufferings and finally the death, because he has decided that for us. We are learning to live with infirmities and the adversity. Trinity

--Well, you are allowed to agree with Russ occasionally....

[Russ]

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?

Trinity

Because it is impossible for Him to do otherwise.

God's own laws cannot be broken.

God does not have to ask, "What choice do I have?"

His nature is pure and holy and will never ask any such question.

[Russ]

--Well, you are allowed to agree with Russ occasionally....

Well, I've agreed with you on occasion, e.g. gun rights. U da man.

But that doesn't mean that we've built any theological agreement whatsoever.

Jesus is the brother of Satan?

God is an exalted man?

Your theology remains strange and aberrant, Jeff, Biblically speaking.

That doesn't mean you're "bad." It just means you've unfortunately aligned yourself with the system.

[Trinity]

Because it is impossible for Him to do otherwise.

Jesus has healed some blinds and some deaf. He did act otherwise. He changed their destinies.

Trinity

[Trinity]

--Well, you are allowed to agree with Russ occasionally....

Thank you.

You can be stubborn but you are a good fellow. I am happy to chat with you. :)

Trinity

[Russ]

Jesus has healed some blinds and some deaf. He did act otherwise. He changed their destinies.

Trinity

Sure, the destinies of men can be changed by the unchangeable.

[Russ]

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, was Jesus able to give in to those temptations had He wanted to? Was He literally unable to give in to them?

Jesus was completely incapable of giving over to Satan.

Every time, he said, "Get behind me, Satan."

Every time, he said, "It is WRITTEN."

You can't do that.

Neither can I.

That's why Jesus is God. Not "a" god. Not "another" god.

God.

[Russ]

Thank you.

You can be stubborn but you are a good fellow. I am happy to chat with you. :)

Trinity

You can be stubborn too, but I'm also happy to chat with you. :)

We Internet types like the stubborn folks.

[nrajeff]

Jesus was completely incapable of giving over to Satan.


--If Jesus lacked the ability to give in to temptations, then it diminishes the significance of His resisting them. It takes much more self-control and strength of character to have the ability to sin but to refrain from sinning. A Jesus who was unable to sin is a Jesus without free will.

[Pro-Truth]

--If Jesus lacked the ability to give in to temptations, then it diminishes the significance of His resisting them. It takes much more self-control and strength of character to have the ability to sin but to refrain from sinning. A Jesus who was unable to sin is a Jesus without free will.

When Jesus was being tempted, we must keep in mind that He was 100% man and 100% God. Jesus literally had two natures.

Jesus was literally unable to sin because He's God.

[Russ]

When Jesus was being tempted, we must keep in mind that He was 100% man and 100% God. Jesus literally had two natures.

Jesus was literally unable to sin because He's God.

Bingo.

Jesus Christ didn't "progress" his way to Godhood, Jeff, as Mormonism would have us believe. He didn't have to make "choices" along the way to "remain worthy." Sure, he walked on earth and experienced pain and hunger, but he in no way had to think, "Hmmm. Satan's got a pretty good offer there. Should I or shouldn't I? To be or not to be? That is the question."

There was never any question and there was never any doubt.

Jesus is God and he literally has two natures. Man and God. The God man. And that ain't you, bubaloo. And it sure isn't me.

Where you and I are creation and prone to sin, Jesus, being God, is unable to sin.

[Russ]

---Yes, that was understandable and I agree with you. Thanks. But I hope you will agree with me that anything that is good, God will do because it's good, and because God is able to do it.

More than God being "able" to do it, God cannot BUT do it because it's his nature to do so.

God will always do what's right.

Even if that means saying to some, "Depart from me. I never knew you."

[nrajeff]

When Jesus was being tempted, we must keep in mind that He was 100% man and 100% God. Jesus literally had two natures.

---Bingo.


Jesus was literally unable to sin because He's God.

--Yet He was ABLE to sin, because He is also human. (100% human, in fact) Right?

[BigJulie]

Russ brings up a point that is absolutely critical regarding the nature of God. God is literally incapable of sin. God is the very definition of "Holy"; therefore, He is literally incapable of sin.

Now, God did create those that have chosen to go against Him and His holiness: I am one of them. I am a pathetic sinner completely unworthy of Him in every single way; however, He loves me and Christ has made me justified before God by His blood. Christ's blood completely covers my sinful nature; therefore, justifying me before God.

I am a born again Christian because I am a pathetically weak sinner - not even qualified to be algae stuck on the side of a goldfish fish tank. I'm not a born again Christian because I am worthy to God. I'm worthy because of the blood of Christ - and only because of Him will I live in God's eternal Kingdom forever.

This has always been an interesting concept to me.

(I too am weak when it comes to sinning.)

But the concept that has been asked is--does God have agency to act as He chooses? Your statement that He would not sin does not answer this question. Does God have the ability to choose?

[Russ]

This has always been an interesting concept to me.

(I too am weak when it comes to sinning.)

But the concept that has been asked is--does God have agency to act as He chooses? Your statement that He would not sin does not answer this question. Does God have the ability to choose?

Hey, your first post. Welcome. Pull up a chair, pull your shoes off. Have some coffee. :D

I don't believe God has any such choice as to sin. To state that God has a choice or could face such a decision over a moral dilemma implies that he has ability to be tempted.

He has no weakness, no temptation and therefore no choice to make.

To claim that God could make a choice to sin is to say there is some character defect in God's character.

We're the en***ies with defects, due to sin nature.

(And to think that Mormons believe the Fall of mankind was a good and necessary thing. Oh, Bro-ther!)

[Russ]

---Bingo.



--Yet He was ABLE to sin, because He is also human. (100% human, in fact) Right?

Nope.

He's God, Jeff.

He was not born with a sin nature, like humans.

His human condition was limited, in that good way.

[nrajeff]

His human condition was limited, in that good way.

---Limited human-ness? So to you, Jesus is not 100% human? Plus, you used the past tense "was limited," so now it's unlimited? So now Jesus is able to sin if He wanted to, but previously, when His condition was limited, He wasn't able to?

[Trinity]

Hello Russ,


He has no weakness, no temptation and therefore no choice to make. To claim that God could make a choice to sin is to say there is some character defect in God's character. We're the en***ies with defects, due to sin nature.

How God had known the distinction between good and evil before the creation? The omniscience of God implied that he knew about this distinction before the creation of Lucifer, the demons, and the men.

*** 2:10
What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?

Trinity

[BigJulie]

Hey, your first post. Welcome. Pull up a chair, pull your shoes off. Have some coffee. :D

I don't believe God has any such choice as to sin. To state that God has a choice or could face such a decision over a moral dilemma implies that he has ability to be tempted.

He has no weakness, no temptation and therefore no choice to make.

To claim that God could make a choice to sin is to say there is some character defect in God's character.

We're the en***ies with defects, due to sin nature.

(And to think that Mormons believe the Fall of mankind was a good and necessary thing. Oh, Bro-ther!)

Thank you for the warm welcome Russ. I can understand what you are saying that God is not tempted, and I can see others have already addressed this idea that I still don't see answered. That is, does God have agency?

The way I see it is that God emcomp***es all that is good. And if God does not have agency; then agency must not be a good thing. And if agency is not a good thing; why do we think that slavery (which takes away someones agency to a degree) would be a bad thing? This logic to me just does not add up as I can't reconsile slavery as a good thing; even if that salvery compells one to do only good.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Nope.

He's God, Jeff.

He was not born with a sin nature, like humans.

His human condition was limited, in that good way.

I would maintain that Jesus has the ability to choose. But, being the Son of God, he will (and did) always choose righteousness.

How else could he understand what we face in temptation and the weakness of the flesh if he was totally inoculated from feeling what we feel?

Heb. 2: 18.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb. 4: 15.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

[Russ]

Thank you for the warm welcome Russ. I can understand what you are saying that God is not tempted, and I can see others have already addressed this idea that I still don't see answered. That is, does God have agency?

The way I see it is that God emcomp***es all that is good. And if God does not have agency; then agency must not be a good thing. And if agency is not a good thing; why do we think that slavery (which takes away someones agency to a degree) would be a bad thing? This logic to me just does not add up as I can't reconsile slavery as a good thing; even if that salvery compells one to do only good.

Simple. God doesn't "have" agency.

God is the author of it.

His laws, his rules, his universe, his game.

[Russ]

I would maintain that Jesus has the ability to choose. But, being the Son of God, he will (and did) always choose righteousness.

How else could he understand what we face in temptation and the weakness of the flesh if he was totally inoculated from feeling what we feel?

Heb. 2: 18.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb. 4: 15.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

As a person, Jesus experienced what we experience. Hunger, loneliness, pain. He could relate. He knew what it was to experience what humans experience. Through all of that, however, there was never any doubt in his mind to simply say no.

The LDS religion is foolish to proclaim that Jesus was a person who became God, rather "a" god" or "another God," by choice of agency. Jesus is God.

No sin was found in him. Nor will there ever be.

[Trinity]

Through all of that, however, there was never any doubt in his mind to simply say no.

How we should understand this p***age if Jesus had no doubts?

Hebrews 5:7
...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,...

That is not reflecting a man without doubts and distress.

Trinity

[BigJulie]

Simple. God doesn't "have" agency.

God is the author of it.

His laws, his rules, his universe, his game. I kind of see what you are saying, but kind of not. I mean, when a king made rules for his kingdom, and gave or rejected agency of others; He himself still had agency; and could still decide what rules he wanted to make. So, I still don't see this really answering if God has agency. Does God think? Does He have intelligence; and please dont' say He is intellgence, because that would just make me ask, how does He use His intelligence if He has no agency?

[MacG]

How we should understand this p***age if Jesus had no doubts?

Hebrews 5:7
...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,...

That is not reflecting a man without doubts and distress.

Trinity

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me :)

MacG

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The LDS religion is foolish to proclaim that Jesus was a person who became God, rather "a" god" or "another God," by choice of agency.


That's because you don't understand who Jesus is and that He has a Father.

[Trinity]

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me :)

MacG

Good post. Very interesting comment. :)

Trinity

[BigJulie]

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me :)

MacG I enjoyed this post. Thankyou. I agree; if Christ had no ability to choose, it would lessen the victory of His sacrifice greatly; and give me no reason to think that He can relate to me or my trials at all.

[nrajeff]

Simple. God doesn't "have" agency.
God is the author of it.
His laws, his rules, his universe, his game.

---So any Bible reference to Jesus making a choice, is just wrong because Jesus has no free will? And if God can't have anything that He is also the author of, doesn't that create all kinds of problems? Jesus can't have humility because He is the author of it, etc.?

[Pro-Truth]

---So any Bible reference to Jesus making a choice, is just wrong because Jesus has no free will? And if God can't have anything that He is also the author of, doesn't that create all kinds of problems? Jesus can't have humility because He is the author of it, etc.?

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

[Russ]

---So any Bible reference to Jesus making a choice, is just wrong because Jesus has no free will? And if God can't have anything that He is also the author of, doesn't that create all kinds of problems? Jesus can't have humility because He is the author of it, etc.?

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

Wait....

Pro Truth said that. :-)

[BigJulie]

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

Wait....

Pro Truth said that. :-) I have no problem with this. You seem to mistake whether I am asking whether Christ has made the right choices, rather than if He has the ability to choose? If Christ had no trial in the choice as it was out of His hands, then how can I ever think that He can understand my trials?

[nrajeff]

Julie made the obvious point that needs to be made. No one here is wondering whether deities sometimes make wrong choices. The question is whether a person who always chooses the right choice, really does so because He has NO choice in the matter. Seems to me that the word "choice" coming up so much in the discussion, implies that there is "choice" available. Just because someone always chooses good, doesn't meant that he was unable to choose bad. The times in your life when you choose good, you choose to do what's right. You could have made a bad choice but you didn't. It's not because you were unable to make the bad choice.

[Pro-Truth]

I have no problem with this. You seem to mistake whether I am asking whether Christ has made the right choices, rather than if He has the ability to choose? If Christ had no trial in the choice as it was out of His hands, then how can I ever think that He can understand my trials?

That's the amazing thing about God! He knows you far more than you even know yourself. He has your hairs numbered! He knows what you're going to do 10 years from now - God knows your entire future. He knows how many particles of matter that is in your body! He knows what you're going to think far before you think it.

Believe me when I say this: God understands your trials more than you do. He wants you to place those burdens in His hands. God is the ultimate Best Friend.

[Pro-Truth]

Julie made the obvious point that needs to be made. No one here is wondering whether deities sometimes make wrong choices. The question is whether a person who always chooses the right choice, really does so because He has NO choice in the matter. Seems to me that the word "choice" coming up so much in the discussion, implies that there is "choice" available. Just because someone always chooses good, doesn't meant that he was unable to choose bad. The times in your life when you choose good, you choose to do what's right. You could have made a bad choice but you didn't. It's not because you were unable to make the bad choice.

Believe me, I completely understand what you're saying; however, God is not man. God is on a completely different level and is the very definition of "Holy".

EDIT: I'm curious if we could get back on topic about the diagram. Any Biblical verses or p***ages that seem to be in conflict with the message of the diagram in the OP? I know I can find some BoM p***ages.

Also, I apologize for not responding quickly lately. I'm actually traveling on business and have been working ridiculous hours. Things will be back to normal for me by next week............I think!

[Pro-Truth]

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

Wait....

Pro Truth said that. :-)

Plagiarism!!!! (well put, though :D)

[nrajeff]

The diagram is so ambiguous that I could either agree with everything on it, or disagree with at least one part. ***uming god and deity are synonymous, I can agree that each of the 3 persons is deity, and that each of the 3 persons is not any of the other 2 persons. So the triangle has limited value in weeding out the "TBTs" (true blue trinitarians) from EMH's (evil monolatrist heretics) such as myself. If you define god as "the sole and ultimate creator of the universe and every thing and being in it except that creator itself" then the triangle becomes an illogical paradox, therefore I would not say I agree with the triangle. Maybe the triple-point of the water molecule would do a better *** of describing Trinitarianism's God, than the triangle does. Or maybe not.

[Pro-Truth]

The diagram is so ambiguous that I could either agree with everything on it, or disagree with at least one part. ***uming god and deity are synonymous, I can agree that each of the 3 persons is deity, and that each of the 3 persons is not any of the other 2 persons. So the triangle has limited value in weeding out the "TBTs" (true blue trinitarians) from EMH's (evil monolatrist heretics) such as myself. If you define god as "the sole and ultimate creator of the universe and every thing and being in it except that creator itself" then the triangle becomes an illogical paradox, therefore I would not say I agree with the triangle. Maybe the triple-point of the water molecule would do a better *** of describing Trinitarianism's God, than the triangle does. Or maybe not.

Thanks, Jeff - I'm mostly concerned that if you can find a single Biblical verse that contradicts the message of the diagram because I can find none. Perhaps I'm missing something.

What I see when I am reading the diagram is simply this:

There is one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. However, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father.

It just seems to me that since this is the definition of the Trinity doctrine, and because the definition has absolutely zero conflict with the Holy Bible (and actually is in complete harmony with the Bible), it seems completely logical that God is Triune in nature. In other words, the Trinity is the very definition of the nature of God.

I can find some Book of Mormon references that conflict with the diagram but can not find a single one in the Bible. Let me know if you come up with one. Thanks!

[nrajeff]

Thanks, Jeff - I'm mostly concerned that if you can find a single Biblical verse that contradicts the message of the diagram because I can find none. Perhaps I'm missing something.

---As far as I can tell, all you are missing is that the devil is in the details--the semantics. Depending on what meanings we give to the triangle and its terms, it either is supported by the Bible, or it isn't, IMO. That's why a definitive answer to your question is gonna be very hard to give.


What I see when I am reading the diagram is simply this:

There is one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. However, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father.

---But the New Testament has verses that state that the Father is the Living God and the Father and God of Jesus' disciples, while it has none saying that Son is. The NT has no verses saying that the Holy Ghost is the father of spirits. My point is that merely saying that each of the 3 Persons is "God" is too vague to use in the center of the triangle. It ends up being misleading and confusing. Suppose in the center we instead write "The ultimate creator of all things and spirits, the Most High Deity to whom all other persons owe allegiance." Now run all 3 Persons through the exercise again, and it doesn't work anymore. That's because we disambiguated the term in the center. Jesus is deity, yes, but He is not The ultimate creator of all things and spirits, the Most High Deity to whom all other persons owe allegiance, and neither is the Holy Spirit. Only the Father qualifies. That's one huge problem with The Triangle as originally drawn.


It just seems to me that since this is the definition of the Trinity doctrine, and because the definition has absolutely zero conflict with the Holy Bible

--As I said, if we don't scrutinize the implications, you are right, otherwise, there is conflict.


it seems completely logical that God is Triune in nature. In other words, the Trinity is the very definition of the nature of God.

--I still don't see much logic in it being the most accurate description of the 3 Persons. But to answer your question: In the vague format originally drawn, and as long as we don't look too closely at definitions, no, I can't find any Bible verses that definitively contradict The Triangle. That does not mean it's valid, of course. I could make up a theology that is not explicitly refuted by any Bible verse, but I bet you could shoot holes in it nonetheless. :)

[Pro-Truth]

With all due respect, Jeff - all I see you is dancing.

Though, I would welcome you to make up a theology that you feel is not explicitely refuted by the Bible and let's take a look at the Bible to see what it has to say.

The diagram is nothing that I made up. It has existed for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

The Bible says that there is only one God. There are three Persons identified, accepted, and referred to as "God": The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is only one Deity and that is "God". God is three Persons.

I'm asking you to provide any verse or p***age that disagrees with the very definition of the Trinity and I don't believe you can. I've looked quite heavily into this subject and have come up empty. Therefore, I must also conclude that God is Triune by nature. There isn't any way to get around it, I believe. I'm asking you or any other Mormon to show me where or how I'm in error with my conclusion.

[nrajeff]

With all due respect, Jeff - all I see you is dancing.

-- I am being diplomatic. You should be grateful that I am being more restrained in my expressions of disagreement than I usually am. I am trying to keep us from being as mutually antagonistic as we often were at CARM.


Though, I would welcome you to make up a theology that you feel is not explicitely refuted by the Bible and let's take a look at the Bible to see what it has to say.

--You think it would difficult to make up a theology that isn't definitely refuted by the Bible? Heck, look at Trinitarianism, for exa....oh, yeah, sorry. :)


The diagram is nothing that I made up. It has existed for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

---I know that; I have been seeing The Triangle for at least 20 years. I am still unimpressed by it.


The Bible says that there is only one God.

--And Jesus is that God's son.


I'm asking you to provide any verse or p***age that disagrees with the very definition of the Trinity and I don't believe you can.
---The verses that state the inferiority of the Person of the Son, refute the myth of absolute equality of the 3. They are equal in their substance, but not in their preeminence. The Father is the greatest. All that "co-" stuff was made up because someone thought it blasphemous to believe that one Person is superior to the other 2.


I've looked quite heavily into this subject and have come up empty. Therefore, I must also conclude that God is Triune by nature.
--No, there is no law saying you must do that.

There isn't any way to get around it, I believe.

---What we believe, and what actually is, may be different things. The Arians were quite sure that THEIR theology was supported by scripture, and not only supported by it--they believed their theology was MORE supported than Athanasian theology. Just because you and I think they were mistaken is immaterial, since to them, your theology and my theology are less-supported, and I bet the Arians could have quoted scriptures that they believed refuted us. That means little to me, and it should mean little to you.

[Pro-Truth]

-- I am being diplomatic. You should be grateful that I am being more restrained in my expressions of disagreement than I usually am. I am trying to keep us from being as mutually antagonistic as we often were at CARM.

I really appreciate it, Jeff - I truly do. Though, I don't recall you and I antagonizing one another. The only person that I can think of where I couldn't help myself from antagonizing was the LDS member: EVAN at CARM. As for you, it seems to me that you and I have always had good and enjoyable debates and I think we'll continue to do so here.


--You think it would difficult to make up a theology that isn't definitely refuted by the Bible? Heck, look at Trinitarianism, for exa....oh, yeah, sorry. :)

lol, Jeff....I mean, let's at least be reasonable. I can think of Book of Mormon p***ages that come into conflict with the Trinity diagram. I can also come up with mul***udes from the D&C and PofGP as well as quotes from LDS authorities. But, I cannot find a single verse in the Bible that comes into conflict with the diagram. I'm simply requesting from you or any other LDS member to see if they can.




---I know that; I have been seeing The Triangle for at least 20 years. I am still unimpressed by it.

Do you find it impressive that the diagram doesn't conflict with the Bible, yet, it conflicts with the Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP, and quotes from LDS General Authorities?


--And Jesus is that God's son.

I know, as a born again Christian and by having debates with several hundreds of Mormons, that when Mormons say that "Jesus is the Son of God", they mean that in the most literal way. I don't see Jesus being the "literal Son of God" at all - at least, not in the same way that Mormons do. The Jesus I know is co-equal with God the Father and is the exact same God. I see Jesus as being eternally distinct from God the Father, but, I also see Jesus as never having a beginning. Jesus is not subordinate by nature to God the Father.

I not only see Jesus as the "Son of God"; however, I also see Him as "God, the Son". The term "Son of" literally means "In the order of". When Jesus was talking to the High Priests in the Temple, when He said that He was the "Son of God", the High Priests understood that as Jesus making Himself equal with God. This is precisely what Jesus was communicating to them and never at any point did Jesus try to correct them from a potential misunderstanding. This is just one example.


---The verses that state the inferiority of the Person of the Son, refute the myth of absolute equality of the 3. They are equal in their substance, but not in their preeminence. The Father is the greatest. All that "co-" stuff was made up because someone thought it blasphemous to believe that one Person is superior to the other 2.[quote]

Each of the three Persons are equal in substance and they are unique - no other shares the same substance. As for their preeminence, they all are equal; however, have different roles. I can share some examples if you like.

[quote]--No, there is no law saying you must do that.


---What we believe, and what actually is, may be different things. The Arians were quite sure that THEIR theology was supported by scripture, and not only supported by it--they believed their theology was MORE supported than Athanasian theology. Just because you and I think they were mistaken is immaterial, since to them, your theology and my theology are less-supported, and I bet the Arians could have quoted scriptures that they believed refuted us. That means little to me, and it should mean little to you.

I'm under the belief that it's important to consider proper Biblical interpretation by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. In other words, when faced with difficult verses or p***ages, we should also consider what is being said by easier, more clear p***ages to shed light on the more difficult ones. I'm sure we'll get more into this as we continue to debate.

[nrajeff]

I really appreciate it, Jeff - I truly do. Though, I don't recall you and I antagonizing one another.

--Then you are more forgiving, or more forgetful, than I. I remember treating you quite harshly.

As for you, it seems to me that you and I have always had good and enjoyable debates and I think we'll continue to do so here.
--I sincerely hope we will here, because fierce battle wears me out.

I can think of Book of Mormon p***ages that come into conflict with the Trinity diagram.
---Maybe I can, too, but what I see most from anti-BOM folks is comments that the BOM teaches Trinitarianism, and therefore the church's failure to teach Trinitarianism puts the church in conflict with the BOM.


But, I cannot find a single verse in the Bible that comes into conflict with the diagram. I'm simply requesting from you or any other LDS member to see if they can.

---I am fairly confident that I could do it if I tried, but it would be pointless because you'd find an interpretation of the verse that resolves the problem. Just as I would do with any BOM verse you cite that seems to militate against my beliefs. It's a game doomed to stalemate.



Do you find it impressive that the diagram doesn't conflict with the Bible, yet, it conflicts with the Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP, and quotes from LDS General Authorities?

---It's too ambiguous to impress me. I can find BOM, D&C, etc. quotes that agree with the triangle. The Triangle needs to elaborate in order to set itself up as a definitive excluder of LDS/BOM teachings, and it does not elaborate. It just says "Each Person is god and each Person is not any other Person." It is probably sufficient to exclude Modalism and Arianism from itself but not LDSism.


Each of the three Persons are equal in substance and they are unique - no other shares the same substance.

--I know some other Trinitarians who I think would disagree. For one thing, ****ousios is now interpreted to mean that all 3 Persons ARE the same substance, i.e. they are literally inseparable. LDS believe that the Persons are each a pure spirit at their essential core, but they are individuals. And we are called heretics for so believing. For another thing, my other Trin. friends say that of the 3 Persons, Jesus is unique with His 2 natures--divine, and human.


As for their preeminence, they all are equal; however, have different roles. I can share some examples if you like.

--I would just respond by sharing the verses where Jesus declares His Father to be greatest and most knowledgeable.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I would like for any Mormon to find a single verse in the Holy Bible that contradicts the message of the following Trinity diagram:

http://www.dtl.org/trinity/images/picture/trinity.jpg

I have never been able to find one in the Bible; however, I know of p***ages in the Book of Mormon that do, which shows that they are not in harmony with one another. For instance:

Ether 3:14 (in the Book of Mormon) tells us, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son."

Also, Mosiah 15:1-5 "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. 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—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very bEternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

Both of those Book of Mormon p***ages contradict the diagram, but, not a single verse in the Bible does - that is, unless you can find one! I never have been able to.

Often LDS authorities refer to "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost". You can find it in recent conference addresses.

I think your drawing is mostly accurate, except for a missing piece. I would add a large circle around the entire triangle. And label that large circle "Godhead". Then it could be a diagram of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead.

[Pro-Truth]

--Then you are more forgiving, or more forgetful, than I. I remember treating you quite harshly.


--I sincerely hope we will here, because fierce battle wears me out.

lol, don't worry, Jeff. Let's just continue to have great dialogue!


---Maybe I can, too, but what I see most from anti-BOM folks is comments that the BOM teaches Trinitarianism, and therefore the church's failure to teach Trinitarianism puts the church in conflict with the BOM.

That's the irony! Within the Book of Mormon, I can think of p***ages that are right in line with Trinitarianism...and for the most part the Book of Mormon is! But, like I said, I can think of at least a couple of p***ages that are more in line with modalism, which would conflict with the diagram.

As for the Bible, I cannot find a single verse or p***age that conflicts with the diagram. I guess, that's the point I'm trying to communicate.


---I am fairly confident that I could do it if I tried, but it would be pointless because you'd find an interpretation of the verse that resolves the problem. Just as I would do with any BOM verse you cite that seems to militate against my beliefs. It's a game doomed to stalemate.


Actually, I disagree, Jeff. But then again, maybe we should just try and see what happens. I'm sure that we can use our reasoning ability to get to the bottom of things. One thing I've always appreciated about you, Jeff, is that you come across as being far more reasonable than most. Perhaps you feel the same way towards me? Who knows...but, I know that we can at least reason together and see what's going on...


---It's too ambiguous to impress me. I can find BOM, D&C, etc. quotes that agree with the triangle. The Triangle needs to elaborate in order to set itself up as a definitive excluder of LDS/BOM teachings, and it does not elaborate. It just says "Each Person is god and each Person is not any other Person." It is probably sufficient to exclude Modalism and Arianism from itself but not LDSism.

The way I view the Bible, for example, is that it is consistent from Genesis through Revelation. It's as if there is a tiny thread connecting each page as each of the 66 Inspired Books work in harmony.

With that said, I know I can come up with verses or p***ages in the BoM, D&C, and PofGP that all agree with the diagram; however, there are also places where I see that they come into conflict.


--I know some other Trinitarians who I think would disagree. For one thing, ****ousios is now interpreted to mean that all 3 Persons ARE the same substance, i.e. they are literally inseparable. LDS believe that the Persons are each a pure spirit at their essential core, but they are individuals. And we are called heretics for so believing. For another thing, my other Trin. friends say that of the 3 Persons, Jesus is unique with His 2 natures--divine, and human.

I'm unsure of any Trinitarian who would disagree... The Trinity is based on these basic Biblical facts:

1. There is only one God.
2. There are three Persons identified, referred to as, and accepted as "God"

- Therefore, God is Triune by nature.

It really doesn't get any more complicated than that.


--I would just respond by sharing the verses where Jesus declares His Father to be greatest and most knowledgeable.

One thing you have to consider is that while Jesus was on Earth, He was 100% man and 100% God. He was the "Godman", if you will. One thing Jesus did not say is that the Father is "better" than Him. Sure, while Jesus was on Earth, there is no question that His capacity was not at the level of God the Father; however, His nature was equal.

[Pro-Truth]

Often LDS authorities refer to "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost". You can find it in recent conference addresses.

I think your drawing is mostly accurate, except for a missing piece. I would add a large circle around the entire triangle. And label that large circle "Godhead". Then it could be a diagram of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead.

Hey Fig - thanks for joining in! Good to see you...

What I'm mainly trying to ask is if there is a single Biblical verse or p***age that you can think of or find that would come into conflict with the message of the diagram. The diagram is precisely what the Trinity concept teaches.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Hey Fig - thanks for joining in! Good to see you...

What I'm mainly trying to ask is if there is a single Biblical verse or p***age that you can think of or find that would come into conflict with the message of the diagram. The diagram is precisely what the Trinity concept teaches.

Well, I don't know that I would disagree with your diagram since it is could also be used to depict the concept of the Godhead.

But let me ask you this. In your Trinitarian view, what do the lines between the circles represent?

[Pro-Truth]

Well, I don't know that I would disagree with your diagram since it is could also be used to depict the concept of the Godhead.

But let me ask you this. In your Trinitarian view, what do the lines between the circles represent?

They're just lines - they don't represent anything. There are words on the lines which include "is" or "is not" - whatever is applicable to each line. But, as for the lines themselves, they represent nothing - they're just lines.

[nrajeff]

That's the irony! Within the Book of Mormon, I can think of p***ages that are right in line with Trinitarianism...and for the most part the Book of Mormon is! But, like I said, I can think of at least a couple of p***ages that are more in line with modalism, which would conflict with the diagram.

---I probably know the verses you have in mind, and to me, they have the same irony that certain Bible verses have: They seem to contradict other verses if taken literally, but if taken the other way then they don't. What we need to remember is that for a long time, people have been aware of these verses, and have been looking for ways to explain them. To me, that's how Trinitarianism evolved in the first place: Certain Bible verses seemed to say certain things about God or Jesus, and other Bible verses seemed to contradict them. Theologians said "Hmm. It can't be that some of those verses were mistaken, so let's figure out how to make all verses seem to agree with all others."


I'm sure that we can use our reasoning ability to get to the bottom of things.

---Oh, yeah--surely we can arrive at some mutually-agreeable answer to the question of whether Trinitarianism is really God's chosen theology. LOL. Which of us plans to end up agreeing with the other's theology?


One thing I've always appreciated about you, Jeff, is that you come across as being far more reasonable than most. Perhaps you feel the same way towards me?

---Not sure either of us is that reasonable, but we can hope...

The way I view the Bible, for example, is that it is consistent from Genesis through Revelation. It's as if there is a tiny thread connecting each page as each of the 66 Inspired Books work in harmony.

----Not sure how strong that thread is when you get to Song of Solomon, but the tiny thread might indicate merely that all the books contain some inspired ideas. That is a far cry from saying that each book ***erts Trinitarianism. For example, a p***age that says that God is wise, or merciful: Not much for or against literal oneness of the Persons, even though what it does say is true enough.


With that said, I know I can come up with verses or p***ages in the BoM, D&C, and PofGP that all agree with the diagram; however, there are also places where I see that they come into conflict.

--Then I'd say, in those places, read them metaphorically and the problems will disappear. That works with the Bible, too! :D


1. There is only one God.
2. There are three Persons identified, referred to as, and accepted as "God"
- Therefore, God is Triune by nature.
It really doesn't get any more complicated than that.
---Other people seem to think it gets way more complicated than just that, judging by all the books and ****ogies that have been made over the centuries in the attempt to make it more understandable. But if those 2 steps are all we need to consider, then the LDS are Trinitarians, since LDS believe there is only one God, in a way, and LDS believe that the Father is God, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are as well. But since I don't take some things too literally or absolutist, I don't feel very Trinitarian. :)


One thing you have to consider is that while Jesus was on Earth, He was 100% man and 100% God.

---Yes, but what about after He was on Earth? What % God and what % man is He now?


Sure, while Jesus was on Earth, there is no question that His capacity was not at the level of God the Father; however, His nature was equal.

--I believe the nature/essence of the Persons has always been equal. But one could have more knowledge or power than another, and their natures could still be equal.

[Pro-Truth]

Well, Jeff:

I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. I believe that every letter is Inspired (literally: "God breathed") - not just parts of it.

Only the original autographs are Inspired. What we have are copies of the original autographs.

As for the Trinity, it seems to me that many religions, like the LDS Church, are giving an inaccurate definition; therefore, causing confusion to what the Trinity actually is. I don't think there were centuries of coming up with different conclusions of what the nature of God actually is.

I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is the same Being. I don't believe that there is any other God in existence anywhere. I believe God is unique and there is none in existence anywhere or everywhere like Him. Not only "to us" but, period - none in existence for anyone. Just one God.

I think that there is an enormous difference between what the LDS church teaches in regards to God than born again Christians do. Your thoughts?

[Heart2Heart]

Do you believe....

Jesus believes everything that is written in the Bible? If you don't, you are calling Jesus a liar. :eek:

Blessings....

[Pro-Truth]

Do you believe....

Jesus believes everything that is written in the Bible? If you don't, you are calling Jesus a liar. :eek:

Blessings....

I'm ***uming that was not direct towards me.

And yes! You make an excellent point! Jesus often referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. He treated them as authoritative in every single situation. Never did He even hint that merely parts were Inspired - He treated them not only as authoritative, but, reliable and final.

[nrajeff]

Well, Jeff:I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God. I believe that every letter is Inspired (literally: "God breathed") - not just parts of it.

---Does a person need to believe that every letter is inspired in order to be saved?


As for the Trinity, it seems to me that many religions, like the LDS Church, are giving an inaccurate definition; therefore, causing confusion to what the Trinity actually is.
---I use the definitions given to me by Trinitarians, and they seem pretty confused already. Why would it take the brightest theologians of the post-apostolic era (Aquinas, Augustine) to write lengthy, complicated explanations of what the Trinity is, if there was no confusion?

I don't think there were centuries of coming up with different conclusions of what the nature of God actually is.
--I have read that Christianity was being torn apart by fighting between its theological factions, and that the fighting became so intense that Christians were duking it out in the streets. This was a major reason why the emperor held the Council--to force a vote, so that one of the competing theologies would emerge as the official orthodox one, and so any Christian believing the 2nd- or 3rd-place winners, could be punished.


I believe God is unique and there is none in existence anywhere or everywhere like Him. Not only "to us" but, period - none in existence for anyone.

--So you believe that God lacks the ability to create anything else that has His kind of substance?


I think that there is an enormous difference between what the LDS church teaches in regards to God than born again Christians do. Your thoughts?

----I think that is a fair statement. Where LDS beliefs differ is where, IMO, they are superior. :)

[nrajeff]

I'm ***uming that was not direct towards me.
--Oh, come on--you know he was totally talking to you! :D


Jesus often referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. He treated them as authoritative in every single situation. Never did He even hint that merely parts were Inspired - He treated them not only as authoritative, but, reliable and final.

---But you just said "Only the original autographs are Inspired. What we have are copies of the original autographs." And the scriptures in use in Jesus' time were copies of copies of copies of the originals, meaning that what Jesus read and quoted from was uninspired, right?

[Trinity]

nrajeff: I use the definitions given to me by Trinitarians, and they seem pretty confused already. Why would it take the brightest theologians of the post-apostolic era (Aquinas, Augustine) to write lengthy, complicated explanations of what the Trinity is, if there was no confusion?

The problem is that you refuse to accept the complexity of God. People who think that they can explain God perfectly are generally very prideful. In addition, before referring to Augustine or Aquinas you should read what they had said. The only thing that you know on these theological scholars is their names.


I have read that Christianity was being torn apart by fighting between its theological factions, and that the fighting became so intense that Christians were duking it out in the streets. This was a major reason why the emperor held the Council--to force a vote, so that one of the competing theologies would emerge as the official orthodox one, and so any Christian believing the 2nd- or 3rd-place winners, could be punished.

There was debates and many disputes from the day one of the Christian era. You have never heard about the Ebionites, the Nicolaitans, the Nazareans, the Docetism, the Gnosticism, the Neo-Gnosticism, the Agnosticism, the Marcionites, the Montanism, the Monarchians, the Tritheism, the Modalism, the Basidilians, the Carpocratians, etc.

Trinity

[nrajeff]

The problem is that you refuse to accept the complexity of God.
---If a group of Dark-Ages philosophers have made Him more complex than He really is, then there is no good reason to accept that overly-complex theology.


People who think that they can explain God perfectly are generally very prideful.

----Well, I surely don't think I can explain the God of Trinitarianism perfectly, nor anything close to perfectly, so that means I am humble, right? :)



In addition, before referring to Augustine or Aquinas you should read what they had said. The only thing that you know on these theological scholars is their names.

--That's the only thing I know about them? NOW who is prideful, thinking he knows the extent of my studies?


You have never heard about the Ebionites, the Nicolaitans, the Nazareans, the Docetism, the Gnosticism, the Neo-Gnosticism, the Agnosticism, the Marcionites, the Montanism, the Monarchians, the Tritheism, the Modalism, the Basidilians, the Carpocratians, etc.

--Really? I could have sworn that I HAVE heard about every one of those groups. Are you sure you know that I haven't?

[Pro-Truth]

---Does a person need to believe that every letter is inspired in order to be saved?

Simple answer: no. But, it's critical to take the seriousness that the Bible is reliable, as Jesus often referred to the Scriptures as being dependable, authoritative, and reliable. This absolutely should be taken as consideration.

Jeff, when I open my Bible, I see open it carefully not to even wrinkle a single page. When I open it, I know that I am viewing God's Word and even have a profound sense of being humble as I gaze over His sacred Word. I strongly believe that this type of conviction should be present with anyone that even touches the Holy Bible, and rightly so.


---I use the definitions given to me by Trinitarians, and they seem pretty confused already. Why would it take the brightest theologians of the post-apostolic era (Aquinas, Augustine) to write lengthy, complicated explanations of what the Trinity is, if there was no confusion?

I believe that the only lengthy explanations are only lengthy due to Scriptural references. The Trinity concept is so utterly basic on a surface level that it can be easily explained - hence the diagram. Everything is explained by Scripture.

Jeff - honestly, you wouldn't believe some of the misrepresentations I have heard from many different people that belong to controversial religious ins***utions regarding the definition of the Trinity. I could go into expansive detail that would make your head spin regarding the absurd conclusions they have come up with! I often get the feeling of my palm slapping my forehead when I hear many of the misrepresentations of what the Trinity is based on what certain individuals have been told in error.

The Trinity is as simple as this:

1. There is only one God in all of existence everywhere and anywhere.
2. There are three co-equal and co-eternal Persons identified, referred to as, and accepted as "God": The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That's it! It's that simple! Why organizations can't get this right is completely beyond me. It's as if they are inspired by a deceptive force to provide false representations or something....which is just an observation by me.


--I have read that Christianity was being torn apart by fighting between its theological factions, and that the fighting became so intense that Christians were duking it out in the streets. This was a major reason why the emperor held the Council--to force a vote, so that one of the competing theologies would emerge as the official orthodox one, and so any Christian believing the 2nd- or 3rd-place winners, could be punished.

I have heard that if I make a ridiculous facial expression that my face will freeze that way forever! Of course, this is not reality; therefore, what you have heard is not either. The reality is, the concept of the Trinity is as simple as I explained above in this post and throughout this entire thread. I have been consistent for years and I would be willing to bet that not a single born again Christian on the face of this planet would disagree with anything I have mentioned here. Now, that's a profound statement to make, right? But, test it, if you will. No born again Christian will disagree that the Trinity concept is based on there being only one God in all of existence and that there are three co-equal, co-eternal Persons identified, referred to as, and accepted as "God": The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If they disagree, they simply are not Trinitarians. It's that simple.


--So you believe that God lacks the ability to create anything else that has His kind of substance?

I didn't say that; however, this is what I will say: God absolutely has the ability to do whatever He wants; however, He would not and has not created anything that shares His capacity or nature in any way shape or form. Like all of mankind, I don't even qualify as a particle of sand compared to Him. He is Almighty in every single way!


----I think that is a fair statement. Where LDS beliefs differ is where, IMO, they are superior. :)

That's where I am baffled beyond belief. How is the LDS interpretation of God in any way superior to the Christian belief in the nature of God?

For instance, the LDS nature of God is that He is merely one of many Gods in existence throughout the cosmos and is; therefore, not unique in any way.

As for the Christian interpretation of God, He is the only God of all existence anywhere and everywhere and is unique as the only ultimate Creator of everything anywhere and everywhere.

Based on that alone, the Christian interpretation of God is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar superior to the LDS concept by a landslide. I'm sure you can reason with that, Jeff. Common sense is the answer to this one.

[Pro-Truth]

--Oh, come on--you know he was totally talking to you! :D



---But you just said "Only the original autographs are Inspired. What we have are copies of the original autographs." And the scriptures in use in Jesus' time were copies of copies of copies of the originals, meaning that what Jesus read and quoted from was uninspired, right?

Think about it, Jeff - since all of the prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by God and all of the Apostles were inspired by God in the New Testament, the only inspired copies of the O.T. and the N.T. texts that were "inspired" can only be the original autographs by those who were inspired directly from God. Any reasonable person can acknowledge this.

As for copies, do you realize the extent that people went through when making copies of the inspired texts? You really should look into the meticulous process to how this was done. It's really fascinating to discover how accurate the copies were even spanning hundreds stacked upon hundreds of years of the accuracy. God didn't leave His Words to incompetent individuals. For a group not to have a rapid copy machine, they did an exceptional *** with the uttermost minimal imperfections. This can easily be verified.

I realize that the LDS Church has taught you all about how unreliable the Bible is; however, they are in grave error. An extensive study regarding this subject proves otherwise.

[Trinity]

nrajeff: If a group of Dark-Ages philosophers have made Him more complex than He really is, then there is no good reason to accept that overly-complex theology.

Which dark-ages philosophers are you talking about? Can you give names? Try to be more precise when you post.


----Well, I surely don't think I can explain the God of Trinitarianism perfectly, nor anything close to perfectly, so that means I am humble, right? :)

When your unique defense is the derision this is demonstrating that you are a empty shell. Every time I post inside this Forum, I always do my best to instruct, and people in this Forum acknowledges me by this.

The educated Trinitarians accept this reality that the Trinity is a mystery. They are intellectually honest and humble.


--That's the only thing I know about them? NOW who is prideful, thinking he knows the extent of my studies?

What amazes me every time and always, is to see a Mormon for claiming that he knows more about Catholicism than an erudite Catholic like me.

Let me test you a little bit.

At what age Augustine discovered an interest for the philosophy? Can you give me the names of his two preferred authors?


--Really? I could have sworn that I HAVE heard about every one of those groups. Are you sure you know that I haven't?

Which sects from the second century was inspired by the docetism and pursued their beliefs? Also, who was the guy who has defeated them with his writings?

Trinity

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Which dark-ages philosophers are you talking about? Can you give names? Try to be more precise when you post.



When your unique defense is the derision this is demonstrating that you are a empty shell. Every time I post inside this Forum, I always do my best to instruct, and people in this Forum acknowledges me by this.

The educated Trinitarians accept this reality that the Trinity is a mystery. They are intellectually honest and humble.



What amazes me every time and always, is to see a Mormon for claiming that he knows more about Catholicism than an erudite Catholic like me.

Let me test you a little bit.

At what age Augustine discovered an interest for the philosophy? Can you give me the names of his two preferred authors?



Which sects from the second century was inspired by the docetism and pursued their beliefs? Also, who was the guy who has defeated them with his writings?

Trinity

Trinity, I think Jeff would acknowledge that you know more about your own theology than he does. And I think both of you are intellectually honest. In fact, I have been surprised at the honest of your acknowledgments in many of your responses. I don't think you are a "win-at-all-cost-contender". What is right is more important to you than who is right.

Having gotten to know Jeff for 2+ years now, I also know that he is not a "win-at-all-cost-contender". What is right is more important to him as well, than his personally 'being' right.

I just was reading parts of the Augustine confessions on-line. And I did read that Augustine loved greek philosophy. Especially the Platonistic branch. But I did not read what his 2 favorite authors were. I ***ume they were Platonists, however.

And from what I gathered, Augustine could not bring himself to understand the Christian concept of God, until he viewed the God of Christianity through Platonistic gl***es. (From his Platonist background)

As a non-Catholic, that confession presents some issues, for me at least.

[Trinity]

Trinity, I think Jeff would acknowledge that you know more about your own theology than he does. And I think both of you are intellectually honest. In fact, I have been surprised at the honest of your acknowledgments in many of your responses. I don't think you are a "win-at-all-cost-contender". What is right is more important to you than who is right.

You are an honest man. Thank you. I wish to have discussions that are productive and instructive, and not some perpetual quarrels. I am tired about any form of bigotry. I ***ume like an american that you do not reject the ethic written in the cons***ution and in addition the Fathers of your nation. Catholics also have a group of Fathers, the Fathers of the Church.


Having gotten to know Jeff for 2+ years now, I also know that he is not a "win-at-all-cost-contender". What is right is more important to him as well, than his personally 'being' right.

If he can show where he is disagreeing with Augustine or Aquinas and by their writings, by quoting them, he would have more credibility.


I just was reading parts of the Augustine confessions on-line. And I did read that Augustine loved greek philosophy. Especially the Platonistic branch. But I did not read what his 2 favorite authors were. I ***ume they were Platonists, however.

Cicero, a roman philosopher had a great influence on him. And yes, he has found the neo-platonicism by an other roman, Saint Ambrose.

I praise you for your reading of the Confessions. Because of your reading it would be possible to discuss intelligently about his conversion to the Catholic Church. You will read that Augustine was almost converted to a popular sect of his time.


And from what I gathered, Augustine could not bring himself to understand the Christian concept of God, until he viewed the God of Christianity through Platonistic gl***es. (From his Platonist background)

Yes, by the reason. By the faith we are searching God but by the the reason we find him. That was the motto of Augustine.

Trinity

[nrajeff]

Trinity, when your ego allows you to divest yourself of enough know-it-all-ness that you can quit telling people things you have no way of knowing--for example, whether or not they have never even HEARD of Gnosticism--then you might once again be sufficiently tolerable in a discussion. Until then, I find Pro-Truth much more pleasant to talk to, so adieu.

[Trinity]

Trinity, when your ego allows you to divest yourself of enough know-it-all-ness that you can quit telling people things you have no way of knowing--for example, whether or not they have never even HEARD of Gnosticism--then you might once again be sufficiently tolerable in a discussion. Until then, I find Pro-Truth much more pleasant to talk to, so adieu.

I have read all your posts here and I maintain what I have said. You have practically no knowledge about the Early Christianity and that is reflected into your posts. Believe me, I can see a lot of things through your posts. My judgement is based on the reality and not on pride.

For the readers and to answer the questions unanswered into the post #87.

Augustine developped an interest for the philosophy at the age of nineteen years. His two preferred authors: Ceciro and Virgil.

The prolongation of the docetism (first century) was the gnosticism (second century and third century). Ignatius of Antioch wrote a very strong defense against docetism (around the year 110 c.e.), in his letter to the Smyrnaeans.

In conclusion: If you want to criticize Augustine or Aquinas, or even mention their names, start by reading and studying their thesis. Do not enter their names in a post just because you know their names. And, do not tell me that you have studied them exhaustively because I will test you and the truth will be obvious. The answers to my questions cannot be found on the Web. Only people who really know them can answer my questions.

Trinity

[stemelbow]

In conclusion: If you want to criticize Augustine or Aquinas, or even mention their names, start by reading and studying their thesis. Do not enter their names in a post just because you know their names. And, do not tell me that you have studied them exhaustively because I will test you and the truth will be obvious. The answers to my questions cannot be found on the Web. Only people who really know them can answer my questions.

Is your point really that you know more than Jeff? Who cares? My goodness. You could know all that has been written and surmised about the early Church Fathers and I would still doubt you really know them or all that they did, thought, and believed. There are many disagreements about many of them and what they thought, believed, and did. You don't have a corner on the market by any means. I personally ain't interested in fighting about whether you know more about something than another, and I doubt Jeff is either. The point is we can discuss ideas and hopefully grow a little.

You come off as already knowing everything. What's the point if you know more than the rest of us on, what seems to be, every topic?

love,
stem

[Trinity]

Is your point really that you know more than Jeff? Who cares? My goodness. You could know all that has been written and surmised about the early Church Fathers and I would still doubt you really know them or all that they did, thought, and believed. There are many disagreements about many of them and what they thought, believed, and did. You don't have a corner on the market by any means. I personally ain't interested in fighting about whether you know more about something than another, and I doubt Jeff is either. The point is we can discuss ideas and hopefully grow a little.

You come off as already knowing everything. What's the point if you know more than the rest of us on, what seems to be, every topic?

love,
stem

You missed the point.

To affirm something is not proving this thing. your friend is unfortunately a demagogue and it is my wish that he could learn from this. There was a time I was a demagogue also. Many of his posts are an acts of derision, no substance, and nothing that is serious for the mind.

An former demagogue could recognize a demagogue anytime. He is not alone, because there is other demagogues here.

Methods

Apples and oranges — mixing of incomparable quan***ies. For example, "our government has increased social spending by 5 billion dollars, while the previous government increased it only by 0.4 percent." The latter sounds like less, but one cannot be sure without an absolute value.

Half-truth — making statements that are true only in a strict and relatively meaningless sense. For example, "the opposition have accused us of cutting foreign aid, but actually our government spends more than 500 million dollars in foreign aid," not mentioning that (adjusted for inflation) the allocated funds have in fact gone down.

False authority — relying on the general authority of a person who is not proficient in the discussed topic. For example, "the professor read my book, and liked it very much," omitting the fact that it was a professor of chemistry who read a book on history.

False dilemma — ***uming that there are only two possible opinions on a given topic. For example, "You're either with us or against us...," ignoring the possibility of a neutral position or divergence.

Demonization — identifying others as a mortal threat. Often this involves scapegoating — blaming others for one's own problems. This is often advanced by using vague terms to identify the opposition group and then stereotyping that group. This allows the demagogue to exaggerate this group's influence and ascribe any trait to them by identifying that trait in any individual in the group. This method can be aided by constructing a false dilemma that portrays opposition groups as having a value system that is the polar opposite of one's own, as opposed to simply having different priorities. This method was incorporated by the Nazi regime to gain the general support of the public when it began to initiate its anti-Semitic policies.

Straw man — mischaracterizing the opposing position and then arguing against the mischaracterization.

Loaded question — posing a question with an implied position that the opponent does not have, e.g. "Do you still beat your wife?"

Unrelated facts — bringing unrelated facts that sound in favor of the speaker's agenda. For example, marking a vegetable or cereal product as "cholesterol free". Since cholesterol is only found in animal products, such labeling does not actually distinguish this product from similar compe***ors.

Emotional appeal or personal attack — attempting to bring a discussion to an emotional level. For example, "Everyone is against me!", "Can't I be right just once?", "You're stupid!", or just the cl***ic retort "Shut up!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogical

Trinity

[nrajeff]

LOL: The person who claims to know that another person has NOT EVEN HEARD of Gnosticism, and who claims that other people, in comparison to himself, are insects whom he could kill but chooses not to--calling other people demagogues! This is just too funny. What a ****. It's the reincarnation of Audock.

[Trinity]

LOL: The person who claims to know that another person has NOT EVEN HEARD of Gnosticism, and who claims that other people, in comparison to himself, are insects whom he could kill but chooses not to--calling other people demagogues! This is just too funny. What a ****. It's the reincarnation of Audock.

Post #83 (Trinity)
"The problem is that you refuse to accept the complexity of God."

Post #84 (nrajeff)
"If a group of Dark-Ages philosophers have made Him more complex than He really is, then there is no good reason to accept that overly-complex theology."

Post #87(Trinity)
"Which dark-ages philosophers are you talking about? Can you give names? Try to be more precise when you post."

You are unable to sustain your affirmation with the names of this group of philosophers.

Can you see how insignificant was your statement.

Also, the dogmas were pronounced through councils. Which council (about the Trinity) are you referring from the dark-ages period?

Trinity

[nrajeff]

Give it up, Trinny, I intend to ignore your bombast. You should just pretend I don't exist, and I will pretend you don't exist and things will be tolerable.

[Trinity]

Give it up, Trinny, I intend to ignore your bombast. You should just pretend I don't exist, and I will pretend you don't exist and things will be tolerable.

Chech your facts before posting, you'll make less a fool of yourself.

[stemelbow]

Chech your facts before posting, you'll make less a fool of yourself.

Avoid tootin' your horn before posting, your posts will appear more credible. I appreciate Jeff's posts as much as anyone's here. He has some excellent thoughts.

love,
stem

[Pro-Truth]

lol...what happened to this thread?

[Trinity]

Avoid tootin' your horn before posting, your posts will appear more credible. I appreciate Jeff's posts as much as anyone's here. He has some excellent thoughts.

love,
stem

You are of course en***led to your opinion. However, I think you presume a lot in your post.

Trinity

[nrajeff]

lol...what happened to this thread?

--It seems the thread was killed by the Trinity. Maybe the Trinity really is omnipotent! "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Trinity-worshiper." :)

[Pro-Truth]

Can any Mormon come up with a Biblical verse or p***age that contradicts the diagram? It's only the 5th page in this thread and I haven't seen one yet. I suppose the Trinity concept is Biblical, right? ;)

[nrajeff]

Sure, it's "biblical" -- to a Trinitarian. But then, Arianism is biblical, to an Arian.

[Pro-Truth]

Sure, it's "biblical" -- to a Trinitarian. But then, Arianism is biblical, to an Arian.

Hi Jeff - Create an Arianism thread and we can discuss things there. Until then, let's try and stay on topic. I'm still looking for any verse or p***age that Mormons say contradict the message of the diagram.

As you can clearly see, there are none. The concept of the Trinity clearly is Biblical. As I stated before, I can think of p***ages in the Book of Mormon (also the D&C and PofGP) that contradict the message of the diagram.

[nrajeff]

And as I stated before, there are LOTS of statements that, if made sufficiently ambiguous, will seem to agree with the Bible. As I ALSO said before, your triangle is so vague that even LDS can use it. Is that really what you WANT? Seems your agenda is more about being divisive than about showing what we and you have in COMMON, so one would think you'd want a diagram that's sufficiently detailed so it's actually useful in distancing you from us..

[Pro-Truth]

And as I stated before, there are LOTS of statements that, if made sufficiently ambiguous, will seem to agree with the Bible. As I ALSO said before, your triangle is so vague that even LDS can use it. Is that really what you WANT? Seems your agenda is more about being divisive than about showing what we and you have in COMMON, so one would think you'd want a diagram that's sufficiently detailed so it's actually useful in distancing you from us..

If the diagram is so close to what you believe, why do parts of the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and Pearl of GP disagree with it?

[nrajeff]

If the diagram is so close to what you believe, why do parts of the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and Pearl of GP disagree with it?

--What parts say that any of the 3 Persons is NOT deity? None, right?
So your beef must be with the parts that seem to say that Jesus is both Father and Son, right? If such verses, in your mind, contradict the Holy Triangle, then so do parts of the Bible. What's that--you say you are unaware of any such verses in the Bible? Just ask, and I will teach one to you. How did you think the Modalists were able to claim that Modalism was supported by the Bible? By the verses that seem to support Modalism, of course.

[Pro-Truth]

--What parts say that any of the 3 Persons is NOT deity? None, right?
So your beef must be with the parts that seem to say that Jesus is both Father and Son, right? If such verses, in your mind, contradict the Holy Triangle, then so do parts of the Bible. What's that--you say you are unaware of any such verses in the Bible? Just ask, and I will teach one to you. How did you think the Modalists were able to claim that Modalism was supported by the Bible? By the verses that seem to support Modalism, of course.

Yes, Jeff...the verses in the Book of Mormon that teach Modalism. Please find a single verse in the Bible that teaches modalism; therefore, contradicting the diagram.

Thanks.

Also, don't forget the D&C and P of GP. They teach polytheism, which clearly is in contrast with the diagram.

How many "Gods" do you see in the diagram? I only see one.

[nrajeff]

Yes, Jeff...the verses in the Book of Mormon that teach Modalism.

--I think you mean, "the verses in the BOM that seem to teach Modalism." Just like the BIBLE verses that seem to teach it, or the Bible verses that seem to teach Arianism..or literal-oneness Trinitarianism, for that matter.


Please find a single verse in the Bible that teaches modalism; therefore, contradicting the diagram.

---Do you think this challenge will be as "challenging" as the challenge to find a single time when Russ made an inaccurate statement? :D

Here ya go: How about Col. 1:15 which says that Jesus

"is the image of God invisible, the first begotten of each creature." (Wycliffe)

It seems to be saying that the INVISIBLE God is the first begotten of each creature. But other verses say that it's Jesus who is the first-begotten, so maybe the Bible, taken in totality, teaches that Jesus is the Father, since both are referred to as being the first begotten of every creature.

I mean, you want to take 1 Nephi 11:21 as teaching that Jesus is the Father, right?

("Behold the Lamb of God...the Eternal Father")

So you have to jump to the same conclusion if the Bible has a similarly Modalism-SEEMING sentence. Which it does, in Col. 1:15.
Bible: Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the first begotten of each creature.
BOM: Jesus is the Lamb of God, the Eternal Father.

Either they both teach Modalism, or neither does. Which is it, do you think?



Also, don't forget the D&C and P of GP. They teach polytheism, which clearly is in contrast with the diagram.

--You mean they teach polytheism like the BIBLE teaches polytheism?

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18 NASB et al

Pretty radical, huh?


How many "Gods" do you see in the diagram? I only see one.

---How many "Gods" do YOU see in John 1:18? The God whom no one has seen at any time, PLUS the only begotten God who has explained that other God. Looks pretty polytheistic to me. Are you saying that the Bible contradicts your little triangle thingy? Then which should I, as a Christian, believe? Maybe you should show me the evidence that your triangle is more authoritative than the Bible is. :)

[alanmolstad]

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan, was Jesus able to give in to those temptations had He wanted to?

Unless the temptation is real, then the victory over temptation is a moot point.

[James Banta]

Unless the temptation is real, then the victory over temptation is a moot point.

This is interesting, jeff wants to cheapen the victory of Jesus over sin.. It was just that a victory.. He had a leg up only that He, like Adam, had no sin nature that forced him to sin. He was able to make a clean choice. Those of us born sinners would have failed that test every time.. Adam gave into sin he didn't have to.. Jesus was victorious be didn't have to obey.. He could have fallen under Satan's control as easily as Adam did. I praise Him that He did NOT do so.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

I would like for any Mormon to find a single verse in the Holy Bible that contradicts the message of the following Trinity diagram:

http://www.dtl.org/trinity/images/picture/trinity.jpg

I have never been able to find one in the Bible; however, I know of p***ages in the Book of Mormon that do, which shows that they are not in harmony with one another. For instance:

Ether 3:14 (in the Book of Mormon) tells us, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son."

Also, Mosiah 15:1-5 "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. 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—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very bEternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

Both of those Book of Mormon p***ages contradict the diagram, but, not a single verse in the Bible does - that is, unless you can find one! I never have been able to.
The Holy Spirit is called God in Acts 5.