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:



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]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

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]

Originally Posted by stemelbow

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---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,

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--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]

Originally Posted by Trinity

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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--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]

Originally Posted by Trinity

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]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

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]

Originally Posted by Russ

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]

Originally Posted by Trinity

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,

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Trinity

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]

Originally Posted by Trinity

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?