Transfer of Trinity discussion from Judaism Forum

[Bowman]

The division that Christ speaks of is not war caused by the doctrine of God.

Yes, it is.

[xcav8tor]

Hi Salty,

Digression: I thought all three were of the same essence. And yet one of them supposedly was seen as Jesus in spite of sharing the same invisible essence.

Jesus is BOTH G-d AND Man. We cannot see His invisible Divine essence, any more than we can see the Father's. We CAN, however, see His human form. Make sense? This is how, when one sees Christ, it can still be said that they have "seen G-d":

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? (John 14:6-9 NIV)

Jesus is the tangible, visible expression of G-d (in both OT and NT).

And the Word was G-d,... and the Word became flesh... No-one has ever seen G-d, but G-d the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (John 1:1-3, 14, 18 NIV)
He is the image of the invisible G-d, the firstborn over all creation. (Col. 1:15 NIV)
For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form (Col. 2:9 NIV)

As for G-d's "image" in the Genesis creation account, it was obviously not a physical image because it says, "So G-d created man in his own image, IN THE IMAGE OF G-D he created him; MALE AND FEMALE he created them." (Gen. 1:27 NIV) If mankind were created in G-d's image in the "physical sense," as in Mormon theology, that would make G-d's image visually both male and female. We bear the image of God in that we have each been given an immaterial spirit/soul, self-consciousness, creativity and freedom of choice.

Good point, and I concur. But that also argues against the trinitarian doctrine's claim that Genesis is speaking of the male god-image of Jesus.

I don't follow. What do you mean by this?

Judaism has also coined the word theophany, to describe times where G-d was visualized in a man-like form. And of course, these were all angels, not G-d Himself, for again, He has no actual form to visualize, there is no incarnation.

Not G-d Himself? But if this is so, why does The Angel of the L-RD (Who uniquely represents G-d's presence - Isa. 63:9) speak and act as if He is the tangible expression of G-d? Why does He say "I am, I will, I said," instead of speaking as His representative, saying "Thus saith the L-RD"?

Also, why couldn't a formless G-d manifest His personal presence in the form of an angel? What prevents Him from doing so?

No incarnation? Then who is this Divine individual?:

6 For to us a child is born, to us A SON IS GIVEN, and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. (Isaiah 9:6, 7 NIV)

2 The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the L-RD and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles”...
7 I will proclaim the L-RD’s decree: He said to me, “You are MY SON; today I have become your father.
8 Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the L-RD with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Ps. 2:2-12 NIV)

9 “As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened...
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like A SON OF MAN, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language WORSHIPED him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Dan. 7:0-14 NIV)

The problem for the Christian is this makes it harder to reconcile with those times when Jesus says he is subordinate to G-d, and doesn't know what G-d knows nor has His power.

I believe I covered this in post # 67 when discussing Jesus' self-imposed limits due to His incarnation. Jesus' human nature will always be subservient to G-d the Father and own the Father as His G-d. In His divine nature, Jesus partakes of the same immaterial spiritual essence, inherent glory, essential attributes, and privileges as the Father, but His human nature as the Messiah is necessarily subject to the limitations of man (having a physical beginning, being mortal, being in one place at a time, restricting His access to all knowledge, veiling His Divine glory, living His life in humble obedience to and dependence on the Father, etc).

Even aside from the incarnation, there is a distinct order in the Trinity. The Father is First (He is the source of all, He is not made, not begotten and does not proceed), the Son is Second (He is not made but eternally begotten of the Father), the Holy Spirit is Third (He is not made, but eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son). This protocol does not mean one is necessarily inferior to the others because each person shares the same essence and seeks to glorify the others (ie, John 17:1-5). I'm going to quote myself again from the BB Court:

Aside from using the Space/Mass/Time Universe as an analogy or "reflection" of the Trinity in creation (ie. 1 UNI-VERSE, yet it has 3 distinct and fundamental aspects - SPACE, MATTER, TIME - each of which fills the whole), the Sun is often used. What I personally like about the Sun analogy is that it adds a level of experience that we can all identify with.

The SUN (as G-d the Father), the LIGHT from the Sun (as G-d the Son), and the HEAT from the Sun (as G-d the Holy Spirit), provide a good illustration of both the INDIVISIBLE, ESSENTIAL UNITY of the Trinity, as well as the INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTNESS of each member.

The Sun is the SOURCE (Exo. 3:14NIV) of the Light which radiates from it, and the HEAT we experience is derived from both the Sun and its Light (John 14:26 NIV, John 15:26 NIV). The Light from the Sun guides us toward the Presence of the Sun (just as Jesus as the Light of the World John 8:12 NIV introduces us to the Father John 14:6-10 NIV, Luke 10:22 NIV). We cannot separate the Sun which is the source of the Light from the very Light which radiates from it (John 1:1-4 NIV Jesus being the very Glory and essence of the Father Heb. 1:3 NIV), just as we cannot separate the Heat we experience when we stand in the sun from either the Light which conveys the Heat or the Source from which the the Light originates.

In like manner, the Creeds tell us that the Father eternally "BEGETS" the Son, and that the Holy Spirit eternally "PROCEEDS" from both the Father and the Son (indeed the Holy Spirit IS the "product" of the very love between the Father and the Son). Begetting is a process which passes on the nature of the originator. Inasmuch as what human beings "beget" is Human - what God "begets" is Deity. In the Sun analogy, the Light which radiates from the Sun shares in the nature of the Sun which is its source and it is the Light of the Sun which draws attention to its source. While in the Light of the Sun, we personally experience the Heat energy which "proceeds" from both the Sun itself and is conveyed by the rays of Light from the Sun.

The gas, light and heat are distinct in one way, and united in another, and the whole would not exist if any of the three were missing.

While no analogy of the infinite G-d based on what we find in His creation can adequately or completely express the personal dynamics of the Trinity, I find this one has more explanatory power than most, especially since everyone can identify with how the sun's Light draws their focus to the Sun and how its Heat is personally experienced on their skin.

But you said yourself that G-d wouldn't cause us to break His commandments, to worship an image in violation of the commandment.

I thought I covered this with the words, "G-d manifesting Himself in human form does not equate to G-d making an image for us to worship - as if it were something "OTHER" than Himself." I also addressed this in more detail in my first response.

Then he was no longer G-d.

Sorry. Forgot the word "use" - He voluntarily gave up the USE of His divine prerogatives. As G-d, the Son of G-d, He still had them (G-d cannot change His inherent nature - He is immutable: Mal. 3:6 / James 1:17 / Heb. 13:8), but chose not to use them for His own benefit. For example, He could have asked His Father for 12 legions of angels to prevent His arrest in Gethsemane but chose not to (Matt. 26:53).

Thanks. I understand how the Christian understands it, which is not really what I call understanding, but more like learning to live with and not question a set of conflicting and irrational claims.

The claims often appear as "conflicting and irrational" to those who do not understand. Now if you understand them, and still reject them, that is another matter, but they are neither illogical or unreasonable. Just sayin'

Cheers,
xcav8tor

[jo7241974]

Hi jo,

I am currently working on a reply to some of the questions you asked throughout this thread, but there are so many it will take time. Meanwhile, perhaps you could comment on these Mormon texts, which AFAICT clearly affirm the Bible's monotheism and Trinitarian doctrine. In fact, we Trinitarians often wish the Bible was as explicit as the BoM in this regard.

Hi Xcav8tor!

We have had a couple of family emergencies going on for awhile, so I haven’t responded as quickly as I would have liked. Then, last night I had put together a complete post which disappeared when I went to post it. I got a message that my time had expired on Tweb – which hasn’t happened but once before. Normally, I can remain connected to Tweb all day long even if I’m not doing anything on it; and I am still able to post without any problems. It instructed me to merely go back one screen, but nothing was there except my previous post I had made to Bowman. ARRghhhhh. I don’t know if I will remember everything or not; so I hope I at least get the gist of my message repeated.

Now, first I will remind you that everything you have pulled from the Book of Mormon is still being filtered through your belief in the Trinity, so that is what you will see, regardless. It is unavoidable; but it is something that just is.

Ether 2:8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and ONLY God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

The true and ONLY God. No hint of a qualifier.

If you go just a few verses further, you will find the “qualifier”:

Ether 2:12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, WHICH IS ONE GOD, world without end.

This in not merely "one in purpose," but "one God" - IOW, one BEING. Three persons. One God. Sort of says it all.

The Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost, is distinctly identifying three DIFFERENT Beings who make up ONE Godhead (btw, I do not have the word “world” in this verse in my Book of Mormon).

Perhaps it would be useful to try to use something we can identify that is worldly in order to use it as an example of understanding how it is that three separate “essences” (or whatever word you wish to use) can still be called “one” but NOT mean they are the same essence. I will further explain why I am using this illustration once I have finished.

The Board of Directors of a publicly-traded company is made up of several individuals. They are each separate, each has their own responsibilities, yet they all make up one “Board”. The Board (though made up of several) is NOT called a “Boards”. But we all know instinctively and for practical purposes of administration, there is an hierarchy represented in this Board. Most familiarly there is a President, at least one Vice President, and a Secretary. They are all members of the very same Board; and their positions are recognized as individual positions; yet they are still ONE Board.

I am using this illustration as it actually serves two purposes. The first purpose has already been stated. The second purpose is to discuss “becoming one” as proposed by the Trinity. Suddenly, whenever the Bible discusses Jesus’ teaching that we can become “one” with Him, even as He is “one” with the father, you switch gears and start scrambling with various interpretations of Jesus’ meaning something entirely different about our becoming “one” with Him, than what you claim He means when He says He is “one” with Father. However, the Bible goes into no such type of explanation. It says what it says. I don’t believe that Jesus is teaching us that our “essence” changes and we become “one” essence with Him, anymore than our “essence” changes and we become “one” essence with the Father. The Trinity version of Father and Son being “one” is completely different than the Trinity version of our becoming “one” with the Son and then with the Father. Yet Jesus clearly states that we become “one” with Him EVEN AS He and the Father are “one”. Do YOU believe that you become equal with Jesus, or equal with Father? Or that we all join and become part of the Godhead? I don’t.

In fact, Tertullian did not believe that Jesus was equal with the Father; nor did he believe that the Holy Ghost was even equal with Jesus; nor does he use the "essence". His Trinity explanation came out at least 75 years (or more) BEFORE the first Council of Nicea. The Council came out with a new version of the Trinity which eventually evolved into a total equality and non-hierarchal Trinity. So, which version is the “true and correct” version? Were versions only correct when they first came out? And then errors were discovered so that they needed to have NEW “true” versions created? Why is there such great confusion among Trinitarians who STILL disagree on what the nuances of the Trinity teach?

Alma 11:22-31 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, if it be according to the Spirit of the Lord, which is in me; for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord... And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: IS THERE MORE THAN ONE GOD? And he answered, NO. Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

So Amulek - who says nothing contrary to the Spirit of the Lord - pronounces that there is only One God (and he got this straight from an angel).

There is nothing conflicting in Amulek’s words. You still continue to filter your opinion through your belief in the Trinity.

Who was Zeezrom?

Alma 12:31 And there was one among them whose name was Zeezrom. Now he was the foremost to accuse Amulek and Alma, he being one of the most expert among them, having much business to do among the people. 32 Now the object of these lawyers was to get gain; and they got gain according to their employ.

Zeezrom’s full purpose in challenging Amulek with questions was to try to trap him so that he could take Amulek before the judge in order to be awarded money by persuading the judge that Amulek was a liar. Now, Zeezrom was quite aware of the teachings through the tradition of what had been passed down. Therefore, his questions were crafted in such a way as to try to catch Amulek. With this understanding, as in any confrontation that goes on even today’s courts, we know that not everything that is known by either party is being presented to the jury. Some things are not pointed out because they are already understood. So, only points which can cause confusion are pointed to.

For instance, I could present many scholarly comments which indicate that the early Jews were NOT monotheists. YOU could then present just as many scholarly comments which indicate the Jews have always been monotheists. It would get us nowhere. They either were, or they were not monotheists. Neither of us can prove this one way or the other. But we will both still use our “sources” in maintaining our stances. They will be used in all sincerity; but will only cause confusion.

The very next verses following the ones YOU presented are these:

Alma 11:32 And Zeezrom said again; Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? 33 And he said unto him, Yea.

This indicates to me the “One God” originally asked about by Zeezrom could be one or two possibilities. One would be that the “One God” being spoken of is the Father only; or, it is already understood by both parties that the One God is the Godhead. Even the following could cause confusion:

Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

Here Zeezrom is very clever. To understand his cleverness, we need to remember that it is the Son who is the Creator of our world under the direction of the Father. The next verse helps to explain this:

Alma 11:39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Now, we know that it was not Father who came in the flesh and Atoned for our sins. We also can see that Amulek is speaking of “the world to redeem his people”. IOW he is speaking only of our world, even though we know that there are many worlds, it is only OUR world being spoken of.

So, who is going to be the redeemer of all of the other worlds? Do they require a redeemer?

Alma 11:44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous... shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, WHICH IS ONE ETERNAL GOD, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Again, Three persons, One Eternal God. Sure looks like the Trinity from my perspective.

Again, three separate Beings, One Godhead speaking about only our world. Sure looks like non-Trinitarian from my perspective.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, WHICH ARE ONE GOD, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

Yet again. Three persons mentioned, which we are told are One God.

Again, three separate Beings, One Godhead speaking about only our world. Especially note that “world” is singular.

3 Nephi 11:25-27, 36 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the NAME [note: singular, not plural] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost ARE ONE; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I ARE ONE... And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for THE FATHER, AND I, AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE ONE.

Now because it only says "are one" here, you might be tempted to explain this away as "one in purpose," but in light of the other preceding verses which specify that the three persons are "One God," and the contextual use of the singular Name, I don't think that would fly.

This is a familiar argument. You use it when referring to baptism in the Bible. Again, I will point out that there are three separate Beings “named”, being separated by the words “of the”. Again, I will point out my argument about what being “one” looks like. If, as Jesus teaches, we become “one” with Him even as He is “one” with the Father, do you believe, according to the understanding of the version of the Trinity you hold to, that you become equal to Jesus, and equal to Father? Does your essence change into theirs?

Mormon 3:21 And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that JESUS, WHOM THEY SLEW, WAS the very Christ and THE VERY GOD.

This doesn't seem to say Jesus is a second God, separate from God the Father, but "The Very God" - IOW, one Who is the same Being as God the Father.

I believe that Jesus is the God of Abraham. Inasmuch as most of the Jews did not recognize Him when He came in the flesh, they still, nevertheless believed in God (the God of Abraham whom they said to Jesus was the Father…..and note that Jesus never confirms that what they said to Him was True) without realizing they were one and the very same Being. For instance, Paul in his determination to do right by his God by persecuting the Christians, was totally astonished when Jesus asked Paul why he was persecuting Him. “Lord, what would you have me do?” was Paul’s question because he thought he was already serving God.

And even this passage in Doctrines and Covenants supports the Trinity:

D & C 20:27, 28 As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son; WHICH FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST ARE ONE GOD, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

And also, if Christ is NOT a member of the Triune God, then there seems to be a serious conflict between the second commandment and the BoM (Thou shalt have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME... Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN thyself to them, NOR SERVE THEM: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God. Exod. 20:3-5):

This is only a problem created BY the Trinity. Christ IS a member of the Godhead. Christ is also the God of Abraham. Thereby, Christ is also the one who gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. Therefore, Jesus is confirming that as the Creator of our world, He IS the First and the Last. Also, inasmuch as Jesus does only the will of His Father, He is Father’s perfect representative on the earth. Jesus has even taught that if He does nothing but the Father’s will. Therefore, whatever Jesus does is as good and as though it were Father doing it.

Let’s look at how, when Jesus came in the flesh, it was His desire to teach us that He and His Father were NOT the same being. He is revealing part of the mystery of God! Thus we see teachings such as “My Father, your Father; My God, your God”. It is in the NT we learn that He does only what He has seen the Father do. He does NOT say, I am the Father; or that it was the Father who did the things which He (Jesus did). He goes to the trouble of explaining their separateness, over and over again. He is not trying to confuse us by saying He and the Father are “one”, and then telling us that we can become “one” with Him as well. WE do NOT become equal with the Father or the Son. Our essence does not become their essence. Also, remember that once He comes in the flesh, Jesus continually gives all glory to the Father. In the NT Jesus becomes the Bridgegroom – He becomes the Redeemer. He will NOT receive recognition as King of Kings and Lord of Lords until AFTER He receives the deed to the earth. He is NOT the Father; He is NOT equal to the Father. Father GIVES Jesus the earth to reign over it forever and ever.

So, who receives the deed(s) to all of the other worlds?

2 Nephi 25:28, 29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and CHRIST IS THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL; wherefore YE MUST BOW DOWN BEFORE HIM, AND WORSHIP HIM WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT, MIND, AND STRENGTH, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

Here we are told to bow down before Christ, and worship him with all our might, yet if He is a separate God from The Father, this is in clear violation of the second commandment.

Please note that the above all happens BEFORE Jesus comes in the flesh. Just as in the OT where Jesus is the one who gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses, Jesus is the God Being of this world’s Godhead who is the jealous God. But once He comes in the flesh and fulfills all that the Father has asked of Him; i.e., He is crucified and Atones for our sins, He must now wait for Father’s signal that it is time for Jesus to return to the earth at which time He will inherit the earth and be made King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It is during this waiting period that all Glory is to be given to the Father. We are to pray to Father in the name of Jesus.

3 Nephi 19:18, 25, 26 And behold, they began to pray; and THEY DID PRAY UNTO JESUS, CALLING HIM THEIR LORD AND THEIR GOD... And it came to pass that JESUS BLESSED THEM AS THEY DID PRAY UNTO HIM; and his countenance did smile upon them... And Jesus said unto them: PRAY ON; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.

Same problem. The people are calling Jesus their Lord and their God, and praying to him with his approval - this is blasphemy if Jesus and the Father are separate Beings.

You need to go back a chapter to see how Jesus has laid the groundwork – just like in the NT –on who we are to pray to.

3 Nephi 18:19 Therefore ye must always pray unto the Father in my name; 20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. 21 Pray in your families unto the Father, always in my name, that your wives and your children may be blessed. ……23…..ye shall pray for them unto the Father, in my name. 24 Therefore, hold up our light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed.

It is the following day that the verses you pointed to take place. Now read very carefully what takes place (emphasis added):

3 Nephi 19:17 And it came to pass that when they had all knelt down upon the earth, he commanded his disciples that they should pray. 18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God (this, the day after Jesus had commanded them to pray to the Father in His name----We are being shown that this is taking place in direct opposition to what Jesus had taught them. Why? Let us read on.) 19 And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and bowed himself to the earth, and he said:……22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and THEY PRAY UNTO ME BECAUSE I AM WITH THEM.

In fact, once Jesus leaves, the mode of prayer then follows the commandment and example which Jesus gave them, in that they then pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. Now, if Jesus were in front of me, in my presence, I would not try to communicate with Him by first addressing Father, I would address Jesus directly. This is just common sense.

So, we see that not only does Jesus keep the commandment which He gave the people by going to the Father to offer His prayer; He also explains to the Father why the people are praying to Jesus instead of to the Father. Now, Jesus continues and brings up the concept of being “one”; even as though it is meant to teach us yet again about what being “one” is really all about:

3 Nephi 23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, are in me, that we may be one.

There is NO essence being discussed here. The One-ness being discussed is being in unity with one another. We are not all going to become one huge God.

Regards,

jo

[jo7241974]

Greetings all!

A couple of thoughts came to mind to share:

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

I believe here, Jesus is referring to being born of Spirit, being born of the Spirit from on High. Man cannot ascend to heaven, except that he is born again of the Spirit, which I believe is our inmost nature, just not realized till it is born in us, until the Spirit that has descended from Heaven has been born within him.

Hi Vivian!

I would say that this is probably the more important layer of understanding to be had in this verse. Yet it incorporates the understanding that our own spirits originally descended from Heaven. It is interesting that Nicodemus (and I believe he may have been a member of the Sanhedrin) was, as Jesus called him, "a master who did not understand".

I would also offer that the Son of God is 'God embodied perfectly in an image'. And so indeed the likeness of a man sitting upon the throne is the Son of God. Curious though this Son of God, as Jesus says clearly in the above, alone descends from and ascends to heaven.

I do not think, though, that Jesus is saying that He is the only one descending and ascending to heaven. As I said in my earlier post, what of Enoch? However, the concept that we must be born of the Spirit indeed embraces our need to believe in the Son of God in order to return (ascend) to heaven. And to ascend, we still need to have descended from Heaven.

And so it is when the 'Son of God' has been born within us that we might ascend with it into Heaven.

Maybe we are talking past each other, here.

The Father is so beyond his creation that he cannot be contained by his creation, but he can be embodied in a perfect temple, which then becomes his Son.

Therefore any image of the Father in creation, any perfected vehicle which is clothed in the Name of the Father, is the Son. This is clearly established with the Father's Divine Name YHVH, Yod Hei Vau Hei. This is the Father transcendent of creation. When the Father is embodied in a perfected or completed form, it becomes Yod Hei Shin Vau Hei. Yeshua - or Emanuel, The Father with us in form. Thus it is promised that when we overcome, become perfected or completed temples, we will be the Body of Yeshua - Yeshua or the Son in form.

Interesting and beautiful way of conveying your belief. This would also help explain how it is we are all gods; how we all are the children of our Father in Heaven and have been made in His (or their, if we include Jesus') image. Even as Jesus has come forth from the Father, so have our spirits. As sons and daughters of the most High, our spirits have also taken on the form of their image and likeness.

Shalom!

Viv

Shalom, my beloved friend!

jo

[Bowman]

According to Jo, even the witnesses who signed their names at the beginning of the BOM were wrong…

The Book of Mormon

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.



OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS

Not ‘are’ (plural) one God; rather ‘is’ (singular) one God.

Not multiple Gods.

Not three Gods.

But one God.

The Trinity.

[jo7241974]

To All:

In studying the origin of some of the ideas man has about God, in particular the Trinity, Heraclitus, a Greek Philosopher (535-475 BC), has popped up a couple of times. He also wrote quite a bit about the word “Logos”. Inasmuch as Paul speaks in a negative way about philosophers (see the following passage), Frank and I have been doing some digging to see what we could find.

Acts 17:18 KJV
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

also, there is this:

Revelation 2:6 KJV
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

Nicolaitanes is a name that is a combination of Greek words. Though little is known about them, their philosophy was one of controlling the masses.

Now, in the following information about how Heraclitus used the term Logos – which was apparently common to the Greeks of his day, I discovered that it was one of the Stoics, Hippolytus, who, in the 3rd Century AD, identified Logos as “meaning the Christian Word of God”. I had never taken special note of the fact that Christendom had borrowed the word Logos from the Greeks. I do not know if readers here on Tweb had taken notice of this either. So, I am sharing this information, as readers may find it interesting; especially in how it effects their beliefs about God which have been taught to them through the tradition of Orthodoxy. IOW, “Logos” is NOT a divine word at all. However, some early church fathers used it to describe what is Divine. Enough time has now passed that today’s Christian automatically believes that the word Logos is divine.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Heraclitus

Logos

"The idea that all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos" and "the Logos is common," is expressed in two famous but obscure fragments:

This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this Logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (DK 22B1)

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the Logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (DK 22B2)

The meaning of Logos also is subject to interpretation: "word", "account", "plan", "formula", "measure", "proportion", "reckoning." Though Heraclitus "quite deliberately plays on the various meanings of logos", there is no compelling reason to suppose that he used it in a special technical sense, significantly different from the way it was used in ordinary Greek of his time.

The later Stoics understood it as "the account which governs everything," and Hippolytus, in the 3rd century CE, identified it as meaning the Christian Word of God.

Heraclitus did not think very much of mankind. This becomes quickly noticeable if you spend any time reading his comments. Also, I have not been able to find anything in his writings that indicate he believed in a god in the manner or tradition of the Jews. His disdain for mankind immediately breaks the commandment to love others, which makes me wonder, that if he DID believe in a god, he certainly did not believe in The Father (I am purposely using OT passages since Heraclitus lived before Christ came in the flesh):

Leviticus 19:18 KJV

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:34 KJV

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Yet his personal philosophy, and the philosophy of subsequent Greek Philosophers have been integrated into, at the very least, both Jewish and Christian theology.

What surprises me is that even though Greek philosophy is frowned upon in the Bible, that so many of the early church fathers lauded the works of Heraclitus and those who followed him. Justin Martyr went so far as to proclaim Heraclitus was worthy of being a Christian! Indeed, this was a remarkable statement for Martyr to make since there is no way for him to know if Heraclitus would even have believed in Jesus. He bases his comment solely on the philosophy of Heraclitus, who, I would remind you was at most a Pagan. I have already pointed out how Heraclitus broke the second greatest commandment because he had no love for mankind in general. In fact, he found those whom HE considered wise to be the only ones worthy of any type of positive accolades. This brings to mind the following passage:

Romans 1:22 KJV

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Still, man is drawn to the “wise” – through flattery and personal conceit and human ego. Upon this foundation of what Paul preached against, not only the early church fathers, but also to this day, man has continued to build their own personal ideas about God.

If you were to make a personal commitment to study the writings of Heraclitus, you would also be able to identify the semblances of where ideas on the Trinity have a root in Greek philosophy. When Alexander the Great (356-323BC) conquered the world, he made everyone learn to speak Greek. Not much later, because most people were speaking Greek by then, the Septuagint (which was the translation into Greek of the Jewish scriptures) was compiled. The Greek influence remained strong, even among the Jewish population. It remained popular and very influential even until the Roman Empire. It is not difficult to see that once the Roman Empire gained great influence over the church (first through the efforts of Constantine) that the church fathers would still be incorporating long-held to Greek philosophies into the belief system of the church, along with a mixture of Roman Pagan held beliefs.

These comments are made to educate those who may not have been aware of where their current beliefs evolved from. They are made in an effort to show that you are allowed to think beyond what you are being taught has ALWAYS been what was taught (which is a lie). It is also offered to show that what was taught even early on in the history of the church, was very much influenced by the society which converts lived in which does NOT immediately equate that what they eventually believed is what Jesus and the Apostles actually taught or what Jesus and the Apostles meant by the words they used. This is offered to show how man, through various influences, will interpret what is written in the Bible to such extents that there may be little truth left in the interpretations themselves. Thus, it is imperative that we become acquainted with recognizing the Holy Ghost’s guidance in our lives. It is the Holy Ghost who leads us to all Truth, as promised by Jesus.

Therefore, we should not allow man’s interpretations of what they think is being taught in the Bible, to be the final say on what you will believe the Bible is teaching. Man will use the intimidation of fear to compel you to cling to what he is telling you, versus what the Holy Ghost may be trying to guide you to. Remember that man cannot save you. When he proclaims that unless you believe what HE is telling you to believe that your soul is eternally damned, BEWARE! This “judging” he is doing is to control what you can or cannot believe. It is a false teaching. It is of satan. These controls are the very deeds which the Nicolaitanes did which Jesus hated, as recorded in Rev 2:6. I offer that these controls include, but are not limited to, compelling man to accept the Trinity before he can be saved. Remember that neither the word “trinity” nor “logos” (divine or otherwise) ever show up in the Bible.

Regards,

jo

[jo7241974]

According to Jo, even the witnesses who signed their names at the beginning of the BOM were wrong…





Not ‘are’ (plural) one God; rather ‘is’ (singular) one God.

Not multiple Gods.

Not three Gods.

But one God.

The Trinity.

Hi Bowman:

This is just another rabbit trail as you are even using this witness with the understanding of a Trinitarian. And you are using it to avoid answering the problems inherent with the Trinity which have been pointed out in this thread.

Your argument is vapor.

Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman:

This is just another rabbit trail as you are even using this witness with the understanding of a Trinitarian. And you are using it to avoid answering the problems inherent with the Trinity which have been pointed out in this thread.

Your argument is vapor.

Regards,

jo

Hi Jo,

The very witnesses signing their signatures at the beginning of your book of faith showed their clear understanding of the Biblical Trinity.

This is fact.

You cannot refute it.

You don't even make an attempt, as it destroys your current theology.

Somehow, between the witness' declaration of the Trinity back in the early 1800's, as printed in your BOM, and your denial of this concept today, something has gone horribly wrong....this something is what we now call Mormonism.

[jo7241974]

Hi Jo,

The very witnesses signing their signatures at the beginning of your book of faith showed their clear understanding of the Biblical Trinity.

This is fact.

You cannot refute it.

You don't even make an attempt, as it destroys your current theology.

Somehow, between the witness' declaration of the Trinity back in the early 1800's, as printed in your BOM, and your denial of this concept today, something has gone horribly wrong....this something is what we now call Mormonism.

Still unable to answer the problematic questions of the Trinity, I see. So be it.

Mat 15:12-14

Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

Still unable to answer the problematic questions of the Trinity, I see. So be it.

Mat 15:12-14

Regards,

jo

Mormonism is a fatal disease, Jo.

[franktalk]

Hi franktalk,
I'm sorry Frank. I am trying my best to avoid unnecessary confrontation but this is utter nonsense, or to use your own words:

Please dispense with all the melodramatic rhetoric. It does not add to the discussion or lend credibility to your position.

Regards,
xcav8tor

Actually I said what I said to make a point. When man adds to scripture it normally turns out bad. Take for instance when the Sadducees and Pharisees added to the Law. In many cases making the man made law of more importance than the Law of Moses. But the Jewish leaders used the authority of God as the foundation to extend scripture.

Matthew 23:2-5

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

When anyone becomes a member of a church the leaders have a responsibility to not abuse the faith of the members. The members look to the leaders for guidance and some leaders will drift away from the love of God and embrace the world. This has happened many times and will continue.

The RCC brings this to a new level. In reading the Catholic encyclopedia volume 12 around page 266 where it describes the rights of the church and of the Pope it basically says there are no limits on the church. The church can and should do whatever it takes to protect itself. Of course when it describes itself it is buildings and money. Funny how the members are left out. The encyclopedia goes into a discussion about how the church received its authority from God as symbolized by the keys being given to Peter. Peter representing the church not himself. And of course I think the whole issue is misunderstood. What I believe is the Spiritual communication is the foundation not Peter. For the rest of scripture supports that view. Now later Peter kills two people who sinned against the Holy Spirit. This I believe was a big mistake on the part of Peter. He was always a hot head. Now some will see this and say to them self that to kill another is just fine as long as we are supporting or defending God. When the Crusades happened in the name of God did it really fix anything? When the Spanish Armada sailed to destroy England in the name of Christ it did not work out to well for them. When man comes to conclusions and acts without a clear message from God it is of this world. I see many acts of man and few acts being directed by God.

Whether the Trinity is true or not is not really the issue with me. I am way more concerned with how that argument manifest in the actions of men. Do you deny that many have died in the attempt to raise one church of Jesus over another church of Jesus? In my mind no Church of Jesus would war with another over spiritual differences. But the RCC and others have taken the step beyond things of the spirit and taken on the role of civil authority and God's authority over their fellow men. Do you deny that even today the RCC holds to doctrine that the Church is of higher authority in all matters than the nations?

There will come a day when the churches will expose what they really are. In that day the members are told not to follow the church.

Revelation 18:3-5

3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

So we are commanded to not stay with her. And who is her? Would it be a safe position to stay away from any Church? How about we have a direct relationship with God and the church is second? There will come a day when the churches will start to consolidate into one church. A church of the world, a universal church for the world. What do you think will happen for those who choose not to join? I pray for the Kingdom of God on the earth. But to get there we must go through tough times. My melodramatic rhetoric will seem pretty tame one day. I am sure in that day I will regret not being more blunt about the love of God and the hate of the world.

[Bowman]

So we are commanded to not stay with her. And who is her?

'Her' is Babylon the Great; the great harlot; the woman; the city of man.

There are two cities described in Revelation.

The city of man and the city of God.

Remember that the Harlot is riding on the back of Satan....thus, it really should come as no surprise that the city of man will endure hardship.

[xcav8tor]

Hi franktalk,

What I believe is the Spiritual communication is the foundation not Peter. For the rest of scripture supports that view.

The "rock" on which Christ said He would build His church is neither Peter nor "spiritual communication," but the truth of Peter's statement of Who Christ Himself is - The Son of the Living God:

Matt. 16:14-18 NIV
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Now later Peter kills two people who sinned against the Holy Spirit. This I believe was a big mistake on the part of Peter. He was always a hot head.

Acts 5:1-10 NIV
1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property.
2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.
6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Could you please point out in this passage where it says that Peter killed either of them?

In my mind no Church of Jesus would war with another over spiritual differences.

You are not thinking of "the Church" in Biblical terms as the worldwide community of genuine believers, but of visible denominations which include both believers and unbelievers, with tares among the wheat. The visible church is not going to be perfect, and even the saved have to struggle against their old nature (until the resurrection).

There will come a day when the churches will expose what they really are. In that day the members are told not to follow the church.

Revelation 18:3-5

3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

God would never tell us not to associate with the Church, because the true Church (made up of members from all orthodox denominations) is the body of Christ on earth:

1 Cor. 12:12-27 NIV
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many...
20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body...
24 ...But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it,
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Eph. 3:6, 20, 21 NIV
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us,
21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

Eph. 5:25-30 NIV
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church -
30 for we are members of his body.

Col. 3:11-16 NIV
11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

You are assuming that the passage in Revelation 18 is talking about the church. It is not.

It is talking about Mystery Babylon, the false religious system that began in Babylon and will eventually establish itself as a one-world religion. As a futurist, it is my understanding that this group will include all who attended church but were never really saved and were left behind at the rapture. Mystery Babylon is not the RCC or any other denomination today.

My melodramatic rhetoric will seem pretty tame one day. I am sure in that day I will regret not being more blunt about the love of God and the hate of the world.

Frank, you were blaming Trinitarians for all manner of murder and mayhem as if the doctrine itself was the cause. That simply does not follow. Many who called themselves Christians in the past did much evil in God's name, but they do not represent the true church made up of the body of Christ. Those who did evil were doing so out of their own evil nature, and if they appealed to the Trinity doctrine to justify their deeds, they were no different than the hypocrites who used the Bible to justify the slave trade. The doctrine itself is not evil, but merely the teaching of scripture.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[jo7241974]

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Hi Xcav8tor:

1 John 5:7-8 KJV (emphasis added)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I would argue that the "rock" itself is NOT the truth of Peter's statement. I cannot accept that Jesus was laying the foundation of His Church on something that a mere man said. Besides, truth is too subjective for man to figure out or agree upon. However, I do accept that Jesus was laying the foundation of His Church upon the SOURCE of the truth which was revealed to Peter. Jesus later talks about the Holy Ghost in many teachings: It is ONLY the Holy Ghost, whom, should you blaspheme Him, you cannot be forgiven for that sin. It is the Holy Ghost who leads us to all Truth, etc. So, spiritually, "Truth" cannot even be revealed without the Holy Ghost. It is the Holy Ghost who witnesses that Jesus is the Christ. And how did Peter learn the Truth about Jesus? By Jesus' Father who is in Heaven; yet by the above verse from 1 John (the Beloved!), John makes it clear that it is the Holy Ghost who bears witness on the earth. For this to be true then when Father taught Peter who Jesus was, then I believe that Father did so through the power of the Holy Ghost.

It is the spiritual witness that is greater than a man's witness; for it is done Spirit to spirit. One of Paul's favorite subject matters is the Holy Ghost - for "we can only know that Jesus is Lord through the power of the Holy Ghost"; "we can only know of spiritual things through the Holy Ghost"; etc. In fact, there is so much taught and emphasized about the Holy Ghost in the NT, that is difficult NOT to see that there is great importance and significance to the third member of the Godhead.

And what are some of the biggest false teachings that have been developed by man since Jesus was here in the flesh (In fact, there were already false teachers and false prophets among the members of the church)? To fear the Holy Ghost; that the Holy Ghost has already finished His mission; there is no guaranty that it is the Holy Ghost you are hearing (IOW, false christs, demons, etc. could be the source of who is guiding you); that by listening to someone else's testimony, then you have automatically received a personal witness by the Holy Ghost--therefore, if you reject their message you have rejected the Holy Ghost and are eternally damned (yet this in direct conflict with the teaching that a person must first believe--and THAT is when the Holy Ghost will give you a personal witness); etc. Why would the adversary devote so much time influencing man against the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost was not such a threat to his own efforts? Yet the Holy Ghost is here to stay! He will not be removed from the earth; He is the witness on the earth!!!!! Jesus is not the witness, the Apostles are not the witness, even the Bible (which is the Word of God) is not the witness. They testify of Christ; their personal testimonies are born of the Holy Ghost's burning influence in them. However, we can only read or be told about their testimonies and teachings and be encouraged to believe; being led by their words to a desire that what they are sharing IS true; but unable to obtain our own personal witness from THE WITNESS that is on the earth (the Holy Ghost) until AFTER we believe! In fact, until AFTER we believe, we do not actually accept the Bible as God's Word. Until we believe and receive the witness of Holy Ghost, the Bible is merely an ordinary book which makes claims. Once we believe, then that is when we believe those claims.

God would never tell us not to associate with the Church, because the true Church (made up of members from all orthodox denominations) is the body of Christ on earth:

I couldn't help but notice your double standard. First you admit that there are both believers and non-believers in the various denominations, while at the same time you believe it is ONLY "orthodox" denominations which could possibly make up the Church. Do you not see this??? Regardless of what the definition is of this word "orthodox", it is still a concept of MAN - and I don't think I need to remind you about how fallible man is, or how quickly he is influenced by the adversary. What better way for the adversary to use one of his biggest tricks than to try to divide the Church from within??? Surely, if being a "member" of a "certified" and "accepted" denomination cannot guaranty a member his salvation, then how can you be so sure that people who are outside of the "certified/accepted" denominations aren't saved either? Just think about the logic alone.

1 Cor. 12:12-27 NIV
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many...
20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body...
24 ...But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it,
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

Eph. 3:6, 20, 21 NIV
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us,
21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

Eph. 5:25-30 NIV
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church -
30 for we are members of his body.

Col. 3:11-16 NIV
11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.
13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Nowhere in the above is there a definition of what is or what is not "orthodox". For you to claim otherwise would be to deny that various denominations have a place within the Church, since they obviously are not in perfect unity. This is yet further evidence against your "orthodox denomination" theory.

Frank, you were blaming Trinitarians for all manner of murder and mayhem as if the doctrine itself was the cause. That simply does not follow. Many who called themselves Christians in the past did much evil in God's name, but they do not represent the true church made up of the body of Christ. Those who did evil were doing so out of their own evil nature, and if they appealed to the Trinity doctrine to justify their deeds, they were no different than the hypocrites who used the Bible to justify the slave trade. The doctrine itself is not evil, but merely the teaching of scripture.

Here you go; please read your own words again very carefully:

The doctrine itself is not evil, but merely the teaching of scripture.

This sounds exactly like what the scribes and Pharisees were doing: "Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men."

Do you not see that it is the doctrine of the Trinity which is the source of what man has killed over? Is the doctrine intrinsically evil? No! But man can certainly make evil choices. If there had been no Trinity "doctrine which merely teaches scripture" (I guess man thinks his teachings are greater than what the Holy Ghost can do, even though we have been taught otherwise), I would offer that man would not have been able to use the Trinity as their excuse to kill the people who would not agree with it. Since it is politically incorrect in a "civilized" country today to continue to kill people who will not accept the Trinity, Christendom came up with the idea to disallow anyone who does not accept it, to be allowed to be considered to be a part of the body of Christ. How ridiculous! Man is still using the Trinity to Judge man. They are closing the gates of Heaven to anyone who will not agree; just like the scribes and Pharisees closed the gates of Heaven to the Jews.

Regards,

jo

[xcav8tor]

Hi jo,

We have had a couple of family emergencies going on for awhile, so I haven’t responded as quickly as I would have liked. Then, last night I had put together a complete post which disappeared when I went to post it... It instructed me to merely go back one screen, but nothing was there except my previous post I had made to Bowman. ARRghhhhh. I don’t know if I will remember everything or not; so I hope I at least get the gist of my message repeated.

Been there - done that. Very frustrating! Now when I write a response, I copy it into an e-mail draft file, and keep re-saving until I am finished. Then I post the final draft, and make any last minute changes if necessary. Then I go back and delete the draft file. A few weeks ago my computer froze right after I saved the draft so I was able to retrieve everything I had written. I wouldn't have been able to remember it all otherwise.

Now, first I will remind you that everything you have pulled from the Book of Mormon is still being filtered through your belief in the Trinity, so that is what you will see, regardless. It is unavoidable; but it is something that just is.

That is not necessarily true because one would normally expect to find Mormon doctrine expressed in the Book of Mormon. To find explicit support for the Trinity is not what one would anticipate. Also, just taking the words at face value, I would expect that anyone who isn't a Mormon would read these passages and conclude they are talking about 3 persons who are ONE being (even if they had never even heard of the term "Trinity"). So no, it's not just a matter of personal bias.

Ether 2:8 ...should serve him, the true and ONLY God

If you go just a few verses further, you will find the “qualifier”:

Ether 2:12 ... if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ

That doesn't change the monotheism of verse 8. As far as that goes, does the BoM state anywhere that other gods exist or that there are many gods? If so, please provide the verses. If not, perhaps you should rethink the implications of the monotheism taught by your primary holy book.

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, WHICH IS ONE GOD, world without end.

The Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost, is distinctly identifying three DIFFERENT Beings who make up ONE Godhead (btw, I do not have the word “world” in this verse in my Book of Mormon).

Actually, this demonstrates different PERSONS, not different BEINGS. There is no debate about the Father and Son being distinct PERSONS, but it is begging the question to assume this text is talking about separate BEINGS. Neither does it mention "Godhead," but simply the word, "GOD." It would seem that you are the one reading preconceived notions into the text.

Btw, I copied the text verbatim from the official LDS website (http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng). Very well laid out and user friendly I must add.

Perhaps it would be useful to try to use something we can identify that is worldly in order to use it as an example of understanding how it is that three separate “essences” (or whatever word you wish to use) can still be called “one” but NOT mean they are the same essence...
The Board of Directors of a publicly-traded company is made up of several individuals... yet they are still ONE Board.

None of this applies to the text I quoted, because it says "which are ONE GOD," not one Godhead. In fact, interestingly enough, I did a search and the word, "Godhead" does not even appear once in the ENTIRE Book of Mormon!. This being the case, the verses I quoted are saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (3 PERSONS) are ONE GOD (1 BEING) - NOT ONE GODHEAD.

The second purpose is to discuss “becoming one” as proposed by the Trinity. Suddenly, whenever the Bible discusses Jesus’ teaching that we can become “one” with Him, even as He is “one” with the father, you switch gears and start scrambling with various interpretations of Jesus’ meaning something entirely different about our becoming “one” with Him, than what you claim He means when He says He is “one” with Father. However, the Bible goes into no such type of explanation. It says what it says.

It's not a matter of "scrambling" but of paying attention to CONTEXT. The context of Jesus discussing His being "One in nature" with the Father is different than when He is discussing our being "one in fellowship" with Him and the Father. His argument with the Jews was over His IDENTITY and divine nature, and they sought to stone Him for blasphemy because they understood all too well exactly what He was saying - but they didn't believe Him. He then proceeded to rub their noses in it, and again they took up stones. Keep in mind that the Jews were legalists, and stoning was only permitted for 5 offences - familiar spirit, cursing/blasphemy, false prophet who promoted idolatry, stubborn son, and adultery. They made it clear that blasphemy was their alleged justification (John 10:33).

I don’t believe that Jesus is teaching us that our “essence” changes and we become “one” essence with Him, anymore than our “essence” changes and we become “one” essence with the Father... Jesus clearly states that we become “one” with Him EVEN AS He and the Father are “one”. Do YOU believe that you become equal with Jesus, or equal with Father? Or that we all join and become part of the Godhead? I don’t.

Neither do I. In these other passages the subject is FELLOWSHIP, and the context is not talking about Christ's identity, but personal relationships. Believers can experience the same closeness Jesus has with the Father - to a certain degree in this life, but ultimately face-to-face in the next life.

... Why is there such great confusion among Trinitarians who STILL disagree on what the nuances of the Trinity teach?

The Nicene/Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Westminster Confession are all in agreement (based on the three scriptural observations I noted earlier), and all the Trinitarians I know have no problem affirming all of them. Any alleged confusion only relates to the "how it works" or "what's it like" aspects of it, and that is quite frankly none of our business or concern.

So Amulek - who says nothing contrary to the Spirit of the Lord - pronounces that there is only One God (and he got this straight from an angel).

There is nothing conflicting in Amulek’s words. You still continue to filter your opinion through your belief in the Trinity.

It was a straightforward statement of basic monotheism. No "filtering" required - just a grasp of the English language.

Alma 11:32 And Zeezrom said again; Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? 33 And he said unto him, Yea...
Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
Alma 11:39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Yes, the Book of Mormon does not precisely conform to the Trinity doctrine revealed in the Bible. While it does seem to affirm monotheism and the distinction of the divine persons of the Father, Son and Spirit, it then proceeds to confuse the identity of the Father and the Son as if they were the same person/mind/consciousness. This inconsistency is not my problem, however, but yours. It's not my holy book.

IOW he is speaking only of our world, even though we know that there are many worlds, it is only OUR world being spoken of.
So, who is going to be the redeemer of all of the other worlds? Do they require a redeemer?

The Bible says nothing about other inhabited worlds, so any question about them would be idle speculation. I myself believe earth is the only inhabited planet in the entire universe.

Alma 11:44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous... shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, WHICH IS ONE ETERNAL GOD

Again, three separate Beings, One Godhead speaking about only our world. Sure looks like non-Trinitarian from my perspective.

Again, you have yet to establish that the reference to 3 distinct persons is a reference to 3 separate beings. I already pointed out the importance of recognizing this distinction between "person" and "being/entity" in an earlier post. Did it "go in one ear and out the other?"

And again, it does not say Godhead, but ONE ETERNAL GOD.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, WHICH ARE ONE GOD...

Again, three separate Beings, One Godhead speaking about only our world.

Same comments as above. You're turning me into a broken record jo.

This is a familiar argument. You use it when referring to baptism in the Bible. Again, I will point out that there are three separate Beings “named”, being separated by the words “of the”.

Prove it. You are just repeating your assumption that one "person/mind/consciousness" = one "separate being."

I believe that Jesus is the God of Abraham...

I believe that YHWH (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the God of Abraham. Exodus 3:14

if Christ is NOT a member of the Triune God, then there seems to be a serious conflict between the second commandment and the BoM (Thou shalt have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME... Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN thyself to them, NOR SERVE THEM: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God. Exod. 20:3-5)

This is only a problem created BY the Trinity. Christ IS a member of the Godhead. Christ is also the God of Abraham. Thereby, Christ is also the one who gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses. Therefore, Jesus is confirming that as the Creator of our world, He IS the First and the Last. Also, inasmuch as Jesus does only the will of His Father, He is Father’s perfect representative on the earth. Jesus has even taught that if He does nothing but the Father’s will. Therefore, whatever Jesus does is as good and as though it were Father doing it.

Hardly. There is no doubt that God the Father is the "jealous God" of the 2nd commandment. MORMONS are the ones teaching that Christ is a SEPARATE GOD and DISTINCT BEING from the Father. Then you have this second God being bowed down to and worshiped. It hardly matters that you call Him a member of the Godhead, because the "Me" who is the jealous God is NOT the Triune God in your POV, but the Father alone. You have the same problem if you say Jesus is the "Me" who issues the commandment. That would rule out worshiping the Father. The problem is caused by your POLYTHEISM.

it was His desire to teach us that He and His Father were NOT the same being....Thus we see teachings such as “My Father, your Father; My God, your God”.

You are misinterpreting the significance of Jesus' words to Mary. He was not going back on His declaration in John 10:30 that He was One in nature with the Father, but reaffirming that His relationship with the Father is different than ours. If He had merely said, "I ascend to OUR Father and OUR God," He would be putting Himself on the same level as Mary, but instead He says, "I am ascending to MY Father and YOUR Father, to MY God and YOUR God" to deliberately show there is an IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.

While God is now a father to believers by adoption into His family, Jesus is the Father's ONLY BEGOTTEN Son Who shares in His very divine nature as God. And while the Father is our God by creation, He is Jesus' God only with regard to His humanity, not His eternal divine nature.

He is NOT the Father;

Correct. Jesus is not the same PERSON as the Father. He is, however, the same BEING/ENTITY because He shares in the Father's nature:

The Word was with God and the Word was God. (John 1:1 NIV)
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Heb. 1:3 NIV)
The Son is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15 NIV)

He is NOT equal to the Father.

The Bible disagrees:

For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself EQUAL with God. (John 5:18 NIV)

So, who receives the deed(s) to all of the other worlds?

There is no Biblical evidence for any other inhabited worlds, but to answer your question, everything the Father owns, Jesus owns:

All that belongs to the Father is mine. (John 16:15 NIV)

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (Heb. 1:1,2 NIV)

We are to pray to Father in the name of Jesus.

Well we can at least agree on that much.

You need to go back a chapter to see how Jesus has laid the groundwork... He also explains to the Father why the people are praying to Jesus instead of to the Father.

I still don't see how any of this resolves the problem of only worshiping ONE BEING. You have the Father being worshiped. You have the Son being worshiped. The "jealous God" of Exodus 20 will not permit the worship of ANY OTHER BEING, so no matter which "member of the Godhead" you see as giving the commandment, worshiping the other member - who according to you is a SEPARATE GOD - is to break the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me."

There is NO essence being discussed here.

Agreed. But this is a different context.

Regards,
xcav8tor