SolaFide

Within the one being that God is there exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. I do mean that each is fully God. I do not mean that each is A god. That's the difference. Isaiah 43:10 - Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 44:6 - Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:8 - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Actually, the concept is all over Scripture. You simply do not beleive these passages. That is only true if you do not make a distinction between 'Being' and 'Person'. Being makes something what it is. Person makes someone who they are. Father, Son, and Spirit can all share the same being and yet have a different will because will is a characteristic of Person. That would be fine if three different gods who worked towards a single purpose was Biblical. However, it isn't. That's why it is a false teaching. Theres no contradiction if you understand the fact that the number of Gods is determined by the number of beings. One being = one God. No, the Father is not 1/3 God, the Son 1/3 God, and Spirit 1/3 God. That is false. All three are 100% completely God. Time is the best example I can think of for this. Past, Present and Future are all equally time. We distinguish between them and do not confuse the past with the present or the present with the future. They are distinct. Yet all three are fully and equally time. Nor do we say there are three times. There is only one. This is not a perfect analgy, but it fits here.

This is my main problem. Jehova's Witnesses are the fundamental antithesis to Mormons. Mormons would hold that not only are Father, Son and Spirit gods, but so are every single human who has ever lived. Jehova's Witnesses, on the other hand, would not even accept Christ as God. In there system Christ is actually Michael the ArchAngel, aboe all other creations, but still below the Father and not God. To say that we're all Chrsitians is to say that it really does not matter what we believe about God. You say following Christ's teaching is what matters. But didn't Christ teachg about the nature of God? Or do we not have to follow everything that He said? There is a reason why I can't just throw up my hands and say, "Well, we disagree. Oh well." It is because I honestly beleive that you are worshipping a false God, do not know the real Christ, and have a false gospel. I honestly believe that if you die in this state then you will go to Hell for all eternity. I CANNOT accept that and simply agree to disagree. You need the true Jesus, who has been the one and only God from all eternity. This is the Christ that entered into human flesh. He died on the cross and bore the sins of His people, absorbing the wrath of God and and transfering His righteousness to us. He rose from the grave and conquered death itself. It is only in this Jesus that we can have hope. [QOUTE=Vanhin]When God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and spoke to Him - the question was answered. We now know that the Father and the Son are two separate divine Beings, each with a body of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost does not have a body, but is a personage of spirit (D&C 130:22). We have learned that our spirits are the offspring of God, and that this mortal experience is part of God's plan for his children to reach their greatest potential, which is to be one with Him, and be like Him. Because of this knowledge, when we read the Bible, we understand what God means when He calls us his children. It makes more sense now, when the Son prays to the Father, whom He calls His God and ours. We understand now what Christ means when He says that if you have seen him you have seen the Father, and we are able to reconcile that with the profession of the Savior that his Father is greater than He is. So, really the question is - Did God appear to Joseph Smith, as he claimed? We assert that He did, because God himself has made it known to us. That is really the bottom line. Regards, Vanhin Compare your beliefs in the seperate beings of the Father and Son, the Father having a body of flesh and bones, humans being physical offspring of the Father, our exaltation and becoming gods, etc. to the Bible. Does the Bible teach these things? The answer is no, it does not. You must read all of these thngs into the text because there is not even a hint of them there. Look at the Scriptures and let it conform your mind to its teaching. Joseph Smith contradicts the Bible and the gospl on almost every account. That makes him a false prophet. That is the bottom line.

Yes. I am arguing that Joseph Smith contradicted himself as well as the Bible and is therefore a false prophet. You have not explained the quote. I argued that 'plurality of gods' = 'polytheism'. You said that I did not understand the qutote yet you have not given me a different way to understand 'plurality of gods'. Well I do not accept D&C as authoritative. But, is there anything that specifically relates there that relates to the nature of God, as that is what we are discussing. From what I could tell it was mostly general commandments. Yes, I understand that. I simply beleive that you are inconsistent. If we were to find another letter of Paul (who was inspired as he wrote His letters) where he further explains what he meant in his epistle to the Romans, for example, then Christians would consider that binding. The inspired apostle is telling you what he wrote. You have to accpet that. However, LDS do not take many of the claims made by Joseph Smith or many of the otehr prophets and apostles. (Considering that they contradict the BoM and D&C I can understand it.) However, why do you not take the totality of what thse allegedly inspired men waught? Fine. Then please interpret the original quote from Smith that I gave to you. There is already seperation to begin with in the sense that there are three different persons. That is to say that the Father, Son and Spirit have different functions. (For example; Salvation. The Father draws His people to the Son, the Son dies to bear to make propitiation for their sins, and the Spirit brings about regeneration, sanctification, etc. in the life of the believer.) THe cross is the only point where there was spiritual seoeration between Father and Son. Psalm 82: 1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. This is what Jesus is quoting from. This text deals with the unjust judges in Israel. They have the authority to of God in their ability to judge, yet they are abusing it and taking advantage of the people. (They are being unjust, accepting the wicked, not defending the poor and fatherless, not doing justice to the afflicted and needy, etc. These are the things God is critiquing them on.) God points out that although they have the authority of gods they will die like men. (If you think that these are actual gods, not judges, I have a few questions for you: Why are these gods judging the earth; Isn't that Elohim's domain? Why does Elohim say that they will die; do gods die?) Yes, it does say that they are the children of God. I would suggest that this simply means that they have been created by God, not offspring in the sense of the Father's spirit children that LDS has traditionally taught. When Jesus makes his claim to divinity in John 10, why do the Israelites react the way they do? If all He is doing is saying, "I am a god in the same wya that you are", then what's the big deal? The Jews are outraged that a mere man would make Himself out to be God. Obviously something else is going on. The point Jesus is making is that even though the Old Testament judges were called 'Gods' they died due to their unjustice. This is the application that Christ is making to the Jews, that they are the same as those in the Psalm and will be punished in the same way. I would reject Smith's teaching on this, too. "Children on God" in the Bible never intends physical offspring. It means His creation. So all people everywhere are gods? Even if they are not gods to same level of authority that God Himself is, they are still gods? How can you not see polytheism? That would mean that tody alone there a about 6 billion gods on the earth. Even if you don't worship these other gods, you would have to at least admit to Henotheism. Monotheism is the belief that there is only one God ever in all of existence. By your statements that men are gods, you cannot be a Monotheist. Again, I disagree that all people are gods. We don't beleive the same thing. So your point that we are either both Monotheists or both Polytheists is ridiculous. You yourself say that all people are gods. That puts your gods count well into the billions. I do not beleive that we people are gods in any sense. We are not of the same being as He is and never will be. I am saying that there is only one God. You must realize that we differ on this point.

You are simply mistaken. The Trinity is a reflection of the Bible's core teachings. (There is one God in all of existence, Three persons share the name of God, and they are clearly distinct.) Have I come here citing philosophers or creeds? No. I am presenting to you the Holy Scriptures and asking you to make judgments from that. I would obviously disagree that Joseph Smith's doctrine is Christ's. I ask you to compare his statements with the Biblical text and see if it matches up. Where is this plurality of gods when the LORD has said, "Beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6)? God reveals Himself to us in this day through Scripture. We agree that it is His holy word. We agree that it is His divinely inspired revelation. So where in the Bible do we see God telling us that we go to some other source for truth? The simple fact is that we do not. We match all things with what is already inspired and if it contradicts it is false. God never tells us to pray over something to see if it is true. We are supposed to take our beleifs to the Bible. The Devil is ready and willing to give us false feelings and our sinful hearts are more then capable of believing what is false. 1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Test what you beleive by what God has revealed already.

The doctrine of Monotheism depends greatly on the word "one". We beleive that there is only one God. However, the Bible defines its own terms and explains to us what "one God" means. Isaiah 43:10 - "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." Isaiah 44:8 - "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." As you can see, we are dependent on our own ability to determine what "one" means. God has clearly revealed it to us and shown us what is means. Praise God for the clarity of His word! I am in total agreement with you. It can be vey hard to give up a core doctrine that defines you faith. If you do, your whole system shatters. But, knowing God truly is more important that staying where you are comfortable. I ask you to look at the verses I cited above. "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me", "Beside me there is no God" and "Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God." That is overtly clear. Where do you see the idea of 'three Gods who are one in purpose' ever presented in the Bible? There is not such place because there are not three gods. The Bible (as I cited above) refute that idea. Again, I agree with you. However, instead of asking you to pray over truth, I will ask you to take your beleifs to Scripture. It is God's revelation to man. He has given it to us a revelation of who He is. What does it say? What does it reveal about the nature of God? If you see something that contradicts your beleifs, don't tey to explain it away. Let it conform your mind. As will I be praying for you to come to the truth. Once again, I agree. Don't beleive it just because your church has said this is the way it is. Take your views to Scripture. Does Joseph Smith contradict Scripture? Do you find the plurality of gods anywhere on the pages of the Bible? Don't rely on your "good feelings". Take it to God's word.

Everything has being. Its what makes something what it is. But not everything has personhood, which makes them who they are. Speaking and thinking are examples of this. The rock example was to demonstrate the difference between 'being' and 'person'. A rock has being (as all things do) but it does not posess personhood. I do not doubt your sincerity or compassion at all. And I would hope you would trust me in the same way when I say that I am genuinly concerned about the Mormon people. And I will gladly examine any Biblical text you wish if you will do the same for me. Please do. Jesus is praying for all beleivers at all times, and He is asking that they be one like the Father and the Son is one. However, in your quotation you have cut out a key part of the text, verses 14 through 19, which has lead to your flawed critique. 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Notice what Jesus begins by saying: Believers are not of this world in the same way that Christ is not of this world. This does not mean that all believers everywhere suddenly became incarnate Gods. It is that the world is sinful and evil, but believers, as those who are covered in the blood of Christ, are not. They are being sanctified (made holy) as the Spirit works through them to conform them to the image of Christ. They are not becoming gods as you have suggested. Rather, they are having their minds changed to think like Christ, their actions are being changed to reflect the actions of Christ, and their love for their brethren reflects Christ's love for them. It is at this point that we come to the verses you have cited. With the point of the previous verses in mind (sanctification, which is clearly stated in the text) we have Christ asking for believers to be one as He and the Father are one. Again, believers will be united and reflect Christ in love, actions, thought etc. We are IN Christ and it is only IN Christ that we can become like Him. Now, if you do not mind, would you please comment on Isaiah 43:10? "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." And John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I am well aware of the first vision as it was reported by Joseph Smith. I am looking at things from the vantage point of someone who does not accept Mormonism. The BoM and D&C don't teach any overt Polytheism. There are many places that are very close to the Bible. (Looking at the BoM, I would say that Smith actually sat down and copied parts of the text word for word.) Yet, later on in Smith's life he makes claims that LDS have always been Polytheists. My suggestion is that Smith's theology had evolved over time. I agree that everything hinges on the first vision account. If it is true then Mormonism is true. If not, Joseph Smith is a liar. Simple as that. But, the best way to examine our relative systems is to compare them to the Holy Scriptures. That is the one thing that we have in common between us which we can judge by. And I understnad that LDS teaching is that one should pray over the BoM to see if its true. However, I disagree that this is how God communicates truth. God has reveled Himself through the Scriptures. Never does He say to pray on the Bible and ask if its true. We determine truth by reading what He has given us. And if something is contradictory to what has already been revealed then it is false.

The problem is that when we say, "the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are each individually God" we mean different things. You mean that there are 3 distinct gods. I mean that there is one being of God that is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons. Yes, Trinitarian do look at it and realize that three gods would violate the Biblical and often stated doctrine of Monotheism. Yet there are three distinct persons who are called by the divine name. Trinitarians bring things together in a way that, although complicated, does not contradict any one of these three Biblical truths. (One God, Three distinct Persons, all three called God). My problem with LDS believers is that they say 3 separate gods makes 1 god and apparently do not mind the fact that it is a contradiction.

1) I actually think it is quite clear. When someone says, "I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for this exact purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years", I think it is self-evident what that person means. In my estimation the only way someone could understand it differently would be if they simply did not want to see it. However, if you honestly think that Joseph Smith was not advocating polytheism here, then I would love to here your interpretation of the quote. Please tell me what you think. 2) Joseph Smith said this same kind of thing over and over again, as did many other Mormon Prophets and Apostles. So why is not found in the Bok of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants? Because those were written early in Joseph Smith's life and these quotes came later in his life. I suggest to you that Joseph Smith had a theology that developed and changed over time. I did indeed. One thing that I would like to point out is something that I saw i this link and have heard many LDS folks say in the past (including yourself above). That is this idea that if it wasn't in the BoM, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price, then it doesn't matter (or at least isn't binding.) But that is nonsense. If the Prophet who founds your religion holds to a particular doctrine and says it over and over again, then why is that not binding? Do simply disregard Joseph Smith's interpretation of your Scriptures? If today we found a document where one of the Biblical apostles (John, Paul, etc.) made some interpretation of the text that they themselves had written, then I would consider that binding. The inspired men of God are telling you what this means. So why is that different with your prophets? Or rather, why is it different on certain occasions? When your prophets tell you that the Bible has been corrupted over time or that there was a great apostasy, you accept it on no other authority than the fact that they said so. But if they say that there are many gods or something of this nature you reject it. Why? In all honesty I do not understand this and see it as a contradiction. The Father was pouring out His full wrath upon the Son. The Son was facing spiritual separation (when we face separation from God it is not that God has moved to a different location, but rather that our sinful nature is at odds with His holy nature) and was a spiritual abandonment, not a physical abandonment. (As I would say that the Father does not have a physical body and is omnipresent, therefore He cannot remove Himself in that sense.) In the spiritual sense, yes, I would say that the Father and the Son had never been separated before this point. I do not accept D&C as authoritative in the first place. However, in any case I am not suggesting that Jesus never suffered separation from the Father. I simply say it was a spiritual separation only. Well, I would disagree with you and say what Joseph Smith taught was actually very far from what Jesus taught. In John 10:34 Jesus is quoting from Psalm 82:6, which is a passage that is about the unrighteous judges of Israel. God had given them God-like authority over the people and yet they were abusing there powers and not bringing about the Lord's justice. God is condemning them. In John 10:34, Jesus is making this same application to the Jewish leaders. They are being corrupt judges, abusing their God given authority, and will suffer punishment for it. Mormons have typically used this passage to substantiate their doctrine of Eternal Progression, that men can become gods. That view in an of itself shatters Monotheism. (f you are intending a different sense in this passage then please let me know.) Deuteronomy 10:17 is a symbolic statement of power. The Ancient Near East was an incredibly Polytheistic place as well as nationalistic. Each set of gods ruled their own land. No one would ever think to say something like, "my God can come into your territory and beat your God" because such an idea simply didn't exist in their minds. Your gods couldn't cross their boundaries. So when God says that He is the God of Gods and the Lord of Lords, He is making a claim that He is sovereign over all things, including the "gods" and lands of the other nations. He is demonstrating His authority to His people. I would suggest that LDS folks out of necessity dismiss that passages that teach Monotheism. 2 Kings 19:15 - And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. (KJV) Psalm 86:10 - For thou art great, and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone. Isaiah 43:10 - "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me." (KJV) Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus saith the LORD the king of Israel, and His redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides Me there is no God." (KJV) Isaiah 44:8 - "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even My witnesses. Is there a God beside Me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. Galatians 4;8 - Howbeit then, when ye knew God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. (KJV) 1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. (KJV) I reject your assertion that we are either both Monotheists or Polytheists. I believe in one God. Not one three gods who are one in purpose, but one God. Your usage of Scripture (or dare I say misusage) that was intended to show how there could be multiple gods proves my point. You believe in many gods and cannot be called Monotheistic. We are in fundamentally different religions.

I am not saying that every single person will view it exactly as I do. If you disagree with my classification of God's 'being' as that which is definitional of how many gods there are then that is your right. However, I simply state and believe that you fundamentally misunderstand what makes a Monotheist. 'Being' is what makes something what it is. It is the essence or nature of that thing. 'Person' is not being used in the modern definition of the word where you can almost use it interchangeably with 'Being'. When I speak of a 'Person' in this sense I mean the ability to utilize personal attributes such as speech and thought, etc. Take a rock, for example. Rocks have essence. It's what makes a rock what it is. But it does not have personhood. A rock cannot speak or think or feel. If we use the words 'Being' and 'person' interchangeably then a rock is either both a being and a person or not a being nor a person. This presents obvious flaws. Christians see that throughout the Bible there is the often repeated fact that there is only one God. Yet, we also notice that three persons (Father, Son, Spirit) claim the one divine name. One God (one being that makes God what He is) and three co-equal, co-eternal persons that exist as God. We conclude with the Trinity. [OUOTE=thekabalist]However I believe that you are guilty of using double standards in your accusations against the LDS simply by playing around with word terminology. In the end both you and them acknowledge 3 spiritual characters that you perceive as being in unity. I just think the LDS definition is more theologically honest than attempting to portray G-d as schizophrenic. With all due respect, sir, I believe that by such statements you demonstrate that you do not understand either the Trinity not historical Mormonism. The leaders of the LDS church have always held that there are multiple gods and up until very recently they have been very vocal about it. (I would suggest that they still believe and teach it, just not as overtly.) For someone to admit that they believe in many Gods by definition cancels them out as Monotheists. I do not define Mormons out of the term, sir. Mormons define themselves out of it by there adherence to a polytheistic system. And the Trinity does not make God schtzophrenic. Some people believe that there are not really three persons and that Father, Son, and Spirit are just different manifestations as the one person. I would site this view as in error and would properly justify the term schizophrenia in usage of this view. (One person who talks to himself in three different ways.) However, Trinitarians have always maintained the distinctiveness of Faher, Son, and Spirit. All three have always existed for all eternity. They are not interchangeable as they serve vitally different, although fundamentally united, roles in salvation, creation, etc. So I would respectfully suggest that you should read on the topic more before you criticize it, or at least consider using terms that are at least relevant. Yes, the Bible does say that man is created in God's image. (Although for a Unitarian gentlemen such as yourself I would suggest considering what God means in verses such as Gen. 1:26 where He says, "Let US make man in OUR image.") I would argue that this has to do with capacities being like Gods, such as our ability to think, feel, make moral and free will choices, etc. which are all things that set us apart from any other creature. And nature does speak of God. But it speaks of His goodness, justice, creativity, etc. For you to say that nature must demonstrate His Triune nature is our reading something into the text that it does not say. I do not like the water analogy as it does indeed point to Modalism. In think time is a better example, although it is not a perfect one. Is God's nature complicated? Yes, it certainly is and I in know way nor will I ever in this life fully grasp it. But that does not make it illogical. (I would say it is perfectly logical.) That simply means that God is bigger and more complicated than my capacities can fathom. When someone says, "We believe in many gods, they are not Monotheistic". The discussion is as simple as that. Finally, to your point about there being many different denominations and readings of the Bible. Yes, there are many different understandings of the Bible. (In passing I note that in many cases several denominations believe almost the exact same thing as one another with a few small changes here or there. The small stuff, however, simply make practical functioning easier as two groups who agree to disagree on those matters, rather than one big group that struggles with certain real-world situations.) This in no way, however, suggests a lack of clarity in God's revelation. Because that is ultimately what this criticism is, that God has not done a sufficient enough job of revealing Himself. Many times people misread things or realize what is there and simply do not want to accept it. This is a fundamental problem with humanity; not with God. When we truly place ourselves under the submission of His word and allow it to conform us to His thinking then we will be thoroughly Biblical. That is what I believe.

So. . . Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, the man who is responsible for the translation of the Book of Mormon, can make a statement that he and his followers are polytheistic and have always been polytheist and you simply dismiss him? Are you saying Joseph Smith was wrong? I certainly believe that he was wrong but I beleive he was wrong on many counts. Because of the differentiation of the persons in the one being of God. The Father forsook the Son. There is no division of being here. The different persons in the Trinity are the question. And since there are three persons in the one being there is no problem.

Thank you for changing my profile status. For the life of me I could not figure it out. How do you suggest that I have conversation then?

What do I hope to accomplish? I hope to win souls for Christ. I want people to see the glorious truth of His gospel and know Him in truth. If we examine the Bible together and I am proven wrong I will change my mind because I want to be in the truth. I am willing to look at the areas of Scripture that you feel support your position and think long and hard about them. But, if my faith is proven right then I would not beat my chest or gloat. That would serve no purpose. Rather, it would just pollute the spread of the Gospel. I am so confident because I know of the truth which the Scriptures teach. I do not wich to insult you, harm you or attack you. But you are wrong in your views on God. Paul's approach was to reason with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2). So, can we do as Paul did and reason together from the Word of God?

Okay. I came here because i wished to have an honest, open discussion with members of the Latter Day Saints. I want to investigate Scripture with any who is willing and present the Gospel of Christ. In doing this, I know that it will be offensive because I am out of necessity saying that Mormons are wrong. But, I try not to offend any more than I have to. I am doing my best to show respect to everyone here and to properly understand their beliefs. However, I must say that I do not feel you are showing you (Vort) are showing me the same courtesy. I know you do not agree with me and I do not expect you to. But I would expect you to at least treat me with respect. Your continuous mehtodology of calling me a liar, saying that I am misrepresenting myself, that I am making things up, etc. is not what I would consider respectful. So, I will respond to your questions here, but if you continue to show the same level of vitriol that you have done so far then I am simply going to ignore you and move on to someone who is actually interested in having a meaningful conversation. I' apologize if I have disrepected you in any way. Lets try to be curtious to one another. The term Trinity (Tri-unity) is an attempt to explain the how the three persons are at the same time one being. Your simply stating that it is not a Biblical doctrine des not make it so. But I realize that me saying it is is no better so I will explain it and give Scripture refrences below. I don't think you understood what I meant. In the English Bible, the word Bible is not there. You can't find it. In the Greek, we do see the word 'biblos'', which we translate into english to means books. As ou kindly pointed out, the Greek word for books does appear in the text. But the english word 'Bible' is not a translation of biblos but rather a transliteration. We find the translated word 'books' many times, but never the transliterated word 'Bible'. We use Bible as a title in English. My point in this section is that we often use words or terms that do not appear in the text of Scripture to try to describe an idea that we see there. The word 'monotheism' never appears in the Bible but the concept does. You do the same thing as a Mormon. Eternal Progression, celestial kingdom, exaltation, etc. are all words that LDS members use to describe an idea that they believe is in the Bible. Thank you for correcting my grammatical mistake. The fact that my differentiating between Father and Son caused you to think I was no longer a monotheist makes me believe that you do not understand the Trinity. So, I will do my best to explain it. There are (ironically) three legs that make up the Trinity. 1. Monotheism. We see this over an over again in Scriptrure where God says that He is the only God. I beleive that there is one God and only one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 44:6, Galatians 4:8-9, etc.) 2. Threre are three eternal Persons described in Scripture. These three eternal persons are never mixed up. They are always carefully differintiated between (Matthew 3:13-17, Matthew 28:18-20, etc.). The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. 3. The equality of being of the three eternal persons. All three are said to be God. Father (Matthew 6:9, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:3), Son (John 1:1-18, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, etc.), and Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16, etc.) We cannot say that there are three gods because that would violate the doctrine that there is only one God. We cannot say that the three persons are all just different modes or expressions of God because that would violate the doctrine of the three persons. Andone cannot say that one of the persons is God while the other two are lower because that violates the Biblical doctrine that all three persons are identified as God. So how have Christians reconcilled these ideas? The Trinity. There is one God (one being) who exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. I hope that clears things up. This is the stuff I was talking about at the top. I did not realize that I was able to identify myself in the profile as simply 'Christian' and not LDS. Even now I do not know how I can change it. I openly declare that I am Christian not LDS. See the response directly above. Easy. The Scriptures. They reveal to us who God is and how He exists. I compare all claims about God, the church (both yours and mine), etc. to the revealed Word of God to see who matches up. Being a spirit does not disqualify the possibility of having a body. I never said that. Humans have both a body and a spirit. The verse in question says the Father is Spirit. My point is that there is Biblical evidence to support that the Father is a spirit. I am asking you for verses that show that the Father has a body. Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1. You are assuming that this means in a physical image. I would suggest that this has more to do with mental and spiritual capacities. (Thinking, reasoning, choice, etc.) Genesis 32:30 I would suggest that this is actually the pre-incarnate Son, whom I have no problem saying has a body. Exodus 24:10, Exodus 31:18, Exodus 33:23, Matthew 4:4. I would suggest that all of these are anthropomorphisms. These are simply ways that God communicates ideas to us so that we will better understant them. There are verses that say God has wings (Ruth 2:12, Psalm 36:7, etc.) as well. If you take these expressions to mean that God really had these various body parts then He must have wings as well, which is problematic because if our being in his image means in his physical image then why do we not have wings? John 14:9 Jesus is talking in a spiritual sense. He is saying that seeing (which is often used as a synomym for believing) Him will is the same as seeing the Father in that we see His attributes, character, etc. 2 Corinthians 4:4 Above I said that us being in the the image of God is spiritual. But we are IN the image of God because we are not wholly in God's image. Christ, however, is THE image of God because He perfectly reflects the Fathers character, attributes, etc.

Again, I disagree. I beleie we can look at Scripturea and one of us will be refuted. od has spoken and He has donw so clearly. Will you examine the Scripture with me to see what is says? And to the Muslim/Jew issue, the issue is Trinitarian Monotheism vs. Unitarian Monotheism. Would some misunderstand the issue and turn it into Monotheism vs Polytheism? Yes. But that is a flawed way of arguing.