The Trinity


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

So what.

This conversation is quickly becoming uninteresting. As I said before, the issue is not whether or not you can pick out individual verses author by different people and interpret them in such a way to support parts of the Trinity.

I asked specifically, and this is the last time, for a demonstration of a single apostle (the original claim) that shows an understanding of the Trinity. I would settle for anyone from the Bible who shows an understanding.

3 persons

1 God

Co-eternal

Co-equal

Consubstantial.

That you don't do that and instead post other things instead tells me that you know you can't. Don't feel bad, in the 1870 years since the bible was written no one has ever been able to show it:

I would have to quote Bible verses to do this but it seems you don't want that.

The demonstration of what an apostle believes would only be found in what he wrote.

"On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine...}" Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.

You are correct the word Trinity is not in the Bible along with co-eternal, co-equal or consubstantial. Neither are the words; incarnation, atheism, omniscience, omnipresense, omnipotence or monotheism. Does that mean the Bible doesn't teach those too?

How about the term eternal marriage or eternal progression or heavenly mother?

Quote:

Here are but a few.

Please bear with my questions.

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. Here the Father is the only true God.

1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Here Jesus is the true God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Does Jesus believe He is God?

John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. See also Micah 5:2 for His "goings forth are from everlasting" Same as Psalm 90:2.

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.”

Acts 5:3-4 The Holy Spirit is God. Also omniscient. 1Cor. 2:11

3 Personages (if you will) are called God. How many true Gods did Jesus believe in?

Who created the heavens and the Earth?

1 Corinthians 8:6 The Father did.

John 1:3 Jesus did.

Gen 1:2 and Job 26:13 The Holy Spirit did.

Gen.1:1 God did. Again, how many Creators did Jesus believe in?

Isaiah 44:24 The Lord did it alone.

Again who raised Jesus from the dead? see above

There are many more.

That's a joke right.

I asked you to demonstrate that Jesus understood the Trinity. You went to a lot of trouble just to prove that you couldn't.

No not a joke, and you didn't answer my question "Who raised Jesus from the dead"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would have to quote Bible verses to do this but it seems you don't want that.

The demonstration of what an apostle believes would only be found in what he wrote.

You are not posting honestly.

I dislike people who post dishonestly - especially when they post about religious topics.

I absolutely want Bible quotes. I want a quote where an apostle - or any biblical writer demonstrates an understanding of the creedal Trinity.

I don't want tidbit verses pulled from multiple writers showing parts of the trinity.

You are correct the word Trinity is not in the Bible along with co-eternal, co-equal or consubstantial. Neither are the words; incarnation, atheism, omniscience, omnipresense, omnipotence or monotheism. Does that mean the Bible doesn't teach those too?

I won't play dumb games with you.

How about the term eternal marriage or eternal progression or heavenly mother?

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is a discussion about the Trinity. Read the thread title.

No not a joke, and you didn't answer my question "Who raised Jesus from the dead"?

More dumb games. If you have a point to make, make it.

Please do not respond unless you are going to post honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not posting honestly.

I dislike people who post dishonestly - especially when they post about religious topics.

I absolutely want Bible quotes. I want a quote where an apostle - or any biblical writer demonstrates an understanding of the creedal Trinity.

I don't want tidbit verses pulled from multiple writers showing parts of the trinity.

I won't play dumb games with you.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is a discussion about the Trinity. Read the thread title.

More dumb games. If you have a point to make, make it.

Please do not respond unless you are going to post honestly.

You are being overly dramatic Snow. Posters who respond to your requests can only do so if you can honestly provide what you expect from their answers at the beginning. It's not fair to accuse someone of being dishonest when you are not upfront about what you expect. Ask detailed questions if you want detailed answers.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are being overly dramatic Snow. Posters who respond to your requests can only do so if you can honestly provide what you expect from their answers at the beginning.

Well no, Maureen. From the beginning I was extremely clear, for example:

"I asked specifically, and this is the last time, for a demonstration of a single apostle (the original claim) that shows an understanding of the Trinity. I would settle for anyone from the Bible who shows an understanding.

3 persons

1 God

Co-eternal

Co-equal

Consubstantial."

When instead of answering that the poster, repeatedly, despite being reminded, and clarified, continues to not answer that but rather pulls verses from multiple writers that support individual components of the Trinity and claims that he has demonstrated that someone from the Bible understands the Creedal Trinity, that's not honest. It's dishonest. The first time, maybe youth and confusion. The second and third time demonstrate an unwillingness to engage the issue honestly.

When the poster says that I don't want quotes from the Bible - it could be that rather than dishonesty, he had a seizure and hallucinations but I doubt that is it.

It's not fair to accuse someone of being dishonest when you are not upfront about what you expect. Ask detailed questions if you want detailed answers.

M.

What is unclear to you about the question I posed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When instead of answering that the poster, repeatedly, despite being reminded, and clarified, continues to not answer that but rather pulls verses from multiple writers that support individual components of the Trinity and claims that he has demonstrated that someone from the Bible understands the Creedal Trinity, that's not honest. It's dishonest. The first time, maybe youth and confusion. The second and third time demonstrate an unwillingness to engage the issue honestly.

I am not being dishonest.

I'm trying to answer your question but you are not being clear as to how I can answer it.

You seem to have a problem that I am quoting multiple scriptures (or "tidbit verses" as you call them) to show where the doctrine of the Trinity comes from. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't come from just a verse or two or from only one apostle.

Now I am more than willing to try again but if I don't answer the way you like maybe you could ask it in another way, hopefully without the name calling.

"I asked specifically, and this is the last time, for a demonstration of a single apostle (the original claim) that shows an understanding of the Trinity. I would settle for anyone from the Bible who shows an understanding.

3 persons

1 God

Co-eternal

Co-equal

Consubstantial."

My understanding of your question is either:

Are those specific words used by an apostle. Obviously no.

Or

Are those concepts understood by an apostle. Yes. I will need though to quote multiple verses to show the apostle understood those concepts. I will quote only one apostle if that is what you prefer.

3 persons- John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true." 14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16 And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."

2 witness bearers in this passage.

3 when you count the Holy Spirit. John15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

I believe John knew he was speaking of 3 personages (for a lack of a better word)

1 God- John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

John was a Jew (monotheist) and believed in only one true God.

co-eternal- John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

See also Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

John says both the Father and Jesus are the Alpha and Omega.

co-equal- John 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

John says Jesus can do whatever the Father does "in like manner."

Seems equal in power to me.

Consubstantial- definition; Of the same substance, nature, or essence

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.”

Jesus is the Father's one and only unique Son. (only begotten)

Surely a son has the same nature as his father.

Besides, don't all LDS believe this anyway?

Now Snow I tried to answer your question as best and honestly as I know how.

If I didn't then please try asking it in a different way.

Also it's your turn.

I ask you, Who raised Jesus from the Dead? Please give any Bible verse(s) you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not being dishonest.

I'm trying to answer your question but you are not being clear as to how I can answer it.

You seem to have a problem that I am quoting multiple scriptures (or "tidbit verses" as you call them) to show where the doctrine of the Trinity comes from. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't come from just a verse or two or from only one apostle.

Now I am more than willing to try again but if I don't answer the way you like maybe you could ask it in another way, hopefully without the name calling.

Finally - and thank goodness, you've decided to engage with the material is a forthright manner. Whereas before you, in an attempt to demonstrate that an apostle understood the Creedal Trinity, you quoted from multiple apostles or biblical authors, NT and OT, now you are, at least, quoting from one single book.

It's worth pointing out that John was probably not composed by one single author, (it was up to three authors separated by substantial time) nor by an apostle, but at least it's one book and that's a fine starting point.

My understanding of your question is either:

Are those specific words used by an apostle. Obviously no.

It is interesting to speculate why the pagan Emperor Constantine and company would choose to use words that are not found in scripture, but it's not the words that I care about, it's the concepts.

Or

Are those concepts understood by an apostle. Yes. I will need though to quote multiple verses to show the apostle understood those concepts. I will quote only one apostle if that is what you prefer.

Excellent. Now let's analyze the scriptures you selected and see if they say what you represent them to say?

3 persons- John 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true." 14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16 And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. 17 It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."

2 witness bearers in this passage.

3 when you count the Holy Spirit. John15:26 "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

I believe John knew he was speaking of 3 personages (for a lack of a better word)

The issue is not whether or not John speaks of 3 persons ("hypostasis" according to the Creedal Trinitarian definitions - a pagan aristotelian and neoplatonic term borrowed from pagan Greek philosophy), John and other bible authors speak of many persons, dozens, hundreds, thousands. The issue is whether John speaks of God being comprised of 3 hypostatsis. You have certainly quoted references to three entities. What you haven't done is show that John thought that all three entities were God. Yes, some of the entities testify of one another, but you and I also testify of the Father and the Son and that doesn't make us God.

You may allege that John says that the Spirit is God because he shows it proceeding from God. The word in question is "procede" from the Greek "ekporeuomai" meaning "to go forth, go out, depart." Interesting but it is not a statement that the Holy Spirit is God. Indeed, the Nicene Creed said nothing about the Holy Spirit being God - even two plus centuries later, Constantine and company didn't formally recognize the Holy Spirit as God.

Do you have any verses from John that actually do show that God is composed of three separate hypostasis?

1 God- John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

John was a Jew (monotheist) and believed in only one true God.

This verse causes you more problems than it solves. Yes, it speaks of one God or the only God, but it makes a distinction between that only God and Jesus Christ. It says: "only true God AND Jesus Christ. It would make your case if John had instead said: "only true God who is Jesus Christ" but he didn't say that.

Nevertheless, I am not interested in debating whether or not God is one. I stipulate that He is. However, the verse you picked doesn't demonstrate it.

co-eternal- John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

That's an interesting scripture. I assume that you are maintaining that there was a beginning, and that God and Jesus were present at the beginning. What is this "beginning" that your are referring to and how does it show eternity? If God is eternal, there was no beginning. He would have always existed. So, demonstrating that God, and the "Word" (Christ) were together at some point in time does not demonstrate that they existed prior to that beginning.

At any rate, the verse says nothing about the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

See also Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

John says both the Father and Jesus are the Alpha and Omega.

Same problem as above - no mention of the Holy Spirit being eternal, and in this case, no mention of the Father, just the Lord, who is this case is the Son.

Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, meaning beginning and end. It's can't be used to show that the Son is eternal because eternity has no beginning or no end. Alpha and Omega is a title and has other possible or more likely interpretations. Besides which, the question is not whether one of the hypostasis are eternal. The matter at hand is whether or not all three hypostasis are CO-eternal.

Finally, the author of Revelations is not necessarily the same "John" of the Gospel of John. There was ancient disagreement. Iraneous, bishop of Lyons thought the author of Revelations was John of the Gospel, Gaius, bishop of Rome and Dionusius of Alexandria thought Revelations was written by the heretic Cerinthus and Eusebius thought is was a different John, "the Elder." Today scholars still disagree, some thinking that John the apostle, John the evangelist and John of Patmos are three separate individuals. You'd better not rely on what Revelations says to prove what John of the Gospels thought.

co-equal- John 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

John says Jesus can do whatever the Father does "in like manner."

Seems equal in power to me.

It may seem that way to you but the traditional interpretation of "co-equal" deals with ranking of importance, not just power or ability. Moreover, you have done nothing to demonstrate that John thought that Father, Son and Holy Ghost were all co-equal.

What's more, it is clear that the author of John thought that the Father and the Son were NOT co-equal: John 14:28 "...I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Did you know that prior to the Emperor Constantine and the Nicene Creed that the orthodox view of the "Trinity" was subordinationism, not co-equality?

Consubstantial- definition; Of the same substance, nature, or essence

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.”

Jesus is the Father's one and only unique Son. (only begotten)

Surely a son has the same nature as his father.

Besides, don't all LDS believe this anyway?

Look, the issue is whether or not, as the Creeds declare, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of one "ousia."

Here you post a quote about the Father and Son but again say nothing about the Holy Spirit. Besides which, "only begotten" does not mean "ousia."

Now Snow I tried to answer your question as best and honestly as I know how.

If I didn't then please try asking it in a different way.

You seem to get what's being asked for finally, you just haven't demonstrated it. Remember the three quotes I gave from bible scholars all admitting that the concept of the Trinity could not be found in the Bible?

Here's more:

"...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula." Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.

Did you know that Catholics, who along with Constantine invented the concept of the Creedal Trinity also admit that the concept is not found in the Bible?

Also it's your turn.

I ask you, Who raised Jesus from the Dead? Please give any Bible verse(s) you want.

I don't know why you keep asking. It's like a game. I asked you questions because I don't think you can prove your point. Now you are asking me to answer questions so you can still prove your point. If you have a point of your own to make, just make it.

And by the way, I am fully familiar with all the NT verses that describe who raised Jesus from the Dead and acknowledge that some bible authors show God doing the raising., some show the Father doing the raising and some suggest the Son will do the raising.

Finally, even if the Creedal Trinity were correct (which cannot be demonstrated from the Bible), it is clear that it wasn't important enough for anyone in the Bible to say it.

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally - and thank goodness, you've decided to engage with the material is a forthright manner. Whereas before you, in an attempt to demonstrate that an apostle understood the Creedal Trinity, you quoted from multiple apostles or biblical authors, NT and OT, now you are, at least, quoting from one single book.

I am glad you are pleased.

What I don't get is if we are trying to understand if the Bible teaches the Trinity, why would we limit ourselves to only one apostles teaching? Shouldn't we, as the Bereans did, (Acts 17:11) search ALL the scriptures daily to see if it is so?

Don't we as Christians believe that the Biblical apostles and prophets are in complete agreement. This is a strange hoop you are wanting me to jump through.

I apologize for the extra long post but you made a lot of points that needed an answer.:)

It's worth pointing out that John was probably not composed by one single author, (it was up to three authors separated by substantial time) nor by an apostle, but at least it's one book and that's a fine starting point.

John 21:24 “It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.”

According to this verse there is only one writer.

Interesting that John's name is never mentioned in this gospel but he was a very prominent figure in the other three.

Guess probably the three writers forgot about him:rolleyes:

The issue is not whether or not John speaks of 3 persons ("hypostasis" according to the Creedal Trinitarian definitions - a pagan aristotelian and neoplatonic term borrowed from pagan Greek philosophy), John and other bible authors speak of many persons, dozens, hundreds, thousands. The issue is whether John speaks of God being comprised of 3 hypostatsis. You have certainly quoted references to three entities. What you haven't done is show that John thought that all three entities were God. Yes, some of the entities testify of one another, but you and I also testify of the Father and the Son and that doesn't make us God.

The first part of your question was; 3 persons.

The context of the verses I quoted show the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, for a lack of a better word, distinct "persons."

What seems odd to me is that you would say the bolded part before I even got to the verses that speak to those 3 persons divinity.

Those verses didn't speak to Their nature, only to Their individuality.

Now did John really think Jesus isn't God after writing John 1:1 ?

John 5:17-18 ? John 8:24 ? John 8:58 ? John 10:30-33 ? John 20:28 ?

I will admit to you that John does not specifically say "the Holy Spirit is God" but John 14:16 says "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

The Holy Spirit will dwell in the believer.

John 14:19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. John 14:23 says Jesus replied: "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.

The Father and the Son will be in the believer.

Seems like 3 persons will be in the believer.

For the record, Luke says the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed. (Luke 12:10)

Only God can be blasphemed.

Acts 5:3-4 calls the Holy Spirit God.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord IS the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

1 Cor. 6:19 your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. A temple is associated with a dwelling place for a god. A true One or a false one.

Forgive me for going outside John.

Do you have any verses from John that actually do show that God is composed of three separate hypostasis?

Already answered.

Quote:

1 God- John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

John was a Jew (monotheist) and believed in only one true God.

This verse causes you more problems than it solves. Yes, it speaks of one God or the only God, but it makes a distinction between that only God and Jesus Christ. It says: "only true God AND Jesus Christ. It would make your case if John had instead said: "only true God who is Jesus Christ" but he didn't say that.

Nevertheless, I am not interested in debating whether or not God is one. I stipulate that He is. However, the verse you picked doesn't demonstrate it.

So you would disagree with this?

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

I do.

John 1:1 John 5:17-18 John 8:24 John 8:58 John 10:30-33 John 20:28 all say Jesus is God. Now would John in 17:3 have us believe Jesus is a false god or would he be saying that eternal life is found in one not only knowing the Father but also, in the same manner, knowing Jesus?

Quote:

co-eternal- John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.

That's an interesting scripture. I assume that you are maintaining that there was a beginning, and that God and Jesus were present at the beginning. What is this "beginning" that your are referring to and how does it show eternity? If God is eternal, there was no beginning. He would have always existed. So, demonstrating that God, and the "Word" (Christ) were together at some point in time does not demonstrate that they existed prior to that beginning.

At any rate, the verse says nothing about the Holy Spirit.

John, I believe, is refering to Gen. 1:1 to state that Jesus, along with the Father and the Spirit, (Gen 1:2) is the creator of the heavens and the earth. John 1:3 ALL THINGS were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

This excludes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from being created. Also see Isaiah 43:10.

In the beginning the Word was already there just as the Father and the Spirit were.

I believe John had knowledge of Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Also this one Micah 5:22 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Same Hebrew word translated "everlasting" used of the Father and Son.

They exist outside of time because they created time. (Gen. 1:5)

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of anything existing before or apart from The Triune God.

Quote:

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

See also Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

John says both the Father and Jesus are the Alpha and Omega.

Same problem as above - no mention of the Holy Spirit being eternal, and in this case, no mention of the Father, just the Lord, who is this case is the Son.

Maybe I don't understand LDS teaching but my understanding is that the Almighty is in reference to the most high God. Do you believe Jesus is the most high God? Higher than the Father?

Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, meaning beginning and end. It's can't be used to show that the Son is eternal because eternity has no beginning or no end. Alpha and Omega is a title and has other possible or more likely interpretations. Besides which, the question is not whether one of the hypostasis are eternal. The matter at hand is whether or not all three hypostasis are CO-eternal.

Alpha and Omega is not only a title but also a name and a description. God is everything to the believer, He is Beginning of all and the End of all. Not that He has a beginning or an end but without Him there is nothing at all.

God has no end. Likewise God has no beginning. Psalm 90:2

Finally, the author of Revelations is not necessarily the same "John" of the Gospel of John. There was ancient disagreement. Iraneous, bishop of Lyons thought the author of Revelations was John of the Gospel, Gaius, bishop of Rome and Dionusius of Alexandria thought Revelations was written by the heretic Cerinthus and Eusebius thought is was a different John, "the Elder." Today scholars still disagree, some thinking that John the apostle, John the evangelist and John of Patmos are three separate individuals. You'd better not rely on what Revelations says to prove what John of the Gospels thought.

Wow! Sounds like I just can't trust any of the Bible.

So much for the Holy Bible.

It may seem that way to you but the traditional interpretation of "co-equal" deals with ranking of importance, not just power or ability. Moreover, you have done nothing to demonstrate that John thought that Father, Son and Holy Ghost were all co-equal.

Really? Who would you say is more important? See John 5:23

If Jesus could do "what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. " wouldn't that make Him "as equal in power" as the Father?

No one else raises the dead except the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As to "the Father is greater than I" Jesus (Philippians2:6-8) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross

Jesus the Word became flesh (John 1:14) and was made for a little while lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) As the God-man He was subject to the laws of His Father for our redemption. I am a father and my son is positionally lower than me but still has the same nature as me. Jesus was made for a while lower than the angels but was still their creator.

You seem to get what's being asked for finally, you just haven't demonstrated it. Remember the three quotes I gave from bible scholars all admitting that the concept of the Trinity could not be found in the Bible?

Should I quote my scholars that say otherwise?

That would make this an even longer and more boring post and not prove a thing^_^

Did you know that Catholics, who along with Constantine invented the concept of the Creedal Trinity also admit that the concept is not found in the Bible?

Yawn.

Catholics are trinitarians.

Quote:

Also it's your turn.

I ask you, Who raised Jesus from the Dead? Please give any Bible verse(s) you want.

I don't know why you keep asking. It's like a game. I asked you questions because I don't think you can prove your point. Now you are asking me to answer questions so you can still prove your point. If you have a point of your own to make, just make it.

And by the way, I am fully familiar with all the NT verses that describe who raised Jesus from the Dead and acknowledge that some bible authors show God doing the raising., some show the Father doing the raising and some suggest the Son will do the raising.

Finally, even if the Creedal Trinity were correct (which cannot be demonstrated from the Bible), it is clear that it wasn't important enough for anyone in the Bible to say it.

I keep asking because you keep avoiding! It's not a game!

I have spent much time and patience in doing my best (although maybe not to your standards) to answer yours, which are many, you could at least give me the courtesy of answering mine.

If you are "fully familiar" with all the NT verses on my question then it should be very simple. All I ask is that you quote the verse(s).

Thank you in advance.

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad you are pleased.

What I don't get is if we are trying to understand if the Bible teaches the Trinity, why would we limit ourselves to only one apostles teaching? Shouldn't we, as the Bereans did, (Acts 17:11) search ALL the scriptures daily to see if it is so?

The reason I asked for a demonstration that one apostle understood the Creedal Trinity is:

1. Because I was responding to a poster who claimed the apostles understood it - so I challenged him to name one.

2. Because if the nature of God is important, you would think that someone from the Bible would state clearly what the nature is.

Don't we as Christians believe that the Biblical apostles and prophets are in complete agreement. This is a strange hoop you are wanting me to jump through.

I apologize for the extra long post but you made a lot of points that needed an answer.:)

Clearly they do not agree. The Gospels and other NT books disagree on numerous point. Matthew frequently corrects Mark, who was the main source for much of Matthew's Gospel. I noticed it the very first time I read the NT. Christians and Christian scholars understand the differences, disagreements and conflicts. SOME Christians dogmatically assert that all prophets and apostles agree, but that is a matter of ideology and is not supported in the written record.

John 21:24 “It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.”

According to this verse there is only one writer.

Interesting that John's name is never mentioned in this gospel but he was a very prominent figure in the other three.

Guess probably the three writers forgot about him:rolleyes:

That's not evidence the book was actually written by John and only John. 1st and 2nd Timothy say in the text that they were written by Paul but the scholarly consensus is that they were not. The Gospel of Thomas says it was written by Thomas, but your don't think that is was, do you?

The first part of your question was; 3 persons.

The context of the verses I quoted show the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are, for a lack of a better word, distinct "persons."

What seems odd to me is that you would say the bolded part before I even got to the verses that speak to those 3 persons divinity.

Those verses didn't speak to Their nature, only to Their individuality.

I apologize. Now I see your point. It seems reasonable to interpret those verses to distinguish three distinct entities.

Now did John really think Jesus isn't God after writing John 1:1 ?

John 5:17-18 ? John 8:24 ? John 8:58 ? John 10:30-33 ? John 20:28 ?

I will admit to you that John does not specifically say "the Holy Spirit is God" but John 14:16 says "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

The Holy Spirit will dwell in the believer.

John 14:19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. John 14:23 says Jesus replied: "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.

The Father and the Son will be in the believer.

Seems like 3 persons will be in the believer.

For the record, Luke says the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed. (Luke 12:10)

Only God can be blasphemed.

Acts 5:3-4 calls the Holy Spirit God.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord IS the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

1 Cor. 6:19 your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. A temple is associated with a dwelling place for a god. A true One or a false one.

Forgive me for going outside John.

Already answered.

You have not demonstrated that John thought the Holy Ghost was God. I'm not saying John did or didn't, just that you haven't shown it. You made an argument that relies on a supposition. That supposition is that only God can be blasphemed and another author, not John, says that blaspheming the Holy Ghost is really bad. It's kind of an odd argument because the same verse says that it alright to blaspheme (speak against) Jesus.

Although you claim that you can only blaspheme God, you haven't demonstrated that is true. The word used in Luke is "Blasphemeo" and means "to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme to be evil spoken of, reviled, railed at." Obviously you can blaspheme anyone or anything, not just God.

So, back to the point - can you demonstrate that John thought the Holy Ghost was God?

2nd question: Do you know why the Nicene Creed did not define the Holy Ghost as God? - that's a legitimate question: I would like to know the reason.

So you would disagree with this?

I do.

I don't necessarily disagree. Some people think that people who believe in the Trinity are polytheists.

John 1:1 John 5:17-18 John 8:24 John 8:58 John 10:30-33 John 20:28 all say Jesus is God. Now would John in 17:3 have us believe Jesus is a false god or would he be saying that eternal life is found in one not only knowing the Father but also, in the same manner, knowing Jesus?

I don't understand you point. John 17:3 does not refer to a false. It means what it say and refers to the one true God and also to Jesus Christ, who is refers to as separate from the one true God.

John, I believe, is refering to Gen. 1:1 to state that Jesus, along with the Father and the Spirit, (Gen 1:2) is the creator of the heavens and the earth. John 1:3 ALL THINGS were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1 may be referring to Genesis 1 but neither of them includes the Holy Ghost. You just added it. Genesis 1 uses the plural for God, clearly indicating that there was more than one.

This excludes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from being created.

It does no such thing. You are just making that up.

Also see Isaiah 43:10.

Okay - that's different. But because that verse is worth a thread all by itself and you it isn't part of the discussion of John's explanations of God, I'd defer it to another time same for your verses from Micah and Genesis, etc.

Maybe I don't understand LDS teaching but my understanding is that the Almighty is in reference to the most high God. Do you believe Jesus is the most high God? Higher than the Father?

I don't understand you point but The Church of Jesus Christ is subordinist. God the Father is above all with The Son and Holy Ghost subordinate to Him, the three of them together comprising one God.

I do have a question, if our God is the Most High God who are the other gods that are not as high?

Wow! Sounds like I just can't trust any of the Bible.

So much for the Holy Bible.

Sarcasm doesn't change anything/

Really? Who would you say is more important? See John 5:23

If Jesus could do "what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. " wouldn't that make Him "as equal in power" as the Father?

No one else raises the dead except the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As to "the Father is greater than I" Jesus (Philippians2:6-8) who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross

Jesus the Word became flesh (John 1:14) and was made for a little while lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9) As the God-man He was subject to the laws of His Father for our redemption. I am a father and my son is positionally lower than me but still has the same nature as me. Jesus was made for a while lower than the angels but was still their creator.

I don't "important" is the right word but I agree with John when he said: John 14:28 "...I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Should I quote my scholars that say otherwise?

That would make this an even longer and more boring post and not prove a thing^_^

You can if you like but I suspect that what you will quote are apologists or theologians trying to make a ideological point. However, if you really believe that the Trinity is in the Bible and/or that John understood it, post the verses that prove that the three distinct persons of the one God are comprised of the same ousia. Can you do that or not?

I keep asking because you keep avoiding! It's not a game!

I have spent much time and patience in doing my best (although maybe not to your standards) to answer yours, which are many, you could at least give me the courtesy of answering mine.

If you are "fully familiar" with all the NT verses on my question then it should be very simple. All I ask is that you quote the verse(s).

Thank you in advance.

Sorry I won't be pimped. If you want to make a point, make it. If I have a response to your point, I'll post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Don't we as Christians believe that the Biblical apostles and prophets are in complete agreement. This is a strange hoop you are wanting me to jump through.

Clearly they do not agree. The Gospels and other NT books disagree on numerous point. Matthew frequently corrects Mark, who was the main source for much of Matthew's Gospel. I noticed it the very first time I read the NT. Christians and Christian scholars understand the differences, disagreements and conflicts. SOME Christians dogmatically assert that all prophets and apostles agree, but that is a matter of ideology and is not supported in the written record.

This statement is very telling.

If the New Testament writers don't agree then what is the truth? Which ones are wrong and thus need to be thrown out? If they have disagreements and conflicts then which ones, who claimed to be testifying of the truth, were really I guess being decieved or deliberately decieving? If this is true then who could logically trust any of it.

That is a ploy of Satan and he has used it from the start.

Why would LDS (or anyone) hold it as one of its Holy books?

Quote:

John 21:24 “It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.”

According to this verse there is only one writer.

Interesting that John's name is never mentioned in this gospel but he was a very prominent figure in the other three.

Guess probably the three writers forgot about him

That's not evidence the book was actually written by John and only John. 1st and 2nd Timothy say in the text that they were written by Paul but the scholarly consensus is that they were not. The Gospel of Thomas says it was written by Thomas, but your don't think that is was, do you?

If Paul didn't write them THEN IT IS A LIE AND THOSE WHO WROTE IT ARE LIARS.

Does this make sense to you?

I apologize. Now I see your point. It seems reasonable to interpret those verses to distinguish three distinct entities.

Not entities (beings) but persons.

I'm still wondering why you made me show it even though this is already a LDS teaching.

Snow who is the one playing games?:confused:

You say:

You have not demonstrated that John thought the Holy Ghost was God. I'm not saying John did or didn't,

Then in response to this quote from a LDS leader;

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

You said:

I don't necessarily disagree.

Now why are you playing this game?

If your own church believes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are capitol G Gods, then why would you say " the Son and Holy Spirit aren't called God" because LDS teaching affirms that already?

The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.

Snow are you not LDS?

I don't understand you point. John 17:3 does not refer to a false. It means what it say and refers to the one true God and also to Jesus Christ, who is refers to as separate from the one true God.

This is simple, since there is only one true God, as Jesus said, then all other gods are false gods. John 1:1, John 5:17-18, John 8:24, John 8:58, John 10:30-33, John 20:28 and others clearly teach Jesus is God. Now if Jesus is a "separate God" (essence or nature or being) than the Father and Holy Spirit, then Jesus and all other so-called gods would have to be false gods. If Jesus is one in essence or nature or being with the Father and Holy Spirit then these verses are reconciled and Jesus would be teaching the necessity of believing not only in the Father but the Son also.

Jesus did not say there are three true Gods therefore the LDS teaching that trinity is "three separate Gods" is false.

Quote:

John, I believe, is refering to Gen. 1:1 to state that Jesus, along with the Father and the Spirit, (Gen 1:2) is the creator of the heavens and the earth. John 1:3 ALL THINGS were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1 may be referring to Genesis 1 but neither of them includes the Holy Ghost. You just added it. Genesis 1 uses the plural for God, clearly indicating that there was more than one.

Quote:

This excludes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from being created.

It does no such thing. You are just making that up.

LOL did you read John 1:3? If all things were made by Jesus; and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE then, obviously and logically, Jesus didn't make Himself or the Father or the Holy Spirit.

As for Elohim being plural, ya three persons one God.

Quote:

Maybe I don't understand LDS teaching but my understanding is that the Almighty is in reference to the most high God. Do you believe Jesus is the most high God? Higher than the Father?

I don't understand you point but The Church of Jesus Christ is subordinist. God the Father is above all with The Son and Holy Ghost subordinate to Him, the three of them together comprising one God.

Okay so God the Father is above all. That makes Him the Almighty, right?

I'm confused. I quoted

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

See also Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."

John says both the Father and Jesus are the Alpha and Omega.

You responded;

Same problem as above - no mention of the Holy Spirit being eternal, and in this case, no mention of the Father, just the Lord, who is this case is the Son.

What??? No mention of the Father in Rev. 1:8?????

So now Jesus is the Almighty?

Are there 2 Almighties?

My point is that the Alpha and the Omega is the Almighty.

Who is the Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come in Revelation 4:8 ?

He sits on the throne in verse 9 and in Rev. 5:1 He has a scroll in His right hand and no one was found worthy to open, read or to look at it. (Rev.5:4) Except for the Lamb and the Lamb took the scroll out of the hand of Him who sits on the throne.(the Almighty)Rev 5:7

So the Alpha and the Omega Who was and is and is to come , the Lord God Almighty, is defined as the Father in Rev. 1:8 and Rev. 4:8.

In Rev. 22:13 the Alpha and Omega is clearly Jesus. Now there aren't 2 Alphas and Omegas or 2 Lords or 2 Almighties.

So, Who is the Almighty?

I do have a question, if our God is the Most High God who are the other gods that are not as high?

FALSE!!!!

I keep asking because you keep avoiding! It's not a game!

I have spent much time and patience in doing my best (although maybe not to your standards) to answer yours, which are many, you could at least give me the courtesy of answering mine.

If you are "fully familiar" with all the NT verses on my question then it should be very simple. All I ask is that you quote the verse(s).

Thank you in advance.

Sorry I won't be pimped. If you want to make a point, make it. If I have a response to your point, I'll post it

LOL what are you afraid of? If your answer can't be backed up by scripture then get rid of that answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement is very telling.

If the New Testament writers don't agree then what is the truth? Which ones are wrong and thus need to be thrown out? If they have disagreements and conflicts then which ones, who claimed to be testifying of the truth, were really I guess being decieved or deliberately decieving? If this is true then who could logically trust any of it.

That is a ploy of Satan and he has used it from the start.

Why would LDS (or anyone) hold it as one of its Holy books?

Ploy of Satan. You are just making that up. That there are conflicts and errors in the Bible is a matter of fact. That you pretend that Satan is behind is a child's argument. Either interact with the issue responsibly or don't respond.

If Paul didn't write them THEN IT IS A LIE AND THOSE WHO WROTE IT ARE LIARS.

Does this make sense to you?

That makes sense to me. If someone other than Paul wrote it and claimed it was written by Paul - it's dishonest.

Not entities (beings) but persons.

A person is an entity. Look it up.

I'm still wondering why you made me show it even though this is already a LDS teaching.

Snow who is the one playing games?:confused:

I apologized for misunderstanding your point. The you say I'm playing games. Don't be a putz.

You say:

Then in response to this quote from a LDS leader;

You said:

Now why are you playing this game?

If your own church believes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are capitol G Gods, then why would you say " the Son and Holy Spirit aren't called God" because LDS teaching affirms that already?

The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.

Snow are you not LDS?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am LDS. I said I don't disagree with Talmage, but we are discussing non-LDS views here.

This is simple, since there is only one true God, as Jesus said, then all other gods are false gods. John 1:1, John 5:17-18, John 8:24, John 8:58, John 10:30-33, John 20:28 and others clearly teach Jesus is God. Now if Jesus is a "separate God" (essence or nature or being) than the Father and Holy Spirit, then Jesus and all other so-called gods would have to be false gods. If Jesus is one in essence or nature or being with the Father and Holy Spirit then these verses are reconciled and Jesus would be teaching the necessity of believing not only in the Father but the Son also.

You just made that up as well. You claim that if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of different ousias, then at least two of them are false. It's an invented idea - invented by you with no basis in fact. Mormons, like most non-LDS Christians believe that the Father is God, that the Son is God and that the Holy Ghost is God and together they are One God. We disagree with you on HOW they are one. YOU say it is a matter of ousia, we say that the oneness is not based on ousia. As it so happens, the Bible says nothing about The three entities of God being of one ousia. Your belief is EXTRA-Biblical, from outside the Bible

In fact, it seems to rule out the idea of how God is one. In John 17:21 Jesus prays that we, the followers of Jesus, may all be one, just as Jesus is one with the Father. Unless you claim that one day we all are going to be of one ousia, then ousia is ruled out in the case of the Father and the Son.

Jesus did not say there are three true Gods therefore the LDS teaching that trinity is "three separate Gods" is false.

That's another child's argument.

1. Prove that He did not say it. You cannot. You just imagine it because you want it to be so,

2. Jesus did not say that The LA Clippers are losers, but it is true that they are.

LOL did you read John 1:3? If all things were made by Jesus; and WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE then, obviously and logically, Jesus didn't make Himself or the Father or the Holy Spirit.

As for Elohim being plural, ya three persons one God.

John 1:3 is not exactly true. It says that all things were made by him but He is a thing, God, a Savior, a Redeemer, etc and he didn't make himself so obviously there are a few things that He didn't make, but when I said that your made it up, I meant your assertion that John 1 was referring to Genesis 1 and both John and Genesis were referring to the Holy Ghost. You made that up. Neither says it.

Okay so God the Father is above all. That makes Him the Almighty, right?

I'm confused.

That something is the most or the best implies that there are other such somethings that are not best or most high. If God is the Most High God, who are the other gods that aren't as high?

LOL what are you afraid of? If your answer can't be backed up by scripture then get rid of that answer.

I didn't respond to you last few points as I don't have the energy or recollectiong of the point. But I'll address you last point. I asked you to demonstrate that the Trinity (3 persons, one God, co-eternal, co-equal, and consubstantial) from the scriptures.

You avoided the question. Obviously you have figured out at this point that you can't demonstrate consubstantiality from the Bible - if you did, you would be the first to do so in 2000 years.

So, instead of answering the question, you challenged me to back my answers with scripture. Since I am asserting that consubstatiality is extra-biblical, it impossible to back up with scripture - as it's not in there. You are the one claiming that the Trinity is in the Bible - you bear the burden of proof - a burden you have not met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which ones are wrong and thus need to be thrown out? If they have disagreements and conflicts then which ones, who claimed to be testifying of the truth, were really I guess being deceived or deliberately deceiving? If this is true then who could logically trust any of it.

That is a ploy of Satan and he has used it from the start.

Why would LDS (or anyone) hold it as one of its Holy books?

Saying that the New Testament authors are perfectly agreed and in harmony is wishful thinking and extremely naive at best.

Matthew 27

[3] Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

[4] Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

[5] And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

[6] And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

[7] And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

[8] Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Acts 1

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

This is just one of the most obvious examples. Did Judas die by hanging or by accidental fall (presumably from a cliff or something?) and having his bowels gush out? Did Judas personally purchase the field in question before Judas died, or did the chief priests purchase it after Judas had already committed suicide? Did he commit suicide or die by accidental fall?

If he threw the money at the feet of the chief priests, then he couldn't have purchased the field himself, could he? So how can we get these two contradicting accounts to line up?

It's a trivial matter and not important doctrinally. But if New Testament authors can tell the same story so differently, I think it's safe to say they are not always 100% in perfect harmony.

Other items of contradiction:

1.) Matthew and Luke both give geneologies, but they don't match up.

2.) The events directly leading up to Jesus crucifixion get a bit muddled. Some writers send him to Herod Antipas, some don't. Some send him to Annas first, some send him directly to the High Priest first.

3.) Mark and Luke say Barrabas was guilty of murder and insurrection. John says he's a robber.

All of this doesn't devalue the Bible. But it shoots a lot of holes into the theory that it is "God's perfect word without any flaws." The truth of the matter is the apostles and other New Testament writers were imperfect mortal men giving accounts of events to the best of their recollection.

Ultimately, one must come to realize that the true purpose of the Bible's existence is not to lead us to the acknowledge the Bible as the perfect vessel of all truth. It is to lead us to God who is the source of pure truth. And it is only from God that we can learn perfect truth.

Soninme, you're seem very sure that your interpretation of scripture is correct, yet for everything you believe that the Bible says, there is sure to be somebody who believes with all their heart that the Bible says exactly the opposite -- or at least something vastly different. Why does this happen? Because you and others like you throw together collections of verses, convince yourselves that "[DOCTRINE X,Y,Z] are clearly implied." The Trinity is the most obvious example. The best that can be said is that the Trinitarian Dogma (as it currently exists) was implied. But it was never clearly nor concisely taught.

The passage of scripture that states, "The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate persons, but of one ousia/substance/being, and One Eternal God." <-- There is no passage in the Bible that says that directly. So Trinitarians have to fall back in "it's clearly implied." Latter Day Saints would counter that clearly it isn't implied at all, and Trinity apologists are just grasping at straws desperately seeking validation in the Biblical record.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Faded,

The example that you gave is not necessarily a contradiction.

I'm not a big fan of pursuing an assault on the Bible. It sacred to me and means too much to me. But the point is that it takes very little effort to find apparent contradictions in the Biblical record. I would hold that Christians are losing sight of the purpose of Bible -- to lead them to God and Christ. If you want something perfect and flawless, they are what your looking for. The Bible is simply a means to help mankind find them. Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Faded,

The example that you gave is not necessarily a contradiction.

Yeah - amateur apologists are very creative in twisting and spinning scripture to make is say what they want it to say. For example...

... maybe as Judas ran he tripped and fell off a ledge. It could be that he landed headfirst in a tree spring noose trap. The trap was sprung and flung him into the sky at the end of a noose where he strangled. Then a giant eagle flew by sliced open his abdomen with razor sharp talons spilling his bowels onto the ground below.

Sure, you can make stuff up to explain away the difference but if you let the scriptures mean what they say, you have a real conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could that be seen in a realistic way to show it is not a contradiction Snow?

As stated Dr T, I don't enjoy going down this road. But I'm curious enough to hear what you can do with it. How can you make these two accounts NOT contradict?

One account says Judas bought the field he was ultimately buried in with the money the chief priests paid him to betray Christ. The other account says that Judas threw the money at their feet, went and hung himself and then the chief priests used that money to buy the field that Judas was buried in. Without changing the words of the Biblical record, how do you get these two accounts to agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe that it was just at the Bible said that he attempted to give the money back but it was not taken by them. I must have purchased some land like it says and then he hung himself. He could have hung himself over a cliff which really could have broken so he plummeted to the bottom where his innards could have spilled out like the bible also talks about in Acts when Peter was reminding the other disciples of what happed to Judas. It is possible that this happened and not a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just one of the most obvious examples. Did Judas die by hanging or by accidental fall (presumably from a cliff or something?) and having his bowels gush out? Did Judas personally purchase the field in question before Judas died, or did the chief priests purchase it after Judas had already committed suicide? Did he commit suicide or die by accidental fall?

If he threw the money at the feet of the chief priests, then he couldn't have purchased the field himself, could he? So how can we get these two contradicting accounts to line up?

It's a trivial matter and not important doctrinally. But if New Testament authors can tell the same story so differently, I think it's safe to say they are not always 100% in perfect harmony.

Why does this have to be a contradiction?. Is it absolutely not possible for both to be true?Either he hanged himself from a very high place with perhaps the rope breaking; or else, no one removed his body for a while and it eventually fell under its own weight, and the decomposing body full of gas burst open.

Judas is spoken of as purchasing (some translate "aquired") a field, and he did, for the priests bought it with his money, so that legally it was his purchase. 3. The field was called “The field of blood” for two reasons, and each writer gives one of them.

Whenever two seemingly contradictory accounts are under consideration, they could actually be complementary to one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of pursuing an assault on the Bible. It sacred to me and means too much to me. But the point is that it takes very little effort to find apparent contradictions in the Biblical record. I would hold that Christians are losing sight of the purpose of Bible -- to lead them to God and Christ. If you want something perfect and flawless, they are what your looking for. The Bible is simply a means to help mankind find them.

Faded,

respectfully, if the Bible is full of contadictions and numerous errors as you and other LDS posters, on this site and others, have claimed then which verses can be trusted?

If that view is true then it isn't sacred and shouldn't mean much to anyone other than just a fairy tale.

By what (whose) standard is a verse considered true? Why this one and not that one?

Jesus Christ quoted numerous times from the OT and said the scriptures CANNOT be broken. This is what He thought of the OT; Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."

If a citation of a city was incorrect, is that not a failure of Scripture? If a date is wrong, is that not a failure of scripture? Likewise, would not an error in a fact likewise be a failure in the Scripture? Of course it would! But Jesus says the Scriptures cannot be broken. They cannot fail. Is Jesus wrong?

Do you think Jesus believed there were errors in the Law, Prophets or Psalms?

As for the NT, wouldn't it be reasonable that as God inspired and guided the OT writers and presevered His word throughout the centuries He would also do this for the witnesses (apostles and prophets) of the new covanent?

Mathew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Where will we go to find the words of Jesus and thus find Jesus? and can we trust it?

I know this isn't conclusive proof but this is what I think the Bible teaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded,

respectfully, if the Bible is full of contradictions and numerous errors as you and other LDS posters, on this site and others, have claimed then which verses can be trusted?

If that view is true then it isn't sacred and shouldn't mean much to anyone other than just a fairy tale.

By what (whose) standard is a verse considered true? Why this one and not that one?

Jesus Christ quoted numerous times from the OT and said the scriptures CANNOT be broken. This is what He thought of the OT; Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."

If a citation of a city was incorrect, is that not a failure of Scripture? If a date is wrong, is that not a failure of scripture? Likewise, would not an error in a fact likewise be a failure in the Scripture? Of course it would! But Jesus says the Scriptures cannot be broken. They cannot fail. Is Jesus wrong?

Do you think Jesus believed there were errors in the Law, Prophets or Psalms?

As for the NT, wouldn't it be reasonable that as God inspired and guided the OT writers and persevered His word throughout the centuries He would also do this for the witnesses (apostles and prophets) of the new covenant?

Mathew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Where will we go to find the words of Jesus and thus find Jesus? and can we trust it?

I know this isn't conclusive proof but this is what I think the Bible teaches.

We fully believe that the events described in the Bible truly happened and the teachings in it are true. But the purpose of the exercise is pretty straightforward: Do not trust the BIBLE to be the perfect source of all of God's truth. That would have the Bible usurping a role that is God's and God's alone.

Does Jesus say that the Bible would never be corrupted? Never subject to human error? He says that "My words will by no means pass away" and here we see another generous and popular usage of IMPLICATION. He did not say, "My words as written by my apostles and disciples will never be corrupted, altered or mistranslated." He did not say, "The Bible is perfect." The word "Bible" never appears in the Biblical text. But you are saying he implied this would be the case. Fact is, he never said anything of the sort outright.

Certainly his words will never pass away and will all be fulfilled. They are written in the Heavens and the eternities obey. But this lost and fallen world does not always heed it's creator, and imperfect men cannot be expected to maintain a standard of perfection, no matter how good their intentions are. And we can hardly expect that all men had pure intentions either.

The solution is the same as it has always been:

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

In the end, each person can either be like a wave of the sea, tossed about by every wind of doctrine or comfortable tradition. Or they can ask God, and be wholly and completely guided by Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe that it was just at the Bible said that he attempted to give the money back but it was not taken by them. I must have purchased some land like it says and then he hung himself. He could have hung himself over a cliff which really could have broken so he plummeted to the bottom where his innards could have spilled out like the bible also talks about in Acts when Peter was reminding the other disciples of what happed to Judas. It is possible that this happened and not a contradiction.

But don't you see the problem? You have to ad-lib to make the stories line up. You have to throw in a bunch of assumptions, some of which directly contradict the text. You have to disbelieve both stories and rewrite them.

In the one case, Judas casts the pieces of silver in the temple, departs and hangs himself. It specifically states that the chief priests purchased the field that came to be known as "the field of blood" because it was blood money. In the other account it says that Judas purchased the field with the reward for betraying Christ, and no mention is made of hanging.

According to Joseph Smith, the passage in Matthew originally read as follows:

Matthew 27:3-6

3 Then Judas, who had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.

5 And they said, What is that to us? See thou to it; thy sins be upon thee.

6 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself on a tree. And straightway he fell down, and his bowels gushed out, and he died.

But in order to accept that this correction is valid, one must acknowledge that the Biblical record may not be perfect, and one must accept that Joseph Smith was an Apostle and Prophet of God.

For Latter Day Saints, this isn't a problem of course. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated, transcribed and copied correctly. We believe that God can reveal the necessary corrections where needed. But anyone claiming that the Bible is uncorrupted and perfect could never accept this or any other addition or alteration, no matter what. Any ad-libbing, twisting or turning of the Biblical record would be an open acknowledgment that it is less that perfect and complete, correct?

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Faded,

I thought we were talking about the hanging and innards being spilled not the money. I'll have to look at that. Thanks

It's both really. The accounts disagree on who did the purchasing of the field and they disagree on how Judas died.

As already pointed out, Joseph Smith's Translation agrees with your assumption about Judas' death involving hanging himself, falling and having his bowels gush out. So it sorts itself out on the "how did he die?" score if you happen to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle. Without that clarification, you have to add some details to make the death part work itself out.

As to the "who bought the field?" part, JST never fixes it, but that's fine because we don't claim to believe that the Bible is infallible. On the other hand, it does present a major problem if you DO happen to believe that the Bible is infallible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already pointed out, Joseph Smith's Translation agrees with your assumption about Judas' death involving hanging himself, falling and having his bowels gush out. So it sorts itself out on the "how did he die?" score if you happen to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle. Without that clarification, you have to add some details to make the death part work itself out.

But aren't you just saying that Dr.T figured out from Mathew and Acts together what happened to Judas, which you say agrees with Joseph Smith, apart from Joseph Smith's Translation?

How can it be a contradiction and in conflict if Dr. T or myself puts them together but not if JS does?

As to the "who bought the field?" part, JST never fixes it,

He didn't have to.

Seriously, is this an absolute impossibility?

Judas is spoken of as purchasing (some translate "aquired") a field, and he did, for the priests bought it with his money, so that legally it was his purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share