"God once was..."

[clint25n]

If you found the Trinity in John, they would be the very first ever in all history.

I understand you do not believe that our God is Triune, but where do you think the Christian world gets it from? Many passages throughout the Bible, including John. I'm not sure if you perhaps mean the actual word "Trinity" needs to be in the Bible?

One God comprised of three co-eternal, co-equal hypostases, all three being of the same ousia,

Can you quote the specific verses in John that say that?

It doesn't say your quote in John, but throughout the Bible, passages describe a Triune God.

I'm not here to convince you, but I will briefly explain why I and much of the Christian world believe God is Triune in nature. Throughout the Bible we read that there is only one God.

"before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

God testified that He is the only God, there are no other God's and there will never be any formed.

But yet the Bible claims the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. There are many passages that say "let Us go down and confuse their language", or "let Us make man in our own image". We believe God is 1 God in 3 persons. Jesus says the Father and I are one. I could go on, but I'm sure you can get a glimpse from this why it is the Mainstream Christian world believes in a Triune God. Thanks for listening :)

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." -2 Corinthians 13:14

[rameumptom]

Actually, the Bible speaks not of a Triune "Trinity" God, but of an anthropomorphic God. Moses saw God "face to face". He saw God's back and features. Noah walked with God. Isaiah saw God sitting on his throne, as did Stephen.

Jesus was definitely anthropomorphic, both as a mortal and as a resurrected being. So, what is more perfect and godlike: God as a Triune Spirit, or Jesus with a resurrected body? And the concept of a "duality" of Jesus does not work with me, as it is not found in the Bible, but in the Council of Chalcedon.

In John 17, Jesus prays that the apostles may be "one" together and with Jesus, even as Jesus and the Father are "one." If we go with a Trinity definition, this means that the apostles will someday be a part of the Trinity. But that cannot be, as they are made of impure substance that cannot equal the substance of God!

Instead, we see that they are one as are the Godhead in being united in all things, except for their physical/spiritual person. We see that Father, Son and Holy Ghost all ARE God, and all are Gods.

As for quoting Isaiah 43, you take that statement out of context. Yahweh was describing the situation in the land of Canaan, where the god Yam was replaced by Baal. Yahweh was stating that for Israel, there would only be one God. None would come before him, and none would replace him.

Your reading is a modern invention and reading. When you study the original view of the ancients, you will find they did believe in more than one God, but only worshiped the Godhead.

History shows that the earliest Christians believed the Father and Son were separate beings. Just read the writings of Origen, who taught that Jesus was a subordinate God to the Father. The historian Eusebius of Caesarea was exiled after the Nicene Council for also believing as did his predecessor Origen. Yet, the concept of the Trinity promoted by Athanasius did not take hold for another century, while the concept of distinct beings in the Godhead almost won be default of popularity. It is very clear that the earliest Christians did not believe in the Trinity, but in the Father and Son being separate Gods.

You may want to try studying some history to learn more about this.

[clint25n]

Moses saw God "face to face". He saw God's back and features. Noah walked with God. Isaiah saw God sitting on his throne, as did Stephen.

Since no man can see the Father and live, Moses Noah and Isaiah saw the pre-incarnated Jesus.

I read scriptures in their context only to demonstrate how many Christians believe there is only one God and that He is Triune. I understand you do not believe, but if you want to begin to claim that Moses who penned the first 5 books of the Old Testament believed there was more than one God, and that early Christians believed there were many Gods, then I don't see any rational dialog possible here.

Thanks for your input however.

[cwald]

... then I don't see any rational dialog possible here...

That's funny. What is "rational" about this entire thread?

[rameumptom]

That is an assumption on your part that Moses saw the pre-incarnated Jesus. Which is meaningless in a Trinitarian sense, because the Father and Son are literally one. And given that there is no substance that we can understand that makes up the Trinity, then how can one "see" them?

Yet, we have Stephen see Jesus standing on the right hand of God the Father. That cannot be explained away, unless you are going to say there are two Sons of God that Stephen saw (which is not what the scripture says), or that Stephen was deceived by God.

That your statement sounds you are willing to run away if someone challenges your interpretation of scripture with actual evidence, says a lot about your level of scriptural literacy. You do not read scripture in its original context, but in your own accepted interpretation of it.

Moses had to ask God on Mt Sinai just what God was sending him to Egypt to free Israel. The answer? "Yahweh" (I AM).

Yet we find that the ancients did believe in a variety of Gods. Try this scholarly article about the Divine Sons of El, written by Professor William Hamblin, it is a part of a larger writing from him on Theosis (man becoming god-like). You can also try OT scholar and Methodist minister Margaret Barker's "The Great Angel" which definitely shows a difference between God the Father and the Messiah/Angel of the Presence of the Lord. You can read about her here, with some of her online postings.

If there is no "rational dialog[ue]" going on here, then it obviously is on your behalf, because I have quoted ancient sources and Bible scholars regarding my evidence. You have only given your own private interpretation and view, which does not coincide with what the ancients actually believed (but probably agrees with what your pastor has taught you, instead).

[Maygraceabound]

Actually, I don't think it's as clear as you think it is. This is a perfect example of why there are so many churches on the earth, it's all about interpretation.

In John 1. It states in the beginning was the Word [Jesus] and Word was WITH God [the Father].

In John 10 Jesus talked about how the Father knows him, and he knows the Father... and his Father loves him because... and he received a commandment from his Father. Eventually he gets around to saying that he and the Father are one. Well... that's what we believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals who are one in purpose. From my point of view it solidifies our viewpoint.

I'll add Matthew 19:5 that says that the man and wife shall be one flesh. Well obviously it's ridiculous to believe that we're going to become Siamese twins. My husband and I are two seperate and distinct individuals, but we're one in purpose (our hopes, dreams, goals, etc.).

You left out the next few words after. "WITH GOD". They are " and the word WAS GOD". This changes the meaning. Don't you think?

[Mamas_Girl]

You left out the next few words after. "WITH GOD". They are " and the word WAS GOD". This changes the meaning. Don't you think?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

"The same was in the beginning with God.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

It very clearly proves my point. The Son was with the Father. Like I said, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that together they appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove near Palmyra. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and I believe the Book of Mormon to be Another Testiment of Christ. I believe in modern day prophets and apostles, and have a sure knowledge of their calling. I have taken upon myself the name of Christ through baptism, and I strive to always remember him and to keep his commandments. I have witnessed my own miracle that freed me from the bonds of darkness, and am now free thanks to the atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I once knew about God, but now I know God. I have felt the persecution from the outside world, and watched my family turn against me because of my beliefs, but I know what i know and cannot deny it. My hopes and prayers will be that everyone can find the same comfort in the Lord that i have found.

[cwald]

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that ....

Really? Right out of the Mormon playbook. And what about all the people from other faiths who "know beyond a shadow of doubt..." that their belief and their church is true?

So you know that God and Jesus are separate beings. Good for you. Obviously there are many who have posted here who "know beyond a shadow of doubt" that God and Jesus are the same being. So are they just flat out wrong and you are right?

Like I said earlier, this entire conversation is irrational dialogue. "I will see your Hebrews and raise you a 1 John."

You can't "prove" anything from the scriptures, and I say that to both sides - the Mormons and the Christians. Your Bibles are the same and obviously have contradiction statements about the nature of god. And so what, it's called faith for a reason. If you could prove your points on who god was, than it would be science.

[annewandering]

hey where do we get one of those playbooks? No one gave me mine!

[Mamas_Girl]

Your Bibles are the same and obviously have contradiction statements about the nature of god. And so what, it's called faith for a reason.

That was my point. Well not that they have contradiction statements, but that they are open for private interpretation.

Really? Right out of the Mormon playbook. And what about all the people from other faiths who "know beyond a shadow of doubt..." that their belief and their church is true?

Nope, no if it was right out of the Mormon playbook I would have said that I believe the church is true. Which thanks for reminding me. A Mormon playbook, sounds like something the BYU football team uses? Though maybe they need an updated version?

Seriously I don't worry about what other people believe or don't believe. I just worry about what I believe, and if other people have an honest interest in knowing what I believe in, I'm more than willing to share with them.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Mamas_Girl

[Snow]

Since no man can see the Father and live...

I'm no scriptorian but I think you are making that up. If I am wrong, please post the scripture that says that.

[Justice]

"I will see your Hebrews and raise you a 1 John."

I will see your 1 John and raise you a 3 Nephi:

3 Nephi 11:

10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.

13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

... and with Oliver Cowdrey's testimony:

On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement! While the world was racked and distracted—while millions were groping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the ‘blaze of day’; yes, more—above the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature!

...and with part of the lost conversation between Moses and God:

Moses 1:

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

The voice of a living prophet who speaks the living words of God to men can only be out-trumped by God Himself. In every age of the world prophets have spoken God's will to man... this age is no different.

We don't force you to open your mind and heart toward these things, but we invite and strongly encourage you to do so. It all hinges on whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God. We can talk about it for another 300 message board pages in this forum, but the heart of the matter is this: Either the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith or they did not. That truth can be discerned by sincerely reading the Book of Mormon with an open heart, and honestly desiring to know if it is true. If you have your mind made up and it is closed before hand, then it is not promised that you can come to know anything.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Justice

[Snow]

I understand you do not believe that our God is Triune, but where do you think the Christian world gets it from? Many passages throughout the Bible, including John. I'm not sure if you perhaps mean the actual word "Trinity" needs to be in the Bible?

If you can tell me what/when the earliest expression of the Trinity (one God, three persons, co-eternal, co-equal, same ousia) is, I think you will have answered the question yourself.

Here's something to get you started:

"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament" P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.

"There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons." Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.

"..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..." Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.

That you wouldn't post the scriptures that demonstrate anyone from the New Testament understood the Trinity makes plain that you are aware that it is not found in the Bible,

My question to you is: Since you know it is not in the Bible, why do you believe it?

[Justice]

I'm no scriptorian but I think you are making that up. If I am wrong, please post the scripture that says that.

Yeah, it wasn't a complete quote, and without the complete quote it can be misunderstood.

D&C 84

17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

Very powerful teachings here, and more explanations as to what may have been removed from or changed in the Bible.

[Soninme]

As for quoting Isaiah 43, you take that statement out of context. Yahweh was describing the situation in the land of Canaan, where the god Yam was replaced by Baal. Yahweh was stating that for Israel, there would only be one God. None would come before him, and none would replace him.

Ram,

I don't mean to be contentious, we have only slightly touched on this in the past but I'm unclear as to how you arrive at this.

Most if not all of the book of Isaiah is telling of how Yahweh/Jehovah is the one and only God. If .. we assume you are correct- He is the only God for the nation of Israel - then Jesus is telling us that it is in fact Him and Him alone who is the creator of all things; Is.44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

also there is no one besides Him;

"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Is.44:8)

My point is He speaks of no other. Yet in the gospels, Jesus does not cease to speak of the Father and even calls Him the "only true God" and also His and Mary's God.(John 20:17) Even Paul, an Israelite, says the one God for us is the Father. (1 Cor 8:6)

If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are seperate beings -not only persons- then how could Jesus say He is the only God forever, "none would replace him" for the nation of Israel? Seems Jesus gives no credit to His Father in the OT yet all credit to Him in the NT.

Thanks

Edited November 4, 2011 by Soninme

[Justice]

Most if not all of the book of Isaiah is telling of how Yahweh/Jehovah is the one and only God. If .. we assume you are correct- He is the only God for the nation of Israel

He was their God by covenant.

Anyone who wishes to enter this covenant can have Him for their God.

This does not mean He was saying He only created those who made covenants with Him.

[rameumptom]

You left out the next few words after. "WITH GOD". They are " and the word WAS GOD". This changes the meaning. Don't you think?

If you read John 1 in the original Greek, you would note that the section talks of two Gods. It says that the "Word is God", but says that the word was "with THE (ho) God". So, Jesus is God, who dwells with THE God.

Clearly an important distinction, and another reason why it is important to understand the things from the ancient perspective.

[rameumptom]

Justice,

SonInMe is correct. The covenant Jehovah/Yahweh had was only with Israel, not the Gentiles. That covenant would not be extended to the Gentiles until Peter had his revelation leading him to Cornelius.

On my Old Testament blog, in discussing Abraham, I detail the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham. It is a very interesting one. Abraham is but one person, but Yahweh is already speaking of nations being blessed by him. As mentioned, El Elyon (God Almighty) handed out nations, known as the Table of Nations (Gen 10) to his divine sons. Yahweh was given the prime nation, Israel, even though it still did not exist! Yahweh had to go to Ur of the Chaldees to find someone faithful enough to be the founder of the Hebrew nation. Then he had to test him, sending him to Egypt and other locations where he would be tempted with wealth and gods. His final test was with Isaac, to prove he would follow Yahweh regardless of what was expected of him.

Yet, Israel did not become a true nation until the time of Moses.

This understanding of a Father and Son Gods continued in Israel belief, where in the book of Genesis there are certain portions written about El Elyon, and later other portions written about Yahweh. When Israel split in two in the days of Rehoboam, Jeroboam set up two calves as gods in his day. These can be connected to the calf at Mt Sinai, but the reason Israel was attracted to forming calves is this: The bull or male calf was a symbol of El Elyon, symbolizing his strength and fertility. So, we have a competition between Northern Israel and Judah on which God to worship. Northern Israel chose El, while Yahweh was the God of the Temple. This sudden competition between the Father and Son Gods forced major changes in the view of God among many Israelites.

The evolution of Yahweh in the Temple at Jerusalem eventually meant Yahweh also obtained all attributes of El Elyon, until Judaism worshiped only one God in monotheism. This was a gradual change, with monolatry first occuring (believing there are many Gods, but worshiping only one), and later going to monotheism.

Interestingly, Margaret Barker and other scholars show that Christ brought back the old belief of two Gods. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus, he quoted Psalms in saying "Ye are gods" and said Abraham also believed this. When they continued to question about how he may have known Abraham, he said "before Abraham was I AM." They knew he was saying he is Yahweh, and tried to stone him for blasphemy.

Christ used the Father as one of his witnesses, which he could not do if there were only one Being. And as I noted before, the early Christians, including Origen, knew they were two separate persons, with Jesus as the subordinate God, the Messiah and the Great Angel of the Lord's Presence.

You can read more in detail on my LDS.Net blogging on the Old Testament, here on the Abrahamic Covenant

[Justice]

Justice,

SonInMe is correct. The covenant Jehovah/Yahweh had was only with Israel, not the Gentiles.

I thought that's what I said. At least, I that's what I meant.

[Seminarysnoozer]

hey where do we get one of those playbooks? No one gave me mine!

It is the Children's Songbook, so these phrases get hard-wired in our brains at an early age.

[Soninme]

He was their God by covenant.

Yes but also He was/is "the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;Is. 44:24) He, all by Himself, is the maker of all nations, all flesh, Heaven, earth, and just what it says, "all things." Who is this Yahweh who does all these things by Himself in the OT and now in the new doesn't do anything unless He first sees the Father do it?(John 5:19)

Anyone who wishes to enter this covenant can have Him for their God.

Which God? If Yahweh then why did Jesus and Paul say the Father? (John 20:17)(1 Cor 8:6)

If El Elyon then why did you claim Yahweh stated;

that for Israel, there would only be one God. None would come before him, and none would replace him.

If one now worships the Father then Yahweh was replaced and CANNOT claim; "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Is. 44:6)

My point is you are claiming 2 gods when the Bible claims only 1 God.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Soninme

[Vort]

Yes but also He was/is "the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;Is. 44:24) He, all by Himself, is the maker of all nations, all flesh, Heaven, earth, and just what it says, "all things." Who is this Yahweh who does all these things by Himself in the OT and now in the new doesn't do anything unless He first sees the Father do it?(John 5:19)

Which God? If Yahweh then why did Jesus and Paul say the Father? (John 20:17)(1 Cor 8:6)

If El Elyon then why did you claim Yahweh stated;

If one now worships the Father then Yahweh was replaced and CANNOT claim; "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Is. 44:6)

My point is you are claiming 2 gods when the Bible claims only 1 God.

This whole discussion is nonsense. God is exactly who and what he is. We do not define God; we merely seek to describe him. We do not worship a pantheon of gods, as did the ancient Greeks and Romans; we worship one God. But that does not preclude multiple persons.

We know the nature of God, not because the Bible describes him so perfectly -- it does not -- but because we had a prophet tell us in clear and reasonably precise language what that nature is. Arguing about what the Bible does or does not say is not merely fruitless, it is pointless.

[annewandering]

This whole discussion is nonsense. God is exactly who and what he is. We do not define God; we merely seek to describe him. We do not worship a pantheon of gods, as did the ancient Greeks and Romans; we worship one God. But that does not preclude multiple persons.

We know the nature of God, not because the Bible describes him so perfectly -- it does not -- but because we had a prophet tell us in clear and reasonably precise language what that nature is. Arguing about what the Bible does or does not say is not merely fruitless, it is pointless.

Sometimes it is good to see you post, Vort. I have been avoiding this thread because it tends to annoy me so much.

My husband and I have had some discussion on this thread and he is puzzled over why it is hard to understand. hmm

[clint25n]

This whole discussion is nonsense... We do not worship a pantheon of gods, as did the ancient Greeks and Romans; we worship one God.

You think you have it figured out, but you need to remember, the Bible IS God's testimony. And that God-breathed scripture says "only worship God", but beware because it says Jesus received worship.

Men knelled to worship angels, and that worship was rejected. Cornelius fell down to worship Peter, and that worship was rejected. Always saying the same thing; only God deserves worship. But when Jesus received worship, it was indeed received. A leper worshipped Jesus, His disciples worshipped Jesus, the blind man worhsipped Jesus... even angels are instructed to worship Jesus.

Jesus is God in the flesh, Emmanuel, God with us. He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities. Both the Father and the Lamb (Jesus) were praised by the created things, who attributed to them "blessing and honor and glory and power."

...we had a prophet tell us in clear and reasonably precise language what that nature is. Arguing about what the Bible does or does not say is not merely fruitless, it is pointless.

What does the Bible (God's spoken word) say? To claim God's testimony is pointless is absurdity. Your hurdle in this life is this... will you believe the Bible.

[Justice]

And that God-breathed scripture says "only worship God", but beware because it says Jesus received worship.

Please see the recent thread on "God-breathed." You will find the question, if the Bible is "God-breathed" (meaning the perfect word of God as it was spoken by the mouth of God) then which version is it? Is it the KJV? Any of the other many English versions? A foreign language version? If any of them were/are the perfect word of God then they would be exactly the same.

Jesus is God in the flesh, Emmanuel, God with us.

Again, the question has been asked, if Jesus is part of the same essence as the Father, and He is but a manifestation of God in the flesh, then how is He the Son of God?

Does God emptying Himself in a mortal vessel make a Son? Can one be a son of one's self? Why the deception that He is God's Son if in fact it is God Himself made manifest in the flesh (the same essence)? Why not just say so?

Why does He speak and pray to Himself? Why does He project His own voice as if to come from heaven to approve and bear testimony of Himself? Why the deception? Why claim the Father is greater than Himself if, in fact, it is part of the same? How can "the same" be greater or lesser than "the same?"

Did you know in foreign language versions (Spanish, German, French) the plural form of God is used, and not the singular? In English God can be a plural word as well. Like "man" can be used as singular or plural. To say there is "one God" can be understood plural, especially if the author of those words intended to say one in unity of will and purpose.

What does the Bible (God's spoken word) say?

Christ asked His Apostles who they believed He was. Peter answered and said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ ackowledged his answer, and told him that "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee," but Father in Heaven revealed it to him. If Peter did not learn it from flesh and blood, which was the state of the Son of God at the time, but from the Father, doesn't that mean they are different Beings or Individuals?

We've gone through all this already.

What we have here is an interpretation problem, not a "believe the Bible" problem. We all "believe the Bible," we just interpret it differently, just as all the different Christian denominations do to some degree.

We have a 2nd witness by a people who also saw Him and were taught by Him in the Book of Mormon.

We have the testimony of a modern prophet who saw and spoke to both of them at the same time, and saw many other heavenly visions, wherein he was taught precious truths that had been lost (interpretation and textual).

We also have prophets and apostles who live today who helps us understand and interpret scripture properly.

The Bible says that no prophecy in the scripture is up for private interpretation. How do you know your interpretation isn't one of these "private" ones?

It also says the Bible is not "God-breathed" (written and/or spoken by God Himself).

2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This is what the Book of Mormon teaches, and what modern prophets teach. God did not control the written word any more than He controlled Adam, as both were (as you say) God-breathed. If Adam wanted to change, He allowed it. If man wanted to change His written word, He allowed it. I agree there was protection to some degree, but not in the sense that "God-breathed" implies by your definition.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Justice