Actually, the "focus of the topic at hand" was indeed your defense of Mormonism as a Christian religion. You are just changing the goal posts. Your statements on the Trinity was only part of your reasoning to support your primary claim.
Rather than divining things from my posts that I either did not write, or were misunderstood, why not take me at my word when I say the Trinity and the Trinity as a condition of salvation has been the focus of my posts?
However, I predicted that you would avoid the topic of Mormonism since, if you defended it, you would be forced to either deny or don't mention what they teach and focus on bland moralism, explain how polytheism is scriptural or at least not a big deal for us monotheists, or at least launch an argument in favor of "doctrines not being a big deal," and thus coming out as a relativist. All these approaches are unattractive, so the only other alternative is to go on the offensive. But this also is in vain.
You are coming across as a false prophet because the most I ever read about Mormonism, or at least the most I have read in a very long time was a single page scan posted in this thread by Elsie. I can’t defend something I know nothing about.
Since we know the scripture "cannot be broken," as Christ puts it, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, we know that each verse must be believed.
1) Christianity is monotheistic, using the verse I already showed.
I agree.
2) Christ is God:
John 1:1-2 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.
This chapter also identifies the Word as Christ. Note that Christ is both with God and is God. He is thus distinct with God, being with Him, yet, at the same time, He is the same God.
I agree but, John 1:1-2 only establishes a Binitarian relationship between Christ (the Word) and God..
3) The Holy Spirit is God: Act 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
You are making an unsupported leap. Acts 5:3-4 describes the Holy Spirit in terms more like that of a personal being rather than impersonal force/presence used in other New Testament scriptures such as Act 2:17-18, Act 10:45, Rm 5:5. However, Acts 5:3-4 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Between your point #2 and point #3, all that you have established is that Christ and God are separate yet the same diety (Binitarian).
Acts 5:3-4 does not establish the Holy Spirit as a divinity rather than a created being serving as God’s agent.
4) The Father is God, and is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mar 1:10-11 )
Here the Father speaks in heaven, while the Holy Spirit hovers above the Son.
This is further support for the Holy Spirit as a distinct being rather than impersonal force/presence. It does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Here they are addressed separately.
The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Here we are baptized in their name, showing their equality with one another in the divine institution of baptism.
That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD? Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel. Mark 16:15-18 bears closest resemblance but does not mention the threefold name. Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any Apostolic Fathers, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.
So let's add it together 1 + 2 + 3 + 4: Since there is only one God, yet the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, then these three must be of one substance in the Godhead, or, in other words, the Trinity. Not conflating the persons as different "modes", like an actor going from role to role, nor dividing them, as the Mormons do, into three seperate gods.
On #1 and #2, I fully agree. However, I already explained my disagreement with #3. In #4, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church? If you can explain why Matt 28:19 is an exact quote of Jesus and why no other New Testament record exists of baptism in the threefold name, I’d really appreciate it.
The scripture condemns polytheism:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I agree that Ex 20:3 condemns polytheism but up until this point, you have only established the diety and co-equality of God and Jesus. (Binitarianism)
You state based on #3 that the Holy Spirit is a personal being as opposed to an impersonal presence/force. However, you have not established the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Where is your scripture clearly stating the Holy Spirit is God, that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to?
Even if Matt 28:19 contains the exact words spoken by Jesus, a person could understand their relationship as being analogous to officers of a corporation. John 1:1-2 would establish that the Father and Son are one in the same while to satisfy Ex 20:3, the Holy Spirit might be the most powerful of the created beings but not divine and we still haven’t been able to move from Binitarianism to Trinitarianism.
Actually, the "focus of the topic at hand" was indeed your defense of Mormonism as a Christian religion. You are just changing the goal posts. Your statements on the Trinity was only part of your reasoning to support your primary claim.
Rather than divining things from my posts that I either did not write, or were misunderstood, why not take me at my word when I say the Trinity and the Trinity as a condition of salvation has been the focus of my posts?
However, I predicted that you would avoid the topic of Mormonism since, if you defended it, you would be forced to either deny or don't mention what they teach and focus on bland moralism, explain how polytheism is scriptural or at least not a big deal for us monotheists, or at least launch an argument in favor of "doctrines not being a big deal," and thus coming out as a relativist. All these approaches are unattractive, so the only other alternative is to go on the offensive. But this also is in vain.
You are coming across as a false prophet because the most I ever read about Mormonism, or at least the most I have read in a very long time was a single page scan posted in this thread by Elsie. I can’t defend something I know nothing about.
Since we know the scripture "cannot be broken," as Christ puts it, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, we know that each verse must be believed.
1) Christianity is monotheistic, using the verse I already showed.
I agree.
2) Christ is God:
John 1:1-2 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.
This chapter also identifies the Word as Christ. Note that Christ is both with God and is God. He is thus distinct with God, being with Him, yet, at the same time, He is the same God.
I agree but, John 1:1-2 only establishes a Binitarian relationship between Christ (the Word) and God..
3) The Holy Spirit is God: Act 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
You are making an unsupported leap. Acts 5:3-4 describes the Holy Spirit in terms more like that of a personal being rather than impersonal force/presence used in other New Testament scriptures such as Act 2:17-18, Act 10:45, Rm 5:5. However, Acts 5:3-4 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Between your point #2 and point #3, all that you have established is that Christ and God are separate yet the same diety (Binitarian).
Acts 5:3-4 does not establish the Holy Spirit as a divinity rather than a created being serving as God’s agent.
4) The Father is God, and is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mar 1:10-11 )
Here the Father speaks in heaven, while the Holy Spirit hovers above the Son.
This is further support for the Holy Spirit as a distinct being rather than impersonal force/presence. It does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Here they are addressed separately.
The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Here we are baptized in their name, showing their equality with one another in the divine institution of baptism.
That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD? Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel. Mark 16:15-18 bears closest resemblance but does not mention the threefold name. Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any Apostolic Fathers, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.
So let's add it together 1 + 2 + 3 + 4: Since there is only one God, yet the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, then these three must be of one substance in the Godhead, or, in other words, the Trinity. Not conflating the persons as different "modes", like an actor going from role to role, nor dividing them, as the Mormons do, into three seperate gods.
On #1 and #2, I fully agree. However, I already explained my disagreement with #3. In #4, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church? If you can explain why Matt 28:19 is an exact quote of Jesus and why no other New Testament record exists of baptism in the threefold name, I’d really appreciate it.
The scripture condemns polytheism:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I agree that Ex 20:3 condemns polytheism but up until this point, you have only established the diety and co-equality of God and Jesus. (Binitarianism)
You state based on #3 that the Holy Spirit is a personal being as opposed to an impersonal presence/force. However, you have not established the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Where is your scripture clearly stating the Holy Spirit is God, that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to?
Even if Matt 28:19 contains the exact words spoken by Jesus, a person could understand their relationship as being analogous to officers of a corporation. John 1:1-2 would establish that the Father and Son are one in the same while to satisfy Ex 20:3, the Holy Spirit might be the most powerful of the created beings but not divine and we still haven’t been able to move from Binitarianism to Trinitarianism.
Then you should probably refrain commenting about them at all, rather than referring to them as 'Christians,' albeit as "not mainstream Christians." You come off as a fellow-traveler with a cult, which you are.
You are making an unsupported leap.
You are only making an assertion. The Apostle directly states that they lied to the Holy Spirit, and then reiterates that they have not "lied to man, but to God." You contradict me, but you don't bother to explain why.
You cannot lie to a mere "force," since the force has no identity. This would be like saying, "You have lied to the telephone. You have lied to me," if perhaps you were having an argument with someone over the phone. Nor can you call an angel "God."
The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.
A ridiculous conclusion. If your argument is that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and is therefore nothing, an inanimate object, how do you dismiss this verse which clearly presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct individuals? You give assertions, but you do not give really valid reasons why we should believe you.
That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD?
Who are these scholars you refer to? What are their names? Just talking about what some unnamed people say doesn't help you with anything. None of the Greek manuscripts have variation on that verse, and the exact wording is supported by quotes from ancient church writings dating back as far as the first century.
For example, the Didache:
From the Didache:
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."
Justin Martyr:
"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.'"(First Apology, Ch. 61)
Irenaeus:
"And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’" (Against Heresies Book 3, Ch. 17.1)
Tertullian:
"For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He says, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’" (On Baptism, Ch. 13)
Hippolytus:
"And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time." (The Apostolic Tradition, Ch. 21)
Cyprian:
"But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed"
If you yourself confess that this was the view of the ancient church, then you would have to expect us to believe that the scripture was forged before even the death of John the Apostle, yet with absolutely no dissent or evidence.
I will also note that your entire premise here attacks the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures, putting you in the same group as atheists or cultists who frequently attack the authority of scripture to explain away the scripture's frequent contradiction of their claims.
Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel.
Is this the reasoning of your scholars? If it is, then your two reasons aren't evidence at all, but mere speculation. If you have no textual or historical evidence, then all this is is the rantings of liberals or cultists who are enemies of Christ anyway.
I'll also add that you just got done poo pooing Mar 1:10-11 and 2 Co 13:14, which certainly parallel it. Even you called the latter a "trinitarian linkage." Your only problem with it is that you did not like it, for no apparent reason.
Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.
This "second" reason is also quite weak:
"The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul" (Ferguson, p. 136, qtd in http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Is_Matthew_28:19_Authentic_or_a_Forgery_by_Rev__Sean_Finnegan_issue_106.pdf)
This also is merely huff and puff passed off as hard evidence.
...that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to?
The body of the Christian is called the "temple" of the Holy Ghost:
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
This is a direct comparison of the human body with the temple of Jerusalem which was resided in by God Himself, not any created being, and the body of a Christian is also called interchangeably by Paul "The temple of God."
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
This cannot be so if God does not actually dwell in us, but only the Holy Spirit, a "force" or an angel.
The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against, and this, unforgivable:
Mat_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force" or an angel.
Here, Paul quotes the Old Testament:
"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years." (Heb 3:7-9)
Paul quotes God in the Old Testament, but ascribes it to the Holy Ghost. This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely an "object," or an angel.
In Isaiah, the Holy Spirit is differenciated from the other members of the Trinity:
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force," since it would be like saying "God and His Force hath sent me."
That is simply not necessary in one text, while other texts do support the divinity of the Spirit. Your hermeneutic from the beginning is one that requires an all-in-one statement for a doctrine, which is simply the what the Holy Spirit works. Like the body of Christ, there is an interdependence in which there is one book, but many "members" complimenting each other. Scripture is like a wind orchestra, with the Spirit sounding thru individual distinctive sounds but making harmony unto the Lord.
, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church?
It does not matter whether these were the verbatim words of Christ, and duplicate accounts such as the trial of Christ indicate the Holy Spirit expanded on what Christ said at times to provide a more comprehensive revelation.
But what matters is whether the text is Scripture, and from beginning there was nothing to indicate you were going to engage in doubting even the great commission as being Scripture. And if so, there is little point in providing Scriptural warrant for you on anything here, as most any text can find "scholars" who doubt it, which you can invoke to disallow what is provided.
For such scholars do not stop with MT. 28:19, but hold or depend upon others who assert the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes. Thus we dealing with a whole new topic, which is not simply Scriptural support for the Trinity, but what even qualifies as Scripture.
Are a Christadelphian by any chance? Or what?
Here," some "scholars" subscribe to a da Vince code type assertion that Mt. 28:19 was a later interpolation added during or after the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 when the Trinity became accepted.
Yet there is absolutely no textual variation whatsoever for Matthew 28.19 in the extant manuscripts, ("In all extant MSS, ...the text is found in the traditional form" - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics), and substantial historical witness to Mt. 28:19 supports it, including,
the First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61: “…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. .
Tertullian, c. 200 AD, in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
Hippolytus (170-236 AD in Fragment Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical --Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian: And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well.
Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII: "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"
The Didache, chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
Meanwhile, it remains that one can blaspheme the Son and be forgiven, but not the Spirit, thus denoting deity, while you do not blaspheme a "thing," but a person.
And it is absurd to assert that "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," (2 Corinthians 13:14) merely teaches the Spirit is a "created being of very high rank"! (post #142)
As if the Spirit of God who searches the mind of God and is never even inferred to have a beginning but is shown as intrinsically being part of God is some created being, while at the same time you see no evidence for the Spirit being himself a being! This is a new and desperate measure.
Thus faced with evidence for the personhood of the Spirit, you complain that does not show His divinity, and then faced evidence for His divinity, you complain some scholars think it was added, and that that the Spirit of God was a created being, but not a person!
You are not being reasonable now, but evidence that you are determined to hold to your opinion despite whatever evidence is presented.