Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_maklelan]

Maklalan, I vaguely remember, perhaps over a year ago, sending some quires your way about how close those Old Testament images correlate with Mormon images. I think you declined to measure. I can see the reasonableness of that, a general sense of a more friendly context instead of specific correlation makes sense.

I tend to think of the gospel as far more culturally integrated and contingent than most, so I avoid trying to string ideologies together from chronologically disparate contexts.

Thank you for the book recommendation.

When it comes to early Israelite religion, I could recommend books all day long.

[_maklelan]

First point, This is what the Bible says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What does that mean to you?

No, that's not what the Bible says. בראשית is in the construct, making the first clauses temporal, as a sort of introduction. A more literal translation is "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was . . ." After all, we know from the rest of the first chapter that the earth was not created in the beginning. It wasn't created until v. 9. For more on this, see here and here.

[_maklelan]

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/isaiah-malachi/jesus-or-god-creator-all-things

Is Jesus or God the creator of all things?


Isaiah 44:24 and Colossians 1:16-17
1.God created all alone (Isaiah 44:24)--"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone."
2.All things created by/through Jesus (Colossians 1:16-17)--"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

There is no difficulty here at all when we realize that the Trinity is involved.

Or we can not just inject our own presuppositions into the text and let it say what it says. That creates a conflict between the texts, but, again, rejecting conflict is just injecting our own presuppositions into the text.

The Trinity is the doctrine that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is the Word, which was God and with God (John 1:1)--that became flesh in Jesus (John 1:14). Since Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and He has two natures, divine and human (Col. 2:9), we can then have Jesus being the creator, and God being the creator alone. In other words, Jesus is God and God created all things alone.

2 Nephi 11:7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

Yes, and the Trinity is a development of the second through fourth centuries CE. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

[_Mittens]

Then Book of Mormon sure mentions the Trinity

COUNSEL GIVEN BY PRESIDENT CHARLES W. PENROSE

Now, some of our brethren have taken up quite a discussion as to the fulness of the everlasting gospel. We are told that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel, that those who like to get up a dispute, say that the Book of Mormon does not contain any reference to the work of salvation for the dead and that there are many other things pertaining to the gospel that are not developed in that book, and yet we are told that the book contains "the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Well, what is the fulness of the gospel? You read carefully the revelation in regard to the three glories, Section 76, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and you find there defined what the gospel is. There God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, his Son, and the Holy Ghost, are held up as the three Persons in the [size=200]Trinity—the one God, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all three being one God. [/size]When people believe in that doctrine and obey the ordinances which are spoken of in the same list of principles, you get the fulness of the gospel for this reason: If you really believe so as to have faith in our Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, and will hear him, you will learn ail about what is needed to be done for the salvation of the living and redemption of the dead.

When people believe and repent and are baptized by divine authority, and the Holy Ghost is conferred upon them as a gift, they receive the everlasting gospel. We used to call it, and it is now called in the revelations, the "gift of the Holy Ghost," the Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father through the immensity of space, which guides, directs, enlightens, which is light in and of itself, which is the Spirit of intelligence, the light of truth. (General Conference Report, April 1922, pp. 27-28.)

[_maklelan]

Then Book of Mormon sure mentions the Trinity

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my statement above. This isn't a game of "I know you are but what am I?" If you can't or won't defend the assertions you keep making, just let me know and we can end this thread.

[_Servant]

Then Book of Mormon sure mentions the Trinity

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my statement above. This isn't a game of "I know you are but what am I?" If you can't or won't defend the assertions you keep making, just let me know and we can end this thread.

Mittens is right - if you knew Church history (which I believe you do not, mak) you'd understand that Trinitarian theology is Gospel-based, and was creedalized to act as a defense against the inroads of heresy - especially adoptionism which you have in the past asserted was the original teaching of Christianity (and asserted that with apparent disregard for many texts in the New Testament.)

[Guest]

So, mak, where does the Book of Mormon teach polytheism? Where does it teach that men become gods? Where does it teach baptism for the dead? It doesn't, and Mormonism has really no connection with the Book of Mormon.

[_Servant]

Mittens, you are absolutely right - early Mormonism (as found in the Book of Mormon) was Trinitarian (in a modified Sabellian sense) and taught that Jesus was the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in some places, or that God was traditionally Triune in the Christian sense in other places. Gradually, as Joe Smith became more powerful, and as his words began to replace written revelations, Smith bragged that he had never taught anything but the plurality of gods, an obvious lie when one looks at the testimony of the "witnesses" in the Book of Mormon who gave their testimony in the name of the One, Triune God - the traditional God of Christianity.

Joseph Smith departed from any semblance of semi-orthodoxy in this regard when he shoved Sidney Rigdon out of the picture and began to be guided by his own "wisdom" in regard to doctrine. Rigdon had at least kept Smith somewhat in line, but Joe became more and more a victim of his own malignant narcissism, seeing himself as the font of all wisdom and knowledge - and so he led the cult into polytheism and idolatry, just as Israel had lapsed so often back into idolatry. A few in the LDS Church objected, and left. Law is a good example - and he placed the final nail in Smith's coffin when the straw that broke his back was Smith's pursuit of Law's wife as another God-endorsed victim for Joe's collection of "plurals."

Mormonism was left with polytheism when Joe was arrested for treason and met his demise. And so they spend their days defending what is essentially indefensible if one is to believe the Book of Mormon which is outstandingly Trinitarian, Modalistic, and Sabellian - but their ain't one word in it that defends polytheism! And even the supposed "scholars" will never produce one, but simply use evasion to avoid your question!

[_maklelan]

Mittens is right - if you knew Church history (which I believe you do not, mak)

That's because you don't pay attention.

you'd understand that Trinitarian theology is Gospel-based, and was creedalized to act as a defense against the inroads of heresy - especially adoptionism which you have in the past asserted was the original teaching of Christianity (and asserted that with apparent disregard for many texts in the New Testament.)

I'm well aware of the orthodox rejection of what it declares heresy.

[Guest]

Mittens is right - if you knew Church history (which I believe you do not, mak)

That's because you don't pay attention.

you'd understand that Trinitarian theology is Gospel-based, and was creedalized to act as a defense against the inroads of heresy - especially adoptionism which you have in the past asserted was the original teaching of Christianity (and asserted that with apparent disregard for many texts in the New Testament.)

I'm well aware of the orthodox rejection of what it declares heresy.

So, prove your contention that the earliest Christian view was Adoptionism - and prove it from the Bible. (Remember that contemporary adoptionism - which is simply Arianism dressed up with lipstick - denies Christ's pre-incarnational divinity, which would be a direct contradiction of Mormonism).

John 1:14: 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.