1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LDS Article of Faith #1 : God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost

Discussion in 'Latter-day Saints DIR' started by Bishka, May 8, 2007.

  1. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,920
    Ratings:
    +1,487
    Currently there is a debate thread that is getting absolutley nowhere that is on the subject of the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church, so I thought I would make threads that would help inform and be of good discussion to anyone who had questions about our beliefs.
    This is the 1st Article of Faith of the LDS Church​


    "1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."


    Any questions? :)
     
  2. Dream Angel

    Dream Angel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,489
    Ratings:
    +145
    They make up the Godhead right? I know you dont believe in the trinity, and most other christian faiths do - hence the argument "Are mormons Christian". Is there a bible reference which supports the Godhead as opposed to the trinity!

    What do you believe the Holy Ghost to be then?

    Thanks :)
    NB: I think you are christian by the way
     
  3. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,333
    Ratings:
    +6,018
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    How long do you have? :D

    Matthew 10:32-33 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

    Question: If interpreted from a Trinitarian perspective, would there even be a need for the distinction between the Father and the Son?

    Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    Question: How is it possible to forsake oneself?

    Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

    Question: If the Father and the Son are physically a single being, how could the Father know something the Son doesn't? (This verse also supports the LDS argument that the Father is greater than the Son. He clearly has knowledge the Son does not have.)

    Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

    Question: How could Jesus sit on the right hand on God if He was part of the same substance as His Father? (This verse also supports our belief in a corporeal God, or at least a God who is not an invisible force.)

    Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

    Question: How could the Father, a non-corporeal being speaking from Heaven (according to the trinitarian perspective) be part of a single substance shared by His Son, a corporeal being who was on Earth and had just come out of the waters of baptism?

    Luke 22:41-42 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

    Question: Was Jesus praying to Himself, and why would He have prayed to His Father if He had not recognized His Father's supremacy?

    John 5:22-23 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

    Question: Can a single entity both judge and not judge?

    John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

    Question: Who is the student here and who is the teacher? How can these two roles be filled by one being?

    John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

    Question: Why did Jesus need to go to His Father if His Father was already present everywhere? (Again, we are reminded that the Father is greater than the Son.)

    John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    Question: Did God give Himself work to do, or did He give it to someone else?

    John 17:21-23 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

    Question: Was Jesus praying that all of His followers would someday be absorbed into the substance of the Trinity or was He praying that they would be united in some other way?

    John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

    Question: Why would Jesus have referred to His Father as His God if they were not separate beings?

     
  4. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    My typical anti-trinitarian post is about five posts long or so. I could post it if you want.
     
  5. Dream Angel

    Dream Angel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,489
    Ratings:
    +145
    Thankyou Katzpur! That was very helpful and made a lot of sense!!! Hope you enjoyed your lunch break! :)

    Aqualung - sure go for it, would love to read it! :)
     
  6. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Haha, triple post! Ok, here goes.
     
  7. Dream Angel

    Dream Angel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,489
    Ratings:
    +145
    oops! sorry, my comp was being slow! and I have figured if I keep clicking "Post" it posts it a lot quicker, but can multi post also! :)
     
  8. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Our, being a first person plural pronoun.

    Again, note the plurality of the pronoun.

    Not only is the voice coming from heaven (ie, not where Christ is) but it is also expressing third person pleasure in Christ. I don't know why Christ would feel the need to pretend that somebody else was pleased in him (making is seem like his voice was coming from somewhere else). Do you think he was mistreated as a boy, so now he has to lie for attention?

    Even Satan admitted that Christ was the Son of God, not God himself. He could have said, "If thou be God..." but instead he decided to add a couple more words (what a waste of time!) to say he was the Son of God. Why? They are two seperate beings.

    Again, Satan, the very Devil, again recognizing Christ as the Son of God.

    None of the people who saw his miracles doubted that Christ was the Son of God, because the scriptures teach that The Father will send his son as a sacrafice for the sins of the world, NOT that the Father himself will come down.

    Key word there is SENT. That is a third person verb. It indicates that somebody outside of Christ is doing the sending. If Christ IS the Father, there would be nobody to do the sending, as it is a thrid person verb.

    Does the Father lie? Then why would he manifest unto Peter that Christ is the SON of God? Does Christ mislead? Then why would not tell one of his twelve that he was wrong when he said the SON of God? ANSWER: Because Christ is the Son of God.

    The Son shall come in the glory of his Father, not in his own glory. Why did it not say, in his own glory? Because the Father and the Son are seperate. It also shows that Christ does not do things in his own glory, but in the glory of his Father, under the direction of his Father.

    The Father confirms that The Son IS his son. This is MY beloved son. Again, why would Christ trick people into thinking that some other person was well pleased in him? Was he simply some charlatan, tricking people into following him? Was he abused as a kid, and thinks the only way people will like him is if he claims The Father is well pleased in him? If he IS The Father, why this trickery?

    If the Father IS the son, how come something that belongs to the father doesn't also belong to the son? Again, Jesus is made to be quite a wiley adversary.

    The Father is the only one who knows when the world shall pass away. If Christ IS the Father, it would seem that Christ would know of the day and hour, too. Yet he doesn't. His Father only knows of it.

    How does one person have to seperate wills, and talk to himself in the second person? Does he have a split personality?

    Not only does Christ confirm the high priest's question if he be the Son of God, but adds more information to that.

    Because Christ never claimed to actually BE God, nobody used that information against him. Christ never said he was the Father, so why would anybody say, "If thou be God..."? That would certianly be a more airtight insult, yet they didn't use it. Why?

    This confirms what I said with regards to the previous verse. Christ only ever claimed to be the SON of God, not God himself.

    Again, that's the sort of thing God himself would do. But because Christ only taught that he was the SON of God, the centurions KNEW that Christ truly was the Son of God.

    Given by whom? Why, the only being greater than he, The Father himself. Again, that seems rather weasely and atention-grabbing to give himself a gift, and then brag about it.

    Why baptise them in the name of all three if they are all three one and the same? Why not just say, "baptise them in the name of God"? Because they are not one and the same, so it's important to mention all three.
     
  9. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    It's interesting that these words start the Gospel of Mark. Mark must have thought it was important to know (a) who this was about (Christ) and (b) who Christ was (the Son of God) before starting in on any history or miracles or suchlike.

    It's almost the same as in Matthew, except this time it's a second person description. But none of the gospels give a first person account. "I am my beloved son, and well pleased in myself." None of the writers though Christ was the same Person as te Father.

    A sperate being, that is, drove him into the wilderness. Christ himself did not just take to the wilderness, but was driven by the Spirit.

    He did not correct the unclean spirits. He told them to keep the knowledge of who he was a secret. What should he care if they told if it were not true, anyway? After all, they were unclean spirits. But they were right, and he didn't want people to know yet. They were RIGHT that Christ was the Son of God.

    The spirit in the man recognized that (a) Christ was the Son of God; (b) that Christ, as such, could torment him; and (c) that Christ was NOT God, so he would have to adjure to God himself to command Christ to not torment him (ie, Christ is lower than God, but above the demon).

    Again, a voice very distinct and seperate from Christ affirmed that Christ was at least somebody's son. I assume that voice belonged to God, rather than to Joseph, considering that it came from a cloud and all.

    This is almost the same thing as in Matthew, except the affirmation, by Christ himself, that Jesus was the Son of God, is a million times clearer.

    Notice, the Lord God will be giving Christ something. Again, if Christ WERE God, why would he give himself something like that? Wouldn't he already have it? If I try to give myself this pencil, I will necessarily have to have it in order to give it. So why give in the first place, since I already have it? It's the same with Christ. The fact that The Lord God is giving Christ something is an exceptionally good indication that Christ is NOT The Lord God.

    How can he increase in favour with himself, and why would such a thing be written about? It makes infinitely more sense to regard God as seperate from Christ.

    Once again, Why? If Christ is the Holy ghost, why did the Holy Ghost descend upon him? How is it possible for one thing to descend upon itself? Does the Bible lie when it says that the Holy Ghost descended upon him?

    Satan is trying to tempt Christ into proving that he is the Son of God, not God himself. Why not? Because how can you prove a false thing? If he said "If thou be God" and tried to get Christ to prove his status as such, Christ would have said, "But I'm not, so you're dumb." But Satan is trying to get Christ to prove his real nature, that nature being the Son of God.

    It's the same situation as before.

    So the devils spake something, and they were RIGHT. Christ told them not to speak of it, because they were RIGHT.

    Again, Christ verifies that he was sent, that there is one greater than he who can command Christ to go places.

    The demon KNEW who Christ was, and feared. He didn't fear that he was God. He feared that he was the Son of God.

    ...and yet another gospel confirms the sonship of Christ, and the distinctness of Christ and The Father.

    The Father delivers things to Christ. In fact, all that Christ has was given him of the Father. Christ is not The Father, or why would he credit the Father for giving him everything that he has?

    Christ continually taught that he was the chosen of God, not God himself, and this is the claim that others rediculed him with.
     
  10. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    The Word was with God. You can't be with yourself.

    John confirms what he mentioned in verse 1 - Christ is not the Father. His glory is that of the Only Begotten of the Father, but not of the Father himself.

    No man hath seen the Father. But men saw Christ, didn't they? The Only Begotten of The Father is the closest men will get to seeing The Father, because they Father and the Son are two different beings. If the Father WAS the Son, that statement would be a lie.

    Christ is not the spirt. He can't be at one time both himself, standing in the water, and a dove upon his own sholder. The dove lay on him as a testament to their seperateness in body.

    John, even though you claim that when he said "And the Word was God" he meant they were one and the same being, bares record that they are in fact two seperate beings, the one being the Son of the Other.

    Notice Christ said "believest thou", not "believest thou incorrectly", or "because I said unto thee, I saw thee under a fig tree, you came to the wrong conclusion". He verified Christ's position as Son of God, not God himself.

    Christ belonged to God. He was God's son. God gave Christ; Christ did not give himself.

    This states that God is not Christ, because, once again, God is seen sending Christ things. It also shows that God is not the HOly Ghost, because the Spirit is what God gives.

    Once again, you can either read this verse to mean that Christ is narcisistic, likes to masturbate, or that Christ and the Father are two seperate beings.

    The Jews were taught, by Christ, that Christ was the Son of God, not God himself. Then, John continues by saying that Christ will not do anything until he sees the Father do it. If they were one and the same, it would be like standing in front of a mirror and only doing what you saw your reflection do. You would have to stand perfectly still, because you can't do anything, because your reflection hasn't done anything, because you haven't done anything. If Christ were the Father, and only did things he first saw the Father do, nothing at all would happen. And again, here it is again with the Father loving the Son.

    Here we are again with The Father giving something to his Son. How does this happen if they are the same?

    Here is God giving something to Father again. Not only that, but it says that Christ's very life is due to God. Christ owes EVERYTHING, even his very life, to The Father.

    Again the Father sends Christ, and the Father gives Christ things. None of these things are things that could or would happen if Christ and the Father were the same being.

    Christ is not here in his own name, like one would expect if he and the Father were the same being, but rather he is here in his Father's name, to do his Father's will.

    As seen in other verses, The Father is the one who sent Christ. And here we see that Christ's will is differentiated from that of the Father. If Christ WERE the Father, that would be unnecessary, and impossible.

    This shows, again, that The Father sent christ, and they are therefore not the same. It also again emphasises that Christ's very life is owed to God.

    The apostels believed the Christ was the Son of God, not God himself, and Christ didn't correct them.

    If Christ and The Father were the same (the Father being him who sent Christ), Christ's doctrine WOULD be The Father's doctrine, but Christ emphasizes that he is strictly doing and teaching exactly what the Father tells him (ie, they are one in purpose and intent, but not in body).

    Again, one cannot send themself anywhere.

    Even if in some way you DO beleive that Christ can send himself, this also shows that he is not The Father. If he sent himself, he would not have to go unto him that sent him, because he would already be with said sender, himself. But because the sender is NOT Christ, but the Father, and because Christ is not the Father, he CAN go unto him that sent him.

    How does one send himself? Shouldn't Christ say I bear witness of myself on this mission that I go on of my own accord? It wouldn't be quite such a lie then, would it. Or, wait, maybe it's not a lie. Maybe they're two seperate people.

    Christ says the Father hasn't deserted him. But why would he even say such a thing if they were the same being? He also says he does only the things which please the Father, which is another testament to them being seperate.
     
  11. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Christ teaches that the is the Son of God, not that he is God.

    Once again, Christ emphasizes the distinctness of himself and his Father.

    Again, there is Christ receiving stuff from his Father. But not only this, Christ would not have been able to lay down his life and take it up again if it were not through commandment from the Father.

    Again, Christ teaches that he is the Son of God, not God himself. He also says that he is not pure in himself, but only because the Father sanctifies him.

    Christ is only glorified through the glory of his Father, but not through his own. If they were te same, this would not be possible.

    Christ didn't correct her and say that he actually WAS God, but left her in the correct knowledge that he was the Son of God.

    Now, either this verse indicates that Christ was on earth imploring something of his father in heaven, or Christ was on earth, and the Father was on earth, but Christ was confused and didn't realise that he was the father, so he prayed to the father, and somebody in heaven who didn't want to shatter Christ's vision of the Father tricked christ into thinking that the father answered him.

    Christ yet again confirms that he is not the Father. He does the Father's will, not his own. He speaks the Father's words, not his own. He is not the Father, but does His will.

    Christ is the means of getting to the Father, not the Father himself.

    Again, going unto the Father would be impossible if they weren't different beings. You can't go unto something that is inherently in you and IS you all the time.

    The Son does things for the Father, that the Father may be glorified. NOT: The Son does things for himself that he himself may be glorified.

    Christ prays to the Father. Why would he pray to himself? What would be the point of that? And, he will send another Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost. Again, the Father will send somebody else, a distinct person, distinct from the Father (or how could he send it?) and from the Son (or why didn't it just say, "he shall give you me again"?).

    It is impossible to be greater than oneself. And that's a fact.

    Christ admits that his Father is the one to whom he owes everything. A vine cannot grow well on its own, and it will not be good for anything, without the husbandman. Christ owes all to the Father, not to himself.

    Notice, Christ does not say that he is the one true God. He says "thee" not "me". Then, he further acknowledges that he is just the one the one true God sent.

    Notice it doesn't say I have glorified myself on the earth, nor I have finished the work which I gave myself to do. Christ is praying to his father, and his prayer makes it very clear that they are seperate and distinct beings.

    Christ taught that all the things he had were from the Father. Too bad that knowledge is now lost, to where people thing the Father IS the Son, rather than the Father being the one who gave the Son everything, as Christ taught.

    If the Father and Christ were literally and substantially one, it would be impossible for humans also to be one as they are one. If, on the other hand, they are simply one in purpose, then this is actually meaningful.

    Christ very clearly taught (so clearly that the generation of vipers could understand) that he was the Son of God, not God himself.

    How does one ascend to himself? It's impossible.

    If you think that the Father and the Son are the same being, then when Christ sends them as The Father has sent the Son this would mean the people are God as well.

    Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Can't get much clearer than that.
     
  12. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,333
    Ratings:
    +6,018
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Aqualung is just always trying to outdo me! :D
     
  13. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    This goes along with John 10:18, confirming that all the Son has, he received from His Father. He did not receive it from himself.

    Again, there is a clear (bodily and authoritative) distinction drawn between Christ and the Father.

    God hath MADE Jesus. [although, some translations of the Bible state it as cap'n queasy wrote when he wrongly accused me of writing something which I did not write, and of misquoting things on purpose that I did not quote in the first place.]

    This furthers supports the claim that non-trinitarian beliefs are more Biblican than trinitarian ones, as the Apostles themselves claim that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

    AGain, provides more support for non-trinitarian beliefs, because the apostles taught that Christ was the Son of God, and not God himself, and that Christ was sent by God, and did not send himself.

    This goes along nicely with 2:32 and John 10:18.

    The Father exalted Christ; Christ did not exalt himself. The entire point of Christ humbling himself becomes lost if Christ IS the Father. Christ humbled himself, and then God exalted him.

    So, he was full of the Holy Ghost, yet Christ and The Father were both up in heaven. The Spirit is not The Father, nor is he The Son. The Son was standing on the right hand of The Father. He saw both of them, distinctly seperate.

    Again, the people who were alive at the time Christ was alive confirm that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

    Again, the people who were alive at the time Christ was alive confirm that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

    God chose Christ to be his advocate. Christ and The Father are not the same. Then, he anointed him with the Holy Ghost. If Christ and the Spirit were the same, why would God have to anoint him with the Holy Ghost? That would be like me using pouring water into a lake to make it wet. It already is wet.

    Goes with 3:26 and 2:32, and John 10:18.

    God chose Christ to be the judge of mankind. Christ did not take that upon himself, which would be the case if they were the same person.

    See Acts 10:40, 3:26, and 2:32, and John 10:18
     
  14. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    It's my goal in life, surely.
     
  15. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    God resurrected Christ to prove that he was the Son of God, not just a man.

    Going along with Acts 10:42, which states that God chose Christ to judge, this one makes it plain that the father is distinct and sperate from the Son.

    God sent Christ to redeem man. Notice it doens't say that Christ sent himself, because Christ and God are not the same.

    We are not reconciled to Christ by his own death, nor are we reconciled to the Father through HIS own death. The person to whom we are reconciled is seperate from the person who reconciled us.

    By sending his Son (not, by coming down himself) he condemned sin in the flesh (not, Christ condemned sin in the flesh).

    Notice the sublte word play. Paul does not say that God spared not his own life, but that God spared not his own Son.

    Again, the subtle word play might be hard to pick up on, but read it carefully and you will see it does not say "That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, who is The Lord Jesus Christ".

    Christ brings the power of God and the wisdom of God, not his own power and his own wisdom.

    Notice it doesn't say, one father... who IS the Lord Jesus Christ. Also notice that since all things are BY Christ. This is in the passive voice. That's key.

    Can Christ be his own head? No. The fact that God is the head of Christ indicates not only a seperation, but also that Christ is inferior to the father. On the same note, can one be inferior to oneself?

    This not only states that Christ is seperate from God (he will give something back to God) but it also explains the latter half of John 1:1. Christ is currently in possession of the kingdom of God on earth, and he has all rule and all authority and power. He is, therefore God, but he is not the Father.

    AGain, christ will subdue himself to the Father. Not to himself (if such a thing were even possible).

    Paul, an apostle who lived during the time of Jesus, teaches that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

    NOT: "Christ, who is God".

    God used Christ, not himself, to reconcile us to Jesus.

    And yet again Paul teaches that Christ is the Son of God, and not God himself.

    God sent his son. God did not send himself.

    Christ died on the cross so he could reconcile men to God, not to himself. God and Christ are seperate.

    God created all things BY Jesus Christ. He did not create all things by himself.

    If Christ is God, who is his father that Paul would bow to him?

    Well, Paul is again teaching that Christ is the SON of God, NOT God himself.
     
  16. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    He was in the form of God, but not God himself. He thought it okay to be equal with God, but not to be God himself.

    Paul teaches that Christ is not the Father, but that the Father and the Son act seperately.

    Christ is in the image of God, but not God himself.

    It pleased the Father, not himself.

    God was up in heaven waiting for Christ to return. God was not down on earth as Christ.

    This clearly speaks of Christ and The Father being seperate in three ways - (1) The Father spoke by God, and not by himself; (2) The Father appointed his Son, not himself, heir of all things; (3) God created the world through Christ, not through himself.

    The writer of this epistle also teaches that Christ is the Son of God, not God himself.

    Christ was a Son, and he had to learn obedience, but to whom? The One who is greater than he, The Father.

    It was the Son of God who was crucified, not God.[/quote]

    Christ is again referred to as the Son of God.

    People come to The Father THROUGH Christ. This points to the idea that they are seperate and distinct individuals.

    Who is he a mediator to if he IS The Fahter?

    How could appear in his own presence? and why would this only happen when he got to heaven, if Christ is the Father?

    Christ was offered. Not Christ offered himself.

    Was forordained, but by who, if Christ and the Father are the same being?

    God gave his son a gift. Christ did not give it to himself.

    Again, Christ is the advocate to the Father, not the Father himself.

    Aren't trinitarians denying the existence of one of those simply by saying they are the same?

    John teaches that Christ is the son of God, not God himself.

    Again, John teaches the divine sonship of Christ.

    God did not himself come to earth, but sent his son instead.

    Again John teaches that God did not come down, but Christ did.

    God sent his son. He did not go himself.

    Trinitarians don't confess that Christ is the SON of God, but rather than Christ IS God. Does this mean God is not in them?

    You won't overcome the world if you think that Jesus IS God, but only if you think he is the Son of God.

    Remember that record? This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. To believe that, one must also beleive that Jesus is the Son.
     
  17. Dream Angel

    Dream Angel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,489
    Ratings:
    +145
    Not to turn it into a competition, but I think she won!!! :D

    This may take a while!! :)

    Although I am convinced after the first couple of quotes! :)

    Thankyou Aqualung!
     
  18. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,920
    Ratings:
    +1,487
    Although Aqualung has done a wonderful job, I am going include some more scriptures (she may have posted these already!)


    2 Nephi 31:21

    "21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

    Alma 11:44
    "44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

    3 Nephi 11:24-25
    " 24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:
    25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."


    Doctrine and Covenants 20:28
    " 28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are aone God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen."

    Doctrine and Covenants 76:22-24
    " 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
    23 For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
    24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. "


    Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
    " 22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."
     
  19. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,761
    Ratings:
    +604
    Nope< I was going strictly from the Bible, so yours are a great addition.
     
  20. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,920
    Ratings:
    +1,487
    That's what I figured after I had posted. :D
     
Loading...