Amateurs...

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

No, you should assume that I didn't consider your dismissive statement worthy of a response.

http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html

Chirp . . .

Chirp . . .

Shall we assume that there just isn't ANY Biblical verse to support that statement.

(Is Sola Scriptura thrown under the Trinity bus?)

[Vance]

Vance,

No, you should assume that I didn't consider your dismissive statement worthy of a response.

http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html

More "quality" "scholarship" by Bowman.

1. The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14; 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.

TOTALLY neglecting these, of course,

Gen. 1:26

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The biblical texts that you accuse me of "TOTALLY neglecting" (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7) in my outline are actually cited and discussed in that very outline, as you finally reveal in a quotation from that outline.

So, who is being "sloppy" here?

[Vance]

Vance,

The biblical texts that you accuse me of "TOTALLY neglecting" (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7) . . .

First you said they didn't exist.

. . . in my outline are actually cited . . .

AFTER you said they didn't exist.

. . . and discussed in that very outline, . . .

So, you admitted that they DID exist, but only after you said that they DIDN'T exist.

. . . as you finally reveal in a quotation from that outline.

AFTER you denied their existence, you then admit their existence.

So, who is being "sloppy" here?

Well, duh!

And NO WHERE in that diatribe do you show that "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God -- one eternally existent Divine Being."

The Bible NEVER says it. You have to make up. Your attempt to force it into the text is indeed SLOPPY and ineffective.

Sola Scriptura is thrown under the trinity bus.

[Vance]

Bowman,

Let's just look at slightly edited version of your diatribe adjusted to defend three divine beings rather than persons.

C. However, the Bible never says that God is

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The Board Guidelines forbid, and I quote:

• [*]Altering members

[consiglieri]

I still occasionally hear the claim that there are no more prophets after Christ.

And I sometimes hear the claim that there were prophets after Joseph Smith.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Vance]

Vance,

The Board Guidelines forbid, and I quote:

• [*]Altering members

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

You NEVER made that quote "on the board"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is from your article on IRR!!!!!, NOT on the board!!!!!!!!!

Hence my statement, "Posting an edited version of part of my outline and not indicating what has been edited is surely a violation of the spirit of that guideline, and certainly is confusing."

You wrote:

I CLEARLY said it had been edited. It can be easily compared to the original at IRR.

The fact that one can compare an altered quote from someone's post on the board to the original did not prevent those who manage the board from forbidding the use of such altered quotations. The same principle applies here.

I don't have the patience for your shenanigans, Vance. That's my problem -- not an inability to refute what little argumentation you have actually tried to present.

Edited to add:

FYI, I have decided that is enough is enough, and after some encouragement from a few Mormons here, I have chosen to use the settings to ignore your posts. You are the only member of the forum whose posts I have blocked. No doubt you will see this as a badge of honor.

[Vance]

I don't have the patience for your shenanigans, Vance.

Well, patience is a virtue.

That's my problem . . .

If you say so.

-- not an inability to refute what little argumentation you have actually tried to present.

You are failing to comprehend the import of this admission.

I SIMPLY took YOUR weak and pathetic argument and adjusted it in a manner to expose exactly how weak it was.

Thanks for agreeing that, as argumentation goes, it is indeed LITTLE!!!!!

[mfbukowski]

Regarding the Social Trinity as being consistent with LDS doctrine, on another current thread, this tantalizing tidbit from David Bokovoy:

This reflects the ancient Near Eastern conception that the divine council is fundamentally a familial based assembly under the direction of a High, and by extension, Father God who administers over his offspring.

The concept goes far beyond the Godhead and ultimately can include all of us.

Except of course those who believe in Platonic Greek philosophy instead of Biblical doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Regarding the Social Trinity as being consistent with LDS doctrine, on another current thread, this tantalizing tidbit from David Bokovoy:

This reflects the ancient Near Eastern conception that the divine council is fundamentally a familial based assembly under the direction of a High, and by extension, Father God who administers over his offspring.

The concept goes far beyond the Godhead and ultimately can include all of us.

Except of course those who believe in Platonic Greek philosophy instead of Biblical doctrine.

Translation: Language that reflects "ancient Near Eastern" (Canaanite, etc.) conceptions is "Biblical" and good; language that reflects "Platonic Greek philosophy" is not "Biblical" and is bad.

[Vance]

Translation: Language that reflects "ancient Near Eastern" (Canaanite, etc.) conceptions is "Biblical" and good; language that reflects "Platonic Greek philosophy" is not "Biblical" and is bad.

Is that an admission that "Platonic Greek philosophy" is the basis for the doctrine of the trinity?

[mfbukowski]

Vance:

Rob:

The problem is, one can see the council of the gods in the Bible, but NO "Trinity".

So which is more Biblical? What is actually there or what was added 300 years after any of the canonical books were written?

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

The problem is, one can see the council of the gods in the Bible, but NO "Trinity".

Are you talking about the word "Trinity," or the doctrinal affirmations that make up the doctrine later called the Trinity?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

Are you talking about the word "Trinity," or the doctrinal affirmations that make up the doctrine later called the Trinity?

Well obviously, the word "trinity" or anything like it does not appear. That, to me, is telling. Clearly that means any use of the word is an extrapolation from what is actually said- an interpretation or whatever term you like.

But actually, I would love to see what quotes you can muster to show that there are three persons, united in "being", "substance", "essence" or anything like that- any single unifying concept whatsoever- which would justify the use of the word "homoousios" being understood as "Biblical doctrine".

I think there is abundant evidence of the three persons, and that the three are in fact "one" - but a unifying "Being"- I would say good luck with that one! That can be nothing but a Platonic Greek concept- it is not Hebraic.

I have always wondered how Evangelicals justify that position, and honestly, I don't have a clue. I certainly haven't seen it in the Bible in the many times I have read it.

Incidentally, don't bother with Deut 6:4. Nowhere of course does that mention 3 persons, and I agree that "God is one" and all the similar language found in the Book of Mormon.

The question is not how God is one, but how the Godhead is three in one.

[Avatar4321]

One I always found amusing was those that would argue that:

1. We are false because Jesus is God and we are going to hell for not accepting that (Total nonsense of course). And then would turn around and say;

2. We are false because we believe that God has a physical body. Their evidence: Luke 24:39

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I always thought it was rather amusing that they claim Jesus is God and yet doesnt have a body and prove it with Jesus appearing to the Apostles saying "Don't be afraid, I have a body. Im alive"

Ah well. to each his own.

[mfbukowski]

I always thought it was rather amusing that they claim Jesus is God and yet doesnt have a body and prove it with Jesus appearing to the Apostles saying "Don't be afraid, I have a body. Im alive"

I discussed that once with a well-trained pastor (I will not say which religion he was- but they are know to have a well educated clergy) who told me that God could not have a body because it would limit him so he could not be omnipotent.

I mentioned that verse and said "Well, don't you believe that the Savior now has a body? Is he no longer God?"

He actually had no answer whatsoever.

I don't know why others don't think we are capable of reading the Bible and thinking it through. They often are very narrow in their abilities to see what is there, and conditioned to see only one possible viewpoint.

[sjdawg]

I don't know why others don't think we are capable of reading the Bible and thinking it through. They often are very narrow in their abilities to see what is there, and conditioned to see only one possible viewpoint.

You are absolutely correct. If only everyone had the open minds that LDS people are blessed with. What a wonderful world that would be.

[Vance]

You are absolutely correct. If only everyone had the open minds that LDS people are blessed with. What a wonderful world that would be.

Good point! We are not so narrow minded as to want to exclude people from being "Christian" just because they don't agree with our doctrine.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Regarding the Social Trinity as being consistent with LDS doctrine, on another current thread, this tantalizing tidbit from David Bokovoy:

The concept goes far beyond the Godhead and ultimately can include all of us.

Except of course those who believe in Platonic Greek philosophy instead of Biblical doctrine.

One of the best explanations I have seen of this concept is by none other then Tom Green (yes, the polygamist). I can see how people are attracted to the LeBaron (Ross, not Ervil) form of Fundamentalism

[Tapir Whisperer]

What are your favorites?

My favorite critical argument used by amateurs is probably the argument that everything Joseph touched seemed to have strange and mystical origins. For example, Joseph purchased a funeral papyri and it just so happens to be an ancient text written by the hand of Abraham; Joseph discovers a pile of rocks in Jackson County and it just so happens to the original ancient altar that Adam built when he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden; Joseph comes across a burial mound with some bones and it just so happens to be the remains of an ancient Lamanite warrior named Zelph; and so forth and so forth.

Wait... I just read my above comment again and it actually is a pretty good critical argument. So I will just stick with the whole "Mormons have horns" amateur argument.

[mfbukowski]

My favorite critical argument used by amateurs is probably the argument that everything Joseph touched seemed to have strange and mystical origins. For example, Joseph purchased a funeral papyri and it just so happens to be an ancient text written by the hand of Abraham; Joseph discovers a pile of rocks in Jackson County and it just so happens to the original ancient altar that Adam built when he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden; Joseph comes across a burial mound with some bones and it just so happens to be the remains of an ancient Lamanite warrior named Zelph; and so forth and so forth.

Wait... I just read my above comment again and it actually is a pretty good critical argument. So I will just stick with the whole "Mormons have horns" amateur argument.

Unfortunately, it's not an argument but a statement.

Either Joseph was guided and directed or he was not. That explains everything.

[Tapir Whisperer]

Either Joseph was guided and directed or he was not. That explains everything.

I think most critics would disagree with your statement, "that explains everything".

[ELF1024]

I have often been surprised out how staunch critics can get in attacking the church, when they have no clue what they are talking about.

One of my favorites is the critical response to Abraham 2:24, where God commands Abraham to tell the Egyptians that his wife is, indeed, his sister. The idea being that the Mormon notion of God is inconsistent (thus false) if God can tell someone to lie.

Problem #1 - This is consistent with the Biblical account in Genesis 12:17-20 and Genesis 20:2.

Problem #2 - Genesis 20:12. Sarah WAS Abraham's sister. In fact, "she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

What are your favorites?

Whatever Rob Bowman is using this week....