• 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!

The Trinity

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
I've disproved this "mirror of God" stuff enough times from our Scriptures. I don't care to repeat it.
I don's see how you did.

early Christian Saints such as Clement and Origen and many other early Christians PRIOR to TRINITY taught that Christ is a Mirror of God, rather than God's incarnation.

Here are some sources:

"The document called 1 Clement, a letter from the Roman congregation to that at Corinth uses the language of the biblical book of Hebrews to portray Jesus as the reflection of God's splendor, the "mirror" of "God's... transcendent face"
Source: Jesus Mirror of God

"Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent
visage...." 1Clem 36:2
Source: First Clement: Clement of Rome

Also:

the great theologian Origen (185-254 C.E.), citing the Book of Wisdom, called Christ 'the spotless mirror' of God's workings (Origen, On First Principles 26).
Source: Jesus the spotless mirror

St. Basil also explains the commandments that Jesus received by " the reflexion of an object in a mirror"
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These early Christian got their belief from the verses of Bible that describe Jesus as a Mirror and as Image of God, such as 2 cori 3-18:

"and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."



Yet this completely contradicts what our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ Himself said. The Spirit is not Baha'u'llah. Rather, the Holy Spirit had already come upon the Apostles--once when Christ breathed upon them and given them the authority to forgive sins, and again when the Holy Spirit firmly established the Church and began the evangelizing mission of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is not Baha'u'llah, because the Holy Spirit had already come and never ceases to be with the Church.

Just as the Sun appears everyday to give Light, the Spirit which is the Light of God also must appear every Age, again and again, by appearance of the Sun of Truth, the Manifestation of God in every Age. To say Spirit came once, or a Manifestation of God came once, and that we don't need it to come again, is just like to say, the Sun came yesterday, and gave light and we don't need it again to come. No!. Everyday it comes again. Therefore while the Holy Spirit was Manifested through revelation of Moses, it appeared again through appearance of Christ. In this Age, it appeared again through Manifestation of Baha'u'llah.

From John 14:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,[f] to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be[g] in you.

Every time a Manifestation of God comes, He is with humanity forever...if not on earth, in the Spiritual worlds of God.


John 20:
19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews,[c] Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Notice, it says "the doors being locked " yet "Jesus came and stood among them ". Obviously this is a symbolic story, and the Author said this to give us a hint that this story is Figurative.


Jesus is so much more than just a mere teacher of morals.

So is Baha'u'llah:

"I am the Sun of Wisdom and the Ocean of Knowledge. I cheer the faint and revive the dead. I am the guiding Light that illumineth the way. I am the royal Falcon on the arm of the Almighty. I unfold the drooping wings of every broken bird and start it on its flight." Baha'u'llah


Bahá'í Reference Library - The Tabernacle of Unity, Pages 3-13


There is nothing any prophet has that could add on to what Christ has already done. Muhammad didn't update or fulfill Christianity. Baha'u'llah didn't update or fulfill Christianity, Islam or any other religion. Christianity needs no updating, nor is there any hint in our Scriptures that we would go astray or need a later update because God forgot something.
Same objects that Jews did against Christ.

No. When the Lord comes, it will be to raise all those who have died physical death, and to judge the living and the dead. When the Lord comes, it will be the utter end of the world as we know it. After the Lord comes again, it will only be Heaven or Hell. It won't be some reboot or spiritual "new beginning" from some prophet. It will be the Parousia, the coming of God and the presence of God, the beginning of eternity and of the Unending Day. I don't honestly know how to explain this to someone who believes it will never happen. There will be no more second chances. No new revelation. No more prophets. The world will be OVER. Done. No one experiences physical death anymore. No one gets diseases. The Kingdom of God will manifest fully and visibly on Earth. Heaven and Hell will be permanent, no chance of getting out of Hell. No more opportunities to repent. If you're in Hell, then you chose to be in there forever. No new prophets sent from God. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? The coming of Christ means the utter end of the world, not a restart.

I quote Baha'u'llah:

"Say, O ye foolish ones! Wait ye even as those before you are waiting!" Book of Certitude, p.26

And Baha'u'llah certainly does not even come close to fulfilling any of the prophecies in Christianity. Any attempts to make it seem like he does simply reveals ignorance of our Scriptures at best, or intentional and deliberate misreadings of them at worst.
Similar objections the Jews made about Christ: He is not our Messiah!
 
Last edited:

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Notice that Jesus doesn't say "our God". Rather, He says "My God and your God". This means that the Father is Jesus' God in a different way than He is our God.

We were talking about rev 3:14---where Jesus himself tells all he was created first. So he doesn't need to say our God--My God--- is 100% proof that the trinity teaching is a made up lie from centuries ago and 2 billion are being mislead--to not enter Gods kingdom. That's if one truly loves Jesus enough to believe him over mens dogma.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I don's see how you did.

early Christian Saints such as Clement and Origen and many other early Christians PRIOR to TRINITY taught that Christ is a Mirror of God, rather than God's incarnation.
"Prior to Trinity"? There is no such thing. The Church led by the Apostles has always taught the Trinity, even if at first we didn't know how to explain or describe it.

"The document called 1 Clement, a letter from the Roman congregation to that at Corinth uses the language of the biblical book of Hebrews to portray Jesus as the reflection of God's splendor, the "mirror" of "God's... transcendent face"
Source: Jesus Mirror of God

"Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens; through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent
visage...." 1Clem 36:2
Source: First Clement: Clement of Rome
The explanation of Clement's calling Jesus the mirror is the same as Origen's, which I explain below--Jesus is the image of His Father, mirroring perfectly His divinity, power, glory, wisdom, will and majesty. Jesus mirrors all of these because He Himself possesses all of these, like two identical twins mirroring each other.

the great theologian Origen (185-254 C.E.), citing the Book of Wisdom, called Christ 'the spotless mirror' of God's workings (Origen, On First Principles 26).
Source: Jesus the spotless mirror
From Origen's same work, in the Preface, chapter 4:

Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven).

Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not: for these are points which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation. And that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the Churches.

When Origen speaks of Jesus being the mirror of the Father, it means that Jesus reflects perfectly God's wisdom, divinity, light, power and majesty, not that Jesus reflects God's message like a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun. Rather, Origen continually calls Christ the Light that comes from God.

Origen does not support your doctrine. He clearly supports the true Faith in the Trinity, as his own writings clearly show. Rather, he calls Jesus God, in a very literal way. In Book 1, section 3, chapter 2, Origen says that God is the Word, and that the Word is God:

John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, And God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God. Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.

And Christ is the Light of God, according to another place in book 1:

For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. ["sun" here refers to the big hot ball of gas in our solar system, not God; Origen was using the Sun as an analogy to explain how the Son is eternally from the Father and is as the light of the Father] Our Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him. And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding. For He by whom the Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own words: He that has seen Me, has seen the Father also. 7. But since we quoted the language of Paul regarding Christ, where He says of Him that He is the brightness of the glory of God, and the express figure of His person, let us see what idea we are to form of this. According to John, God is light. The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from (God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of creation.

St. Basil also explains the commandments that Jesus received by " the reflexion of an object in a mirror"
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We've had a very long exchange on this, and I got you to completely give up trying to use St. Basil to support your doctrine. See from post 2299 onward to roughly post 2328.

These early Christian got their belief from the verses of Bible that describe Jesus as a Mirror and as Image of God, such as 2 cori 3-18:

"and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
I already disproved your idea about what the early Christians believed in post 2301. You clearly know nothing of what they taught, or else you would quote directly from the early Christians, not relying on isolated snippets from Wiki and encyclopedia articles.

Just as the Sun appears everyday to give Light, the Spirit which is the Light of God also must appear every Age, again and again, by appearance of the Sun of Truth, the Manifestation of God in every Age. To say Spirit cam once, or a Manifestation of God came once, and that we don't need it to come again, is just like to say, the Sun came yesterday, and gave light and we don't need it again to come. No!. Everyday it comes again. Therefore while the Holy Spirit was Manifested through revelation of Moses, it appeared again through appearance of Christ. In this Age, it appeared again through Manifestation of Baha'u'llah.
The Holy Spirit came, and never went away. He is not like the sun which sets and disappears, then comes and rises again. No. The Holy Spirit has never departed from the Church. Once we are baptized and chrismated, the Holy Spirit never leaves us. We may leave Him, but that's a different story--it doesn't change the fact that every Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Your prophet is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.

Notice, it says "the doors being locked " yet "Jesus came and stood among them ". Obviously this is a symbolic story, and the Author said this to give us a hint that this story is Figurative.
No. Jesus is God. He can do things like appearing among the Apostles without to enter through a door.

Same objects that Jews did against Christ.
Except, the Jews were awaiting a Messiah who would come and redeem the world and free them. Jesus came, but they didn't accept Him. The Christians aren't expecting anyone else but Jesus Himself to come back from Heaven, in the same way He ascended into Heaven. And Baha'u'llah sure isn't Jesus coming on the clouds of Heaven, with a shout, trumpet and with archangels heralding his return.

Similar objections the Jews made about Christ: He is not our Messiah!
It is a fact that Baha'u'llah is not Jesus. Even you admit this. We are expecting Jesus. Baha'u'llah is not Jesus. 1+1 equals...
 
Last edited:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
We were talking about rev 3:14---where Jesus himself tells all he was created first. So he doesn't need to say our God--My God--- is 100% proof that the trinity teaching is a made up lie from centuries ago and 2 billion are being mislead--to not enter Gods kingdom. That's if one truly loves Jesus enough to believe him over mens dogma.
Ahh, sorry, got that mixed up with verse 12. But to clarify, Jesus is the beginning of God's creation, meaning, that Jesus created all things (John 1:3). He didn't say that He was created first.

I truly believe in Jesus and love Him. That's why I don't put Him down to a lower station than what He actually occupies.
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Ahh, sorry, got that mixed up with verse 12. But to clarify, Jesus is the beginning of God's creation, meaning, that Jesus created all things (John 1:3). He didn't say that He was created first.

I truly believe in Jesus and love Him. That's why I don't put Him down to a lower station than what He actually occupies.


Revelation 3:14--the beginning of the creation by God. Proverbs 8:23=Jesus( all of 8 ) Collosians 1:15-- the firstborn of all creation. That is why rev 3:12 is stressed by Jesus 4 times---believe Jesus.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I did say " Usually, only Catholics wear a cross."

As of yet, I've never known a Protestant that wore a cross.
I'm quite sure I know some Protestants who do. But knowing American culture, I'm not sure if they weren't just wearing them for a fashion statement... :D

And given that Orthodox Christians number 250 million (many millions more if the Oriental Orthodox are included) and are the second-largest group of Christians worldwide... Yeah, now I'm just being pedantic about it, my bad. Moving on! :)

He was emphasizing that we all have the same God.
Yes, but as I said, Jesus never said "Our God", but "My God and your God". This shows that the Father is Jesus' God in a different way than He is our God.

Jesus is not God.:no:
I'm sure you've already gotten this 10,000 times, and you can just direct me to posts where you already answered this if it's easier. But what do you make of John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9?
 

Jensen

Active Member
I'm quite sure I know some Protestants who do. But knowing American culture, I'm not sure if they weren't just wearing them for a fashion statement... :D

I don't think you know American culture that well, I'm in my 60s and I've never seen anyone but my one Catholic friend ever wear a cross....that is hardly a fashion statement. :no:


And given that Orthodox Christians number 250 million (many millions more if the Oriental Orthodox are included) and are the second-largest group of Christians worldwide... Yeah, now I'm just being pedantic about it, my bad. Moving on! :)

Yes, but as I said, Jesus never said "Our God", but "My God and your God". This shows that the Father is Jesus' God in a different way than He is our God.

I still believe that he was emphasizing that he and those he were talking to, and us of course, all have the same God.

As for being in a different say.....I tend to think that Jesus was God's Son in a different way than we are, being that he is the Son of God the Messiah.

I'm sure you've already gotten this 10,000 times, and you can just direct me to posts where you already answered this if it's easier. But what do you make of John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9?

Yes, I have, and I'm not going to go into John 1:1 at this time. Nor do I keep a record of all my post that I could easily direct you to one on that verse, or any verse for that matter.
 

Jensen

Active Member
In reply of Colossians 2:9

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ,


This is said about all Christians in 2 Pet 1:4.
Would that mean we are also God. I don't think so.

(2 Pet. 1:4).King James Bible
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.


And how about Ephesians 3:19 which says that Christians should be filled with “all the fullness of God,” Do you believe that makes them God also? I think the answer would be no.

King James Bible Ephesians 3:19
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Therefore because Jesus is filled with the fullness of God, like us, it does not mean that he is God, unless we are all God. Do you see what I mean? Why should it be different because it is said about Jesus.

Colossians 2:9 is not saying that he is God anymore than those other verses are saying that we are God.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
"Prior to Trinity"? There is no such thing. The Church led by the Apostles has always taught the Trinity, even if at first we didn't know how to explain or describe it.
True. The Three Persons was taught from beginning of church, but the 'Trinity Creed and Doctrine' was invented later in 4th century.


The explanation of Clement's calling Jesus the mirror is the same as Origen's, which I explain below--Jesus is the image of His Father, mirroring perfectly His divinity, power, glory, wisdom, will and majesty.

I can agree with this.

Jesus mirrors all of these because He Himself possesses all of these, like two identical twins mirroring each other.
This is not biblical. Invention, sorry.



Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not: for these are points which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation. And that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the Churches.
Read the Hebrew Scriptures. The Holy Spirit had already appeared thorough revelation of Moses.


When Origen speaks of Jesus being the mirror of the Father, it means that Jesus reflects perfectly God's wisdom, divinity, light, power and majesty, not that Jesus reflects God's message like a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun. Rather, Origen continually calls Christ the Light that comes from God.
Are you saying God is not the Sun, and His knowledge, wisdom and glory is not light?



Origen does not support your doctrine. He clearly supports the true Faith in the Trinity, as his own writings clearly show. Rather, he calls Jesus God, in a very literal way. In Book 1, section 3, chapter 2, Origen says that God is the Word, and that the Word is God:
Can you show if Origen or Clement of Rome called Jesus 'incarnation of God'?
I don't think they did.


John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, And God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God. Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.
And what's the point? Where did God deny to be Father in the past?


And Christ is the Light of God, according to another place in book 1:
Yes, He is.


For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that comes into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun.
I am sorry, but your intelligence is much higher than me to comprehend you. And no, I am being sarcastic. Do you know what symbols, metaphors, and parables are? Do you know when it is said God is the Sun, and Jesus is Light, this is an analogy and symbolic, and not really the physical Sun and Light? I thought that is obvious.




The Holy Spirit came, and never went away. He is not like the sun which sets and disappears, then comes and rises again. No. The Holy Spirit has never departed from the Church. Once we are baptized and chrismated, the Holy Spirit never leaves us. We may leave Him, but that's a different story--it doesn't change the fact that every Christian is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit already had appeared by coming of Moses according to scriptures. Yet, it had disappeared, and only appeared by coming of Christ to ascend on the disciples. That shows the Light must come from the Sun of Truth in every Age.
Moreover Jesus says, if I do not leave the world, the Spirit of Truth or comforter does not come. That is to say, if the Sun does not leave today, it does not come back tomorrow. It is a cycle that always continues.


Your prophet is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
You can have your own opinion.

No. Jesus is God. He can do things like appearing among the Apostles without to enter through a door.
There is no support for this in scriptures. Either Jesus had a physical flesh and bone body, which in this case He could not go inside the room, the door being locked. If He was a ghost, that is also not the case, as He the scriptures says He wasn't a ghost. Therefore the only option is to say, the story is Figurative, and not to be taken literally.


Except, the Jews were awaiting a Messiah who would come and redeem the world and free them. Jesus came, but they didn't accept Him. The Christians aren't expecting anyone else but Jesus Himself to come back from Heaven, in the same way He ascended into Heaven. And Baha'u'llah sure isn't Jesus coming on the clouds of Heaven, with a shout, trumpet and with archangels heralding his return.
Yes, in both case, these are based on 'Literal' interpretations. The Jews do not accept Jesus to be Messiah, because they interpret the verses literally. For example the though Messiah is literally a king with sword, as scriptures says they made fun of Jesus. The Christians have done same. Literal reading.... See similarity?


It is a fact that Baha'u'llah is not Jesus. Even you admit this. We are expecting Jesus. Baha'u'llah is not Jesus. 1+1 equals...
That is incorrect. Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah is the return of Spirit of Christ and the Prophecy is fulfilled. The Physical Jesus never returns...but you can look in the sky and wait. Good luck.
 
Last edited:

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Ahh, sorry, got that mixed up with verse 12. But to clarify, Jesus is the beginning of God's creation, meaning, that Jesus created all things (John 1:3). He didn't say that He was created first.

I truly believe in Jesus and love Him. That's why I don't put Him down to a lower station than what He actually occupies.

No your teachers elevated him up above his reality---While on earth---fully mortal--not fully God--He was made lower than the angels( not higher than them as fully God)
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
True. The Three Persons was taught from beginning of church, but the 'Trinity Creed and Doctrine' was invented later in 4th century.
The Creed was written in the 4th century. The dogma of the Trinity is Apostolic.

This is not biblical. Invention, sorry.
What makes you think it's unbiblical? Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

Read the Hebrew Scriptures. The Holy Spirit had already appeared thorough revelation of Moses.
Yes, He had already appeared to inspire the prophets and give them their utterances. He had not come as a steady witness and guardian of the True Faith, but rather to speak through prophets in order to try and guide Israel to repentance.

Are you saying God is not the Sun, and His knowledge, wisdom and glory is not light?
No, all that is certainly true. But Jesus is no mere mirror. He Himself is the Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2).

Can you show if Origen or Clement of Rome called Jesus 'incarnation of God'?
I don't think they did.
Origen said that Jesus became incarnate as man and is God. I already quoted it. Maybe if you read again you'll understand.

Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God,

Jesus is God Who became incarnate as man. Origen explicitly states that. I don't know what's so hard to understand here.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, a personal student of St. John the Apostle, routinely makes note about how Jesus is God, and God incarnate.

And what's the point? Where did God deny to be Father in the past?
He didn't deny to be the Father. But God is the Father, the Word (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. This is what Origen teaches. This is the faith of the Christians.

I am sorry, but your intelligence is much higher than me to comprehend you. And no, I am being sarcastic. Do you know what symbols, metaphors, and parables are? Do you know when it is said God is the Sun, and Jesus is Light, this is an analogy and symbolic, and not really the physical Sun and Light? I thought that is obvious.
I'm sorry, where did I give the impression that I thought that the Father was literally the hot ball of gas at the center of our solar system and that the Son is the electro-magnetic radiation given off by that celestial body? No, I said the opposite of that. I think you completely missed Origen's point there.

The Holy Spirit already had appeared by coming of Moses according to scriptures. Yet, it had disappeared, and only appeared by coming of Christ to ascend on the disciples. That shows the Light must come from the Sun of Truth in every Age.
This is ignoring the fact that Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will be with the Church forever, leading us into all truth--i.e. the Holy Spirit would not need to be sent again to the Church, but that He would forever be with the Church and would never leave us.

Moreover Jesus says, if I do not leave the world, the Spirit of Truth or comforter does not come. That is to say, if the Sun does not leave today, it does not come back tomorrow. It is a cycle that always continues.
So you admit that Jesus is truly the Sun, and not merely a mirror reflecting the Sun? Excellent! :)

There is no support for this in scriptures. Either Jesus had a physical flesh and bone body, which in this case He could not go inside the room, the door being locked. If He was a ghost, that is also not the case, as He the scriptures says He wasn't a ghost. Therefore the only option is to say, the story is Figurative, and not to be taken literally.
Why do you continually ignore John 1:1, which identifies the Word (Jesus) as God? Jesus is truly God and truly man. His Divinity is the reason that He was able to enter into the room. If Jesus was not God, then yes, there would be a problem. But the witness of the New Testament shows us that Jesus is above all creation (Hebrews 1, John 1)--i.e. He is the Uncreated. He is God the Son.

Yes, in both case, these are based on 'Literal' interpretations. The Jews do not accept Jesus to be Messiah, because they interpret the verses literally. For example the though Messiah is literally a king with sword, as scriptures says they made fun of Jesus. The Christians have done same. Literal reading.... See similarity?
The Jews believe Jesus wasn't the Messiah because Jesus died on the cross. The Jews were expecting a warrior-king, which was only one of the several interpretations of the Messianic prophecies. Those who believed in a spiritual Messiah rather than a political one became Christian.

At least you're consistent with interpreting the Bible: According to you, not a single verse of the Bible is to be understood literally, and every single verse of the Bible means something different than what it says.

That is incorrect. Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah is the return of Spirit of Christ and the Prophecy is fulfilled. The Physical Jesus never returns...but you can look in the sky and wait. Good luck.
This contradicts what the Apostles say and what the Gospels and Acts say. No one believed that Jesus would be reborn again. No one. Not the Apostles, not the people the Apostles taught, no one.
 

Jensen

Active Member
I'm sure you've already gotten this 10,000 times, and you can just direct me to posts where you already answered this if it's easier. But what do you make of John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9?

This is for you to consider. And for you to research as to why it used to say "it".
Being that this used to be the way John 1:1 was translated, consider why it is that in more modern translations it has changed. Who is really right? Translators then, or now? Note, I am not giving my view on this, just something for you to think on.

The Geneva Bible – 1560
In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.


Tyndale’s Bible – 1525
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it.


Tyndale’s New Testament – 1530
In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God.
All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.


Matthew’s Bible – 1537
Used “it” instead of “him" in John 1:3-4.


Coverdale’s Bible – 1539 & 1540
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God.
All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made.


The “Great Bible” of 1539
Used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3-4.


The Bishop’s Bible – 1568
Used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3-4.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
This is for you to consider. And for you to research as to why it used to say "it".
Being that this used to be the way John 1:1 was translated, consider why it is that in more modern translations it has changed. Who is really right? Translators then, or now? Note, I am not giving my view on this, just something for you to think on.

The Geneva Bible – 1560
In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.


Tyndale’s Bible – 1525
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it.


Tyndale’s New Testament – 1530
In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God.
All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.


Matthew’s Bible – 1537
Used “it” instead of “him" in John 1:3-4.


Coverdale’s Bible – 1539 & 1540
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God.
All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made.


The “Great Bible” of 1539
Used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3-4.


The Bishop’s Bible – 1568
Used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3-4.
Yes, these are all valid translations. I'd also like to point out that in German, a little girl (Mädchen) is neuter--i.e. not feminine, but rather has no gender. You don't say "sie" (feminine pronoun meaning "she") when referring to "das Mädchen," but "es" (neutral pronoun, meaning "it"). And in Greek, the soul (pneuma) is always feminine, no matter whether the person in question to whom the soul belongs is a male or a female. And in German, a computer is grammatically masculine, even though it is an inanimate object and clearly doesn't have a set of male reproductive organs. Even in English, a child can also be technically called "it", since the word "child" itself is gender-neutral. The only reason we say "he" or "she" when we refer to "the child" is because we are specifying the gender of the person to whom we are referring and avoiding confusion. Using the pronoun "it" to refer to "the child" is perfectly grammatically correct. Such a usage doesn't depersonalize the child, anymore than calling a baby or a dog or an animal "it".

My point being, using the pronoun for the word "Word" rather than the personal pronoun for Jesus is no issue; the point is the same. Jesus is that Word which is God, and the word "word" takes the pronoun "it" in the English language. I see no problem here from a linguistic perspective. It certainly wasn't an issue for the Greek-speaking Christians who defended the Faith in the Trinity.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
What makes you think it's unbiblical? Jesus is the image of the invisible God.
Yes, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. The Father is not the image of invisible God. He is God and only God.
Do you know the difference between 'image' and the Reality?


Yes, He had already appeared to inspire the prophets and give them their utterances. He had not come as a steady witness and guardian of the True Faith, but rather to speak through prophets in order to try and guide Israel to repentance.
That is misinterpretation of Bible. You have no support of this ^. Holy Spirit did the same in both revelation of Moses and Jesus.


No, all that is certainly true. But Jesus is no mere mirror. He Himself is the Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2).
No, He is not the Sun Himself. God is the Sun, Jesus is the image of God (image of the Sun). Yet, it is correct to say Jesus was the Sun, since the image of the Sun was Manifested in Him, as a Mirror facing the Sun of Reality.



Origen said that Jesus became incarnate as man and is God. I already quoted it. Maybe if you read again you'll understand.

Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God,

Jesus is God Who became incarnate as man. Origen explicitly states that. I don't know what's so hard to understand here.

well, I don't know if that is a correct translation of what Origin said. But if this is what He said, it is not biblical, or it must be understood with the Mirror analogy. You cannot just quote partly from him.
Michael Servetus explanation is more Biblical:

According to Servetus, trinitarians had turned Christianity into a form of "tritheism", or belief in three gods. Servetus affirmed that the divine Logos, the manifestation of God and not a separate divine Person, was incarnated in a human being, Jesus, when God's spirit came into the womb of the Virgin Mary. Only from the moment of conception was the Son actually generated. Therefore, although the Logos from which He was formed was eternal, the Son was not Himself eternal. For this reason, Servetus always rejected calling Christ the "eternal Son of God" but rather called him "the Son of the eternal God."[38]

In describing Servetus' view of the Logos, Andrew Dibb explained: "In 'Genesis' God reveals himself as the creator. In 'John' he reveals that he created by means of the Word, or Logos. Finally, also in 'John', he shows that this Logos became flesh and 'dwelt among us'. Creation took place by the spoken word, for God said "Let there be ..." The spoken word of Genesis, the Logos of John, and the Christ, are all one and the same."[39]

In his "Treatise Concerning the Divine Trinity" Servetus taught that the Logos was the reflection of Christ, and "That reflection of Christ was 'the Word with God" that consisted of God Himself, shining brightly in heaven, "and it was God Himself"[40] and that "the Word was the very essence of God or the manifestation of God's essence, and there was in God no other substance or hypostasis than His Word, in a bright cloud where God then seemed to subsist. And in that very spot the face and personality of Christ shone bright."

Michael Servetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


St. Ignatius of Antioch, a personal student of St. John the Apostle, routinely makes note about how Jesus is God, and God incarnate.
Again, the Word incarnation is not in Bible. It is not correct to put words in the Mouth of God.

I have to agree with Servetus:

Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of Greek philosophers,....


Michael Servetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is ignoring the fact that Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will be with the Church forever, leading us into all truth--i.e. the Holy Spirit would not need to be sent again to the Church, but that He would forever be with the Church and would never leave us.
Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit will be within one of the Christian Denominations. That is a misinterpretation.


So you admit that Jesus is truly the Sun, and not merely a mirror reflecting the Sun? Excellent! :)
In comparison with God, Jesus was like a Mirror showing the image of the Sun of Truth (God), hence it is correct to say He was the Sun in this way, noting that the Sun in heaven did not come to earth, but its image was Manifested in a Mirror fully (Jesus).



Why do you continually ignore John 1:1, which identifies the Word (Jesus) as God? Jesus is truly God and truly man. His Divinity is the reason that He was able to enter into the room. If Jesus was not God, then yes, there would be a problem. But the witness of the New Testament shows us that Jesus is above all creation (Hebrews 1, John 1)--i.e. He is the Uncreated. He is God the Son.

What you keep ignoring is that, God is not literally Word. Word signifies the perfections of God, which was Manifested in Jesus.


The Jews believe Jesus wasn't the Messiah because Jesus died on the cross. The Jews were expecting a warrior-king, which was only one of the several interpretations of the Messianic prophecies. Those who believed in a spiritual Messiah rather than a political one became Christian.
Yes, those Jews who adhered to literal understanding of Messianic Prophecies did not believe Jesus was Messiah. Like Those Christians who adhere to literal interpretations of NT, do not see Baha'u'llah as return of Christ. However just as there has been Jews who converted to Christianity, there has been Jews and Christians who converted to Baha'i Faith. Just a fact.



At least you're consistent with interpreting the Bible: According to you, not a single verse of the Bible is to be understood literally, and every single verse of the Bible means something different than what it says.
Well, I wouldn't go that far to say everything means something else....but yes, more or less you are correct.


This contradicts what the Apostles say and what the Gospels and Acts say. No one believed that Jesus would be reborn again. No one. Not the Apostles, not the people the Apostles taught, no one.
It is Biblical:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

This was Baha'u'llah as He said:

"The Father is come, and that which ye were promised in the Kingdom is fulfilled! This is the Word which the Son concealed, when to those around Him He said: ‘Ye cannot bear it now.’" - Baha'u'llah

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 9-17

And no, this verse is not Jesus. Jesus was the Son, not the Father! Jesus was not Prince of Peace, He said it Himself:

"“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

But Baha'u'llah is the Prince of peace. There is no verse in Bible calling Jesus 'Prince of Peace'. If He was that, the apostles would have said so in Bible.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Yes, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. The Father is not the image of invisible God. He is God and only God.
Do you know the difference between 'image' and the Reality?
The Greeks connected the two. The image was at once an embodiment of the reality. A statue of the king was just as worthy of respect and veneration as the king himself.

That is misinterpretation of Bible. You have no support of this ^. Holy Spirit did the same in both revelation of Moses and Jesus.
It's not a misinterpretation. Where did it say that the Holy Spirit would be with the Israelites forever, guiding them into all truth?

No, He is not the Sun Himself. God is the Sun, Jesus is the image of God (image of the Sun). Yet, it is correct to say Jesus was the Sun, since the image of the Sun was Manifested in Him, as a Mirror facing the Sun of Reality.
I've pointed out over and over the illogical structure of this analogy. A mirror reflecting the sun can never be said to be the sun. You don't point to the mirror and call it the sun, but only to the light of the sun reflected in the mirror. If Jesus is a mirror, then He is absolutely, positively not the sun.

well, I don't know if that is a correct translation of what Origin said. But if this is what He said, it is not biblical, or it must be understood with the Mirror analogy. You cannot just quote partly from him.
Michael Servetus explanation is more Biblical:

According to Servetus, trinitarians had turned Christianity into a form of "tritheism", or belief in three gods.
And according to anyone with a basic education in or understanding of Trinitarian theology, Servetus is completely and totally wrong. Trinitarianism is not tritheism. It is monotheism.

I looked up a research paper about Servetus' theology. It is essentially a mix of Nestorianism and Sabellianism. Servetus believed that the Word truly was God, but merely a mode of God, or a facet. This mode of God indwelt Jesus, therefore there were two persons within Christ: The human Jesus and the divine Logos.

Again, the Word incarnation is not in Bible. It is not correct to put words in the Mouth of God.
So on the one hand, you say that the Bible is wholly and entirely figurative, but on the other, you will not believe me unless the exact, specific word "Incarnation" appears explicitly in the Bible?

You seem to have two separate sets of rules. You have allowed yourself to re-interpret vast passages of the Bible to support your argument, and are content with calling everything in the Bible figurative. But with me, you have a different set of rules in place--unless the exact words and names of my beliefs appear in the Bible, you say I have no support. So you have made it so that you can interpret the Bible figuratively and loosely, reading your Baha'i doctrines into passages that never explicitly say what you want them to say but with me, you impose the strictest possible restrictions, and you will not allow me to even begin to interpret the Bible and draw out the meaning of the Scriptures unless the exact words "Incarnation" and "Trinity" appear in the Bible? That's incredibly hypocritical of you. Either say that the entire Bible is figurative and allow me the freedom to interpret, or say that the Bible is literal and subject your own proofs to the same stringency as you do mine. I will not deal with moving goalposts.

I have to agree with Servetus:

Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible.
That's fine. Servetus was a respectable scientist, but he was no theologian. He wasn't the only person in his day to badly mangle the meaning of the Bible.

He argued that it arose from teachings of Greek philosophers,....

Michael Servetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We did indeed use some of the language of Greek philosophy as a means to more specifically and clearly state what Christians have always believed about the Trinity. But the teaching certainly never arose from the teachings of philosophers.

Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit will be within one of the Christian Denominations. That is a misinterpretation.
He did say that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church. And the Church is not a denomination. It is pre-denominational.

In comparison with God, Jesus was like a Mirror showing the image of the Sun of Truth (God), hence it is correct to say He was the Sun in this way, noting that the Sun in heaven did not come to earth, but its image was Manifested in a Mirror fully (Jesus).
I've already pointed out the logical fallacy in this analogy. Now I have another question:

What you keep ignoring is that, God is not literally Word. Word signifies the perfections of God, which was Manifested in Jesus.
So if the Bible says "The Word was God", and if it also says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us", meaning that the Word became incarnate as Jesus, you will not accept the literal meaning of that passage, yet you expect me to find the literal words "incarnation" and "Trinity" in the Bible? I point to something that explicitly says that the Word (Jesus) is God, and you say, "Oh no no, that passage isn't literal, it's figurative". Yet when Jesus isn't called "the incarnation of God" in the Bible, in those EXACT words, you say that my position has no support from the Bible because the Bible doesn't explicitly. Make up your mind already!

So from me, you will neither accept a literal interpretation of the words of Scripture, nor will you allow me to interpret the Bible? Now it's clear that you will never listen to me no matter what I say or what proof I give, because you are always changing the criteria of what you would consider valid evidence of Christian claims from our Scriptures. Whenever I have evidence that meets your criteria, you immediately change your criteria and call my evidence invalid because it doesn't fit your new rules. I'm tired of your double standards. Settle on one standard and let's have a proper, mature discussion.

Yes, those Jews who adhered to literal understanding of Messianic Prophecies did not believe Jesus was Messiah. Like Those Christians who adhere to literal interpretations of NT, do not see Baha'u'llah as return of Christ. However just as there has been Jews who converted to Christianity, there has been Jews and Christians who converted to Baha'i Faith. Just a fact.
And there are Christians who became atheists. Does that make them right?

Well, I wouldn't go that far to say everything means something else....but yes, more or less you are correct.
So even if the exact words "incarnation" and "Trinity" appeared in the Bible as you are now demanding of me, you would not believe me. If the Bible were to contain the Nicene Creed, and explicitly state that God is a Trinity, and that Jesus is both truly God and truly man, and not a mirror as you now demand of me, you would not take that as valid evidence, because the Bible is to be taken figuratively, and not literally.

It is Biblical:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
This refers to Christ's birth, not Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah is not God, but Jesus is.

This was Baha'u'llah as He said:

"The Father is come, and that which ye were promised in the Kingdom is fulfilled! This is the Word which the Son concealed, when to those around Him He said: ‘Ye cannot bear it now.’" - Baha'u'llah

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed After the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 9-17
And no, this verse is not Jesus. Jesus was the Son, not the Father!
Yet Baha'u'llah is clearly not God the Father, nor is he properly called "mighty God". Jesus is called Everlasting Father, because He is the father of the everlasting age. Adam was the father of the fallen human race and of our fallen world because of his sin. Christ is the father of the redeemed creation and redeemed mankind because of His righteousness. (See Romans 5)

Jesus was not Prince of Peace, He said it Himself:

"“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Jesus is saying that those who follow Him will not have peace from the world. Rather, He says that He will give His followers peace, in John 14:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.

And every salutation in the Epistles says something along the lines of "Peace to you through the Lord Jesus Christ"

But Baha'u'llah is the Prince of peace. There is no verse in Bible calling Jesus 'Prince of Peace'. If He was that, the apostles would have said so in Bible.
But I thought you said that the Bible wasn't to be understood literally?

You have two options.

Either you only look at the bare words of the Bible and say that Jesus is not the Prince of Peace because nowhere is it explicitly said "Jesus is the Prince of Peace".

Or, you say that the Bible is more than the bare words on the page and admit that Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
 
Last edited:

icebuddy

Does the devil lift Jesus up?
I have never heard of this before........except recently by you, Icebuddy.

I think if you were to ask the Jews what they thought of this that they would deny it completely. The over 6000 times that God's name appeared in the OT, before it was removed, it was Yahweh, YHWH, or in English, Jehovah, and they would not have ever considered it to be Jesus....Why? for one, they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they do not believe that he is the messiah, they do not believe he is god. To the Jews that believe in and practice Judaism, Jesus is a man and only a man.

Im not sure how to make this any clearer to you, but if you where to read Psalms 102:25-27 to any Jew, who would they say is being talked about? They would ALL say Almighty God or God or the LORD, or YHWH (However one addresses the supreme being). The Father quotes this passage and applies it directly to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10-12. Namely letting us know that Jesus is NOT created nor an Angel, but YHWH also. That is why we read passages like 1 Cor 10:1-4 telling us that Jesus is the ROCK that was with them (who they all knew as and called God)

Also, I do not think that trinitarians agree with you on this either.

ask anyone here who is a Trinitarian on this page if that know this or agree with me. You will be supprised

at this is something that you believe. Why do I say this? Because in years of studying the bible, and being on messages boards, you are the only trinitarian that I have heard say this......I've highlighted it for your convenience in blue.

maybe you didnt follow me correctly, but I put it again above in easier terms...

In Love
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
#God the Father points Jesus out as who the Jews knew to be God of the old Testament before he humbled himself at Hebrews 1:10-12.. You are seeing Jesus as the offspring of David only at this point and not the Root and Source...

In Love

I have never heard of this before........except recently by you, Icebuddy.

I think if you were to ask the Jews what they thought of this that they would deny it completely. The over 6000 times that God's name appeared in the OT, before it was removed, it was Yahweh, YHWH, or in English, Jehovah, and they would not have ever considered it to be Jesus....Why? for one, they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they do not believe that he is the messiah, they do not believe he is god. To the Jews that believe in and practice Judaism, Jesus is a man and only a man.

Also, I do not think that trinitarians agree with you on this either. That this is something that you believe. Why do I say this? Because in years of studying the bible, and being on messages boards, you are the only trinitarian that I have heard say this......I've highlighted it for your convenience in blue.

Jensen
Actually, what icebuddy said regarding Jesus being the Lord of the Old Testament is the common and almost universal interpretation of all the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the earliest centuries and right on down the line.
 
Last edited:

icebuddy

Does the devil lift Jesus up?
An angel showed him where to find the ancient record, yes.

Why does one believe this to be true?

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Its a Christian understanding of the LDS belief that you believe in many universes and many Gods that control these universes. That someone from this planet could become a God of their own planet...

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).

Actually, the cover of our Bible says, "Holy Bible: King James Version." It is the Book of Mormon that says "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." The Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible. It was never intended to. We Latter-day Saints love the Bible. I actually enjoy reading the Bible more than I do the Book of Mormon. You seem to be getting all worked up over the use of a completely innocent word: "another."
The Bible warns us of False Prophets and of angels with another message. I personally believe this to be a warning of future False Prophets and bad angels...

Matthew is our first testament of Jesus Christ. Mark is "another" testament. Luke is still "another" testament. And John is yet "another."
The Book of Morman didnt come to exist until the 1800's and I believe to be a Fiction book. I dont see any Restoration needed and we are warned of False Prophets misleading many, even if an angel was involved, we are told not to believe... The beginning and findings of these tablets see too fishy to me. i havent read yet, but Do they still exist in a Mormon Church somewhere?

We have four different gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's ministry. Certain events are mentioned in more than one of these, but other events are described in only one of the gospel accounts. Each of them, however, testifies to the divinity of Jesus Christ and of His power to redeem mankind. You don't feel that you have to choose just one of them and toss the others out, do you?
I see God using more than 1 witness to ensure the truth and written all about the same time. Your book arises way later and is translated by 1 man who claims divine help was given to translate. We just cant believe everyone who writes a book and then claims a divine being helped. What about the warnings of False Prophets...

Well, the Book of Mormon is simply "another" testament. Like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Book of Mormon is a witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I see it as a Fiction book written by someone who wanted more answers... i see it as if Joseph Smith elaborated upon his current belief, mixing truths with ideas in his head.

It is merely an account of His post-resurrection ministry among the people of the Western Hemisphere. It is "another testament," not "a different gospel."
If this is true, then there is no need for one to become LDS or Morman. Do you believe Christians need to change beliefs or are they fine where they are?

If you were going to stand trial for a crime you did not commit, wouldn't you want as many different people as possible to testify of your innocence? Why would you want to fight against another account testifying of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world? It just doesn't make sense to me.
There are many books that I like and point to Jesus Christs deity, but that dosent make them Gods official word... Again, I see this book of Morman as if a Christian with good Christian beliefs just elaborated upon things that may not be true.

No. Is that proof that they did not exist? We don't have the original stones upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed either. That's hardly proof that they never existed.
The problem i see is that we now have been warned of False Prophets and need to be careful. Since the LDS is a new Religion in the 1800's with different beliefs in some or many ways, there needs to be something that validates this religion as it claims to be a "Restored" religion. God actively showed thousands upon thousands of Jews that he was helping Moses. in Joseph Smiths Case it was almost done in secret...

The Bible as we know it today is vastly different from the Bible as it existed nearly two millenia ago. If you don't believe that, I would be happy to provide you with the specifics.
The Dead sea Scrolls show the Hebrew and Greek to be accurate. Even if thats true, wouldnt you expect the restored message to be error free if it was truly translated with help of divine being into english? You might find yourself following all books in need of fixing with this idea... Ive been told the Book of Mormon has been fixed more than any book on the earth... Do you believe it to be without change in such a few years in existence?

This is why, on the title page of the book, Joseph Smith inclouded the statement, "Now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men."
Not sure what book you are talking about? Im assuming that this is writen on the Book of Mormon? If so, you cant have cake and eat it too. That he translated Gold Tablets with Divine help and then claim if there are any error in the book, they are my errors. I dont think this is how God would restore something if im following you correctly...

On the other hand, do you believe that it is possible that you totally misunderstand the LDS belief on the nature of God? (Because I suspect you do.)
I do not know your belief enough to be 100%. I just know False Prophets will arise and everywhere I turn we have people following a Prophet they think is True or a Christ that returned invisible or an angel that directed someone to another testament. This is all foolish to me. What strengthens my belief is that almost all, if not all, attack the Trinity as false with vigor. If the Trinity was False, I dont think a false prophet would attack it, whatever religion he created... As Jesus says at Mat 12:25, satan would not drive out satan. Even satan knows not to be at war with himself...

Let me put it this way: There is nothing about Mormonism's doctrines about God than contradicts anything the Bible has to say about Him. You may believe otherwise, but that is because you only think you know what we believe and why we believe as we do.
Again, there would be no reason for another gospel or to be restored if this be totally true... im getting mixed understandings here... You say the Bible is in error, yet you say the book of mormon is the same. You say we needed restored, yet we believe the same...??? I see no need for the LDS restoration as you say...

Trust me, if you could prove that any of Christ's Apostles believed in "the Trinity" the way "traditional" Christians do today, I would take a serious second-look at those Churches.
That the Father is God, His Son is God, and his Spirit is God? That they dont express 3 Gods but our One God Almighty. Whats so wrong with that according to LDS? I know what the JW, and others here believe, but what do you see wrong with it?

Well, I think your spiritual alarm's setting is a tad messed up. I don't believe that God ever promised that the Church Jesus Christ established would continue to exist in its pure form until the end of time. Besides, there is ton of evidence that it hasn't.
Then you cannot believe what was written 100% about the Church of Philadelphia. You might be looking at one of the other 7 that went astray at some point, but clearly one would always be true and the door always open. Rev 3

Thanks for the answers, Hopefully you see my post as interesting and not mean spirited.

In Love
 
Last edited:
Top