Why is it *necessary* to believe (as a Christian) that the Bible has no errors?

[Rise]

#1 You are misrepresenting the early church fathers

That narrative has a critical historical flaw in it:
The idea that those two arians represented the truth.

It isn't nice to call names.

I would like to start this section of my response by pointing out to you that it was not my intention to personally attack you or call names; I merely pointed out the simple fact that your assertion has a critical historical flaw in it. I am not sure why you would misinterpret that as name calling.

He also said "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father, so that there may be unity both fleshly and spiritual."

That is a clear indication that he believed in Subordinationism, not Trinitarianism.

They were quoting the scriptures which clearly show subordination. Ignoring those scriptures does not make them go away. This council was for the express purpose of choosing between subordination and equality. The Trinity went with equality. They chose to base their creed on the wisdom of man. No revelation was present. They got it wrong. Jesus was, is and will always be subordinate to his father. That is what it meant to be a son. Redefining the roles of father and son to exclude subordination, robs both roles of meaning.

There are a few of flaws with your assertion.

1. You don't recognize the difference between the heretical subordinationism in substance (that the son if a created being of the Father, seperate from Him) versus subordination in role (which Christians today would still acknowledge) as the Son modeling relational subordination to the Father while at the same time being the same God as the Father. The entire gospel message is that God, the creator of all things, himself became incarnate in His creation as a the Son of God and lived a life without sin in perfect obedient relationship with God the Father.

2. The early church fathers do not support subordination in the sense of Jesus being a created being or a different being from the Father. Further down I will post writings from the early church fathers which demonstrates why your interpretation of a few quotes from the early fathers is taken wildly out of context with what they actually believed in the whole of their writings. It is not unlike taking a few Bible verses out of context and twisting their meaning because you've chosen to ignore what the entire BIble says on a particular subject.

3. Biblical subordinationism (relational and role subordinationism) is not incompatible with the Nicene creed. Look at the text of the Nicene Creed and you find nothing that goes against Biblical relational subordinationism.

4. You misapply what Ignatius was saying because you take him out of context of the whole of his writings. For instance, I will show you that ignatius believed in only one God, and yet also believed that Jesus and the Father were the same God. In that context, what Ignatius believes about the Son being subordinate to the Father in the incarnation of the flesh is completely consistent with what the New Testament tells us; which is not what you are trying to assert Ignatius believed.

5. I do not ignore the verses that show the Son in relational subordination to the Father; I just let the whole of the Bible inform me as to what that means. You are ignoring the vast body of scripture that shows that YHVH and Elohim are the same God, that Jesus and the Father are the same God, and as a result you are coming away with a distorted and wrong view of what it means for Jesus to be subordinate to the Father while incarnate - A view that is also not consistent with what the early church fathers held.

The Trinity understanding of God comes as a result of taking the fullness of all the scripture into account and allowing them to harmonize together; In the scripture we see there are three seperate persons with different roles seen relating to each other, yet they are shown to all be God, and yet there is only one God.

In contrast, your view of God comes from picking and choosing the parts of the Bible agree with Mormon writings and doctrine.


The writings of Ignatius (Epistle of the Antiochians):

"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called," guarding against those heresies of the wicked one which have broken in upon us, to the deceiving and destruction of those that accept of them; but that ye give heed to the doctrine of the apostles, and believe both the law and the prophets: that ye reject every Jewish and Gentile error, and neither introduce a multiplicity of gods, nor yet deny Christ under the pretence of [maintaining] the unity of God.

For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, "The Lord thy God is one Lord," and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord when he said, "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord." And again, "And God said, Let Us make man after our image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him." And further "In the image of God made He man." And that [the Son of God] was to be made man [Moses shows when] he says, "A prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me."

The prophets also, when they speak as in the person of God, [saying, ] "I am God, the first [of beings], and I am also the last, and besides Me there is no God," concerning the Father of the universe, do also speak of our Lord Jesus Christ. "A Son," they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God." And concerning His incarnation, "Behold, a virgin shall be with Child, and shall bring forth a Son; and they shall call his name Immanuel." And concerning the passion, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before her shearers is dumb, I also was an innocent lamb led to be sacrificed."

The Evangelists, too, when they declared that the one Father was "the only true God," did not omit what concerned our Lord, but wrote: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." And concerning the incarnation: "The Word," says [the Scripture], "became flesh, and dwelt among us."And again: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God," said also that "there is one Mediator between God and men." Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says [one]? "The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself" for the life and salvation of the world.

And what gives Ignatius the right to define scripture?

Ignatius does not defining scripture for us - he is reflecting what we already see in scripture.
Which demonstrates for us that what we see in scripture did indeed reflect what the apostles taught to Ignatius.

I quoted Ignatius to show you that protestants have a view of God, based solely on the Bible, that is consistent with early church leaders.

You will not find any early church leader who had views of God consistent with Mormonism. The most far out out heretics of the 2nd and 3rd century are not even found to be in line with Mormon theology.

Jesus was subordinate to his Father. He did add the caveat "in the flesh", suggesting that his relationship with his father might change after his death... but why would it?

You'll find the answer in scripture:

Philippians 2:5-8
You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being.
When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.

"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
-John 17:5

Galatians 4:4-5
Hebrews 4:15

His nature and relationship to God did not change after death, but returned to what it was originally.

Jesus chose to put himself under all the limitations of man, modeling for us what a perfect life lived in submission to God's will looks like.

 

[Rise]

We will further see that your quotes from other church fathers are completely misrepresenting what they believed if you think they do not support trinitiarian/biblical views.

Why not believe Clement of Rome who was a peer of Ignatius? "Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant..."

"Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God : as of the judge of the living and the dead". -2nd Epistle of Clement

It's already been established from scripture that Elohim is the judge of the living and the dead, as well as YHVH, and there is only one lawgiver and judge (james 4:12).
Psalm 50:6, psalm 75:7, Isaiah 66:16, 2 timothy 4:8, Hebrews 12:23,

Justin Martyr lived in the 2nd century and even he believed in subordinationism. "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, of the truth of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things"

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho:

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord..."

"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts."

"...you say [speaking of Justin Martyr] that this Christ existed as God before the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man"

"But both Him [the Father], and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit,we worship and adore."

"Worship God alone."

"Whence to God alone we render worship."

"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race"

"the word of wisdom, who is himself God begotten of the Father of all things, and word, and wisdom, and power, and the glory of the begetter, will bear evidence to me".

"...He preexisted as the Son of the Creator of things, being God, and that He was born a man by the Virgin."

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.

"The Father of the universe has a Son, who also being the first begotten Word of God, is even God."
-Justin Martyr, First Apology

Tertullian continues this doctrine in his day: "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, in as much as he who begets is one, and he who is begotten is another; he, too, who sends is one, and he who is sent is another; and he, again, who makes is one, and he through whom the thing is made is another."

Tertullian, Against Prazeas:

"All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed."

"[God speaks in the plural 'Let us make man in our image'] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

"As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

"There is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics."

"That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord"

"He will be God, and the Word - the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person - Jesus, God and Man.."

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"

The Protestants didn't go far enough. They should have rejected the Trinity as well.

Protestants believe in "scripture alone" so rejecting the trinity would be impossible without rejecting scripture. As I just quoted from Tertullian (who is the first person we have recorded as using this terminology), the trinity is something established and proven from the scriptures themselves.

If you could reject the Trinity without rejecting the Bible then Jehovah's Witnesses would not need to rewrite the Bible to hide the Trinity.
Mormons also would not need to reject the Bible as reliable in order to believe their extra-biblical doctrines are true.

Since we are talking about Ignatius, He also told us to study the scriptures they had:
"Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit;"

The proper course of action is to ask God the truth of the matter and let divine inspiration take its course. The wrong course of action is to invite people to attend a giant committee meeting and vote on a new creed, and then kill or expel anyone who disagrees. That sounds more like Satan's modus operandi

Go pull up the Nicene creed and you will not find anything in it that is inconsistent with the Bible.

The Nicene creed is also consistent with what we find in the earliest church fathers.

There was no vote in Nicea on doctrine. The only vote taken was whether or not Arius should be allowed to remain a Bishop. Of which only two of out 316 Bishops abstained from the vote. Otherwise it was unanimous.

There was no vote on the the Nicene Creed. 314 out of 316, however, chose to endorse it by signing it.

So your characterization of the council as deciding what to believe by vote is wrong. NIcea is, in actuality, merely a reflection of what was already believed.

 

[Rise]

#2 You are misrepresenting Biblical Scripture

Really? Do I really need to examine all of these references?

Really? Do I really need to examine all of these references? Did you read all of these references? Or are you just posting someone else's list?

That depends on whether or not you care if your view of God is consistent with what the Bible says.
If you want to establish that then, yes, you do need to reconcile your view of God with all of what scripture says about God - not just picking and choosing the ones that you think fit Mormon doctrine.

I would hope that you would have every desire to see if your theology is consistent with the whole counsel of scripture.

I can assure you that, as for myself, if someone posts verses that claims to disprove the trinity that I will have a desire to research them to ascertain if there is any validity to what they say. So far there hasn't been any validity to those claims.

I desire the truth, wherever that may take me. I don't desire to just prove an existing bias by picking and choosing the scriptures that I like.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 - to not love the truth is the way to perishing. John 14:6

Did you read all of these references? Or are you just posting someone else's list?

I read and selected them all for posting. I did not just copy and paste a list.
That's part of why my response took so long.

My scripture listings were not even fully comprehensive, but an meant to be a good overview of the witness you will find throughout all scripture as to the nature of YHVH, Elohim, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and how they are all the same God.

The context of John 5:18 is all wrong for what you are trying to prove. It was the Sadducees and Pharisees that thought Jesus was making himself equal to God. Jesus taught that he was the son of God, therefore subordinate and not equal.

John 5:18
Notice here who is writing this statement: The apostle John. John is the one that gives context and commentary to why the Jewish leaders tried to kill him. John is the one who says Jesus was making himself equal to God with His statement. It does not say the Jews merely thought, erronously, that Jesus was making himself equal with God.

There's also another obvious problem with your statement: It doesn't even begin to deal with the abundance of verses in the BIble that clearly and explicitly make Jesus equal with God (many of which I already listed for you). So trying to explain away John 5:18 by saying the Jews just misunderstood Jesus doesn't actually advance your case at all when you've got a mountain of others verses that tell us Jesus actually was equal God so he certainly could not being misunderstood by the Jews in this instance.

Philippians 2:6-8 appears on the surface to vindicate your thesis, but the verses that follow your quote destroy any thought of the Trinity.

"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father."

If by "equal" you mean the same person, then the scripture destroys that view, as they are clearly treated as separate entities. If by "equal" you mean that they have the same glory, then that view is destroyed as well, as all glory goes to the Father.

First off, it must be noted that you haven't even begun to deal with all the verses I quoted which establish that Son and the Father are the same God (and those aren't even all I could have quoted). If you don't first deal with those then it leaves you open to misintepretting some verses due to a lack of full context.

Regardless, I can even show you just based on glory that your statement is not true because the same glory is ascribed to both the Son and the Father.

John 17:15
Jesus had the same glory as the Father before the world existed.

He put aside that glory to become incarnate under the limitations of a man.
Phillippians 2:6-7

Luke 24:26
He returns to His glory.

Matthew 16:27
He comes in the glory of His Father

Matthew 19:28
Matthew 25:31
Luke 9:32
John 2:11
Jesus's glory is referred to as his own. In Matthew it is given in the same context as above where it is said to be the Father's Glory.

John 13:31-32
John 1:14
Luke 9:26
John 11:4
Here we have the Son and the Father's glory linked together. Luke 9 links it together in the same context as Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 19:28.

Luke 2:9
Glory is ascribed to the Lord (YHVH).
Yet the multitude in this passage give Glory to God (Elohim)

John 5:44
Glory comes from God

John 12:41
Isaiah saw the glory of YHVH, which is used as a reference to Jesus here.

Essentially what Is being said in Phillipians 2:11, in the context of what all of scripture tells us, is that to worship and acknowledge Jesus is to ascribe the glory to God the Father. Throughout scripture the pattern is that positionally the Son points us to the Father and the Spirit points us to the Son, but these three are all shown to be God.

You have amassed a ton of scriptures to support your view, but without understanding our views, you are missing the target every time. We believe that Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, the God of Israel. We accept all of those scriptures that you referenced at face value. Where we disagree is whether Jehovah is God the Father. One of his titles is "father", but it doesn't follow that he is God the Father.

Oh not at all; I already did understand that was what you believed - Which is why I gave you many scriptures that establish that YHVH and Elohim are the same being and same God.

Your response to one of those scriptures was just to accuse the Bible of being corrupted by Hezekiah as a way of not having to deal with what the scripture plainly says. Something which you cannot actually establish from from documented history as being true.

I'll add on to that by pointing out to you these verses:
Genesis 2:6 - The Bible is full off compounding the words YHVH and Elohim together as one word to esablish that YHVH is God. This is seen translated in the KJV as "The LORD God". This is found all throughout the Old Testament.

Further, we see YHVH specifically call himself Elohim in Exodus 20:2:
"I am YHVH your Elohim, who have brought thee out of the land of egypt"

Deuteronomy 6:4:
Hear, O Israel: YHVH our Elohim, YHVH is one.

God gets even more specific in Isaiah 43:10-11:
Saith YHVH and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no Elohim formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am YHVH; and beside me there is no savior.

Further, Isaiah 44:6-8
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
Who is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and set it before me,
since I appointed an ancient people.
Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
Fear not, nor be afraid;
have I not told you from of old and declared it?
And you are my witnesses!
Is there a God besides me?
There is no Rock; I know not any.”

Also causing issue for your view of YHVH and Elohim is that in Hosea 10 it is in context YHVH who says "out of egypt I have called my Son". From Matthew 2:15 we know this is talking about Jesus. If your theology were Biblically consistent then it would be Elohim saying that in Hosea 10.

[quote="rise]YHVH and Elohim are also shown to be the same, both being creator, in both old and new testament:
Isaiah 37:16 (Uses both YHVH and Elohim, where LORD and God is)

This isn't Isaiah talking, but Hezekiah. He is the one who ordered that the Brazen Serpent of Moses, which represented the Son of God, be taken out of the Temple, where it had resided for hundreds of years, and be melted down. He is the one that brought the heresy of monotheism to the Jews. I imagine that he would have been first in line to stone Jesus. The Sadducees and Pharisees were certainly adhering to his teachings.[/quote]

The main problem with your approach here is that you've chosen to take issue with only a single verse because of who said it, while ignoring the vast body of scripture that tells us the same thing over and over again (some of which I already quoted for you) - That YHVH and Elohim are the same God, and that God created everything.

If you want to honestly deal with the scripture and try to make a claim about what scripture teaches then you have to deal with all of scripture in harmony.

Secondarily, and equally as big a problem really, is the fact that you are making assertions about what you think happened in history that cannot be backed up by any documentary or historical evidence.

Where's the evidence that what you say about Hezekiah is true? It's very easy to assert something as being true; but being able to document or evidence it is another matter entirely.

"Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish." - Isaiah 46:10

The person speaking is Jehovah, the God of Israel. He is speaking to Isaiah, an Israelite. He is the only one who can tell Isaiah the future before it happens; he is the God of Israel, assigned by God Almighty to be the God of Israel. He is a spokesman for God. Of course, Isaiah can turn around and tell anyone else the future, as it is revealed to him by God, just as he is doing here. If this is the best scripture in the list, then you have no hope of proving your assertion.

Your interpretation falls apart in light of the body of scripture I've already given you that shows YHVH and Elohim are the same God.

 

[Rise]

You haven't actually read it, have you? v.2 contradicts the idea of omnipresence.
"You understand my thought from afar." An omnipresent diety can never be "afar" by definition. The writer is waxing poetic for the sake of a song.

Psalm 139:7-8 is quite clearly omnipresent to say that no matter where he goes he will be in the presence of God.
This fits in with Numbers 14:21, Isaiah 6:3, Jeremiah 23:24

This is where you, again, have to take the whole of scripture together before interpreting a verse.
Since we know from other scripture that God is not limited to a single point in space and time, we know that a reference to go being "afar" should not misinterpreted as presuming that God is physically far away from the writer.

"afar" can be a reference to the Lord's throne in Heaven. In that sense He s afar, yet we know he is also present at the same time. There are many examples throughout scripture of how God is enthroned in heaven, yet present with us in a location, even multiple locations, and ultimately everywhere.

Psalm 11:4
Isaiah 66:1
1 Kings 8:27
Hebrews 1:3
Matthew 18:20
Matthew 28:20
Revelation 21:3
Revelation 3:21
John 14:16-18
Ezekiel 36:27
Exodus 25:8
1 Corinthians 3:16
Acts 7:49
Exodus 25:22

There's also a point where omniscience and omnipresence come together. First of which I already demonstrated by showing that God is outside of the bounds of space/time as we understand it, able to know what the future is from the beginning.

Further: Genesis 1:31, Job 34:21, Proverbs 15:3, Hebrews 4:13. It's difficult to argue that God has prefect knowledge of everything in the creation, even down to the thoughts and intents of the heart of people, if he is also bound by the physical laws of the universe unable to be in more than one point at a time.

"But the LORD is in his holy Temple; the LORD still rules from heaven." A very odd choice if one is trying to prove omnipresence. Perhaps you should read them before you post them. God delegates. That is why he calls prophets and apostles and sends messengers; he can't be everywhere at once.

It demonstrates his omnipresence because it shows that God is enthroned in Heaven while other scripture shows He is still present in creation (Isaiah 43:2, Matthew 18:20, Psalm 139:5); able to be more than one place at once.

You're also ignoring many scriptures that shows the multi-locality of God: Isaiah 57:15, Jeremiah 23:23-24.

"I am a God at hand, and not a God afar off"
This sounds like the equivalent of "I'm here for you". It isn't an essay on omnipresence.
"The LORD is watching everywhere, keeping his eye on both the evil and the good."

One might make a case for omniscient, but mothers say basically the same thing to their children, and they aren't omnipresent (sorry mom!)
"Just remember, I have eyes in the back of my head!"

"Even if they dig down to the place of the dead, I will reach down and pull them up. Even if they climb up into the heavens, I will bring them down."

Again - not a discourse on the nature of God; he is just saying that where ever you go he can find you. Again - this is a good case for omniscience, but not omnipresence.

The problem with your interpretation, as has happened several times before, is that you're not harmonizing your interpretation to be consistent with all of what scripture says. You might be able to make excuses for one verse here or there, but those excuses don't hold up in against the weight of the whole Bible's testimony about God.

You can't explain away every aspect of God's omnipresence and also how that ties in with his omnipotence and omniscience as just being poetic and allegorical.

News to me. Source?

You might say you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing in theory, but in reality your theology confines God to the laws and structures of the physical universe, denying that He was the creator of all things.

At that point He's not, by definition, an all powerful being. He is bound by creation, and does not have the power to create matter. He doesn't have the power to create life either because the spirits of people pre-existed along with the universe. He doesn't have the power to establish the laws of the universe, how it functions, but can only obtain to great power over it by obeying the pre-existing laws.

This goes against the very foundation of what the Bible teaches us about God: That is the author and creator of absolutely everything, even our own spirits (I already posted scripture demonstrating that).

In fact, Biblically, the very definition of what it is to be the one true and only Elohim is that you are the creator. God, throughout the Bible, differentiates himself from false gods by stating that He is the creator of all, author and source of life, all knowing, all powerful, and all present. To deny these aspects that define God is to deny that which truly makes Him the one true Elohim, in contrast to false elohims.

Both Father and Son have very specific definitions in our society and in theirs. Why would God mislead us, if he didn't really have a son?

He did have a son. I didn't say otherwise. The issue here is that Mormon belief as to what the nature of His Son is, and how he relates to the Father, is not consistent with what the Bible tells us is true.

The Mormon idea of what it means to be "The Son of God" is completely different from the Biblical concept of "The Son of God".

No, I think it is exactly the same. It means that God is his father. Literally....It makes perfect sense that his father and mother were physical beings, and not spirits.

By literally, you mean the Father had sex with Mary to produce a physical child, right?

You haven't answered my question yet about what your definition of "virgin birth" is. According to LDS sources I listed they distort the meaning of the word "virgin" by claiming that Mary had physical sex with God yet was still a virgin because somehow that's just what happens when a mortal women has sex with an immortal man.

Additionally, in the Bible Mary cleary responses to the angel's declaration that she is pregnant by saying "How is this possible, since I have known no man". Luke 1:34. "Know" is a common Biblical Hebrew idiom for sex.

Spirits don't give birth to mortal babies.

Genesis 2:7
God breathed the breath of life into man (The word for breath is the same word for spirit). God gave man his spirit after forming his body from dust.

Matthew 1:18
Marry was pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45-47

He taught that he was the manna which came down from heaven, which confused everyone since he was born like everyone else. Like everyone else, he lived as a spirit before he was born; we all came down from heaven.

That contradicts scripture which shows God creates the spirit of man and gives it to him.

John 6:51.

Ecclesiastes 12:7
God gives man his spirit.

Isaiah 42:5
God gives man man breath (neshamah, same word for spirit).

Additionally:
Zechariah 12:1
Hebrews 12:9

Jesus was unique in that he was the firstborn, the spokesman for God.

He is called the Momogenes son. That word means one of a kind, unique. There is no other like Him.

The scriptures seem to be contradictory on this matter, and thus they are confusing. .

They are not contradictory and confusing if you let scripture interpret scripture, and let scripture define for you what your theology should be.

It's only confusing and contradictory when you try to reconcile the Bible with Joseph Smith's writings.
That's why you end up throwing out sections of the Bible that contradict Joseph Smith.

 

[Rise]

#3 You aren't citing the documentary evidence for almost all of your assertions about what did or did not happen in early Christianity.

An assertion like that needs some kind of documentation - How would you establish that the Jewish people generally believed all those books found in the library were considered divinely inspired scripture at some point?

The Nag Hammadi are early Christian books - our earliest. We have them because the Catholic church ordered them burned, and one church buried them instead. They are Gnostic scriptures on leather bound books. The Gnostics had the truth, at least some of it. We call them Gnostics because they believed in the Christian Mysteries. The Christian Mysteries were secret, and only revealed to initiates. The Catholic church banned the Christian Mysteries in 700 AD, and they disappeared. The Christian Mysteries were taught by Jesus to Peter, James and John, who then taught them to the other apostles. They were not written down, as they were secret teachings. Today, neither the Catholic church, nor the protestant churches have the Christian Mysteries, or even have a clue what they are. The Mormons are the only ones. We only have them through revelation, the Lord fixing what men had broken. No reformation could bring back what was lost. They could only be restored through revelation. Many other things were lost, as people forgot them, or as popular opinion rejected them. That is the core doctrine of Mormonism, the thing that Jesus taught Joseph Smith as a result of his prayer. Doctrines had been lost. They could not be restored with an appeal to the Bible. They could only be restored by revelation from God.
You asked how we can know if something is divinely inspired. We can only know through revelation from God. Popularity isn't a measure of truth. How did Peter know that Jesus was the Christ? Revelation is the life blood of the church, without it the church withers and dies, doctrines are replaced with fallacies, and heresies are confused with truth. Without revelation, all we have are uninspired committees. In his parting words, John the Apostle said that it was the last hour. The antichrist were already everywhere. They had taken over the church. The only escape for the righteous was death. This is the parting message of the Bible.

Notice how I specifically asked you for some kind of documentation for your original assertions; but all you gave me was even more assertions without evidence or documentation.

It's easy to make accusations and spin theories about what did or did not happen - but it doesn't mean anything unless you can document why we would have any reason to believe it might be true.

As I already pointed out: All 1st and 2nd century church writings and recovered manuscripts/papyri all tell us that the canon we have is apostalic in orgin, and the transmission of the message has been reliable. Furthermore, Jewish contemporary sources affirm to us the old testament canon is accurately transmitted. Additionally, all compiled bibles and canon lists for centuries after Christ all affirm the Bible canon we have now.

So in light of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the Bible as we have it, what single ounce of evidence would you present that suggests that any of those Nag Hammandi library books were considered scripture at some point, or represented what Jesus and the apostles really taught?
Nothing you assert lines up with the historical documentation. There's not even any evidence that the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the New Testament writings.

Did Jesus lie to Joseph Smith? No, several Christian and Jewish historians have written about the Christian Mysteries. They did exist, and they are much the same, as far as we can tell, to the ordinances performed by the Mormons today. No one wrote them down, but early Christians talked about them all the time. Cyril of Jerusalem talked about them, and several others.

Again, where are the evidentiary sources for these claims?

You'd need to quote what exactly from Cyril you think supports mormonism, because in Cathechetical Lecture 20 he talks about the "mystery" of the rituals of baptism and anointing wherein he gives meanings behind them that are thoroughy and completely in line with the Biblical teaching. It's merely an outward expression of what is already found in the BIble and commonly believed even today. There's no evidence of hidden extra-biblical teaching there.

I must also point out that Cyril of Jerusalem is the 4th century. Even if he did have anything that remotely supported your viewpoint, it wouldn't prove much to point to him unless you can find evidence of that going back to the early church - Which is most certainly not the case, as the Didache from the late 1st or early 2nd century does not give instructions for baptism that are as elaborate as what is found in Cyril's Cathechetical Lecture 20.

World famous bible scholar Joachim Jeremias stated
"When one turns to the early Christianity, he repeatedly comes across cryptic sayings and a concern to keep the most sacred things from being profaned. Paul, who calls himself and his fellow workers "stewards of the mysteries of God", (1 Corinthians 4:1) speaks in general terms in 1 Corinthians 2.6-3.2 of the divine "wisdom" which can only be imparted to the "mature" (2.6), i.e. "those who possess the spirit" (2.13); it is a secret and hidden wisdom of God (2.7) . Paul had been able to offer the Corinthians only milk (elementary teachings, 3.2), not yet the solid food of "wisdom" for the "mature" (3.2;2.6). The concern of this "wisdom" is with "the depths of God" (2.10). That Paul had kept this from the Corinthians, although they had been Christians for years, shows that he would never have spoken of these final secrets before non-Christians."

Lots of people say lots of different things. The only question that matters is, "what does the Bible say?"

In 1 Corinthians 2:7-10, Paul says he declares God's wisdom which has been hidden but revealed by God's spirit. He says people didn't understand it, meaning they had it told to them.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Not everything Paul wrote was easy to understand. But he spoke it and wrote it anyway.

1 Corinthians 3:2 is speaking to the Corinthians specifically in this instance. There's no indication that everything he wrote in every letter was spiritual milk.

Ephesians is full of extremely deep statements on the nature of God, man, and our relationship to Him which can take a long time to truly unpack and understand.

Hebrews is almost unfathomly deep and mysterious for someone newly initiated to the faith. They would have no hope of understanding what is there without much study of the old testament, the rest of new testament scripture, or direct revelation by the Holy Spirit.

The Revelation of John, although not written by Paul, is another example of something in the Bible which is obviously not spiritual milk.

Of course, such teachings could never be included in a bible. According to Christian historian Dr. Angus,

"An awful obligation to perpetual secrecy as to what was said and transacted behind closed doors in the initiation proper was imposed - an obligation so scrupulously observed through the centuries that not one account of the secrets of the holy of holies of the Mysteries has been published, to gratify the curiosity of historians."

The mysteries were modified by Jesus, but they were had by the Jews before him. John the Baptist knew the mysteries because he was an Essene, and the Essenes were the keepers of the mysteries. Some scholars have accused Jesus of also being an Essene, and borrowing from their "rites, doctrines, "patterns of thought" and its mystical and ethical ideas". Yet John the Baptist and Jesus were not known to the Jews as Essenes, but as Nazoreans. According to Christian historian Dr. E. S. Drower, "Nazorean" is a nickname, which means "keepers of the secret teachings".

The Bible only has the milk. The meat of the gospel was taught secretly. These teachings were lost, and needed to be restored. They could only be restored through direct revelation through a living prophet. His name was Joseph Smith.

There's no documentary evidence that Paul had a secret teaching he never wrote down. It's an unsupported assumption. It is also contradicted by the fact that we have examples of deep and difficult to understand writings from Paul, which are clearly not just spiritual milk.

Your statement that such things "could never be included" is also without basis and goes against everything we know about the early church, because it makes the assumption that early Christians had a need or desire to conceal that which had been revealed to them.

Nothing about Christianity had to do with concealing the truth of what they believed from people:
Jesus himself, when confronted by the Pharisees about what he taught, said that he did nothing in secret but taught openly - John 18:19-21
Their very commission was to go into all the world and teach people and proclaim the gospel- Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15

We also see iin 1 Corinthians 3:2 and Hebrews 5:11-14 to 6:1-2 that Paul's intention is that he desires for people to have the spiritual meat. They aren't being witheld it because it's too secret to be written down or shared, or because only a select few are worthy, but because they are still learning to digest the milk they've been given. That's not even to say that the meat wasn't something that was available to the people, but just that it was not what he was going to spend time teaching them because it wasn't what they needed.

The Essenes had a prophecy of a man named Joseph, a prophet of the latter days to whom the teachings would be restored. They said that his father would also be named Joseph, and that this prophet would die before the age of 40.

What is your source for this claim?

Peter seems to be referring to this prophecy when he states "Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." (Acts 3:21)

That verse is quite clearly talking about Jesus, not Joseph Smith.

Acts 3:
17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

 

[Rise]

What if they were correct to worship the original pantheon and after some prophets decided to monopolize the god they worshipped, the world went to hell because the other gods were angered at being ignored?

There is no limit to the number of hypothetical questions you could ask - but ultimately the question is "where's the evidence that would lead us to believe that could even begin to be true"?

"Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such spirit worship, we should find the worship of many gods preceding the worship of one god…. What we actually find is the contrary to this, monotheism is the first stage traceable in theology…" -Sir Flinders Petrie, Egyptologist

"historical survey has shown us that in the early times, everywhere, or almost everywhere, belief in the unity of God existed—barbarous nations possessed it as well as civilized ones—it underlay polytheism that attempted to crush it—retained a hold on language and thought—had from time to time its special assertors, who never professed to have discovered it." -George Rawlinson, Oxford.

The idea that monotheism is an expected sociological evolution of polytheism is a theory that has never really held up under examination of the evidence.
I find in my reading of history and world religions today that there's great support for the Bible's history which tells us that originally we can trace it all back to one monotheistic truth through Noah which was later corrupted via Babylon.

 

[rrosskopf]

Notice how I specifically asked you for some kind of documentation for your original assertions; but all you gave me was even more assertions without evidence or documentation.

You had stated "How would you establish that the Jewish people generally believed all those books found in the library were considered divinely inspired scripture at some point?"
I don't know what to make of this question. Why Jewish people? Are we talking about the Nag Hammadi, a Christian library? Do you want sources that gnosticism was believed by a section of Christianity? Do you want sources concerning the esoteric teachings of Christ?

I reject the initial thesis, that truth can be ascertained by vote. It is entirely possible for one person to be right and everyone else to be wrong. So it doesn't matter to me if a large segment of Christianity selects certain books and rejects others; they have no authority to decide such matters. God is the only authority on what books he has inspired, and he has never made such a list. Nor has he graded the various books to indicate the level of inspiration, or the level of corruption. Once the Christian world has rejected prophets, apostles, and revelation, all that is left is popular opinion and tradition. If we are to rely on popular opinions and tradition, then we might as well go back to worshiping the pagan gods.

I don't reject the books of the modern bible by any means, except perhaps Song of Solomon; it is not a spiritual book. By the same token, I don't assume that other inspired books haven't existed throughout history. The Bible itself mentions many inspired books, which cannot be found today. People eventually rejected them, and they were lost to history. That is what people do; they reject truth when it doesn't match their false ideas. Where is the book of Iddo the Seer or Nathan the Prophet? Lost to history.

I also reject the idea of the Bible as a cohesive whole, as if all the writers thereof have identical understanding of the things of God, and just conspired to give us the truth a little bit at a time over millenia, and then decided to quit. It would be no less cohesive if additional books were discovered to be inspired, and added to the canon. Without a living prophet, there is no mechanism for that to happen.

If I haven't provided references for this, it is because I believe it to be self evident, to anyone who knows a smattering of Judeo Christian history.

All 1st and 2nd century church writings and recovered manuscripts/papyri all tell us that the canon we have is apostalic in orgin, and the transmission of the message has been reliable.

I could quibble, as not all of it is apostolic in origin, but that is beside the point. The writings of the New Testament, as commonly found in the modern New Testament, are inspired of God whether written by apostles or not. The question is whether they are complete in any fashion, or whether other books have been rejected which were also inspired of God.

Furthermore, Jewish contemporary sources affirm to us the old testament canon is accurately transmitted.

As a whole, I'm sure it is. That isn't to say that books - inspired books - are not missing from the fray.

So in light of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the Bible as we have it, what single ounce of evidence would you present that suggests that any of those Nag Hammandi library books were considered scripture at some point, or represented what Jesus and the apostles really taught?

First of all, they are individual books. There were not written by the same person, or at the same time. Each has to be taken on its own merits. The evidence that they were considered scripture is their very existence; these weren't the only copies. Someone thought they were worth copying. Someone - the Catholic church - thought they were a threat and ordered their destruction. I'm not saying a majority of Christians believed that they were scripture; a majority of Christians has never had the authority to make such a determination. Enough people believed in them that the Catholic church took action against them.

There's not even any evidence that the gnostic gospels were contemporary with the New Testament writings.

God can inspire someone to write a book at any time. He isn't limited in that respect. Never-the-less, the oldest of the Nag Hammadi books dates to the 1st century.
"Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as 40 AD or as late as 140 AD, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature." (Valantasis, p. 12)
The earliest known fragment of the Gospel of Thomas was discovered in Egypt and dates to 130 AD. In comparison the earliest known fragment of Luke dates to the late 2nd century.

 

[rrosskopf]

Again, where are the evidentiary sources for these claims?

"That the more learned of the Christians, subsequently to the second century, cultivated, in secret, an obtuse discipline of a different nature from that which they taught publicly, is well known to everyone."
"The multitude professing Christianity were therefore divided by them into the "profane," or those not yet admitted to the mysteries, and the "initiated" or faithful and perfect... and as none were permitted to be present at these "mysteries," as they were termed, save those whose admission into the fellowship of the church was perfect and complete, so likewise was it expected that, as a matter of duty, the most sacred silence should be observed in regard to everything connected with the celebration of them, and nothing whatever, relating thereto to be committed to the ears of the profane." (Dr. Johann L. Mosheim, Historical Commentaries on the State of Christianity, Vol. 1)

Dr. Mosheim also states that early Christians identified each other through secret marks and signs.

"[Ancient Christians] had mysteries which they disclosed to the initiated only after long preparation, and with an oath not to divulge them..." (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, p.336)

"An awful obligation to perpetual secrecy as to what was said and transacted behind closed doors in the initiation proper was imposed - an obligation so scrupulously observed through the centuries that not one account of the secrets of the Holy of Holies of the mysteries has been published to gratify the curiousity of historians." (William Kingsland, The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scripture, p.75)

"Secret doctrines and public teachings have been preserved in the church, and some of them we have from written teaching and others we have received handed down to us in a mystery from the tradition of the apostles." (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church, p. 32)

"One must not recite the mysteries to the uninitiated, lest outsiders who do not understand make fun of them while they perplex and scandalize investigators." (Athanasius, as quoted by Dr. Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, p.120)

"We believe that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, but they did not transmit everything they knew, and were not willing to reveal everything to everybody. They did not preach everywhere or promiscuously... but taught one thing about the nature of Christ in public and another in secret." (Tertullian, as quoted by Dr. Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, p. 118-119)

"The central problem, I had gradually come to see, was the element of secrecy in primitive Christian tradition... The synoptic gospels are full of it. John swarms with contradictions that look like deliberate riddles; both John and Luke hint at secret teaching to be given by the resurrected Jesus or by the spirit, after Jesus' death." (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel, p. 73,74)

"The whole environment of primitive Christianity knows the element of the esoteric." (Joachim Jeremiahs,The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, p.125)

The Corinthians had been Christians for years, but Paul refused to teach them the mysteries. (1 Corinthians 3:2) Paul was a steward of the mysteries. (1 Corinthians 4:1)

This all came to an abrupt stop in 692 AD, when the church issued a new edict:
"...everyone was ordered thenceforth to be admitted to the public worship of the Christians, their esoteric(secret) teaching of the first ages were entirely suppressed, and what had been pure cosmology and astronomy was turned into a pantheon of gods and saints. Nothing remained of the mysteries but the custom of secretly reciting the canon of the Mass." (Charles W. Heckthorn, The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries, p.107)

We do have some general descriptions of these higher ordinances of salvation, as described by ancient Christians, but I do not feel comfortable sharing them, even though they are a part of the written record. I too am under obligation not to reveal the sacred ordinances. Even in our Temple preparation classes, we do not speak of them. The focus is entirely upon helping people to be spiritually ready, before they can enter the Temple. I can say that every major element of the modern Temple ceremony was had anciently. I can also say that the spirit of the Holy Ghost is almost overpowering in the Temple; I feel the difference between the Temple and the outside world every time I step through the door, and enter the Temple.

I was married in the Temple, for time and eternity. We call that Celestial Marriage. One of the sacred ordinances mentioned in the Nag Hammadi is the Bridal Chamber. French Orthodox theologian Jean-Yves Leloup tells us that the children from such unions would have "enhanced spiritual potential". (The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union, Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont (2004)., p. 20) This mirrors the LDS belief of children born under the covenant.

In the Gospel of Phillip we are told that those who are united in the Bridal Chamber, will never be separated - no till death do you part. We are also told in the Gospel of Phillip that the chamber is mirrored; in LDS temples the chamber has mirrors on opposite sides, showing a progression of images, as if disappearing into eternity.
The bridal chamber is mentioned with other Christian mysteries or sacraments: "The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber." This may seem odd to the Christian who has never heard of half of these ordinances, or who has never thought of baptism as a mystery, but a mystery is a drama; in baptism we act out the process of being born, as well as the death and resurrection. In the eucharist, we act out the consuming of Christ's body. The chrism, or anointing, is symbolic as well, although to my knowledge, only the Mormons have this ordinance, where it is performed only in the Temple. The redemption, where one symbolically obtains salvation, is also a mystery or drama that can be found in Mormon temples, although we call it the endowment.

The buildings of the Temple, and the ordinances thereof are also briefly explained in the Gospel of Phillip:
"There were three buildings specifically for sacrifice in Jerusalem. The one facing the west was called "The Holy". Another, facing south, was called "The Holy of the Holy". The third, facing east, was called "The Holy of the Holies", the place where only the high priest enters. Baptism is "the Holy" building. Redemption is the "Holy of the Holy". "The Holy of the Holies" is the bridal chamber."

Just as there was a progression in the ancient Temple, there is a progression in the modern Temple, although we now have all the buildings within a single building, and baptism, although it can be performed in the Temple, can also be performed anywhere there is sufficient water.

The Gospel of Phillip isn't canonical, even in the LDS church, but it reveals what Christians believed in the 2nd century, and adds its voice to many others, that Joseph Smith restored true Christianity.

 

[rrosskopf]

You might say you believe that God is all powerful and all knowing in theory, but in reality your theology confines God to the laws and structures of the physical universe, denying that He was the creator of all things.

John the apostle denies that God is the creator of all things. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3) John first tells us that all things were made by him, but then adds the qualifier that he is only referring to the things that were made. So he isn't testifying that Jesus created all things, but that nothing was created without him. Some things weren't created by anyone, but are eternal. The laws and structures of the physical universe may well be eternal.

 

[rrosskopf]

You can't explain away every aspect of God's omnipresence and also how that ties in with his omnipotence and omniscience as just being poetic and allegorical.

Obviously, yes I can. I took the scriptures at the top of the long long list. Were you hiding better scriptures farther down? There isn't one single scripture that even uses the word omnipresent. It is a complete fiction made up by people trying to draw their own conclusions from the Bible. How easy it would have been for any writer to simply say that God is everywhere.

 

[outhouse]

I find in my reading of history and world religions today that there's great support for the Bible's history

Have you ever tried reading anything credible?

It factually is not historically accurate.


Those who read it literally tend to ruin the beauty the original authors intended.

 

[outhouse]

but it doesn't mean anything unless you can document why we would have any reason to believe it might be true.

you have yet to document anything with credibility.

you are just spouting apologetic rhetoric as if it is credible

Nothing you assert lines up with the historical documentation.

Looking in a mirror?

I'm not sure you even know what the actual historicity is.

 

[outhouse]

This goes back to the point I originally made concerning this thread: If you reject the whole Bible as being reliable then it cannot act as a guidepost for helping you discern error from truth or good from bad. You put yourself at risk of picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that conform to your view of what you think God should be, which ends up with everyone having their own personal version of God. Essentially it is idolatry, creating God in your own image; creating an idol of thought rather than of wood/stone/metal.

You seem as guilty as anyone at this.

What authority do you THINK you have to tell others "how it is"

To actually understand the context of the text, one must be educated, and even then some context is gone forever and no amount of education will help. YET you seem so certain to just make claims you cannot substantiate.

You don't have the credibility you think you do.