Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Trinity Troubles

Kind of a mini-theme at the moment, but discussing the Trinity is highly illustrative of the sheer avoidance followers of the Trinity display.

First, they will attempt to resort to the "historical" reality of the Trinity, and more broadly with the concept of monotheism in the Bible.  Except this approach is logically and factually flawed on at least three levels:

1. Monotheism is not the historic understanding of the Bible or the New Testament in particular.  As Trinitarian Michael Heiser wrote:
Monotheism as it is currently understood means that no other gods exist. This term is
inadequate for describing Israelite religion, but suggesting it be done away with would no doubt cause considerable consternation among certain parts of the academic community, not to mention the interested laity. Henotheism and monolatry, while perhaps better, are inadequate because they do not say enough about what the canonical writer believed. Israel was certainly monolatrous, but that term comments only on what Israel believed about the proper object of worship, not what it believed about Yahweh’s nature and attributes with respect to the other gods.
Likewise, as we have demonstrated in the previous post and abundantly elsewhere, the existence of many real gods is taken as a given.  Jesus and God the Father are immediate examples.  But 1 Cor 8:5-6 or Acts 17:18 ("strange gods", Gk daimonion, a technical term used by the Greeks, here by philosophers to describe the relationship of Jesus to salvation and the resurrection, indicating their perception of Jesus as a second god as described by Paul), or Romans 8:16 make it clear that real, divine beings, plural, do exist and more will exist as mankind is saved.  Jesus himself quotes Ps 82:6 in his preaching in John 10:30-38, referencing the OT teaching that men can become gods.  His argument is only valid if they really do become gods like God, or else he is in fact guilty of blasphemy in his equating of himself with God.

2.  No single scripture or passage can be used to explain the relationship of the heavenly beings ("host of heaven", a phrase firmly built upon the Ugaritic terminology defining the Council of Gods, wherein Elohim presides) or relationship of Jesus and God the Father as being of one substance.  By contrast, passages such as John 17 or Philippians 2:5-9, or especially John 1:1 are all clearly written to explain the relationship of Jesus and God, and from these passages there is no hint of some kind of sharing of essence.

3.  It is impossible to maintain "monotheism" when the early Christian writers explicitly teach the salvation we seek is to become divine ourselves.  Nearly without exception 2 Peter 1:4 is used by every early Christian writer, including the Father of the Trinity Athanasius, to state that men will become gods, just as Jesus was god and became man.

Secondly, the number of scriptures teaching the real existence of multiple real gods are so many as to be overwhelming.  I looked up in a searchable online Strongs Concordance the following: "host/s of heaven"(20+), "Lord of hosts"(285), gods, in a real sense, not idols, (about 10), angel of the Lord, which was often a divine being (64), angel of God (10 times).  Don't forget that Jesus himself is called an angel in Rev 10.
Of course, there is Deut 32:8, 43 where the text was plainly altered to attempt to conceal the fact there are the 70 sons of God, just as in the Ugaritic texts, given authority over the various areas of the Earth, and Jehovah is given Israel as his portion by the Most high God.

The proof of the lack of proof is the insertion of the bogus text of 1 John 5:7-8, which attempts to describe the workings of the Godhead in Trinitarian terms.  Problem is it was added to the Latin text 250 years after John penned the words, and 1500 years later in the Greek.

So I would invite people to throw down their best two or three Trinitarian proof-text verses, and I will interact with them.  But I will require they explain Deut 32:8-9, Ps 82/John 10:30-38 and John 1:1.   No outside commentaries or sources, other than grammatical or lexical sources to accurately explain the text.  I am sick to death of hearing the ignorant phrase "the passage must be examined in the broader context of the entire Bible."  No, not so much.  There was no compiled Bible until the 4th Century.  The OT was much more fluid than it is today as well.  And if we want to go to the "broader context", then Trinitarians can make this really short, because nearly all scholars of all beliefs, Christian, Catholoic, Jewish, Evangelical, atheist or Mormon, acknowledge the context of the Bible is for a form of henotheism, meaning many real gods, but only one to be worshiped, which is monolatry.  Scholars such as Michael Heiser may argue about the nature of those gods in terms of how they came into existence, but there is no doubt the Hebrews and early Christians believed in a plurality of divine, meaning godly, beings.  And we haven't even touched on the fact the Hebrews fully believed that God had a wife.

So send me some passages and be willing to interact a little bit.  It will only hurt your Trinitarian pride.


Anonymous said...


This is so entertaining!!! There is no doubt you are living proof to what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says. I am in awe of your heretical and blasphemous nonsense!

You asked if I was up to the challenge of choosing 1 scripture to talk about the Trinity. Bob, I would NEVER put God in a box like that. Of course, since you think that scriptures are flawed and that you save yourself because you someday will become a god (what foolishness), you don't mind boxing your god up and limiting him to 1 scripture.

Let me say again something I have already stated: I cannot change your mind about the Trinity. Until you experience Divine intervention by God, you will be to stubborn and hard hearted to understand what I am saying and there is nothing I can say to change your mind. I get that. I am, however, doing everything I can to plant the seed not only in your heart with the truth, but every other misguided mormon believer that reads your blog.

I would recommend you read 1 Kings 18:16-46. You my friend are calling on the "gods" of Baal. There are NO OTHER gods. I don't need other's opinions that dismiss scripture, such as the one's you are quoting above. Scripture is all that is needed. Your god, or so called gods, DOES NOT EXIST. Plain and simple Bob. I am sorry your pride is not allowing you to see the truth yet. But again, those with the Spirit will understand and discern Spiritual matters.

I think it is HILARIOUS you mentioned in your #3 above a verse from 2 Peter 1. Of course, you have no idea what this scripture means and you are totally misinterpreting what Peter is saying. No use for me to try and explain that once you accept Christ as Lord and believe in your heart that he was raised from the dead, you would receive His Holy Spirit and with the SPIRIT, this is how you can participate in the divine nature. It is through Christ you do this and this scripture has NOTHING to do with becoming a god. But of course, I won't explain that because you will not understand.

Regardless, though you said that reading the whole Bible and scripture is useless, which is also for another time and another post, if you were to read down to verses 19 through 21 in 2 Peter chapter 1, you would also see that Peter said:
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Hmmmm.....I think you are in a dark place right now Bob because I guarantee you, Josef Smith was NOT carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I think you could use some truth and light in your message Bob. Sounds like you need Jesus.

Anonymous said...

People also do not want to recognize that verse in the Bible that says that all the teachings of Christ would fill volumes of books, so much the world could not contain them all and so we do not have everything Christ taught, nor do we have everything the Apostles taught.
Also ignored are the Bible verses that mention books of Scripture that we do not have today.

I am still amazed that for 180 plus years the LDS church has taught (and believed) many things that mainstream Christianity is just now coming around to recognizing that it was taught and believed anciently (among other things). Now how could Joseph Smith have known these things during his time?
I also believe that some Biblical scholars refuse to see the evidence because that would mean the Mormons are right and have been right.

Bob said...

You put god in a box, so to speak, when you appealed to a systematic theology rather than the Spirit and the scriptures. You have demonstrated repeatedly in your interaction here you think you are clever in your application of scriptures to denigrate my faith, yet, as I keep challenging you, you also cannot provide a cogent explanation of the source of your theology from the scriptures you cite. The Trinity did not come from someone studying the scriptures. It came from a philosophical position that there could only be one ultimate being, and therefore if Christianity is true, as these philosopher converts to Christianity reasoned it was, scripture must be interpreted as having this underlying intent, regardless of its literal statement.
And please, stop quoting scriptures about prophecy and Spiritual discernment. Your philosophical system denies both. Or, tell us all, is it possible that you believe there are prophets on the earth right now whose words and revelations from the Spirit are equal to the scriptures, and therefore would be worthy of inclusion? If not, then your context is just more sophistry to ease your conscience. You are as a sleeping man who dreams he eats, yet awakens still hungry. Your position has no substance at all. No in the context of the Bible, at any rate.

Bob said...

You contend I don't understand 2Peter 1:4. The verse is about theosis, man becoming like God, and has always been interpreted by Christians as such. I am curious about your qualifications for judging my understanding or interpretation. I read Greek, I have studied the text extensively using the best interpretive tools available; I have tracked early Christian usage of the passage and related passages on theosis. I follow Christ and I believe I live in the Spirit. So I am curious, is it just because I disagree with your non-Biblical doctrines that you take that as evidence of my heathenism? Am I ignorant because I don't know or can't understand, or am I ignorant because you cannot find support for your position in scripture, and like most teenagers, you know you are right even if you can't support it, therefore I am wrong?
Just curious how you reach your conclusions? It doesn't seem to be based on the scriptures of study of the same, so I wonder how you are employing righteous judgment here?

Bob said...

Here is one difference between our positions, for sure. My mind cannot be changed because it is reinforced by the Spirit. You on the other hand can be changed at will. Your "belief" is based on a theology you have been taught. Your unBiblical criteria, such as the nature of God and other real gods in the Bible, shows that what you believe is not of a spiritual origin. I have no doubt you are convinced you have the truth, but your conviction is not because you encountered God through the Spirit, as I and other Mormons have. I do believe the Spirit is testifying to all people of Truth. But your supposed Truth contradicts the Bible. And you refuse to interact with that.

I have in fact repeatedly challenged you to deal with the truth of the Bible. Please point out a single instance where I am quoting a questionable source or an LDS writer? There are none. Yet you resort to calling my Biblical position heretical. By contrast, you pull out an Evangelical Systematic Theology, which is laden with assumption after assumption from the philosophy of its author, and then call me heretical. I will admit: I am not a Ryrie-an. I am a Christian. 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
You are a Ryrie-slave or some such nonsense. Your beliefs are from the philosophies of man, not out of the Bible, at least most of the ones you have denominated.
Don't be so afraid. Stand as a witness for what YOU believe. Don't tell me what Ryrie or his disciples have taught you. Dig into the scriptures. No scripture is given for private interpretation. I have conclusively demonstrated your understanding of John 1:1 was your own private, self serving interpretation. You have not responded to that because you cannot. We both know that your knowledge of the actual meaning of the scriptures is entirely conditioned on the philosophy you were taught, through which lens you now interpret. I bet you don't believe in the essential need of baptism. I know you don't believe a person can fall from grace. Yet these, like the LDS concept of the Godhead, are Biblical doctrines. Who has deceived you that you are so soon turned away from that doctrine which you received? If by the Spirit, then why have you failed to continue.

Open challenge. Pick one to three passages of scripture you believe gloriously describe the nature of a Triune god and refute the false doctrines of the Mormons. I will respond to each, and show you in every instance you are wrongly dividing the word of God. Want to give it your best, or is discussing your and my eternal salvation not that big a deal for you?

Anonymous said...


There is an old saying in the south that we say when someone just doesn't get things. That saying is "bless your heart". Bob, bless your heart. Let me ask you a question. Do you want me to bow down to you because of your intelligence and because you will be a "god" someday? Do you want me to tell you how smart you are and that I wish I could be like you? Despite your education, you are a very foolish man when it comes to your knowledge in the Bible and faith.

I could care less how much greek you speak. I could care less about your mormon text that was inspired by a man that has no knowledge of Spiritual matters. What you speak about is of this world and not based on anything Spiritual. You are not knowledgeable in the Bible and I certainly trust what Ryrie says over your blasphemous beliefs because he is grounded in the Spirit. You my friend Bob, are just like the Pharisees Jesus is referring to in the Bible. Read Matthew 23:13-39. Woe unto you Bob.

You are prideful. You will not admit your wrongdoings. You keep mentioning the things I won't answer and I told you that if you were of the Spirit you would understand these things. But you are not, therefore you won't. Why won't you answer me about Galatians 1:8-9. Why won't you answer me about whether or not you sin. Bob, you are a sinner. There is NOTHING you can ever do to save yourself. You are an awful sinner. Works don't save. Not only are you a sinner, but I am too. I am just man enough to admit it because I believe I need Jesus and that He is Lord and that He saved me from my sins. He is all I need because I can't save myself.

You are a man with a hard heart Bob. Despite your claims of being smart, you are nothing but a fool to me. Your education will never impress me. The only thing you can do that will make me respect you is to put aside your heretical mormon texts, the ridiculous and unfulfilled doctrine and covenants, the so-called translated papryi of the book of Abraham, and read the New Testament to teach you about the real Jesus.

You are NOT a Christian. We need to make that clear. I have mentioned there is only one heaven and one hell and the only way to heaven is by accepting the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, believing that He was raised from the dead, and working out this salvation. You must accept Grace, God's unmerited favor.

Face it Bob, your education is just like the Pharisees. You are to prideful to recognize who Jesus really is and because you have not received His Spirit, you are not able to discern these Spiritual matters. It is really sad. I feel sorry for you. But, I have not stopped praying for you.

I can't help but think that in a couple of weekends, I will be going to Eldorado, TX to visit some family. If you recall, there was a mormon temple built in Eldorado where these men practiced polygamy and married young women. These men were so-called prophets and said they received a "call" from your god. Explain to me, BOB, how these men are not a part of your false faith. Explain to me how they are not following "true mormon texts". Polygamy is in your doctrine and covenants and this is an outright heretical teaching. Warren Jeffs was a prophet, wasn't he? Don't you agree with what he believes because it is ALL in your mormon text?

Because of your educational background, it sounds like you like proof. Your ridiculous explanation regarding how the American Indians did not have any Jewish DNA was just laughable. Get over it Bob. Your religion is a farce and your founding father was a man that needed serious mental help.

You need Jesus. I will continue to pray for you and your hard heart. I really feel sorry for how out of touch with reality you are but anything is possible with God. Remember, the truth hurts, but the truth also sets you free.

Anonymous said...


And by the way, there are NO modern day prophets. Your prophet within the mormon faith is a phony.

If you need someone else to start up another modern day religion, maybe you can become a pretend prophet yourself and profit from your propheting.

Anonymous said...

This post reminds me of an idea I had once, especially this comment: "just as Jesus was god and became man."

The idea I had was "Traditional Christians believe the same things Mormons do but don't know it".

I have come up with several Mormon doctrines that have equivalents in traditional (or historical) Christianity.

For example: "God is what man may become, man is what God once was."

Christians believe this, too. God became man in the form of Jesus, and man became God in the form of Jesus.

Anyhow, if someone more articulate than me could develop these things, and there are lots of examples, I think it would become a fun read.

'nother example: Satan is the brother of Jesus. This is so easy to demonstrate that Christians believe this, too. They just dont know it.