Christ is Risen

@pimomormon @FiddlyWiggly And that sums up the lds heresies right there.

@FiddlyWiggly A spiritual death would be no consequence for Adam and Eve because god had already left them in the garden

Bring it on Christians! You’re still wrong on this. God lied to Adam and Eve.

What does being saved via believe in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ actually do? It doesn't take a bad man and make him good. It takes a dead man and makes him alive. That's why Paul was able to say "To die with Christ is gain". This is why they weren't allowed to stay in the garden lest they take of the tree of life and be in that dead state forever - But even if you claim it isn't spiritual just physical... yeah they died. God didn't say when they would die. That was a mercy He provided.

@Sola_GPT Again, when the bom makes claims that the fall was a good thing, it isn't from Christ. Furthermore, when you start talking about multiple gods you really have gone away from the Bible. The bom and other "scriptures" enables this.

@DRRomanosDaniel And we say the same about BOM All from Christ, nothing inconsistent Otherwise we wouldn’t tell people to read them both together

There are 20+ angel visitations in the New Testament (60+ future visitations prophesied in Revelation) Angels are always discussed in a positive, matter of fact way - just a normal part of life

The book of revelation came from Jesus Himself. He literally writes to His churches in Asia. And again, there is zero inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. In fact it is an expansion of the last bit of Isaiah. As for an example - how about a repeat of the lie of the serpent regarding the fall?

@DRRomanosDaniel Feel free to provide some examples But also remember the entire book of revelation came from and angel and added new theology / doctrines to the New Testament

@Sola_GPT It is. They are just very small snippets and are expanded in pogp.

@DRRomanosDaniel The angel the visited JS mostly quoted the Bible. It did point to the location of Book of Mormon but BOM is not where unique LDS doctrines come from that other Christians call “another gospel” So the angel only presented the SAME gospel of Paul found in Bible

The bom has a lot of the Bible written in it - sometimes word for word (with commentary that existed in the 19th century added too .. this alone makes it suspicious) However It adds little bits of lies that make it very different e.g. 2 Nephi 2 regarding the claim tat the fall was in fact necessary.

@Sola_GPT I think it's more the "different gospel" part than the angel part. It is kind of remarkable that Joseph Smith and Mohammed both claimed angelic visitation, though, before producing their "different gospels" (though the Book of Mormon isn't really that).

No It is a statement that Jesus is both fully man and fully God. There is no other way to read it. And yes John says Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Son. Not the Father. But it doesn't means that Jesus isn't God. John states the relationship of the Father and the Son in John 1:1 which again cannot be read another way. Also in John 12 John refers to Isaiah's vision which is of God as being of Jesus.

Yes, it absolutely does.. The context of John 20 shows that "my Lord" was a title for Jesus Christ (v. 13) while "my God" was used (by Jesus himself) for the Father (v. 17); also after Thomas says "The Lord of me and the God (ο Θεος) of me" in verse 28, John himself tells us that we are to believe Jesus is the "Son" of "the God" (ο Θεος) in verse 31.

If Jesus Christ is God/Almighty God, then why doesn’t he know the day and hour? Who did Jesus Christ pray to? Why did Jesus Christ say “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”?

@SpeedWatkins Please define justice in a way that is not self referencing. Your statement simply says justice is justice. You haven't defined it at all. Innocent is only a thing if justice exists. So you are just begging the question logically speaking.

Justice is necessary: in no possible world is punishing the innocent just. Yet God’s non-existence is metaphysically possible as it is distinctly conceivable. What is necessary cannot depend on what is not. So, the objective value of justice doesn't depend on God's existence. QED

@Renzo2325 @JoelCorbin89 No that's the entire point of the trinity. it is the only way for Jesus to be resurrected by The Father, By Jesus, and by the Holy Spirit, all claims made in the Bible.

@DRRomanosDaniel @JoelCorbin89 I don’t believe John 1 is calling Jesus the true God either. Romans 8:11 is so far from calling the HS God it make your conception of that passage look like it’s doesn’t belong in the book. They all can’t be true, because only one was designated explicitly as true God.

@Renzo2325 @JoelCorbin89 But that's simply not what the text says.

@DRRomanosDaniel @JoelCorbin89 That doesn’t follow through. On the basis of my Unitarian belief that 20:28 has a binary reference. To God the Father and the Lord Jesus.

He doesn't say He is not God ever. And Jesus gives those examples over and over The Alpha and Omega - is God Yahweh - is God Adonai - is God El Shaddai - is God Your analogy doesn't work. In the same way that God is God in English and "Theos" is God in Greek. There isn't any inconsistency at all. Jesus is not The Father. Jesus is not the Spirit. The Father is not the spirit. But The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the spirit Is God. That's the only way to square all the verses without accusing John, who was extremely serious at all times, of "poetry" or the claim that what Thomas said was inserted, or the claim that The Jews didn't understand etc.

@DRRomanosDaniel I just told you where he says he's not God. ? You give me an example where r is the only y is true, and s is the only y is also true, where 'r' and 's' aren't just different names for the same thing.

Trinitarian: "Well, then how did Jesus forgive sins? Only God can forgive sins. Huh? Huh?!" Me: "Well, it says right here at Matthew 9:8 that God gave authority to man to forgive sin, which from the context pretty obviously means to Jesus." Trinitarian: 🦗

Again, only the trinitarian view works. Its the only way to square that with "all I have is yours and all you have is mine" later on. It is still 100% consistent to distinguish Jesus from the Father as roles, but nowhere does Jesus say He is not God and in fact as I keep saying John thinks He is just from John 12 and from Thomas's statement as well as the first chapter and everywhere Jesus says "I and the Father are one" and "I am the way the truth and the life" And not only that, but the Jews know very well what He is saying and try to kill Him for it. As for John 1:1. What does the verse mean. Just tell me what it is trying to say in the context of your views.

@DRRomanosDaniel No, Jesus specifies the Father as the only true God and distinguishes himself *from* that only true God (John 17:3). I'm not sure what you're asking me about John 1:1 - anything specific?

There is absolutely nothing poetic about it. He even talks about John the Baptist. in the middle of it. And again, the Father is the only True God. The Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God. It also doesn't read at all like a prologue to a Greek. So what do you think it means? Let me know what you think John 1:1 means. If just poetry with no meaning, this is entirely inconsistent with any reading of John. But even in the main body John consistently referenced to Jesus as God

Jesus distinguishes himself from God over and over. For ex., he says the Father is the only true God (John 17:3), which logically excludes himself. Do you want more examples? John's prologue is a poetic, condensed summary/introduction to the gospel. It could mean all sorts of things. I think any interpretation should fit with repeated statements (or expansions upon them) in the main body. What isn't stated in the main body? That Jesus is the word (despite it being used < 30x there). Instead, he's repeatedly distinguished from it. Or consider when is the 'beginning'? John talks about a 'beginning' many times, but it always (with the possible discussion of Satan) has to do with the start of Jesus' ministry. Do you really think it's wise to base a major Christological theory on an interpretation of the poetic, condensed prologue?

@PracticalTheolo As I have given you more than three already this is pointless. However, you have given nothing - not one place where Jesus says He is not God But I will humor you. Just first please tell me what John 1:1 means in your opinion.

@DRRomanosDaniel "No there are countless places where Jesus makes it clear He is God." OK, why don't you give the top 3, iyo?

No there are countless places where Jesus makes it clear He is God. There are even multiple places where the Jews explicitly say that He is claiming to be God and try to kill Him. He also doesn't correct Thomas calling Him God And sorry, but in context John chapter 1 makes the claim that Jesus is God as clearly as possible. The context is 100% discussing reality as John the Baptist was just talked about. And it is completely pointless to have John 1:1 if the meaning of John 1:14 was just poetic, Now stop the ad hominem attacks an spend more time in the Bible please.

@DRRomanosDaniel So clear your primary proof of that is a poetic clause that when we look at context obviously doesn't mean what you think it does, tho'.

When you start believing in Jesus as the second person of the trinity, I will certainly use that name. And by the way, you continue to call us trinitarians even though we are just known as Christians. However, I will not call any group the church of Jesus Christ that doesn't accept who He is. The pogp and bom "scriptures" cause such bad fruit and add in great lies such as repeating the lie of the serpent in the garden.

I guess you could start by calling our religion by its proper name. We are Latter-day Saints who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. Hence, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's not the LDS Church. And, yes, we unapologetically believe in what God has revealed in the past, what he does currently reveal, and all that he will yet reveal.

Aside from profanity, another behavior that's even worse, is targeted hatred. Especially when it comes from someone who professes Christianity. Jesus taught that we are to love one another.

No. The only thing that this proves is that Jesus is God and incarnated. There is no poetic language anywhere around this, it is saying exactly that . Now the Trinity is the totality of all the verses about God together. The fact that He is One. The fact that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God. Hence the Trinity. The Bible is very clear and very deliberate.

@DRRomanosDaniel 'very plaint reading of the text' What *isn't* plain is a Trinitarian reading. But that you have an ingrained habit of interpreting a poetic clause isn't really an argument.

@Sola_GPT @JoshuaSwin32372 That's because you claim scriptures that you see as coequal with the Bible that have obvious heresies and blasphemies. It isn't simply symmetrical.

As Latter-day Saint growing up in ID we never really talked about other denominations at church. I had no idea what an evangelical or Pentecostal was until my mission We did learn about church history thru the reformation and Protestants of Joseph Smith’s day but nothing modern

I find it fascinating that you think the thing that the vast majority of the people with the Holy Spirit since He descended have believed, as well as the very plain reading of the text, is somehow controversial. Feel free to disregard the scriptures, but the reading and context is clear to anyone who can read NT Greek.

@DRRomanosDaniel Can I have some of what you're smokin', mon?