Jonathan Ettinger

Two books: "Neither Living Nor Dead" "To Reason To Believe" Or just go to Amazon and search for "Jonathan T Ettinger"

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater You keep saying "the Trinity". The creeds define God differently than the Bible does. You also keep ignoring most of what I say so you can circle back with your assumptions and accusations. Stop moving goalposts and have a grown-up conversation.

@Libertaari @Yolosonwater Mormons never share a text that contradicts the trinity but like yourself and Jacob you disagree with it on your personal philosophical leanings but not on the scripture.

Why don’t mormons care if their prophets worshipped a false god- Adam but hate the Trinity? At least the Trinity is biblical, is God the creator where the Mormon god is Adam?

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater Illiterate one, I said ALL BUT TWINS, not ARE TWINS. Yes, God is spirit and we must worship Him that way. It doesn't say ONLY a spirit. It never says He DOESN'T have parts or form. You're making the same ignorant assumptions which plagued Christianity for centuries.

@Libertaari @Yolosonwater God is spirit. No where does scripture say they are twins. Once again, Mormon philosophical nonsense.

Stop looking at OUR doctrine through YOUR cracked lens and you could drop the piles of strawman accusations. The Old Testament refers to "one God". The Old Testament authors were not aware of the Son or Holy Spirit. Stop jamming later understanding into earlier writings.

Let's be clear. Latter-day Saints AGREE with this illustration. Each IS God but NOT each other. Not illustrated here? "One being". "Homoousious". "Consubstantial." You make assumptions about being which leads to further errors about EVERYTHING.

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater But that last one, historically? Flat out appeal to tradition fallacy. Yes, Jesus is all but an identical twin of the Father. But is the literal Son and NOT only in mortality. Where you go wrong is "one God" and mental gymnastics behind "3 persons, one being".

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater Indicates, implies, historically. You're drawing conclusions FROM text as though they're the only possible reading. But what really drives it home is your assumption that Biblically defined likeness proves the creeds.

Doesn't make a lick of sense, does it? Follow me on SuperCool: @remjte" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">supercool.com/@remjte

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater Your illustration shows the Biblical concept, NOT the creedal one. When you just say "The Trinity", you are deliberately overstepping, making assumptions and obfuscating the ideas.

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater Let me spell this out for you. "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" The Trinity according to the Bible. Latter-day Saints agree with this. "3 persons in one being" "homoousious" "consubstantial" The Trinity defined by creeds, traditions, etc. Latter-day Saints do NOT agree with this.

@Faustzme @Yolosonwater You. Are. Mentally. Retarded. Have a 1st grader teach you to read, then see what we're ACTUALLY saying.

@Yolosonwater @Libertaari Not one of those verses contradict the trinity or the chart. The father is not the son. The father calls the son God. The Son calls the Father God. Try again.

@Samuraijrussell @tdijon7 Exactly. No matter what you're shown, you'll refuse to accept it and keep asking questions.

@Libertaari @tdijon7 No, I would continue to research and ask questions to come to my own conclusion. What if these golden plates were fake or a forgery? There are lots of possibilities…

If the LDS Church has billions of dollars, claims to be led by revelation, and insists the Book of Mormon is a historical record, why hasn’t it funded a comprehensive archaeological project to prove it? Surely any credible findings would bolster its membership growth/legitimacy.

@Samuraijrussell Still. Not. The. Point. Making money FUNDS the church to achieve the MISSION, which is...? Still not archeology.

@Libertaari Yet the church can spend tens of billions in stocks in tech companies—but can’t fund an archaeological project for the Book of Mormon.

@Faustzme 1. Take your timetable and blow it out your ass. *crickets* 2. The cute little picture shows exactly what I said. Why would I try to refute it? 3. Where does the Bible, or your picture, say homoousious? Consubstantial?

@Libertaari Crickets

@DavidLeeGenesis @MattTestifies False. Nice spin. Now actually read it. The Galatians were being taught SPECIFIC things. Meanwhile, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't say "the gospel is that faith in Christ is enough". But 2 pts for mentioning exaltation, so I suppose you at least recognize it apart from salvation.

@Libertaari @MattTestifies They were teaching that faith in Christ was not enough, that they needed law. Much like Mormonism which teaches obedience to ordinances to achieve exaltation.

I believe the Great Apostasy was real. Not because God failed, but because men rejected ordinances, broke covenants, and lost the authority Christ gave His Apostles. This is why the First Vision matters so much. Heaven was not adding one more denomination. Heaven was restoring the Church of Jesus Christ with priesthood keys, doctrine, ordinances, and covenant power again on the earth.

@Samuraijrussell @tdijon7 Exactly. You'd reject no matter what. Thanks for playing. Here's your toaster and a copy of the home game.

@tdijon7 I would also ask to see how exact KJV verses were carved word-for-word in said plates, along with the various anachronisms. In other words, I would continue to research and use logic to reach a final conclusion.

Here's how a conversation between a thoughtful Trinitarian and a thoughtful Latter-day Saint always goes: The Trinitarian brings up the Creeds. The Latter-day Saint says "I don't accept the Creeds as authoritative because they are unscriptural and unauthorized." The Trinitarian insists they are simply restatements of truths taught in scripture. This starts the back and forth from the Bible, mainly from the New Testament. The Trinitarian brings a verse saying, "I and my Father are one." The Latter-day Saint explains that "oneness" of the Godhead members doesn't necessarily imply a full Trinitarian consubstantiation. After all, Jesus also said husband and wife ought to be "one." And He prayed for His disciples to be one even as He and the Father are one. Surely that doesn't mean we all become consubstantial entities in the Trinity? Then the Trinitarian side talks about "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one." Then the Latter-day Saint responds with "Let us create man in our own image." Then the Trinitarian brings up "Philip, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father" and other verses. The Latter-day Saint then brings up verses about the express likeness: "this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ," the Gethsemane prayer—"not my will, but thine, be done," the baptism of Jesus, "why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God," "the Father is greater than I," and the idea that the Father knows the timing of the Second Coming but not the Son, etc. Then the Trinitarian responds with, "Well, He's carefully crafting His words for the people and it's the Person of the Son speaking, so in a sense it's true," and brings up "Before Abraham was, I AM," indicating Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. And the Latter-day Saint says, "Yes, we believe that, too. But that doesn't mean He is the same as the Father." Also, what of the first, second, and third-century disciples—some of whom walked with Jesus Himself—who didn't hold a Trinitarian formulation? Were they not Christian? And they go round and round, pulling up the Greek and the Aramaic, and both come away at the end more sure of their own positions than that the other's is the correct understanding. At the end of the day, an honest neutral observer of this discussion knows one thing: the Trinitarian theory is not self-evident from the Bible alone. As the Harper Bible Dictionary itself states, "the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament]." There is ample room for an intelligent person to interpret the text either way, and neither is proven correct. The best a Trinitarian or Latter-day Saint can say about the Bible is "my position is evident to me." But through all this back and forth, the Latter-day Saint has been debating with one hand tied behind his back. Because although we love the Bible and accept it as the word of God, we are not reliant only on the Bible. We believe God has given additional clarification on the ambiguity of His inspired but imperfectly translated earlier words in the Holy Bible. God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. And just as they appeared to the martyr Stephen, they appeared as two distinct Personages, with Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Then in the Book of Mormon and subsequent revelations, Jesus explicitly and directly set forth His nature, removing all ambiguity. And these truths are confirmed to us by personal revelation from God Himself. This is not a contradiction of the Bible, just a contradiction of the Creedalist understanding of the Bible. We respect our Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters who read the Bible through a different lens and understand the verses differently than us. Even though their understanding is opposed to what we believe is substantiated in Holy Scripture, we recognize their efforts to follow the Savior to the best of their ability and wouldn't dare call them un-Christian for what we see as a mistaken view. And we respectfully ask others recognize the Bible is not self-evident on these matters and grant us the same grace we extend to them.

@DavidLeeGenesis @MattTestifies Yes, David. What was being taught to the Gentiles? By whom? What made it false? See, it's a specific statement made to specific people at a specific time. It doesn't mean just anyone can teach, claim it's Biblical, then pull this out to denounce others.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” Galatians 1:6-9 NIV