Kirk Armstrong

@DixiePropaganda @MichaelsRosary @carleolson Philosophical word salad. And which word salad attempting to explain some esoteric facet of the Godhead was noticeably lacking of even a single reference to the book where the Godhead actually IS explained: the bible. See how utterly incomprehensible things get without the bible?

St. Thomas Aquinas answered this very nicely. It's to say that each person of the Trinity is equal to the divine essence in its entirety. What makes each person distinct is the subsisting relations of opposition (Father begets Son, Son is begotten of Father, etc.) The distinction of Father and Son is derived from the Son being the Word. When God fully knows Himself, or perfectly contemplates his entire being, it's this image of Himself in his mind that is so perfect it constitutes a distinct person, namely the Word. He then loves the Word so perfectly (his Son) and the love between them is the Holy Spirit. No other religion is able to answer the question: "What would happen if God were to contemplate Himself?"

Spent a few moments on the official LDS site. As expected, much vague pablum. This, however, caught my eye: "The Holy Trinity is the term many Christian religions use to describe God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints believe very strongly in all three, but we don’t believe they’re all the same person." Newsflash: No Christian believes they are the same person. This is either ignorance or worse.

@kylenabecker Weird how it's always the losing team's fans that think there's a conspiracy. Every. Time. Odd how that works. lol

Spurs get 22 free throws, Knicks get 6 in the second half. NBA might have an officiating problem.

@Elvish_Harper What you have to understand is that this is just another rando anon bot account who has no clue what he's talking about. Don't know why they do it, but there you go.

What you have to understand is that Mormons do not actually believe their doctrines are literally true. They view religious stories as fiction designed to teach norms. This is why they dismiss debates about the physical evidence for the book of Mormon and so forth. Belief is a choice. You choose to believe in something if you like the idea of it or think it will benefit you to believe in it. For instance, most Mormons believe in evolution, even though their doctrine contradicts it much more directly than Christian documents does. In fact, their entire religion is invalidated by the concept. Yet they still believe in it anyways. They openly teach that faith and reason should be kept separate. That by attempting to justify your faith through logic, you somehow lower it. This is why they do things like talk about how it's a better story for Satan to be jesus's brother. They view it as just a story. If the story stops working, or you come up with a cooler version of it, just change it. This is why they get so pressed when you bring up the actual teachings of their founders. Why are you holding what was originally taught by their church against them? The story changed. That's not what they believe anymore. Why does it matter that that's what they once believed? For members of virtually any other religion, what was believed at the start is the most vital question. For them, it's an annoying distraction. Because none of it's actually real.

@MrEmeraldDrag0n @MichaelsRosary @carleolson Where did you get these terms "being" and "essence" and where did you get their definitions? So these 3 distinct persons all share this godly "essence" but that isn't enough to make the person Jesus "God". Why is the person Jesus not God? Why is he only "divine"?

@TravelbytheCoin @MichaelsRosary @carleolson You believe in the soul right? Gods essence is seen as similar but something much greater and this essence or soul is shared by three persons. Each person is different but all share the same well of divine presence and power. Quit pretending to not understand. Its not even hard.

@Hooserdaddy3 A part of the hostile world has blessed us with his Christ-like love and compassion. Thanks, rando hypocrite.

He is in fact a heretic.

When you say I have to accept “the Nicene Creed” to be Christian, could you be more specific? Do you mean the creed produced in A.D. 325 at a council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine, who was trying to settle the Arian controversy and preserve unity in his empire? Or do you mean the version most Christians actually recite today, which comes from A.D. 381, when another Roman emperor, Theodosius I, convened the First Council of Constantinople to settle further disputes and more fully define the doctrine of the Holy Spirit? Because that seems like a pretty important distinction. One was created under Constantine, a Roman emperor with no priesthood authority, whose interest in Christianity was inseparable from his interest in imperial stability. The other was expanded under Theodosius, another Roman emperor who used state power to enforce religious uniformity. And somehow I’m supposed to believe that my faith in Jesus Christ is invalid unless I accept the theological conclusions of emperor-sponsored councils held centuries after Christ and His apostles? You are free to trust those councils, led by rulers of the same empire that crucified Christ. But please stop pretending that your post-biblical, politically entangled, imperial committee language is simply “biblical truth.” And stop acting like you have the authority to decide who is and is not Christian based on a person’s willingness to pledge allegiance to Rome’s preferred definition of the Divine.

@RealTonyGurule Thanks for your opinion, Tony. Nobody cares what you think about us, but thanks. lol

The majority of devout Mormons (LDS) are very kind and respectful, hold commendable, conservative values, and tend to be fantastic neighbors. In spite of all that, Mormons are not 'Christians' because they are not "born again" (John 3:3), and Mormonism is not 'Christian' for a number of theological reasons. However, since it is so close to Christianity (yet still false) it falls under the 'theological-cult' category rather than being a standard, man-made religion. More precisely, Mormonism teaches a false view of God, a false view of Jesus, etc., and other books (The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants) are looked to in addition to the Bible, and the Bible is ultimately interpreted through the lens of those LDS books which came later. Interestingly, there are many similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith (x.com/RealTonyGurule…, and video: youtube.com/watch?v=yXxCeu…), as well as the Islamic Hajj (one of the Five Pillars of Islam) and Mormons working their way to the Temple (youtube.com/watch?v=24P6au…). In fact, there are so many similarities between Islam & Mormonism that Islam is commonly labeled, 'Medieval Mormonism', and if you want to learn about a split in Mormonism that is very similar to the Sunni-Shia split that took place in Islam, check out this book that was published in 1912.

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ If it took super smart philosophers centuries of reflection to not even come close to explaining Jesus then it will probably take even more time to figure out what THEY came up with. But happy you've caught on so quick. lol

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Ha, I think you're talking in circles now. Just go back and think about what I've said. Maybe it will break through someday. ;)

It’s strange to me all the focus on whether Mormons accept the trinity when it feels like there is a larger discussion on whether their faith is monotheistic.

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Exactly. The Bible uses common human language. Jesus used common language to teach. You should be able to find all these concepts and terms your creeds are teaching, but nope. They just created them arbitrarily to fit whatever philosophies they preferred. Not biblical.

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ And I asked you where the Bible defines mammals. Or planets. Or addresses the concept of zero. Are they then "arbitrary"? The Bible uses common human language. It rarely defines words. It's not a dictionary.

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ So now you're saying the creeds don't come close to explaining God after several centuries of reflection? Are you hearing yourself? It's silly to think Jesus presented something so complicated that noone can understand it. He didn't. It's clear. Creeds only obscure and complicate

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Ha, you think we think we've "explained God"? Centuries? It would take infinity. Even the most learned are simpletons where God is concerned. The church has simply done its best to articulate Scripture as faithfully as the Spirit guides. One need not understand, only believe.

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ I've asked where these terms and definitions of "person" and "being" and "essence" come from and who decided the qualifications of each or the diff between divine and God? But I'm not getting any biblical references. Because none of this is in there. Definition of arbitrary.

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Sorry, I don't think you know what "arbitrary" means. I've explained to you the orthodox definition of the Trinity now, as the church has passed it down. It is unique, but it holds together as the best representation of Christian truth. Make of it what you will.

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Semantics. If it took scholars and philosophers and church leaders centuries to figure out how to explain God then obviously centuries of far less educated followers of Jesus wouldn't have a clue. Jesus truths were simple and clear enough to save the least of us. Come on.

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ No, it took centuries of reflection to hammer out the articulated doctrine as we have it now re. the specific details of the relationships in philosophical terminology. The truth was always there. The language emerged from discussion and refinement.

@ztrussell You're moving the goal posts. I simply asked can be one considered a "Christian" without reading or knowing about your creed. So no, you don't need the LDS church to be a follower of Christ. We accept anyone who believes in the biblical Jesus as a Christian. As we all should.

@TravelbytheCoin Can someone reject the unique teachings of the LDS church and still have the “fullness of the gospel?” If so, then there is no reason anyone should read the Book of Mormon, etc. If not, then you are also making an exclusive, “complicated” claim to truth. Which is it?

It’s very odd to keep hearing this phrase “creedalists” or even “creedal Christians” said like a slur. Like, yes, for centuries, Christianity has been defined by creeds. Am I supposed to be embarrassed by that?

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ These are still all arbitrary rules that just seem made up to solve whatever problem one rule may bring up. Jesus has to be God, but he can't be God all on his own because that would be POLYTHEISM! so let's say his "person" is divine but NOT God although He is God (nod, wink)...

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Your position is logical if you collapse being and person into the same thing. Mine is logical if you keep them separate. So logic isn't the issue. For my part, it is clear they are distinct concepts, even respecting how we speak of "Dorothy" the person, and her as human woman.

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ So it took "centuries of reflection" to finally figure out who Jesus really was? So all those centuries of Christians were worshipping the wrong Jesus until these creeds finally came out? What scriptures teach that "beings" are different from "persons" and what an "essence" is?..

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ God's being is shared, while ours is not, yes. These "abritrary" rules were developed through centuries of reflection and discourse on the revelation of Scripture, esp those that identified the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God, yet also clearly affirmed the oneness of God.

@PhysicistTx @rexthundercock But despite having exactly 'zero' first-hand witnesses of any of these original records, nobody has a problem with believing the bible is true. But the Book of Mormon only has 15+ eye witnesses of the plates and who never denied their testimonies? "What a joke. No evidence!" lol

@rexthundercock @TravelbytheCoin Nobody even knows who wrote the Gospels, because the authors never identify themselves. The names were attached much later due to “tradition.” Even Christian Bible scholars (when you can find an honest one) agree on this:

This is a lie. The book of Mormon opens giving the supposed testimony of 3 and then 8 witnesses Of the 3, all just claimed they were shown it in a dream, two were excommunicated, another left Of the 8, claimed to have handled the plates, 3 were his family, 2 left, 2 remained

@Akuiper3979 @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Being illogical is what makes something illogical. So we are distinct beings AND persons? But Jesus and the Father are only distinct persons. Got it. Again, who made up these arbitrary rules about what qualifies as a "being" as opposed to a "person" or what an "essence" is?

@TravelbytheCoin @BowTiedDetektiv @IMAO_ Being/essence and person are not the same thing. They are different words for different concepts. In created humans, each person is a distinct being. Not so with the Creator. This is orthodox trinitarianism. Just b/c you don't accept it doesn't make it illogical.

@ztrussell The Jesus of the bible exists and is clearly shown and taught to all. This shouldn't be, and isn't, complicated. It's creedal Christianity that is making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

@TravelbytheCoin If someone puts their faith in a Jesus who does not exist, then no, they cannot be saved. But if someone only has a mustard seed of faith in the true, biblical Jesus, then yes, they are saved. The issue is not the sincerity of their faith, but its object.

@SmitheeAll88909 @Swedemontana @carleolson What do you think "partaking" means? If you partake of food, that food is yours. I eat it. It becomes part of me. And even "share" means we share in His divinity. It becomes a part of us. In what other way do we partake of divinity? We are His offspring. This is natural.

@TravelbytheCoin @Swedemontana @carleolson We are creatures, we can never be divine. Notice we are partaking in HIS divinity. We have no divinity of our own. We can be like, as image bearers, but we cannot be divine.

@ReidBates6 @carleolson @FlownRedbird It's amazing how revolting the idea of "POLYTHEISM!!" is to them, yet they literally describe the definition of polytheism in their doctrine of the Trinity. Yet they deny it's there. Their true superpower is their ability to pretend WE'RE the ones that are crazy. lol

@carleolson @TravelbytheCoin @FlownRedbird Do you hear yourself? “We do not confess three Gods but one God in three persons and each of them is God whole and entire.” How is this resolved in the NT?