You have missed the point of my post. For some reason I am not surprised. The topic is not the Trinity. I only raised that as an example, one that we hashed out some time ago, and I will not be drawn into that trap again so that you can avoid the other points I made.
The topic was your insincere desire to "learn what protestants believe and why they believe it", why your biblical responses appear to be prooftexts, and how you can increase your credibility by supporting your beliefs with your extra-biblical documents. Although that will prove nothing it will show us why you believe the way you do, and show us why you (and other LDS) must prooftext to support your extra-biblical documents.
Perry
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Natural birth or baptism? Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:48:10 -0700
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
> Actually, Izzy, I figured this out in my first response to DavidH last
> December when I first joined TT. I have been watching for the last 6 months
> to see if my initial impressions were correct...and they have been proven
> out several times since then.
>
> Last December, being new to the group, DaveH posted that he wanted to learn
> how Protestants view the Trinity.
DAVEH: I first posed that question several years ago, Perry. And I'm still don't understand it, as I don't think (m)any of the other TTers fully understand it. As I remember, there was even some disagreement amongst TTers about it. Here is one TTer's
comment about it........
========================
"Discussing the Trinity? Now you REALLY want to start something! :-)
Quite a few church councils and nearly 2,000 years of discussion haven't resolved the matter to the satisfaction of everyone professing belief in Christ, and it's not my place to judge that belief. Needless to say, Mormons are not the only ones who have problems with the doctrine, or with the definitions. "Trinity" means different things to different people." ========================
> He came across as genuine to me. I took
> his bait, and responded with a treatise on how Protestants view the trinity.
>
> I was shocked to discover that his response was not one of someone who had
> just learned something that he had said he wanted to learn, or asked
> questions about parts he may not have understood. It was a full-on rebuttal
> from the LDS perspective of what I had written.
>
> I fault myself for falling for the ploy.
> In my zeal as a newbie to be able
> to explain the Trinity to someone who seemed to genuinely want to learn I
> overlooked the statement that DaveH made that should have tipped me off.
DAVEH: ROTFLOL Now Perry, you almost had me feeling sorry for you about that, had I not remembered that we had quite a few exchanges with you off-forum about the time you joined TT. And......it was you who first contacted me to try to denigrate LDS
theology.
> He
> said that he had been asking this question for three years, and no one had
> been able to explain it to him yet. Well, if he hasn't learned it in three
> years, he does not want to learn it. He only wants to argue about it.
DAVEH: Perhaps your explanation included too much "mystery"........
++++++++++++++++++++
2. There are three co-existant, but separate and distinct "persons" combined
in a single God, which are called out in the Bible as the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. Traditional Christianity adopts this resolution, which
avoids polytheism, but introduces a cognitive dissonance due to our lack of
ability to fully understand this "mystery".
So, in conclusion, the word "Trinity" is used by traditional Christians to express a paradoxical concept that is in the Scriptures, and the Trinitarian doctrine was developed to provide a resolution to this paradox, although it does include a "mystery". ++++++++++++++++++++
........to make it easily understood by me, Perry. When you learn it, THEN you can explain it to me. Until then, may I assume you will not "fully understand this "mystery"?
> Perry
>
> >From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Natural birth or baptism?
> >Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 22:01:27 -0500
> >
> >Perry, Congratulations; you have finally figured out what I figured out
> >LONG
> >ago! You are quicker than most! Izzy
> >> >From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >DAVEH: I have repeatedly explained why I am on TT, Perry. Do you not
> >
> > >remember? I am here to learn what Protestants believe and why they
> >believe
> >
> >
> > >that way. Do you have a problem with that?
> >
> >
> >
> >Well, yes I do. And the problem I have is that the first time I
> >communicated
> >
> >
> >with you on TT, I took your bait and discovered that you were not at all
> >
> >interested in learning what protestants believe as you state. When someone
> >
> >describes to you what a protestant believes, usually at your request to do
> >
> >so, you never respond as though you have learned anything at all about what
> >
> >protestants believe, but only respond with a rebuttal, and why you believe
> >
> >it is false, and why protestants are wrong, and the LDS are right. If you
> >
> >truly wanted to learn, I would expect to hear something from you like
> >"Oh,so
> >
> >
> >that's why Protestants believe that way" instead of something like, "Now,
> >
> >here is why that is wrong...". I have never heard anything like the former,
> >
> >only like the latter.
> >
> >
> >
> >Hey, it is great that you have a strong faith, but at least examine your
> >
> >motives and be honest about them. You do not really want to know what
> >
> >protestants believe. If you do, it is not to learn...it is to try to prove
> >
> >them wrong. I repeat, I have yet to see you indicate in any way that you
> >
> >have learned what you say you want to learn, and have seen only rebuttals
> >to
> >
> >
> >the way protestants believe. Maybe you can't (or don't want) to see it, but
> >
> >I'll bet (figuratively) that others on this forum can see it as well. (Most
> >
> >are just more polite than I am about it!)
> >
> >
> >
> > >DAVEH: LOL.......Well Perry, you may think they are "prooftexts", but
> >from
> >
> >
> > >my perspective you are lacking perspective. For example, you seem to
> >think
> >
> >
> > >we practice baptism for the dead because we have prooftexted 1Cor 15:29.
> >
> > >Nothing can be further from the truth. In reality, we practice it
> >because
> >
> > >of latter-day revelation. It is your lack of perspective that gives you
> >
> > >the perception that we prooftext such passages. The same applies to many
> >
> > >other doctrines. We believe the Lord has revealed much more of his
> >Gospel,
> >
> >
> > >which makes it easier to understand that which was previously revealed.
> >I
> >
> > >realize you don't accept that, but it explains why we view things a bit
> >
> > >differently and why (from your limited perspective) you think we
> >sometimes
> >
> > >prooftext.
> >
> >
> >
> >Yes, David, I lack the perspective of the extra-biblical works that the LDS
> >
> >use. And, that is because I do not accept them as works revealed by God.
> >
> >Keep in mind that I do not question whether or not they are revealed
> >
> >works...I question by whom they were revealed!
> >
> >
> >
> >Consider that if you are basing your opinions on extra-biblical texts, and
> >
> >trying to prove them with a single, weak, and stretched verse from the
> >
> >Bible, it will appear, from a purely Biblical perspective, that you are
> >
> >prooftexting.
> >
> >
> >
> >Now, from my perspective, which is based on the Bible, and not on
> >
> >extra-biblical works, you definitely are prooftexting. The Bible verses
> >that
> >
> >
> >you quote to support LDS heresies are nothing more than verses you twist to
> >
> >support your extra-biblical LDS doctrine. They are taken out of context,
> >
> >twisted to mean something other than what they say, and then flaunted as
> >
> >proof of the heresy. I have read some of LDS's apologists on these topics
> >
> >(Noel Reynolds, Hugh Nibley), and I am amazed at the extent these
> >supposedly
> >
> >
> >wise and learned men will go to make a biblical text fit the LDS mold.
> >
> >
> >
> >Now, if you want credibility, quote your LDS extra-biblical works to make
> >
> >your point. Although I will not accept them as proof of anything at all,
> >but
> >
> >
> >at least I will understand why you have to twist the Biblical texts so
> >
> >badly. For that I would respect you much more than for trying to get the
> >
> >Bible alone to support LDS fairytales. It just doesn't, and you can't make
> >
> >it. Hugh Nibley and Noel Reynolds can't, either. In fact, JS couldn't
> >
> >either. That is why he had to come up with some extra-biblical heretical
> >
> >works.
> >
> >
> >
> >Perry
>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
