The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Corpus Magnus]

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

How do either of these quotes prove that the early Christians were trinitarian?

[Northern Davincia]

Come back to the one true original faith - The Roman Catholic Church!

Eyy.

Such is your faith.

Mine is Trinitarian, like the faith espoused by the Gospel, Apostles, Church fathers, saints, popes, patriarchs, priests, laymen, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and, bluntly, Christianity.

Mine is the true faith, as supported by the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Apostles and Prophets, the first Christians, and the Godhead itself.

See, the bible and the Book of Mormon are fully at odds with one another.

[Corpus Magnus]

Come back to the one true original faith - The Roman Catholic Church!

Eyy.

Mine is the true faith, as supported by the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Apostles and Prophets, the first Christians, and the Godhead itself.

See, the bible and the Book of Mormon are fully at odds with one another.

Ugh.

[Merther]

It's amazing to see how many people claiming that they are Christian but that they follow the "Other Christian" denomination.

Christianity isn't a Subway Sandwich. You can't customize it however you want. Either you follow the main rules, or you're not a Christian... [That's my view of things, at least. And I'm Roman Catholic - It's the most widespread religion in France in terms of Christianity, as protestants are less than 1 or 2 %]

But I guess that in the name of freedom of expression, you can claim that you're Christian.

[Stonok]

It's amazing to see how many people claiming that they are Christian but that they follow the "Other Christian" denomination.

My guess is those are the non-practicing Christians who are actually waging war against most of Christianity at any other time because it's 'intolerant'.

[Angleter]

It's amazing to see how many people claiming that they are Christian but that they follow the "Other Christian" denomination.

Christianity isn't a Subway Sandwich. You can't customize it however you want. Either you follow the main rules, or you're not a Christian... [That's my view of things, at least. And I'm Roman Catholic - It's the most widespread religion in France in terms of Christianity, as protestants are less than 1 or 2 %]

But I guess that in the name of freedom of expression, you can claim that you're Christian.

A lot of people who aren't Christian might be putting themselves down as 'Other Christian' so they can see the results. Likewise in the Muslim thread there's a vastly disproportionate number of 'Other Muslims'.

[Merther]

It's amazing to see how many people claiming that they are Christian but that they follow the "Other Christian" denomination.

My guess is those are the non-practicing Christians who are actually waging war against most of Christianity at any other time because it's 'intolerant'.

If Christianism was intolerant, it would have been eliminated a long time ago. I mean, does the Pope (His Holiness) really looks intolerant ? I mean, he's the nicest person en Earth, compared to some...Representatives from other "religions"...

[Merther]

It's amazing to see how many people claiming that they are Christian but that they follow the "Other Christian" denomination.

Christianity isn't a Subway Sandwich. You can't customize it however you want. Either you follow the main rules, or you're not a Christian... [That's my view of things, at least. And I'm Roman Catholic - It's the most widespread religion in France in terms of Christianity, as protestants are less than 1 or 2 %]

But I guess that in the name of freedom of expression, you can claim that you're Christian.

A lot of people who aren't Christian might be putting themselves down as 'Other Christian' so they can see the results. Likewise in the Muslim thread there's a vastly disproportionate number of 'Other Muslims'.

That's still weird to participate to a thread made for Christians if you're not...Christian. I mean, if the author wanted that everybody could participate, he could have allowed the other people who aren't Christian to put themselves down as 'Not Christian'.

But I'm not the author so I guess only he can ansewer to this.

[Sulania]

It's amazing to see how many people claiming that they are Christian but that they follow the "Other Christian" denomination.

Christianity isn't a Subway Sandwich. You can't customize it however you want. Either you follow the main rules, or you're not a Christian... [That's my view of things, at least. And I'm Roman Catholic - It's the most widespread religion in France in terms of Christianity, as protestants are less than 1 or 2 %]

But I guess that in the name of freedom of expression, you can claim that you're Christian.

I picked other because I didn't feel like the other options best represented Quakerism.

[Dylar]

A lot of people who aren't Christian might be putting themselves down as 'Other Christian' so they can see the results. Likewise in the Muslim thread there's a vastly disproportionate number of 'Other Muslims'.

That's still weird to participate to a thread made for Christians if you're not...Christian. I mean, if the author wanted that everybody could participate, he could have allowed the other people who aren't Christian to put themselves down as 'Not Christian'.

But I'm not the author so I guess only he can ansewer to this.

Well, no. This thread is open to everyone who wants to discuss/debate Christian theology. And everyone means everyone

[Tarsonis]

A lot of people who aren't Christian might be putting themselves down as 'Other Christian' so they can see the results. Likewise in the Muslim thread there's a vastly disproportionate number of 'Other Muslims'.

That's still weird to participate to a thread made for Christians if you're not...Christian. I mean, if the author wanted that everybody could participate, he could have allowed the other people who aren't Christian to put themselves down as 'Not Christian'.

But I'm not the author so I guess only he can ansewer to this.

Hi, I'm the author. The thread is open to all. This thread has always been for discussing Christianity, and related topics, it is not a Christian hangout. Arch will burn the place down if it becomes one.

[Lower Nubia]

How do either of these quotes prove that the early Christians were trinitarian?

Of course they were, if trinitarianism wasn't proposed by them where did this apparently un-Christian doctrine formulate itself? And why if the trinity is so against common interpretation, logic and human understanding of how God is supposed to work, why did it become the doctrine of the church? (apparently 'mean old' Human tradition!) Of course there is a degree here, the 1st century Christians would not of spoken the Nicene, then due to Pneumatomachi, the: Niceno-Constantipolitan creed (the updated Holy Spirit version of the creed) but the creed was a final, conclusion to the trinitarian doctrine. Some examples of where the 1st century church clearly taught the Trinity:

1st Century:

Proverb 8:5-31: "O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

Jesus then clearly references these words in the beatitudes and "reenacts" the roles of Wisdom in the wisdom literature, such as Proverbs 1:20-28, which is reciprocated in Matthew 11:16-19. Proverbs 9:1-6 speaks of wisdom dining with sinners and simpletons so they may gain understanding, 'shockingly' no better description could be used for Christs action with sinners. The list goes on through the book of Sirach, Wisdom of Soloman, etc..

Christs claim to deity is not the Son of God title, but the Son of Man title, which he utilises as a direct reference or 'typology' of

Danial 7:9-14: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Only a fool could not see the related imagery here between Christs actions in Matthew 24, 26:60-66, Luke 21 and Mark 13. Throughout the Gospel Christ makes statements of divinity, simply because the Jews he spoke to on multiple occasions than tried to kill him for blasphemy: such as in John 8:57-59 and John 10:33. Then we come to the Pauline letters, which frequently remark Christ as Lord and much, much more: Hebrews 1:1-7 which affirm Christ as the exact image of the Father and this passage is utilised for the contents of the Nicene Creed and for the Cappodocian Father etc.., Phillipians 2:1-7. Paul here utilises the Psalm of David, No. 110, and Daniel 7 in Colossians 3:1, along with Colossians 1:14-19, referencing John 1:1, how Christ dwells in the Godhead and upholds all things. This is but the tip of an iceberg for Christian texts in the Scriptures for Christ as God.

The standard confusion texts come out of a poor understanding of the inner working of the trinity:

Mark 12:29: "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.", of course here God is a title, not a name, it therefore identifies no persons, such as the Father, but a monarchical title, which is indeed one.

Matthew 19:16: "Why call me good, there is none good but One, that is God." The irony here is this affirms Christs deity, If only God is Good and the man calls Christ Good, he logically affirms Christ to be God.

John 14:28: "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I", Indeed functionally speaking, but not ontologically speaking. The Father with Christ Incarnated is indeed greater, for Christ incarnated follows the Will of the Father, willingly of his own will, thus functionally submits, but it is not of Christs divine ousia, where he does not submit ontologically (in this sense be less than the father).

Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Here exists the same explanation as above and as Christ clearly shows in his words, how he submits to the will of the Father, this is not Ontological submission but a quality of Christs will, which he explains. An additional point Christ also prayers to God, which is a title, not a name. This also covers the prayer texts, such as "why have you forsaken me?" or the prayer in the garden, these are submissions to the will of the Father, but this is not a physical-essence, divine ousia, ontological, based submission.

It might be said: "You commit the fallacy of begging the question! you assume the trinity to be true and then explain these verses through that!" No, No and no. As previously illustrated Christ is clearly seen as equal to God, it therefore comes down to the laws of logic: something cannot be A and not A, Christ is either God or he is not, the Wisdom, pauline letters clearly refer to Christ as God therefore the confusion verses cannot refer to Christ as less than that otherwise there would be a meaningless contradiction, thus these verses must be made sense in light of the former, which has been shown, and is replete through the patristic works.

It must also be reminded of the different social factors which govern texts of the 1st century compared to the 21st, Collectivist, oral-transmission based cultures have a larger degree of background knowledge, compared to our specialised knowledge, ancient people required less context to understand a concept, whereas today we require large amount of context (because we garner such a vast diversity of specialised information). This directly affects how things are to be understood because ultimately large explanations are simply not going to exist, because they are not needed. Which relays modern confusion, but seeing as the early church was even after 100 AD, clearly affirming Christ as God, it is obvious that the context spoke favorably for Christ as God.

2nd century:

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)in his dialogue with the Greek philosophers notes that Christ is the Logos states in his work, First Apology, viewed here, Chapter LXIII: "For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first begotten Word of God, is even God"

Tertullian (150-225 AD) In his against Praxeas, viewed here, writes about the nature of the trinity, defending Christ against the Sabellian heresy.

Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (Bishop 177 to 202) wrote practically throughout all his works,here: "God the Father, uncreated, beyond grasp, invisible, one God the maker of all; this is the first and foremost article of our faith. But the second article is the word of God, the Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was shown forth by the prophets according to the design of their prophecy and according to the manner in which the Father disposed; and through him were made all things whatsoever. He also, in the end times … became a man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and bring to light life, and bring about the communion of God and man. And the third article is the Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesised and the patriarchs were taught about God … and who in the end of times has been poured forth in a new manner upon humanity over all the earth, renewing man to God." Irenaeus of Lyons clearly references John 1:1 here and this affirms Christ divinity.

This is just a few of the great minds of this century! The number of affirmations for Christ being Lord as member of a trinity is inescapable, so many voices in the earliest church, and with Arius arriving only many centuries later (late 3rd-early 4th) to expound his heresy! Which somehow with the Holy Spirit on their side, was trodden down until apparently the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses popped "back" up to bring us the truth. Apparently Christ was wrong, for the gates of hell did overcome the church! for 1800 years!

[Hakons]

SNIP

Wow! Good scholarship. Welcome to the CDT!

Such is your faith.

Mine is Trinitarian, like the faith espoused by the Gospel, Apostles, Church fathers, saints, popes, patriarchs, priests, laymen, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and, bluntly, Christianity.

Mine is the true faith, as supported by the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Apostles and Prophets, the first Christians, and the Godhead itself.

You have yet to demonstrate how the Bible supports polytheism, and it has clearly been demonstrated how the Bible supports the Trinity. The Book of Mormon holds no more authoriry than the Quran or the Vedas. The Apostles clearly believed in one God, and their faith, passed down in an unbroken chain through the Church, is that of the Trinity. The first Christians believed in the Trinity, as it has been demonstrated for Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Tertullian, and we could go on and on. The Godhead is/was held by Christians for two millennia (and counting) to be the Trinity.

Once again, you can have your faith. However, it is clearly something altogether different than Christianity. The Jews believed in one God. When God became man, in the form of Christ, He revealed to the Apostles the nature of His divinity. Charged with spreading the Gospel, and ensured by Christ Himself that the Church would prevail, the Apostles set forth and proclaimed what would be called Christianity. The first Christians learned from the Apostles. They wrote down what the Apostles said. They were Trinitarian. They believed in one God, the Creator of all things, the Savior of all men, and the Guidance of all Christians. They listened to their teachers, the Apostles, and they passed the knowledge down to the next generation. Theologians would have to trace their education to the Apostles, else they would not be taken seriously. This process repeated, over and over. We have not lost the way. There is no need for any restoration. Our faith is that of the Apostles. That is why the Church is the Apostolic Church. Christianity confesses faith in one God, Who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Stonok]

I would like to say that Isaiah 43:10 proves Mormonism's view of polytheism incorrect in an instant.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

From the KJV, since I understand this is the standard translation for the LDS.

[Hakons]

I would like to say that Isaiah 43:10 proves Mormonism's view of polytheism incorrect in an instant.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

From the KJV, since I understand this is the standard translation for the LDS.

Polytheism is never going to work in the Old Testament, and it only works in the New Testament if one ignores the key passages of Christianity and adds supplemental reading 1800 years after the described events.

[Northern Davincia]

This brings an interesting question: how do people fall victim to false prophets in the first place?

[Stonok]

This brings an interesting question: how do people fall victim to false prophets in the first place?

Charisma and confidence can go a long way. Joseph Smith professed himself to be a prophet up to his literal last breath (which was exhaled whilst he was in quite a lot of pain). I've even questioned how a man can be so devoted to a lie. But whatever it was, it wasn't Biblical.

Plus most people are just gullible and haven't read the Bible through any lense but that presented by the false prophet.

[Tarsonis]

This brings an interesting question: how do people fall victim to false prophets in the first place?

Charisma and confidence can go a long way. Joseph Smith professed himself to be a prophet up to his literal last breath (which was exhaled whilst he was in quite a lot of pain). I've even questioned how a man can be so devoted to a lie. But whatever it was, it wasn't Biblical.

Plus most people are just gullible and haven't read the Bible through any lense but that presented by the false prophet.

when you live a lie long enough you forget the truth.

[Corpus Magnus]

Charisma and confidence can go a long way. Joseph Smith professed himself to be a prophet up to his literal last breath (which was exhaled whilst he was in quite a lot of pain). I've even questioned how a man can be so devoted to a lie. But whatever it was, it wasn't Biblical.

Plus most people are just gullible and haven't read the Bible through any lense but that presented by the false prophet.

when you live a lie long enough you forget the truth.

Which is why trinitarianism has lasted this long...

[Tarsonis]

when you live a lie long enough you forget the truth.

Which is why trinitarianism has lasted this long...

Calling the Apostles liars won't get you very far.

[Northern Davincia]

when you live a lie long enough you forget the truth.

Which is why trinitarianism has lasted this long...

Longer than the teachings of a false prophet. :^)

[Stonok]

when you live a lie long enough you forget the truth.

Which is why trinitarianism has lasted this long...

You have yet to address the verses which plainly state that there are no other gods.

[Corpus Magnus]

How do either of these quotes prove that the early Christians were trinitarian?

Of course they were, if trinitarianism wasn't proposed by them where did this apparently un-Christian doctrine formulate itself?

By the same reasoning, if early Christians were trinitarian, Arianism, Modalism, and Adoptionsim should not have formulated. The Apostasy, and the removal of God's prophets from the earth, led to these incorrect but understandable confusions of His gospel.

2 Peter 2:1-2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

And why if the trinity is so against common interpretation, logic and human understanding of how God is supposed to work, why did it become the doctrine of the church? (apparently 'mean old' Human tradition!) Of course there is a degree here, the 1st century Christians would not of spoken the Nicene, then due to Pneumatomachi, the: Niceno-Constantipolitan creed (the updated Holy Spirit version of the creed) but the creed was a final, conclusion to the trinitarian doctrine.

The creed became the doctrine of many Christian churches because Constantine decided it was the official stance. No revelation from God led to the creation of the creed, nor am I aware of any of the creators of the Nicene Creed claiming divine revelation led to its composition.

Some examples of where the 1st century church clearly taught the Trinity:

1st Century:

Proverb 8:5-31: "O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

Jesus then clearly references these words in the beatitudes and "reenacts" the roles of Wisdom in the wisdom literature, such as Proverbs 1:20-28, which is reciprocated in Matthew 11:16-19. Proverbs 9:1-6 speaks of wisdom dining with sinners and simpletons so they may gain understanding, 'shockingly' no better description could be used for Christs action with sinners. The list goes on through the book of Sirach, Wisdom of Soloman, etc..

I'm not sure what your point is here - is there some significance to wisdom in trinitarian Christianity that I am unaware of?

Christs claim to deity is not the Son of God title, but the Son of Man title, which he utilises as a direct reference or 'typology' of

I believe you are misinterpreting our beliefs. We do not believe that Christ is not a god.

Danial 7:9-14: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

Only a fool could not see the related imagery here between Christs actions in Matthew 24, 26:60-66, Luke 21 and Mark 13. Throughout the Gospel Christ makes statements of divinity, simply because the Jews he spoke to on multiple occasions than tried to kill him for blasphemy: such as in John 8:57-59 and John 10:33. Then we come to the Pauline letters, which frequently remark Christ as Lord and much, much more: Hebrews 1:1-7 which affirm Christ as the exact image of the Father and this passage is utilised for the contents of the Nicene Creed and for the Cappodocian Father etc.., Phillipians 2:1-7. Paul here utilises the Psalm of David, No. 110, and Daniel 7 in Colossians 3:1, along with Colossians 1:14-19, referencing John 1:1, how Christ dwells in the Godhead and upholds all things. This is but the tip of an iceberg for Christian texts in the Scriptures for Christ as God.

The standard confusion texts come out of a poor understanding of the inner working of the trinity:

Mark 12:29: "Here, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.", of course here God is a title, not a name, it therefore identifies no persons, such as the Father, but a monarchical title, which is indeed one.

So your argument is that the Father and Son are literally one because of the use of the title God? How do you explain the times when Christ refers to Heavenly Father as "my Father" or "our Father"? How do you explain verses such as these?

Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the fright hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Romans 8:31-34 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us call things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Matthew 19:16: "Why call me good, there is none good but One, that is God." The irony here is this affirms Christs deity, If only God is Good and the man calls Christ Good, he logically affirms Christ to be God.

That's not how logic works...

John 14:28: "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I", Indeed functionally speaking, but not ontologically speaking. The Father with Christ Incarnated is indeed greater, for Christ incarnated follows the Will of the Father, willingly of his own will, thus functionally submits, but it is not of Christs divine ousia, where he does not submit ontologically (in this sense be less than the father).

Matthew 26:39: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Here exists the same explanation as above and as Christ clearly shows in his words, how he submits to the will of the Father, this is not Ontological submission but a quality of Christs will, which he explains. An additional point Christ also prayers to God, which is a title, not a name. This also covers the prayer texts, such as "why have you forsaken me?" or the prayer in the garden, these are submissions to the will of the Father, but this is not a physical-essence, divine ousia, ontological, based submission.

I don't understand your explanation. Could you clarify your viewpoint further?

It might be said: "You commit the fallacy of begging the question! you assume the trinity to be true and then explain these verses through that!" No, No and no. As previously illustrated Christ is clearly seen as equal to God, it therefore comes down to the laws of logic: something cannot be A and not A, Christ is either God or he is not, the Wisdom, pauline letters clearly refer to Christ as God therefore the confusion verses cannot refer to Christ as less than that otherwise there would be a meaningless contradiction, thus these verses must be made sense in light of the former, which has been shown, and is replete through the patristic works.

It must also be reminded of the different social factors which govern texts of the 1st century compared to the 21st, Collectivist, oral-transmission based cultures have a larger degree of background knowledge, compared to our specialised knowledge, ancient people required less context to understand a concept, whereas today we require large amount of context (because we garner such a vast diversity of specialised information). This directly affects how things are to be understood because ultimately large explanations are simply not going to exist, because they are not needed. Which relays modern confusion, but seeing as the early church was even after 100 AD, clearly affirming Christ as God, it is obvious that the context spoke favorably for Christ as God.

2nd century:

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)in his dialogue with the Greek philosophers notes that Christ is the Logos states in his work, First Apology, viewed here, Chapter LXIII: "For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first begotten Word of God, is even God"

Unless I am interpreting this wrong, this quote does not conflict with Mormon views.

Tertullian (150-225 AD) In his against Praxeas, viewed here, writes about the nature of the trinity, defending Christ against the Sabellian heresy.

Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (Bishop 177 to 202) wrote practically throughout all his works,here: "God the Father, uncreated, beyond grasp, invisible, one God the maker of all; this is the first and foremost article of our faith. But the second article is the word of God, the Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was shown forth by the prophets according to the design of their prophecy and according to the manner in which the Father disposed; and through him were made all things whatsoever. He also, in the end times … became a man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and bring to light life, and bring about the communion of God and man. And the third article is the Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesised and the patriarchs were taught about God … and who in the end of times has been poured forth in a new manner upon humanity over all the earth, renewing man to God." Irenaeus of Lyons clearly references John 1:1 here and this affirms Christ divinity.

As I stated earlier, we do not deny Christ's divinity. We do, however, deny many of the teachings dispensed during the Apostasy - which began immediately after and even just before the Apostles' deaths, such as the belief that Jesus Christ and God the Father are the same God. The Nicene Creed was formulated because of the Apostasy, because Christians had fallen away from Christ and were relying on their own minds rather than divine revelation from heaven, as predicted by Paul. This is why so many of what you call heresies exist and have existed: because divine revelation had ceased for the time being - you yourselves do not believe in the existence of prophets, nor in the existence of revelation or scripture outside of the Bible! - and Christians did not have the gospel on their side, instead understandably turning to the teachings of men and not God. By saying the first Christians, I mean those who lived during the time of Christ and his Apostles, not intelligent but misled individuals from later times.

This is just a few of the great minds of this century! The number of affirmations for Christ being Lord as member of a trinity is inescapable, so many voices in the earliest church, and with Arius arriving only many centuries later (late 3rd-early 4th) to expound his heresy! Which somehow with the Holy Spirit on their side, was trodden down until apparently the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses popped "back" up to bring us the truth. Apparently Christ was wrong, for the gates of hell did overcome the church! for 1800 years!

This explains things better than I can.

An apostasy was predicted by the Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Acts 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

[Corpus Magnus]

Which is why trinitarianism has lasted this long...

You have yet to address the verses which plainly state that there are no other gods.

Sigh. Which verses specifically?

[Corpus Magnus]

Which is why trinitarianism has lasted this long...

Calling the Apostles liars won't get you very far.

You are the one calling God's apostles false prophets.