Trinity, Trinity, Trinity.

[rhinomelon]

1 - When the Bible refers to God, with no distinction of Father, Son or Holy Ghost, who is it referring to? Does it refer to the Father, all three or any one of the three?

I would say it usually refers to God the Father (especially in the OT), although context sometimes leads to the other two members of the Trinity. Like Peter calling the Holy Spirit "God" in Acts, or Paul referring to Christ as God in Titus. Sometimes the context is not clear either way, and is likely referring to the Triune God as a whole. Interestingly, the plural "Gods" is never used in reference to the Trinity or an individual member of the Trinity at all. This is one big reason why tritheism is/was rejected as a valid option by mainstream Christianity.

2 - In the diagram that has been produced on this message board, where it has God in the middle and the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost around "God", this seems to imply that God is some type of entity, independant of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Does "God" exist, independant of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

The answer to this would be no. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the three persons in the Godhead there would be nothing. In the illustration, "God" is not listed as a separate entity from the three persons, but is denoting the common nature/substance they all share. If I'm thinking of the right illustration, that is.

The Greek word, "monogenes" and the Hebrew word, "yalad", which are generally translated as, "begotten" or some form of it, in every case, throughout the Bible, refer to either a literal or a metaphorical birth. It always implies a beginning. With this in mnd, can you explain what it means to be "eternally begotten"?

It think I might have touched on this earlier with C.S. Lewis' analogy of the books. Basically, it means that the Son's relationship to the Father is eternal, without beginning or end. More specifically, this aspect of the Trinity finds most of its basis in John 1, where it speaks of the Word becoming flesh, and the Son dwelling in the bosom of the Father. Since the Bible speaks of the Son being eternal, then this relationship implies that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.

First let me state that I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, as is born out in the creeds, was an attempt to reconcile the seeming contradiction of scripture, namely, that there are three divine persons/beings who, at various times, are called, "God" and, that there are a number of verses which, in no uncetain terms, declare that there is only one God.

Excellent summary. Couldn't have said it better myself!

When scripture speaks of God, without distinction to identity, LDS generally believe this refers to the Father. LDS believe that when scripture refers to there being only one God, it simpy means, there is only one God the Father, just as Paul states. This does not preclude the possibility that there can be other divine beings who can be called by the title, "God". The fact that the Son and the Holy Ghost are, at times, called, "God", in no way infringes on the fact that there is only one God the Father. God the Father is our God, just as He is the God of Jesus and the God of the Holy Ghost, there is no other.

And this is where LDS part ways with mainstream Christianity, I think. When faced with the seeming contradiction in Scripture (monotheism on the one hand, three beings/persons referred to as "God" in Scripture), LDS simply reinterpreted the monotheistic passages in a way the earliest church quickly rejected. Also, just out of curiousity, does your last sentence in the above quote mean that you believe there are no other Gods in existence besides God the Father, or does it simply mean that there is no other God for us human beings on Earth?

Now, can you trinitarians set aside your beliefs for a moment, and recognize that this belief is not only viable, according to scripture, but is much simpler to comprehend?

I would grant that this is viable in terms of "easier to comprehend", but the excision of monotheism from the Scriptures is a price to heavy to pay for me to consider it viable in terms of the Scriptural witness.

It is interesting to note that when one studies early Christianity, when faced with the seeming contradiction as outlined above, the early church, almost in unison, saw monotheism as the nonnegotiable aspect of the Scriptures, not the threeness of God. Because of this, rarely does one see an early church writing that defends a tritheistic (or even simply a non-monotheistic) view. Much more often, if there is any error, it is in favor of extreme monotheism, usually expressed in some sort of modalism. In short, rejecting or reinterpreting monotheism (like in polytheism, tritheism, or the like) was never the temptation that extreme monotheism (modalism or Arianism) was. When one considers this state of affairs, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the LDS view of God could be considered a restoration of an early, uncorrupted doctrine within early Christianity.

More later, probably. Take care, everyone

[Cultural Savage]

When scripture speaks of God, without distinction to identity, LDS generally believe this refers to the Father. LDS believe that when scripture refers to there being only one God, it simpy means, there is only one God the Father, just as Paul states. This does not preclude the possibility that there can be other divine beings who can be called by the title, "God". The fact that the Son and the Holy Ghost are, at times, called, "God", in no way infringes on the fact that there is only one God the Father. God the Father is our God, just as He is the God of Jesus and the God of the Holy Ghost, there is no other.

Now, can you trinitarians set aside your beliefs for a moment, and recognize that this belief is not only viable, according to scripture, but is much simpler to comprehend?

I believe that you are getting at the fact that "God" is not a proper name, but rather a title. The revolutionary idea of "one God" is the idea that the title "God" is rightly applied only to Yahweh (Father, Jesus, Holy Ghost) because He alone is the living God, as opposed to the idols and mythologies, or even other beings that masqurade as worthy of our worship.

Even so, the title we give to Yahweh does not change His nature. It is His very nature that makes Him alone worthy of the title "God". Calling the Father "God", Jesus "God" and the Holy Ghost "God" is giving the honor of the title "God" to all three co-equal members of the blessed Trinity.

[Cultural Savage]

QUOTE

The Greek word, "monogenes" and the Hebrew word, "yalad", which are generally translated as, "begotten" or some form of it, in every case, throughout the Bible, refer to either a literal or a metaphorical birth. It always implies a beginning. With this in mnd, can you explain what it means to be "eternally begotten"?

It think I might have touched on this earlier with C.S. Lewis' analogy of the books. Basically, it means that the Son's relationship to the Father is eternal, without beginning or end. More specifically, this aspect of the Trinity finds most of its basis in John 1, where it speaks of the Word becoming flesh, and the Son dwelling in the bosom of the Father. Since the Bible speaks of the Son being eternal, then this relationship implies that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.

Expanding on rhino's good words, the Son, in order to have eternaly been the Son, must be eternaly begotten by the Father, just as the Spirit eternaly proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Words like "begotten" give us a glimps into the nature of the trinitarian god by unvailing the economy of the trinity: relational aspects of love and life between the co-eternal members of the trinity.

[Tanyan]

Tanyan,

GOD The Father Is Jesus Christs GOD:

The Son of God Has A Father And A God.

Jesus said, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]. Jesus came from God [Jn 13:3]. Jesus' prayed to the Father. The Son did as the Father commanded [Jn 10:17; 14:31]. Christ has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ's human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Christ Is Not A Second God. God Was Manifest, God Was In Christ.

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

Last part Looks, Feels, Smells Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism.

[Jerubaal]

Last part Looks, Feels, Smells Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism.

I'll second that before Johnny accuses us of simply misunderstanding him.

[structurecop]

Expanding on rhino's good words, the Son, in order to have eternaly been the Son, must be eternaly begotten by the Father, just as the Spirit eternaly proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

Words like "begotten" give us a glimps into the nature of the trinitarian god by unvailing the economy of the trinity: relational aspects of love and life between the co-eternal members of the trinity.

If that's what they meant, why didn't they just say it? Why did the New Testament authors explain things in terminology that would be immediately disputed?

[johnny]

Tanyan and/or Jerubaal,

Last part Looks, Feels, Smells Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism.

Please defend your statment ... define Modalism/Sabellianism ... please provide some scriptures to support your statment.

I said:

The Son of God Has A Father And A God.

Jesus said, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]. Jesus came from God [Jn 13:3]. Jesus' prayed to the Father. The Son did as the Father commanded [Jn 10:17; 14:31]. Christ has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ's human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Christ Is Not A Second God. God Was Manifest, God Was In Christ.

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

[rhinomelon]

If that's what they meant, why didn't they just say it? Why did the New Testament authors explain things in terminology that would be immediately disputed?

Good questions! There are many facets to this particular issue, and I'll probably only touch on a couple. Any of you others are more than welcome to chip in. First of all, during the time the New Testament was written, the apostles and the early church (having come out of a monotheistic Jewish background) were still struggling with the sudden blast of God's self-revelation as revealed in the incarnation of the Son. Until Christ came along, there was little or no reason to assume that God was triune, or had a multiplicity of persons (perhaps there were hints in the Old Testament, but nothing as explicit as the incarnation). After millenia of monotheism, suddenly experiencing such a change in belief would not happen overnight.

Also, one must keep in mind that the New Testament writers, with a few exceptions in places, were not writing systematic theology works or doctrinal tomes. Half the New Testament is simply telling the story of Christ from four different viewpoints! And most of the rest is directed towards a multitude of issues, both practical and doctrinal. These writers laid the foundation, to be sure, but they did not explicitly state everything that their words implied.

Perhaps a comparison could be made to various doctrinal developments in early LDS history, such as the view of God, or eternal progression. After all, "eternal progression" is not a phrase found in the LDS standard works, nor is it ever explicitly stated therein. However, most, if not all, LDS believe that it is implicit in certain passages from the D&C and PGP, even if it is only made explicit in extracanonical speeches and couplets.

Another reason would be limitations in language. Let's face it, language (either written or spoken) is always open for misinterpretation. When speaking of the infinite (whether in theology or other areas of science like mathematics), our language is simply imprecise. As one Christian theologian put it, until we can accurately describe what coffee smells like using only words (and words besides "coffee" ), we can't be so vain to assume that our words can accurately describe the eternal, infinite Creator of all that is and ever will be.

Last part Looks, Feels, Smells Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism.

How so? Could you explain how you are reading that to reach this conclusion? Thanks!

More later, I think. I brought that book, "Understanding the Trinity" by Alister McGrath, with me to work today, so I'll crack it open during break and see if there are any nuggets of wisdom I can pass on to those of us really trying to understand the Trinity (to the best of our abilities, that is ).

Take care, everyone

[Doctor Steuss]

More later, I think. I brought that book, "Understanding the Trinity" by Alister McGrath, with me to work today, so I'll crack it open during break and see if there are any nuggets of wisdom I can pass on to those of us really trying to understand the Trinity (to the best of our abilities, that is ).

Take care, everyone

Thank you Rhino, this has been thoroughly enlightening.

Question: From a Trinitarian POV, would it be ok to worship the Holy Ghost?

[flavo]

I would have to disagree with the statement that has been made that there is nothing to compare God to. The scriptures abound in the fact that Jesus Christ was the son of God. He also said that if you have seen me you have seen the father. Jesus Christ is who we can compare God to or at least get a glimps into His nature, physicality and attitude toward man. The only problem I have seen with the nature of the Trinity as it was explained to me in a very understandable manner is that all three personages have been present at exactly the same time in scripture in three different locations in three different forms. Why the cloak an dager aproach to the nature of God? If God is God why have to appear in so many forms and carry on this deception of praying to yourself and teaching others to pray to a Father that in all actuality you yourself are? It make God unapproachable, unaccesable and confusing and that is in contrast to what Christ tried to bring to the world. He prayed that we might know God. He taught that we were his children. What child cannot comprehend his own father? The Trinity puts God in a state that is confusing, hard to understand and unaccessable. Is that what a loving Father wants? For all his children to be confused over who He is?

[Doctor Steuss]

flavo,

I don

[flavo]

Please forgive me if my post seems in any way to be offensive or defensive. I simply have stated some of the problems I have in understanding or grasping the understanding of the Trinity. I have had many conversations on this topic being that I live in the deep south among man of the Trinity beliving faiths. My questions are legitimate to my understanding anothers view point. My asking such questions is to have my objections answered not to say "You can't belive that because of this!" but to politely ask "What about this?" If the objrection is answered then it is answered and the diologue moves on.

[Doctor Steuss]

Sorry. I

[flavo]

[johnny]

flavo,

The scriptures abound in the fact that Jesus Christ was the son of God. He also said that if you have seen me you have seen the father. Jesus Christ is who we can compare God to or at least get a glimps into His nature, physicality and attitude toward man.

As a Trinitarian I believe this also ...

The only problem I have seen with the nature of the Trinity as it was explained to me in a very understandable manner is that all three personages have been present at exactly the same time in scripture in three different locations in three different forms.

The Trinity is not three persons in one person. The Trinity is one divinity(God) in three distinct persons.

If God is God why have to appear in so many forms and carry on this deception of praying to yourself and teaching others to pray to a Father that in all actuality you yourself are?

God appeard in the flesh. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Son did not pray to himself.

It make God unapproachable, unaccesable and confusing and that is in contrast to what Christ tried to bring to the world.

Trinitarians do you not believe God is unapproachable, unaccesable, or confusing.

He prayed that we might know God.

Did you know that God was manifest in the flesh and that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself ?

2Cor 5

[19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

He taught that we were his children. What child cannot comprehend his own father?

Men are his children and they can have a personal relationship with their heavenly Father.

The Trinity puts God in a state that is confusing, hard to understand and unaccessable.

It appears you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity if you believe that the Son prayed to himself.

Is that what a loving Father wants?

The Father wants us know that the mystery of godliness ... that God was manifest in the flesh ... do you know about this mystery .. our Father wants us to know about this mystery because it is mentioned in the Word of God?

1Tim 3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

For all his children to be confused over who He is?

Who was this God that was manifest ... was is the Son or the Father ... was it Jehovah or ELohim ... how many Gods are their ... are you confused?

[T-Shirt]

Sometimes the context is not clear either way, and is likely referring to the Triune God as a whole.

How do you know? Is there something in scripture that would tell you this, or is it just an assumption, based on your belief in the trinity?

Interestingly, the plural "Gods" is never used in reference to the Trinity or an individual member of the Trinity at all. This is one big reason why tritheism is/was rejected as a valid option by mainstream Christianity.

However, the word, "Elohiem" is, by definition, plural. And Genesis uses the word, "us" in conjunction with the word Elohiem. So I can't fully agree with you on this point. I understand that a belief in the trinity demands that one interpret this differently, but one cannot say it is not there.

2 - In the diagram that has been produced on this message board, where it has God in the middle and the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost around "God", this seems to imply that God is some type of entity, independent of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Does "God" exist, independent of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

The answer to this would be no. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Apart from the three persons in the Godhead there would be nothing. In the illustration, "God" is not listed as a separate entity from the three persons, but is denoting the common nature/substance they all share. If I'm thinking of the right illustration, that is.

I am sure you are thinking of the same diagram. I guess this is one of those times when an analogy or diagram cannot accurately describe the trinity. But that is not surprising, as the trinity is illogical and contradictory from the beginning, at least to me.

The Greek word, "monogenes" and the Hebrew word, "yalad", which are generally translated as, "begotten" or some form of it, in every case, throughout the Bible, refer to either a literal or a metaphorical birth. It always implies a beginning. With this in mind, can you explain what it means to be "eternally begotten"?

It think I might have touched on this earlier with C.S. Lewis' analogy of the books. Basically, it means that the Son's relationship to the Father is eternal, without beginning or end.

Then why is the word, "begotten" used? This word, by definition, requires a beginning. It is a Biblical word. This is another area where I see the creators of the trinity doctrine forcing a square peg into a round hole. They have taken a logical concept and made it illogical. Eternally begotten is a contradiction in terms.

More specifically, this aspect of the Trinity finds most of its basis in John 1, where it speaks of the Word becoming flesh, and the Son dwelling in the bosom of the Father. Since the Bible speaks of the Son being eternal, then this relationship implies that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father.

Are you aware that the ancient Hebrews viewed "eternal" as meaning without end? It was a term that look forward, not backward.

When scripture speaks of God, without distinction to identity, LDS generally believe this refers to the Father. LDS believe that when scripture refers to there being only one God, it simply means, there is only one God the Father, just as Paul states. This does not preclude the possibility that there can be other divine beings who can be called by the title, "God". The fact that the Son and the Holy Ghost are, at times, called, "God", in no way infringes on the fact that there is only one God the Father. God the Father is our God, just as He is the God of Jesus and the God of the Holy Ghost, there is no other.

And this is where LDS part ways with mainstream Christianity, I think. When faced with the seeming contradiction in Scripture (monotheism on the one hand, three beings/persons referred to as "God" in Scripture), LDS simply reinterpreted the monotheistic passages in a way the earliest church quickly rejected.

I would like to see what you consider, "earliest church". Can you give me a date for that "earliest church"?

Also, just out of curiousity, does your last sentence in the above quote mean that you believe there are no other Gods in existence besides God the Father, or does it simply mean that there is no other God for us human beings on Earth?

The latter.

Now, can you trinitarians set aside your beliefs for a moment, and recognize that this belief is not only viable, according to scripture, but is much simpler to comprehend?

I would grant that this is viable in terms of "easier to comprehend", but the excision of monotheism from the Scriptures is a price to heavy to pay for me to consider it viable in terms of the Scriptural witness.

There's the rub. Ironically, as we LDS try to grasp the concept of the trinity, we are told that we must set aside our current beliefs if we have any hope of understanding, which is exactly the same problem, in reverse, that you and other trinitarians are having when viewing LDS doctrine. Not so easy, is it?

Incidentally, more and more evidence is coming forth that seems to show that neither the Jews nor the early Christians, were the radical monotheists they are frequently believed to be.

It is interesting to note that when one studies early Christianity, when faced with the seeming contradiction as outlined above, the early church, almost in unison, saw monotheism as the nonnegotiable aspect of the Scriptures, not the threeness of God. Because of this, rarely does one see an early church writing that defends a tritheistic (or even simply a non-monotheistic) view. Much more often, if there is any error, it is in favor of extreme monotheism, usually expressed in some sort of modalism. In short, rejecting or reinterpreting monotheism (like in polytheism, tritheism, or the like) was never the temptation that extreme monotheism (modalism or Arianism) was.

Once again, can you give me a date where you see the doctrine of the trinity, clearly being bandied about and widely accepted? With the emphasis being on the word, "clearly".

When one considers this state of affairs, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the LDS view of God could be considered a restoration of an early, uncorrupted doctrine within early Christianity.

Setting aside your belief for just a moment, if the authority to declare doctrine was lost with the apostles, can you see, based on the lack of clarity we get from the Bible, that this doctrine would easily be confused and quite possibly changed very early?

Thanks for your thoughts.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

Thank you Rhino, this has been thoroughly enlightening.

Question: From a Trinitarian POV, would it be ok to worship the Holy Ghost?

Not a problem, I am really enjoying this a great deal. I should probably be thanking you!

For a short answer to your question, the answer is yes. As God, a member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is worthy of worship. If you want me to go into some of the reasoning behind that, I'd be glad to a little later. I just wanted to get to flavo's thoughts while I have time to breathe (my coworker just went home sick, so I get all the work for the department on my desk today! ).

Jesus Christ is who we can compare God to or at least get a glimps into His nature, physicality and attitude toward man.

Amen to that! And I didn't think your post was hostile or anything. I know from experience that it can be frustrating trying to understand a viewpoint that is so different from one's own. But anyway, you are quite correct in your statement above. The New Testament is quite clear that Christ is the definitive, most revealing revelation of God's nature that has ever been. God, in the incarnation, has given us a better handle on what He is like than humanity has ever had! But we can't assume that even the incarnation is an exhaustive revelation on what God is like. After all, as a human, Christ suffered from all the weaknesses that we do.

The incarnation gave us the best view ever, but it still does not claim to relay the whole of God's being or nature to us. After all, were God to show Himself to us in all His holiness and majesty, we would literally be blown away! This is why both the Old and New Testaments always work through a mediator between God and man. In the OT, it was the temple and priesthood system. In the NT, it is God Himself being the mediator in the man Jesus Christ.

The only problem I have seen with the nature of the Trinity as it was explained to me in a very understandable manner is that all three personages have been present at exactly the same time in scripture in three different locations in three different forms. Why the cloak an dager aproach to the nature of God?

I think you are confusing the Trinity with the heresy of modalism, which is a common error, so don't worry about it. The three distinct Persons of the Trinity can obviously be at work in different ways at the same time, albeit always in cooperation with one another. Thus, Paul can speak of the Spirit moving us to pray by the mediator of the Son to the Father. All three Persons, present and active in the task of communication between God and man. Whole books have been written about how the members of the Trinity work in other areas of belief and salvation.

As to why the cloak and dagger approach, the need for a mediator between a holy God and the presently sinful human race is part of it. God chooses to reveal Himself in different ways. The NT says as much in Hebrews 1. He reveals Himself in many ways, trying to reach those people He loves through any means necessary. But in the end, this is just a plausible reason. The real reason "why" simply lies with God and how He has chosen to relate to people.

If God is God why have to appear in so many forms and carry on this deception of praying to yourself and teaching others to pray to a Father that in all actuality you yourself are? It make God unapproachable, unaccesable and confusing and that is in contrast to what Christ tried to bring to the world. He prayed that we might know God.

The first statement would be modalism. Jesus Christ praying to the Father was the incarnate Son, praying to another member of the Trinity. To sum it up, the Son was praying to the Father, not to the Son. As far as God being unapproachable, to some extent that is true. After all, the New Testament is clear that we need a mediator, and that God "dwells in unapproachable light", etc. But the triune God is certainly not inaccessible, especially given the work of God through the Spirit in the hearts of those that have faith in Him. As far as confusing goes, that is quite understandable when dealing with an infinite, eternal God. And many things are confusing until one actually studies them and learns about them. I think "confusing" says more about you and me than it does about God.

What child cannot comprehend his own father?

Most children, I would think, especially if the Father was as far above the child as God is to us. But I think you are carrying this analogy too far, to the point where you are infringing on the other clear teachings about God in Scripture. For example, God is also "God", the omnipotent creator of all things that exist, whose thoughts and works are high above our thoughts and works, whose ways are beyond our understanding. This teaching is to be kept alongside the analogy of God as Father (or Son, for that matter). I think your view makes the Father analogy (especially seen in terms of human parenting) paramount, to the detriment of other teachings.

More later. Take care, everyone

[Doctor Steuss]

For a short answer to your question, the answer is yes. As God, a member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is worthy of worship. If you want me to go into some of the reasoning behind that, I'd be glad to a little later. I just wanted to get to flavo's thoughts while I have time to breathe (my coworker just went home sick, so I get all the work for the department on my desk today! ).

Nah, don

[T-Shirt]

1 Timothy 3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

For all his children to be confused over who He is?

Who was this God that was manifest ... was is the Son or the Father ... was it Jehovah or ELohim ... how many Gods are their ... are you confused?

Johnny,

With all due respect, you continue to cling to this verse of scripture. I have shown you, and I show you again, this verse is not translated correctly. Don't take my word for it, do a little research. The word, "God" was a later addition to the text by scribes. Virtually all more modern translations have dropped the word, "God" and have translated it as, "He" or "Christ, or "Who". The verse simply says that Christ was born as a human. Of the 19 English translations I checked, only three still use the word, "God", the KJV being one of them.

If you want to continue to rely on this verse as your proof text, that is fine with me, but understand, it does not strengthen your position at all. In reality, it weakens it.

Oh, by the way, to answer your question:

Who was this God that was manifest

It was Christ, who was born in the flesh.

Take care,

T-Shirt

[johnny]

T-Shirt,

With all due respect, you continue to cling to this verse of scripture. I have shown you, and I show you again, this verse is not translated correctly

Is the Book of Mormon translated correctly, Mosiah 15:1,2 says "God himself shall come down, he is called the Son of God " ... see the link below for more discussion:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...st&p=1207992031

Mosiah

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son

[rhinomelon]

How do you know? Is there something in scripture that would tell you this, or is it just an assumption, based on your belief in the trinity?

Actually, your example of "elohim" in Genesis is a good one, I think. And I think you probably already are aware of this, but although the term "elohim" is in the plural form in Genesis, the associated verbs and adjectives are in the singular form. Basically, it's the equivalent of saying "they is" or "we is". So the case is not nearly as cut-and-dried as it appears in the English translation, and actually could lend considerable support to a Trinitarian understanding (but I wouldn't take it so far as some do).

I suppose one could consider it an assumption, but it is basically following one of the simple rules of thumb for biblical interpretation, i.e. let the verses that a clear interpret the ones that aren't, and not vice versa.

Then why is the word, "begotten" used? This word, by definition, requires a beginning. It is a Biblical word. This is another area where I see the creators of the trinity doctrine forcing a square peg into a round hole. They have taken a logical concept and made it illogical. Eternally begotten is a contradiction in terms.

Good question, I'll have to look into that more directly when I have some time with my bloated book collection! Rain check on this one, or maybe some of the other guys can take this one. My initial response would be that this is simply where our limited words come into contact with something that can't be accurately described. It's not that hard to believe, especially considering that concepts like "zero" and "nothing" were relatively new innovations, and were basically unknown in biblical times.

Are you aware that the ancient Hebrews viewed "eternal" as meaning without end? It was a term that look forward, not backward.

Perhaps, but there are references to "without beginning" scattered throughout the Scriptures, so it's plain that this meaning is not the only one in use.

I would like to see what you consider, "earliest church". Can you give me a date for that "earliest church"?

1st century through the third. The earliest writings we have (aside from the New Testament itself, of course) are explicitly monotheistic.

There's the rub. Ironically, as we LDS try to grasp the concept of the trinity, we are told that we must set aside our current beliefs if we have any hope of understanding, which is exactly the same problem, in reverse, that you and other trinitarians are having when viewing LDS doctrine. Not so easy, is it?

The point of this thread is congenial discussion about the Trinity for those who want to understand it better, not about biblical support for LDS doctrine.

Once again, can you give me a date where you see the doctrine of the trinity, clearly being bandied about and widely accepted? With the emphasis being on the word, "clearly".

In its fullest form, or in its infancy?

Setting aside your belief for just a moment, if the authority to declare doctrine was lost with the apostles, can you see, based on the lack of clarity we get from the Bible, that this doctrine would easily be confused and quite possibly changed very early?

So basically, if I accept LDS positions on other things, would I see things the way you do? Likely, yes. But then I'd be LDS, and this conversation would be rather pointless! It's like me asking you, "If you believed mainstream Christian history and doctrine, would you have an easier time with the Trinity?"

Incidentally, more and more evidence is coming forth that seems to show that neither the Jews nor the early Christians, were the radical monotheists they are frequently believed to be.

I've seen stuff about the early Hebrews, but not much about the early Christians or first-century Jews. Any places you might suggest to read up on this new development?

Don

[T-Shirt]

I suppose one could consider it an assumption, but it is basically following one of the simple rules of thumb for biblical interpretation, i.e. let the verses that a clear interpret the ones that aren't, and not vice versa.

One must some how account for Genesis one, which clearly uses, "us" and "our" in conjunction with Elohim.

My initial response would be that this is simply where our limited words come into contact with something that can't be accurately described. It's not that hard to believe, especially considering that concepts like "zero" and "nothing" were relatively new innovations, and were basically unknown in biblical times.

I am interested in what others think about this.

Are you aware that the ancient Hebrews viewed "eternal" as meaning without end? It was a term that look forward, not backward.

Perhaps, but there are references to "without beginning" scattered throughout the Scriptures, so it's plain that this meaning is not the only one in use.

Can you show me some of those references? I may just be dense, but I can't find any. Hebrews seven used those terms in reference to Melchizedek, but I can't find any others. Revelation 3:14 seems, to me, to indicate a beginning, consistent with the word, "begotten":

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I would like to see what you consider, "earliest church". Can you give me a date for that "earliest church"?

1st century through the third. The earliest writings we have (aside from the New Testament itself, of course) are explicitly monotheistic.

Monotheistic and trinitarian are not necessarily the same thing. For lack of a better term, I would consider LDS to be monotheistic, as well.

There's the rub. Ironically, as we LDS try to grasp the concept of the trinity, we are told that we must set aside our current beliefs if we have any hope of understanding, which is exactly the same problem, in reverse, that you and other trinitarians are having when viewing LDS doctrine. Not so easy, is it?

The point of this thread is congenial discussion about the Trinity for those who want to understand it better, not about biblical support for LDS doctrine.

Sorry, I am not trying to derail the thread. I was only trying to point out that the difficulty we each face is not all that different.

Once again, can you give me a date where you see the doctrine of the trinity, clearly being bandied about and widely accepted? With the emphasis being on the word, "clearly".

In its fullest form, or in its infancy?

Fullest form.

Setting aside your belief for just a moment, if the authority to declare doctrine was lost with the apostles, can you see, based on the lack of clarity we get from the Bible, that this doctrine would easily be confused and quite possibly changed very early?

So basically, if I accept LDS positions on other things, would I see things the way you do? Likely, yes. But then I'd be LDS, and this conversation would be rather pointless! It's like me asking you, "If you believed mainstream Christian history and doctrine, would you have an easier time with the Trinity?"

Actually, I was just asking you to consider the possibility of the loss of authority, and the potential effects of that loss. I think you can see how this doctrine could have easily changes from the first to the fourth centuries.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

One must some how account for Genesis one, which clearly uses, "us" and "our" in conjunction with Elohim.

There are several possible explanations, but the fact that the plural noun is used with the singular verb, it seems to rule out straight polytheism or tritheism. The Hebrew equivalent of the "royal we" has been suggested as a possible interpretation.

Can you show me some of those references? I may just be dense, but I can't find any. Hebrews seven used those terms in reference to Melchizedek, but I can't find any others. Revelation 3:14 seems, to me, to indicate a beginning, consistent with the word, "begotten":

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

As far as without beginning, I think I was thinking of that reference in Hebrews by mistake. My bad! But I still consider it a rather clear teaching of Scripture that God is eternal, forward and backward. Here's a couple shorter articles that deal with the subject through Scripture and reason:

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft134.htm

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo5.htm

As far as that specific verse, I think johnny was looking at this exact passage on another thread. Maybe he could give a cliffnotes version of the interpretation.

Once again, can you give me a date where you see the doctrine of the trinity, clearly being bandied about and widely accepted? With the emphasis being on the word, "clearly".

In its fullest form, or in its infancy?

Fullest form.

Probably Tertullian, who coined the phrase "one God in three Persons", although the word "trinitas" was used to describe God before that, as well as "homoousios". So, early 3rd century. Although a case could be made for Athenagoras as well, in the mid 2nd-century, but it is not as explicit as Tertullian. A quote from Tertullian:

"He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God

[Tanyan]

Tanyan and/or Jerubaal,

Last part Looks, Feels, Smells Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism.

Please defend your statment ... define Modalism/Sabellianism ... please provide some scriptures to support your statment.

I said:

The Son of God Has A Father And A God.

Jesus said, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]. Jesus came from God [Jn 13:3]. Jesus' prayed to the Father. The Son did as the Father commanded [Jn 10:17; 14:31]. Christ has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ's human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Christ Is Not A Second God. God Was Manifest, God Was In Christ.

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

Last line "Still" Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism again !. Johnny I don't need to quote you those scriptures, you already know them along with the Sabellian/Modalism definition. So they are the "Same GOD " ?. Thats Neo-Middle Platoism Hellinized Athens talking to Early Israelite/Christian Jerusalem again. I will stay with the LDS Monarch Eastern Economic Social Godhead . In His Debt/Grace Tanyan The LDS JJEDI KNIGHT.

[johnny]

Tanyan,

Last line "Still" Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism again !.

Does the Book of Mormon "Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism"?

The Book of Mormon says ... It is God himself .. being the Father and the Son.

Mosiah

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son