Christianity Is Not A Monotheistic Religion

[rhinomelon]

He has all the characteristics and powers of a god.

I'm not sure where you're getting this conclusion from. It certainly has no parallel in mainstream Christian theology of any stripe. In addition to the aspects of God mentioned by roman and Da Unk, Satan is not seen as omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, etc. Satan is a created being, of a different order than humans, but still a created being. As such, he had a beginning, while God does not. Likewise, all of the positive attributes applied to God in mainstream Christianity (merciful, just, holy, compassionate, etc.) do not apply to Satan either. Satan is not the equal of God in any real sense, especially considering that we already know his end; eternal punishment, as seen in Revelation.

Does "three Persons" mean three separate individuals, such as what Stephen saw in Acts 7, when he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God? Or is there another nuance to this that Christians apply, apart from the one God terminology which I'm separating it from?

I would disagree that Stephen saw three separate beings in Acts. In the language and context of the day, Stephen was not making a statement about physical or relative location, but of Jesus' position as one blessed and accepted by God, if not fully divine. The right hand/left hand metaphor is scattered throughout the Bible, always referring to relative states of blessedness or condemnation, not of actual location. Actual location is not the point, and that's not how the Jews stoning Stephen would have seen it. But this is rather beside the point.

"Three Persons", in trinitarian theology, does not mean "three separate individuals", as the LDS view dictates. There are different ways to describe it, like "centers of consciousness" or "distinct persons" or whatever, but the basic point is that there are three distinct (but not separate) personalities within the one being of the triune God. We human beings tend to think of persons or personalities as individual, embodied beings like ourselves. But this does not mean that this is the only way a being could exist. Heck, even as human beings we have distinct persons within each of us, in a way. We have what seems like another voice, or mind inside our own, whom we can actually debate or converse with. The early church father Tertullian made this analogy as a way of thinking about the Trinity, about the three Persons in the one being of God.

Now, the mystery of the Trinity is how it all works. As Alister McGrath wrote in "Understanding the Trinity" (which I definitely recommend you pick up, it is excellent and very helpful in learning how to think about the Trinity): "The doctrine of the Trinity does not explain how it is that God is able to be present in this remarkable way [of the Trinity]--it simply affirms that God is present and available in this manner." (emphasis his)

It's one thing to say that "When I turn on this switch, the light comes on." It's quite another to understand how it all works, as far as wiring and electricity and volts and current. But if someone comes along and says, "No, if you stomp your foot, that's what makes the light turn on," you know enough to say that this simply isn't true. You don't understand it all, but you understand enough.

Can "one God" be succinctly defined so it is anywhere near understandable in the same way "three Persons" appears to be? If so, what is that definition?

Simply "One God is one being, unique, eternal, uncreated and omnipotent" isn't succint enough?

I'm not sure that I follow this quote properly, because the Trinitarian concept of God does indicate a God of infinite scope who is responsible for everything. It appears like it applies properly to Trinitarianism, as well as absolute monotheism.

Not responsible for evil, or sin or corruption. That is a big difference, as well as the fact that mainstream Christianity also believes in the existence of angels, demons, Satan, and other supernatural beings, which takes it out of the realm of truly "absolute monotheism" by definition.

The LDS perspective of God is as of a discrete being of physical nature, subject to certain limitations of divine law. Does Trinitarianism apply any limits to God, or are there no limits?

Limits of nature, like moral limits (God cannot lie, sin, etc). Also simple logical limits, basically meaning that the linguistic games that we come up with that are truly impossible in reality (square circle, creating a rock so heavy He can't lift it, etc). But there is nothing outside/above God that has the authority to judge or correct Him. He is the "top of the food chain", as it were.

The concept of Christ did not come suddenly into existence with the birth of the babe in Bethlehem, as I think you understand. And from Paul's understanding, the concept of Christ among the Israelites in the OT was not something that was unknown either. So, the answer is really not as simple as you indicate. The theology of Christ and the concept of "one God" is most likely something that the Israelites had to deal with also; however, we have no indication of the concept of a Trinity before the Christian era, so something doctrinally appears to have changed.

It is one thing to say that the belief in a coming Messiah/Christ is found B.C. It is quite another to say that the knowledge that this Messiah was going to be divine, God himself incarnate, was expected. It is the fact that Jesus was/is seen as the incarnate God that led to the formulation of the Trinity, not the fact that he was the Messiah. The incarnation of God in Christ was a bombshell whose echo was still reverberating throughout Christian thinking and theology for centuries afterward. And I would agree that the change from pre-Christian Jewish monotheism to Christian trinitarianism represents a doctrinal change, or perhaps more specifically, a new revelation that had to be accounted for and integrated into the previous understanding. God had revealed Himself in and through Christ, so of course a doctrinal shift took place to take into account this powerful self-revelation. A change in doctrine and understanding was inevitable.

More in a bit. Take care, everyone

[structurecop]

"Evil" did not exist before Lucifer created it? hmmmmm..... mayhap you've been reading too much Milton??

Scientists can "create" elements heavier than plutonium -- that's about as "godlike" as anything I might

be inclined to attribute to invisible "powers" in the air, or to the "Fallen Star of the Morn."

UD

I never said evil didn't exist before Lucifer/Satan/the Devil/the adversary; of course, if it did, that would make evil a force in and of itself rivaling the power of good. Satan does, according to Christian mythology (modern and ancient) seem to have the ability to influence people into creating horrible things like Quentin Tarantino, Harry Potter, and methamphetamine.

[structurecop]

I'm not sure where you're getting this conclusion from. It certainly has no parallel in mainstream Christian theology of any stripe. In addition to the aspects of God mentioned by roman and Da Unk, Satan is not seen as omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, etc. Satan is a created being, of a different order than humans, but still a created being.

Those characteristics are not requisite to being a god in ANE traditions. Christ is a created being but still god (of course, being an EV you would take exception to that statement).

As such, he had a beginning, while God does not. Likewise, all of the positive attributes applied to God in mainstream Christianity (merciful, just, holy, compassionate, etc.) do not apply to Satan either. Satan is not the equal of God in any real sense, especially considering that we already know his end; eternal punishment, as seen in Revelation.

Again, positive aspects or not, Satan has divine qualities being a celestial/spiritual being, able to affect changes in the physical world, part of the divine council, and controls (or is) a power able to defeat the salvific power of God.

But anyway, this is probably a topic for a different thread. I have to finish a bunch of homework for the Army today.

[rhinomelon]

I disagree with this entirely. For all intents and purposes, the concept of Trinity did not exist until the 3rd-4th century. Speculation is experimental knowledge; theology should try to identify eternal truths. The religion preached by the Savior was indeed a simple religion, as James so plainly states when he identifies "pure religion".

I wouldn't expect you to agree with it I would, however, disagree that the Trinity was unheard of before the 3rd and 4th centuries. Triadic formulas in speaking about the work of the one God were in use even in the New Testament, as well as the earliest of the church fathers. Christ was seen as God from the beginning; working out how it was possible was a long process, but the basic facts were there. It was simply fitting them together in one coherent framework that was the difficult part. Theology does try to identify eternal truths, but there is a process in doing that. It's one thing to have a revelation just dropped into one's lap like the early Christians did; it's quite another to study it, line out the implications, and discern what it means and what it doesn't mean. It's not an overnight magical event, it is indeed a process. LDS theology works much the same way. Revelations are examined, studied, and digested, and presented to the membership in various ways.

I agree that the religion of Jesus is simple, on the face of it, but behind the religious practices was a new way of thinking about God and humanity that had to be grasped and processed as much as possible. It was anything but simple. As you yourself admit, even LDS don't have a complete grasp of Who or What God is. Does this mean you shouldn't try to understand, because it's "not simple"?

Interesting; one of the things many evangelical scholars seem to bemoan is the lack of understanding about the Trinity among most Christians.

I agree, which is why one should go to those sources that will present good, thoughtful information. Many LDS people don't understand aspects of LDS theology either; that fact, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. Therefore, to get the best information, one should go to the best sources, whether LDS or non-LDS theology is the focus.

Look forward to continuing the conversation. As you can probably tell, I am now able to post in the presence of my bloated book collection, which means fun quotes to attempt to back up the drivel I post on my own

Take care, everyone

[jwhitlock]

I would disagree that Stephen saw three separate beings in Acts. In the language and context of the day, Stephen was not making a statement about physical or relative location, but of Jesus' position as one blessed and accepted by God, if not fully divine. The right hand/left hand metaphor is scattered throughout the Bible, always referring to relative states of blessedness or condemnation, not of actual location. Actual location is not the point, and that's not how the Jews stoning Stephen would have seen it. But this is rather beside the point.

The reference in Acts 7 was meant to display separateness between two beings, not three. Sorry for the confusion on that.

So, it appears with the doctrine of the Trinity you have to take all of those scriptures that talk about Jesus and God being separate (you should be familiar with some that LDS quote; if you need references, I will supply others) and say that they are all metaphoric, not literal. Correct? (And you know that I'm not going to agree on Acts 7; it's pretty clear to LDS that Stephen's vision is extremely strong evidence of the existence of two separate, identifiable Persons.)

"Three Persons", in trinitarian theology, does not mean "three separate individuals", as the LDS view dictates. There are different ways to describe it, like "centers of consciousness" or "distinct persons" or whatever, but the basic point is that there are three distinct (but not separate) personalities within the one being of the triune God. We human beings tend to think of persons or personalities as individual, embodied beings like ourselves. But this does not mean that this is the only way a being could exist. Heck, even as human beings we have distinct persons within each of us, in a way. We have what seems like another voice, or mind inside our own, whom we can actually debate or converse with. The early church father Tertullian made this analogy as a way of thinking about the Trinity, about the three Persons in the one being of God.

Just so I understand, it appears that you are shifting the argument from understanding what "one God" is all about (He is one Being), to indicating that the "three Persons" is really where the misunderstanding occurs. Is that correct?

Perhaps one could use this argument as a means of figuring out what Jesus is doing when praying to His Father (distinct personalities in one Person). Or the manifestation of the Three in separate ways during the baptism of Jesus. However, the analogy of you or I having several different personalities, and Tertullian's application of it to the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be quite a stretch. It seems apparent that the apostles considered God the Father and Christ to be two separate people; it is odd that Jesus would not correct this very basic misconception in a clear way, but would continue to allow it to be perpetuated in His actions (praying to His Father), and in the visions seen by those such as Stephen after His death. Even in the passage in John where Thomas asks Jesus to show him the Father, and where Christ replies that he who has seen Christ has seen the Father, the entire conversation does not support Trinitarianism as it is defined today. That would have been the perfect time to expound the doctrine; however, it wasn't done.

Now, the mystery of the Trinity is how it all works. As Alister McGrath wrote in "Understanding the Trinity" (which I definitely recommend you pick up, it is excellent and very helpful in learning how to think about the Trinity): "The doctrine of the Trinity does not explain how it is that God is able to be present in this remarkable way [of the Trinity]--it simply affirms that God is present and available in this manner." (emphasis his)

I'll have to see if I can get the book.

I don't think that the issue is whether we can understand the Trinity or not; I think that the issue is whether the concept of Trinity is supportable from the scriptures or not. Again, LDS, as I stated before, don't claim to understand everything either; however, we do try to point to clear declarations (where possible) from authoritative (in our mind) sources for our doctrinal positions.

Simply "One God is one being, unique, eternal, uncreated and omnipotent" isn't succint enough?

This, again, appears to indicate that you put more of the emphasis on defining "three Persons" rather than "one God".

Not responsible for evil, or sin or corruption. That is a big difference, as well as the fact that mainstream Christianity also believes in the existence of angels, demons, Satan, and other supernatural beings, which takes it out of the realm of truly "absolute monotheism" by definition.

Perhaps this takes the thread off on a tangent and should be something else on its own. However, if part of the concept of "one God" is that He is uncreated, and that all things were created by Him, then the responsibility for the results would appear to lie with Him.

Limits of nature, like moral limits (God cannot lie, sin, etc). Also simple logical limits, basically meaning that the linguistic games that we come up with that are truly impossible in reality (square circle, creating a rock so heavy He can't lift it, etc). But there is nothing outside/above God that has the authority to judge or correct Him. He is the "top of the food chain", as it were.

This is mostly consistent with LDS belief; the qualifier, of course, about anyone above in the food chain, would be perhaps modified with the qualifier of "in this space/time continuum", or something like that.

It is one thing to say that the belief in a coming Messiah/Christ is found B.C. It is quite another to say that the knowledge that this Messiah was going to be divine, God himself incarnate, was expected. It is the fact that Jesus was/is seen as the incarnate God that led to the formulation of the Trinity, not the fact that he was the Messiah. The incarnation of God in Christ was a bombshell whose echo was still reverberating throughout Christian thinking and theology for centuries afterward. And I would agree that the change from pre-Christian Jewish monotheism to Christian trinitarianism represents a doctrinal change, or perhaps more specifically, a new revelation that had to be accounted for and integrated into the previous understanding. God had revealed Himself in and through Christ, so of course a doctrinal shift took place to take into account this powerful self-revelation. A change in doctrine and understanding was inevitable.

This is where I perhaps find the Christian concept of God so troubling, in the light of current claims that one must espouse Trinitarianism in order to be saved. I would expect to find a continuity of such an important doctrine and of the understanding of the nature of God from the beginning. Indeed, here are some aspects that tend to point to such a continuity existing, perhaps not in perfect understanding, but existing at any rate:

- Expectation of a Messiah as Savior from OT times. Though the ruling elites may have misunderstood what they were being saved from. it was, nevertheless, the expectation of a Messiah to come. And the concept of such a saving Messiah was not new to Christ's time; not only did two people at the time of the infant Christ's presentation at the temple acclaim Him as that Messiah, other OT scriptures (Isaiah 53, for example) are rich with the Messianic concept of salvation.

- The apparently already ingrained idea among the apostles (as mentioned before) that the Father and Son were separate.

- References to the anthropomorphic nature of God in the OT (Gen 32:30, for example, in seeing God face to face), that appear, at least to me, to be far more consistent with the NT than the Trinitarian concepts of later centuries.

- References of distinct plurality from the beginning (Gen 1:26, let us make man in our image, after our likeness) coupled with an anthropomorphic nature.

- The reference of 1 Cor 10 I cited before indicating that Christ was known to be involved with Israel in his premortal existence.

I saw your other post and will respond separately to that.

[jwhitlock]

I wouldn't expect you to agree with it I would, however, disagree that the Trinity was unheard of before the 3rd and 4th centuries. Triadic formulas in speaking about the work of the one God were in use even in the New Testament, as well as the earliest of the church fathers. Christ was seen as God from the beginning; working out how it was possible was a long process, but the basic facts were there. It was simply fitting them together in one coherent framework that was the difficult part. Theology does try to identify eternal truths, but there is a process in doing that. It's one thing to have a revelation just dropped into one's lap like the early Christians did; it's quite another to study it, line out the implications, and discern what it means and what it doesn't mean. It's not an overnight magical event, it is indeed a process. LDS theology works much the same way. Revelations are examined, studied, and digested, and presented to the membership in various ways.

The crux of support for the doctrine of Trinity is perhaps the phrase "one God" found in the NT. Of course, I would argue that the meaning of "one God" can be defined or understood in several ways. The main source of LDS doctrine concerning the nature of God is through latter day prophets, though I suppose one could look to other influences from Christianity of Joseph Smiths day that might also support it. In the same vein, the main source of the defined Trinitarian doctrine was the councils. You are also familiar enough with LDS thought to know that our feeling is that the doctrine has its roots based more in Greek philosophy, with a secondary appeal to the scriptures as support.

The point is that what you take as support for Trinitarian doctrine, I take as support for doctrine of unity and authority in the office of the Godhead. And neither term is found in the scriptures; both are ultimately sourced from different authorities other than the Bible.

Again, I do find it odd that it wasn't until the 3-4th century that Christians would claim that the basic concept of the nature of God was ironed out. I find more evidence that the apostles understood the basics very well, and that various levels of that understanding existed from the beginning in OT times, as I noted in my previous post.

I agree that the religion of Jesus is simple, on the face of it, but behind the religious practices was a new way of thinking about God and humanity that had to be grasped and processed as much as possible. It was anything but simple. As you yourself admit, even LDS don't have a complete grasp of Who or What God is. Does this mean you shouldn't try to understand, because it's "not simple"?

It is, after all, human nature to take something simple and to make something more complicated of it. I'm not sure that either Christians or LDS are innocent in this regard.

I agree, which is why one should go to those sources that will present good, thoughtful information. Many LDS people don't understand aspects of LDS theology either; that fact, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. Therefore, to get the best information, one should go to the best sources, whether LDS or non-LDS theology is the focus.

The point I was referring to was your indication that billions of people embrace the doctrine of the Trinity - and I don't see that most of those understand it on even the most basic level.

Look forward to continuing the conversation. As you can probably tell, I am now able to post in the presence of my bloated book collection, which means fun quotes to attempt to back up the drivel I post on my own

That will be helpful. And I think that LDS can out-drivel you any day of the week, so there!

[Uncle Dale]

Christ is a created being...

So far as I can fathom Christian theology, the earthly body of Jesus was indeed "created" -- but that

"God the Son" is/was/ever will be "begotten, and not made" -- being from all eternity, one with the Father.

It is LDS theology that professes "God the Son" to be a created being, named Jehovah.

Reorganized LDS theology leaves open a number of possibilities, but does not include the precept of the

"Logos" ever having been created -- nor that there was ever a time or a place without the Son of God.

UD

[rhinomelon]

The reference in Acts 7 was meant to display separateness between two beings, not three. Sorry for the confusion on that.

So, it appears with the doctrine of the Trinity you have to take all of those scriptures that talk about Jesus and God being separate (you should be familiar with some that LDS quote; if you need references, I will supply others) and say that they are all metaphoric, not literal. Correct? (And you know that I'm not going to agree on Acts 7; it's pretty clear to LDS that Stephen's vision is extremely strong evidence of the existence of two separate, identifiable Persons.)

Not a problem, I knew what you were getting at. I wouldn't say that one must take all the references to the "separateness" (I don't like the term, but it'll do for now) of Christ and the Father metaphorically. I would say that some would go that way. The language Stephen used in Acts 7, for example, was common in Jewish thought, and did not really refer to individuals or spatial location; "on the right hand of God" was used to denote power, authority, approval/vindication by God, etc. I hardly think the Jews would have stoned Stephen just for saying he saw Jesus standing just to the right of God (they might have, I don't know).

But other statements should not be seen metaphorically, but more in terms of the incarnation of Christ. As a fully incarnate human being, there was some kind of divide or separation between Father and Son. God cannot be tempted, Jesus was; God doesn't pray, while Jesus did; as a man, Jesus was not worthy of worship, but God was. Those passages that speak of the pre-incarnate Son (John 1, for example) point to a different kind of relationship, apart from the humanity taken on in the incarnation.

Just so I understand, it appears that you are shifting the argument from understanding what "one God" is all about (He is one Being), to indicating that the "three Persons" is really where the misunderstanding occurs. Is that correct?

Actually, I think both issues are problematic for LDS, and both are equally important if one wants to understand the Trinity.

However, the analogy of you or I having several different personalities, and Tertullian's application of it to the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be quite a stretch.

All analogies relying on created things (which are really the only analogies we are capable of) are a stretch when applied to God. I don't find that state of affairs unexpected, although it can make discussions somewhat confusing!

It seems apparent that the apostles considered God the Father and Christ to be two separate people; it is odd that Jesus would not correct this very basic misconception in a clear way, but would continue to allow it to be perpetuated in His actions (praying to His Father), and in the visions seen by those such as Stephen after His death. Even in the passage in John where Thomas asks Jesus to show him the Father, and where Christ replies that he who has seen Christ has seen the Father, the entire conversation does not support Trinitarianism as it is defined today. That would have been the perfect time to expound the doctrine; however, it wasn't done.

I don't see that it is apparent the apostles thought this way. The language used in the New Testament shows they believed in one God, and also that they believed Christ was God (and to a lesser extent, the Holy Spirit). Reconciling these two facts leads to the Trinity; tritheism discounts the former, unitarianism/modalism denies the latter. I agree that Jesus could have made things much clearer (on many issues, not just the nature of God), but I think you would agree that theological precision wasn't the point of his mortal life. Also, I would point out that it was the Holy Spirit that was responsible for the really "theological" periods in the early church history. Almost all of the New Testament was written after the ascension of Christ, after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As a traditional Christian, I believe the Holy Spirit's guidance continued on through the councils and on to the present day.

Simply "One God is one being, unique, eternal, uncreated and omnipotent" isn't succint enough?

This, again, appears to indicate that you put more of the emphasis on defining "three Persons" rather than "one God".

How so? I don't see a mention of "three Persons" in the definition, or even "three" anything.

Perhaps this takes the thread off on a tangent and should be something else on its own. However, if part of the concept of "one God" is that He is uncreated, and that all things were created by Him, then the responsibility for the results would appear to lie with Him.

It would be a tangent, but I can be brief. Free will is the clincher; human beings and other supernatural entities had the freedom to rebel against and reject God, and they did. I don't see God being responsible for that, any more than a parent can be sent to jail for the crimes of an adult, independent child. That's just my take on it.

This is where I perhaps find the Christian concept of God so troubling, in the light of current claims that one must espouse Trinitarianism in order to be saved.

I wouldn't go that far. I do believe that any errors in one's concept of God trickle down through one's entire spiritual life. As A.W. Tozer wrote in "Knowledge of the Holy", "What comes to our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." I can't say whether rejecting the Trinity automatically disqualifies one for salvation, but I do believe that it would at least lead to a weakened Christian life.

I would expect to find a continuity of such an important doctrine and of the understanding of the nature of God from the beginning.

And yet aren't LDS scholars doing the same thing, trying to force their own paradigm into the Old and New Testaments? A tritheistic concept of God certainly has not been in evidence from the very beginning (indeed, I would argue that it is not present in the OT and NT at all, but that's another story).

Indeed, here are some aspects that tend to point to such a continuity existing, perhaps not in perfect understanding, but existing at any rate:

- Expectation of a Messiah as Savior from OT times. Though the ruling elites may have misunderstood what they were being saved from. it was, nevertheless, the expectation of a Messiah to come. And the concept of such a saving Messiah was not new to Christ's time; not only did two people at the time of the infant Christ's presentation at the temple acclaim Him as that Messiah, other OT scriptures (Isaiah 53, for example) are rich with the Messianic concept of salvation.

But was the Messiah ever conceived of as being divine, or even more striking, as God Himself in human form? That right there is a vitally important difference, and makes all the difference in the world, I think. Yes, the Messiah was coming, but God Himself in human form? Unless that link is in the OT times as well, there are indeed vital elements of the Messiah concept that were never a part of the OT witness.

The apparently already ingrained idea among the apostles (as mentioned before) that the Father and Son were separate.

I'm still not sure where you're getting this idea from. If anything, any ideas that the disciples had that the Father and Son were truly separate were corrected by Jesus himself ("Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father", John 1, "I and the Father are one", etc.). Also, the distinction between the preincarnate Son and the incarnate Son also applies in this area.

- References to the anthropomorphic nature of God in the OT (Gen 32:30, for example, in seeing God face to face), that appear, at least to me, to be far more consistent with the NT than the Trinitarian concepts of later centuries.

- References of distinct plurality from the beginning (Gen 1:26, let us make man in our image, after our likeness) coupled with an anthropomorphic nature

As to the first, there are many different ways of speaking about God, including anthropomorphisms and the like. I know that you as an LDS do not accept the metaphorical interpretation, but it does reconcile with the New Testament ("No man has seen God at any time", etc.).

As to the second, the plurality in terms for God, especially in Genesis, are coupled with singular verbs (basically like "They is" or "They creates"). Also, in terms of those words for "God" that look to unity, there is a plurality in those ("echad"-a unified oneness of parts rather than "yachid"-a solitary oneness--yachid is never used to speak of God). In short, both unity and plurality within God are pointed to in the OT language. I wouldn't say this means that the OT Hebrews knew about the Trinity, but clearly there is something beyond a simply an "either unitarian or bitheistic/tritheistic" issue here.

Okay, I'm done for now. Back to Latin!

Take care, everyone

[Billy5150]

I thought the Book of Mormon cleared up the confusion regarding the Trinity...

Alma 11:

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Christianity is monotheistic and it looks like Mormonism was supposed to be too! But we all know that Mormon doctrine doesn't always agree with the BoM.

Peace!

Bill

[Uncle Dale]

I thought the Book of Mormon cleared up the confusion regarding the Trinity...

Alma 11:

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Christianity is monotheistic and it looks like Mormonism was supposed to be too! But we all know that Mormon doctrine doesn't always agree with the BoM.

Peace!

Bill

RLDS Book of Mormon -- Alma 8:

79 And Zeezrom said unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

80 And Amulek said, Yea, there is a true and a living God.

81 Now Zeezrom said, Is there more than one God?

82 And he answereth, No.

83 Now Zeezrom said unto him again, How knowest thou these things?

84 And he said, An angel hath made them known unto me.

But, perhaps the "angel" was wrong about this doctrine... ???

UD

[structurecop]

RLDS Book of Mormon -- Alma 8:

But, perhaps the "angel" was wrong about this doctrine... ???

Angels tended to give revelation through the theological lense of a 19th century Christian, donchaknow...

[Uncle Dale]

Angels tended to give revelation through the theological lense of a 19th century Christian,

donchaknow...

Like it, or lump it -- perhaps? At any rate we proto-RLDS stopped listening very closely to our leaders,

not long after that book was published. By the time the BoA came along, we'd stopped listening totally.

UD

[jwhitlock]

Not a problem, I knew what you were getting at. I wouldn't say that one must take all the references to the "separateness" (I don't like the term, but it'll do for now) of Christ and the Father metaphorically. I would say that some would go that way. The language Stephen used in Acts 7, for example, was common in Jewish thought, and did not really refer to individuals or spatial location; "on the right hand of God" was used to denote power, authority, approval/vindication by God, etc. I hardly think the Jews would have stoned Stephen just for saying he saw Jesus standing just to the right of God (they might have, I don't know).

We're going to have to disagree on this. The application of metaphorical argument to Stephen's experience, from my viewpoint, is simply to make the scripture fit the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't find that it works very well.

Actually, I think both issues are problematic for LDS, and both are equally important if one wants to understand the Trinity.

We are, indeed on polar opposites on this one. I find (and many LDS would agree) the Trinitarian concept as problematic for traditional Christianity. Again, we'll just have to disagree.

I don't see that it is apparent the apostles thought this way. The language used in the New Testament shows they believed in one God, and also that they believed Christ was God (and to a lesser extent, the Holy Spirit). Reconciling these two facts leads to the Trinity; tritheism discounts the former, unitarianism/modalism denies the latter.

It's actually much simpler than that. The apostles don't treat Jesus like He is God the Father among them. They're familiar with Him, and He is very approachable. But when the Father is around (on the Mount of Transfiguration in Matt 17), it's a totally different situation with their actions. BTW, Matt 17 is another excellent example of the separateness of the Father and the Son.

I agree that Jesus could have made things much clearer (on many issues, not just the nature of God), but I think you would agree that theological precision wasn't the point of his mortal life. Also, I would point out that it was the Holy Spirit that was responsible for the really "theological" periods in the early church history. Almost all of the New Testament was written after the ascension of Christ, after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As a traditional Christian, I believe the Holy Spirit's guidance continued on through the councils and on to the present day.

We agree that the Spirit is responsible for the teaching of most truth; Christ Himself stated it as so.

We would disagree on the guidance of the Spirit to the extent you claim after the first century and through the councils.

It would be a tangent, but I can be brief. Free will is the clincher; human beings and other supernatural entities had the freedom to rebel against and reject God, and they did. I don't see God being responsible for that, any more than a parent can be sent to jail for the crimes of an adult, independent child. That's just my take on it.

Bad analogy. God, according to Christian creatio ex nihilo doctrine, is responsible for the totality of the created individual - something we, as parents, are not responsible for. And Calvinists would reject the free will aspect of what you're saying.

However, it has also always been troubling to me that Christian doctrine attempts to find an escape for God's total responsibility in the application of free will. It makes no sense; if all people are created equal, then it is like a roll of the dice in how they will turn out. If they are not created equal, then God is ultimately responsible for the unequal grounds on which free will is applied.

But, then again, this particular item does need another thread. I'll shut up for now on it.

I wouldn't go that far. I do believe that any errors in one's concept of God trickle down through one's entire spiritual life. As A.W. Tozer wrote in "Knowledge of the Holy", "What comes to our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." I can't say whether rejecting the Trinity automatically disqualifies one for salvation, but I do believe that it would at least lead to a weakened Christian life.

This is actually the most fascinating response, at least for me, in your post. If this is true, then if the doctrine of Trinity is wrong, traditional Christianity and Christians associated with it are in deep, deep trouble.

LDS doctrine assumes from the start that our perception of God is going to be imperfect, and that our ability to progress based on our misconceptions is going to impede our progress - if we are left to ourselves. However, this is one of the things that the atonement of Christ helps us out with; we become candidates for salvation and can obtain the blessings needed for us to progress despite our misconceptions.

It must be noted, that in addition to the above, we most continually keep learning and refining our understanding of God. However, I do not think that we believe that the extent of our misunderstanding of the nature of God is unavoidably as debilitating as you do.

And yet aren't LDS scholars doing the same thing, trying to force their own paradigm into the Old and New Testaments? A tritheistic concept of God certainly has not been in evidence from the very beginning (indeed, I would argue that it is not present in the OT and NT at all, but that's another story).

Of course we are - just as Christian scholars do with the preconceived doctrines from the councils.

The point that I made in the discussion below is that I see the LDS concept of God as generally consistent with the concept of God from the beginning in the scriptures - some information is added from time to time, but the foundational doctrine does not change. The concept of the Trinity as finalized (kind of) in the councils is a new doctrine - and I see it as an aberration.

But was the Messiah ever conceived of as being divine, or even more striking, as God Himself in human form? That right there is a vitally important difference, and makes all the difference in the world, I think. Yes, the Messiah was coming, but God Himself in human form? Unless that link is in the OT times as well, there are indeed vital elements of the Messiah concept that were never a part of the OT witness.

Yes, Jesus as Messiah is considered divine from OT times - if you take into account the LDS assertion that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, working under the direction of His Father.

I'm still not sure where you're getting this idea from. If anything, any ideas that the disciples had that the Father and Son were truly separate were corrected by Jesus himself ("Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father", John 1, "I and the Father are one", etc.). Also, the distinction between the preincarnate Son and the incarnate Son also applies in this area.

The entire conversation from about John 14 to John 17 is probably something that should be addressed in depth separately. It is probably the most definitive reading from the NT about the relationship of Jesus to His Father - and I believe that the conclusion of a careful reading of it would be that Jesus and the Father are separate beings.

As to the first, there are many different ways of speaking about God, including anthropomorphisms and the like. I know that you as an LDS do not accept the metaphorical interpretation, but it does reconcile with the New Testament ("No man has seen God at any time", etc.).

Unless, of course "No man has seen God at any time" is taken metaphorically, or with some important qualifiers based on other passages.

As to the second, the plurality in terms for God, especially in Genesis, are coupled with singular verbs (basically like "They is" or "They creates"). Also, in terms of those words for "God" that look to unity, there is a plurality in those ("echad"-a unified oneness of parts rather than "yachid"-a solitary oneness--yachid is never used to speak of God). In short, both unity and plurality within God are pointed to in the OT language. I wouldn't say this means that the OT Hebrews knew about the Trinity, but clearly there is something beyond a simply an "either unitarian or bitheistic/tritheistic" issue here.

And one interpretation of this could well be that we have several beings acting in complete unity.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Yes, Jesus as Messiah is considered divine from OT times - if you take into account the LDS

assertion that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, working under the direction of His Father.

....

It is not just an LDS assertion -- and when Dr. Talmadge clarified LDS Christology on this point he was

not working with a blank slate. There were previous Christians who theologized along those same lines,

and who selectively quoted biblical passages favoring their position. Indeed, there are passages in the

Christian Bible that lend themselves to the conclusion that Jesus at least incarnates the "God of the

Old Testament."

But, leaving latter day scripture to one side, for a moment --- how do you justify the notion that the

Messiah was "considered divine from OT times"??? Is it your assertion that every Israelite and every

Jew, from Jacob to John the Baptist, expected a "Divine" coming Messiah from the lineage of David?

Again, I ask that you ponder and discuss this, apart from LDS gospel dispensationalism, and apart from

the Christian creeds, for that matter.

Your thoughts?

UD

[jwhitlock]

But, leaving latter day scripture to one side, for a moment --- how do you justify the notion that the Messiah was "considered divine from OT times"??? Is it your assertion that every Israelite and every Jew, from Jacob to John the Baptist, expected a "Divine" coming Messiah from the lineage of David?

I certainly can't speak for "every Jew" and their expectations. However, I can point to some of the following from the OT (keeping in mind the assumption that Jesus is the God of the OT):

Dan 9:25-26 - Messiah the Prince (capitalized) shall come; the other prince (lower case) who destroys Jerusalem thereafter is considered lesser than the Messianic Prince. Then again, the capitalization could be arbitrary...

Isaiah 9:6 - the above bolstered somewhat by the Child who is to be born (Christ) is the "mighty God", the "everlasting Father", the "Prince of Peace". The government is upon His shoulder.

Isaiah 53 - outlines the mission of the Child who is to be born, to save us.

These are some quick references; there are probably more. Together they give a picture of a Messiah (Christ) who will come to save, who is a Prince of divine royalty, and who is God.

[Uncle Dale]

I certainly can't speak for "every Jew" and their expectations. However, I can point to some of the following from the OT (keeping in mind the assumption that Jesus is the God of the OT):

Dan 9:25-26 - Messiah the Prince (capitalized) shall come; the other prince (lower case) who destroys Jerusalem thereafter is considered lesser than the Messianic Prince. Then again, the capitalization could be arbitrary...

Isaiah 9:6 - the above bolstered somewhat by the Child who is to be born (Christ) is the "mighty God", the "everlasting Father", the "Prince of Peace". The government is upon His shoulder.

Isaiah 53 - outlines the mission of the Child who is to be born, to save us.

These are some quick references; there are probably more. Together they give a picture of a Messiah (Christ) who will come to save, who is a Prince of divine royalty, and who is God.

Yes -- and there is a great deal of non-LDS Christian apologetics written along those lines. We need not

even read theologizing to get that message, for it come in Handel's music and in stained glass windows

and by other means.

And yes, by Isaiah's day there were indeed messianic expectations of the sort you point out -- though

our Jewish brethren would argue that in his day the general expectation was NOT that Messiah=God.

I see Daniel as a composite text, mixing early material (from the period attributed to Daniel) with some

very late theologizing. So I place it practically in Christian times, and very nearly contemporary with

the earliest of the unique Dead Sea scrolls.

So, I understand your brief attempt at proof-texting (or perhaps you mean to do more than that). But

I am left unconvinced that there were ANY messianic expections before Isaiah's time, and that there

were ANY Jewish expectations of a "Divine" Messiah until shortly before Jesus' own period.

In other words, I think it a mistake to proclaim that the Hebrew Bible unmistakeably anticipates and

predicts a Divine Messiah ---- that such a claim cannot be made for the majority of that canon, nor

even for any substantial portion of its prophecies and narratives.

However, when we get into texts like Daniel, Enoch and the Qumran scrolls, I am more inclined to

agree with what you said in your previous posting.

UD

[structurecop]

In other words, I think it a mistake to proclaim that the Hebrew Bible unmistakeably anticipates and

predicts a Divine Messiah ---- that such a claim cannot be made for the majority of that canon, nor

even for any substantial portion of its prophecies and narratives.

I couldn't agree with you more here, Uncle Dale... in fact, Isaiah 53 in historical context has very little to do with a future Messiah and a whole lot to do with the slaying of a contemporary (7th or 6th century) prophet.

[Uncle Dale]

I couldn't agree with you more here, Uncle Dale... in fact, Isaiah 53 in historical context has

very little to do with a future Messiah and a whole lot to do with the slaying of a contemporary

(7th or 6th century) prophet.

The problem being, that mainstream Christianity has depended upon the various Jewish messianic

prophecies and traditions in order to help justify the divinity of Jesus in that religion's Christology.

While I think that a good case can be made for an evolution of Jewish messianic expectations in the

direction of a divine Messiah, that evolution came late in Israel's history and really only became

recognizable to "Christian" eyes from Seleucid occupation times forward.

On the other hand, many early Mormons (like my own ancestors) were frustrated by the Hebrew Bible's

lack of clarity on these issues -- and that was part of the reason that they welcomed reading the "plain

and precious parts" of the professed "fulness of the gospel" in the BoM.

So, as I speak of messianic expectations (and especially divine messianic expectations) occuring

late in Israel's history, I run the risk of offending gospel dispensationalists both among the Christians

and among the Mormons.

Sigh! -- no wonder I keep getting myself into trouble!

UD

.

[structurecop]

Sigh! -- no wonder I keep getting myself into trouble!

Welcome to the club!

[jwhitlock]

I couldn't agree with you more here, Uncle Dale... in fact, Isaiah 53 in historical context has very little to do with a future Messiah and a whole lot to do with the slaying of a contemporary (7th or 6th century) prophet.

I'd like to see some references supporting the above concerning Isaiah 53.

[jwhitlock]

So, I understand your brief attempt at proof-texting (or perhaps you mean to do more than that). But I am left unconvinced that there were ANY messianic expections before Isaiah's time, and that there were ANY Jewish expectations of a "Divine" Messiah until shortly before Jesus' own period.

In other words, I think it a mistake to proclaim that the Hebrew Bible unmistakeably anticipates and predicts a Divine Messiah ---- that such a claim cannot be made for the majority of that canon, nor even for any substantial portion of its prophecies and narratives.

I don't think that the Bible "unmistakably" makes such a claim, let alone having a substantial portion of its text support that. However, the point is that Trinitarianism is not consistent with the long term development of the doctrine of the nature of God. It is a departure. And the question is why, given the professed importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian faith, is it not better supported in the OT?

Christian apologists would claim that Christ was a new manifestation of God that was unknown before. Hence the exploration of the Messiah as Savior and God anticipation of Christ in the OT.

One other avenue to explore in this is the fact that the NT apostles quoted so much OT scripture in support of the mission of Christ. They evidently perceived that kind of support from the Hebrew scriptures.

Another factor is that I find the OT to be very incomplete. Passages that could be quoted in support of Christ's Messianic calling are subject to different interpretations at times. My LDS interpretation is obviously going to take into account additional prophetic and scriptural information we have in our day.

Here is an additional thought I have from the OT. No smoking guns, but some possible direction.

Abraham offered sacrifice to God (keeping in mind the assumption that this is Christ), which sacrifice is a type of the coming sacrifice of the Son of God. Sacrifice was also important in Mosaic times, also pointing to the coming sacrifice of the Messiah. This would appear to point to an early understanding of the need for a redemptive Savior. The OT is not completely clear on the motivations for sacrifice, but the NT authors did talk about sacrifice, especially in Hebrews, as being a type of Christ and fulfilled in His death.

[Uncle Dale]

I don't think that the Bible "unmistakably" makes such a claim, let alone having a substantial portion of its text support that. However, the point is that Trinitarianism is not consistent with the long term development of the doctrine of the nature of God. It is a departure. And the question is why, given the professed importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian faith, is it not better supported in the OT?

Christian apologists would claim that Christ was a new manifestation of God that was unknown before. Hence the exploration of the Messiah as Savior and God anticipation of Christ in the OT.

One other avenue to explore in this is the fact that the NT apostles quoted so much OT scripture in support of the mission of Christ. They evidently perceived that kind of support from the Hebrew scriptures.

Another factor is that I find the OT to be very incomplete. Passages that could be quoted in support of Christ's Messianic calling are subject to different interpretations at times. My LDS interpretation is obviously going to take into account additional prophetic and scriptural information we have in our day.

Here is an additional thought I have from the OT. No smoking guns, but some possible direction.

Abraham offered sacrifice to God (keeping in mind the assumption that this is Christ), which sacrifice is a type of the coming sacrifice of the Son of God. Sacrifice was also important in Mosaic times, also pointing to the coming sacrifice of the Messiah. This would appear to point to an early understanding of the need for a redemptive Savior. The OT is not completely clear on the motivations for sacrifice, but the NT authors did talk about sacrifice, especially in Hebrews, as being a type of Christ and fulfilled in His death.

Not a bad start -- at least I can see that you appreciate the difficulties involved here.

If we put aside gospel dispensationalism, and study the evident evolution of the religion, I think

that it begins to make sense. But if we argue for a Christianity inherent in the religion of Adam,

Enoch, Noah, Moses and David, I think we then get off track.

Was there ever any devolution in the development of Israelite/Jewish doctrines and practices? Yes,

perhaps in some cases there was. But did those instances add up to a "lost" knowledge of a prophesied

Divine Davidic Messiah? I think not.

A topic worthy of our close attention.

UD

[structurecop]

I'd like to see some references supporting the above concerning Isaiah 53.

ABD article "Isaiah."

[jwhitlock]

If we put aside gospel dispensationalism, and study the evident evolution of the religion, I think that it begins to make sense. But if we argue for a Christianity inherent in the religion of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses and David, I think we then get off track.

It's probably incorrect to think that the manifestation of the "religion of Christ" (as opposed to calling it Christianity) is consistent in form, culture and feature throughout the ages. Leaving aside consistency of doctrine, which is another subject, the Church of today would not look like the Church of Paul's time, which would not look like the Church of the Nephites, which would not look like the "church" of Moses' time, which would not look like the "church" of Abraham, which would not look like the pre-flood era "church". There are just too many cultural, technological differences involved, let alone differences in the needs, backgrounds (literacy, education, etc.), and perspectives of the people involved at those different times.

So we're not going to look for a Church or organization in any of those eras that looks like ours today. It won't exist. The Church as an organization evolves into something unique in every era, so looking for Christianity in the OT as a recognizeable movement is a dead end.

However, what we would look for would be a consistent thread or or understanding of Christ and the Father and their relationship, evolving in a consistent manner over time. I would not try to prove that everyone over time had the same understanding; however, I would expect that those differences in understanding could generally be reconciled. I would assume that the general nature of God and Christ would be an important enough doctrinal subject that there would be indications of general consistency of that doctrine from the beginning.

And indications would be all that I would expect. The record we have is too fragmentary and too much has been lost to expect it otherwise, or to prove that the LDS position from the record is correct. As an aside, that's why I consider it an advantage to have some additional prophetic sources in our day. The advantage is, of course, to my own personal benefit; others who do not accept those sources will have a different perspective.

The same would apply from a Trinitarian perspective. I consider it inconsistent to claim that something as important to ones salvation or progress as a Christian as the doctrine of the Trinity would only become finalized in the 3rd-4th century CE. I would expect to see indications of that in the OT - but I don't.

[jwhitlock]

ABD article "Isaiah."

ABD? My mind has gone blank; I'm not familiar with the source.