Snow

Why doesn't Jesus have any understanding of the "Trinity" in the New Testament?

Yes - we have our eye on you. :)

My point had nothing to do with whether or not they like Mormonism. Rather it was in response to your counter that a reformationist, Luther, didn't set out initially to reform the massive corruption he saw in the Catholic Church. My point, as I recall, is that regardless of Luther's initial reluctance, the reformation was a response to the corruption.

Uh, no, we don't know any such thing. By "Now we know that the Chinese were along the west coast" I assume you are referring to Gavin Menzies' book 1421. Having read the book, I think it's nonsense. Scholars generally agree. Here's the kind of thing they say: "His book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, is a work of sheer fiction presented as revisionist history. Not a single document or artifact has been found to support his new claims on the supposed Ming naval expeditions beyond Africa...Menzies' numerous claims and the hundreds of pieces of "evidence" he has assembled have been thoroughly and entirely discredited by historians, maritime experts and oceanographers from China, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere" Gui-Ping, J; Pereira, M; Rivers PJ; Ming-Yang S; Wade G (2006). If you are referring to something else, please tell me what it is. As for Arabs and Virginia and New Orleans... what is it you think we know?

Well, more like 14 or 15. Or doesn't Paul count? Or Junia?

Well, you know, unless you are a Donatist. Question: So then would you agree that the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches all have that same authority?

How would you characterize Roman Catholic attitudes and actions in relation to native South American cultures during the Conquest?

Some of the prophets, certainly. Scholars believe that the early OT presents a polytheistic view and only later did Judaism become completely monotheistic. What the amateur does is proof text the Bible, pulling out a snippet here and a snippet there to support their belief while ignoring anything that could challenge that belief. That's the only way you can get the Trinity out the Bible - a piece here, a piece there and ignore everything else. The only passage that explictly mentions the Trinity is nothing but a later forgery by a dishonest scribe... and even that forgery doesn't contain the whole doctrine of the Trinity, just the 3 in 1 part.

Luther was but one cog in what was to be a mighty machine rebeling at the massive corruption that permeated the Catholic Church right up to the Pope(s). Apostasy Recognized by Reformationists

That may be the current thinking. Lucky you didn't live hundreds of years ago when you might have been condemned to a fiery hell, tortured and killed for good measure because of your beliefs.

So here's the problem... You, a while, North American, 22nd century Protestant from a low context culture interpret one translation of what an anonymous author, from a high context culture who never met Jesus wrote down about the content of a private conversation Jesus had 5 to 6 decades after the fact and you think it's all rather straight forward. It's nice to be certain, even though God is silent on the matter. Another interpretation is that there was an apostasy but the gates of hell haven't prevailed at all. The Church is here and more relevant than ever.

On Saturday I was complaining to him about how I dislike the SS lessons from the manual (I teach Gospel Doctrine) because they don't, in my opinion, ever teach you anything. Let's say you are reading Revelations - or whatever - I want to know who really wrote out, how, when, why, what does it mean within it's own historical context, etc. Instead the lesson just proof-texts the book to find various passage that tell you that you should be obedient - and that's what the real lesson is about... obey, obey, obey. I want to learn something new instead. So in his homecoming talk, in front of the Bishop, Stake Presidency, and the whole congregation he calls me out, repeats what I told him and then tells me I'm wrong and here's why... Send on a mission and they come back thinking for themselves... why I otta...!

She wanted to complete her degree at BYU and couldn't with the band in So Cal.

Shelly, Would you please answer the question I poised before: If the modern Trinity view of God is correct, why doesn't anyone from the Bible, not God, not Jesus, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James or anyone from the OT demonstrate any awareness of it? Or, if you won't answer that question, since it was unimportant enough to the prophets and apostles that they didn't address it, why worry about it now?

That's a rather generous interpretation, but the reformation was, from the Protestant point of view, about corruption that was so rampant and ubiquitous, that they, that became the Protestants, couldn't be Catholic any more - it wasn't merely that some nice things had lapsed.

That's not a straightforward reading at all. That sets up all sorts of criteria that are not in found in the context of the original text: No significant heresy... that temporarily causes authority to be suspended, for 1700 years. It's simply one interpretation. One could just as easily say no significant heresy, like say The Trinity, that cannot be found in the Bible or no significant apostasy such that the Bishop of Rome... (insert anything you like about the bad popes)... etc. I am not saying that one interpretation is right over the other, it's all a matter of what you choose to believe - God Himself is silent on the matter - any way you look at it is an interoperation that the one side may agree with and seems wholly unreasonable to the other side.

Rather using the definition from Warren Doud of the Austin Bible Church, can't we just use the standard word used since 325 AD and the council of Nicaea? It's the greek word ousia, it means being and it is translated, sometimes, into as substance or essence. It's from the Nicene Creed. If you want to talk about the nature of God or the attributes of God, can't you just say that?

On the other hand Shelly, You are probably right. I apologize. If you will please represent my position correctly I would appreciate you responding to the answered questions.

...

That's not the issue. It's that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. Who cares about the words. That's simply and factually untrue - as it related to what happened with the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ didn't leave a "deposit" of anything that contained the Trinity The Church subsequently added concepts NOT found in the Bible to create the doctrine of the Trinity I wonder if you even know what the Trinity or the real Nicene Creed is. It's not an "expounding," it contains new and additional additive concepts. This is there frustrating part in talking to people who just don't know the material. "It is clearly impossible (if one accepts historical evidence as relevant at all) to escape the claim that the later formulations of dogma cannot be reached by a process of deductive logic from the original propositions and must contain an element of novelty...The emergence of the full trinitarian doctrine was not possible without significant modification of previously accepted ideas." [Maurice Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 4, 144.] Moreover, the real Nicene Creed says nothing about the Trinity. That wouldn't come for another 56 years in the Council of Constantinople. You saying it doesn't make it true. It is false. No person in the Bible demonstrates an awareness of the Trinity. Priests and scholars know that - in fact I posted a quote from a Catholic priest and scholar that said that the Trinity isn't found in the Bible - it's just the uninformed who think otherwise. Here's the proof: I will wait until you post passages from any author in the Bible that demonstrate an awareness of the Trinity - the whole thing: one God, comprised of three hypostases in one ousia, all co-eternal, and co-equa. How long do you guess I will wait until you post that? Forever, that's how long. NO ONE said that only uninformed or unread people believe in the Trinity. NO ONE said it or implied it. You you want to interact with me, interact with what I actually say. Don't make stuff up and then try and pass it off as my position. Some of the very smartest people in the whole world are Trinitarians, however, educated ones don't try and claim that the Trinity is found in the Bible.

I don't know if you remember this but I told you about a band I thought was so good... Imagine Dragons Here Well they just got signed to a major label record deal and are working our a studio album and touring: See Story Here

So my son is back from his Mission - got back last Friday and gave his homecoming talk today. Everything's great. The interesting part is we went from the airport to the Stake Center to debrief with the Stake President and get him released. The Stake President put his hands on his head and said: I release as a Missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter0-day Saints and strip from you the protective powers of the Spirit and leave you open to the fiery darts of the enemy that he might sift you as chaff and vulnerable to every wind of doctrine... Seemed a little melodramatic to me.

I/we believe that the three members of the Godhood, separate and not comprised of the same ousia but that together they form one God. Yes - I get that you don't understand how we believe there is one God, but it is part of our official doctrine as found in the Bible and Book of Mormon. We accept the Bible. We reject the councils and creeds of the 4th and 5th century that define HOW God is one. I think it probably pointless to take the time and effort to explain our belief but you don't appear to care what our belief is, you are seem to care about trying to show that it is wrong - although you are failing in your attempt, obviously. If your are genuinely interested, let me know and I will point you to some web reading that explains what we believe and why.

I read the verse's you listed and not a single one of them describes the "Trinity." This is the doctrine of the Trinity: 1 God in 3 separate hypostasises compromised of one ousia Why do you think that no single person in the entire Bible demonstrates an awareness of the Trinity as you understand it. Not Jesus, not Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, or James? Just to be clear... the doctrine of the Trinity is not that God is one. We all agree that God is one. The Trinity holds that there is one God, comprised of three hypostases in one ousia, all co-eternal, and co-equal. (and no, I don't care about the actual words used). That's a real question - can you answer it? I didn't say you were wrong (or that I am right)... just that your position is non-biblical. There is this uninformed and naive belief by those that haven't studied the Bible that the Trinity is found in the Bible. Such people often proof-text (take snippets from here and there) that they think back up their position, ignoring context and other passages that are contrary) to make their case. However scholars have long recognized that the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere found in the Bible. "On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian-New Testament-message. Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word "Trinity", but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness of the faith. The doctrine of the Trinity itself, however, is not a Biblical Doctrine..." [Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), 205, 236.] That not an isolated opinion - that's the consensus. The only verse in the Bible that explicitly taught some, but not all, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Johannine comma, turns out to be a dishonest forgery. You not understanding LDS doctrine means nothing other than that you don't understand it. For that matter, you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. No one does. That is not my opinion - that is part and parcel of the doctrine itself... "incomprehensible."

In fact the doctrine of the Trinity specifies that it is non-understandable: "The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. ..." But it is very odd that you would explain it away as God's ways not being your ways, Since God Himself has never said anything about the Trinity.