The Trinity

[Faded]

But aren't you just saying that Dr.T figured out from Mathew and Acts together what happened to Judas, which you say agrees with Joseph Smith, apart from Joseph Smith's Translation?

How can it be a contradiction and in conflict if Dr. T or myself puts them together but not if JS does?

Sounds a lot like adding text to the Bible that isn't already there. For a Latter Day Saint, as long as it is through God's approved channels, that's no problem.

But do you believe that the Bible can be added to and/or altered? Indeed, doesn't it require you to do so in order to align the two accounts? If you have to add outside explanations, then the Bible isn't exactly standing on it's own, and requires extra-Biblical explanation.

If we're allowed to read so far into things, it then how far can we go with it?

We could go ahead and assume that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene I suppose. Sure the Bible never says so, but based upon internal and cultural evidences, it seems to fit.

If we declare open-season on making unfounded assumptions and connecting the dots as we see fit, where does it end?

[Soninme]

Sounds a lot like adding text to the Bible that isn't already there. For a Latter Day Saint, as long as it is through God's approved channels, that's no problem.

But do you believe that the Bible can be added to and/or altered? Indeed, doesn't it require you to do so in order to align the two accounts? If you have to add outside explanations, then the Bible isn't exactly standing on it's own, and requires extra-Biblical explanation.

If we're allowed to read so far into things, it then how far can we go with it?

We could go ahead and assume that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene I suppose. Sure the Bible never says so, but based upon internal and cultural evidences, it seems to fit.

If we declare open-season on making unfounded assumptions and connecting the dots as we see fit, where does it end

What was added or altered? Those scriptures are speaking of the same event. Mathew gave some information and Peter gave some more. If we only had one of their testimonies then we wouldn't have had as much information and thus a less acurate understanding.

No one has to add outside or extra-Biblical explanations, it's all there in the two passages.

Clearly we aren't going to agree.

[Faded]

What was added or altered? Those scriptures are speaking of the same event. Mathew gave some information and Peter gave some more. If we only had one of their testimonies then we wouldn't have had as much information and thus a less accurate understanding.

No one has to add outside or extra-Biblical explanations, it's all there in the two passages.

Clearly we aren't going to agree.

What is added?

Well, we add to the Matthew Account:

"after he hung himself the rope broke, he fell, burst assunder and his bowels gushed out."

"Because the money used by the chief priests to purchase the field had belonged to Judas, he became the owner of that field posthumously. So in a way, Judas bought the field even though he was dead before the purchase."

To the Acts account:

"Before Judas fell he hung himself. The rope broke. That's how he fell and burst asunder and had his bowels gush out. Sorry, forgot to mention that part."

" 'Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.' Well ... technically Judas didn't actually purchase the field. Not exactly. You see, he was the implied posthumous owner because money that was used to buy the field had belonged to him before he died. So he sorta bought it indirectly. Oh yeah, and he was dead before all that happened. We just said it in the wrong order. Sorry about that. Just reverse the order and what we said is accurate."

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we're not going to agree on this one.

You're essentially saying that because the two passages do not agree at first glance, that it's okay to invent a bunch of details to force the two stories to agree, even though the connecting details are not mentioned in either account.

Two things that are in neither account:

A.) The sequence of events: Hung himself, rope breaks, falls to his death, bursts asunder, bowels gush out.

B.) Judas becomes posthumous owner of a field via technicality.

I could as easily take an account of another man -- I'll just throw something together.

Account A: John Doe convicted of murder and dies in the electric chair at age 30.

Account B: John Doe died of cancer at age 50 while serving a life sentence in prison for murder.

We know that it's two conflicting accounts reporting the cause of death of the same person. By applying the same methodology, we will just presume both accounts are correct. So obviously, the man did go to the electric chair, but obviously he must have survived it. He must have been reported dead in error after the failed execution. Clearly the State must have decided against re-electrocuting the man, and his sentence must have been altered to life in prison. Twenty years later, he dies of cancer in prison. So obviously, both stories are accurate.

But am I right to make this assumption just because I refuse to believe that one of the accounts is inaccurate? It creates a very sloppy and illogical line of reasoning IMHO. If I did all that penciling in of details in any kind of official capacity, I'd be fired for making up details.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Faded

[Soninme]

Originally Posted by Soninme

But aren't you just saying that Dr.T figured out from Mathew and Acts together what happened to Judas, which you say agrees with Joseph Smith, apart from Joseph Smith's Translation?

How can it be a contradiction and in conflict if Dr. T or myself puts them together but not if JS does?

Sounds a lot like adding text to the Bible that isn't already there. For a Latter Day Saint, as long as it is through God's approved channels, that's no problem.

Or rather.......John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

According to Joseph Smith, the passage in Matthew originally read as follows:

6 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself on a tree. And straightway he fell down, and his bowels gushed out, and he died.

Seems as though Joseph Smith read Acts 1:18 and put the two together, something I guess he is allowed to do but no one else can.

Mathew 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Surely one is allowed to find the truth in this verse in light of other verses that speak to this issue. We don't call that adding to the text.

Otherwise we are all in trouble.

[Soninme]

I have a question in regard to LDS teaching;

Who is the Lord Almighty, who is and who was and is to come? Revelation 1:8 and Rev. 4:8

[Soninme]

I have a question in regard to LDS teaching;

Who is the Lord Almighty, who is and who was and is to come? Revelation 1:8 and Rev. 4:8

The reason I ask is in Rev. 1:8 I understand from LDS sources is Jesus and in Rev. 4:8 in context is clearly the Father.

Would there then be 2 Lord God Almighties and if so then wouldn't Jesus be co-equal with the Father?

[Soninme]

crickets.....................maybe some frogs too..............??

[Landy77]

The word Trinity is a protestant word but in a sense is the same as the God head. Protestants believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate but a part of the same spiritual body in a sense. I have heard it described as being married, you are two but joined as one. The trinity is the same, but they do not believe God, Jesus or the holy spirit have a physical body but a spiritual one. So the only real difference is the God head are three individual entities with physical bodies, trinity is three spiritual entities that are separate but of one spiritual body.

[AnthonyB]

Landy77,

Whilst I appreciate you efforts to grapple with this topic. There are some factual errors in your post.

Trinity is the word used to describe the Godhead by not just Protestants but Catholic and Orthodox. Actually there are people who would be losely viewed as Protestants but would be wary of an unbiblical term like trinity whilst maintaining the same basic understanding.

Secondly the idea of a spiritual body is not conceptually used about the trinity. It is "one in essence" or "one in being" but I have never seen one in body (even a spiritual one).

Jesus was crucified not the Father.

The Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost not the Son.

Jesus will return in glory as as the resurrected Lord not the Father.

The Father sits in judgement, not the Sprit or the Son.

[Snow]

The word Trinity is a protestant word but in a sense is the same as the God head. Protestants believe God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate but a part of the same spiritual body in a sense. I have heard it described as being married, you are two but joined as one. The trinity is the same, but they do not believe God, Jesus or the holy spirit have a physical body but a spiritual one. So the only real difference is the God head are three individual entities with physical bodies, trinity is three spiritual entities that are separate but of one spiritual body.

Well... no.

Even in Trinitarianism, Jesus has a body, does or did at least with no record of having lost His body.

In Trinitarianism, the three Gods are co-equal. The Church of Jesus Christ, by contrast, believes that the Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the father - a belief that dominated ancient Christianity prior to the Emperor Constantine's council of 325 CE.

[Landy77]

Well, I was trying to give a best way to explain it from how I was taught when I attended an Assemblies of God church. I didn't try and reach back into the archives of time to where it originated.

[Snow]

Well, I was trying to give a best way to explain it from how I was taught when I attended an Assemblies of God church. I didn't try and reach back into the archives of time to where it originated.

Regardless of the history, even today there are significant differences in the Trinity vs the Godhead.

It is interesting to note, however, that the LDS position is more in line with the ancient understanding that is the Trinitarian point of view.

[Maureen]

...In Trinitarianism, the three Gods are co-equal...

Gods? Not quite. How about, the three persons in the Godhead (Trinity) are co-equal.

M.

[Snow]

Gods? Not quite. How about, the three persons in the Godhead (Trinity) are co-equal.

M.

Yeah - you can say that but it doesn't make it any more comprehensible:

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord (from the Athanasian Creed)

[Soninme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maureen

Gods? Not quite. How about, the three persons in the Godhead (Trinity) are co-equal.

M.

Yeah - you can say that but it doesn't make it any more comprehensible:

The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord (from the Athanasian Creed)

One should logically think the Eternal, Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent Lord God Almighty is incomprehensible, and as the Bible states; Isaiah 55:8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. 9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

We can know God exists by looking at creation; Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man.

However we can't know deeper truths about Him apart from Jesus; John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Also the Holy Spirit; John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth".

To know His will for our lives, His laws and of His very Being only comes through His word. Although our finite and sinful minds can't completely know Him until we are resurected; 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

The Athanasian creed is derived from the teachings of Jesus, the OT prophets and NT apostles.

[Snow]

The Athanasian creed is derived from the teachings of Jesus, the OT prophets and NT apostles.

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.]

So in many was the Bible remains true to its “primitive” past [by accepting the strongly anthropomorphic understanding of God/Yahweh] and is less compatible with philosophical notions of an abstract being, or ultimate reality or ground of being. Just as there is an important and unbridgeable distance between Yahweh and the gods of Canaan, or those of Mesopotamia or Egypt or Greece or Rome, so there is at least an equal or greater distance from an Aristotelian unmoved mover, or even a Platonic Idea or Ideal. The biblical God is always and uncompromisingly personal: he is above all a person, neither more nor less.[David Noel Freedman, “When God Repents,” in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, Volume One: History and Religion (William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 414.

New ideas and concepts were required.

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.[P Achtemeier, editor, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.]

A Catholic encyclopedia notes that Trinitarianism doesn’t really appear until the last 25 years of the 4th century:

Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as others, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.[RL Richard, "Trinity, Holy", in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 vols. (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1967), 14:295.]

A Jesuit [Catholic] scholar says this:

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the three are there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and a triadic ground plan is there, and triadic formulas are there...The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.[Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 32,35.]

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Two authors even assert that the Apostle Paul, the four gospels, and Acts have no Trinitarian understanding:

...there is no trinitarian doctrine in the Synoptics or Acts...nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine [in the New Testament] of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same God head...These passages [i.e. the Pauline epistles] give no doctrine of the Trinity, but they show that Paul linked together Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They give no trinitarian formula...but they offer material for the later development of trinitarian doctrine...[Paul] has no formal Trinitarian doctrine and no clear-cut realization of a Trinitarian problem…in John there is no trinitarian formula.[Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 14,16, 22-23, 29.] (FairLDS)

[Soninme]

The idea of “three” is present: but not as ‘three co-equal divine persons’ that are one being. An idea about the nature of God (or the Godhead) is present, but it is different from that which is taught as Trinitarianism.

Okay then can you tell me which is Biblical; Three separate Gods yet one in unity or one (in number) God revealed in three distinct persons?

Some Bible verses for you and the "scholars" you quoted to consider:

Who is called God?

Phil. 1:2 says the Father is called God.

John 1:1 says Jesus is called God.

Acts 5:3-4 says the Holy Spirit is called God.

Isaiah 44:6 says there is only one God. Also Deut 4:39

So are there three separate Gods or one God three persons?

Who is the creator?

Gen. 1:1 says the God Elohim did it.

Isaiah 64:8 says the Father did it.

John 1:3 says the God Jesus did it.

Gen 1:2, Job 33:4 and 26:13 says the God Holy Spirit did it.

Isaiah 44:24 says God did it all alone, all by Himself. Also Isa. 40:12-14

So did three separate Gods do it or one God three persons?

Who ressurects?

1 Thess. 1:10 says the Father does. Also John 5:21

John 2:19 says Jesus does. Also John 5:21

Romans 8:11 says the Holy Spirit does.

Romans 10:9 and 1 Peter 1:21 says God does.

So do three separate Gods do it or one God three persons?

Who is all knowing?

1 John 3:20 says God knows all things.

John 16:30 says Jesus knows all things.

1 Cor. 2:10-11 says the Holy Spirit knows all things.

So are there three separate All Knowings or one?

Who is the Almighty God?

Rev. 4:8 says it's the Father.

Rev. 1:8 and 22:13 says it's Jesus.

Job 33:4 says it's the Holy Spirit.

So are there three separate Almighties (logical impossibility) or one Almighty revealed in three persons?

Isaiah 43:10“ You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “ And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is one God (clearly in number) the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Snow, I'm really not interested in what anti-trinitarian "scholars" have to say as I'm sure you wouldn't care if I quoted six or eight of those in agreement with me. My interest is in what God's word says about Himself. I have given many scriptures that speak to the attributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, please lets discuss these verses and others if you wish as IMO the Bible clearly does not teach three separate Gods yet one in unity but rather one God in three persons.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Soninme

[Reform_Mormon]

Okay then can you tell me which is Biblical; Three separate Gods yet one in unity or one (in number) God revealed in three distinct persons?

Some Bible verses for you and the "scholars" you quoted to consider:

Who is called God?

Phil. 1:2 says the Father is called God.

John 1:1 says Jesus is called God.

Acts 5:3-4 says the Holy Spirit is called God.

Isaiah 44:6 says there is only one God. Also Deut 4:39

So are there three separate Gods or one God three persons?

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preach on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?"

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370 (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

I think it clear that the original teaching by the Prophet Joseph Smith is that these three personages are three gods, yet it is also correct to call them one God, in that they act as one. That's my understanding of early LDS church doctrine, anyhow.

[Soninme]

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?"

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370 (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Hello Reform_Mormon,

I agree with three distinct personages I just don't see three Gods in;

Isaiah 43:10 - You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “ And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

Also Isaiah 44:6 - “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

And if I may Isaiah 44:24 - Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.

If there are three Gods would't it seem fair to ask why the Biblical writers don't use "they" or "them" or "Gods" or "the Gods" when speaking of the Godhead?

I am interested in your thoughts on these verses.

[Reform_Mormon]

If there are three Gods would't it seem fair to ask why the Biblical writers don't use "they" or "them" or "Gods" or "the Gods" when speaking of the Godhead?

I am interested in your thoughts on these verses.

Hello there Soninme,

I believe that Isaiah 43:10, 44:6 are referring to the practice of idolatry. Isaiah 43:10 reads:

לפני לא-נוצר אל - "before me there was not formed a god"

The same verb נצר is used in Isaiah 44:10 to talk about פסל, graven images. So in my understanding of Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah is saying that out of all the idols created none of them have actually been imbued with divinity, none of them are God or can compare to Jehovah.

Also, as regarding the plurality of the Godhead, LDS revelation makes clear that the "us" in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man" (notice the plural) is a reference to the gods (Abraham 4:26-27, Moses 2:26).

It is interesting to note that many modern Biblical Scholars talk about Genesis 1:26 in the context of a "divine council", wherein Jehovah meets with the other gods, or at least with divine beings. The Mormon conception then of a council of gods doesn't seem too far fetched or out of place with what the actual context of the passage could be.

Other Biblical passages tell us that the Sons of God were present at creation with God (Job 38:7), and other passages talk of Sons of God as being Gods (Psalm 82:6). In my estimation this shows that the words אל and אלהים ('god(s)') have a far greater application than just being limited to Jehovah. Divinity is a broad concept in the Bible, I mean even departed spirits can be called אלהים (First Samuel 28:13). Latter-day revelation also links being a son of God, to being a god (D&C 76:58), thus the concept of a plurality of Gods doesn't seem that absurd, in my honest opinion.

Alan.

[Soninme]

I believe that Isaiah 43:10, 44:6 are referring to the practice of idolatry. Isaiah 43:10 reads:

לפני לא-נוצר אל - "before me there was not formed a god"

The same verb נצר is used in Isaiah 44:10 to talk about פסל, graven images. So in my understanding of Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah is saying that out of all the idols created none of them have actually been imbued with divinity, none of them are God or can compare to Jehovah.

Alan, I agree in chapter 44:10-20 the LORD speaks of graven images but chapter 43 and 44:1-8 nowhere speak of idols or images. This is clear because of the phrase "before Me" and "after Me". Who or what is (exists) before the Almighty? Abviously nothing. Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Also John 1:3

Clearly no graven images could be in mind "before Me" as no person or things would be in exsistence to make any. Furthermore 44:6 and 8 both state there is no God BESIDES Me.

Also what does 'I am the First and I am the Last' mean? First and Last what?

.

Also, as regarding the plurality of the Godhead, LDS revelation makes clear that the "us" in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man" (notice the plural) is a reference to the gods (Abraham 4:26-27, Moses 2:26).

I see plurality of persons in the Godhead as Father, Son and Holy Spirit each are said to be the Creator but a single God said He did it all alone, all by Himself. Isaiah 44:24

Abraham 4:26-27 is a clear example of wording that is nowhere found in the Bible with regards to the Godhead. (Gods, their, they)

Other Biblical passages tell us that the Sons of God were present at creation with God (Job 38:7), and other passages talk of Sons of God as being Gods (Psalm 82:6). In my estimation this shows that the words אל and אלהים ('god(s)') have a far greater application than just being limited to Jehovah. Divinity is a broad concept in the Bible, I mean even departed spirits can be called אלהים (First Samuel 28:13). Latter-day revelation also links being a son of God, to being a god (D&C 76:58), thus the concept of a plurality of Gods doesn't seem that absurd, in my honest opinion.

From Strongs Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary;

elohiym; gods in the ordinary sense; but spec. used of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:-angels; judges, x mighty.

I see sons of God, Job 38:7, as angels who were created by God.(Psalm 148:2-5; Colossians 1:16-17).

I see the gods in Ps. 82:6 as unjust judges, (See Exodus 21:6 Also Exodus 22:8-9) who shall die like men. Ps. 82:7

Interesting that 1 Samuel 28:13 is the perception of a witch.

Mark 12:29-34 Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

Your thoughts.

[Hemidakota]

Hello Reform_Mormon,

I agree with three distinct personages I just don't see three Gods in;

Isaiah 43:10 - You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “ And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

Also Isaiah 44:6 - “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

And if I may Isaiah 44:24 - Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself.

If there are three Gods would't it seem fair to ask why the Biblical writers don't use "they" or "them" or "Gods" or "the Gods" when speaking of the Godhead?

I am interested in your thoughts on these verses.

Every child of GOD has an opportunity to be a witness of the Godhead. It starts with desire to do so. Through faith and hope, persistence prayer of the righteous, it will be answered. If you desire for truth and really what know whom you are worshipping, this is the proven path for the faithful and the righteous.

[Soninme]

Every child of GOD has an opportunity to be a witness of the Godhead. It starts with desire to do so. Through faith and hope, persistence prayer of the righteous, it will be answered. If you desire for truth and really what know whom you are worshipping, this is the proven path for the faithful and the righteous.

Hemi,

I certainly agree prayer is a vital part of our Christian walk but so is scripture study.(Acts 17:11)

Also 2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

If we truly love God and desire the truth then we will also love His word.

2 Timothy 3:10-17 reads; "But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The Almighty has revealed Himself in His word and no amount of prayer or "good" works or intentions can save us if we deny what He has revealed of Himself.

Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

[SeekingTruth]

I skimmed through this thread and read most of the posts. I probably won't reply to an individual post or poster, however, because I want to offer a different spin on explaining the Catholic perspective.

I think the important thing that should be highlighted from the very beginning of this discussion is that neither the LDS nor the Catholics are believers of sola scriptura and so I think it a little silly that either side is trying to find 100% evidence of the nature of God in the New Testament. Of course, I understand why Sacred Scripture is emphasized-- it's our common ground, since the LDS don't believe in Sacred Tradition and Catholics don't believe in continued revelation.

So, while Sacred Scripture will be favored in this type of discussion, I think that we would all do well to remember that neither of us believe that doctrine must be proven solely from the Bible. Based or supported in Scripture, absolutely, and definitely not contradicted by it.

I think previous posters have shown where the doctrine of the Trinity is supported in Scripture. My personal favorite verse, which is echoed elsewhere, is this simple command in Matthew's gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19

So, a few different thoughts:

(1) Now, that single verse can be interpreted in different ways, clearly. So how does one know what is meant by it? There must be a teaching authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, that can interpret Scripture and proclaim it's meaning. This comes down to the question of the apostasy. Either the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to clarify doctrine or it lost that guidance and there needed to be a restoration...

(2) Back to the point of sola scriptura. Catholics believe that along with Sacred Scripture there is Apostolic Tradition, both of which constitute the deposit of faith. Through this Apostolic Tradition it can be shown that there was belief in the Trinity dating back even to Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. There is even some evidence of it in the Didache, 70AD.

(3) In the early Church, doctrines were not defined formally until there was dissent about it. So, there was certainly belief in the Trinity long before it was formally defined as a doctrine.

(4) Concerning dissent in the early Church... Here again is where much depends on whether or not the Holy Spirit remained with the Church. If He did, then we can trust that He also guided the Church on this matter.

-----

Maybe it's my simple naivete, but it seems like debate about this is really quite obsolete. It seems to me that this debate itself highlights the reason we need the Church of Christ as an authority, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, to make clear these matters of doctrine. So I guess to me it all comes back down to the apostasy and which Church is the "true" church.

[Snow]

I think previous posters have shown where the doctrine of the Trinity is supported in Scripture. My personal favorite verse, which is echoed elsewhere, is this simple command in Matthew's gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Matthew 28:19

That verse implies, but does not state, one component of the Trinity but does nothing to demonstrate that the author of Matthew understood anything like today's creedal Trinity.

So, a few different thoughts:

(1) Now, that single verse can be interpreted in different ways, clearly. So how does one know what is meant by it? There must be a teaching authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, that can interpret Scripture and proclaim it's meaning. This comes down to the question of the apostasy. Either the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to clarify doctrine or it lost that guidance and there needed to be a restoration...

(2) Back to the point of sola scriptura. Catholics believe that along with Sacred Scripture there is Apostolic Tradition, both of which constitute the deposit of faith.

Okay. Apostolic Tradition refers to the teachings of the apostles. Can you think of any apostles that demonstrate any understanding of the creedal Trinity?

Through this Apostolic Tradition it can be shown that there was belief in the Trinity dating back even to Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD. There is even some evidence of it in the Didache, 70AD.

Iganitius was not an apostle and the Dadache was not written by an apostle but regardless, could you please quote from either showing one God comprised of three co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal persons?