How can people believe in this version of the trinity:

[Jason_J]

If they were literally ONE God how could Jesus Christ be the Son of God? You're saying this:

Jesus Christ = Son of God (duh, we all know that one)

God = God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost

Which says:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost

No, this is incorrect from a Trinitarian standpoint. It is more like this:

Jesus Christ=Son of God

God=Father

God=Son

God=Holy Ghost

God=Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

All three are distinct Persons, where the Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son.

So, what the word "God" means depends on the context that it is being used. When Trinitarians state that Jesus is the Son of God, "God" here is not being used to refer to the Trinity as a whole, but to refer specifically to God the Father.

If someone says "Christ being the Son of God is referring to God the Father in this case" you're still breaking up the "they are one God" concept because you'd still be putting God the Father as a separate God. If all 3 were ONE single God then you would have to say Jesus Christ is also the Son of Himself.

No, because from a Trinitarian standpoint, the "they are one God" concept includes the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, not one Person. This is the problem with your interpretation of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not the Son of Himself because the Father is not the Son. They are one God, but not one Person. This is an important difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism and Unitarianism.

[Justice]

It is easy to say you believe they are 3 distinct beings, yet they are one being, just to satisfy scripture. But, they are words that even those who profess to believe them can't understand.

[prisonchaplain]

Oh...I think we understand them. We may not know exactly how it works out, but we understand one God, one being, three persons.

[LDSChristian]

Oh...I think we understand them. We may not know exactly how it works out, but we understand one God, one being, three persons.

Do I need to put Ephesians 1:3 again? Or how about Hebrews 1?

[Jason_J]

Also, we must remember that Trinitarians don't use the words "being" and "person" interchangeably, as we might do in everyday language.

So, it would be incorrect to say that there are three beings that are one being. It would be correct, as prisonchaplain stated, to say that there are three persons that are one being.

[Jason_J]

Do I need to put Ephesians 1:3 again? Or how about Hebrews 1?

Ephesians 1:3 is not problematic for Trinitarians. God the Father is distinct from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also God, as we see in John 1:1. However He is not God the Father.

[LDSChristian]

Ephesians 1:3 is not problematic for Trinitarians. God the Father is distinct from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also God, as we see in John 1:1. However He is not God the Father.

God the Father is Jesus Christ's God so yes, it is problematic for trinitarians. That's what's being said in Ephesians 1:3.

[Jason_J]

God the Father is Jesus Christ's God so yes, it is problematic for trinitarians. That's what's being said in Ephesians 1:3.

No, this is not problematic for Trinitarians. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and thus the Father is the God of Christ. No Trinitarian disputes that. The largest Trinitarian church, the Catholic Church, quotes Ephesians 1:3 in paragraph 1077 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ does not detract from the fact that the Bible also affirms that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1).

[LDSChristian]

No, this is not problematic for Trinitarians. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and thus the Father is the God of Christ. No Trinitarian disputes that. The largest Trinitarian church, the Catholic Church, quotes Ephesians 1:3 in paragraph 1077 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ does not detract from the fact that the Bible also affirms that Jesus Christ is God (John 1:1).

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah - FAIRMormon

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

"There is abundant evidence that “Trinitarianism”, as now understood by the majority of Protestants and Catholics was not present in the Early Christian Church. "

[Guest]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah - FAIRMormon

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

"There is abundant evidence that “Trinitarianism”, as now understood by the majority of Protestants and Catholics was not present in the Early Christian Church. "

This statement has nothing to do with the observation that you still don't know what Trinitarianism means... You can't really dispute something until you understand the basics of what you are disputing. So that throwing Ephesians 1:3 out there doesn't contradict anything and neither does Hebrews in the way the Trinity is explained.

People have different interpretations of the same line of scripture.

By the way, the entire Book of Mormon as now understood by LDS was not present in the Early Christian Church either... what does that tell you? Yep. Absolutely nothing.

Edited January 21, 2011 by anatess

[Jason_J]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Elohim and Jehovah - FAIRMormon

Mormonism and the nature of God/Trinity/Nicene creed - FAIRMormon

"There is abundant evidence that “Trinitarianism”, as now understood by the majority of Protestants and Catholics was not present in the Early Christian Church. "

These links don't address my post that you quoted in your response, namely the fact that Trinitarians have no problem with Ephesians 1:3 since Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are not each other, and that Jesus is the Son of God while also being God (but not God the Father).

[Jason_J]

Also LDSChristian, I would be interested in your response to this post of mine, which shows that unfortunately, your arguments are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what the Trinity doctrine is stating (you confuse it with Modalism and Unitarianism), as others (including practicing LDS) have also noted.

[prisonchaplain]

God the Father is Jesus Christ's God so yes, it is problematic for trinitarians. That's what's being said in Ephesians 1:3.

I cannot help but believe you are stuck in the rut of confusing modalism with Trinitarianism. We agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Further, that Jesus, while on earth, was fully human. Philippians 2 informs us that the Christ "became a little lower than the angels." The Father remained Almighty God, so yes, He was God to Jesus. Further, Trinitarians never deny that Jesus, as dutiful Son, defers to the Father. So, these verses you mention do not trouble us at all.

[Traveler]

Also LDSChristian, I would be interested in your response to this post of mine, which shows that unfortunately, your arguments are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what the Trinity doctrine is stating (you confuse it with Modalism and Unitarianism), as others (including practicing LDS) have also noted.

Jason_J: I appreciate your efforts to create greater understanding. Many LDS, including myself struggle with a number of concepts concerning the Trinity. However, to be honest, for myself, I understand all the ideas and concepts being put forth by those that believe in the Trinity. I get the rhetorical arguments. I understand that the scriptures can be interpreted to mean what it is that you are arguing. Especially concerning the modern interpretations of the Bible that are created through the translations and transcriptions that we are given - not by holy men called from their normal routines of fishing and such as was Peter and John but world class experts of men.

What I am about to post was not some crazy notion that I made up on my own. The original concept came to me over 30 years ago from a Baptist minister. Since then I have presented this concept to many Jewish Rabbis and scholars that are expert in ancient Hebrew.

The problem with the Trinity comes down to one simple ancient Hebrew word. That word is “ehad”. The reason this is a problem is that there are more than one word in the language of ancient Hebrew that is mapped by translation to the English word one. And there are multiple concepts in modern English that can be mapped back to a single ancient Hebrew word. The problem that presents itself with the ancient word ehad is that in going backwards from English to the ancient Hebrew all of the understanding and conceptual mapping we ascribe to one - will not work in the other direction for ehad. As soon as you say one singular G-d you are fine in saying that. It works for one of the possible uses of “ehad”. All is well and I am following your reasoning. But as soon as you say that the singular G-d is made up of 3 persons, being The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost - you just violated every grammatical rule ever and for always in the ancient of Hebrew concerning ehad. In the entire history of the world and in all instances of every Hebrew document ever found - ehad is never used in that manner - it can’t because it is grammatically wrong and there is no way to get around that grammatical rule.

It is true that ehad can be used ether way - but not both, not ever. The first time I showed this to a Jewish Rabi that taught Hebrew I was shocked by his excitement over this one little principle. He grabbed my hand and looked me straight in the eyes and said something along the line - that Jews have been trying to tell this to Christians for 2000 years.

So then I ask - if there can possibly exists three discernable and differential persons in one “ehad” G-d is that possible. The answer is always - yes but that would mean that G-d is not singular but actually 3 G-ds working together. Thus there is G-d the Father but if we were to say there is one G-d the Father the correct term would be “yahad” if we are to ascribe ehad to the union of the Father with the Son and Holy Ghost. Saying that to a Trinitarian for most of the history of Trinitarian Christianity would get you executed for heresy.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I will not even begin to pretend expertise, or even rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, nor the fine nuances of ehad. However, do let me caution against accepting one rabbi's opinion as the final and conclusive perspective of Jewish scholarship. Apparently, opinions vary in Judaism as they do in Christianity. For a detailed discussion, see:

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_8/trinity/

Keep in mind also that the Orthodox have deemed Jesus a false prophet and a false god. They do consider trinitarism to be polytheism. On the other hand, like evangelicalism, they do not have a centralized religious authority. The rabbis have no final authority to say who is Jewish and who is not.

The linked article shows several scholarly Jewish interpretations of Gen. 1:26. It leaves me believing that their intellectual tradition does not absolutely preclude the traditional Trinitarian understanding.

[Maureen]

...The meaning here is that we were once with, so we have been separated. That goes against your belief.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, is the son who left more a son before he left, when he was separated, or when he returned? What did the father say about it?

Man became separated from God in the Garden of Eden via Adam and Eve, known as the fall of man. The atonement bridges that separation. The prodigal son story is a perfect example. The son chooses to leave, separates himself from his father, and then humbly wants to come home, not as a son but a servant, since he does not feel worthy to be a son. But his father is over joyed with his son's return, even before he knows his own son's feelings and welcomes him home as his son, his child.

M.

[LDSChristian]

Also LDSChristian, I would be interested in your response to this post of mine, which shows that unfortunately, your arguments are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what the Trinity doctrine is stating (you confuse it with Modalism and Unitarianism), as others (including practicing LDS) have also noted.

Yea, your post indicates 3 gods. I'm not confusing the trinity with anything.

[Traveler]

I will not even begin to pretend expertise, or even rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, nor the fine nuances of ehad. However, do let me caution against accepting one rabbi's opinion as the final and conclusive perspective of Jewish scholarship. Apparently, opinions vary in Judaism as they do in Christianity. For a detailed discussion, see:

A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/10_8/trinity/

Keep in mind also that the Orthodox have deemed Jesus a false prophet and a false god. They do consider trinitarism to be polytheism. On the other hand, like evangelicalism, they do not have a centralized religious authority. The rabbis have no final authority to say who is Jewish and who is not.

The linked article shows several scholarly Jewish interpretations of Gen. 1:26. It leaves me believing that their intellectual tradition does not absolutely preclude the traditional Trinitarian understanding.

I am not an expert either. However, I have talked to many Rabies and other experts in ancient Hebrew. They all indicate (especially when “ehad” is used for other than G-d) that if ehad is understood as singular then it exist as a unit that cannot be differentiated in any way - which means there are no other discernible parts are distinguishable sub-categories - not even in “name” only.

As I stated before, I was introduced to the meaning of ehad by a Baptist minister. The problem was that ehad can mean the unity of parts - that is diffidently a possibility. But with that understanding then ehad is not singular. In other wise there is a price with the definition.

It is not so much that this is a “complex” problem as much as we are dealing with a language and a time that is not our own. Even the experts must admit that ancient Hebrew is foreign to modern language and thought. This is the sliver of possibility that allows Trinitarians some small hope. And so we all argue using the ancient scriptures for a resolution that in reality cannot be resolved by an appeal to Biblical or any other ancient Hebrew scripture or document. A problem that if accepted creates a whole other array of theological problems for Trinitarians. Over thousands of years the nature of G-d has been argued and never resolved with any consensus. The only thing that an honest person can admit is that there is no agreement - however, the more one immerses themselves in the study - the weaker the stand of the Trinitarian seems. But the other side of the coin is that the arguments based in Judaism and the understanding of ancient Hebrew make the arguments very week if the Messiah (Mediator) is in reality divine.

For a long time this troubled me. The reason is that I could never reconcile even for myself why there ever could be singular interpretation and plural interpretation. Having wrestled with this in my heart and having sought some light - I feel that for me an answer was given. It was given in two parts.

First: is based upon faith in a just and merciful G-d that does make known “all things from the beginning to the end”. This means that the light of truth is there - we just need the faith to accept a restoration. That is that G-d has restored the truth through the living prophets.

Second: is based upon the understanding that man fell - and that fall placed man in the fallen situation where there was indeed one and only G-d to save him. That one and only G-d by which man has hope of salvation is Jesus Christ. And that Jesus Christ is the L-rd and G-d over the fallen that because of the fall have no other G-d until the effects of the fall are taken back and man is restored.

Without the understanding of the two principles - there can be no resolution to the questions scrounging G-d and his true actual nature - Be it the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Yea, your post indicates 3 gods. I'm not confusing the trinity with anything.

Uhmm... yes you are confused. The post indicates one God. Quite eloquently, even.

[Jason_J]

Yea, your post indicates 3 gods. I'm not confusing the trinity with anything.

Sorry, it's clear from the arguments you present that you are confusing the Trinity with Modalism. Multiple people (including other LDS) have stated the same thing, and my post showed why your argument that Trinitarians saying that Jesus is the Son of God means that He is the Son of Himself is a misrepresentation of what the Trinity doctrine actually states/implies, and you have not yet addressed my argument.

[LDSChristian]

These links don't address my post that you quoted in your response, namely the fact that Trinitarians have no problem with Ephesians 1:3 since Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons who are not each other, and that Jesus is the Son of God while also being God (but not God the Father).

No, because from a Trinitarian standpoint, the "they are one God" concept includes the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons, not one Person. This is the problem with your interpretation of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is not the Son of Himself because the Father is not the Son. They are one God, but not one Person. This is an important difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism and Unitarianism.

Yea, they do. And yes, Christ is our God while God the Father is His God and Jesus Christ says in the scriptures.

At what point did I say they are one person? Nowhere. They are 3 beings. You go ahead and believe the traditional trinity that wasn't around until the AD's and I'll believe in what the scriptures' version is.

Edited January 21, 2011 by LDSChristian

[LDSChristian]

Uhmm... yes you are confused. The post indicates one God. Quite eloquently, even.

What's annoying is when people try to say I feel a certain way such as you just said I'm confused when I'm not. I know exactly what I read. I read what that post said it is implying 3 gods & then a contradiction comes at the end by saying they are one God.

"Jesus Christ=Son of God

God=Father

God=Son

God=Holy Ghost

God=Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

That's saying the 3 is one single God. God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, our Lord our God. If God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God how are they, along with the Holy Ghost, one God?

You also emphasized the point I made about the problem the traditional, not biblical, version of the trinity. Jesus Christ is the Son of God yet somehow you want to say the 3 are one God.

You're saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost. When you take God the Father out by saying Son of God means God the Father, which it does, you're still breaking away from the "3 are 1 God" concept you're speaking of. This concept was never around until the AD period. The prophets and apostles of old never taught this idea and Jesus Christ certainly didn't.

[Guest]

What's annoying is when people try to say I feel a certain way such as you just said I'm confused when I'm not. I know exactly what I read. I read what that post said it is implying 3 gods & then a contradiction comes at the end by saying they are one God.

"Jesus Christ=Son of God

God=Father

God=Son

God=Holy Ghost

God=Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

That's saying the 3 is one single God. God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ, our Lord our God. If God the Father is the God and Father of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God how are they, along with the Holy Ghost, one God?

You also emphasized the point I made about the problem the traditional, not biblical, version of the trinity. Jesus Christ is the Son of God yet somehow you want to say the 3 are one God.

You're saying Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, Jesus Christ (Himself), and the Holy Ghost. When you take God the Father out by saying Son of God means God the Father, which it does, you're still breaking away from the "3 are 1 God" concept you're speaking of. This concept was never around until the AD period. The prophets and apostles of old never taught this idea and Jesus Christ certainly didn't.

I'm TELLING you, you are confused. You may not realize it, but you are.

We have mentioned it over and over that the word GOD is not the same as the word PERSON. You just can't seem to understand that.

Okay... ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

DO THE LDS BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONE GOD?

P.S. Please let LDSChristian alone answer the question so we can make a clear discussion. Thank you.

[Guest]

You go ahead and believe the traditional trinity that wasn't around until the AD's and I'll believe in what the scriptures' version is.

And you go ahead and believe the Book of Mormon that wasn't around until the 1830's...

C'mon. You know better than to say things like that.

[Yahuchannon]

The reason I believe this mystery of God - Yahushua is God - is because all througout the Old Testament we see that God calls himself the "First and the Last". Then, in Revelation Yahushua claims he is the first and the last. I don't think it can be any more clearer than that.

Revelation 1 (Christ says He is "The First and The Last")

17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as if I were dead. But he laid his right hand on me and said, “Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.

Of course while here on earth he tried to hide his identity and never claimed this so boldly, but simply said he was the Son of God. It is enough to believe that only, in my opinion.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Yahuchannon