Traveler

Does the Doctrine of the Trinity define Christianity?

Recommended Posts

@Jonahasked me to start a thread on this topic concerning Christianity and the Trinity Doctrine established at Nicene counsel and how that creed was used by Christian institutions impacting their society up until roughly the 16th Century.   Here is the question from the "Was Jesus Married" thread in the LDS Gospel Discussion section:

Quote

How do you feel about disciples of Christ that object to the doctrine of the Trinity?  Or for that matter anyone of any religion that does not believe in the Trinity?  How do you personally believe they ought to be treated and can you give me any examples (especially in any Catholic institution prior 1700 AD) that is in line with your personal understanding?  Do you think G-d will ostracize those that do not accept the Trinity?  Or does he define his disciples as those that love their neighbor?

My main question is not so much concerning the specific doctrine but rather how many Traditional Christians approve the history of its impact on Christian institutions and how those institutions treated any society that rejected the Trinity Creed.  Please be prepared to answer my questions of how this creed was used historically and how Christians today view the historical consequences. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 11:18 AM, Traveler said:

@Jonahasked me to start a thread on this topic concerning Christianity and the Trinity Doctrine established at Nicene counsel and how that creed was used by Christian institutions impacting their society up until roughly the 16th Century.   Here is the question from the "Was Jesus Married" thread in the LDS Gospel Discussion section:

My main question is not so much concerning the specific doctrine but rather how many Traditional Christians approve the history of its impact on Christian institutions and how those institutions treated any society that rejected the Trinity Creed.  Please be prepared to answer my questions of how this creed was used historically and how Christians today view the historical consequences. 

 

The Traveler

Hi Traveler,

I don't have a historical knowledge of how the approval of the Trinity by traditional Christians caused
institutions to treat any society that rejected this creed.  But I have heard (via reading the Foxe's Book
of Martyrs) how some Catholics severely persecuted those who had differing views. As one portion
says, "After Henry’s break with Rome and the founding of the Church of England, however, there was a
period when Catholics faced the same terrors".

Some excerpts are found online - https://www.kregel.com/books/pdfs/excerpts/9780825443299.pdf

I used to have a much older version but I don't recall where I may have placed it.  Whatever atrocities
that occurred by both sides in the past is not in line with the teachings of Christ. I would view these
actions as sins (more notably referred to as brutal punishments and murders).

Jonah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 10:31 AM, Jonah said:

Hi Traveler,

I don't have a historical knowledge of how the approval of the Trinity by traditional Christians caused
institutions to treat any society that rejected this creed.  But I have heard (via reading the Foxe's Book
of Martyrs) how some Catholics severely persecuted those who had differing views. As one portion
says, "After Henry’s break with Rome and the founding of the Church of England, however, there was a
period when Catholics faced the same terrors".

Some excerpts are found online - https://www.kregel.com/books/pdfs/excerpts/9780825443299.pdf

I used to have a much older version but I don't recall where I may have placed it.  Whatever atrocities
that occurred by both sides in the past is not in line with the teachings of Christ. I would view these
actions as sins (more notably referred to as brutal punishments and murders).

Jonah

I took a quick look at your reference.  This seems to be a very limited view of history.  I was first introduced to Traditional non-Trinitarian Christians from a Christian refugee from Iran.  For the most part non-Trinitarian Christians have been called Nestorian Christians.   What is interesting to me is that my friend from Iran claimed that his brand of Christianity dates back to the first century of the Christian era.  He also claimed ties to what is known in history as Prester John and the kings that brought gifts to the Christ child - this is quite interesting because both he and my Muslim contacts have a very different concept of Prester John than what is published in the west (dominated mostly by Catholic influences). 

As near as I can determine Christianity (at least western traditional Trinitarian Christianity) has been transfixed on the Trinity doctrine.  According to my research western Christianity defined Christian religion as a belief in the Trinity.  Any belief that excluded Trinity Doctrine was considered high heresy - which was a capitol crime punishable by death.  But this was not the only crime of heresy punishable by death.  In general any Christian that did not hold to the general state religion could have their property confiscated and themselves executed (usually burned at the stake).  As near as I have found the "Toleration Act of 1649" was the first time any western Trinitarian Christian society outlawed the confiscation or property or sentence of death for the sin of heresy.  Granted there were time of toleration based on the whim of leaders - but my point is that theft and murder for heresy was not outlawed until 1649.

I could outline the historical background (which is quite interesting) but that is a tangent to the initial question.  What is interesting is that there was a caveat to the Toleration Ace of 1649 and that caveat exception was that it was still considered lawful to plunder and kill humans that were not Trinitarian.  There are even examples of complete genocide - without any objection from any wester Trinitarian Christian society - of peoples that did not accept the Trinitary Doctrine.  One example is the indigenous Lucayan peoples.  As near as I can determine it was not until 1829 before there was a law to prevent plunder and slaughter of non-Trinitarian religious believers.  This was despite the fact that Freedom of Religion was believed to be a founding principle of the USA.   This law in 1829 (as near as I can determine) prevented the killing of native Americans without due process. 

It would seem that what was once sanctioned and blessed is now heresy and a doctrine generally not acceptable.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 11:18 AM, Traveler said:

@Jonahasked me to start a thread on this topic concerning Christianity and the Trinity Doctrine established at Nicene counsel and how that creed was used by Christian institutions impacting their society up until roughly the 16th Century.   Here is the question from the "Was Jesus Married" thread in the LDS Gospel Discussion section:

My main question is not so much concerning the specific doctrine but rather how many Traditional Christians approve the history of its impact on Christian institutions and how those institutions treated any society that rejected the Trinity Creed.  Please be prepared to answer my questions of how this creed was used historically and how Christians today view the historical consequences. 

 

The Traveler

i’m not a member of any denomination

so my views are usually rejected

 

but my understanding is He and His (Feminine) Spirit have sons - adam and christ - (there being several generations but not of the perishable flesh) but adam fell and that the trinity is He, His Spirit and Christ... and the 144k sons, (the originals of eden) and their girls, as extended family, being of Christ’s generation.... and then many millions more (here on this earth) who will meet Him and go to heaven and have their glorified being and if not meet him here, meet Him in heaven . ❤️

that is the trinity and my family. I have a father and a mother. 

the mainstream trinity is a greek construction since plato and has caused much in terms of problems. 

 

Edited by e v e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, e v e said:

i’m not a member of any denomination

so my views are usually rejected

 

but my understanding is He and His (Feminine) Spirit have sons - adam and christ - (there being several generations but not of the perishable flesh) but adam fell and that the trinity is He, His Spirit and Christ... and the 144k sons, (the originals of eden) and their girls, as extended family, being of Christ’s generation.... and then many millions more (here on this earth) who will meet Him and go to heaven and have their glorified being and if not meet him here, meet Him in heaven . ❤️

that is the trinity and my family. I have a father and a mother. 

the mainstream trinity is a greek construction since plato and has caused much in terms of problems. 

 

I am not sure I understand your explanation of "The Trinity" which relates directly to The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost - See Matthew 28:19.

I do agree with you concerning the paganization of the Early Christian Church (and many other Jewish sects) from the Hellenists which were influenced by the ancient Greeks.  But what I am looking for are any Western Christians that came to power in any westers society that were willing to pass a law forbidding the execution and/or confiscating of property for not believing the brand of Christianity held by those Christians in power.  My point is - if someone that claims to be Christian and also believes in freedom of religion - Do they have historical evidence that their concept of freedom of religion is a derivative of any society that preserved the teachings of Jesus prior to 1600 AD.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 5:57 PM, Traveler said:

It would seem that what was once sanctioned and blessed is now heresy and a doctrine generally not acceptable.

I would be interested to know the scriptural rationale for why it was sanctioned in
the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jonah said:

I would be interested to know the scriptural rationale for why it was sanctioned in
the first place.

Let us use a specific example.  Why would G-d sanction and bless the covenant of marriage and yet man finds excuse and opportunity that there are more "important" ways to understand scripture.  There are many examples of such rational in scripture - for example: Having eyes to see and seeing not.  Having ears to hear and hearing not.  Drawing close to G-d with our words and honoring G-d with our mouths but removing our hearts far from him.  And one last example (from me for this post and not the last in scripture)  is when Satan references scripture to tempt Christ.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2021 at 12:36 PM, Traveler said:

Let us use a specific example.  Why would G-d sanction and bless the covenant of marriage and yet man finds excuse and opportunity that there are more "important" ways to understand scripture.

I don't think there is a misunderstanding of marriage.  Some view it as a command, others as
optional.  One can remain single and not procreate and still bring glory to God (Matthew 19:12
is one example).  There is another in 1 Corinthians 7 by the Apostle Paul.

If I am not mistaken, only Adam and Noah were the only humans God told to be fruitful and
multiply and this was in the context of monogamy, not polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't think there is a misunderstanding of marriage.  Some view it as a command, others as
optional.  One can remain single and not procreate and still bring glory to God (Matthew 19:12
is one example).  There is another in 1 Corinthians 7 by the Apostle Paul.

If I am not mistaken, only Adam and Noah were the only humans God told to be fruitful and
multiply and this was in the context of monogamy, not polygamy.

It is my personal impression that if G-d meant that such things would only have meaning specific to Adam and Noah that it would not have been preserved in sacred scripture for all generations of mankind.   But then we do have archeological evidence that Biblical scripture have evolved and that no original manuscripts (neither autograph nor autograms) remain of such - even though G-d saw fit to preserve the sacred writings of several other ancient religions - some of which no longer have a following.  Interestingly most all ancient religions teach marriage as a fundamental principle of believers - with the odd exception of those early "Traditional" Christians that become attached to the Niacin Creed of the Trinity.  I see all such things as evidence that G-d intended a restoration of the "Fullness" in the Last-days - also know as the time of "restitution" of all things. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2021 at 5:05 PM, Traveler said:

It is my personal impression that if G-d meant that such things would only have meaning specific to Adam and Noah that it would not have been preserved in sacred scripture for all generations of mankind.   But then we do have archeological evidence that Biblical scripture have evolved and that no original manuscripts (neither autograph nor autograms) remain of such - even though G-d saw fit to preserve the sacred writings of several other ancient religions - some of which no longer have a following.  Interestingly most all ancient religions teach marriage as a fundamental principle of believers - with the odd exception of those early "Traditional" Christians that become attached to the Niacin Creed of the Trinity.  I see all such things as evidence that G-d intended a restoration of the "Fullness" in the Last-days - also know as the time of "restitution" of all things. 

 

The Traveler

Is the Trinity considered to be "3 Gods in one Godhead" in LDS theology?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LDS folks don't do the word "trinity".   We are not trinitarians, at least based on any of the numerous definitions you will find from any Christians that accept the term.

We figure if Christ came down to visit you and offered you His hand, and you shook it, you will not yet have met God the Father.  I've never found a trinitarian who would respond with anything other than "ok, yep, that means you're not one of us."

We are non-trinitarian Christians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that this is such a difficult question. Perhaps it is just the mathematician in me that has a hard time understanding any of the 1=3 and 3=1 attempts to explain the Trinity. I think the answer to the OP is that there are many within Christianity that would like to make Nicean Trinitarianism a defining characteristic of Christianity. In terms of numbers, it seems that the vast majority of Christians accept the Nicene Creed (though, as Donnell and Connell explain in the Lutheran Satire video, I think there are frequent misunderstandings of what the Nicene Creed says about the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit), and, based on numbers alone, can declare that alternative views of the Trinity/God/Godhead are heterodox/heretical merely because they are much less popular.

As for understanding the LDS view of God, I struggle with trying to understand it as well (and I have been active in the Church my whole life). 3=1 and 1=3 don't make any more sense to me in the LDS view than the Nicene view. In my attempts to understand it, I have seen some call it a form of "social trinitarianism" (Wikipedia's article on Nontrinitarianism has a short blurb on the LDS view that uses this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

A couple of Christmases ago, I became aware of the apocryphal story of St. Nicholas slapping/hitting Bishop Arius at the Council of Nicea over the disagreements between Homoousian and Arian proposals. A quick dive down the Arian rabbit hole found several concepts that seemed familiar to me as a Latter-day Saint (Wikipedia's article on Arianism notes that similarities between the LDS teachings and Arianism were noted as early as 1846: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

While I don't know what, if any, label to apply to the LDS view of God, I do see familiar concepts in social trinitarianism, Arianism, subordinationism (often considered a subset of Arianism), Nicene trinitarianism (our own @prisonchaplain once described the Trinity as 1 god in 3 distinct personalities that made sense to me), and Athanasius (the part about not confusing the persons though I would also agree with the not separating the substance part if we could get rid of the substance/ousia baggage because there is something about the Trinity/Godhead that is absolutely indivisible), as well as the overall sense that many Christians have that God is difficult to impossible for the mortal mind to truly comprehend.

That probably does more to lay bare my own confusions rather than help anyone come to any concrete understandings, but, there it is anyway (and probably worth about what you paid for it).

Edited by MrShorty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jonah said:

Is the Trinity considered to be "3 Gods in one Godhead" in LDS theology?

 

@NeuroTypicalprovided a quick summary - I would add some of my own thoughts, personal revelation and research.  The initial understanding comes from Joseph Smith - as a young boy that was visited through divine miracle to see the Father and the Son in much the same manner that was recorded in Acts when Stephen was being stoned that saw the Father with Jesus at his right hand.  Here we have scriptural witness that the Father and the Son are separate individuals.  But there is a logical problem - We also have scriptural witness that there is one G-d.  How do we resolve this paradox and seemingly obvious contradiction?  One possibility comes to us through a counsel of men gathered at Nice that produced the non-scriptural declaration of what has become known as the "Trinity Creed". 

I will suggest another possibility that comes to us through understanding of ancient Hebrew.  In ancient Hebrew there are two words that are translated into modern English word of "one".  The first word is pronounced as yachad.  This is a term that designates a unique and singular being.  It would be proper to refer to our self as as the only being in the universe that is who we are.  The proper term would be "yachad".  The other term is pronounced as echad.  This is a word that is used to describe unity or a uniting of individuals.  For example when the scriptures refer to a marriage of a man and a woman by covenant before G-d the proper term is "echad".  Whenever the ancient Hebrew refers to "one" G-d the only Hebrew word used is "echad".   The term "yachad" is never use to reference G-d.

In addition to this modern conundrum of the word one in reference to "one G-d" there are other references to G-d.  One reference is the word "Elohim".  This word has reference to plurality at its roots and can be understood to mean a reference to the chief or G-d of G-ds.  This is the Hebrew term that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught in our sacred temples that reference the G-d that is our Father in Heaven - which we understand that Jesus referred to as "Our Father" in Heaven.  The other term comes to us from Moses that refers to G-d as Yahweh or Jehovah.  We are taught in our temples that this is the being that created our earth and the "heaven" into which our earth was placed.  The scriptures are not clear (at least in my mind) if this singular heaven created with our earth was our solar system, our galaxy or whatever else could be referenced.  

It is our understanding that Jesus or Jehovah created our earth and its heaven under the direction and supervision of Elohim.   We are also to understand that Jesus (Jehovah) created countless other worlds.  I have discovered that the ancient Hebrew (as well as many other ancient peoples) did not have as accurate understanding of our universe as what is currently demonstrated by our modern science.  For example - about 20 years ago the Hubble telescope discovered that a faint star was not a star or even a galaxy but a "supercluster" of galaxies that all by itself is larger that what we believed was the size of the universe 100 years ago and now we have mapped thousands of such superclusters.

There is one other principle in ancient scripture (as well as in all ancient civilization that we currently know about) that reference the ancient governing concept of a "Kingdom".   The most powerful being of such a kingdom is known as the Supreme Suzerain.   What is interesting is that such governments had kings or suzerains that governed or were over providences within the Kingdom.  These lesser suzerains often would address the citizens within the providences as though they were the Supreme Suzerain.  We have an example of this in the New Testament when Jesus was before Pilate and the Jews said that they had no King but Cesar.  But they did have a king that was not Cesar - it was Herod.  Even though Herod had the title of king he was subordinate to Cesar.  It is important to note that Jesus himself testified that He was subordinate to The Father and that The Father was "Greater" then Him.

The only answer to the paradox of the Trinity that I have encountered to fulfill all that the scriptures tell us of the G-dhead of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was first presented to the modern world by the boy Joseph Smith - all according to ancient prophesy of a Fullness that would be restored in preparation to the establishment of Israel as Zion when Jesus returns as King. A king that us subordinate to the Father and is the Mediator with the Father over all those beings that were exiled from the fall of Adam.  Please note that it is improper grammar that a mediator is the same being as that individual for which they act as mediator.  This term proves that Jesus is not our Father in Heaven.

One last point.  It is proper to understand that the ancient reference to a proctor of a covenant takes upon themselves the title of Father and those of the covenant become their Children.  Because our covenant of salvation come to us as Jesus as the proctor of the covenant - it is also proper to reference Jesus as our Father in the covenant.  This understanding or misunderstanding is at the foundation of the confusion in the doctrine of the "Trinity".

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2021 at 12:32 AM, Traveler said:

The only answer to the paradox of the Trinity that I have encountered to fulfill all that the scriptures tell us of the G-dhead of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost is the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was first presented to the modern world by the boy Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith made several statements about what seem to be the Trinity.

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost
are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and
one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the
world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me " "Holy Father, keep
through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be 
one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to 
sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would 
be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster.
" (History 
of the Church, volume 6).

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a 
separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy 
Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute 
three distinct personages and three Gods
" (Teachings of Presidents of 
the Church - Joseph Smith).

How do you interpret these verses?

2 Nephi 31:21.  "And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and 
the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen
".  

Alma 11:44.  "Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, 
which is one Eternal God
".

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.  "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 
one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen
".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonah said:

How do you interpret these verses?

Why is "God" a plural noun in the original Hebrew Old Testament?  I've read that is doesn't have to "mean" plural.  But the fact remains that it is grammatically speaking a plural noun.  Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Why is "God" a plural noun in the original Hebrew Old Testament?  I've read that is doesn't have to "mean" plural.  But the fact remains that it is grammatically speaking a plural noun.  Why?

It's the "royal plural". Or some such linguistically anachronistic baloney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vort said:

It's the "royal plural". Or some such linguistically anachronistic baloney.

Interesting side note regarding the "royal we".

I believe it comes from the French usage of the pronoun "on" (remember that much of our present English comes from the French of the Normans). 

Usually, the word nous is used for "we".  But another pronoun is often forgotten by foreign speakers. "On" means "we".  But it also means "one",  as in "one does not say such things to the King."  In American English, we've replaced it with the generic "you."  e.g. "You don't eat bacon at every meal and expect to live a long life."

So, this word that is used as "one" is more commonly used as "we" in French.

I haven't looked it up. But such a connection would make sense.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jonah said:

.....

How do you interpret these verses?

2 Nephi 31:21.  "And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and 
the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen
".  

Alma 11:44.  "Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, 
which is one Eternal God
".

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.  "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 
one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen
".

I will give my personal understanding.  I believe that the term "G-d" is not a description of an individual but rather a type or kind of individual.  Thus it is not a name to designate an individual but a title of any or all individuals that are "perfect", "complete", "holy" , "whole" and in every way - divine.   In our modern society we have placed a high and sacred regard on the individual.  But in truth there is a strong correlation with individuality and selfishness and narcissism.  To be a G-d, such a divine individual must be in perfect unity with all other g-dly beings.  Of necessity,  beings that are divine are perfectly united as "ONE" one with another.  Thus there is only one true or honest kind or type of G-d.

This reference to the unity of G-d is inclusive to divine individuals is not without president.  Lets take a look together at John Chapter 10:

Quote

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Note that the Jews understood that the statement "I and my Father are one" was a claim to be G-d.  Under Jewish law a claim to be G-d was blasphemy and the punishment was death by stoning.  Unless, of course, the individual claiming to be G-d was indeed G-d.  Note that Jesus does not dispute the Jewish claim but argues that if he does the work of G-d that is a witness that he and the Father are in perfect unity and are united as one.  But Jesus also references scripture (which cannot be broken) that those unto whom the word of G-d has come are g-ds.

This is a major conundrum for Traditional Trinitarian Christians just as it was for the Jews in the days of Jesus that think of G-d in terms of a single individual.  But the problem is even greater for Traditional Trinitarian Christians because if the Jews were correct then Jesus should have been stoned for blasphemy and Jesus, the very foundation of Christianity taught pure heresy - which means Christianity is lie and a false apostasy from the truth.

I am a disciple of Jesus - and I believe what he said and taught is correct and should be interpreted that those that are are one in G-d themselves become g-ds - as testified by both scripture and Jesus.  I have not found any other church other than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is a bold as was Christ in testifying of this truth.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vort said:

It's the "royal plural". Or some such linguistically anachronistic baloney.

Have you read what verbal gymnastics trinitarians have to play to get "God is One" to be an endorsement of the Trinity?

Well, some non-trinitarian Christians apparently disagree.

http://lhim.org/blog/2013/09/29/what-does-the-hebrew-word-echad-mean/

Notice that their arguments against a single solitary being are exactly what support the Godhead.  But they don't care.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carborendum Doesn't our "social trinitarian" view (as inferred by the 2 BoM and D&C verses cited by @Jonah) also rely fairly heavily on the "compound unity" thing so much maligned in your link? I guess I don't see how their arguments around the Hebrew "echad" support our view of the Godhead (something more social trinitarian) than the homoousian version of traditional Christianity.

I can't tell exactly what they are arguing for. Are they arguing for a kind of modalist God -- where there really is only one God, but He expresses Himself in three modes/faces in scripture? Or are they arguing for a kind of subordinationist view of God where God the Father is the One True God, and Christ and the Holy Spirit occupy a lesser class -- something less than "God" but more than "man"? Modalism certainly doesn't describe our view of God. I see elements of subordinationism in our view of God, but we also talk about Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit being roughly equal in "godhood".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Carborendum Doesn't our "social trinitarian" view (as inferred by the 2 BoM and D&C verses cited by @Jonah) also rely fairly heavily on the "compound unity" thing so much maligned in your link?

I guess you really have no idea what I really said.

Two things:

1) No it does not DEPEND on it.  But it can be SUPPORTED by it.  We can make any number of other arguments to support our position and view of the Godhead.

2) The thing I was criticizing is that trinitarians want to have it both ways.  They speak out of one side of their mouths when arguing to a Jew why there can be more than one God, but not really more than one, but sorta one.  Yet they argue out the other side of their mouth when criticizing us for our belief in the Godhead.  And yet nearly the same arguments are made.  They reject it from us, but vehemently defend it when it comes from themselves.

Then they claim that it is nothing alike.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am a disciple of Jesus - and I believe what he said and taught is correct and should be interpreted that those that are are one in G-d themselves become g-ds - as testified by both scripture and Jesus. 

I understand that you believe you may become a god (in the future) as shown in Doctrine
and Covenants 132:16-17.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 says "According to that which was ordained in the midst
of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was ...
"

Were you already a god at this Council in the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 3:24 PM, Carborendum said:

Why is "God" a plural noun in the original Hebrew Old Testament?  I've read that is doesn't have to "mean" plural.  But the fact remains that it is grammatically speaking a plural noun.  Why?

I don't know for sure, but I think this was done to denote three persons in the trinity. I don't
understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God and one Godhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't know for sure, but I think this was done to denote three persons in the trinity. I don't
understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God and one Godhead.

Ditto for LDS Christians (except for not using the word "trinity").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now