Here’s one of the posts I was referring to from Reno232. who is LDS. If you like, I can post some fascinating stuff from Delphiuser as well. I will not here comment on the rest of Mormon doctrine, but on this, the Trinity, they have it nailed. Enjoy.
“Was Jesus misleading us when He prayed to and spoke of God His father in the third person?
Was God deceiving men when at Jesus’ baptism He spoke from the heavens, descended in the form of a dove, while being baptized all at the same time?
Mormons do more than just believe in Jesus, we “Believe Jesus”. We actually believe what He had to say, He speaks of God as His Father, so that’s who God is. He speaks of God in the third person, so they are not the same person, Jesus gives an analogy that compares His oneness to that which is to be had by the apostles, so that is the oneness that He has with the Father. Throughout the Bible, God marries men and women declaring that they should be “one flesh” telling the church that they should be one.
Some may tell me that I am mistaken, I respect that opinion, but I know that my salvation depends on actually understanding Jesus and His relationship with God. I know this, because Jesus Said:
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”. John 17:3
Let’s talk about what it means to be “one” in the Bible.
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Galations 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Romans 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
First Corinthians 12:11-14
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
Matthew 19:4-6
4 And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The Lord gives a definition of “one” in John 17:11,22-23
11 “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are”,
22 “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one”
23 “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me”.
John 14:20
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”
John 14:28
“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I”.
John 20:17
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”.
And of course there are all the scriptures where the Christ is praying to the Father (or to Himself, according to some), or where the Father is speaking of the Son (the Lord’s baptism by John the Baptist). Notice as well, when referring to the Father, He says “My Father”, rather than simply stating “the Father” which would be much more along the lines of them being one person.
Trinitarians often use the following to make their case for the Trinity:
John 10:30
“I and my Father are one”.
John 10:38
“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”.
In regards to Christ’s remark that “I and the Father are one”, in John 10:30 the word “one” was in neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will.
John 1:1-2
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
In English, to say that Christ, the Word, was with God and was God could be understood in either the LDS sense (two beings perfectly united in one Godhead) or in the Trinitarian sense (two persons in one Being) or arguably in other senses as well, such as Modalism (two manifestations of the same person). However, the Greek text helps us sort through these possibilities a little better. The first and third occurrence of the word “God” in these verses comes from Greek Ho Theos, meaning The God, while the second occurrence is simply Theos, meaning God. The English translation could be rendered, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with The God.” There is no suggestion that the Word and The God are the same being. One divine being, Christ, was with another divine being, The God. As LDS doctrine teaches, Christ is God, but is not the same Being as The God, who is the Father.
Doesn’t John 17:11, 22-23 tend to describe John 10:30,38, & perhaps a little more clearly? Especially when taken in context of the Synoptics like:
Matt. 26:39
“And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”.
Now if they’re both the same God, why the contrast in will’s as Christ is asking His Father for the cup to pass, but is willing to do the will of the Father? Christ plainly states if it was His will, He would like to remove the cup, however, it was not His will to be done, but the Father’s will to be done. If they were “One” as Trinitarians assert, there would be no conflicting “wills,” right?
Luke 23:34
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do .”
If Christ and the Father are one, He wouldn’t have to ask the Father to forgive them, He could simply have forgiven them Himself without asking the Father to do so. He could have simply said: “I forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The scripture only makes sense if Christ and the Father are one in purpose, but are separate and distinct beings.
Mark 15:34
“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”?
Again, if they’re the same being, why does the Lord ask about being forsaken by His God? Does that even remotely make sense?
Why does the Son continually refer to the Father as someone different than himself? The gospel just shouldn’t be that complicated. It’s meant for us to understand.
John 20:17
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”.
If they’re the same being, why not say, touch Me not, for I go to heaven, go to my brethren & tell them I’ll meet them in the upper chamber. Why the unnecessary references to the Father? If he was the Father, why not simply speak in those terms instead of all the references to His Father, His God?
Matthew 16:13-17
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Why not say, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but I, your God have? Why complicate the matter by bringing the Father into it if they’re one person?
All these references I cite & many more I could cite seem to point towards the Lord’s description of “one” as found in John 17:22-23. That makes sense! The Lord praying to Himself (& asking for relief), speaking to Himself, & asking questions to Himself, makes no sense at all. It’s redundancy that accomplishes nothing. Is there a scripture that talks about the need for that redundancy? I can’t find it.
Doesn’t it seem more probable “one” means in purpose, goal, thought, etc. as He wanted the disciples to be as spoken of in John 17:22-23?
John 5:22
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son”.
If they’re one God, why would the Father commit all judgment to the Son? Why not just say, I the Lord Judge. Period!
Mark 13:32
“But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
So, the Son doesn’t know, but the Father does? How can that be if they’re one being?
Matt. 20:23
“And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”
If Christ and the Father are one in the Trinitarian sense, Christ would be able to say who would be allowed to sit on his right and left hand. However, Christ states such privilege is not His to give, but is only His Father’s to give.
Hebrews 1:2-6
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
The Father here is speaking. Why would He appoint the Son, heir of all things if they were one person? Why would He sit on the right hand of himself?
Isaiah 48:16
“Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and His Spirit, hath sent me.”
Notice that passage in its context is God speaking. He says there am I, then qualifies it with 3 distinct personages, Lord God, Spirit, and then Me.
Genesis 1:26
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Yet in Deuteronomy 6:4 God says,
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
In this passage the Hebrew word Elohim is used where it is translated LORD. Elohim is a plural noun. More precisely it is the plural of the Hebrew El....Elohim. God is here stating, ONE Lord, but yet plural.
You see this again in Genesis 11:7
“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech..”
Now, why wouldn’t He just say, I the Lord........, instead of “let Us.......”? He commands in the singular several times elsewhere in the Bible.
What about 1 John 5:7–8?
1 John 5:7-8 reads:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
These verses are considered to have been added to the Bible text. Said one conservative reference work:
...the acceptance of this verse [i.e. the Johannine comma: 1 John 5:7-8] as genuine, breaks almost every major canon of textual criticism.
Historian Paul Johnson notes:
Altogether there are about 4,700 relevant manuscripts, and at least 100,000 quotations or allusions in the early fathers . . .Thus, the Trinitarian texts in the first Epistle of John, which make explicit what other texts merely hint at, originally read simply: ‘There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.’ This was altered in the fourth century to read: ‘There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.’
So, the early Christians never referred to these verses in their writings. The verse in the early Greek manuscripts simply says:
There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one.
But, in the 4th century, the verse had words added to it to support the ‘new’ orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:
There are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one.
Why is 1 John 5:7–8 still in the Bible, then?
The writer Erasmus noted the problem with these verses in the 1500s, and did not include the addition change in his Greek New Testament:
On the basis of the manuscript evidence available to him, Erasmus had eliminated the passage [1 John 5:7] from his first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516, but had restored it in later editions, responding to a storm of protest and to further textual evidence that was produced—quite literally produced—in support of the text. Luther’s translation of the New Testament into German, being based on the 1516 edition of Erasmus, did not contain the passage. Although the weight of textual evidence against it was seemingly overwhelming, the proof it supplied for the Trinity made an attack on its authenticity seemed to be an attack on the dogma [thus orthodoxy sought to wrongly restore the Johannine Comma].
This author explains that people were outraged that the verse was taken out. Erasmus replied that he would include it if they could show him a single Greek manuscript that contained it. Scholars believe that a forgery was produced, and (good to his word) Erasmus included the change in his next editions. People cared more about what their dogma, creeds, and councils had taught than what the word of God actually said. The above author continues:
The most pertinacious and conservative in various communions were still holding out for the authenticity of the “Johannine Comma” in 1 John 5:7, despite all the textual and patristic evidence [evidence from the Early Christian Fathers before Nicea] against it, but there was an all but unanimous consensus among textual critics that it represented a later interpolation.
As far as the council at Nicea (Nicene Creed) is concerned, realize that the Emperor Constantine was an unbaptized pagan at the time of the council. He saw Christianity as a useful tool to unite his rather diverse empire. I’m not stating that he didn’t perhaps have some religious motives as well, but the fact that he was never baptized until shortly before his death, leads one to believe that the politics of the situation were far more prevalent upon his mind.
I would advise you look into the historical accounts as to Constantine’s threats of death, & the coercion & influence he had on the council at Nicea & afterwards.
At the time there was a nagging dispute over the divinity of Jesus Christ, one that had become extremely divisive, & one that the Emperor felt wasn’t worth fighting over, so he called for a council of bishops to resolve the dispute. While Constantine leaned against Arius’ (Arian) position (non-Trinity), even he oscillated over the course of the next five years despite having manipulated an anti-Arian statement of faith at Nicea.
Though the Council of Nicea, which gave us the Nicene Creed, is generally regarded as the first ecumenical (or universal) council, it was not, in fact, universal at all. In fact, there was much dissension & contention. Eusebius of Nicomedia, signed the Nicene Confession, but only after a long and desperate opposition in which he “subscribed with hand only, not heart”. Shortly after the Synod he took courage and recanted. He re-declared his earlier belief that God is greater than Jesus. He renewed his alliance with Arius. Consequently, Constantine exiled him to Gaul. The council was attended by approx. 250 bishops, the largest gathering to date, however, only a handful of Western bishops attended. More representative, attended by over 500 bishops from both East and West, was the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia 25 years later, which adopted a pro-Arian (non-Trinity) creed only to have it repudiated by the church. So you can see, even just 25 years later, there was hardly unanimity, w/ in fact, the majority taking a pro-Arian (three separate & distinct beings) stance.
The political machinations and doctrinal swings that ensued over the last half of the century are too numerous to mention here but would be worth your investigation. They do, indeed, include murder and mayhem all in the name of Jesus — true Son of God or adopted heir of the kingdom.
Basil of Caesarea (Basil the Great), his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their best friend Gregory of Nazainzus developed the ideas that would make it possible for conservative Arians and Nicene Christians eventually to fuse. Oddly, what triggered this burst of creative thinking was a new issue that threatened to make divisions within the Christian community even more contentious and complex: the nature of the Holy Spirit. New theological terminology was necessary, therefore the drafting of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Both sides were eventually won over to this new thinking, doctrinally, the Trinity was the point at which Christianity broke definitively with its parent faith, Judaism, and other forms of monotheism.
Eventually, Arianism (non-Trinity) was made a crime punishable by death, & anti-Semitism a practice sanctioned by the church.
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the doctrine that “healed” one division, a few centuries later caused an even greater one. The Western and Eastern factions of the church split in the Great Schism over the Filioque, that is, whether a line in the Nicene Creed would affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son (Rome) or just the father (Constantinople).
Ah, the wisdom of man & his insatiable desire to figure things out through his own wisdom & interpretation of the scriptures, rather than rely on revelation from God. Proverbs may have said it best in Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
The apostles understood the importance of not relying on the arm of the flesh, but rather revelation from the Lord. They not only understood it, they taught it. The post-apostolic period saw man wane from those teachings. Thus, the war over who God was. Those involved in the council believed the heavens to be shut to direct revelation. That one flawed belief changed “Christianity” forever. A shame really.
If the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost are one person, why even have three named? Why not just God? Period. There seems to be no logical reason for the this redundancy. If God came down, He came down. Why cloud the issue by naming another person? Why not simply say Father/God came down among man? Why not just say His Spirit rests upon the children of men, rather than introducing another name (Holy Ghost) into the equation?
I find absolutely no explanation for that in the scriptures. Could that be because there was no reason, other than they are indeed three distinct personages (as ratified by the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia, 25 years after the Nicene Creed)? Only the traditions of man would overcome that logic in my humble opinion.
Since the Nicene Creed was first adopted in A.D. 325, it seems clear that there were many Christians in the first centuries following the resurrection of Christ who did not use it. Those who oppose calling the Latter-Day Saints “Christians” need to explain whether Peter and Paul are “Christians,” since they lived and practiced Christianity at a time when there was no Nicene Creed, and no Trinitarianism in the current sense.
One last thing. If all three are the same being, who was calling the shots, watching over the world as the babe Christ lay in the manger & as the Lord grew as an infant? Who commanded the angels? Who was answering prayers?
Jesus taught one cannot pour new wine into old bottles. And so it is with many Trinitarians. They are, sadly, too steeped in the traditions and creeds of men to have an open mind to discuss the Biblical scriptures that patently contradict the Trinity creed.
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson may have put it best:
“When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned every-thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines, he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily, his disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies, and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its founder an impostor.”
(Jefferson’s Works, Vol. 7, p. 210 by H.A. Washington) – Thomas Jefferson
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity;.... The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousand and thousands of martyrs.... In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous,... With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. 7, p. 269-70 by H.A. Washington). - Thomas Jefferson
Was God deceiving men when at Jesus’ baptism He spoke from the heavens, descended in the form of a dove, while being baptized all at the same time?
What the deception is that how the Trinity functions and related within the common God cannot be represented in the manner at the baptism. Just because the Persons of the Trinity can be manifested separately doesn't mean that they are still not the singular God. Jesus the God-man prayed to God the Father because of his human part - yet unquoted elsewhere by confab are those moments when Jesus and God the Father were in direct communication - yet unspoken by Jesus. There is no way to be made aware of the nature of those communications without Jesus speaking in some way.
He speaks of God as His Father, so that’s who God is. He speaks of God in the third person, so they are not the same person,
Since confab has to copy others work, this argument put forth by mormons purposefully twists the definitions of the Trinity into modalism and tries to confuse the listener/reader. Of course they are not the same 'Person' - that is by definition, yet the three Persons of the Trinity form the singular Triune God.
Trinitarians often use the following to make their case for the Trinity: John 10:30
“I and my Father are one”.
John 10:38
“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”. In regards to Christ’s remark that “I and the Father are one”, in John 10:30 the word “one” was in neuter, not masculine. In Greek, the masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being, and neuter implies a oneness of purpose. So, read literally the verse merely says that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose or will.
In a veiled effort to try to project SOME degree of scholarly knowledge, they try to enlist the Greek in their support. Too bad their greek is so poor. But first things first - word meanings are derived from context first and foremost. The context is displayed by the reaction of the people to Jesus' statement in verse 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."
now the non-confab bleat here is that 'one' is one in purpose. If that were the case the Jews would not have reacted as such.
Regarding the greek - they need a better lexicon aid. To make it easy," Word Pictures in the New Testament" by A.T. Robertson addresses this point -
One (en). Neuter, not masculine (eiv). Not one person (cf. eiv in Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumuv (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father (Joh 5:18). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim (5:19-30). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later (17:11, 21). Note en used in 1Co 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in 17:11,23 of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.
So one quickly sees the pseudo-scholarship of these mormon answers. Thus to throw other verses where 'one' is used is a wasted effort. The significance of "one" in each of these verses is not determined by how it is used in other verse - it is derived from the immediate context. Thus, the fact that "one" may mean "one in fellowship" in John 17:21ff or "one in purpose" in 1 Corinthians 3:6 has no bearing on how it should be understood in this verse.
If the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost are one person, why even have three named? Why not just God? Period.
And this in closing, though I have refuted delphi's bleat copied by confab very throughly in the past, just one direct point. Why don't the mormons read their bibles? John 1:1 makes it very clear that Jesus was a Person who WAS God. In the NT, the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all called and defined as God.
But again - mormons deliberately lie about the Trinitarian doctrine again. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are PersonS, NOT one person, but one God. If mormons would quit lying about how the Trinity is defined they would have nothing to bleat about at all.
My hearts - just these snippets show the hollow and deceptive nature of their arguments. Also note confab ignored including me on the ping. Mormons can't handle a real direct investigation of their claims.