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.
First off, I didn’t ping you because I was responding to My hearts in London - Everett, not you. I didn’t mention you in the post, so there was no reason to ping you. Is there a problem w/ self importance here?
Second, I told you in advance that I didn’t want to have a discussion w/ you because of your historical demeanor. I was answering one set of questions.Your post verifies I was right in that conclusion. Often your group says it never goes after Mormons, but rather Mormonism. You post is exhibit A against that claim. You make references to the points made being “bleat”. You call Mormons (not Mormonism) liars, & in fact, deliberate liars. So much for that argument.
I don’t want to debate you because history shows you’re not a very civil debater. History also shows you present your guesses as fact. Neither leads to a good discussion. Sure, you bring others thoughts into the discussion from time to time, but it’s often only their opinions as well.
Short & long of it, I don’t claim that I’m right & all others wrong. Quite the opposite. I do have my opinions, but state them as such unless sharing facts. You on the other hand, seemingly in your mind, have no opinions, just facts. I choose not to deal w/ such persons.
I laid out my beliefs. I may be right, I may be wrong. I did the research & came up w/ what I did. A lot of noted theologians & bright minds came to the same conclusions as I did. What does that mean? Not a lot frankly other than I have company in my OPINION. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, didn’t believe in the Trinity either. They were pretty bright. Religion was a BIG deal in their day & was researched quite a bit. Again, does that necessarily mean anything? No, just that I’m in good company & that the issue isn’t as clear cut as many would believe.
You’ve expressed your best guesses. Cheers! Now please go & bully someone who really cares. You seem to be pretty smart but not very nice ( I hope I’m wrong), & I don’t hang w/ those kind of folks outside of the internet, let alone here.
I still pray for you my brother.