NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that it is necessary to be Trinitarian to be a Christian?

I do. 2000 years of Church history say yes and it solves many of the "contradictions" of Scripture. I see no way around it.

You need to say that Jesus wasn't God, in which case His sacrifice meant nothing and you lose the basis for Christianity.

Or you need to say that there is more than one God. Which the Bible clearly says "no" to.

Or you need to say that Jesus is an incarnation of a unitarian God. But then who was He praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene (sp?)?

I think the only option is the Trinity.

other option is he didn't died at all and it was told so to make sure you consciously suffer all your life for his sacrifice. considering all other prophets are always saved by God from unnatural death (like being lynched) but suffered in their path. At least thats what islam says as I have written in another thread. It says the betrayer was shown as Jesus with a simple illusion and he was killed instead of jesus when Real Jesus was taken to heavens, alive. There are many old stories telling how prophets were saved from angry mobs or cruel kings, pharaoxes etc.
edit: by no ways an assault in what you believe is wanted, this is another interpretion of events that took place.

My beliefs are this: The is one entity that we call God. God has three parts, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I don't believe they are seperate entities because that would make Christianty polytheistic. Also, when Jesus talked, He mentioned how He and his Father are one, so that shows that they are one of another, except Christ was God's loving spirit inside the vessel of a man. But then again, we are human and we probably no nothing about what we are talking about anyways.

we are human and we probably know little about what we are talking about anyways.

Fixed for accuracy.

We know what is revealed.

The thing is, and this is mentioned in the OP, that the idea of Trinity originated as a Catholic doctrine and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea. (I find that ironic, since many Protestant Christians like to distance themselves from the Catholic Church, and yet this is considered a core belief-and was introduced by that which defined the Catholic Church.)

Bible references generally refer to the three members of the Trinity in terms that indicate they are separate beings, and in only very few references do they appear to be one in the same. It was an attempt to reconcile these that the Trinity concept came about.

As I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, in that they see the Holy Spirit as being an aspect of the Father only.

LDS(Mormons) believe in the Godhead, which is essentially the same as the Trinity but the 3 persons are separate but united in purpose, not substance.

My beliefs are this: The is one entity that we call God. God has three parts, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I don't believe they are seperate entities because that would make Christianty polytheistic. Also, when Jesus talked, He mentioned how He and his Father are one, so that shows that they are one of another, except Christ was God's loving spirit inside the vessel of a man. But then again, we are human and we probably no nothing about what we are talking about anyways.

actually the understanding of god as a multi-part entity is caused by old beliefs like tree of life. You can find its roots in Judaism, Japan Shinto and Turkish Shamanism(asia). Even today in Turkish carpets the geometrical patterns are symbols of tree of life, dragon, phonix and cradle etc. ITs a deep area to study. I especially like reading Kaballah on issues concerning tree of life and humans ascension to beings beyond angels.

The thing is, and this is mentioned in the OP, that the idea of Trinity originated as a Catholic doctrine and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea. (I find that ironic, since many Protestant Christians like to distance themselves from the Catholic Church, and yet this is considered a core belief-and was introduced by that which defined the Catholic Church.)

Bible references generally refer to the three members of the Trinity in terms that indicate they are separate beings, and in only very few references do they appear to be one in the same. It was an attempt to reconcile these that the Trinity concept came about.

As I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, in that they see the Holy Spirit as being an aspect of the Father only.

LDS(Mormons) believe in the Godhead, which is essentially the same as the Trinity but the 3 persons are separate but united in purpose, not substance.

Nicaea was before the Schism.

Nicaea was before the Schism.

True.

So?

actually the understanding of god as a multi-part entity is caused by old beliefs like tree of life. You can find its roots in Judaism, Japan Shinto and Turkish Shamanism(asia). Even today in Turkish carpets the geometrical patterns are symbols of tree of life, dragon, phonix and cradle etc. ITs a deep area to study. I especially like reading Kaballah on issues concerning tree of life and humans ascension to beings beyond angels.

Or are they the corruption of the Truth? How else would there be a Flood story in every mythology in the world? Whether you agree with the Bible story or not, you must agree that something must have happened to make such a far spread and lasting impact on the cultures of the world.

Could not the same have happened with the Trinity?

True.

So?

It wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. It was the Church.

Most of the time, when someone says the Catholic Church, people think of the denomination after the Schism.

You're right New Bretonnia, the JW's don't believe in the trinity, and they weren't the only ones. The Catholic Church was just thorough in wiping most of the Arians out once it established its dominance in the 4th century and thereafter.

Edwardis doesn't know his early church history, or he wouldn't have said that the Trinity represented 2,000 years of church belief. The trinity wasn't accepted as dogma until the end of the 4th century, and was the subject of much debate and violence both before and after that period.

Most importantly, if you're going to accept the Bible as the infallible word of God (a premise that has its own massive issues), then you have to wonder why the only scripture to actually make the trinitarian claim openly and plainly was later revealed to be spurious, added sometime in the 3rd century?

Or are they the corruption of the Truth? How else would there be a Flood story in every mythology in the world? Whether you agree with the Bible story or not, you must agree that something must have happened to make such a far spread and lasting impact on the cultures of the world.

Could not the same have happened with the Trinity?

Sure.

IMHO The origin of the Trinity doctrine wasn't that people wanted to reconcile seemingly contradictory Scripture references, but rather because to the ancient Jewish culture, the idea of polytheism was anathema, and the followers of Christ would have wanted to distance themselves form the perception of polytheism if they possibly could.

Problem is, in the New Testament there are three distinct Godlike beings referenced, namely, God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Since the theologians of the day dismissed out of hand the concept of polytheism, they needed some way to have their cake and eat it to. the result: The Trinity doctrine. 3 beings, but you still get to call your religion monotheistic by making those three beings one in the same, simultaneously.

You're right New Bretonnia, the JW's don't believe in the trinity, and they weren't the only ones. The Catholic Church was just thorough in wiping most of the Arians out once it established its dominance in the 4th century and thereafter.

Edwardis doesn't know his early church history, or he wouldn't have said that the Trinity represented 2,000 years of church belief. The trinity wasn't accepted as dogma until the end of the 4th century, and was the subject of much debate and violence both before and after that period.

Most importantly, if you're going to accept the Bible as the infallible word of God (a premise that has its own massive issues), then you have to wonder why the only scripture to actually make the trinitarian claim openly and plainly was later revealed to be spurious, added sometime in the 3rd century?

The Trinity was never accepted as dogma until the 4th century because it didn't have to be. All these writings found from fringe groups supposedly show that the idea was much contested, but we don't know that. And the coucil wasn't very divided over the idea at all.

The Word was God and the Word was with God.

I and the Father are One.

When you look on Me you have seen the Father.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

It wasn't the Roman Catholic Church. It was the Church.

Most of the time, when someone says the Catholic Church, people think of the denomination after the Schism.

Alright fair enough, but the difference is one of semantics. Nefore the Schism, the various factions still had their own belief structures, but they were nominally all part of the same Church. After the Schizm, both the Orthodox and Catholic factions retained many of the same doctrines and procedures, so I wasn't going to split hairs. But yes, you are correct.

If you believe otherwise then you are not technically a christian, so yes.

Problem is, in the New Testament there are three distinct Godlike beings referenced, namely, God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Since the theologians of the day dismissed out of hand the concept of polytheism, they needed some way to have their cake and eat it to. the result: The Trinity doctrine. 3 beings, but you still get to call your religion monotheistic by making those three beings one in the same, simultaneously.And the acknowledgement of multiple godlike personalities helped with the conversion of polytheists from other parts of the world.

Some notes from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Orthodox.2C_Roman_Catholic_and_Protestant_distinctions) on "Other view of the Trinity:"

There have been numerous other views of the relations of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the most prominent include:


Ebionites believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father and nothing more than a special human.
Marcion believed that there were two Deities, one of Creation / Hebrew Bible and one of the New Testament.
Arius believed that the Son was subordinate to the Father, firstborn of all Creation. However, the Son did have Divine status. This view is very close to that of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Which I found very interesting.)
Modalism states that God has taken numerous forms in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and that God has manifested Himself in three primary modes in regards to the salvation of mankind. Thus God is Father in creation (God created or begat a Son through the virgin birth), Son in redemption (God manifested Himself into or indwelt the begotten man Christ Jesus for the purpose of His death upon the cross), and Holy Spirit in regeneration (God's indwelling Spirit within the souls of Christian believers). In light of this view, God is not three separate Persons, but rather one God manifesting Himself in multiple ways. It is held by its proponents that this view maintains the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament scriptures.
Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in One Person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. The Father, the Being or soul of God, was born into the world and put on a body from Mary. Throughout His life, Jesus put away all the merely human desires and tendencies inherited from Mary until He was completely Divine, even as to His flesh. After the resurrection He influences the world through the Holy Spirit, which is His activity. Thus Jesus Christ is the one God; the Father as to His soul, the Son as to His body, and the Holy Spirit as to His activity in the world.
The Urantia Book teaches that God is the first "Uncaused Cause" who is a personality that is omniscient, omnipresent, transcendent, infinite, eternal and omnipotent, but He is also a person of the Original Trinity - "The Paradise Trinity" who are the "First Source and Center, Second Source and Center, and Third Source and Center" or otherwise described as "God, The Eternal Son, and The Divine Holy Spirit". These personalities are not to be confused with Jesus who is also one with God, but not one of the Original Personalities of His Original Paradise Trinity. Each one of the Original Holy Trinity is a separate personality, but acting in function as a divine and First Trinity.
Eutychianism holds that the divinity of the Son became human and the human became divine. Orthodox Trinitarianism holds these parts of the Son distinct.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka "Mormons," hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals (Covenant 130:22), but can and do act together in perfect unity as a single monotheistic entity (the "Godhead") for the common purpose of saving mankind, Jesus Christ having received divine investiture of authority from Heavenly Father in the pre-existence. The Latter-day Saint doctrine on the Godhead comes directly from the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith (History:11). They believe this view to be supported by New Testament scriptures, including the circumstances surrounding the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17) and Christ's prayers to God. Christ's statement that He and His Father are "one" is interpeted to mean one in purpose, which purpose they believe the Apostles were also to join (after their resurrection) as Christ prayed in His intercessory prayer: "...that they may be one, as we are."
Docetism holds that the Son is not human, but wholly and only divine.
Adoptionism holds that Jesus was chosen on the event of his baptism to be anointed by the Holy Spirit and became divine upon resurrection.
Rastafarians are a rare non-Christian group to theorise about the Holy Trinity.
Islam's Holy Book, the Quran, denounces:

the term "Trinity" (Sura 4:171)
a Trinity composed of Father, Son and Mary (Sura 5:116). Inclusion of Mary in the presumed trinity may have been due to either a quasi-Christian sect known as the Collyridians in Arabia who apparently believed that Mary was divine, or use of the title "Mother of God" to refer to Mary.



Discussions on this and on the nature of Christ amounted to a National Pastime in the Late Roman Empire, the 4th and 5th centuries.

You're right New Bretonnia, the JW's don't believe in the trinity, and they weren't the only ones. The Catholic Church was just thorough in wiping most of the Arians out once it established its dominance in the 4th century and thereafter.


Thanks for verifying that. I had heard it but wasn't 100% sure, and it's hard to find JWs online to talk to about it.

The Trinity was never accepted as dogma until the 4th century because it didn't have to be. All these writings found from fringe groups supposedly show that the idea was much contested, but we don't know that. And the coucil wasn't very divided over the idea at all.

The Word was God and the Word was with God.

I and the Father are One.

When you look on Me you have seen the Father.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Except that translation is much more art than science, so John 1:1 has also been translated "the Word was divine," i.e. of the same stuff as God, but not necessarily the same being, and I and the Father are one could just as easily read "we agree on everything." Not so easy anymore, especially since your quotes only handle two of the three sections of the Godhead.

Understand this--I don't believe any of this, as I am an atheist. But I do know that the issue of the trinity is not nearly as settled as the church wishes it were.

The Trinity was never accepted as dogma until the 4th century because it didn't have to be. All these writings found from fringe groups supposedly show that the idea was much contested, but we don't know that. And the coucil wasn't very divided over the idea at all.

The Word was God and the Word was with God.

I and the Father are One.

When you look on Me you have seen the Father.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Well, if yuo take only those quotes and approach them with the preconceived idea of their meaning, then yes, they are straightforward, but just bear with me for a moment. Suppose you have 3 distinct beings who operate together, ala LDS.

The Word was God and the Word was with God.

Since we know that "the Word" is a symbol for Jesus, then this statement simply means thet He was, in fact a God and that He was with the Father.

I and the Father are One.
United.

When you look on Me you have seen the Father.
They resemble each other, or they are the same in their purpose and action.

The Trinity doctrine fails to answer the questions:

Who was well pleased with Jesus at His baptism?
Who took the form of a dove at the baptism, if Jesus Himself was in the water?
Who did Jesus pray to at the Garden of Gethsemane?
Who forsook Him as He was on the cross?
Into whose hands did Jesus commend His spirit?

I could go on, but you see what I'm getting at.

other option is he didn't died at all and it was told so to make sure you consciously suffer all your life for his sacrifice. considering all other prophets are always saved by God from unnatural death (like being lynched) but suffered in their path.

What about Moses? Deuteronomy 34:5 "So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said." Of course prophets died, save Elijah who was taken up in the firey chariot. (2 Kings 2:11)

If you take the Gospels at face value, this Jesus is either the biggest liar and con artist of the 1st century or he was indeed the Son of God. There is no middle road, there is no middle ground, because he went all the way to describe himself and his relation to "The Father." The result is mystery. Any attempt to oversimplify it does it a great injustie.

If you believe otherwise then you are not technically a christian, so yes.

Technically? I always thought being a Christian was what you are when yuo accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and are baptized. What's that got to do with Trinity belief?

And the acknowledgement of multiple godlike personalities helped with the conversion of polytheists from other parts of the world.

Yep. Along with altering the date of Christmas to coincide with Yule, and the association of Easter with the Spring Equinox.

Or are they the corruption of the Truth? How else would there be a Flood story in every mythology in the world? Whether you agree with the Bible story or not, you must agree that something must have happened to make such a far spread and lasting impact on the cultures of the world.

Could not the same have happened with the Trinity?

even the pagan religions degenerated into their state from something complete we must not forget that. No religion is immune to corruption if a class of religious power wielders are on the job.

Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, or subscribe to one of the sects I listed, yes, to be a Christian in this day and age you have to subscribe to the idea of the Trinity. That Wiki article talks about the differences between the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant views, but they all do say that's part of the deal.

If you believe otherwise then you are not technically a christian, so yes.


What constitutes a Christian? Someone that beleives in the trinity, or someone that is Christ-like? IIRC, Christian means someone that is Christ like, or better adapted, follows after the examples of Christ. So unless I misunderstood you, I think it is complete utter bull to say that someone that doesn't believe "X" doctrine over "Y" doctrine is not a christian.

What constitutes a Christian? Someone that beleives in the trinity, or someone that is Christ-like? IIRC, Christian means someone that is Christ like, or better adapted, follows after the examples of Christ. So unless I misunderstood you, I think it is complete utter bull to say that someone that doesn't believe "X" doctrine over "Y" doctrine is not a christian.

A follower of Christ is a Christian. Simple. That process means to take upon yourself His name, to accept him as Savior, to be baptized.

Nothing there about the Trinity, so you are quite correct.

Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon, or subscribe to one of the sects I listed, yes, to be a Christian in this day and age you have to subscribe to the idea of the Trinity. That Wiki article talks about the differences between the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant views, but they all do say that's part of the deal.


Where did Christ say that in His ministry? I don't recall it. I think He if we were of Him, then we'd love him, and obey his commandments. We'd throw away our old selves, and take up the cross and follow him. I have never once seen anything where he said, "Well, in order to be a follower of me, you have to believe in the Trinity." In fact, he'd not even talk about crap like that, because really, is it important to a christian? Not so much. What is important to a christian, is living like Christ, and being a light to a world of dark. Above all, we are servants of the message of Christ, which was love and forgiveness for whom? Those that beleive in the trinity? NO, for those that beleive on his name, and accept his gift of salvation.

A follower of Christ is a Christian. Simple. That process means to take upon yourself His name, to accept him as Savior, to be baptized.

Nothing there about the Trinity, so you are quite correct.

I would even go as far as to say baptism isn't required. I mean, we should do it as christians, to outwardly show that we are inwardly changed, but I personally don't beleive it is necessary, meaning if i were to accept the lord Jesus, and then died without being baptised, i'd still get to heaven.

Where did Christ say that in His ministry? I don't recall it. I think He if we were of Him, then we'd love him, and obey his commandments. We'd throw away our old selves, and take up the cross and follow him. I have never once seen anything where he said, "Well, in order to be a follower of me, you have to believe in the Trinity." In fact, he'd not even talk about crap like that, because really, is it important to a christian? Not so much. What is important to a christian, is living like Christ, and being a light to a world of dark. Above all, we are servants of the message of Christ, which was love and forgiveness for whom? Those that beleive in the trinity? NO, for those that beleive on his name, and accept his gift of salvation.

I know I'm going to regret this but ... in order to join a church, be it Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant (with some exceptions), you have to sign up for the Trinity. I didn't mean to imply Jesus spoke about it, by any means. However, it is pretty boilerplate Christian doctrine nowadays.

What about Moses? Deuteronomy 34:5 "So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said." Of course prophets died, save Elijah who was taken up in the firey chariot. (2 Kings 2:11)

If you take the Gospels at face value, this Jesus is either the biggest liar and con artist of the 1st century or he was indeed the Son of God. There is no middle road, there is no middle ground, because he went all the way to describe himself and his relation to "The Father." The result is mystery. Any attempt to oversimplify it does it a great injustie.

Mosses didn't died at the hand of his enemies did he? He split the sea and ran away. His later death was after his mission was done and life time completed still not by heretics but by God's will.
It's natural instinct to call God our father but that doesnt make him our biological father, we share his essence, his breath as our soul. The very thing that makes us godly. God is not a biological entity that gives birth or he would be no different from an animal therefore would not be omnipotent, sexless, alone entity he is. He just lets a mutation occour by Gabriel so without a father Jesus can be born as a miracle.

I know I'm going to regret this but ... in order to join a church, be it Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant (with some exceptions), you have to sign up for the Trinity. I didn't mean to imply Jesus spoke about it, by any means. However, it is pretty boilerplate Christian doctrine nowadays.

And thats why the church fails. They'd rather argue about something seemingly pointless, rather than do the job given to them.

Do you think that it is necessary to be Trinitarian to be a Christian?

I do. 2000 years of Church history say yes and it solves many of the "contradictions" of Scripture. I see no way around it.

You need to say that Jesus wasn't God, in which case His sacrifice meant nothing and you lose the basis for Christianity.

Or you need to say that there is more than one God. Which the Bible clearly says "no" to.

Or you need to say that Jesus is an incarnation of a unitarian God. But then who was He praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene (sp?)?

I think the only option is the Trinity.

Sense when has christianity or any other religion cared about their contradictions ... they just blow it off with some sort of "Yar got to believe" stuff and that makes it all good apparently

The base belief to be "Christian" is to believe in christ ... I am not sure that the specific incarnation really matters except for the fact that he is suposed to be the son of god and or god

I know I'm going to regret this but ... in order to join a church, be it Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant (with some exceptions), you have to sign up for the Trinity. I didn't mean to imply Jesus spoke about it, by any means. However, it is pretty boilerplate Christian doctrine nowadays.

That's true, and those are specific organizations who have incorporated Trinity into their doctrine.

I think the general question of Christianity is the point of this thread, and I, for one, don't think that something like that can be used by others to pass judgement on whether or not any one individual is a Christian. That is a question only Jesus can answer for any individual.

What about Moses? Deuteronomy 34:5 "So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said." Of course prophets died, save Elijah who was taken up in the firey chariot. (2 Kings 2:11)

If you take the Gospels at face value, this Jesus is either the biggest liar and con artist of the 1st century or he was indeed the Son of God. There is no middle road, there is no middle ground, because he went all the way to describe himself and his relation to "The Father." The result is mystery. Any attempt to oversimplify it does it a great injustie.

Or you could avoid that road completely and say that Jesus is a mythical character only very loosely based on a real person or people or even completely fabricated.

That's true, and those are specific organizations who have incorporated Trinity into their doctrine.

I think the general question of Christianity is the point of this thread, and I, for one, don't think that something like that can be used by others to pass judgement on whether or not any one individual is a Christian. That is a question only Jesus can answer for any individual.

I disagree, I think Edwardis was quite specific in the OP, his question was, "Do you have to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity to be a Christian?" We can talk about the nature of Christianity if you like, though I'd rather we waited a couple weeks until I've gotten further along in Johnson's History of Christianity, so the facts will be a bit fresher. ;)

I disagree, I think Edwardis was quite specific in the OP, his question was, "Do you have to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity to be a Christian?" ...

Well, that's what I mean. Maybe we just have differing definitions. When I hear the word "Christian," I don't necessarily think of a specific denomination. I think very generally. It may be that Edwardis DID have specific denominations in mind, in which case I am misunderstanding.

The reason is there seem to be a lot of folks who refer to themselves as "non-denominational" although they do tend to be very much like Baptists. Some people resist being associate with a particular denomination because they don't want to be distracted by doctrines that could have come from source other than the Bible itself.

Well, that's what I mean. Maybe we just have differing definitions. When I hear the word "Christian," I don't necessarily think of a specific denomination. I think very generally. It may be that Edwardis DID have specific denominations in mind, in which case I am misunderstanding.

The reason is there seem to be a lot of folks who refer to themselves as "non-denominational" although they do tend to be very much like Baptists. Some people resist being associate with a particular denomination because they don't want to be distracted by doctrines that could have come from source other than the Bible itself.

Could be, could be. I don't know what the US numbers are for what people say when asked if they belong to a church.

I do think you'll find that the established churches can back up their doctrine of the Trinity with Biblical citations, though. Or at least try, I've never actually tried to research the background material.

I do think you'll find that the established churches can back up their doctrine of the Trinity with Biblical citations, though. Or at least try, I've never actually tried to research the background material.

I know. Believe it or not, I actually used to be Catholic, and have studied the subject in both a formal and informal environment.

I won't presume to tell anybody what to believe, and I don't mean to come across as critical of the Catholic Church. I do respect it very much and I think it's a force for good in the world. I just don't happen to believe in that set of details, and have found a new perspective.

I would even go as far as to say baptism isn't required. I mean, we should do it as christians, to outwardly show that we are inwardly changed, but I personally don't beleive it is necessary, meaning if i were to accept the lord Jesus, and then died without being baptised, i'd still get to heaven.

Baptism is clearly necessary to cleanse the stain of original sin. It is clear the early Christians did certain things in community and the sacraments are a big part of it.

What constitutes a Christian? Someone that beleives in the trinity, or someone that is Christ-like? IIRC, Christian means someone that is Christ like, or better adapted, follows after the examples of Christ. So unless I misunderstood you, I think it is complete utter bull to say that someone that doesn't believe "X" doctrine over "Y" doctrine is not a christian.

I really don't think Christians are some sort of superior people. I think believing things like that is falling into the sin of pride which can lead to some strange reasoning like: "well I am a good person so why would I do bad things, this grey area must be a good thing". Where people are so concerned that they are right and others are wrong that they no longer have the ability to take a measure of themselves when they need to.

And I mean, if you follow Christ don't you follow his teachings? I mean if you didn't but just thought he was a great person to be like then most Moslems or Jews I know could be considered Christians. Every Moslem I have ever met thinks Jesus is great and that it would be great if we could all be a little more like him, and that the best way to do that is to follow the prophet.

There are Unitarian churches which I consider Christian. I'm a Trinitarian though.

IIRC, Christian means someone that is Christ like, or better adapted, follows after the examples of Christ.
Christians are people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and consider Him to be their saviour.

There are people who act like Christ who are not Christians, and there are Christians who don't act anything at all like Christ (unfortunately).

Many Christians believe that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is so central to the Christian faith, that to deny it is to reject the Christian faith entirely. However a number of nontrinitarian groups, both throughout history and today, identify themselves as Christians but reject the doctrine of the Trinity in any form, arguing that theirs was the original pre-Nicean understanding. Some ancient sects, such as the Ebionites, said that Jesus was not a "Son of God", but rather an ordinary man who was a prophet. Many modern groups also teach various nontrinitarian understandings of God. These include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, the Unification Church, the Christian Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Iglesia ni Cristo, among others. These groups differ from one another in their view of God, but all alike reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

source: wikipedia.org

Please keep in mind that though the Council of Nicea did officially make it canon for the trinity, that it took the next THREE HUNDRED YEARS to convert the Arians.

Or are they the corruption of the Truth? How else would there be a Flood story in every mythology in the world? Whether you agree with the Bible story or not, you must agree that something must have happened to make such a far spread and lasting impact on the cultures of the world.

Could not the same have happened with the Trinity?

Uhh, not EVERY SINGLE mythology in the world has a flood theory. I think what you mean is that there are mythologies *all over the world* that have a flood theory.

Uhh, not EVERY SINGLE mythology in the world has a flood theory. I think what you mean is that there are mythologies *all over the world* that have a flood theory.

The flood myths that show up in various cultures could go back to the rising of the world's sea levels at the end of the Ice Age. For the Middle East, we have that really cool flodding of the Black Sea basin, I'm sure that was something you didn't forget.

The flood myths that show up in various cultures could go back to the rising of the world's sea levels at the end of the Ice Age. For the Middle East, we have that really cool flodding of the Black Sea basin, I'm sure that was something you didn't forget.

I'm sorry, can you explain to me the purpose for this notation? I don't think I'm quite following what you're trying to get at.

Oh, one or two folks further up the line said something about stories of a universal flood being found all around the world. It's not real prominent, sort of a side-thread, really.

Now I understand, thank you.

I'm sorry, can you explain to me the purpose for this notation? I don't think I'm quite following what you're trying to get at.

Just a comment on flood myths. By "something you didn't foget" I meant "something witnesses wouldn't have forgotten," no you personally. You'd have to be pretty old.

it says nothing about the trinity in the bible. I never thought he was god, he was the son of god. And why just cause he isnt god his death would be pointless?

The trinity to ME is bunk

changed that so people wouldnt think i was attacking them. makeing it clear i said me

Just a comment on flood myths. By "something you didn't foget" I meant "something witnesses wouldn't have forgotten," no you personally. You'd have to be pretty old.

yeah... well, you know how Moses lived for over 800 years? Yeah.. he's got nothin' on me ;)

yeah... well, you know how Moses lived for over 800 years? Yeah.. he's got nothin' on me ;)

And I thought I was old! :D

it says nothing about the trinity in the bible. I never thought he was god, he was the son of god. And why just cause he isnt god his death would be pointless?

The trinity to ME is bunk

changed that so people wouldnt think i was attacking them. makeing it clear i said me

Who was Jesus praying to then? Who was he telling people about? He always struck me as humble but it seems a bit bigheaded to ask your own greatness for help and tell people about how great you are in the third person all the time.

Who was Jesus praying to then? Who was he telling people about? He always struck me as humble but it seems a bit bigheaded to ask your own greatness for help and tell people about how great you are in the third person all the time.

Some forms of modern paganism believe that you can ask "your own greatness" for help (this is part of the theory that your entire soul is NOT manifest in the current incarnation).

just a little FYI.

We know what is revealed.


No. Not unless you can reproduce a revelation under controlled conditions.

EDIT: Ignore this. After reading I thread I realised you are discussing things from the viewpoint of Christian Theology. Carry on and accpet my apologies.

Who was Jesus praying to then? Who was he telling people about? He always struck me as humble but it seems a bit bigheaded to ask your own greatness for help and tell people about how great you are in the third person all the time.


i dont know what your talking about. He is the SON OF GOD. he was praying to GOD. I even said that in my frist post, I said I do not view him as god, so why would he pray to himself, if he isnt god. Did you even really read what I posted

Did you even really read what I posted

A question which I'm sure is often brought forth on these forums.

I think the only option is the Trinity.

Successive Popes felt then as you apparently do now. And that's why many Unitarians (or Anti-Trinitarians, as they were labelled by Rome) - my spiritual forebears - were tortured, maimed and killed by the Vatican during the Inquisitions.

I have no time for 3-in-1 nonsensical, trivial fluff. There is only God, there is only my direct relationship to God, and that's all that matters to me - interpose as many books, clergy and mythology between yourself and God as you may wish, it aids none save those who stand to profit from such on this temporal plane.

Except that translation is much more art than science, so John 1:1 has also been translated "the Word was divine," i.e. of the same stuff as God, but not necessarily the same being, and I and the Father are one could just as easily read "we agree on everything." Not so easy anymore, especially since your quotes only handle two of the three sections of the Godhead.

How could they agree on everything unless they are of one mind. And if they are of one mind, then that leads to a Trinity. It doesn't make it so, but it points in that direction.

Understand this--I don't believe any of this, as I am an atheist. But I do know that the issue of the trinity is not nearly as settled as the church wishes it were.

No, it's settled for the Church. It's the heretics outside and inside who keep bringing it up. In my opinion.

The Trinity doctrine fails to answer the questions:

Who was well pleased with Jesus at His baptism? God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity
Who took the form of a dove at the baptism, if Jesus Himself was in the water? God the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity
Who did Jesus pray to at the Garden of Gethsemane? God the Father
Who forsook Him as He was on the cross? God the Father
Into whose hands did Jesus commend His spirit? God the Father

It is only with the Trinity that these questions are answered.

I see a lot of people saying as long as you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, you're a Christian.

Well, Joe says that he accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, but he thinks Jesus is that scarecrow in the next field.

See the problem?

We have to agree on who Jesus is, and the Trinity issue is no small matter in determing who Jesus is.

Who was well pleased with Jesus at His baptism? God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity
Who took the form of a dove at the baptism, if Jesus Himself was in the water? God the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity
Who did Jesus pray to at the Garden of Gethsemane? God the Father
Who forsook Him as He was on the cross? God the Father
Into whose hands did Jesus commend His spirit? God the Father

It is only with the Trinity that these questions are answered.

But this is just trivial minutiae of no perceptible, intrinsic value. Certainly not of enough value to warrant hundreds of years of oppression, murder, coercion and blackmail in aid of (and, ultimately failing at) preventing schisms within Christendom.

But this is just trivial minutiae of no perceptible, intrinsic value. Certainly not of enough value to warrant hundreds of years of oppression, murder, coercion and blackmail in aid of (and, ultimately failing at) preventing schisms within Christendom.

Well, first, I'm sorry for all the oppression. But that was not me doing it.

As for schisms in the Church, I would say it is just the preservation of the Church. We through out those who refused to accept the only Biblical doctrine to explain Jesus relationship with God. Should we have done more than that? No, but we did, which I am sorry for. The later Schisms were sad but necessary: Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Evangelicalism vs. nonEvangelicalism. Etc.

But this is just trivial minutiae of no perceptible, intrinsic value. Certainly not of enough value to warrant hundreds of years of oppression, murder, coercion and blackmail in aid of (and, ultimately failing at) preventing schisms within Christendom.

You may say so, but these are questions of immense importance to believers. The answers to these questions (maybe not these exact questions, of course) determine the fate of your immortal soul. As for the oppression, murder, coercion and blackmail, I find it fascinating how those are the constant refrains of people on different sides of these questions. Back in the Roman Republic, if you wanted to denigrate a rival, you said he was fond of boys. Very fond. In religious disputes nowadays the attack is, you murdered and pillaged in the name of God, you're tainted. Heck, everyone murdered and pillaged in the name of God, no one's hands are clean on that score.

You may say so, but these are questions of immense importance to believers. The answers to these questions (maybe not these exact questions, of course) determine the fate of your immortal soul. As for the oppression, murder, coercion and blackmail, I find it fascinating how those are the constant refrains of people on different sides of these questions. Back in the Roman Republic, if you wanted to denigrate a rival, you said he was fond of boys. Very fond. In religious disputes nowadays the attack is, you murdered and pillaged in the name of God, you're tainted. Heck, everyone murdered and pillaged in the name of God, no one's hands are clean on that score.

You are the first fair atheist I have met. Even though I haven't really met you, which is a minute detail.

Well, I think the major problem is that you're trying to understand the Divine Nature of God, which is not something that a mere human can comprehend. The human mind can't even truely comprehend infinity, nevertheless God.

As Dr. Paisley said, "If I could understand the Trinity, there'd be a fourth member."

Granted, most people don't like that because of their arrogance in their belief as surpreme and capable of understanding everything. However, that's basically the jist of it. The reason there's still debate is because a human simply is not capable of understanding it.

And I agree with you, Edwardis: If Christ was not God, then Christianity is baseless.

Heck, everyone murdered and pillaged in the name of God, no one's hands are clean on that score.

Then please give a quick rundown of the most notorious of the coercive, oppressive and murderous Unitarians known to History. Seeing as we're talking scores, now.

Sorry for the long post, but...

This is from a book by G.I. Williamson on the Shorter Catechism.

Question 5: Are there more Gods than one?

Answer: There is but one only, the living and true God.

Question 6: How many persons are there in the Godhead?

Answer: There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

1. There is none other God but one (I Cor. 8:4).

2. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19).

3. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen (II Cor. 13:14).

These two Catechism questions set before us the most important doctrine in the Christian faith. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Someone has said that all error traces back to a defective view of God. In any event, we cannot be too certain of this most important truth.

The doctrine of the Trinity can be expressed in three statements: (1) there is one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and (3) each of these three persons is distinct from the others. It will be observed that in the statement of this doctrine two seemingly contradictory truths are carefully safeguarded. These two truths are: the unity, and the plurality, of God. The unity is expressed in the fact that there is only one God. The plurality is expressed in the fact that there are three who are God. And it is often said that this makes no sense. Such false cults as Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, ridicule this doctrine of the Trinity. They say that those who believe this doctrine really believe in three Gods! Those who say this are not "trinitarians" but "unitarians." That is, they believe there is only one Person (the Father, of Jehovah) who is God. They teach that Jesus is a created being (not self-existent, aas the Father), and that the Holy Spirit is merely a name for the power of God (not a person, as the Father). Unitarians (of which the Jehovah's Witnesses are but an example) hold to the oneness of God, but deny that there are three distinct persons who are God. Polytheists (meaning: many + gods) believe that there are more than one being that may be called God. But they do not believe that these "gods" have one identical essence or substance of being. Mormons are polytheists.

Both of these - the unitarian and the polytheistic - seem simpler to understand than the doctrine of the Trinity. But let us not suppose that this is any argument for them, or against the historic Christian faith. For "my thoughts are not your thoughts," said the Lord, through the prophet Isaiah, "and my ways are not your ways" (55:8). In other words, we must always remember that the doctrine of the Trinity is not somethign that men have come to believe because it seemed reasonable to them. No, the only reason that we have for believing this doctrine is that Scripture allows no other view. Let us now consider some of these scipture truthe which require us to believe.

(1) Scripture clearly teaches us that there is but one living and true God. "The Lord is God and...there is none else" (I Kings 8:60). "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God" (I Cor. 8:5,6). "I am the first, and I am the last;p and beside me there is no God" (Isa. 44:6). No truth is more emphatically or persistently taught in Scripture than this. There is but one God who really exists.

(2) Scripture also teaches us clearly that not only the Father, but also the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are God. Since no one disputes the fact that the Father is God, according to the Scriptures, we will cite only one scripture on this point. "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). But Scripture also declares the Son to be God just as clearly. In Psalms 45:6 we read, concerning the Messiah, "thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." And again, in Isaiah 9:6,7, "unto us a son is given...and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God..." In the New Testament we read that "the Word was God" (John 1:1). And when "doubting" Thomas came to realize the truth, he came and fell before Jesus and said, "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28). Christ the Son is therefore, beyond any question, called God. But we also discover in the New Testament that Christ possesses the attributes of God. He has life in himself (John 1:4;5:26)! He is everywhere present (Matt. 28:20). He was already existent in the beginning (John 1:1). We also note, in the New Testament record that He performed the works of God. "All things were made by him" (John 1:3). He sustains all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). "What things soever he [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19). And as we have seen (John 20:28), He was even worshipped as God. But, if the Son is thus God, possesses the attributes of God, does the work of God, and even receives the worship that properly belings to God, then what can we conclude except that He is God? And the same thing exactly may be said of the Holy Spirit. The evidence is of the same sort, and follows the same line. We will therefore give only one example of each type of evidence. In Acts 5:3,4 the Holy Spirit is called God. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost...thou has not lied unto men, but unto God." In I Corinthians 2:10 we are told that the Holy Spirit has the attributes of God. "For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." The Holy Spirit also does the work that only God can do. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth" (that is, makes alive [John 6:63]). And to the Spirit belongs the worship and reverence that is God's. "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men," said Jesus, "but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men" (Matt. 12:31). Again, we see that since the Holy Spirit is called God, and has the attributes of God, and does the work of God, and is to be worshipped as God, we can only conclude that the Holy Spirit is God.

(3) Scripture also makes it clear that these three are distinct persons, and that they are eual in power and glory. In early Church history there were two serious errors into which men fell as they tried to solve the mystery of the Trinity. (a) One of these was called "Modalism." It meant that God, according to this view, was one person, but that He "plays different parts" much like an actor who appears in a play, first as one character, and then (after a quick change into a different costume) another. They believed that while God played the part of the Father, there was no Son, and no Holy Spirit. And when He played the part of the Son, there was no Father, or Spirit. The reason that this was rejected by the Church is quite simple. It is because all three persons of the Godhead manifested themselves at the same time. "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:16,17). While Christ stood before men, the Spirit came down, whole the Father spoke out of heaven. It could not, then, have been only one person playing three different parts, one after another. (b) Another was called "Monarchianism." This, of course, comes from the word "monarch," which refers to a king. And the basic idea was that only one of three persons of the Godhead could really be "King." These people therefore said that God the Father was greater than the Son or the Holy Spirit. And they did not believe that the three persons were equal in power and in glory. It is possible to make this teaching seem to agree with Scripture. For Christ did say, "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). If we look only at texts such as these, we can begin to feel that there is a truth in this old view. But when we read such texts as Philippians 2:6 we can see why the Church rejected this error. For Christ "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." It is only in respect of His human nature, and because He took such humiliation upon Himself, that He can say "my Father is greater than I." Remembering this, we will not be attracted by this ancient error.

By the evidence of Scripture, then, we are driven to the doctrine of the Trinity - one God - three who are God - three who are distinct. And it is interesting that we have scripture statements that really do not make sense except in the light of the formulation of the Catechism. Christ said to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). He did not say "names," and so could not only have referred to one being. Yet observe again: He did not say "of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," as if they were merely synonymous terms (like: me, myself, and I). No, He carefully distinguishes between these three as having each, His own identity and personality, that is "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And this is the doctrine of the Trinity. It is true, of course, that the doctrine is fully revealed only when we take into account the whole teaching of Scripture. Yet it is interesting to observe that even from the beginning of divine revelation there is always equal emphasis upon the two foundational truths contained in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a plurality (more than one person). "And God said, Let us make man in our image," we read, "so God created man in his image..." (Gen. 1:26,27). Here is a mystery that remained locked, until the key was given in the New Testament revealing the Tri-une being of God.

Why apologize for something you aren't sorry for?

Why apologize for something you aren't sorry for?

I wish it wouldn't be so long and still make the points as clear as it does.

The thing is, and this is mentioned in the OP, that the idea of Trinity originated as a Catholic doctrine and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea. (I find that ironic, since many Protestant Christians like to distance themselves from the Catholic Church, and yet this is considered a core belief-and was introduced by that which defined the Catholic Church.)



Leaving aside for a moment the matter of whether it's appropriate to talk of 'Catholic' v. 'Protestant' (or 'Orthodox v. 'Catholic') when discussing the Ecumenical Councils....

I think you'd find that it's possible to argue that Trinitarian definitions originated as an Orthodox doctrine rather than Catholic doctrine - just look at the geographical distribution of participating bishops at both First Nicea and Chalcedon.

In fact, as far as many of us Orthodox are concerned, all of you schismatic heretical Catholics and Protestants are more or less indistinguishable, and you Westerners have all b*ggered up the Nicean definition of the interrelationship of the Trinity anyway by unilaterally adding the filioque to the creed.

I stress that my tongue is at least partially in cheek, but I thought I'd point out that there is a different perspective to the Catholic/Protestant angle as far as Trinitarian definitions are concerned.

I'll let you go back to ignoring the One True Orthodox church now, just like you were happily doing anyway.

I'll let you go back to ignoring the One True Orthodox church now, just like you were happily doing anyway.

We weren't ignoring it; that is what the question is: can you be a Christian or a member of the One Catholic and Orthodox Church and not be a trinitarian?

We weren't ignoring it; that is what the question is: can you be a Christian or a member of the One Catholic and Orthodox Church and not be a trinitarian?

Self-evidently not, since the denial of the Trinity - whether through Sabellianism/Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or miscellaneous other - is by definition a heresy. And a heretic is not Orthodox.

Even holding an incorrect view of the relationships within the Trinity, whether Monophysitism, Nestorianism, or the western insistence on the filioque (the inclusion of which in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed), is heretical, and therefore no longer Orthodox.

And I do realise that the Orthodox (and indeed traditional Western) definition of the Trinity is so extraordinarily abtruse as to leave most people (including most Christians, never mind most non-Christians) utterly baffled. Co-eternal yet eternally begotten from? Whuzzuh?

But that's not really the point, is it? After all, to try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, in the opinion of St. Gregory the Theologian

His ways are unsearchable and unfathomable (Job 11:7-8; Rom. 11:33-36).

God is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility (On the Orthodox Faith, St. John of Damascus).

Self-evidently not, since the denial of the Trinity - whether through Sabellianism/Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or miscellaneous other - is by definition a heresy. And a heretic is not Orthodox.

Even holding an incorrect view of the relationships within the Trinity, whether Monophysitism, Nestorianism, or the western insistence on the filioque (the inclusion of which in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed), is heretical, and therefore no longer Orthodox.

And I do realise that the Orthodox (and indeed traditional Western) definition of the Trinity is so extraordinarily abtruse as to leave most people (including most Christians, never mind most non-Christians) utterly baffled. Co-eternal yet eternally begotten from? Whuzzuh?

But that's not really the point, is it? After all, to try to comprehend unbegottenness (Father), begottenness (Son), or procession (Holy Spirit) leads to insanity, in the opinion of St. Gregory the Theologian

His ways are unsearchable and unfathomable (Job 11:7-8; Rom. 11:33-36).

God is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility (On the Orthodox Faith, St. John of Damascus).

I don't understand how we are in disagreement.

I don't understand how we are in disagreement.

I didn't say we were.

I was merely having a minor harumph at New Bretonnia's definition of the Council of Nicea as 'Catholic', with the implication (perhaps unintentional) that definitions of and disagreements between Christian doctrine were largely a matter of Catholic/Protestant debate.

I didn't say we were.

I was merely having a minor harumph at New Bretonnia's definition of the Council of Nicea as 'Catholic', with the implication (perhaps unintentional) that definitions of and disagreements between Christian doctrine were largely a matter of Catholic/Protestant debate.

Oh. We already had that spat, s/he and I. Sorry for the confusion.

Do you think that it is necessary to be Trinitarian to be a Christian?



Actually the Bible says that anyone can look at nature and recognize there is a creator and honor that creator. That which became Yashua was--in the beginning--the creator. So it matters not the name, or the recognition of the 30 years of that aspect of God on earth.

However, the trinity is not saying there are three Gods. It recognizes different aspects of the one God.

I would recommend more study of the concept.

Along similar lines of thought, what n00b doesn’t virus protect their mothership? Why would aliens that can’t tolerate water invade earth? Is Data a substandard android, and, most importantly, did Greedo really fire first?

Even if I was a Christian, the trinity is bullshit. You can't be yourself and your son at the same time. And why would you pray to yourself?

I'm actually a Unitarian Universalist, btw.

The thing is, and this is mentioned in the OP, that the idea of Trinity originated as a Catholic doctrine and was formalized in the Council of Nicaea. (I find that ironic, since many Protestant Christians like to distance themselves from the Catholic Church, and yet this is considered a core belief-and was introduced by that which defined the Catholic Church.)

Bible references generally refer to the three members of the Trinity in terms that indicate they are separate beings, and in only very few references do they appear to be one in the same. It was an attempt to reconcile these that the Trinity concept came about.

As I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, in that they see the Holy Spirit as being an aspect of the Father only.

LDS(Mormons) believe in the Godhead, which is essentially the same as the Trinity but the 3 persons are separate but united in purpose, not substance.
I do not see any practical difference between three gods who are all connected and united in purpose and a single god with three aspects. Anyway, if you follow the LDS theology, then God the Father would need to have come first, right? Or was it that all three existed from the beginning? (hence the "Let us make man in our image")

For myself, I see the Trinity as something approaching a paradox (and thus a thing achievable only by God)-- all three are part of the same, but are still distinct entities.

Besides that, Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane can easily be accounted for by saying that it was the human aspect/half of him that was praying.

Sorry for the long post, but...

This is from a book by G.I. Williamson on the Shorter Catechism.

Minus the huge quote of course....

This is a silly thread. I'm with Williamson, as usual (but not always). I don't think you can be a Chrisitan without believing certain things about Christ - the logical necessity of which would be that he is God, and the things he said about himself were true... hence, the trinity. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

Minus the huge quote of course....

This is a silly thread. I'm with Williamson, as usual (but not always). I don't think you can be a Chrisitan without believing certain things about Christ - the logical necessity of which would be that he is God, and the things he said about himself were true... hence, the trinity. Anyone who says differently is selling something.They're all selling something... I think what you mean to say is they're selling something different.

You're right, of course... I thought about that after I posted it. However, they're selling something else - NOT christianity and Christ.

But the primary import of the last line was that it was hopefully a somewhat apt Princess Bride quote...

Besides that, Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane can easily be accounted for by saying that it was the human aspect/half of him that was praying.

Jesus was fully God and fully Man, the two natures joined not mixed. So, His whole must have been praying, not merely part of Him. Which nature was "in control" at the time may be a different matter, but there is no half and half thing happening.

Successive Popes felt then as you apparently do now. And that's why many Unitarians (or Anti-Trinitarians, as they were labelled by Rome) - my spiritual forebears - were tortured, maimed and killed by the Vatican during the Inquisitions.

I have no time for 3-in-1 nonsensical, trivial fluff. There is only God, there is only my direct relationship to God, and that's all that matters to me - interpose as many books, clergy and mythology between yourself and God as you may wish, it aids none save those who stand to profit from such on this temporal plane.

The Inquisition was run by the Spanish government (and still exists!) not by 'the Vatican'.

i dont know what your talking about. He is the SON OF GOD. he was praying to GOD. I even said that in my frist post, I said I do not view him as god, so why would he pray to himself, if he isnt god. Did you even really read what I posted

Sorry, I don't always remember who said what because I'm terrible with names.

I thought you were specifically dennying the trinity in favor of the idea that Jesus was the same person as the Father and Holy Spirit.

Thank you for correcting me. So, who or what is the Holy Spirit? What role does Jesus have? Does this mean there are more than one God to you?

But this is just trivial minutiae of no perceptible, intrinsic value. Certainly not of enough value to warrant hundreds of years of oppression, murder, coercion and blackmail in aid of (and, ultimately failing at) preventing schisms within Christendom.

I think he's arguing here for the Trinity, not opression and murder. Just because he believes in the Trinity and assholes who also do did bad things doesn't mean the belief in the Trinity makes people do bad things. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Leaving aside for a moment the matter of whether it's appropriate to talk of 'Catholic' v. 'Protestant' (or 'Orthodox v. 'Catholic') when discussing the Ecumenical Councils....

I think you'd find that it's possible to argue that Trinitarian definitions originated as an Orthodox doctrine rather than Catholic doctrine - just look at the geographical distribution of participating bishops at both First Nicea and Chalcedon.

In fact, as far as many of us Orthodox are concerned, all of you schismatic heretical Catholics and Protestants are more or less indistinguishable, and you Westerners have all b*ggered up the Nicean definition of the interrelationship of the Trinity anyway by unilaterally adding the filioque to the creed.

I stress that my tongue is at least partially in cheek, but I thought I'd point out that there is a different perspective to the Catholic/Protestant angle as far as Trinitarian definitions are concerned.

I'll let you go back to ignoring the One True Orthodox church now, just like you were happily doing anyway.

Really? Eastern Orthodox persons I have spoken with and actual Catholics (including the hierarchy) tend to regard Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches as the Church with all valid sacraments. I don't know of any Eastern Orthodox Churches that don't believe this, and I'm pretty sure we all agree that most of the Anglican sacraments are invalid. And since protestants in general don't even have all of the sacraments...I see a big difference.

The filoque is a wording issue, not a belief issue. And as for the Eastern Orthodox churches being the ones who created the trinity. It was the Catholic Church then. The universal Church. Now we're all just split up over things. I think in 200 years or so we will all have gotten back together. I mean, so many of the Eastern Catholic Churches are united now. We believe mostly the same things.

The only big difference I can think of right now is the belief in the validity of ecumenical councils where some weren't invited because of schism (we should just have these again so everyone will consider them valid), and the belief of Mary's immaculate birth, which I think also stems from this ecumenical council validity issue.

I do. 2000 years of Church history say yesIf you skip the first 400 years, perhaps. Does Arianism ring a bell? (not to be confused with aryanism)

You need to say that Jesus wasn't God, in which case His sacrifice meant nothing and you lose the basis for Christianity.I disagree. His sacrifice would mean something either way. The life led would still be an example; just like Mother Theresa's life is an example and not meaningless just because she wasn't a goddess. Many non-divine things have meaning, and can provide guidance.

Or you need to say that there is more than one God. Which the Bible clearly says "no" to.Where? There are a number of places where the bible refers to multiple gods. And the ten commandments just say you should worship God above all others, it doesn't say the others don't exist.

Or you need to say that Jesus is an incarnation of a unitarian God. But then who was He praying to in the Garden of Gethsemene (sp?)?If there is just one god, and God is three, and Jesus is one of those three then obviously he was talking to himself. Neither unitarianism nor trinitarianism solve this. The latter says all three are the same, the former that there was just one in the first place.

If there is just one god, and God is three, and Jesus is one of those three then obviously he was talking to himself. Neither unitarianism nor trinitarianism solve this. The latter says all three are the same, the former that there was just one in the first place.

In the concept of the Trinity Jesus could pray to God the Father and it wouldn't be himself.

In the concept of the Trinity Jesus could pray to God the Father and it wouldn't be himself.But then there are three gods, and there is only one. So that doesn't work out.

Three persons, in one God. They can act separately of each other but can never act contrary to one another by nature.

But then there are three gods, and there is only one. So that doesn't work out.

No, it's three Persons, one God.

No, it's three Persons, one God.How does that make sense? Three non-god persons forming one single God. Does God have a multiple personality disorder?! Or is he like Voltron?
And then we have one of them praying to another (which isn't god anyway).

How does that make sense? Three non-god persons forming one single God. Does God have a multiple personality disorder?! Or is he like Voltron?
And then we have one of them praying to another (which isn't god anyway).

Read post number 67.

Read post number 67.As interesting as it is, it makes as much sense as a round square.

Heck, everyone murdered and pillaged in the name of God, no one's hands are clean on that score.

Then please give a quick rundown of the most notorious of the coercive, oppressive and murderous Unitarians known to History. Seeing as we're talking scores, now.

I note that neither Farmhamia nor Edwardis have as yet has stepped forward to provide this shortlist. Consider yourselves both officially pwned by Dobbs.

I note that neither Farmhamia nor Edwardis have as yet has stepped forward to provide this shortlist. Consider yourselves both officially pwned by Dobbs.

I would like to point out that I did not present the idea that everyone has blood on his hands. We all do, but not physically as Farmhamia said.

As interesting as it is, it makes as much sense as a round square.

It doesn't have to make sense.

Do you understand gravity? Not fully. But you would be very foolish to not believe in it.

The same with the Trinity. The evidence is all there, but we cannot understand how it works. At least not yet.

I Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see through a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

How does that make sense? Three non-god persons forming one single God. Does God have a multiple personality disorder?! Or is he like Voltron?
And then we have one of them praying to another (which isn't god anyway).

Three persons, all fully God, each part of God. It's hard to understand because each of us only has one person because we are not gods. God is an entity that we can only understand in the simplest way.

geeez

christian heretics are still christians. they just have some incorrect beliefs in the opinion of the vast majority of other (non-heretical) christians.

if two guys are talking about their religious beliefs, one a calvinist and one a catholic they will find that they each think that the other has some incorrect beliefs. maybe even to the extent that they shake their heads at the others beliefs and think that the other can never get into heaven with such serious errors of belief and practice.

that doesnt mean that one or the other isnt a christian. it just means there is a difference of opinion.

as long as you follow the teachings of jesus, you are a christian. maybe thats enough to get you into heaven (if there is a heaven in your brand of christian belief) maybe not. that part is up to god.

all we can do is follow our own conscience based on our own understanding of chrisianity after prayer, meditation and study.

It doesn't have to make sense.Of course it does. I'm not gonna believe something I can't experience (see, feel, etc) and which makes no sense. It has to do at least one of those.

The same with the Trinity. The evidence is all there, but we cannot understand how it works. What evidence?
There is as much evidence for the trinitarian view, as the unitarian, as for all the hindu gods.
It would make a lot more sense to assume the trinity are aspects of god than persons in their own right. 1=3 does not compute.

Of course it does. I'm not gonna believe something I can't experience (see, feel, etc) and which makes no sense. It has to do at least one of those.

Well, I disagree.

What evidence?
There is as much evidence for the trinitarian view, as the unitarian, as for all the hindu gods.
It would make a lot more sense to assume the trinity are aspects of god than persons in their own right. 1=3 does not compute.

Evidence from Scripture.

Also, here is some scientific evidence, though the source makes me wary.

Three-in-One Humans?
Now here's a question: If JEHOVAH created man in his own image, why don't humans have three-in-one personalities? Answer: They do. Godchecker can reveal that the human brain consists of three separate but complementary parts: the R-Complex (ritualistic behavior), the Limbic System (emotional response) and the Neocortex (thought and language). We all possess a 'Triune Brain'.

This 'Law, Love and Language' model can be equated with the Trinity to such precision, we're staggered the Christian Church doesn't preach about it from the rooftops. Perhaps they don't like what it implies about the Father: obsessive, aggressive, ritualistic and very keen on blood. On the other hand, it sheds much light on the Holy Spirit, who brings intellectual inspiration and also the gift of speaking in tongues.

But perhaps it's embarrassing for the Church to be proved right by cold hard Science. And equally embarrassing for Science to be pre-empted by religion.

Well, I disagree.Ok, then I'll agree to disagree :)

Evidence from Scripture.All religions have their own scriptures to support their views though. True, it's evidence, of sorts, but rather circumstantial.

Also, here is some scientific evidence, though the source makes me wary.That suggests three distinct aspects though, not three distinct persons.
And it functions just as well as evidence we created God in our image. (You can see that more clearly if you look at polytheistic pantheons, where there's basicly a god representing every aspect of human nature.)

I think you should avoid trying to use science as evidence for faith.
Neither can prove or disprove the other so I keep them separate in the way that I don't try to explain something scientific using religion, and never using science to give evidence for religious beliefs.

[QUOTE]All religions have their own scriptures to support their views though. True, it's evidence, of sorts, but rather circumstantial.

But since we're talking about Christianity, we would be talking about the Bible.

That suggests three distinct aspects though, not three distinct persons.
And it functions just as well as evidence we created God in our image. (You can see that more clearly if you look at polytheistic pantheons, where there's basicly a god representing every aspect of human nature.)

Correct term in pantheistic. Polytheistic refers to distinct Gods. Pantheistic refers to different manifestation for the different aspects of the same God.

And I haven't really investigated that science, so I can't really say one way or another. I said I was wary of it.

I think you should avoid trying to use science as evidence for faith.
Neither can prove or disprove the other so I keep them separate in the way that I don't try to explain something scientific using religion, and never using science to give evidence for religious beliefs.

Belief infilltrates everything. They must support each other, or you will end up being like so many other people. They reject one entirely or they end up wearing a mask when discussing one, ignoring the other mask.

It doesn't have to make sense.



In the beginning was Logos and Logos was with God and Logos was God.


Logos is the Greek word that comes to English as logic, or the ability to understand. In John 1:1 it is translated as Word because that originally meant debate. In other words, that aspect of God which became Yashua is something that could be understood, could be debated with logic. Unlike the aspects of God that were known to the Jews. The whole point of Yashua is understanding. Yashua must make sense.

I think it is easier to look at the aspects of God as we would look at a human. (In our image). The Yashua aspect was the creator, the worker, much like your hands. You can say that your hands are doing something, and you would be correct, but you also know there are other aspects that aren't independent of the hands. For instance there is the brain that guides the hands. As such is the Father aspect. The brain aspect can imagine and control but cannot build. Then there is the aspect of the emotions. The unseen force that guides lives. The control you have over your children when you are not there at the time. The spirit in the soul of you and your children.

Different aspects yet one being. Each aspect with it's own mission. Each aspect communicating with the others. Each aspect needed to make a whole.

In the beginning was Logos and Logos was with God and Logos was God.


Logos is the Greek word that comes to English as logic, or the ability to understand. In John 1:1 it is translated as Word because that originally meant debate. In other words, that aspect of God which became Yashua is something that could be understood, could be debated with logic. Unlike the aspects of God that were known to the Jews. The whole point of Yashua is understanding. Yashua must make sense.

I think it is easier to look at the aspects of God as we would look at a human. (In our image). The Yashua aspect was the creator, the worker, much like your hands. You can say that your hands are doing something, and you would be correct, but you also know there are other aspects that aren't independent of the hands. For instance there is the brain that guides the hands. As such is the Father aspect. The brain aspect can imagine and control but cannot build. Then there is the aspect of the emotions. The unseen force that guides lives. The control you have over your children when you are not there at the time. The spirit in the soul of you and your children.

Different aspects yet one being. Each aspect with it's own mission. Each aspect communicating with the others. Each aspect needed to make a whole.

It is dangerous to try to hard to make illustrations so it is easier to understand. Most of them fall short.

The popular illustration used by people in my church (most of whom admit that they have never investigated the Trinity) is the water illustration. It's steam, liquid, and ice, but all water. But that leads to Modalism, which doesn't work. Instead of making things easier to understand, why don't we just say: "This is what Scripture teaches, and we'll understand fully in heaven, though we don't now."

Belief infilltrates everything. They must support each other, or you will end up being like so many other people. They reject one entirely or they end up wearing a mask when discussing one, ignoring the other mask.

I'm not saying to be a scientist one must not believe in deities or anything. Assuming that science will prove faith is setting yourself up for dissapointment. For example ( I dont' know how you feel about this), people in the area that I currently attend university think natural selection and evolution are a big evil world conspiracy by all scientists who, as scientists, obviously strive to promote atheism.
The point is, they expected that they understood God and that they understood how He created the world. It turns out they don't understand it at all but because they've set themselves up they choose to deny reality. Same thing with geocentrism. It's obvious the Earth moves around the sun, but since people assumed it was the other way around because the sun 'rose' in the bible, the science must be wrong.

Furthermore, as a biologist I can not assume when looking at the ecological niche of a plant or bacterium that it was simply created to serve man in some way. That assumption will almost always lead in the wrong direction in biology.
Instead, I am satisfied to know that everything is planned by God in a way that I humbly admit I can not understand. So, I understand how it works with science, instead of trying to use science to understand the why.
Faith will tell us the why, science will tell us the how.

I'm not saying moral reasoning should be removed from science or we have to deny one or the other while thinking about theology or science. I don't see any conflict, nor do I see any intrinsic correlation in the way they function.

Also, there is a great danger in altering faith because of science. For example, people are constantly saying "this is natural, this is good" for things that are frequently not good, and often not natural. If you can prove something is natural, that doesn't prove that it is good. But people try to use science to prove something is natural to make it good and in a perverted reasoning will alter their moral codes.

I'm not saying to be a scientist one must not believe in deities or anything. Assuming that science will prove faith is setting yourself up for dissapointment. For example ( I dont' know how you feel about this), people in the area that I currently attend university think natural selection and evolution are a big evil world conspiracy by all scientists who, as scientists, obviously strive to promote atheism.
The point is, they expected that they understood God and that they understood how He created the world. It turns out they don't understand it at all but because they've set themselves up they choose to deny reality. Same thing with geocentrism. It's obvious the Earth moves around the sun, but since people assumed it was the other way around because the sun 'rose' in the bible, the science must be wrong.

Furthermore, as a biologist I can not assume when looking at the ecological niche of a plant or bacterium that it was simply created to serve man in some way. That assumption will almost always lead in the wrong direction in biology.
Instead, I am satisfied to know that everything is planned by God in a way that I humbly admit I can not understand. So, I understand how it works with science, instead of trying to use science to understand the why.
Faith will tell us the why, science will tell us the how.

I'm not saying moral reasoning should be removed from science or we have to deny one or the other while thinking about theology or science. I don't see any conflict, nor do I see any intrinsic correlation in the way they function.

Also, there is a great danger in altering faith because of science. For example, people are constantly saying "this is natural, this is good" for things that are frequently not good, and often not natural. If you can prove something is natural, that doesn't prove that it is good. But people try to use science to prove something is natural to make it good and in a perverted reasoning will alter their moral codes.

My point was that you can't (as many people do) say that "Science proves women are equal in all ways to men," and then turn around and say "No women are to be ordained." Now there can be a balance between the two, but as it is, there is a contradiction. Also, there are people, as you said, who hate anything that even resembles science. And there are those who hate anything that resembles relgion. Relgion is to guide your life, but science is not to be twisted for it.

Instead of making things easier to understand, why don't we just say: "This is what Scripture teaches, and we'll understand fully in heaven, though we don't now."

In the beginning was LOGOS

There is no need to make Christianity difficult. It is the simplest of religions. there are only two rules. Love God, Love everyone.

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;........So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him........

You want an image of God---Look at yourself.

The Bible, especially the NT is designed for understanding, not confusion. Nearly all of the Bible is parables, images of what God wanted. In the OT the food the people were to eat was to give them an image of how they were to live. They were to eat those animals that lived as they were to live. They could eat chickens because they lived from seed, but not eagles because they lived on the death and suffering of others. The problem came when people tried to make the image the important thing rather than the lesson the image was trying to teach. This was Jesus disagreement with the teachers of his time. Today we are facing the same thing among the "conservative christians?". The rules and the burdens they put on belief are driving people away. Mat 11:30 My yoke is easy, and my burden light. Part of the burden is creating confusion where there should be no burdensome confusion so only "insiders" can understand. The neopharasees are doing the exact thing Jesus condemned the pharasees for.

My point was that you can't (as many people do) say that "Science proves women are equal in all ways to men," and then turn around and say "No women are to be ordained." Now there can be a balance between the two, but as it is, there is a contradiction. Also, there are people, as you said, who hate anything that even resembles science. And there are those who hate anything that resembles relgion. Relgion is to guide your life, but science is not to be twisted for it.

I really don't think science can be used to find out anything about religion, nor can religion be used to find out anything about science. The second one being especially true.

For the ordination of women I do think women are equal to men. But, the apostles of Jesus weren't women so I think we should all just avoid doing something he wouldn't and maybe we can ask him why in the afterlife. I really think if he meant women to be ordained he would have had a few women apostles.
In my religion it is believed that Christ acts through the priest and that it is only appropriate to have a man as a priest since God has a distinct masculine identity in Christian Tradition.

I really don't think science can be used to find out anything about religion, nor can religion be used to find out anything about science. The second one being especially true.

For the ordination of women I do think women are equal to men. But, the apostles of Jesus weren't women so I think we should all just avoid doing something he wouldn't and maybe we can ask him why in the afterlife. I really think if he meant women to be ordained he would have had a few women apostles.
In my religion it is believed that Christ acts through the priest and that it is only appropriate to have a man as a priest since God has a distinct masculine identity in Christian Tradition.

It was just an example. I believe that science can explain or support some things in religion. And religion can do the same for science. But are we to go searching to prove either in the other? No.

In the beginning was LOGOS

There is no need to make Christianity difficult. It is the simplest of religions. there are only two rules. Love God, Love everyone.

Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;........So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him........

You want an image of God---Look at yourself.

The Bible, especially the NT is designed for understanding, not confusion. Nearly all of the Bible is parables, images of what God wanted. In the OT the food the people were to eat was to give them an image of how they were to live. They were to eat those animals that lived as they were to live. They could eat chickens because they lived from seed, but not eagles because they lived on the death and suffering of others. The problem came when people tried to make the image the important thing rather than the lesson the image was trying to teach. This was Jesus disagreement with the teachers of his time. Today we are facing the same thing among the "conservative christians?". The rules and the burdens they put on belief are driving people away. Mat 11:30 My yoke is easy, and my burden light. Part of the burden is creating confusion where there should be no burdensome confusion so only "insiders" can understand. The neopharasees are doing the exact thing Jesus condemned the pharasees for.

Well then, I guess I'm a Neopharasee. Oh, well. My concious is clear. I think I will less to answer for in the encouragement of sin and heresy department on Judgement Day. Though, we'll all have a lot to answer for, anyway.

Well then, I guess I'm a Neopharasee. Oh, well. My concious is clear. I think I will less to answer for in the encouragement of sin and heresy department on Judgement Day. Though, we'll all have a lot to answer for, anyway.

Mat 7:15-23


The teachers of the law of old were also sure. Their conscience was totally clear. They avoided the wounded Semaritan lest they fall into the sin of heresy by getting "life" (blood) on their cleanness. They followed every rule. They tithed to the last seed. They also burdened the weak and poor and ignorant that looked to them as example. In doing so they condemned far more than they helped.

Mat 7:15-23


The teachers of the law of old were also sure. Their conscience was totally clear. They avoided the wounded Semaritan lest they fall into the sin of heresy by getting "life" (blood) on their cleanness. They followed every rule. They tithed to the last seed. They also burdened the weak and poor and ignorant that looked to them as example. In doing so they condemned far more than they helped.

Not so with those whom you call Neo-Pharises. We help people, we try not to burden anyone. But we cannot allow heresy or sin to go without pointing it out and fighting against it. The twisting and adding to the Law which "prevented" the Pharises from helping the Samaritan are the enemy of today's Neo-Pharises, again, as you call them. For we are fighting against such changes to Scripture again.

Not so with those whom you call Neo-Pharises. We help people, we try not to burden anyone. But we cannot allow heresy or sin to go without pointing it out and fighting against it. The twisting and adding to the Law which "prevented" the Pharises from helping the Samaritan are the enemy of today's Neo-Pharises, again, as you call them. For we are fighting against such changes to Scripture again.

It seems now to beg the question of whether it is your job to point out and fight against these heresies. Doesn't it say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? I thought none could judge save God, so what platform do you have to stand on and from which to point fingers and cast stones?

Not so with those whom you call Neo-Pharises. We help people, we try not to burden anyone. But we cannot allow heresy or sin to go without pointing it out and fighting against it. The twisting and adding to the Law which "prevented" the Pharises from helping the Samaritan are the enemy of today's Neo-Pharises, again, as you call them. For we are fighting against such changes to Scripture again.

And Peter did not want to change the old scriptures even when Paul showed him that all that was needed was love of God and love of others. God himself had to come to Peter to show him that anything beyond those two was commentary and parable rather than a necessary part of the new understanding of God. Acts 10:9-48

By the very act of arguing that there is only one way to interpret the nature of God, you are condemning all others. Others that God recognizes by their love. Such interpretation of scripture is no different than that Peter was doing. Such interpretation is limiting the love for God and men. Such interpretation is not preserving, but warping. All scripture must be judged by the two great commandments, not by locking out those that don't circumcise their beliefs as you do.

Here's what I think. God the Father is a distinct personage, Jesus Christ is likewise a separate and distinct personage, and the Holy Ghost is also a distinct personage and a spirit.

Most of the scriptures that support the doctrine of the trinity are based on a mistranslation of the scriptures where the word 'one' has been used instead of the word 'agreed'. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...(John 17:21). A better translation would be: That they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us. The word in Greek that the bible translators took to mean 'one', as in one in form, is more correctly translated 'agreed', or one in purpose.

The following sermon explains my point of view much better, the prophet makes a very intelligent and persuasive argument that the Bible does in fact support the concept of a Christian God head that is composed of three separate and distinct Gods. He even appeals to the Hebrew scriptures, and makes some interesting remarks about the first sentence in the Hebrew Bible.

I realize that the material presented here will offend many, but I would ask you to fight down the urge to condemn the doctrine before you have even read it in it's entirety. Follow Christ's teachings and do unto others as you would have done unto you. You would want people to do you the courtesy of hearing you out before they passed judgment on you, or your ideas. I ask that you do the same.


Sermon by the Prophet--The Christian Godhead--Plurality of Gods

Section Six 1843-44, p.369

Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844


President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse--"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry--"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus (Luke 17th chapter, 26th verse)--"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." And if it does rain, I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached.

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?

Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the stronger doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation, Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning he head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as other have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image," I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

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. I want to read the text to you myself--"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.

I have reason to think that the Church is being purged. I saw Satan fall from heaven, and the way they ran was a caution. All these are wonders and marvels in our eyes in these last days. So long as men are under the law of God, they have no fears--they do not scare themselves.

I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the Scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by the weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.

They found fault with Jesus Christ because He said He was the Son of God, and made Himself equal with God. They say of me, like they did of the Apostles of old, that I must be put down. What did Jesus say? "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, 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?" It was through Him that they drank of the spiritual rock. Of course He would take the honor to Himself. Jesus, if they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, why should it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the Son of God?

Go and read the vision in the Book of Covenants. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory--one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions. By the apostates admitting the testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants they damn themselves. Paul, what do you say? They impeached Paul and all went and left him. Paul had seven churches, and they drove him off from among them; and yet they cannot do it by me. I rejoice in that. My testimony is good.

Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.

These Scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another Scripture. "Now," says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, Father!" Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.

John said he was a king. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen." Oh, Thou God who art King of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare, "We cannot believe Thee."

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood, but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant. I will drop this subject. I wish I could speak for three or four hours; but it is not expedient on account of the rain; I would still go on, and show you proof upon proofs; all the Bible is equal in support of this doctrine, one part as another.

(June 16, 1844.) Documentary History of the Church 6:473-479.