I would never refer to Christ as small ‘g’. Neither would OP btw.

You’re never going to get from OP what you are looking for because you are asking him to make a mutually exclusive choice between 2 truths which are not mutually exclusive.

Christ is God.
God the Father is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are God.
God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are distinct beings. They are also God.


Christ did not instruct his apostles to pray to him. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name.
Christ himself prayed. To the Father. He did not pray to himself.
Christ taught his apostles that the Father would send the Holy Spirit.
When Christ was baptized, God the Father spoke and bore witness of Christ, and the Holy Ghost appeared and descended upon him. And these events were witnessed.


Our belief in one God which is 3 distinct beings is supported by scripture we both share. You can believe and worship as you wish, and I respect that, but you cannot in intellectual honesty deny that the statements I make are a disprovable interpretation of scripture.

There is scripture that testifies of the singular nature of God and scripture which testifies of God as distinctly separate beings. BOTH ARE CORRECT. Stretch your mind to allow for truths that don’t fit the understanding of man. If knowledge of God was the sands of the sea you and I comprehend less than we can pinch between our fingers.

I hope we will be able to turn our focus to Christ’s teachings of love, service, brotherly kindness… Let’s talk about those things.  Salvation will not hang on wether or not there was an ‘a’ in the wrong place on a website.

Its not fair to keep asking the same questions, and complaining you keep getting the same answers.





I believe in the Bible.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints uses the Bible as canonized scripture, and considers it the word of God.

Our beliefs in God and deification are found in the Bible.





There is no, "Mormon" religion. "Mormon" does not apply accurately or honestly to any existing religion. Its a nickname.

It is just easier for those who make the claim that we do not worship and follow Jesus Christ to use the term.

The name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.





You meet the definition of, "polytheist" to people from other religions. Even though you don't think you do. I have already provided links.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints worships -one- God: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Because we worship only -one- God, we are not polytheists.




We attack the false doctrines contained in the extra-Biblical creeds.

We follow Christ, and worship Christ.

I "Googled" "creedal christian" and none of the first page of results came-up as anything from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints... Link

"Creedal Christian" is an academic term to mean Christians who adhere to the extra-Biblical creeds.



No matter what you post, I will address it.




I have addressed everything you have posted, and have asked for more.

Since you don't have the time to do it, one of these days I will address the anti-Latter Day Saint video you posted. But that will take a lot of time I don't have right now.





The Biblical references you posted that state the God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are -one- are honest and accurate scriptures from God.

So are the Biblical references that state that God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are separate.

All the Biblical references are right and true. We believe the Bible is the word of God. There is no contradiction in our beliefs...

Link



You keep asking (well, not asking per se, just posting) the same stuff.

You will get the same response over and over again when you post the same stuff. I guess its not fair to write that you are asking the same question, as you are not really "asking questions" per se.

But you post the same thing, I post the same response. Now you are feigning suprise.





Is there someone complaining? If so-- who are they complaining to?

I don't own the website, and I don't make the rules for the religion forum, and I have been warned myself in the past.

Its best just to always be respectful, know respect is a two-way street, and always be a gentleman.




If you have a question, ask it. Your problem is you have claimed I have not addressed your issues, then I went back to page -one- of the thread to show you I -had- already addressed it. No need to be pointed or defensive. If you have a question, ask it. Your problem is you keep posting the same issue over and over again. Then you complain you get the same response over and over again. If you have a honest question, ask it.

No matter what you post, I will address it.

You are offended by something I posted? Something I posted is wrong, or a link is wrong information? Let me know, I will address it. But usually I have already addressed it, and I am just repeating myself.

If you have a question, post it.

Believing that God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are separate, but should be worshipped as -one- God --is-- found in the earliest Christian Church and it --is-- found in the Bible.

Deification? It is found crystal-clear in the Bible as well.

Gnostic Christians? Not truly trinitarian. None of the "Christians" from the first three hundred years of Christianity era were true "trinitarians."

But using a false relatively modern (creedal, post-creed) metric, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not Christians because we are not "trinitarians."

If your metric excludes -all- of the earliest Christians, your metric is a wrong metric. That is not just ironic... It is ---really--- ironic.

It is especially ironic when you consider that most people treat Gnostic Christians as in the early Christian tent. But The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that adheres strictly to the Bible and Latter-Day Scriptures, we believe our salvation is reliant on Christ and our beliefs are found in the Bible and modern scriptures based on Christ? Some folks question our "Christian" credentials.

Ironic?

If your metric of who is and who is not a Christian excludes -all- of the earliest Christians, then your metric is not just ironic, it is ---extremely--- ironic.

I said that the doctrine of the Trinity didn’t meet the technical academic definition of polytheism unlike the LDS doctrine, regardless of what a Jewish scholar may say, unless being and person were conflated, which ontologically is incorrect. You never refuted the claim that you were s polytheist, you admitted it, then denied it; this is doublespeak.

You can continue to say your beliefs line up with the Bible and early Christians a million times, it would still be false and you haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever. Every citation you have given for “separate beings” I have addressed and explained are wholly compatible with the Trinitarian view, while you have failed to address these key passages which make your view impossible, namely John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:3, Titus 2:13, John 8:58.

Your attack on creeds smacks of this conspiratorial view of the early church fathers, whereas I never said my view was entirely in defense of creeds per say, but rather what the Bible teaches about the nature of Christ. To characterize the historic Christian beliefs  here as being fabricated by creeds is a pathetic smear tactic as well as a red herring.

The Bible passages you mentioned showing “deification”, such as Daniel 12:3, show nothing of the sort and are speaking of the resurrection. John 10 has already been addressed. You can list these scriptures but you have not shown that deification is possible, while I provided just two passages from Isaiah which shows it’s impossible. You have not addressed those passages either.


Your MO is to throw around insults like “apostate” when referring to all of Christendom but you get highly offended when the LDS church is called a cult, which I believe it is, based on numerous comparisons with other cults over its history since Joseph Smith, but I have refrained from doing so.

"What Latter-day Saints Believe About Jesus Christ" Link

Link



We worship -one- God... God The Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit.




Well... You have posted the same thing over and over again...

And gotten the same answer with links to our beliefs over and over again.




Our beliefs are -not- polytheistic, we worship only -one- God: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The Book of Mormon and Bible are clear: we worship only -one- God...

It really depends on your definition of "polytheistic" you use. A Jew may call a "trinitarian" polytheistic. The earliest Christians (who shared our non-trinitarian views) were called "polytheistic."

So it really depends on how you define "polythestic." "The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshipped." Link And we do not worship plural gods in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

So it comes down to definition.

The -true- definition of "polytheism" is worshipping multiple gods. Which we do not do in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.





"While Christians view their worship of a trinity as monotheistic, Judaism generally rejects this view." Link

Plain-English. It is not a red-herring, and as you can read in plain-English 100% accurate and honest.

It comes down to how you define "polytheism."

You try to create a definition that fits The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the earliest Christians.

But the only real definition is that plural gods be worshipped. And that does not take place in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We worship -one- God in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.





"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian..." Link

The Bible is crystal-clear that God and Christ are -one.-

The Bible is also clear that God and Christ are separate.

We do not disagree with any of the Bible scriptures, and there is no contradiction. Both things are true at the same time.




There are false teachers and false prophets. Many "Christians" don't know anything about the political intrigue and political motivations behind many of the early creeds that destroyed early Christian beliefs.

False teachers will spread half-truths. False prophets will create false creeds. False prophets will spread disinformation, half-truths, and lie.

The creeds that destroyed early Christianity meet the definition of false gospel. "Another gospel." These are extra-Biblical documents that define "Christian" beliefs. They fit the definition of what you wrote above. They teach "another Jesus."

The Book of Mormon testifies of Jesus Christ. And the Bible. The teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints represent a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is eerie to see how our beliefs align with the Bible and earliest Christian beliefs, and creed-based "Christians" today point to those ancient beliefs and teachings found in our restored Church as being foreign. That is eerie. They are crystal-clear in the Bible. The earliest Christians were not trinitarians. They believed what we believe. Its crystal-clear.

Far from being intellectually dishonest, your view on the nature of God and Christ is completely disprovable by scripture, namely Isaiah 44:6-8, 43:10, John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13

All the examples you mentioned are completely compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity, yet the scripture I just cited makes your view impossible, especially in light of the original Greek, just read the links I provided to Greek scholars. The LDS position is not held by any Greek scholar I know of, as it concerns the New Testament translation and of those particular passages I mentioned.

It’s not my goal to argue endlessly about this, it’s just you and the op make claims without really offering any substantial evidence, you just say it over and over again.

And you are just say it over and over again as well. We’re all doing it. I read those verses you shared and view them as supporting exactly what I believe. We are not going to persuade one another when we can read the same passage of scripture and each interpret it differently. There is absolutely nothing in any of the verses you’ve shared that cause me any conflict. They are true. And they do not contradict my beliefs. Not one bit.

I’m okay that we don’t agree on everything. I’d rather celebrate what we share in common. We agree that Jesus Christ is Lord. That faith in Christ is the only path to salvation. That the Gospel of Christ is the gospel of hope. That God lives and loves us. Those are the things that matter most.

Can we move on from the trinity thing?   I think both sides have stated their case.

I’m actually not just saying it over and over, I made specific reference to passages in the Bible that refute the view that there are more than one god, that Christ is a separate and lesser god/being than the Father, that three separate beings are one God, etc. You cannot possibly interpret from the Greek John 1:1 that the Word and God are separate beings, or from Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6, and Hebrews 1:3 that Christ is not by very nature and being the one God and equal to the Father. I also provided sources from Greek scholars on these passages, but I’ll post it again. I don’t want to beat a dead horse on “a Trinity thing”, but it’s only God we’re talking about.

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/jehovahs-witnesses/john-11-meaning-and-translation/

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/theotetos-meaning-at-colossians-29/

You cannot cherry pick a handful of Bible verses that describe the nature of God and ignore all other scripture that paints a broader picture.

The verses you’ve shared are true. All the verses of the Bible that expand the description of God beyond those 4 verses are also true.

When I encounter scripture that is seemingly contradictory I do not simply assume the one I like most is correct and ignore the other. I assume my little mortal brain needs to think bigger. The nature of God is greater than what is written in those 4 verses. It must be or many of the revelations and testimonies contained in the gospels would be false (and I bear witness that they are not false).

So if there were pre-Nicea writings that form a consistent view, you would consider those "pre-creed" and thus not "apostate" but "orthodox"?

Cherry picking? I provided numerous scripture passages that show there is one God and that Christ is by very nature and substance the one God and equal to the Father, and complimentary sources explaining the Greek translation of key texts such as John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9. All you and the op have provided are some “cherry picked” verses showing the Father and Son are distinct and not the same person (the commentary on the Greek in John 1 explains why the distinction is important because it avoids Sabellianism), but there is nothing in those texts proving they are separate beings, but rather they are perfectly compatible with the view that they are one in nature yet separate in person. Moreover, when taking your texts and the texts I provided as a whole, along with the numerous passages in Old and New Testaments affirming there is one God, the passages I provided make your interpretation of separate beings impossible (unless you believe like the secularists that the Bible is contradictory and not God’s word).

Are you Catholic?

If not, then I guess you are preaching the original "another gospel".

So at what point did the people who gave us the Bible stop being inspired or correct?  I laugh when I hear people talk about how the Bible is infallible with no errors.  If you are not Catholic, at what point did those inspired guided men that gave us the Bible, stop being inspired and guided?  How do you know it wasn't before the Bible was completed?

So if the Bible is correct,  the gospel as established by those that compiled it is the "true gospel".  Any protestant deviation  from that is "another gospel".  

Either the Catholics have the truth that has continued down from Christ, or as protestants believe,  it was lost and they went astray.and men created their own "other gospel"  according to their interpretation.   Why do you think there are 30,000 different Christian sects in the world today? That's alot of other gospels.

No I am not, but Protestants and Catholics are in agreement about the nature of God and Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, which we’re talking about here. There are plenty of threads here on Sola Scriptura and where we differ, but we don’t believe either preaches “another gospel” or aren’t Christians.

The pre-Nicea writings are pretty --clearly-- consistent... "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian..." Link

If you have contradictory information, post it up, lets take a look.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints worships --one-- God: God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We don't misinterpret John 1:1. You just need to read John 1:1 with John 1:2. And the scriptures that teach that God and His Son and the Holy Spirit are separate.

There is no misinterpretation of John 1:1,2. We read the KJV of the Bible, and consider the Bible to be the word of God.




The scriptures I have provided are crystal-clear.



God -and- His Son Jesus Christ are separate.







God and His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are -one-... And we worship God The Father, Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit as -one-.

There is no contradiction.

The scriptures that state that God and His Son are separate... Those scriptures are crystal-clear. Those scriptures are true.

The scriptures that state that God and His Son and the Holy Spirit are -one-... Those scriptures' are crystal-clear. Those scriptures are true.

The Bible is true. Gods word is true. The earliest Christians were not in error when "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian.." Link

There is no contradiction. The problem arises when people try to protect and defend the false and misleading doctrines found in the extra-Biblical creeds.

Separate persons, not beings. Like I already said, John 1:1 precludes them being separate beings, as well as Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:3, John 8:58, and the many other texts stating that there is only one God (being and nature).

So what % of difference is OK, to not be "another gospel"? What if some of the core beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith that you don't believe in are essential for salvation?

Just because you are in agreement in some things, does not make you correct.

If you are so in agreement,  why are you not Catholic?  If you are in "agreement", you are essentially saying they were wrong enough that you had to believe and practice another version of gospel.

If the Catholics are wrong now,  what proof do you have that they compiled the Bible correctly and didn’t leave important books or doctrine out?  When did they go astray?  Before or after the Bible was compiled?  

I love it when LDS critics quote Revelation 22:18-19 saying Joseph Smith "added" to the Bible, and  is therefore cursed.  All the while conviently ignoring the fact the Bible was compiled by men voting what should be added and what should be taken away, several hundred years after John wrote those verses.  I guess according to their logic. anything in  the Bible in addition to the book of Revelation is "added".

John 1:1 is understood when you read John 1:2.

Link

We worship -one- God: God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit Link Link

We believe in the Bible, and you can find our teachings and beliefs there.

We are followers of Jesus Christ...

"Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son." Link

If a belief in God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit being --one-- in purpose and unity and being worshipped as --one-- is the litmus test for Christianity, then followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints meet your definition.

If your definition is narrow to where the creeds set the definition of who is an who is not "Christian" in an effor to exclude non-trinitarians (some theologians argue we -are- trinitarian, and some members claim we are  Link), "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Link... So if you create a narrow definition of "Christian" to exclude The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as followers of Jesus Christ, you also exclude the Christians in the first four centuries after Christs ascension.

Which is ironic. Super-ironic.

I run into blatantly and obviously anti-Latter Day Saint posts that make blatanly false claims...



First of all, they cannot use the name of the Church... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint when they claim "say they believe." Which is ironic.

Then they claim God, His Son and the Holy Spirit do not compromise one God in our theology and beliefs, which is a patently -false- claim. God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are worshipped as --one-- in the theology and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We deny the "trinity" in the --creedal-- sense. We believe the Bible when it says that God and Christ are --one--. We follow that Bible-based doctrine. We worship God and Christ and the Holy Spirit as --one--. And we believe the Bible when it says that God and Christ and the Holy Spirit don't meet the creed-based definition of the "trinity. All of the scriptures are true. Both those that state they are one and those verses that state they are separate.



If the strict definition of who is and who is not a follower of Christ is that they must believe that God The Father and His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are worshipped as --one-- then we meet the definition. So do the earliest Christians, none of who were strict trinitarians Link

If the strict definition of who is and who is not a follower of Christ is that they must meet the definition defined in the creeds... So that only Catholics and Protestants can meet the definition... Then you exclude us, but you also exclude the earliest Christians. Which is not just ironic... It is --super-- ironic.

Perhaps some on here should take Christ's advice in Luke 9:

49 ¶ And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us

With all the issues in the world today,  those with Christian beliefs and practices need to bind together to make the world a better place.  Not bicker and argue that "your interpretation of Christ is different then mine, so I can't accept you."  That mindset is completely opposite of what Christ taught.

Someones' view of Christ may be different then yours, but apparently Christ doesn't care, as long as what you do is in his name.

Now we’re beating a dead horse. Every quote you provided shows a distinction between the Father and Son, which Christians embrace and don’t deny, but they are distinct in person, not being, for there is only one being that is God, and the passages I keep on citing demonstrate that Christ is by very nature and being the one God, along with the Father and Holy Spirit, and equal. John 1:2 shows the distinction between Father and the Word like John 1:1, yet they are the same in nature, that’s what the text says and I provided a clear analysis of the Greek text.

I’m not trying to give a litmus test, you can call yourself whatever you want, but when you or the LDS church/Mormons/Joseph Smith disciples lump all of historic Christendom together as “apostate,” that constitutes an attack that needs to be answered by Christians, wouldn’t you say? And if you want to be considered Christians, you would welcome dialogue that addresses key differences with your theology with historic Christianity, namely that you believe more than one God exists (polytheism), regardless of how you want to phrase that proposition, you believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings (which the early church did not believe), that man can become a god or divine, “deification” etc., and that your three books are also scripture, along with the Bible but not the Bible alone. Failure to engage in meaningful dialogue is what has historically placed Mormonism in the “cult” status, or “non-Christian cult” as Dr. Walter Martin put it, along with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, “Jesus Only” Oneness churches, etc. Don’t you agree?

You're beating a dead horse because you and I read the exact same scripture and view it differently.   You understand where we are coming from, even though you disagree.   We understand where you are coming from.   Why are you two continuing to argue about the same passages and you're different interpretations is beyond me.

A lot of what you ask regarding the compiling of the Bible is addressed in Sola Scriptura conversations. You can easily look up the key areas where Protestants and Catholics differ. Salvation and Justification is a big part, and we do believe it’s enough of a difference to endanger one’s soul, which is why we keep the dialogue open with our Catholic brothers and sisters. But in a nutshell Reformed Protestants/Evangelicals believe the Bible is sufficient and alone needed in understanding God and the work of  Christ, and we are saved by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, whereas Catholics believe heavily in Church traditions and sacraments beings necessary for salvation. Historically, though both are Christians because we affirm the same nature of God, Christ, the resurrection, and other doctrines.

So if the Catholic version of the gospel and what they believe is needed for salvation was around first when the Bible was compiled, then what you are preaching is  "another gospel".
I guess you could say the original "other gospel".

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black when you use that reference to label The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Again what % of difference do you feel is OK before it is considered "another"?  5%, 10%?

Both of you can't be right.  Either the Catholic traditions and sacraments are needed to be saved, or they are not.  

Again,  when did they go from being correct enough to give us the Bible in apparent purity, to wrong enough that some felt it was needed to preach "another gospel"?

What proof do you have the errors weren't present in the compilation of the Bible?

We have been beating a dead horse for several pages.

But I am here to answer honest questions, queries, and also respond to criticisms, and antagonisms of my faith in Christ and religious belief in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

But yeah,

I have had to go back to page --one-- of this thread to show that I had already posted something... Yeah, that is a pretty good sign that the horse is getting beat.




The scriptures that show they are distinct and separate are true scriptures.






The scriptures that show they are distinct and separate are true scriptures.






The scriptures that show they are distinct and separate are true scriptures.

So are the scriptures that teach us to worship them as --one- God, and together they are --one--.

God The Father, Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit are --one-- God.






You cant really truly understand John 1:1 without John 1:2.

God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are --one-- and we are taught in the scriptures to worship them as --one.--

The scriptures that show they are distinct and separate are true scriptures. The scriptures that teach us that they are --one-- and should be worshipped as --one-- are also true scriptures.

The horse has been beat for multiple pages now.

But whatever is posted, I will respond to. Honest questions. Honest inquiries. Folks trying to point-out our flaws and errors. Repeatedly beating dead horses. I will respond to whatever. I would --like-- to respond to honest seekers for truth. But whatever comes, I will provide honest answers.

You have to research the early church, what we know of as the canonical scriptures was recognized by the early church fathers long before the Roman Catholic church and Papacy. The Sacraments and traditions, as they use them, long after that.

You keep saying “distinct and separate,” do you not understand the difference between being and person, because all the verses we brought up teach they are distinct and separate persons not beings? There’s only one being that is God in the Bible.

Yes you are.





You don't know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

Eh? Er? Um? ~Ok.




We would call ourselves followers and disciples of Jesus Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Link

We believe Smith was a prophet in the Biblical sense. Through Smith, Christ restored His original Church, restored His Temple, and brought about additional scripture including the Book of Mormon.

The Prophet Smith... Link Link







I have called the extra-Biblical "creeds" apostate.

If you look at this thread you will find criticism (from other "Christians") against The Church of Jesus Christ over our beliefs that reconcile with early Christianity. That is super-ironic, wouldn't you say?

I will criticize, attack, and point out the errors in ---the creeds--- that abolished the doctrines we shared with the earliest Christians. "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian..." Link

But you somehow take me pointing out that "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian..." (link already provided) as an attack on "all of historic Christendom."

You are trying to argue that pointing-out the truth that "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian.." is an attack on historic Christendom.

--Historic-- Christendom was non-trinitarian. Post-creed "Christendom" was trinitarian.




Here is what the early Christian Church believed...

"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."  Link

The early Church was accused of being polytheists as well, and they defended their beliefs as we do now...

Link





Deification is a Bible-centered, Bible-taught doctrine that was practiced in the first Christian Church... "Deification: The Lost Doctrine Of The Early Church" Link

"“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

“He was made human so that he might make us gods“

Bible teaches theosis... Link






The Bible teaches that there will be prophets.

True prophets producing scripture from God, leading His Church. And Prophets that present half-truths, misrepresent, lie, and create "different" gospels.

The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ and it also testifies of the Bible.

We believe that it is important to read the Bible and Book of Mormon and that the codified canonized teachings of God in scripture bring us closer to Christ.




Creating narrow definitions. That is what you are trying.

Creating narrow definitions that would exclude the earliest Christians is what put followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints into [word we cannot use in the religion forum] status.

Creating narrow definitions of who is and who is not Christian, and excluding the earliest Christians is ignorant and ironic.

It does not really come down to engaging in dialogue. It comes down to definitions. Using broad definitions and if you ask atheists, --all-- followers of Christ in the Church of Jesus Christ and out. Creed-based Christians and pre-creed (non-trinitarian) Christians... All of us, ever religion is a [word we cannot use in the religion forum].

The problem for trinitarian (creed-based) "Christians" is if they try to exclude us for our Bible-based non-trinitarian and Bible-based "deification"... They also exclude the earliest Christians.

That is ignorant and --extremely-- ironic.

It is not that we answer questions, send thousands of missionaries out to engage in dialogue, or converse and dialogue with other religions. That is just made-up garblygook.

You call us a [name that cannot be used in the religion forum] because it fits a narrow unique made-up definition of [name that cannot be used in the religion forum].

Because definitions used by atheists would include just about every religion that follows the teachings of Jesus.

You are trying to use [name that cannot be used in the religion forum] as an epithet.

And for giggles, you will rarely find, "Followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are a [name you cannot use in the religion forum].

You will find, "mArMaNs aRe A [NaMe yOu CaNnOt UsE iN tHe ReLiGiOn FoRuM]" That is almost always how you find your epiteth.




What are you trying to pull?

Jehovahs Witnesses are not here to defend themselves. Neither are Christian Science folks.

Do I agree with your nonsense? Do I agree with your narrow definition of [name that cannot be used in the religion forum]?

I don't agree with your use of [name that cannot be used in the religion forum]. And I don't agree with pulling in folks who are not here to defend themselves.

I quoted from crystal-clear scripture.

The scriptures are clear on God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit being distinct and separate.





The crystal-clear scriptures that teach that God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are distinct and separate are true. Christs baptism is a crystal-clear example.

So are the crystal-clear scriptures that teach us to worship God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as --one-- God.

There is no mis-understanding. It is --all-- true.

I’ve pretty much let you get away with this patently false statement , because I’ve wanted to focus on the Bible and what it teaches about the nature of God and Christ, but since you completely ignore and disregard what is translated from the Greek in John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9 etc. and continue to erroneously claim that the Son and the Father are separate beings, which is polytheism, I’ll tackle this error. For one, your source is not very good, akin to Wikipedia, and wouldn’t be accepted in an academic paper. Second, it’s a straw man argument because the doctrine wasn’t explicitly coined and formulated for several centuries, so of course you couldn’t say they were technically “Trinitarians.” Third, there were church fathers in the second century that began to articulate beliefs and doctrines that would become the basis for the Trinity, Justn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Fourth, you can’t get earlier than the first century when the New Testament was written, and the Apostles are clear in all those passages I mentioned about the nature of God and Christ.

Could you cite your sources, please?

It is from a highly-respected respected academic source. It is a wholly accurate statement backed up by the history.

It is honest and fully-accurate. Its references are clear. It is not trying to say one religion is right and another religion is wrong. It is just stating the facts. It is just stating history.






John 1:1 says that Jesus --is-- God, something Latter-Day Saints do not disagree with theologically. We only worship --one-- God.

John 1:2 says that Jesus is separate from God, something Latter-Day Saints do not disagree with theologically.




Worshipping more than one God is polytheism. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints only worship --one-- God: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Worshipping God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as --one-- God, as outlined in scripture is not polytheism.






Well, its from --Stanford University-- so it is actually an academic "paper."

It is an excellent "non partisan" source. It is just repeating history. The truth should not bother you. The truth should be your goal.

The truth is the goal for any honest seeker of truth.

It is actually a -very- strong academic article. If you are used to "MaRmAnS ArE a [word you cant use in the religion forum, but you get away with it somehow] AnD aRe hOrSeThIeVeS aNd LiArS!" Then you are not going to like peer-reviewed non-partisan academic sources with high academic standards.

It is actually a very good source.



Whoah. Hold on. One minute, "its in the Bible!" Next its, "its a straw man argument..."

The whiplash is killing me bro.

What did you just write? The trinity wasn't explicitly coined and formulated for several centuries...? Did I read your post correctly?








That is --exactly-- what the source wrote.

And exactly what the source states...

And we believe in God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. And academics call us something something trinitarians. But it means that we believe in the trinity, but we do not accept the trinity.

Yeah, they were not technically trinitarians. They believed what we believe.

Like I said, some people approach the trinity academically, and say that we actually -are- trinitarians, even though we say we are not...





None of them were "trinitarians." They believed what we believe.

From another post on arfcom on this subject...



From this arfcom thread... Link



Justin Martyr a trinitarian? Laughable...

Link

Your problem is you are going to --partisan-- (not non-partisan) sources. "Yeah, Tertullian was a trinitarian! tHe MaRmAns aRe wRoNG!"

The (non-partisan, not trying to make a point, not trying to prove one religion is right and another one is wrong) academic --Stanford-- article is right and correct.






We call it a clue that between the gospels and the creeds, Christianity interpreted the New Testament (or what they had of it) just like we do.

The passages that state God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are --one--... Those scriptures are true.

The passages that state that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are separate... Those scriptures are true.

The New Testament is true. The Bible is true. We worship --one-- God: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

The statement, "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." That is a wholly-accurate, and completely-true statement. Link

Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria also have statements in early Christianity that discuss the scriptures being changed and corrupted. Link

When did I say the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible? It’s supported by the passages I cited and others. It is a theological doctrine, though, so you won’t find the term used or specifically stated in the exact phrasing in the first few centuries, just like Luther’s doctrine of Sola Fide cannot be found in the same exact form or Preservation of the Saints from Calvin and many other theological doctrines that are nevertheless found in the Bible.  

No, the definition of polytheism is the belief in more than one god, not simply worshiping more than one god. You believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings with a separate nature, i.e. separate gods. That’s polytheism. The early church fathers absolutely were not polytheists.

Tertullian for example claimed that the Father, Son and HS were the same substance. https://www.reformation21.org/blog/tertullians-view-of-the-trinity

A good article about the Trinity
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/oneness-pentecostalism/the-trinity-the-definition-of-chalcedon-and-oneness-theology/

You are beating a dead horse.

The scriptures are true that state that God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are separate.

The scriptures are true that state that God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are --one--.



I call it a clue that what we believe is what was believed in the first few centuries of Christianity.

I call it a clue that, "No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian" Link

I call it super-ironic that your definition that is used to say that true followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not followers of Christ would also exclude the Christians in the first three centuries. That is super-ironic.




How to tell me you don't read my posts without actually telling me you don't read my posts. It --really-- depends on what -definition- you are using to define "polytheism."

Did you read what the original Christians said about God. Same thing what we believe.



Your problem is that you are trying to create a definition of "polytheistic" that includes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Your problem is that your definition would include the earliest Christians.

We do not fit the definition. We worship --one-- God: God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Academics say we are something something trinitarians. "[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints] model of the New Testament Godhead is an instance of social trinitarianism (ST)." Link

Link

What is a polytheist? Somone who worships multiple Gods. "The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshipped" Link




I make the same claim. And have the entire thread. You, on the other hand, have created a definition of "polytheism" that would include the earliest Christians.

Your definition of polytheism would  include the earliest Christians...

Justin Martyr: "Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them."



Tertullian preached --against-- what was to become the creedal definition of "trinity" calling people who deny The Father and The Son antichrists: "Away, then, with those Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs." Link

Tertullian a "creedal" trinitarian? Laughable. He called people who claim the father and the son the same "antichrists."





From your anti-Latter Day Saint link...

"the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) are heirs of ancient polytheism and mystery religions, and nearly 10 million adhere to their teachings."

If your antagonist sources can use our actual name, (then introduce the nickname) why can't you?

We are not heirs of "ancient polytheism." We believe the Bible is the word of God and worship only --one-- God. It is not a "mystery religion" either, we believe the Bible is the word of God, and can show our teachings and beliefs in the scriptures.

When we point out errors and flaws in --creedal-- trinitarianism, we are not attacking the teachings of Christ found in the Bible.

When we point out that our beliefs align better with the original Christian teachings, we are not attacking all of Christianity.

What are the odds that the OP answers these questions in the next six pages as I read this thread? I think they are low.

In these type discussions the only questions that get answered are those that the honest answer don't make the faith look peculiar and cult like. Or where a partial answer can be given while ignoring the important aspects.

Tertullian is speaking of “persons” in your quote and it is clear from your link of Against Praxeas that he believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same being and share the same essence or substance, it’s s heresy though to say the Father is the Son, etc., i.e. the same person (modalism). Did you read your link, it’s considered a great historical defense of the doctrine of the Trinity?

Your arguments ring hollow though, because you have not proven the separate beings argument from scripture. You continuously ignore the texts I provided when read, especially in light of the Greek translation, make your belief impossible. We could argue all day long about the early church, but as I already mentioned, it’s a red herring and a straw man, because the core issue is whether or not the belief is supported in scripture. A theological doctrine could have come later, in articulation or development, it none the less doesn’t make it not true if it is Biblically based. It’s like saying “there were no Baptists for 16 centuries, therefore if you’re a Baptist you’re excluding the previous 16 centuries because they weren’t Baptists.” Or “no Christian in the previous 16 centuries believed in Reformed theology, etc”

Thankfully, regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, the early church did get this Biblically based concept correct, and it was articulated and defended in the creeds you love to disparage. Much like the doctrine of Justification by Faith was eventually gotten right by the Reformers, albeit much later, still doesn’t make it any less Biblical.

How to tell me you did not read my response, without telling me you did not read my response...

From my response...






You are way off-base, completely admitted to not actually reading or participating in the thread, and start out by throwing hits below the belt.

I have already talked about being called a [name that cannot be used in the religion forum].

It -really- depends on your definition you use for [name that cannot be used in the religion forum].

Atheists would say that any organized religion meet the definition of [name that cannot be used in the religion forum].

Creed-based Christians sometimes try to create narrow definitions of [name that cannot be used in the religion forum] for those who espouse non-creedal Bible-based beliefs in their worship of Christ. I think that is hypocritical and wrong. But whatever.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the teachings of Jesus, we believed we are saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and we worship God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as --one--.

Narrow definitions to try to label us as a [name that cannot be used in the religion forum] almost always also include the earliest Christians because we share many beliefs.



I think that statement is hypocritical, given that I have addressed everything that has been posted, while others have openly ignored plain-English questions against them in this thread.

If you have a question, post it.

If you think I have not addressed it, or have contrary information, post it.

Yes, I have read my link. Tertullian uses the term --trinity-- but not in the sense or definition of the creeds.

Tertullian condemns what would become creedal trinitarianism... "Away, then, with those Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs."

I think you are in a tough position to say that Tertullian is a "trinitarian" when Tertullian calls post-creed trinitarianism "antichrist."

We, as did they, believe that God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are --one-- in purpose and --one-- God.

Even though they are separate.




Tertullian refers to what would later become "creedal" trinitarianism as "antiChrist." That is a pretty hard-hitting argument.

Justin Martyr refers to Christ as, "another God and Lord."

Neither would be "Christians" by your narrow definition you use to try to exclude followers of Christ in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Then you have they audacity to claim they provide evidence for post-creed "trinitarianism."







Yes I have.

You ignoring what I have posted is not my problem.

The Bible verses I have posted have been crystal-clear.





John 1:1 can only really be understood when read with John 1:2.

My belief is found in the Bible.

The verses that teach that God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are separate are true.

So are the verses that state the God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are --one--.

They are --all-- true.

I have shown where you have ignored my posts, and re-posed from page --one-- of the thread to re-answer a post of yours.

I am pretty sure, on the other hand, that you don't read my posts, and don't follow-up with the links...



Not really.

Not when we are talking about extra-Biblical creeds.

Early Christians condemning what would eventually become "creedal" Christianity, and Early Christians stating, Jesus is "another God and Lord."

That is central to our discussion.

Because the early Christians would not meet your narrow definition of who is and who is not a "Christian."





What the earliest Christians believed is central to the discussion of who is and who is not a "Christian."

You invited a discussion of early Christianity when you questioned the Bible-based, scripture-based teachings and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.




The "early church" (before the apostate creeds) did get it correct.

The teachings and beliefs of the early Church were --not-- articulated in the creeds.

Jesus being, "another God and Lord" was not articulated in the creeds. "Away, then, with those Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs." That is not articulated in the creeds. The "anti-christ" doctrine of "suppose Him to be the same as the Father" made it into the creeds.

The "early church" (prior to the apostate creeds) --did-- get it correct.

The creeds corrupted the sacred and important teachings of the Bibel and the earliest Christian Church.

Wrong again, read what Tertullian wrote. He was writing against Praxeas, a modalist, who taught the Father and the Son were the same, person. Tertullian taught that they shared the same substance, essence (and therefore being) but were distinct, separate persons.

John 1:2, as I previously mentioned, like John 1:1 carefully in the Greek shows this distinction between the Father and Word ( just read the Greek scholarly commentary I posted) because without this distinction you have modalism, which is not what the Apostles taught or Jesus claimed or what is found in the Gospels.

So if I can break it down for your understanding because you seem not to be able to grasp the concept, saying “The Father is the Son/Word/Christ” is modalism, not what the doctrine of the Trinity affirms, saying “The Father and Son are distinct and separate” does not mean they are separate beings (this is polytheism and rejected by the Bible). Saying the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirt are the one God and share the same nature and substance but are distinct and separate persons” is  consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. This is what is taught in John 1, Hebrews 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 2:9, John 8:58, Titus 2:13, etc.

You can refer to anyone you want in the early church, if what they say conflicts with what is found in scripture, this is not evidence of anything other than they got it wrong. If they claim the Son is a separate being, they are wrong.

So, please. Show us where in any of my Biblical citations or any of the ones you provided you find separate beings as God, which is really saying they are multiple gods. Just remember that every passage showing distinction does not conflict with the doctrine of the Trinity which requires distinction as an essential component, but such passages can also be (correctly) interpreted as distinct persons. The deciding factor is not whether the Father and Son are distinct, but whether or not they share the same nature and essence. You can’t get around Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 2:9, and John 1:1 which makes it clear and indisputable, especially in light of the Greek, they in fact share the same nature and being, Yahweh the Almighty God of the Old Testament.

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/christian-worldview/hebrews-13-a-refutation-to-roger-perkins-and-other-oneness-advocates/

James White goes into greater depth in Philippians 2:6 here.

I will have time after work to address the rest of beating a dead horse in your post...

And you have trouble asking and answering questions, so I am taking a bit of a risk here.

But... @JohnnyLoco

Is Justin Martyr a Christian?

"Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things-above whom there is no other God-wishes to announce to them."

"[By Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest."

Is Justin Martyr a Christian?

Is Tertullian a Christian?

"Away, then, with those Antichrists who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are Theirs."

"Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate posses nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do - only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be ...'" Link

I will have time to beat a dead horse with the rest of your post after work tonight.

But you brought up Martyr and Tertullian as evidence of creedal trinitarianism when they both preached against what would eventually become creedal trinitarianism.

They both believed in and preached deification. We share beliefs with them in worshipping God The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as --one-- God.

We share beliefs with them in deification or theosis. They both preached and taught and believed in theosis.

Was Justin Martyr a Christian? I believe he was, I share many Christ-centered beliefs with Justin Martyr.

Was Tertullian a Christian? I believe he was. He taught and preached against what would become "creedal" trinitariansim. He taught and preached theosis/deification. Something I believe.

Was Justin Martyr a Christian?

Was Tertullian a Christian?

Were the Christians before the creeds who shared our beliefs in the separateness but oneness of God and believed in deification... Were they Christians?

I will have time to address the rest of your thread and beat a dead horse tonight... But do you think Justin Martyr was a Christian? Was Tertullian a Christian?

Misinterpreting Tertullian again, he is correctly saying the Father is not the Son and vice versa, “the same” which is modalism, whereas Tertullian (correctly) believed they shared the same substance, while being distinct persons, which is what is taught in John 1:1, Philippians 2, Hebrews 1, Colossians 2:9, etc.

Yes they both were Christians. This doesn’t mean there weren’t theological or doctrinal errors back then, especially when dealing with the heresies of the day. Even today this is true. But it’s the dialogue and correction, teaching and debate, and whether those in error revise their views that’s indicative of being a Christian. Let’s just go to what the Bible teaches as the ultimate benchmark, wouldn’t you say? You seem to be avoiding this?

See above.