Christians: The Trinity Fails to Describe God.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Trinity/tri-unity is indeed in the scriptures, not from a council. The council met to affirm what they believed was true, rebuking heresy (heresy is unbiblical doctrine).

Both testaments show God's plural nature, and even Jewish prayer and liturgy shows it. Be encouraged, for Jesus said unless you believe IAM He, you cannot be saved!

If that is your opinion, you must be a very good bible miner indeed.
I am now 85 years old and have never yet been shown chapter and verse showing the Trinity in the Bible.

In early Christian society to be a heretic was to be on the losing side. it was rarely a measure of Biblical doctrine. The council at Nicaea came to a majority decision. The losing bishops were declared to be heretics and persecuted.

 

[Katzpur]

Trinity/tri-unity is indeed in the scriptures, not from a council. The council met to affirm what they believed was true, rebuking heresy (heresy is unbiblical doctrine).

My first thought in response to this statement is this: Why were the Creeds necessary in the first place? If they merely reaffirmed what the Bible already clearly stated, then they really didn't serve any need at all. If they added to what the Bible had already said, then what evidence is there that what they added was, in fact, true? Did the Bible really fall short of explaining the nature of God to such an extent that mere human beings had to come up with either a summary or an addendum?

 

[Katzpur]

"Wait, What!?" Common sense? With God? Common sense says, "I cannot walk on water!" Common sense says "Keep your two mites, elderly lady!" Common sense says "We walk by sight and not by faith".

Apparently you have made up your mind! Are you open to discussion? Or is this a closed deal?

I'm open to discussion, and I suspect that Jacob is as well. Otherwise he probably would not have started this thread in the first place.

 

[Katzpur]

In early Christian society to be a heretic was to be on the losing side. it was rarely a measure of Biblical doctrine.

Excellent way of putting it, Terry. When you get right down to it, orthodoxy is strictly in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Kenny]

I'm open to discussion, and I suspect that Jacob is as well. Otherwise he probably would not have started this thread in the first place.

It's that he made a declaration that "it was wrong", that it led me to believe that he wasn't.

However, since we are talking about the Christian perspective, he used this statement.

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

I think this is a wrong application. If, as it is held, Jesus as The Word manifest... was he manifested as The Word? Or did he come, as Paul said, different:

Philippians 2:7-9Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men andwas born a human being.
8 And after He had appeared in human form, He abased andhumbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

If he was "stripped", is he the same as before?

Or to put it as Jesus said:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:5 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
5 And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed.

If he had to be "restored" or glorify me with what I had "with thee before".. doesn't it dictate that he wasn't was he used to be?

Do you agree?

 

[metis]

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

That's really sort of a non-sequitur as the Trinitarian concept does not create three deities, nor does it posit that God, Jesus, and Jesus are specifically all one and the same. Instead, at least from the Catholic point of view, one needs to understand "essence", namely that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God the Father but are not specifically God the Father.

 

[Katzpur]

That's really sort of a non-sequitur as the Trinitarian concept does not create three deities, nor does it posit that God, Jesus, and Jesus are specifically all one and the same. Instead, at least from the Catholic point of view, one needs to understand "essence", namely that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God the Father but are not specifically God the Father.

What exactly does "essence" mean, though? Does it refer in any way to physical make-up or just to immaterial attributes and qualities?

 

[Katzpur]

It's that he made a declaration that "it was wrong", that it led me to believe that he wasn't.

Well, to be fair, most debates start out with the assumption that "I'm right and you're wrong," don't they?

However, since we are talking about the Christian perspective, he used this statement.

Yes, and he said it was not possible to make sense of it in a Trinity mindset. If you think it is, in fact, possible to do so, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.

I think this is a wrong application. If, as it is held, Jesus as The Word manifest... was he manifested as The Word? Or did he come, as Paul said, different:

Philippians 2:7-9Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
7 But stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being.
8 And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross!

If he was "stripped", is he the same as before?

Or to put it as Jesus said:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:5 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
5 And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed.

If he had to be "restored" or glorify me with what I had "with thee before".. doesn't it dictate that he wasn't was he used to be?

Do you agree?

I'm really not sure what it is you're asking me, so if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know. It seems to me that Jesus did was condescend to leave His high and holy station in Heaven, coming to live as a man on earth for the purpose of redeeming mankind. In other words, His station voluntarily changed, but that doesn't mean He ceased to be divine. I don't believe for one minute that even though He lived as a man, He was merely a male human being. As He said, He had the power to lay down His life and to lift it up again. That's something no mere man could have done. He returned to His previous glorified state (i.e. being immortal as opposed to being mortal) at the moment He was resurrected. To me, though, this is not the point of the argument at all. The point of the argument is that He asked His Father to glorify Him and to restore to Him the station He had before the world existed. The very fact that He asked His Father to do this indicates that He and His Father are not the same being. His Father, of course, had remained in Heaven as an immortal being while He had come to earth. That means they are two distinct beings, both divine, and united -- not physically, but in terms of their will, purpose, mind and heart.

 

[Kenny]

Well, to be fair, most debates start out with the assumption that "I'm right and you're wrong," don't they?

that's fair!

Yes, and he said it was not possible to make sense of it in a Trinity mindset. If you think it is, in fact, possible to do so, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.

Ok.. that's is what we are doing right now.

I'm really not sure what it is you're asking me, so if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know. It seems to me that Jesus did was condescend to leave His high and holy station in Heaven, coming to live as a man on earth for the purpose of redeeming mankind. In other words, His station voluntarily changed, but that doesn't mean He ceased to be divine.

Good start. The reason I mention this is because his approach was to equate that Jesus could not be part of the Godhead because of his inability to perform.

I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?"

Wrong application, since he had emptied himself of his God attributes, i.e. power and glory. thus the prayer of Jesus to glorify himself again with the glory that he once had. One cannot equate The Word the same as Jesus because they are totally different in composition (so to speak). One full of glory and one without.

I don't believe for one minute that even though He lived as a man, He was merely a male human being. As He said, He had the power to lay down His life and to lift it up again. That's something no mere man could have done.

Ok, I know we are going off subject here, but just to address in the Christian belief system before we go back to the Godhead (trinity). Adam, before he sinned, supposedly could not and would not die. It was what man was made as. Even today, with the renewing of cells every 7 years, unless my information is wrong, man still doesn't understand why we age.

Not a normal man, correct, because he wasn't born of a man. But because his body was created, death had no right to claim him. Thus he could lay it down and pick it up and he is called "the second Adam" created without sin propensity.

He was every bit a man in that he could be tempted, had feelings, felt pain, hunger, need etc.

He returned to His previous glorified state (i.e. being immortal as opposed to being mortal) at the moment He was resurrected. To me, though, this is not the point of the argument at all. The point of the argument is that He asked His Father to glorify Him and to restore to Him the station He had before the world existed. The very fact that He asked His Father to do this indicates that He and His Father are not the same being. His Father, of course, had remained in Heaven as an immortal being while He had come to earth. That means they are two distinct beings, both divine, and united -- not physically, but in terms of their will, purpose, mind and heart.

Ok... now we are back. Certainly people interpret things differently and I'm not addressing who is right and who is wrong as we all have brains and can decide for ourselves.

Back to the (Trinity) Godhead.

Man was created in His image and in His likeness. If God is a Godhead (triune being) then I could come to the conclusion that I am too.

There are many scriptures but this one synthesizes in one sentence.

1 Thess. 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Each part make up the whole and yet each part has a different voice, different materiality and a different purpose.

You have out of body experiences where the spirit and soul are in one place but the body in another. Separated yet still part of the whole. Each part is necessary yet one part is greater than another. The body is the least important yet very important.

Yet, it is one. So, at the very least, I can support that we also are a tri-une being.

Let's see if the counterpart (God) can be found to be the same:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... 14 and the Word was made flesh.

Pretty plain and no need to explain.

Is 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God That's the Father - one part, and his Spirit notice that it is his Spirit - the Holy Spirit - the second part , hath sent me Jesus - that's the third part.
This is to say, that there is at the very least there is a potential of my position
17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel Designation for Jesus in the NT, yet it says He is God (; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. which is what Jesus did.

Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord = one God YHWY
our God = Elohiym - plural not singular
is one Lord: - YHWY - one God

Why the need to say "one"? Because of the plurality of His composition, The Father, The Word and His Spirit - yet one God

So, IMV, just looking at my makeup makes it easier to understand a little more about the One God makeup.


I'm not trying to convince you that I am right and your are wrong!

I'm simply showing that it isn't that difficult to see and understand how one can come to that conclusion. If I'm wrong, I will find out when I meet my Savior, Jesus.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, Ken. Thanks for responding.

Good start. The reason I mention this is because his approach was to equate that Jesus could not be part of the Godhead because of his inability to perform.

Okay, I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what @Jacob Samuelson was trying to say. The very first "Article of Faith" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, an in the Holy Ghost." These three make up the Godhead. As a matter of fact, The Book of Mormon itself actually teaches that all three personages in the Godhead are "God."

Mormon 7:7 states, "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end."

We understand their unity to be one of will and purpose, and affirm that all three are equally divine. They are just don't equal with respect to their relationship to one another. I think Jacob was merely emphasizing the fact that Jesus, despite the fact that, like His Father, is legitimately referred to as "God," called His Father "God" and said that His Father is greater than He.

Wrong application, since he had emptied himself of his God attributes, i.e. power and glory. thus the prayer of Jesus to glorify himself again with the glory that he once had. One cannot equate The Word the same as Jesus because they are totally different in composition (so to speak). One full of glory and one without.

To be honest, I've never heard it said that we should not equate "the Word" with "Jesus." Maybe it would help me if you could go into this in a bit more detail. It's just a new concept to me and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. John 1:14 says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." I believe that Jesus was God "in the beginning" but that He was distinct from His Father as all sons are distinct from their fathers. In other words, as John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How could both underlined words (i.e "with" and "was") be true unless Jesus was divine but distinct from His Father?

It also sounds like you're saying that Jesus was "fully man" while living as a mortal man, but was not in any way "God." That would be the case if He no longer had any of those attributes we hold be be the attributes of "God." Do you believe He lived a perfect life, or that He was flawed, and sinned from time to time? I don't believe any mere human (i.e. someone without godly attributes) could be said to be perfect, and I do believe Jesus is perfect. I've heard Christians describe Jesus as "fully man and fully God." I can sort of go along with that, but the LDS way of putting it would be to say that from His Father, Jesus inherited that part of Him which was divine, and that from His mother, He inherited those things than made Him mortal. In other words, because He was mortal, He was subject to death; because He was divine, He had the power within Him to take up His own life again three days after He'd died.

Ok, I know we are going off subject here, but just to address in the Christian belief system before we go back to the Godhead (trinity). Adam, before he sinned, supposedly could not and would not die. It was what man was made as. Even today, with the renewing of cells every 7 years, unless my information is wrong, man still doesn't understand why we age.

I don't really want to get into this on this particular thread except just to point out one thing that kind of makes the question of Adam's immortality a bit ambiguous. In Genesis 3:22-23, we read that "...the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." So was it Adam's disobedience itself that made him subject to death or was it the fact that God cast him out of Eden before he could eat from the Tree of Life, which would have given him this ability? I think it's hard to say.

Not a normal man, correct, because he wasn't born of a man. But because his body was created, death had no right to claim him. Thus he could lay it down and pick it up and he is called "the second Adam" created without sin propensity.

He was every bit a man in that he could be tempted, had feelings, felt pain, hunger, need etc.

But he was born of a woman, a human being. And from her He inherited all of the attributes that human beings have. As I see it, it's because He was also the Son of God that He was able to rise above temptation.

Ok... now we are back. Certainly people interpret things differently and I'm not addressing who is right and who is wrong as we all have brains and can decide for ourselves.

I can go along with that.

Back to the (Trinity) Godhead.

Man was created in His image and in His likeness. If God is a Godhead (triune being) then I could come to the conclusion that I am too.

Yes, I've heard people use that reasoning, but I'm afraid it really doesn't make sense to me.

There are many scriptures but this one synthesizes in one sentence.

1 Thess. 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Each part make up the whole and yet each part has a different voice, different materiality and a different purpose.

Yes, but the words "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably in the scriptures, and never are they actually defined. I see the spirit as being the breath of life, i.e. the essence that gives us life. I see the soul as the entity that results when a spirit enters into a mortal body. Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In other words, without the spirit giving the body life, the body is merely an empty shell. Infused with spirit, it becomes a "living soul." Would you mind explaining what you believe the difference between the words "spirit" and "soul" to be. (I suspect we can safely say that we agree on what a "body" is. )

You have out of body experiences where the spirit and soul are in one place but the body in another. Separated yet still part of the whole. Each part is necessary yet one part is greater than another. The body is the least important yet very important.

Yet, it is one. So, at the very least, I can support that we also are a tri-une being.

Let's see if the counterpart (God) can be found to be the same:

But what is the body without the spirit? Is it still a living soul? No. It's a dead piece of flesh.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... 14 and the Word was made flesh.

Pretty plain and no need to explain.

Well, I totally agree with everything John 1:1 says (as I've already said). I'm not so sure, though, that we agree on what the verse actually means.

Is 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God That's the Father - one part, and his Spirit notice that it is his Spirit - the Holy Spirit - the second part , hath sent me Jesus - that's the third part.
This is to say, that there is at the very least there is a potential of my position
17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel Designation for Jesus in the NT, yet it says He is God (; I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. which is what Jesus did.[/quote]But if the Holy Spirit is "God's Spirit," then how are there three parts of the Trinity? If you believe that God the Father is a spirit and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit, then you have two divine spirits and one divine, immortal, resurrected man. The Trinity would need to have three parts and it sounds like you're just saying that the Holy Spirit isn't separate from God's sprit (I'm referring to God the Father here), but is itself God's spirit. If God the Father is solely spirit and if the Holy Ghost is God's spirit, then you're just saying that the Holy Spirit is another way of referring to God instead of being a separate personage in the Trinity.

Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord = one God YHWY
our God = Elohiym - plural not singular
is one Lord: - YHWY - one God

Why the need to say "one"? Because of the plurality of His composition, The Father, The Word and His Spirit - yet one God.

I'm really kind of confused. I think it's the use of the word "composition" that's confusing to me. I see the Godhead as being comprised of a Father and a Son and a Holy Ghost, three divine persons, all of whom act with singleness of purpose, which is to bring us home to their presence.

I'm not trying to convince you that I am right and your are wrong!

Well, that's certainly refreshing!

I'm simply showing that it isn't that difficult to see and understand how one can come to that conclusion. If I'm wrong, I will find out when I meet my Savior, Jesus.

You know what? I agree that someday, we'll both find out who was wrong and who was right, and that being wrong isn't going to keep either one of us out of Heaven. Personally, I believe that God cares a whole lot more about how we treat one another than whether we get 100% right on some doctrinal true/false or multiple choice test. I'm sure it won't be hard at all for Him to explain to us whatever we may have misunderstood, but even He can't retroactively change the way we lived our lives.

 

[Kenny]

You know what? I agree that someday, we'll both find out who was wrong and who was right, and that being wrong isn't going to keep either one of us out of Heaven. Personally, I believe that God cares a whole lot more about how we treat one another than whether we get 100% right on some doctrinal true/false or multiple choice test. I'm sure it won't be hard at all for Him to explain to us whatever we may have misunderstood, but even He can't retroactively change the way we lived our lives.

It was a long post and I'm sure there will be a limit on words when I answer... but may I say, this part was, as you said, "so refreshing"!

Heartfelt thanks for your position

 

[Kenny]

Hi, Ken. Thanks for responding.

My pleasure...

MODERATORS:

I may have violated a rule and want to make sure it is ok to respond to Katzpur.

This is a "same faith" thread. Am I out of scope in answering here?

 

[Katzpur]

My pleasure...

MODERATORS:

I may have violated a rule and want to make sure it is ok to respond to Katzpur.

This is a "same faith" thread. Am I out of scope in answering here?

I suspect the moderators won't even notice your posts unless you notify one of them individually, but I certainly wouldn't think you're out of line in participating. I would be interested, though, in what you actually mean when you list your religion as Judeo/Christian. One of the reasons I ask is that Mormonism considers itself much more closely related to what I would describe as "Judeo-Christianity" than it does to "Hellenic Christianity."

 

[InChrist]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it all started, I believe at the First Council of Nicaea, where scholars from all over the Roman Empire, invited by Constantine to argue tirelessly over a unified decision of the nature of God. The result came as a creed as follows (copied from wikipedia):

1. Jesus Christ is described as "Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting that he was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true Son of God, brought into being "from the substance of the Father."
3. He is said to be "of one being with the Father," proclaiming that although Jesus Christ is "true God" and God the Father is also "true God," they are "of one being," in accord to what is found in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." The Greek term homoousios, or consubstantial (i.e., "of the same substance) is ascribed by Eusebius to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous as to the extent in which Jesus Christ and God the Father are "of one being," and the issues it raised would be seriously controverted in the future.

This has been enveloped to what we know as the Trinity for modern Christianity. The last part (part 3) still ambiguous today.

Is God the Father and God the Son the same being?

The Trinity says yes using that same scripture the bishops used in John 10:30, where the Father is One with the Son and the Son with the Father. They are the same being. For there can only be One God. And that God is Jesus, and Jesus is the Father and His spirit is the Holy Ghost.

At the same time, someone with reason and common sense is looking at this and saying, "Wait, What!?"

So you're telling me, that every time Jesus was praying, the time He stated, "Not my will, but thine, be done", the time He told his disciples, in John 5:30, I can do nothing of my self, but of the Father which has sent me?" Or Mark 10: 18 Where he states that only God is good. How can we make sense of this in a Trinity mind set?

The answer is we cannot. Or we can try to by bending a whole lot of scripture to a very uncomfortable and confusing way making the whole meaning of God to everyone as clear as mud.

So the only question really to answer, is what do we do about the whole Monotheism thing we got going for us? What about all the times God tells us that there is only One God? How can Jesus be God and this Father figure be God, and this Holy Spirit be God? Would that make us believe in three Gods, without the idea of the Trinity?

I think accepting this almost 2000 year old man-made creed for such a long time has really messed up Christians idea of God.

Christ had to encounter a similar situation with the Jews, when he was asked a similar question of His divinity. in John 10:33-35. We learn that not only is Jesus defending Psalms 82:6, He is renouncing the Jews understanding of what they thought was blasphemous when he pronounced himself as the Son of God directly from Psalms.

God was never meant to be a singular being. We don't have a First and Last name as "God" in the Bible. It never says God is only one being. It does say that there is only one God, but God is not a name of a being, it is a title.

God represents a collection of spiritual beings whose whole purpose is righteousness. Genesis 1:26 (notice the Us and We pronouns) The Father, who is known as Elohim, The Son, Jesus or Jehovah, and The Holy Ghost. These are the head of the institution which is called God.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. They work together to achieve the same goal which makes them part of the same organization which is God.

Notice that even though there are multiple beings under this Godship, there is still only One God. One singular organization whose goal is the salvation of their creations.

So, next time you read John 17:3, I would hope you wouldn't lean on the understanding of a man-made council hundreds of years ago to tell you who God is, but read the Bible to learn that the Trinity doesn't make sense at all.

Personally, I find the biblical scriptures to present a Creator God unique, distinct from that presented by any of the religions of the world; a Being of both diversity and unity. God’s triune Nature is stamped throughout His creation as testimony. While it may not be easy to comprehend the Trinity or triune nature of God, this in itself does not negate the truth and I think to outright reject the Trinity is to reject the biblical God.


“In Romans:1:20
Paul argues that God's "eternal power and Godhead" are seen in the creation He made. God's eternal power—but His Godhead? Yes, as Dr. Wood pointed out years ago in The Secret of the Universe, the triune nature of God is stamped on His creation. The cosmos is divided into three: space, matter and time. Each of these is divided into three. Space, for instance, is composed of length, breadth and width, each separate and distinct in itself, yet the three are one. Length, breadth and width are not three spaces, but three dimensions comprising one space. Run enough lines lengthwise and you take in the whole. But so it is with the width and height. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is all of space—just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is each God.

Time also is a trinity: past, present and future—two invisible and one visible. Each is separate and distinct, yet each is the whole. Man himself is a triunity of spirit, soul and body, two of which are invisible, one visible. Many more details could be given of the Godhead's triunity reflected in the universe. It can hardly be coincidence.

The Hebrew word elohim (gods) occurs about 2,500 times in the Old Testament, while the singular form occurs only250 times and most of those designate false gods. Genesis:1:1
reads, "In the beginning, elohim created the heaven and the earth"; i.e., literally, "gods created the heaven and the earth." Though a single noun is available, yet the plural form is consistently used for God. And in violation of grammatical rules, with few exceptions, singular verbs and pronouns are used with this plural noun. Why?

At the burning bush it was elohim (gods) who spoke to Moses. Yet elohim did not say, "We are that we are," but "I AM THAT I AM" (Ex 3:14). One cannot escape the fact that, all through the Bible, God is presented as a plurality and yet as One, as having both diversity and unity. This is unique among all the world's religions! To reject the Trinity is to reject the God of the Bible.“

The Trinity

 

[Kenny]

I suspect the moderators won't even notice your posts unless you notify one of them individually, but I certainly wouldn't think you're out of line in participating. I would be interested, though, in what you actually mean when you list your religion as Judeo/Christian. One of the reasons I ask is that Mormonism considers itself much more closely related to what I would describe as "Judeo-Christianity" than it does to "Hellenic Christianity."

I agree. I just didn't know how exact they interpret things. My sister followed Mormonism for 20 years and I considered her a Christian. Some wouldn't.

 

[Kenny]

Okay, I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what @Jacob Samuelson was trying to say. The very first "Article of Faith" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, an in the Holy Ghost." These three make up the Godhead. As a matter of fact, The Book of Mormon itself actually teaches that all three personages in the Godhead are "God."

Mormon 7:7 states, "And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end."

We understand their unity to be one of will and purpose, and affirm that all three are equally divine. They are just don't equal with respect to their relationship to one another. I think Jacob was merely emphasizing the fact that Jesus, despite the fact that, like His Father, is legitimately referred to as "God," called His Father "God" and said that His Father is greater than He.

Yes... we agree on this. Of course, our differences remain in who Jesus is. (I'm not sure I understand who you think the Holy Spirit is)

If I am not mistaken, and certainly you could school me on this one, you believe that Jesus attained the position in the Godhead and being in oneness of purpose and thought whereas others, like myself, would say that He is simply a part of Godhead and always was God. (Again, as you said, interpreting John 1:1 differently)

My point was simply "man is a tri-part being with each part distinct in purpose and materiality" - so, for me, it is easy to see God as a tri-part being.

To be honest, it will always be difficult for me with a finite mind to completely wrap my mind around an infinite God. I remember taking a course on the Godhead. Just when we would establish that they were completely different, we would hit a bible-based wall that they weren't, it was just one God. And just when we could establish that they are one God we would hit a brick bible-based wall that they were different.

But, then again, just as I can establish that my mind is different from my spirit and body, I will look in the mirror and say, "nope" it is just one Ken. Then again, as I leave my body, I would then say, "Nope, there are two of us and I'm going to go receive that other part of me, my new body".

To be honest, I've never heard it said that we should not equate "the Word" with "Jesus." Maybe it would help me if you could go into this in a bit more detail. It's just a new concept to me and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. John 1:14 says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." I believe that Jesus was God "in the beginning" but that He was distinct from His Father as all sons are distinct from their fathers. In other words, as John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How could both underlined words (i.e "with" and "was") be true unless Jesus was divine but distinct from His Father?

It also sounds like you're saying that Jesus was "fully man" while living as a mortal man, but was not in any way "God." That would be the case if He no longer had any of those attributes we hold be be the attributes of "God." Do you believe He lived a perfect life, or that He was flawed, and sinned from time to time? I don't believe any mere human (i.e. someone without godly attributes) could be said to be perfect, and I do believe Jesus is perfect. I've heard Christians describe Jesus as "fully man and fully God." I can sort of go along with that, but the LDS way of putting it would be to say that from His Father, Jesus inherited that part of Him which was divine, and that from His mother, He inherited those things than made Him mortal. In other words, because He was mortal, He was subject to death; because He was divine, He had the power within Him to take up His own life again three days after He'd died.

But he was born of a woman, a human being. And from her He inherited all of the attributes that human beings have. As I see it, it's because He was also the Son of God that He was able to rise above temptation.

I will take this up in another post after this one.

I don't really want to get into this on this particular thread except just to point out one thing that kind of makes the question of Adam's immortality a bit ambiguous.

Agreed... if we tackle too many subjects, we will loose out on the purpose

Yes, but the words "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably in the scriptures, and never are they actually defined. I see the spirit as being the breath of life, i.e. the essence that gives us life. I see the soul as the entity that results when a spirit enters into a mortal body. Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In other words, without the spirit giving the body life, the body is merely an empty shell. Infused with spirit, it becomes a "living soul." Would you mind explaining what you believe the difference between the words "spirit" and "soul" to be. (I suspect we can safely say that we agree on what a "body" is. )

Yes... there is truth here and, yes, we agree about the body. In English soul and spirit are sometimes used interchangeably but in the original Greek or Hebrew they are different words. The word "heart" can also sometimes be "soul" and sometimes "spirit" and sometimes it is actually both depending on context.

But as you noted, they are different. (although we agree in so many other aspects.)

As you said, the spirit, is God's life force - the breath of life. I would say that it is what makes us eternal. It separates us from the animal world. Our soul is our mind, will and emotions that gives us our individuality - we get the word Psychology from this word

But what is the body without the spirit? Is it still a living soul? No. It's a dead piece of flesh.

True...

We agree with this, but won't we be receiving a new body and ultimately we still will be a tri-une being? They body dies because it is made of the ground which was cursed by the actions of Adam and Eve - but until the ground was cursed, it was an eternal body.

Well, I totally agree with everything John 1:1 says (as I've already said). I'm not so sure, though, that we agree on what the verse actually means.

OK. I understand the difference in viewpoints.

But if the Holy Spirit is "God's Spirit," then how are there three parts of the Trinity? If you believe that God the Father is a spirit and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit, then you have two divine spirits and one divine, immortal, resurrected man. The Trinity would need to have three parts and it sounds like you're just saying that the Holy Spirit isn't separate from God's sprit (I'm referring to God the Father here), but is itself God's spirit. If God the Father is solely spirit and if the Holy Ghost is God's spirit, then you're just saying that the Holy Spirit is another way of referring to God instead of being a separate personage in the Trinity.

Again, as a finite mind, my best understanding and comparison is the oneness between my soul and my spirit. So intertwined as to be one heart and yet two separate portions of that heart.

If anything, my point is simply that there are grounds that one can believe that, like man, God is a tri-part being. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm right or, for that matter, I'm wrong. I simply am saying that for many Christians, it isn't hard for them to believe.



LOL WOW! this can go deep, can't it? Father, don't forget to sign me up for "Christianity 101" when I get to Heaven and set us all straight!

 

[MJFlores]

ALTHOUGH Catholics and Protestants believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but they insist that they are monotheist or adhering to the belief that there is only one true God. However, can they justify that ONE (God the Father) and One (God the Son) and One (God the Holy Spirit) is One? How can a person be a believer of one true God if he believes that the Father is God, the Son is also God and the Holy Spirit is also another God?

Actually, Catholic priests testify that the Trinity “cannot be proved by reason…” (Bounth, C. J., S.J. The Blessed Trinity. London: Catholic Truth Society, p. 21.). The reason why Catholic authorities admit that no one will undestand the doctrine of the Trinity even their greatest theologian:

“We are dealing a mystery of faith: no one, not even the greatest theologian, can hope in this life to really understand it. At best, there will merely be varying degrees of ignorance.” (I Trese, Leo J. The Faith Explained. Nihil Obstat: Louis J. Putz, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame. Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. Bishop of Fort Wayne, Notre Dame, Indiana. USA: Fides Publishers Inc.,1969, p. 29.)

Catholic authorities further admit that no one, not even the greatest theologian, can understand the doctrine of the Trinity because it's an absurdity:

“God, of course, cannot perform an absurdity, a contradiction in terms. He cannot, for instance, make two and two equal five.” (Walsh, John. This is Catholicism. New York: Image Book, 1959, p. 25)

Trinity Is an absurdity according to Catholic authorities themselves. Absurdity means “the quality or state of being ridiculous or wildly unreasonable.” How confusing, unreasonable and ridiculous is the doctrine of the Trinity? A Catholic authority said:

“…when we try to think of God as Three Persons possessing one and the same nature, WE FIND OURSELVES BATTING OUR HEAD AGAINST THE CEILING.” [Trese, Leo J. The Faith Explained. Nihil Obstat: Louis J. Putz, C.S.C., University of Notre Dame. Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. Bishop of Fort Wayne, Notre Dame, Indiana. USA: Fides Publishers Inc.,1969, pp. 25-26.]

Because Trinity is an absurdity, unreasonable, ridiculous and very confusing, Catholic authorities admit that that God would never make up an absurdity such as the so-called Trinity:

“God, of course, cannot perform an absurdity, a contradiction in terms. He cannot, for instance, make two and two equal five.” (Walsh, John. This is Catholicism. New York: Image Book, 1959, p. 25)

If two and two equal five is an absurdity, says Walsh, thus one plus one plus one equal one is no better than this. If God cannot perform an absurdity, according to this Catholic priest, then God would never make up an absurdity such as the so-called Trinity. Indeed, the Lord God Himself declared that He is one true God and no one else besides Him:

“Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.'” (Isaiah 44:8 NKJV)

According to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Father alone is the one true God:

“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: ‘Father…And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God...” (John 17:1,3 NKJV)

THUS, Trinity is an absurdity because it is unbiblical, not the doctrine of the Bible, not the truth about God, but rather contradicts the teaching of the Holy Scriptures that the Father alone is the one true God.

 

[Kenny]

To be honest, I've never heard it said that we should not equate "the Word" with "Jesus." Maybe it would help me if you could go into this in a bit more detail. It's just a new concept to me and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. John 1:14 says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." I believe that Jesus was God "in the beginning" but that He was distinct from His Father as all sons are distinct from their fathers. In other words, as John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How could both underlined words (i.e "with" and "was") be true unless Jesus was divine but distinct from His Father?

It also sounds like you're saying that Jesus was "fully man" while living as a mortal man, but was not in any way "God." That would be the case if He no longer had any of those attributes we hold be be the attributes of "God." Do you believe He lived a perfect life, or that He was flawed, and sinned from time to time? I don't believe any mere human (i.e. someone without godly attributes) could be said to be perfect, and I do believe Jesus is perfect. I've heard Christians describe Jesus as "fully man and fully God." I can sort of go along with that, but the LDS way of putting it would be to say that from His Father, Jesus inherited that part of Him which was divine, and that from His mother, He inherited those things than made Him mortal. In other words, because He was mortal, He was subject to death; because He was divine, He had the power within Him to take up His own life again three days after He'd died.

Yes, fully God and fully man. Man in that he was able to be tempted (but never succumbed to the temptation). Man in that he no longer had the glory that wan his from before, nor did he have the power that he had before. Thus the need for the Holy Spirit and the direction from God and "I can do nothing of myself". He took the place of man and became the second Adam to get back the authority that the first Adam gave to Satan.

He had to be born of a woman because it was the legal entrance to exercise authority in this world (Only the thief come through a wrong door) John 10:1 but the body was formed in the womb Hebrews 10:5 and The Word came into the womb and breathed the life into it.

Of course, as a Godhead (Tri-part God) believer, The Word was God... and didn't inherit the divine. He was the divine and thus "was God".

So as if to say, In the beginning was soul, the soul was with me and the soul was me. As I could also say, in the banning was my spirit, my spirit was with me and my spirit was me. Yet "me" comprises of more than just one part.

As I said before, the spirit and soul are different yet completely one. Each part with a different function yet each dependent on the other.

But he was born of a woman, a human being. And from her He inherited all of the attributes that human beings have. As I see it, it's because He was also the Son of God that He was able to rise above temptation.

I would say that because he was able to rise above temptation he was the Son of God. Because we also are sons of God but have not risen above temptation.

As I understand it (wow, that would be a totally different thread) - he actually became "the Son of God" when he resurrected. The first born of many brethren.

It would be as complicated as "I am part of the blood and body of Christ". Say... whaaaaat?

 

[BilliardsBall]

If that is your opinion, you must be a very good bible miner indeed.
I am now 85 years old and have never yet been shown chapter and verse showing the Trinity in the Bible.

In early Christian society to be a heretic was to be on the losing side. it was rarely a measure of Biblical doctrine. The council at Nicaea came to a majority decision. The losing bishops were declared to be heretics and persecuted.

Are you unaware of the other heresies the early councils rebuked, besides anti-trinitarian doctrine? For example, the Arians, who said "sin is only of the body, not the soul, so fornicate"? Is it okay if even the early Roman Catholic councils, despite the often-heretical nature of Roman Catholicism, stood up and said, "most Christians believe in a trinity, let's read the scriptures together to see"?

In takes Bible mining and 85 years of experience to see the trinity? At Jesus's baptism, the Spirit, Father and Son were all present and accounted for simultaneously.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My first thought in response to this statement is this: Why were the Creeds necessary in the first place? If they merely reaffirmed what the Bible already clearly stated, then they really didn't serve any need at all. If they added to what the Bible had already said, then what evidence is there that what they added was, in fact, true? Did the Bible really fall short of explaining the nature of God to such an extent that mere human beings had to come up with either a summary or an addendum?

1) There were severe heresies out there at the time, like the Arians, who said sin is of the body, not the soul, so fornicate.

2) There are severe heresies out there all the time, so that both LDS and other churches have posted statements of faith in papers and websites, so people know what they believe

3) There was an additional need in early times, when people had to travel far to cohere, the bishops of the time had been corresponding and asked to form councils to make affirmations

4) If the Bible "really falls short of explaining the nature of God to such an extent that mere human beings had to come up with either a summary or an addendum" why do I read the Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price to better understand Bible doctrine?