Trinity, Trinity, Trinity.

[rhinomelon]

Last line "Still" Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism again !.

Unless the line says that the Father is the Son, then modalism is not really an option. I don't see it stating that. And johnny brings up a good point, in that this language is used both in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Is it to be considered "corrupting Greek philosophy" in those cases as well?

Take care

[Doctor Steuss]

Rhinomelon, my brother. Did you want me to leave this thread open for some of the stuff from your book, or should I go ahead and close it out now? I fear that it is teetering on the edge of becoming a debate.

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt,

With all due respect, you continue to cling to this verse of scripture. I have shown you, and I show you again, this verse is not translated correctly

Is the Book of Mormon translated correctly, Mosiah 15:1,2 says "God himself shall come down, he is called the Son of God " ...

Johnny,

If you don't believe me, then say so. Don't just continue to skirt the issue.

As for Mosiah, yes, it is correct. It also has nothing to do with the trinity, as you understand it.

Mosiah

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.  2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son

[T-Shirt]

Rhinomelon, my brother. Did you want me to leave this thread open for some of the stuff from your book, or should I go ahead and close it out now? I fear that it is teetering on the edge of becoming a debate.

My apologies. I think I contributed to the debate. Sorry, I will try to refrain.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

Rhinomelon, my brother. Did you want me to leave this thread open for some of the stuff from your book, or should I go ahead and close it out now? I fear that it is teetering on the edge of becoming a debate.

Oops, my apologies! Looking back, I think I may have gotten close as well. It's your thread, so you can do with it what you want. I would still like to post some thoughts from that book I mentioned, however, if it would be possible. And some good discussion may result (not saying that what has already transpired is not good discussion, mind you).

Unfortunately, work today did not cooperate with my desire to crack open a book over lunch. I actually had to work straight through my lunch break today. But at least I get to go home an hour early tomorrow!

Like I said, it's up to you. I'll probably have some thoughts posted tomorrow. Take care, all you guys, and thanks again for the great discussion. I actually see progress, which is always exciting, even when people don't end up agreeing!

[Doctor Steuss]

T-Shirt,

No worries (I

[johnny]

T-Shirt,

As for Mosiah, yes, it is correct.

If Mosiah is correct then is 1Tim 3:16 is correct ?... Mosiah says "God himself" ... 1Tim 3:16 says "God" ...

The God of Israel was Jehovah, or the pre-mortal Christ. So, King Benjamin's words were exactly right.

Christ is the Son of God and God (YHWH, Elohim) himself ... just like Mosiah reveals ... just like 1Tim 3:16 reveals ...

I don't see your point here. All this says is that there is God and Jesus, Jesus being our mediator. Is there something else I should be seeing?

The point is that their is one God.

The God that was manifest is not a second God.

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

Please don't turn this thread into a debate. Pretty, pretty please.

Sorry about that ... I will refrain from any more posts ...

[consiglieri]

This has been an interesting thread and I think Dr. Steuss is to be congratulated on the subject matter and monitoring the discussion.

But I have to confess a little secret, and it is purely a subjective feeling, so I apologize . . . after having read this entire thread, I am disturbed by the sneaking suspicion that this is all sort of being just made up.

I see a description of a centuries' long process of the Christian Church making God in its own image, and then an attempt to explain it today as the truth of what God has always been.

Please forgive my moments of doubt.

I think that the Trinity may be one of the best of many examples of attempts to make every scripture in the Bible harmonize with every other, with results that tend to be confusing. Another alternative is to view the Bible as many separate productions by many separate people at many separate times with many separate ways of seeing things and, yes, possibly even many separate beliefs regarding God. It is hard for me to swallow that every writer in the Bible secretly understood the concept of the Trinity, but that none of them wrote it down in its complete form, but just contributed their own little piece of the puzzle, only to be unraveled in all its complexity centuries after the last book of the Bible was written; and all the authors dead and gone so they couldn't take issue.

I hope nobody will think I am "dissing" the Trinity in this regard, because I think all concepts of God based solely on the Bible tend to suffer more or less from the same problem; at least within the Christian tradition. I just have this sneaking suspicion . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[rhinomelon]

Good thoughts, consiglieri, I can certainly understand why you'd think that way. A little bit later I hope to post some thoughts from the book I brought along with me, that may shed some light on your concerns, as well as address some other questions brought up in this thread. And I agree with you, that Doctor Steuss should be congratulated! Thanks!

[Doctor Steuss]

And I agree with you, that Doctor Steuss should be congratulated! Thanks!

Careful. I tend to become destructive after the receipt of praise.

Question though: What is the difference between the word

[Tanyan]

Tanyan,

Last line "Still" Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism again !.

Does the Book of Mormon "Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism"?

The Book of Mormon says ... It is God himself .. being the Father and the Son.

Mosiah

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son

[Tanyan]

Looks like the last 2 articles by David Ross Baron and Martin Tanner are not in the F.A.R.M.S data base perhaps someone can access + post them.

[Doctor Steuss]

Looks like the last 2 articles by David Ross Baron and Martin Tanner are not in the F.A.R.M.S data base perhaps someone can access + post them.

Are these the two you're after?

Ross David Baron -

[rhinomelon]

Question though: What is the difference between the word

[Tanyan]

Looks like the last 2 articles by David Ross Baron and Martin Tanner are not in the F.A.R.M.S data base perhaps someone can access + post them.

Are these the two you're after?

Ross David Baron -

[rhinomelon]

I would invite Johnny to read the articles referenced above by Martin Tanner, David Ross Baron, Barry Bickmore that respond to his accusation/polemic that the BoM teaches Modalism/Sabellianism. Still seeing, smelling, hearing/feeling modalism/sabellianism in his one GOD presentation. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan The LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

I think the point can be made that it is interpretation that matters in both the above cases. It is definitely possible to interpret certain BoM passages as modalistic (just as the above authors can interpret them differently). And I am still not seeing how you are getting modalism from johnny's earlier statement. Could you fill it out a bit more? Thanks!

Take care, everyone

[Doctor Steuss]

Hope that helps.

It does (I think). It

[rhinomelon]

Would this be an accurate summary?:

The Son

[T-Shirt]

Here's a short few paragraphs on the subject from a Catholic website that I think sums it up better than I could have:

As we encounter God in history, through his relation with and revelation to man, we see that God acts in three distinct Persons, though he is one unique and singular whole. This is the mystery of the Trinity. As the Son of God, Jesus takes part fully in this divine and hidden life of God. But we also know that God is not given to change or alteration; he is perfect in his nature. God is as he is throughout and apart from time. He is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit.

But we also see something else in God. He is not just one God in three divine Persons. These Persons also exist in relation to one another. In attempting to express this relationship of Father to Son within God we say that the Son is "begotten" of the Father. This is the way that Scripture refers to this divine relationship (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 as examples). When did this take place? Before creation, since, as John notes, the world was made through the Word [the Son]. Such an "action" on the part of God takes place outside of his creation, outside of time itself. It is not an "event" closed by time, but a way of being within God himself. That is why we say that the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father.

We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be." God is the cause of his own existence. So "begotten" here is not the same as "being born." That is why the Church, in the Nicene Creed, continues this way: "[The Son is] begotten, not made, one in being with the Father."

Emphasis mine. Think back to C.S. Lewis' analogy of the two books stacked on a table. In this instance, it would be like saying "eternally raised", in that the bottom book is eternally holding up the second book, giving it its position. But since they were stacked like that from eternity, it doesn't speak of a change in being or position (since they've been like that forever), but rather speaking of the relationship between the two.

Hope that helps. More later, when time finally permits.

Rhino,

Thank you for your efforts. But, again, with all due respect, this doesn't clear anything up at all. There is very little difference between, "to be born" and "causes to be". It makes no difference which one you use, they both convey a beginning.

C.S. Lewis, as much as I like him, doesn't help much either. If the book on top is dependant on the book underneath, then the book on top, logically, could not have always been there.

Again, this is a valiant, yet futile, attempt to explain something that cannot be explained. Scripture uses the word, "begotten" frequently, never is it used to mean something other than, "being born" or "having a beginning". This is the problem with the creeds and those who authored them. They have tried to take all the Biblical terms and force them to fit together to fit, what I believe, was a predetermined doctrine, which was already corrupt and non-Biblical in the first place.

I don't think it can be argued, that the trinity isn't a doctrine that was essentially force fed to the Church, beginning with the efforts of a Roman Emperor, in an attempt to achieve unanimity among all the believers.

Today, since this has been the doctrine that has essentially held up most of Christianity for nearly 1700 years, it becomes impossible for a mainstream Christian to move away from it, no matter how illogical it is.

LDS can be criticized till the cows come home, but no one can rightfully say that our doctrine concerning God, is not consistent with scripture. It certainly requires one to look at the scriptures through a different lens, but it is consistent, nonetheless.

Anecdotally, I can think of many people who converted to Mormonism, who felt so much peace and familiarity when they heard the LDS views on the nature of God. It generally resonates with people, whether they admit it or not.

Thanks for your thoughts.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

There is very little difference between, "to be born" and "causes to be". It makes no difference which one you use, they both convey a beginning.

In terms of human experience, yes, but one thing the early Christians (and Jews for that matter) were careful to avoid was overly attributing human experience to God. What other word do you think could be used to describe the relationship believed in by mainstream Christianity? Again, I think the limitations of our language and experience make getting to the bottom of issues like this quite difficult.

C.S. Lewis, as much as I like him, doesn't help much either. If the book on top is dependant on the book underneath, then the book on top, logically, could not have always been there.

Actually, the analogy explicitly assumes that the books have been in that relationship eternally. And logic does not dictate that the books could not have been in this position for eternity. It is not impossible, but it does fly in the face of our human experience, especially in the context of time.

Scripture uses the word, "begotten" frequently, never is it used to mean something other than, "being born" or "having a beginning".

True, which is why "begotten" is modified by "eternally", meaning that the Son always has his origin in the Father.

They have tried to take all the Biblical terms and force them to fit together to fit, what I believe, was a predetermined doctrine, which was already corrupt and non-Biblical in the first place.

After reading the early church fathers, this view does not make sense to me. After all, who would create such a complex view of God when a simple one would probably have made things easier? No, the better explanation is that the Trinity is a carefully considered and tested attempt to bring one view out of the complex data presented in the Bible, most specifically in the incarnation of Jesus.

I don't think it can be argued, that the trinity isn't a doctrine that was essentially force fed to the Church, beginning with the efforts of a Roman Emperor, in an attempt to achieve unanimity among all the believers.

Again I disagree, because the majority of the Church continued to believe in the Trinity even when political entities turned against them (like when Arians regained power after the Council of Nicea). And no one would dispute that it was a vast majority of the bishops in the Councils who supported the Trinity.

Anyway, I think I'm skating on thin ice again. More in a bit!

[Doctor Steuss]

Rhino,

When you have a chance, can you post some more info on how the Son having a body (at least now) falls into the whole relationship? I think I

[rhinomelon]

Some thoughts from the book (and I wish I could post more, but this book is simply chock full of them!).

First, some helpful hints from the chapter entitled "Thinking About God":

First, avoid the temptation to overly identify a model or analogy with what is being modeled. Many science teachers have used the analogy of billiard balls to paint a picture of the motion of air molecules, for example, but all their saying is that in certain respects the molecules behave as if they were billiard balls. Similarly, when we use a model for God, like shepherd or father, it must be taken to mean that in certain respects, God is like such and such. It will never be a direct one-to-one correlation. Some people unfortunately reject Christianity because they confuse the mental pictures or visual aids with the reality they are trying to describe.

Second, we should remember that complicated things may need more than one model to explain them. An excellent example would be light, in that to explain the behavior of light, two seemingly contradictory models had to be used, that of wave and particle. Each model illumines one area of the reality, and fails to clarify others too well. Water for the Trinity, for example, or time, or an egg.

Thirdly, sometimes people assume that something which is necessary for the model or analogy much also be true of what is being modelled. This is obviously not the case. Again the example of light can be used. In the mid-nineteenth century, light was treated as if it were a wave motion, like sound. This was a helpful model in some respects, but it led to incorrect conclusions when scientists assumed that as a wave, light needed a substance to pass through, just as sound did (as sound cannot pass through a vacuum). Thus, the term "ether" was coined, referring to the substance that fills outer space that the wave light could pass through. But later on it became clear that light needed no medium to travel through.

It is similar with models of God. The example Alister McGrath uses is the model of "father" for God. This model speaks of the way we are dependent on God for every aspect of our existence. But for every human child, there is a mother as well, which could imply that there is a heavenly mother as well. But this assumption rests upon the improper transfer of the logical necessity of the model (father) to what is being modelled (God).

So in these models, it is important to think about what it is not saying just as much as it is to reflect on what it is saying.

More in a bit. Seriously, this is a great book for people wanting to think like mainstream Christianity about God. Take care

[T-Shirt]

There is very little difference between, "to be born" and "causes to be". It makes no difference which one you use, they both convey a beginning.

What other word do you think could be used to describe the relationship believed in by mainstream Christianity?

The word is fine, I agree with the word. You seem to be making my point. The problem trinitarians have is making the word fit their doctrine, since the word is used in the Bible. But it doesn't fit, so they come up with a term like, "eternally begotten", which no one can make any sense of. It's like saying someone is retiredly employed, or deadly alive or he was so hot he froze to death.

Again, I think the limitations of our language and experience make getting to the bottom of issues like this quite difficult.

It has nothing to do with the limitations of our language, it's about trying to reconcile a perfectly good and logical word with an idea that the word does not mesh with.

C.S. Lewis, as much as I like him, doesn't help much either. If the book on top is dependant on the book underneath, then the book on top, logically, could not have always been there.

Actually, the analogy explicitly assumes that the books have been in that relationship eternally. And logic does not dictate that the books could not have been in this position for eternity. It is not impossible, but it does fly in the face of our human experience, especially in the context of time.

How does the top book owe its "causing to be" to the bottom book, if it always was? The analogy does not work with the word, "begotten", no matter how you look at it. Trinitarians could use several words that would work better, but they can't ignore the one that is so prominently in the Bible.

Scripture uses the word, "begotten" frequently, never is it used to mean something other than, "being born" or "having a beginning".

True, which is why "begotten" is modified by "eternally", meaning that the Son always has his origin in the Father.

If something has an origin, that means it originated, or began at some point. You can't eternally originate any more than you can be eternally begotten.

Anyway, I think I'm skating on thin ice again. More in a bit!

Me too But I think it is a good discussion.

T-Shirt

[Doctor Steuss]

Anyway, I think I'm skating on thin ice again. More in a bit!

Me too But I think it is a good discussion.

T-Shirt

Me three, but...

I would like to read more as I've enjoyed the exchange, but I have to puts me foot down and keep with my original intent.

I took the liberty (hope you don't mind) and started a new thread for your exchange to continue in:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=16808