Jump to content

God, Jesus, Holy Ghost.


jadams_4242

Recommended Posts

Luke:1-26-38...

{i didnt want to type the entire paragraph, so this is the gist of it}

And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,and bring forth a son,and shall call his name Jesus. He shall

be great,and shall be called the son of the highest: And the lord God shall give unto him the throne of his

father david:And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: and there shall be no end. the holy

Ghost shall come upon thee And the power of the highest shall overshadow thee.

Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

"Does this not clarify the separation of the three?"

:P

Link to comment

In the trinity, the separation of the three as Persons is not in question. They believe same as we do on that point. The problem is separation of Being and a trinitarian contraBiblically believes the Three are the same Being. It is not correct to think that when a trinitarian thinks Being (as it relates to the Godhead) that it is the same as say, a human being, so you must not be tempted to think that Being and Person is the same thing. Being in this case is a singular substance which the Three share and that makes them God.

Hebrews 1:1-3, however, clearly shows that the Persons of the Godhead have separate and distinct Beings which are copies and replica's of the other making them distinct (and subordinate) Gods as the early Christians testified along with the Bible.

Link to comment

I don't know if Being is the right word, technically.

The concept is that there are three persons who are one God, or even one God who is three persons. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of the same substancia (substance or essence). What the heck that means is as troubling to most Trinitarians as it is to you or me. It's a mystery that we're not expected to understand, but are expected to believe.

God in three persons, blessed trinity.

It would be grammatically correct, when speaking of the Trinity, to say "The Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a great God.

EDIT: BCSpace edited his post and clarified well his definition of Being before I responded. I endorse his definition as being accurate. (like my endorsement is worth anything! lol)

EDIT2: I might add that it is a common misconception among LDS and among the less educated mainstream Christians to think that the trinity is modalism. Modalism is the idea that one God appears in three different ways: At one point he's Jesus, at another he's the Holy Ghost. However, the Trinity teaches he is all three at the same time, although he is only one divine being.

Link to comment

I don't know if Being is the right word, technically.

The concept is that there are three persons who are one God, or even one God who is three persons. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are of the same substancia (substance or essence). What the heck that means is as troubling to most Trinitarians as it is to you or me. It's a mystery that we're not expected to understand, but are expected to believe.

God in three persons, blessed trinity.

It would be grammatically correct, when speaking of the Trinity, to say "The Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a great God.

EDIT: BCSpace edited his post and clarified well his definition of Being before I responded. I endorse his definition as being accurate. (like my endorsement is worth anything! lol)

EDIT2: I might add that it is a common misconception among LDS and among the less educated mainstream Christians to think that the trinity is modalism. Modalism is the idea that one God appears in three different ways: At one point he's Jesus, at another he's the Holy Ghost. However, the Trinity teaches he is all three at the same time, although he is only one divine being.

I wish someone could clarify and break down the arguement of excatly What they are talking about

by being one substance yet three beings? {persons}. They all three are out for the same end all, but they

couldnt possibly be one substance? one substance is one {1} thing or one {1} person?

:P

Link to comment
I wish someone could clarify and break down the arguement of excatly What they are talking about

by being one substance yet three beings? {persons}. They all three are out for the same end all, but they

couldnt possibly be one substance? one substance is one {1} thing or one {1} person?

The substance is God. Think of an egg. You have the Three Persons; shell, white, and yolk. Together they make up an egg (God). Without one of them, there is no God (egg). Ever hear of the trinity milkshake? We used to make it during zone meetings (crack that Holy Ghost!).

The abstract mechanics of the trinity hypothesis are of no ponderable value whatsoever. The main difference between us and them is in the Biblical plurality of Gods, the contrabiblical creation ex nihilo vs God was once a mortal man, etc.

Link to comment

In the words of numerous former investigators (referring to the Trinity), "That's the beauty of it, it's a mystery! You can't understand it!" It escapes me why not being able to comprehend something is beautiful. I suppose that itself is supposed to be beautiful!

DH

Link to comment

In the trinity, the separation of the three as Persons is not in question. They believe same as we do on that point. The problem is separation of Being and a trinitarian contraBiblically believes the Three are the same Being. It is not correct to think that when a trinitarian thinks Being (as it relates to the Godhead) that it is the same as say, a human being, so you must not be tempted to think that Being and Person is the same thing. Being in this case is a singular substance which the Three share and that makes them God.

Hebrews 1:1-3, however, clearly shows that the Persons of the Godhead have separate and distinct Beings which are copies and replica's of the other making them distinct (and subordinate) Gods as the early Christians testified along with the Bible.

EEEWWWWW! Sharing a single substance? Good gracious can't God, being the ultimate greatest and most powerful (onipotent) get His own substance? jk

Link to comment

"In the trinity, the separation of the three as Persons is not in question. They believe same as we do on that point. The problem is separation of Being and a trinitarian contraBiblically believes the Three are the same Being. It is not correct to think that when a trinitarian thinks Being (as it relates to the Godhead) that it is the same as say, a human being, so you must not be tempted to think that Being and Person is the same thing. Being in this case is a singular substance which the Three share and that makes them God."

I think I've never understood the trinitarian meaning of substance. Trinitarians believe the Father has no phisical body, and they believe Jesus has a literal phisical body. How can the Father and the Son being so diferent in this substanive way be the same?

edited to correct spelling errors

RT

Link to comment

No wonder Jesus said: "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight;" it is truly incomprehensible. Although I do not believe it was meant to be that way:

(John 17:3) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Link to comment

Luke:1-26-38...

{i didnt want to type the entire paragraph, so this is the gist of it}

And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,and bring forth a son,and shall call his name Jesus. He shall

be great,and shall be called the son of the highest: And the lord God shall give unto him the throne of his

father david:And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: and there shall be no end. the holy

Ghost shall come upon thee And the power of the highest shall overshadow thee.

Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

"Does this not clarify the separation of the three?"

:P

I would think so...many EV would tend to disagree, especially the Oneness folks.

John 17:20-22 just about nails it in my opinion...Christ calling out the Father in prayer. Was Christ praying to Himself?

:unsure:

Also when Christ calls out the Father's name while hanging on the cross...

But no...I was told during my mission by an EV pastor that Christ's body was calling out it's spirit...easily refuted a few verses later...and He gave up the ghost...

<_<

The emoticon above describes the pastors response to my question.

Link to comment

I would think so...many EV would tend to disagree, especially the Oneness folks.

John 17:20-22 just about nails it in my opinion...Christ calling out the Father in prayer. Was Christ praying to Himself?

<_<

Also when Christ calls out the Father's name while hanging on the cross...

But no...I was told during my mission by an EV pastor that Christ's body was calling out it's spirit...easily refuted a few verses later...and He gave up the ghost...

:P

The emoticon above describes the pastors response to my question.

Its a crazy world out there?

:unsure:

Link to comment

The substance is God. Think of an egg. You have the Three Persons; shell, white, and yolk. Together they make up an egg (God). Without one of them, there is no God (egg). Ever hear of the trinity milkshake? We used to make it during zone meetings (crack that Holy Ghost!).

The abstract mechanics of the trinity hypothesis are of no ponderable value whatsoever. The main difference between us and them is in the Biblical plurality of Gods, the contrabiblical creation ex nihilo vs God was once a mortal man, etc.

Then why do some argue so much in defense of something that makes no sense? {the substance issue}.

I know its crazy,you know its crazy, Why cannott others not see the totall incomprehensive side of it.

I would really like for an e,v or born again that beleives this stuff to explain the thinking?

:P

Link to comment
Then why do some argue so much in defense of something that makes no sense? {the substance issue}.

I know its crazy,you know its crazy, Why cannott others not see the totall incomprehensive side of it.

I would really like for an e,v or born again that beleives this stuff to explain the thinking?

"Substance" in basic philosophical jargon, may be compared to "nature", which doesn't have to be material. I think this is where you are getting confused. People debate all the time about natures that are not material things, but are nevertheless real. The nature of intelligence, or morality, or love, for example. The difference between these and God obviously being that God is a rational being, while these are just aspects of rational beings.

And I don't know that the Trinity is crazy. I think it makes beautiful sense, and I also think it makes perfect sense that I can't fully comprehend it. Heck, I don't know what's on the other side of black holes, so how could I hope to understand the Being that created them? I can know some of the basics, but fully comprehension? Not a chance.

No wonder Jesus said: "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight;" it is truly incomprehensible. Although I do not believe it was meant to be that way:

QUOTE

(John 17:3) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

So according to you, only when someone knows everything about God does he have eternal life? Better tell President Hinckley. He sounds like he's in trouble...

Also, I think you are making the common mistake of conflating the terms "unimaginable" and "inconceivable". You are thinking unimaginative, meaning that nothing in your experiences, that you've experience with your five senses, can really be applied to an eternal Being that is tri-personal in one nature. However, it can be conceived, which doesn't require visualizing or whatever; conceiving something requires reason. Obviously the Trinity can be conceived, since people have been conceiving it for 1700 years.

EEEWWWWW! Sharing a single substance? Good gracious can't God, being the ultimate greatest and most powerful (onipotent) get His own substance? jk

While it is a joke, it actually is a good question. The simple answer is yes, God has His own substance, and it is shared among three persons. It is an utterly unique nature, with no real parallel in all the rest of existence. Which is also why people can't come up with perfect analogies for the Trinity using created things. As C.S. Lewis put it, how could two-dimensional people really come up with analogies and pictures of a three-dimensional being?

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
If born agains truely cannott understand there own analogy

then why do they adimantly try to defend it so? What are you defending? What are you preaching?

what are you teaching? what are you living your lives for, What are you basing your salvation on,

On God whom you cannott even define, Or the holy Ghost whom you cannott define, If we dont even

know who the holy Ghost is, then how do we know how to have him in our life.

The doctrine can be understood, but not fully comprehended. I don't know why this is so hard for you, seeing as how there are similar doctrines in your own religion. You understand the basic idea, but knowing everything about it? Good luck!

And as you continue, it seems that now you are claiming ignorance on more and more. Why are you assuming that for mainstream Christians, being unable to completely and fully understand the inner life and being of an eternal Being automatically means we have complete ignorance about it? Where would you ever get the idea that we "don't know who the Holy Ghost is"?

I'm sure you've seen the simple definition of the Trinity: "one God in three Persons". That is a basic definition.

As far as basing our salvation, and living our lives, we worship this God because of what He has done for us, through Christ and the church, and in our own lives. Do you honestly believe that you must completely understand someone before you can have a relationship with them? If you are married, do you completely understand your spouse? Do you know everything about how all the parts of their body work? Do you know how their brain works to make them the person they are (if you do, go tell some scientists, they've been trying to figure that one out for centuries)? My point should be clear by now. You can't even completely know another human being, someone on our level! You can't begin to understand the workings of that spongy organ in their head, which somehow is the fount of all intelligence and personality. So why in the world would you assume that you can know everything about Who or What God is? Or to put it conversely, why would you ever assume that only when you know everything about God is it possible to have a relationship with Him?

I do not believe you are really trying to understand. You are trying to muddy the waters even more, so as to have just one more excuse to be LDS as opposed to mainstream Christian. Your approach seems based on the maxim, "If I can't understand it, it must not be true!" Obviously this is a horrible approach to knowing anything.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

"Substance" in basic philosophical jargon, may be compared to "nature", which doesn't have to be material. I think this is where you are getting confused. People debate all the time about natures that are not material things, but are nevertheless real. The nature of intelligence, or morality, or love, for example. The difference between these and God obviously being that God is a rational being, while these are just aspects of rational beings.

And I don't know that the Trinity is crazy. I think it makes beautiful sense, and I also think it makes perfect sense that I can't fully comprehend it. Heck, I don't know what's on the other side of black holes, so how could I hope to understand the Being that created them? I can know some of the basics, but fully comprehension? Not a chance.

So according to you, only when someone knows everything about God does he have eternal life? Better tell President Hinckley. He sounds like he's in trouble...

Also, I think you are making the common mistake of conflating the terms "unimaginable" and "inconceivable". You are thinking unimaginative, meaning that nothing in your experiences, that you've experience with your five senses, can really be applied to an eternal Being that is tri-personal in one nature. However, it can be conceived, which doesn't require visualizing or whatever; conceiving something requires reason. Obviously the Trinity can be conceived, since people have been conceiving it for 1700 years.

While it is a joke, it actually is a good question. The simple answer is yes, God has His own substance, and it is shared among three persons. It is an utterly unique nature, with no real parallel in all the rest of existence. Which is also why people can't come up with perfect analogies for the Trinity using created things. As C.S. Lewis put it, how could two-dimensional people really come up with analogies and pictures of a three-dimensional being?

Take care, everyone :P

I don't think you need to worry about President Hinckley, however to get to your point, yes you must "know God" in order to have eternal life. Why do you think Jesus made that statement? If God is unknowable in the finite sense (because it is true there are many things we cannot comprehend in this mortal life but the fact that the Father and the Son are seperate individual beings is not one of them.) I think there is a reason why God wants us to address Him as our Father. If God (the Father) is unknowable, can not be seen, does not have a body, then how can He be greater than the Son? If we were created in His image and His likeness then how can He be some sort of "cosmic egg" that has no form or shape? If Jesus Christ is in the express image of His Father then how can that be if the Father does not have a form or shape of His own. Moreover what is our destiny? Will we ever "see" the Father or will He remain hidden to all eternity? As for C.S. Lewis (Love the Screwtape Letters) how are we "two dimentional"? Last I looked we are not in a Simpson cartoon...or are we? <_< (Thought I would throw in some humor to keep this lighter.) I think what you are getting at is how can we mere mortals conceive of an infinate being? Well as Paul said we do "see through a glass darkly" however I believe that God can reveal Himself, because He has in the past. I believe in the Godhead, consisting of the Father, His beloved Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I believe that these compose one Godhead or one God. However they each are individual like my father and I are individual but they are one in purpose and unity in their goal of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind. Each has a distinct role that the other could not do. God the Father is the father of our spirits this is something the Son or the Holy Ghost could not do. Jesus the Son is our redeemer who wrought out the infinite atonement--this was something the Father could not do or the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is the witness of the Father and the Son the one who sanctifies us making the atonement active in our lives, only the Holy Ghost could do this because He is a personage of spirit without a body--neither the Father or the Son could perform this mission. Of course I have barely scratched the surface of what each of these members of the Godhead do or their missions. But the point I was making was it was vital that they be seperate beings, but it is likewise vital they be one in unity, purpose, spirit and mission. The doctrine of the "trinity" is foreign to me and makes no sense, I see no beauty in it only confusion. I believe it entered the Church after the death of the apostles because of the philosophy that some of the church fathers were steep in, they tried to make the Church and its doctrines more popular with philosophers and scholars so that is why they came up with this "unknowable God" idea that has been adopted into mainstream christianity.
Link to comment
I don't think you need to worry about President Hinckley, however to get to your point, yes you must "know God" in order to have eternal life.

Okay, my first response got eaten by the computer. Take two!

To the above, I agree. One must know God in order to have eternal life. But as you later admit, this knowledge is not knowing everything about God, since you admit that there are things that LDS don't understand about their view of God either. You say that "believing that Father and Son are two separate beings" is a linchpin to knowing God for LDS. Likewise, mainstream Christians also have aspects of belief about God that must be held. But you agree that neither LDS nor mainstream Christians claim to understand God fully. So this whole "Since we can't completely comprehend the Trinity, it is therefore false" argument is thereby negated. It doesn't work, and so it should be discarded as an argument against the Trinity (especially since it is one of the most common arguments that LDS employ, and arguably the silliest).

I think there is a reason why God wants us to address Him as our Father. If God (the Father) is unknowable, can not be seen, does not have a body, then how can He be greater than the Son? If we were created in His image and His likeness then how can He be some sort of "cosmic egg" that has no form or shape? If Jesus Christ is in the express image of His Father then how can that be if the Father does not have a form or shape of His own. Moreover what is our destiny? Will we ever "see" the Father or will He remain hidden to all eternity?

All of these are good questions, but to answer all of them would go well beyond the scope of the conversation here. Perhaps another thread someday would be fun...

As for C.S. Lewis (Love the Screwtape Letters) how are we "two dimentional"? Last I looked we are not in a Simpson cartoon...or are we? (Thought I would throw in some humor to keep this lighter.) I think what you are getting at is how can we mere mortals conceive of an infinate being? Well as Paul said we do "see through a glass darkly" however I believe that God can reveal Himself, because He has in the past. I believe in the Godhead, consisting of the Father, His beloved Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Lewis was creating an analogy, and analogies should never be confused with the thing they are describing. This is another common LDS mistake when trying to understand the Trinity. They take an analogy meant to describe one aspect of the doctrine, and then try to make it all line up in a one-to-one correspondence. Your "cosmic egg" comment, for example. Analogies are never exactly like the things they describe; otherwise they would be the thing itself, which defeats the purpose of the analogy!

Lewis' analogy was describing how impossible it is for time-bound, finite, embodied human beings to fully understand and imagine the existence and life of a timeless, infinite, spiritual being. Since we have never experienced this kind of existence (much like two-dimensional people have never experienced a third dimension), our imaginations won't help us much here. We can, however, think about it rationally, without trying to visualize everything. For a more modern example, scientists have basically settled on the idea that our universe does not contain only three or four dimensions, but more, along the lines of eleven or sixteen dimensions. I can't visualize that, and neither can these scientists, but they can understand it logically and rationally through proofs and mathematics. So being unable to imagine or visualize something is likewise not a valid argument against something be true.

More in a second. Want to post this before my computer gets hungry again...

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
However they each are individual like my father and I are individual but they are one in purpose and unity in their goal of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind. Each has a distinct role that the other could not do. God the Father is the father of our spirits this is something the Son or the Holy Ghost could not do. Jesus the Son is our redeemer who wrought out the infinite atonement--this was something the Father could not do or the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is the witness of the Father and the Son the one who sanctifies us making the atonement active in our lives, only the Holy Ghost could do this because He is a personage of spirit without a body--neither the Father or the Son could perform this mission. Of course I have barely scratched the surface of what each of these members of the Godhead do or their missions. But the point I was making was it was vital that they be seperate beings, but it is likewise vital they be one in unity, purpose, spirit and mission.

I agree with much of what you say above. The different roles of the persons in the Godhead, for example. Mainstream Christianity absolutely believes these as well. We simply see no reason to suppose that having different roles automatically excludes the possibility of the three Persons sharing one nature. In Trinitarian thought, the roles you describe fall under the "economic" aspects of the Trinity, i.e. how God works in creation, in people, in salvation. The other side of that is the "immanent" part of the Trinity, i.e. what God is like in and of Himself, distinct from what He does. It's a distinction between what God does, and Who God is. Again, in terms of our human experience (our "two-dimensional" experience), three roles means three separate beings. But through the revelations given to us in Scripture, we see that there is something beyond our experience at work in God's inner life. It's three-dimensional, as opposed to our two dimensions of existence and experience.

The doctrine of the "trinity" is foreign to me and makes no sense, I see no beauty in it only confusion. I believe it entered the Church after the death of the apostles because of the philosophy that some of the church fathers were steep in, they tried to make the Church and its doctrines more popular with philosophers and scholars so that is why they came up with this "unknowable God" idea that has been adopted into mainstream christianity.

The fact that the Trinity doesn't make sense to you, or that it confuses you, says nothing about whether it's true or not (as I'm sure you would agree). And again, simply because God cannot be fully understood or known in the sense of what He is like, and what His existence is like, is not an argument against the Trinity. You admitted that there were things about God in LDS thought that were mysterious and unknowable, and yet I wouldn't use that fact to argue that your belief is false. That argument is simply invalid, and says much more about the limitations of our own minds and existence than it ever does about the nature of God.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...