Who's Coming To Dinner?

[Paul Ray]

un-uh. NO! It isnt true. Just he opposite of what you claim is. Now go eat your puffs of the coaco variety.

Yummmmm... Cocoa Puffs.

I can smell them, and I'm not even near them.

What do I have to do to get some Cocoa Puffs?

Do you have any to spare?

[John Williams]

The really interesting part of this exchange is that you don't even seem to grasp the irony of what you've just stated. The very notion of the "trinity" is "definitionally impossible." That's been Juliann's whole point.

C.I.

If that's been her point, she's been wrong. The mistake people make is in assuming that, because the Trinity doesn't make sense to them, it doesn't make sense for anyone.

[soren]

Try a different paradigm.

All of us are human beings, and in a sense, there is only one being that is known as human being.

Some people seem to like to think in terms of us being a mixture of different races, but in essence, we are all the same being, even though we exist as separate persons.

Bear in mind that we were all created in the image of God, male and female... like them.

We are all of the same species as our Father, and our Lord, even though they are more perfect than us.

... for now.

I hope most of us will all be one with them, someday.

This is an impossible interpretation because it require us to interpret I AM as discriptive or qualitative, whereas I AM is a proper name that identifies God as an individual. The whole point of a name is to distinguish one from all others. If everybody were named Soren, my name would not identify me and further specification would be needed. That I AM identifies God in such a way that by taking this name He dintinguishes Himself from all others means that it belongs to Him uniquely. If your interpretation were true, I AM would be a poor answer for Moses to give to those who asked him which God he represented.

Part of not taking I AM's name vain is not giving it to anyone else.

[Paul Ray]

This is an impossible interpretation because it require us to interpret I AM as discriptive or qualitative, whereas I AM is a proper name that identifies God as an individual. The whole point of a name is to distinguish one from all others. If everybody were named Soren, my name would not identify me and further specification would be needed. That I AM identifies God in such a way that by taking this name He dintinguishes Himself from all others means that it belongs to Him uniquely. If your interpretation were true, I AM would be a poor answer for Moses to give to those who asked him which God he represented.

Part of not taking I AM's name vain is not giving it to anyone else.

As you stated, a name is simply a way to state and/or distinguish who we are, indvidually.

I am me, and you are you, regardless of what your name is.

Try thinking of Moses asking God who he was, and God simply saying: "I'm me"

Try thinking of Moses telling everyone who he saw, and heard from, while saying that the person who spoke to him said "I am me"

I think you don't understand the Truth portrayed in the scriptures, and you are missing the mark.

[cksalmon]

The really interesting part of this exchange is that you don't even seem to grasp the irony of what you've just stated. The very notion of the "trinity" is "definitionally impossible." That's been Juliann's whole point.

C.I.

That's not at all what I stated. You're conflating the Trinity with tritheism. I realize it is difficult sometimes, from a rhetorical standpoint, perhaps, to admit that trinitarians really aren't either tritheists or modalists, but until you and others grasp or at least admit those distinctions, no real conversation is possible.

Best.

CKS

[Paul Ray]

C.I.

I think they think they've got you because you are stating the Trinity is "definitionally impossible."

They have a definition for it, and in fact they have several.

What they don't have is a way to understand it... at least in any way more than we understand it.

The Trinity is incomprehensible by their own definition(s).

[John Williams]

C.I.

I think they think they've got you because you are stating the Trinity is "definitionally impossible."

They have a definition for it, and in fact they have several.

What they don't have is a way to understand it... at least in any way more than we understand it.

The Trinity is incomprehensible by their own definition(s).

I'm not a Trinitarian, but it's not particularly difficult to understand the concept. Nobody has "got" CI, but it's kind of odd to suggest that other people's beliefs make no sense simply because you can't figure them out.

[Paul Ray]

I'm not a Trinitarian, but it's not particularly difficult to understand the concept. Nobody has "got" CI, but it's kind of odd to suggest that other people's beliefs make no sense simply because you can't figure them out.

You seem to have missed what I was saying.

I said they did have a way to understand it, but not any more than we (LDS) understand it, and that by their own definition(s) the Trinity is incomprehensible.

I have no problems at all figuring them or their beliefs out.

I was once one of them, and I never resigned my membership.

I guess you could say that I am a Trinitarian Mormon.

... not that I expect you to say that, of course.

[Tanyan]

Awesome, another Trinity thread ! , and if you do not believe the Trinity your HELL BOUND ! .

Now which Trinity must one believe in ? , Monarch,Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Social, Modalistic/Sabellian, Trithiestic, or some other ? Oh thats right its the Biblical one !.

From my limited understanding - The 1 "What" = Nature = "Being", The 3 "Who's" = Person = Mask used by an actor in plays.

How many place settings at the table ?, Jesus and The Holy Ghost/Spirit ask permission of the Father to sit at the table since GOD THe Father is Jesus Christs and The Holy Spirits "GOD". . In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[cksalmon]

C.I.

I think they think they've got you because you are stating the Trinity is "definitionally impossible."

They have a definition for it, and in fact they have several.

What they don't have is a way to understand it... at least in any way more than we understand it.

The Trinity is incomprehensible by their own definition(s).

I have no interest in "getting" CI. I'm just defending a statement I made (as, I suppose, is incumbent upon me). I see no need to read my response to CI in an adversarial manner.

CKS

[Paul Ray]

Awesome, another Trinity thread ! , and if you do not believe the Trinity your HELL BOUND ! .

Now which Trinity must one believe in ? , Monarch,Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Social, Modalistic/Sabellian, Trithiestic, or some other ? Oh thats right its the Biblical one !.

From my limited understanding - The 1 "What" = Nature = "Being", The 3 "Who's" = Person = Mask used by an actor in plays.

How many place settings at the table ?, Jesus and The Holy Ghost/Spirit ask permission of the Father to sit at the table since GOD THe Father is Jesus Christs and The Holy Spirits "GOD". . In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Whoa! It looks like you have been eating your Wheaties.

... and that's a good thing. That's a good thing.

So tell me, again, how many persons were/are coming to dinner?

Were you thinking of only God, our Father, or were you including Jesus and the Holy Ghost/Spirit?

I guess it would help if somebody defined "God"

[cksalmon]

and if you do not believe the Trinity your HELL BOUND ! .

I assume this is not your position but rather a caricature of the traditional trinitarian's perspective.

I never made such a claim. I think you're the only person in the thread to have done so as of yet.

CKS

[Tanyan]

I assume this is not your position but rather a caricature of the traditional trinitarian's perspective.

I never made such a claim. I think you're the only person in the thread to have done so as of yet.

CKS

Line #1- That is True/Right

Line #2- I know that and did/do not accuse you of that. It is out of countless personal conversations and readings that I stated what I did.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[Confidential Informant]

This is an impossible interpretation because it require us to interpret I AM as discriptive or qualitative, whereas I AM is a proper name that identifies God as an individual. The whole point of a name is to distinguish one from all others. If everybody were named Soren, my name would not identify me and further specification would be needed. That I AM identifies God in such a way that by taking this name He dintinguishes Himself from all others means that it belongs to Him uniquely. If your interpretation were true, I AM would be a poor answer for Moses to give to those who asked him which God he represented.

Part of not taking I AM's name vain is not giving it to anyone else.

This explanation is simply silly. Try telling this to a Jewish scholar and he'll laugh you silly.

The fact is that the Trinitarian concept is not to be found in the bible. It is an extra biblical contruct and has no foundation in the OT or the NT. Jews accuse Christians of being polytheistic just as some Christians accuse Mormons of being. The LDS version of the Godhead fits quites nicely w/ the scriptures and doesn't require the twisting and bending of the trinitarian view.

C.I.

[cksalmon]

This explanation is simply silly. Try telling this to a Jewish scholar and he'll laugh you silly.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. But I fail to see how soren's statements would be laughed off as silly by (let us say, orthodox) Jewish scholars.

What is so silly? And which Jewish scholars find the notion that I AM was given by God to Moses as an individuating name silly?

CKS