Maimonides on the Trinity

[volgadon]

As the topic of the Trinity is brought up quite often, especially when attacking us 'polytheistic Mormons', I thought it would be refreshing to see how a 'fierce monotheist' and gifted philosopher reacted to a teaching so central to mainstream Christianity.

A useful resource to have.

I think I'll get around to posting more things on the Trinity like this.

http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2010/05/maimonides-on-trinity.html

It is not rare that a person aims to expound the intent of some conclusions clearly and explicitly, makes an effort to reject doubts and eliminate far-fetched interpretations, and yet the unbalanced will draw the reverse judgment of the conclusion he sought to clarify. Some such thing occured even to one of God's declarations. When the chief of the prophets wished by order of God to teach us that He is One, without associates, and to remove from our hearts those wrong doctrines that the Dualists propound, he proclaimed this fundamental: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone [Deut. 6:4]. But the Christians utilized this verse to prove that God is one of three, teaching that Lord, our God, the Lord makes three names, all followed by one, which indicates that they are three and that the three are one. Far be God from what they say in their ignorance. If this is what happened to God's proclamation, it is much more likely and to be expected to happen to statements by humans.

-Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam or Maimonides, in his The Essay on Resurrection, trans. Abraham Halkin in The Epistles of Maimonides: crisis and leadership.

It is no exaggeration to state that the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon), or Maimonides as he is commonly reffered to in English, is one of the major figures in Jewish history, culture and thought. One of the foremost physicians and philosophers of his day, his fame spread worldwide, and he was held in great esteem even by Christians and Muslims. When facing severe tribulations, Jewish communities as distant as Morocco and Yemen sought his help and advice. As he was court physician to the Ayyubids in Cairo, with his strong political connections the Rambam could also play a vital role in his community's life, and did.

The Rambam wrote many commentaries on the Torah and the Mishnah, that codification of the Halacha, or Jewish oral law, and explained the reasons (or ta'amei hamitzvot) for the 613 commandments of the Torah on rational, philosophical grounds. His thirteen articles of faith were adopted by all Jewish communities, indeed, the 12th of them- professing complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, even were he to tarry- has become a symbol of the unbreakable Jewish spirit, being on the lips of many Treblinka inmates marching to the gas chambers.

The Rambam's lifelong work, however was that of an educator. He seeks to draw the people away from ignorance and idolatry (the two, for him, are inseparably linked) and towards the true intent of the law- knowing God.

This for him is love, an exalted, all-consuming intellectual love, as is made clear from the following two selections.

For we live in a material world and the only pleasure we can comprehend must be material. But the delights of the spirit are everlasting and uninterrupted, and there is no resemblance in any possible way between spiritual and bodily enjoyments.

We are not sanctioned either by the Torah or by the divine philosophers to assert that the angels, the stars, and the spheres enjoy no delights. In truth they have exceeding great delight in respect of what they comprehend of the Creator (glorified be He!). This to them is an everlasting felicity without a break. They have no bodily pleasures, neither do they comprehend them, because they have no senses like ours, enabling them to have our sense experiences.

And likewise it will be with us too. When after death the worthy from among us will reach that exalted stage he will experience no bodily pleasures neither will he have any wish for them, any more than would a king of sovereign power wish to divest himself of his imperial sway and return to his boyhood's games with a ball in the street, although at one time he would without doubt have set a higher worth upon a game with a ball than on kingly dominion, such being the case only when his years were few and he was totally ignorant of of the real significance of either pursuit, just as we today rank the delights of the body above those of the soul.

-Introduction to Perek Helek, trans. Joshua Abelson, in "Maimonides on the Jewish Creed," Jewish Quarterly Revie 19(1906-07):38.

This chapter discusses serving God out of love and fear, how to teach Torah to children and ignoramuses, and those who study Torah solely for the sake of it.

1) One should not think to oneself that one will fulfil the commandments of the Torah and occupy oneself in its wisdom in order to receive the blessings mentioned therein, or to merit life in the World To Come, and to avoid the transgressions against which the Torah warns in order to be saved from the curses mentioned therein, or in order not to be cut off from life in the World To Come, for it is not fitting to serve God in this manner. Anyone who does serve in this manner is doing so out of fear. This was not the [spiritual] level of the Prophets and Sages. Only ignoramuses, women and children serve in this manner, for they are educated to do so until their knowledge has increased sufficiently so that they will serve out of love.

2) Anyone who serves out of love and occupies himself with Torah and mitzvot and follows the ways of wisdom should not do so for any earthly reason or out of fear of the curses or to receive the blessings, but should fulfil the truth because it is the truth. Out of this he will receive goodness. This level is a very high one, and not every wise person attains it. This is the level of Abraham the Patriarch, whom God called His `friend', for the reason that he served God solely out of love. This is a level which God commanded, via Moses, us [to attain], as it is written, "And you shall love the Lord your God". Once a person loves God appropriately, he will fulfil the commandments out of love.

3) What is appropriate love? This is an extremely strong and profound love of God, so that one's soul is committed to the love of God and that one will be so preoccupied with it that one will appear to be lovesick, in which one's mind is perpetually occupied at all times with a particular woman. Apart from this, one's love of God has to be absolute and continuous, as we have been commanded: "...with all your heart and with all your soul"2. Solomon said by way of example, "For I am sick with love". The entire Song Of Songs is exemplary of this concept [of the love of God].

4) The first Sages said that to prevent us from [falling into the trap of] learning Torah in order to become rich or to be called a Rabbi or to be rewarded in the World To Come, the Torah says, "...to love the Lord your God", i.e. all that one does should be done purely out of love. The Sages said further that the verse, "Happy is the man who fears the Lord, who delights greatly in His commandments" refers to the commandments, and not to the reward. In this vein, the greater Sages commanded just their wiser students and told them not to be like a servant who serves his master solely for payment, but to be like a servant whose attitude is that because his master is the master it is fitting to serve him, i.e. to serve purely out of love.

5) Anyone who occupies himself with Torah in order to receive reward or to prevent any troubles is not doing so for the sake of it, whereas anyone who does so out of love for the Master of this world, and not with any ulterior motives, is doing so for the sake of it. The Sages said that one should always occupy oneself with Torah even if not for the sake of it, for out of doing so not for the sake of it one will come to doing so for the sake of it. Therefore, when one is teaching children, women and ignoramuses one should teach them to serve God out of fear and inn order to be rewarded. As their knowledge increases and they become more wise, we reveal this `secret' to them bit by bit and accustom them to this concept in repose until they totally understand it, and will serve out of love.

- Sefer Hamada', Hilchot Teshuva 10:1-5

(This translation is copyright © Immanuel M. O'Lvey, 1993. This translation may be distributed in any form (on disk, printed, etc.) provided that it is done so on a non-profit basis and that this copyright and conditions message is left attached. The text used for this translation was the Rambam Le'Am, published by Mossad Ha'Rav Kook, Jerusalem. Words in the text that are in square brackets do not appear in the Rambam's writings. British spelling has been used, and Sephardit pronunciation has been used for words and phrases that have been transliterated. Comments are welcome by email - imo@medphys.ucl.ac.uk.)

In chapter 1 of Maimonides' Empire of Light, Ralph Lerner describes the situation of the various Jewish communities in the Rambam's day. "Theirs is a time of physical and psychic distress, doctrinal and institutional controversy, and general perplexity. Repeatedly, the leaders or disputants in those far-flung communities turn to Maimonides. His writings that they have read and the reputation of works that they haven't seen convince them that he has the power to resolve their misgivings or confusion. They appeal to his learning, or rather to the authority he derives from his learning."

Indeed, there is hardly a more fitting description of the Rambam than the title of his most famous work, the Guide of the Perxplexed.

This philosophical treatise par excellence is directed towards those torn between the conflicting worlds of traditional Judaism as passed down by Moses through the sages on the one hand, and modern philosophy and science on the other. While one may seem incomprehensible as opposed to the logic of the other, the Rambam attempts to bridge the two. He showed that they were not implacable enemies to each other, but went hand-in-hand.

This work, written in Arabic, was translated by others into Hebrew and Latin, both during the Rambam's own lifetime. Its influence was huge, even on the development of Jewish mysticism, which seems at odds with much of the Rambam's own approach.

Rambam's style was terse. "If I could squeeze the entire Law of the Torah into one chapter, I would not write two for it." (from the essay on Resurrection).

This habit landed him in the midst of controversy.

Many had misinterpreted the statements in the Rambam's writings, and the rumours spread that he denied the reality of bodily resurrection. He paid them no heed, never being unduly perturbed by mere babblers, but when the Gaon, head of the Baghdad religious academy, and one the most significant figures of the Jewish diaspora, denounced him in writing for denying the resurrection, this could no longer be ignored. He had to respond, and respond he did through his Essay on the Resurrection.

The tone is perosnal. It is bitter, it is frustrated.

As David Hartman surmised in "Epistles of Maimonides", the "pettiness of the joy of resurrection relative to the joy of the world-to-come, i.e., the joy of intellectual love of God, was a major reason behind Maimonides' anger. Whereas his whole philosophy of Judaism centered around the lovesickness of one who strives after knowledge of God, he was now compelled to write a defense of the belief that God will miraculously restore our bodily existence so that we can enjoy the material pleasures of this world! ...The lover feels degraded when he is asked to discuss his relationship to his beloved in gross utalitarian terms.

The community's disproportionate interest in resurrection relative to more important aspects of his teachings on Judaism must have pained Maimonides deeply, for it was a sign that all that he had attempted to accomplish as a Jewish leader and educator might have failed."

The Rambam opens his essay by showing that if the very words of God, delivered by Moses, the greatest of all prophets, could have been misinterprated by the Christians, then it is no wonder that it happened to his own words by his fellow Jews.

I don't know what exactly the source for this argument using the Shema Israel was, whether maimonides encountered it directly through Christians, or idirectly via Muslim source, but Augustine, the source indicated by Halkin in his notes to this essay, is not making the same argument at all.

The divine generation, therefore, of our Lord, and his human dispensation, having both been thus systematically disposed and commended to faith, there is added to our Confession, with a view to the perfecting of the faith which we have regarding God, [the doctrine of] The Holy Spirit, who is not of a nature inferior to the Father and the Son, but, so to say, consubstantial and co-eternal: for this Trinity is one God, not to the effect that the Father is the same [Person] as the Son and the Holy Spirit, but to the effect that the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; and this Trinity is one God, according as it is written,

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for this- very thought provoking. And as one who is not at all acquainted with Jewish thought, it was very illuminating, and as you point out, a valuable resource against those who call us "polytheists" while yet professing Christianity themselves.

I know an uneducated but very wise member of the church with a strong testimony and many spiritual experiences whom I "corrected" once for "confusing" the Savior with God the Father. I said something like "So then there is a difference between the Father and the Son- there are TWO persons there and the third is the Holy Ghost"

He said "Not for me. When I talk to him, I talk to one person, and only he answers".

For all my "education" and study of the gospel, that shut me up really fast.

[volgadon]

Thanks for this- very thought provoking. And as one who is not at all acquainted with Jewish thought, it was very illuminating, and as you point out, a valuable resource against those who call us "polytheists" while yet professing Christianity themselves.

Maimonides is particularly suited for this, being both uncompromising monotheist and preeminent philosopher. If as great a thinker not only was unswayed by Trinitarian arguments but considered them the supreme example of misinterprating scriptures, well, that should give pause for thought.

I know an uneducated but very wise member of the church with a strong testimony and many spiritual experiences whom I "corrected" once for "confusing" the Savior with God the Father. I said something like "So then there is a difference between the Father and the Son- there are TWO persons there and the third is the Holy Ghost"

He said "Not for me. When I talk to him, I talk to one person, and only he answers".

For all my "education" and study of the gospel, that shut me up really fast.

Great story, thanks for sharing!

[zeezrom]

He said "Not for me. When I talk to him, I talk to one person, and only he answers".

A question that is brewing within me:

How is the Mormon concept of the godhead any less troublesome than the Christian concept of the trinity?

Forgive me. I do not have all the "education" and learning as others around here. We all profess to feel of God's love and influence that seems to be universal and can be in more than one heart at a time. This is answered to be the Holy Spirit. But is the Holy Spirit more powerful than God himself for being able to do this?

[volgadon]

A question that is brewing within me:

How is the Mormon concept of the godhead any less troublesome than the Christian concept of the trinity?

It isn't. My post is addressed to trinitarians who consider that their concept is not at all troublesome from a monotheistic POV.

[saemo]

I'm not understanding how it is that you think a Jew arguing against Christianity supports Mormonism.

At any rate, Justin Martyr addressed this argument in his dialogue with Trypho, c.130AD.

[LinuxGal]

How is the Mormon concept of the godhead any less troublesome than the Christian concept of the trinity?

When Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, it is clear that he was not asking himself for permission to evade the cross, and he was not deferring to his own will when he said, "Thy will be done." Jesus told the apostles that he was leaving them to go to the Father in order to send the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was the Father, why would he have to go somewhere to be with himself? If Jesus is the Spirit, why would he have to leave in order to send himself? Yet at the same time, Jesus said "The Father and I are one" and the gospel of John opens with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

[volgadon]

I'm not understanding how it is that you think a Jew arguing against Christianity supports Mormonism.

I'm not so much attempting to support 'Mormonism' as I am deflating the claims that the trinity is acceptable within a strictly monotheistic framework.

At any rate, Justin Martyr addressed this argument in his dialogue with Trypho, c.130AD.

Care to get more specific?

[Glenn101]

zeezrom, on 19 May 2010 - 08:55 AM, said:

How is the Mormon concept of the godhead any less troublesome than the Christian concept of the trinity?

When Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, it is clear that he was not asking himself for permission to evade the cross, and he was not deferring to his own will when he said, "Thy will be done." Jesus told the apostles that he was leaving them to go to the Father in order to send the Holy Spirit. If Jesus was the Father, why would he have to go somewhere to be with himself? If Jesus is the Spirit, why would he have to leave in order to send himself? Yet at the same time, Jesus said "The Father and I are one" and the gospel of John opens with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

This may clarify things just a bit:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Glenn

[zeezrom]

This may clarify things just a bit:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Glenn

Are you admitting you know all about the meaning of being one as they are? How can we comprehend this? Are we expected to?

[Thorkyll]

A question that is brewing within me:

How is the Mormon concept of the godhead any less troublesome than the Christian concept of the trinity?

Forgive me. I do not have all the "education" and learning as others around here. We all profess to feel of God's love and influence that seems to be universal and can be in more than one heart at a time. This is answered to be the Holy Spirit. But is the Holy Spirit more powerful than God himself for being able to do this?

Maimonides must be turning in his grave with bemusement at the prospect of polytheists using his words against another slightly less polytheistic religion. How about you learn from Maimonides and renounce your false belief in a divine council of gods?

[saemo]

Care to get more specific?

34 TRYPHO ASKS THAT CHRIST BE PROVED GOD, BUT WITHOUT METAPHOR. JUSTIN PROMISES TO DO SO.

And Trypho answered, "We shall remember this your exposition, if you strengthen[your solution of] this difficulty by other arguments: but now resume the discourse, and show us that the Spirit of prophecy admits another God sides the Maker of all things, taking care not to speak of the sun and moon, which, it is written, God has given to the nations to worship as gods; and oftentimes the prophets, employing this manner of speech, say that 'thy God is a God of gods, and a Lord of lords,' adding frequently, 'the great and strong and terrible[God].' For such expressions are used, not as if they really were gods, but because the Scripture is teaching us that the true God, who made all things, is Lord alone of those who are reputed gods and lords. And in order that the Holy Spirit may convince of this, He said by the holy David, 'The gods of the nations, reputed gods, are idols of demons, and not gods;' and He denounces a curse on those who worship themJust."

.....

Justin's response is lengthy. You can read it here. To show to Trypho that Jesus is God, from 35 on Justin goes through scriptural evidence from the OT. (He also addresses objections from Trypho that the Christian teaching of Jesus is a re-hash of existing pagan beliefs.)

[volgadon]

Maimonides must be turning in his grave with bemusement at the prospect of polytheists using his words against another slightly less polytheistic religion. How about you learn from Maimonides and renounce your false belief in a divine council of gods?

How about you actually start living your religion? Your self-righteous attitude is sickening considering that you aren't much of an active Jew.

Frankly, the Rambam was wrong about a great many things, I'm sure though he has accepted the truth upon learning it after death.

[volgadon]

34 TRYPHO ASKS THAT CHRIST BE PROVED GOD, BUT WITHOUT METAPHOR. JUSTIN PROMISES TO DO SO.

And Trypho answered, "We shall remember this your exposition, if you strengthen[your solution of] this difficulty by other arguments: but now resume the discourse, and show us that the Spirit of prophecy admits another God sides the Maker of all things, taking care not to speak of the sun and moon, which, it is written, God has given to the nations to worship as gods; and oftentimes the prophets, employing this manner of speech, say that 'thy God is a God of gods, and a Lord of lords,' adding frequently, 'the great and strong and terrible[God].' For such expressions are used, not as if they really were gods, but because the Scripture is teaching us that the true God, who made all things, is Lord alone of those who are reputed gods and lords. And in order that the Holy Spirit may convince of this, He said by the holy David, 'The gods of the nations, reputed gods, are idols of demons, and not gods;' and He denounces a curse on those who worship themJust."

.....

Justin's response is lengthy. You can read it here. To show to Trypho that Jesus is God, from 35 on Justin goes through scriptural evidence from the OT. (He also addresses objections from Trypho that the Christian teaching of Jesus is a re-hash of existing pagan beliefs.)

Where is this a defence of the trinity against the argument presented by Maimonides?

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon clearly teaches the unity of the Godhead in several places. My personal view is that the "unity of purpose" we espouse is made clearer when we see that purpose as "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" which I have characterized more than once as "raising the kids"

I see the Godhead as being in, using words we as humans can understand, a "family" structure. What brings the "unity" to the Godhead is not "substance" or "being" which makes no sense whatsoever- what makes the Godhead one is love. They are one as perfect parents bringing to pass unity with their children- that is their purpose in existence!

That is also why the scriptures say "God is love" because the Godhead literally IS love. The cementing factor that makes three persons one IS love. "God" = "Godhead" linguistically.

When we pray what we feel is that unified love- because we are unified with them IN that love when we seek their guidance. We in some small way become partially unified with them for that moment of revelation or prayer. THAT is what we feel.

I think it is quite simple really.

[zeezrom]

That is also why the scriptures say "God is love" because the Godhead literally IS love. The cementing factor that makes three persons one IS love. "God" = "Godhead" linguistically.

I think it is quite simple really.

No, it is not that simple. Saying God is love is very complex. The human mind cannot completely grasp this so we simplify it in our minds because we can only think of God as some reflection of ourselves and our experiences in some way.

By saying God is love, are you not doing what other theologians have done before by de-humanizing him and causing him to fill the universe?

[Thorkyll]

How about you actually start living your religion? Your self-righteous attitude is sickening considering that you aren't much of an active Jew.

Frankly, the Rambam was wrong about a great many things, I'm sure though he has accepted the truth upon learning it after death.

Nice try but I don't believe I've ever told you my ethnic or religious background. You're sure that after he died, Maimonides apostatized from the Jewish faith and became a Mormon? Oy vey!

Incidentally, I do think Mormons should at least read chapter one of his Guide for the Perplexed in which he explains anthropomorphisms which Mormons don't seem to understand (or else they wouldn't cite such references to support their hideous conclusion that God has a body).

[volgadon]

Nice try but I don't believe I've ever told you my ethnic or religious background. You're sure that after he died, Maimonides apostatized from the Jewish faith and became a Mormon? Oy vey!

You have said you were Jewish, aren't you? From bits and pieces you mentioned, such as no faith in organized religion, etc., it seems that you aren't terribly active. If I'm worng, please correct me. Anyway, why aren't you engaged in the kind of study Maimonides tried to promote?

Incidentally, I do think Mormons should at least read chapter one of his Guide for the Perplexed in which he explains anthropomorphisms which Mormons don't seem to understand (or else they wouldn't cite such references to support their hideous conclusion that God has a body).

And you should probably read Moshe Taku's Ketav Tamim, or actually, just read Chazal. Maimonides reinterpretated them according to his philosophical world view.

[saemo]

Where is this a defence of the trinity against the argument presented by Maimonides?

The entire dialogue with Trypho is Justin explaining that there is one God, while simultaneously explaining how both the Father and Son are GOD.

In his dialogue with Trypho, he begins very early by stating that there is one God and no other.

'"There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing" (I thus addressed him), "but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.'

Later, in 61, Justin explains how Jesus is God, begotten similar to how fire is begotten from fire.

'"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: 'If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death.' '

In 48, Trypho complains that what Justin is teaching about God Incarnate, is foolish.

'And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the[requirements] of God, but[ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin.'

[volgadon]

Saemo, it is highly debatable that this is the doctrine of the Trinity, and apart from that, how does that show that there is only one God?

1+1+1=3.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you admitting you know all about the meaning of being one as they are? How can we comprehend this? Are we expected to?

Do you think that the verse he quoted is telling us that we will all be one metaphsyical being? Remember we are to be one as Christ is one with the Father. We will share in teh same exact relationship. It does not matter if we "know all about the meaning of being one as they are". Just that we will be one as they are.

[saemo]

Saemo, it is highly debatable that this is the doctrine of the Trinity, and apart from that, how does that show that there is only one God?

1+1+1=3.

Only debatable if you choose to ignore what Justin Martyr is saying. (If you've even read it.)

I leave to you Justin Martyr's words:

"I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. "

In this statement alone, Justin Martyr teaches that the essence of the Father is not divided, the Father and Son are distinct, and the Son is not "made less".

[zeezrom]

Do you think that the verse he quoted is telling us that we will all be one metaphsyical being? Remember we are to be one as Christ is one with the Father. We will share in teh same exact relationship. It does not matter if we "know all about the meaning of being one as they are". Just that we will be one as they are.

No I'm not saying that.

As you say, it does not matter if we know all about it.

It comes down to whether or not I feel the need to believe that God is an exalted homosapien. I'm losing the ability to feel the need.....

And with that loss, I'm also feeling a sense of awe about things I don't fully understand. But it is hard to describe and I'm out of time.

[mfbukowski]

No, it is not that simple. Saying God is love is very complex. The human mind cannot completely grasp this so we simplify it in our minds because we can only think of God as some reflection of ourselves and our experiences in some way.

By saying God is love, are you not doing what other theologians have done before by de-humanizing him and causing him to fill the universe?

Not at all.

I didn't say "God is love"- the scriptures did.

It is a totally mainstream view of the Godhead with one understanding added. "Love" is what cements the Godhead into unity. The BOM is very clear that the three are one - as a "Godhead"

Same LDS view- unified in purpose- but that purpose is loving their children and helping them to bring to pass their immortality and eternal life

The idea that love makes us one says nothing about us not being individual beings. In fact, it takes at least two to "love" each other- it maintains separateness while describing a unity. That is what "love" is- two (or more) separate beings in communion with each other.

[mfbukowski]

Only debatable if you choose to ignore what Justin Martyr is saying. (If you've even read it.)

I leave to you Justin Martyr's words:

"I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. "

In this statement alone, Justin Martyr teaches that the essence of the Father is not divided, the Father and Son are distinct, and the Son is not "made less".

Not this again.

Let me get out my "Essence-o-Meter" and see if the essence is divided or not. Yep. Essence is divided. Justin is wrong.

I don't even know what "essence" means and neither does anyone else. Platonic nonsense.