Trinity

[Hughes]

From a different thread in the Social Hall

Pa Pa wrote -

Jesus was caught “unaware”…even though they share the same mind. Jesus came not “to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him”…Jesus ‘became” the “author of salvation”…Jesus “learned obedience through the things which he suffered”…Jesus “submitted” to the Father’s will though he did not want to suffer.

If the three are of one mind…big doctrinal problems. (which one would assume if they are "one God", meaning of "one mind"...all knowing.

In Mormonism, these are not problems, our doctrine addresses these matters.

The error, at least with this statement is thinking that the Trinity means that they all have the same mind or will. They do not.

Assuming that if they are "one God" that therefore they must be "one mind" is an error.

And no, these are not problems in Catholic/Protestant doctrines either.

[bjw]

IMHO, the Trinity is just a doctrinal issue that is used by some EVs to condemn people under a false standard. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that understanding the nature of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is a requirement for salvation. They try to lump us in with Gnostics, when this belief is actually closer to what Gnosticism teaches, in that having some esoteric knowledge entitles one to salvation.

When you read the New Testament and focus on Jesus' relationship to the Father, it is obvious that those that wrote the books of the NT knew nothing about the doctrine of the Trinity. That said, I do not see this as a major dividing point in theology. Even if LDS turn out to be wrong about it, I don't see how that could mean we are lost. Also, if we are right and they are wrong, this does not exclude them from a kingdom of glory.

Remember, Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

I see nothing in this passage about the Trinity, relationships with the Godhead, or any other doctrinal issue besides Jesus being Lord and raised from the dead by God. Anything else is merely an appendage to this for additional spiritual rewards, such as the LDS temple rituals, community service, works, doctrinal knowledge. However, adding anything else to this verse as a requirement for salvation is adding to the Gospel and is false.

[Franktalk]

I have been studying this of late. It seems that the word trinity was first used by Tertullian but he saw the three as a Monarchy where the Father was the head. He saw Jesus second and third was the Holy Ghost. By being a monarchy it could still be viewed as one God or three Gods. But scripture was clear that all power came from Father so the lessor Gods did the will of the Father. This was then changed over time and in the council of Nicea One God was declared. Of course the Holy Ghost was left out so He was added in the Council of Constantinople. All was well except for those who disagreed. It was pretty much accepted that the Nicene creed pretty much defined what to believe. But the RCC added a word later which did not sit well with many. But even in the creed it says that some things proceed from the Father yet nothing goes to the Father. So in essence they are not equal. But the modern take is all are equal and all are one. The Catholics have pretty much given up trying to define it and they say you just have to take it on faith.

[Hughes]

IMHO, the Trinity is just a doctrinal issue that is used by some EVs to condemn people under a false standard. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that understanding the nature of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is a requirement for salvation. They try to lump us in with Gnostics, when this belief is actually closer to what Gnosticism teaches, in that having some esoteric knowledge entitles one to salvation.

When you read the New Testament and focus on Jesus' relationship to the Father, it is obvious that those that wrote the books of the NT knew nothing about the doctrine of the Trinity. That said, I do not see this as a major dividing point in theology. Even if LDS turn out to be wrong about it, I don't see how that could mean we are lost. Also, if we are right and they are wrong, this does not exclude them from a kingdom of glory.

Remember, Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

I see nothing in this passage about the Trinity, relationships with the Godhead, or any other doctrinal issue besides Jesus being Lord and raised from the dead by God. Anything else is merely an appendage to this for additional spiritual rewards, such as the LDS temple rituals, community service, works, doctrinal knowledge. However, adding anything else to this verse as a requirement for salvation is adding to the Gospel and is false.

Salvation is a different topic, and is completely up to God. I never say that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't saved.

If I could, the importance of the Trinity rests on the importance of truth. For example, the doctrine of God, who he is, who Jesus is, etc. is vitally important.

Even Paul warned the Galatians about following the truth, "1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"

In essence, when we start with what seems like a small amount of error (Father, Son, HS are not equal), then it affects other aspects of our belief system. No longer do we trust in Christ alone, but in the works of man (baptism, ordinances of the church for example).

I have been studying this of late. It seems that the word trinity was first used by Tertullian but he saw the three as a Monarchy where the Father was the head. He saw Jesus second and third was the Holy Ghost. By being a monarchy it could still be viewed as one God or three Gods. But scripture was clear that all power came from Father so the lessor Gods did the will of the Father. This was then changed over time and in the council of Nicea One God was declared. Of course the Holy Ghost was left out so He was added in the Council of Constantinople. All was well except for those who disagreed. It was pretty much accepted that the Nicene creed pretty much defined what to believe. But the RCC added a word later which did not sit well with many. But even in the creed it says that some things proceed from the Father yet nothing goes to the Father. So in essence they are not equal. But the modern take is all are equal and all are one. The Catholics have pretty much given up trying to define it and they say you just have to take it on faith.

Given the establishment of the Jewish mindset of one God as a foundation, there never is any idea or even a possibility that there is more than one God in the NT. Rather, descriptions of the Son and the HS being equal to God, are descriptions of God's nature, not a plurality of deities.

[bjw]

Salvation is a different topic, and is completely up to God. I never say that someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity isn't saved.

I agree, but many, even some in my family, say that I am unsaved over this very doctrine. They put this idea above the Biblical view of the Godhead and then use it as a condition for salvation.

If I could, the importance of the Trinity rests on the importance of truth. For example, the doctrine of God, who he is, who Jesus is, etc. is vitally important.

Even Paul warned the Galatians about following the truth, "1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"

In essence, when we start with what seems like a small amount of error (Father, Son, HS are not equal), then it affects other aspects of our belief system. No longer do we trust in Christ alone, but in the works of man (baptism, ordinances of the church for example).

Anyone that uses this Galatians passage to attempt to condemn Mormons as living "another Gospel" need to examine their own belief system. Heresies like Lordship Salvation add far more to the Gospel than Mormonism does. Mormonism allows for any believer to receive a kingdom of glory regardless of ordinances performed, and even makes a provision for that by allowing proxy ordinances. The ordinances in Mormonism are for the purpose of exaltation, not salvation in the sense that protestants believe. Also, I don't see that Mormonism says the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not equal, just separate and distinct Personages as the Bible and other Standard Works teach.

Given the establishment of the Jewish mindset of one God as a foundation, there never is any idea or even a possibility that there is more than one God in the NT. Rather, descriptions of the Son and the HS being equal to God, are descriptions of God's nature, not a plurality of deities.

John 17 refutes this idea, as does other NT books. While they are equal, they are still separate Personages as indicated by the NT. Even I John 5:7 that is often used to support the Trinity starts out "For there are three that bear record in Heaven..." This must be interpreted with all other interactions between Jesus Christ and the Father in the NT, even in the book of Revelation the distinction is clear.

[SAVELLI]

I descend from a very old family that maybe for almost one thousand years took care of pagan religions in Italy and in Rome, as to have power over the society. They were the Sabelli people. When they saw the Christianism would become important as source of power and wealth in Rome Empire, they "converted" (baptized). Thus I visited in Rome a big church that suddenly was Sabelli's priest pagan religion in one week and in the next it had become Sabelli's priest Catholic religion: the same building and members. That according the person guiding me, a Savelli=Sabelli. They just made some changes in pagan gods becoming saints and Mary into Catholicism and all was OK... apostasy. And a lot of people with my surname (Sabelli and Savelli) became the Popes and Cardinals and other top authorities for so many centuries, in Rome... as I checked in Vatican.

But one Sabelli theologian was an interesting case, because he was from the early days of the Christianism religion in Rome and he was quite like "Muslim" in the believe that there is just "One God", the Father. Maybe we could say he was also quite like orthodox Jew. Thus he denied the possibility that Jesus and Holly God could be God. As result it was originated a lot of theological conflicts and wars. And it arose the clear teaching of "trinity" in the Catholic Church, and the idea is that there are 3 distinct Gods who are exactly the same God or quite like statements, in so long disputes.

I think the Sabelli, Roman theologian, was correct and was wrong. The problem was related to the way the ideas are presented. What is correct is Book of Mormon, in the very clear discussion about the subject. It is in Book of Alma, Chapter 11, when Amulek contends with Zeezrom.

Notice that the discussion is centered about the existence of a ( = "one") SUPREME BEING and not about many Gods, like the Father, the Son and Holly Ghost.

What was intended? Devil intended that such "existence" was denied, even through the use of BRIBERY.

This is why it is offered six onties of silver. They were offered just to DENY the "existence of a=one SUPREME BEING".

All the discussion, in the following text, is about such a = one SUPREME BEING, who is a = one God.

The SUPREME BEING is a "singular being": I AM WHAT I AM. Is previous to any other being (or would not be "supreme") and has no partners or companions. Is SUPREME. We know that Heavenly Father one day was a mortal man and "progressed" up to the perfection, to become a greatest God (clear speech of Joseph Smith). The same with Jesus. Thus they are not the Supreme Being, who is just "one".

But they are in the "Supreme Being" in such a way they are just "one" and also the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and also they are just "one": should they be "one meaning THE SAME?". No, they are distinct. We know that the Father is greater than the Son and thus the Son is not the "Greatest of all Gods" (as is in one Doctrine and Covenant: a clear mistake when typing, between God x "god = prophet = God's servant"...

Thus Jesus didn't die as the greatest of all "Gods" but as the greatest of all "gods". Exactly what Moses and other prophets foretold: that Jesus would live as the greatest of all "prophets = gods", so great he was to change "Moses' Covenant" and settle a new and eternal Covenant...

John (15:1-17). Well, Jesus told he was like a Vine's tree and that we are grafted into such vine's tree or we don't receive the "living water, the divine sap" and we die and fall to be gathered and be transported away for burning. In fact the true Jesus' Heavenly Father is another Vine's tree, because Jesus told his Father is exactly like him... Thus Jesus is also linked (graphted) into Father's Vine... And the Heavenly Man ("gardner"), only a Spirit, who is gathering all fallen and dead/dry branches and leaves is the Supreme Being, taking care of all Gods and having the greatest/Supreme powers and features. Even being a spirit, also is living into the Vine's Tree, quite like the Supreme Holly Spirit.

Thus Supreme Being, the I am What I am, is living in ALL Gods and all Gods are living in the Supreme Being (as Supreme Spirit Being), as "just one".

The symbolic way to show such relationship is next presented. It was first presented to Jew sites on Kabala, esoteric teaching, some 10 years ago (or more?).

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/e6d6e8b725b93dffa681409de11035a02d1014609cb915d6d0fc10590eec41d06g.jpg

Click on above URL to see the next figure very much enlarged (to see much better the details).

There are many dozens of distinct sites to present this reasoning and teaching, for distinct situations and readers, as orthodox Jews, Muslim, LDS, etc. They are long available in Internet. There are some more specific for the Father and Son, other for the Father-son-Holly Ghost, other with Supreme Being in the duality as if a Man and simultaneously a Spirit Being living in the Supreme Tree of Life, at the left side and in pale green color. We have like a thick stem (branch) going left (not shown) and the other coming foreground and ending in the TRINITY. There are many God's ancestors, because when Heavenly Father was a mortal Man he had a Heavenly Father also....

What is interesting us is that the main stem comes to Heavenly Father only, who is a "big tree of life", a God. Be God is to have "roots", capacity to have independent life, generate His own "LIVING WATER" ("sap, divinity priesthood").

Departing from the Heavenly Father "Tree of Life" there is a "stem, branch" toward the Son "tree of life", that also has his own "roots": is God. But He is smaller than Father. As is a "branch" from Father's tree, is only "part" of the Father's Tree. Thus Father's Tree = God Father, is greater than him, Son's Tree = God Son. Both are part of the Supreme Tree of Life = Supreme God = Supreme Being = Just "one God as such, as Supreme Being", the teaching of Alma 11:22-29, and nobody denied the existence of such just ONE SUPREME BEING, none bribery was paid... and such Supreme Tree of Life was always the True and Living Tree as Supreme Being and God...).

You can see that in front of Heavenly Father is the Tree of Life "Holly Ghost" who also is a branch, grafted into the Father's Tree of Life, through a thick stem. We have the same reasoning. John (15:1-17), Ezekiel 17 (cedar tree).

If I come to the Son Tree of Life and ask him, who is him, he will answer:

- I AM WHAT I AM! For sure! The Supreme Tree of Life is just living grafted in the Supreme Tree of Life. Thus the Supreme Tree of Life is living into him and can use him as VERB and speak through him. And say the truth. As your hand can "say" that it is "YOU"! But it is not the "total" you...

Thus after the initial presentation, the SON Tree of Life will explain:

- Oh, my brother Moses! I provided shadow for your ancestors. Also I provided plenty of edible fruits. And they needed water; I gave them the "living waters, my divine sap". At the night, when the temperature was becoming cool, my leaves worked as if a blanket to keep them warm. I am Jehovah.

The thinking is based on a Tree of Life which here is shown quite like as a Vine's Tree, in which since for Ever existed the Supreme Tree of Life.

With best personal regards, sincerely yours, Savelli (of the Sabelli's)

[Franktalk]

If I could, the importance of the Trinity rests on the importance of truth. For example, the doctrine of God, who he is, who Jesus is, etc. is vitally important......

.....In essence, when we start with what seems like a small amount of error (Father, Son, HS are not equal), then it affects other aspects of our belief system. No longer do we trust in Christ alone, but in the works of man (baptism, ordinances of the church for example).

Let us take this Psalm and see where it leads us.

Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Please explain verse 7 and verse 8. Should we rewrite it in the following manner?

7I declare to myself, as I said to myself, I am my own Son, this day I have begotten myself.

8I ask myself, should I give myself the thing I already possess, shall I inherit the earth from myself, all of it.

Just how do you read Psalm 2 in light of the Trinity?

[shalamabobbi]

John 17:20,21

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..

What trinity..

It's the borg collective..

[zerinus]

From a different thread in the Social Hall

Pa Pa wrote -

The error, at least with this statement is thinking that the Trinity means that they all have the same mind or will. They do not.

I had to go back and read the thread to find out what you are talking about, because your snippet was out of context, and doesn’t explain what the argument was about. From my reading of the thread, the main issue was not about whether the Trinity have “one mind” or not, but whether they are subordinate to each other or not. The main thrust of his argument was that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father according to the scriptures cited, which you did not address. Your doctrine of the Trinity teaches that they are all equal to each other, with none of them being greater or lesser, nor subordinate to the other. He provided biblical references to support his case, which you did not refute nor accept.

Assuming that if they are "one God" that therefore they must be "one mind" is an error.

Why? If it is one God, then it is reasonable to assume that that one God has one mind. The scriptures teach that God has one will:

Mark 3

:

35 For whosoever shall do the

will of God,

the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

1 Corinthians 1

:

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the

will of God,

and Sosthenes our brother,

1 Thessalonians 4

:

3 For this is the

will of God,

even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication

Hebrews 10

:

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the

will of God,

ye might receive the promise.

1 Peter 2

:

15 For so is the

will of God,

that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men

1 Peter 3

:

17 For it is better, if the

will of God

be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

1 Peter 4

:

2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the

will of God

.

1 John 2

:

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the

will of God

abideth for ever.

How can God have one will, without having one mind?

And no, these are not problems in Catholic/Protestant doctrines either.

The Catholic/Protestant doctrine of the Trinity has bigger problems than whether they have “one mind” or not (which they would have to do if they are “one God”).

Edited July 16, 2011 by zerinus

[ChristKnight]

Let us take this Psalm and see where it leads us.

Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Please explain verse 7 and verse 8. Should we rewrite it in the following manner?

7I declare to myself, as I said to myself, I am my own Son, this day I have begotten myself.

8I ask myself, should I give myself the thing I already possess, shall I inherit the earth from myself, all of it.

Just how do you read Psalm 2 in light of the Trinity?

No, Trinitarians would not read it in that way. Trinitarians, in contrast to Modalists, believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons. Therefore, they would not say things like "I am my own Son". Perhaps a Modalist would say that, but definitely not a Trinitarian, since they believe that the Father is a distinct Person from the Son.

[Storm Rider]

No, Trinitarians would not read it in that way. Trinitarians, in contrast to Modalists, believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons. Therefore, they would not say things like "I am my own Son". Perhaps a Modalist would say that, but definitely not a Trinitarian, since they believe that the Father is a distinct Person from the Son.

The Trinitarian doctrine is incomprehensible to man; it is a mystery. In attempting to talk with good Catholics I find a range of beliefs about the topic and certainly a great similarity among them. The doctrine is a creation of man in order to confirm the divinity of Jesus while maintaining monotheism. The only belief that makes this doctrine monotheistic is the concept of one "substance", which is completely foreign in scripture. At best it is a philosophical construct that somehow takes three distinct persons and makes them One.

Orthodox Christians like to use this belief in order to define who is a "real" Christian. Unfortunately, this doctrinal requirement is wholly outside of the Bible and, if used, would negate the membership of all the early disciples from Jesus to all the apostles. None of them taught and none of them used this doctrine to define who is and who is not a disciple.

Regardless, this doctrine has become far more important in the minds of orthdox Christians than belief in Jesus Christ himself. Faith in Christ does not merit the name Christian, but belief in the Trinity is virtually the most important teaching for true Christians.

Truth is important and those who follow Christ are disciples of truth and should seek all truth. LDS seek all truth and in doing so recognize the truth found in all religions, Christian and non-Christian alike. We also declare where falsehood or half-truths exist and the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but a teaching a man with no basis in the words of Jesus.

[ChristKnight]

The Trinitarian doctrine is incomprehensible to man; it is a mystery. In attempting to talk with good Catholics I find a range of beliefs about the topic and certainly a great similarity among them. The doctrine is a creation of man in order to confirm the divinity of Jesus while maintaining monotheism. The only belief that makes this doctrine monotheistic is the concept of one "substance", which is completely foreign in scripture. At best it is a philosophical construct that somehow takes three distinct persons and makes them One.

Orthodox Christians like to use this belief in order to define who is a "real" Christian. Unfortunately, this doctrinal requirement is wholly outside of the Bible and, if used, would negate the membership of all the early disciples from Jesus to all the apostles. None of them taught and none of them used this doctrine to define who is and who is not a disciple.

Regardless, this doctrine has become far more important in the minds of orthdox Christians than belief in Jesus Christ himself. Faith in Christ does not merit the name Christian, but belief in the Trinity is virtually the most important teaching for true Christians.

Truth is important and those who follow Christ are disciples of truth and should seek all truth. LDS seek all truth and in doing so recognize the truth found in all religions, Christian and non-Christian alike. We also declare where falsehood or half-truths exist and the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but a teaching a man with no basis in the words of Jesus.

As wonderful as that all is, it doesn't address the point I was making, which was that Trinitarians would not read the verse of the Psalm in question as being "I am my own Son", which is more in line with Modalism, and not Trinitarianism.

[SAVELLI]

We are to talk about the "Jewish viewpoint" of who is God in some esoteric viewpoint (Kabala).

In it you can re-evaluate God's concept according our LDS and Sabelli's Faith.

As to accommodate something like "Trinity". Even going to much broad concepts, as the one presented in previous my posted material.

http://www.geocities.com/celsoely/8tree_kabbala.htm<br style=""> <br style="">

TREE OF (DIVINE) LIFE: SYMBOL OF SUPREME ONLY G-D

[

Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Hebrew & Kabballah, Tree of Life ]

Posted on March 07, 2002 at 11:51:22:

You will see it contains (reproduce, as a figure) my oldest posted literature about Supreme Being, the One God, and Gods (thus about Trinity) representation as a Vine's Tree Jesus'. The teachings from 1991 reasoning included in the text for Kabballah sites. That was quite long ago. Also other texts were uploaded in Islamic (Muslim) sites...

A Vine's Tree is originated from another Vine's Tree, the Father, who also originated from other Vine's Tree.

The Grand-Father Vine's Tree: Joseph Smith's speech at the funeral of elder king Follet....

Indeed, Smith claimed in the King Follett Discourse that: ..... "God our Heavenly Father was perhaps once a child and mortal like we are, and rose step by step in the scale of progress..."

Thus Father Vine's Tree is exactly alike the Son Vine's Tree. Because the Father is exactly alike the Son, as figure (appearance) and bodily person, as Jesus taught.

That the Son told clearly about his Heavenly Father, just being a tangible MAN of Holiness and not being only a Spiritual Being as Holly Ghost..

Symbolically He is alike another Vine's Tree, from "vegetal kingdom", as Jesus as Jehovah. Not being alike or having all the "GARDNER's features" as "animal kingdom”: having much greater freedom, as to gather things, walk, transport them to far away distance, pile up them, set up fire for cleaning of diseases, etc.

This one, Supreme Being, the "GARDNER", can be reasoned as being of having another type of powers and features, as if combining vegetal and animal kingdom nature together, dual supreme existence as so peculiar "Being". Thus we use "WHAT" and not "WHO" as a proper title for Supreme Being, as is not "Human being" as we are...

One of Supreme Being's features is of being the "supreme creator = FATHER, not biological" of the Vine's Trees "PLANTATION" (as if the "GARDNER" is the "farmer") that he CULTIVATES, quite like ADAM, since from ever and ever. Thus we can understand HIS title, the I AM, and I AM "what" I AM.

He keeps them, all Vine's Tree, that are in the Supreme Tree of Life, in the Supreme Vine's Tree, that are grafted into just ONE, His Supreme Divine SAP can flow toward and circulate through any Vine's Tree as your BLOOD (Living Waters) do in YOU. And keep you, the diversity of You, Your's distinct parts, in good condition and healthy. Any disease and decay and apostasy is eliminated, from the command of a Supreme YOU, that we may reason as Spiritual and living in YOU. Remove such and you are dead...

.

The "Gardner", Supreme Being, moves the sick and apostasied parts of each Vine's Tree of Life to far away, to burn the sick and fallen decayed leaves and corrupted stems. Thus keeping the Vine's Trees Healthy and PROGRESSING, having FRUITS, plenty of FRUITS. We are to talk about that.

All materials, from Supreme Being's kingdom (Vine's Tree that compose just One and Supreme Tree of Life, just ONE LIFE in it... but many Divinity Priesthood, "sap"),

that become dead and sick and refuses to accept Vine's Tree "sap", divine living waters from Divine Vine's Trees in which is "grafted", is removed, in due time, by Gardner, to burn far away. Those parts, sick, that decides to heal them, and progress and bear many fruits, remain in the Vine's Tree of Life.

The Vine's Divine Tree is to grow eternally and to produce good and plenty edible fruits.

The next drawing (figure) is from March 19, 1991 (thus from 20 years ago).

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/f7e56246f69883ac6fd4a93199469eee781400ec0d75f23fa7fffa5cb827a1976g.jpg

CLICK on above URL to see the next down figure, of the SUPREME TREE OF LIFE (the ONE GOD, in which are all Gods, distinct ones, as Tree of Life generating their own "Divinity Sap=Priesthood" at their self "ROOTS", they are self-sufficient and can live independently but in any way live as if just "one Being" in the "Supreme Being": just One).

Here is the message posted in the Kabballah site, some 10 (ten) years ago: . . .

<br style=""> <br style="">

"TREE OF LIFE" is imagined as "ONE TREE", having prohibited "fruits".

Jan.99 I proposed other viewpoint for "TREE": being endless, eternal and "growing". Being the representation of I AM WHAT I AM, living since eternities and for all eternities, never born or die.

Under such concept "ONE TREE" is "SEEN" through infinite "Creations", each with "own TREE OF LIFE" that in fact is the SAME previous "TREE OF LIFE", as they are united through a thick living "branch" (circulating "sap", "divine life, wisdom, power, intelligence, etc.).

Thus in fact 2 distinct TREEs are "THE SAME LIVING BEING"="ONE".

Process continues back, left, infinitely, up to we reach the PRIMORDIAL TREE (in fact just "imaginary" possibility, as we can't reach INFINITE and ETERNITY before).

We got to kabbalistic idea of "EEIN SOF" (the unknowable G-d) that is the same TREE Being living in ALL TREE: the "SUPREME G-D", SUPREME YHWH (as "commandant") as CREATOR of ALL CREATIONS (done through INFINITE TREES, which are ONLY "branches" of just "ONE TREE").

If I approach one such TREE OF LIFE, last of right side (has "ROOTS": produces "self" SAP = generates Self Priesthood), and I ask: Who are you?

The answer is: I AM WHAT I AM, I AM THE SUPREME AND UNIQUE TREE OF LIFE, ALLWAYS EXISTING, and none TREE exists out of Me. But you may call Me Jehovah, your local TREE OF LIFE: I nurtured Abraham, Jacob and Jesus Christ. You are grafted into Me (came from TREE FATHER, who takes care of Me), in my thick horizontal branch toward the right, living with your brothers, as small branches. I feed you with "water of life": my "divine sap". Without that you die, dry and fall to ground, to be gathered for burning. If you remain in Me, you stay alive. I am the source of your life and progress. Unless crossing through Me, your sap can't travel to my Father TREE OF LIFE. Also my Father TREE OF LIFE's sap can't travel to you unless through Me. I am your only one G-d. The SUPREME G-D is in Me and I am in Him. My Father TREE OF LIFE and I am the SAME LIVING TREE, intimately united: we are ONE and ONE we are with all TREES OF LIFE and with SUPREME G-D, just "ONE".

Also SUPREME G-D, TREE OF "DIVINE" LIFE, can have several "stages/layers" (as level of tree branches at several height in an infinitely tall SUPREME, TREE OF "DIVINE" LIFE: that I posted in INTERNET in Jan.2002). Such model of TREE OF LIFE exists in NATAL, northeast Brazil huge touristic beach town (pictures are in Internet) having a very huge and old cashew-tree spreading hugely from just ONE TREE (primordial one, linked by thick branches: I visited it in 1981).

There is another LINK showing how a TREE OF LIFE can be just "ONE" and simultaneously MALE and FEMALE, all producing "FRUITS": illustrative drawing are in INTERNET. We can imagine TREE OF LIFE FATHER and ANCESTORS as being in fact of MALE and FEMALE NATURE.

Ideas not from Zohar (Kabbalah) but having some similarity. "Features" of Ein Sof, the "unknowable G-d", were evaluated according this new model of Kabbalah, in other sites, following "steps-by-steps" of reasoning/modeling.

Follow Ups:

<br style=""> <br style="">

Post a Followup

Name :

<br style=""> <br style="">

E-Mail :

Subject :

<br style=""> <br style="">

Comments:

Optional Link URL:

<br style=""> <br style="">

[

Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Hebrew & Kabballah, Tree of Life ]

WWWAdmin 2.0a © 1997

Matt Wright and DBasics Software Company, All Rights Reserved

[Hughes]

I agree, but many, even some in my family, say that I am unsaved over this very doctrine. They put this idea above the Biblical view of the Godhead and then use it as a condition for salvation.

Anyone that uses this Galatians passage to attempt to condemn Mormons as living "another Gospel" need to examine their own belief system. Heresies like Lordship Salvation add far more to the Gospel than Mormonism does. Mormonism allows for any believer to receive a kingdom of glory regardless of ordinances performed, and even makes a provision for that by allowing proxy ordinances. The ordinances in Mormonism are for the purpose of exaltation, not salvation in the sense that protestants believe. Also, I don't see that Mormonism says the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not equal, just separate and distinct Personages as the Bible and other Standard Works teach.

John 17 refutes this idea, as does other NT books. While they are equal, they are still separate Personages as indicated by the NT. Even I John 5:7 that is often used to support the Trinity starts out "For there are three that bear record in Heaven..." This must be interpreted with all other interactions between Jesus Christ and the Father in the NT, even in the book of Revelation the distinction is clear.

As far as salvation, and another gospel, Paul's message was very simple. Anything beyond the grace of christ, is heresy.

John 17 doesn't refute the idea of the trinity. Instead it supports it. Three persons in one God.

I think the Sabelli, Roman theologian, was correct and was wrong. The problem was related to the way the ideas are presented. What is correct is Book of Mormon, in the very clear discussion about the subject. It is in Book of Alma, Chapter 11, when Amulek contends with Zeezrom.

<snip>

Thus Jesus didn't die as the greatest of all "Gods" but as the greatest of all "gods". Exactly what Moses and other prophets foretold: that Jesus would live as the greatest of all "prophets = gods", so great he was to change "Moses' Covenant" and settle a new and eternal Covenant...

You said a lot, and I'm not completely sure what your main point was, but not being a mormon, I disagree with the ideas presented.

Let us take this Psalm and see where it leads us.

Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Please explain verse 7 and verse 8. Should we rewrite it in the following manner?

7I declare to myself, as I said to myself, I am my own Son, this day I have begotten myself.

8I ask myself, should I give myself the thing I already possess, shall I inherit the earth from myself, all of it.

Just how do you read Psalm 2 in light of the Trinity?

The Trinity doesn't say that there is only one person, it says, there are three persons, but one God. So, it's reasonable when different persons (Father and Son) talk to each other. I wouldn't rewrite it they way you did.

John 17:20,21

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..

What trinity..

It's the borg collective..

I don't think they are borg... Those dudes assimilated people...

I had to go back and read the thread to find out what you are talking about, because your snippet was out of context, and doesn’t explain what the argument was about. From my reading of the thread, the main issue was not about whether the Trinity have “one mind” or not, but whether they are subordinate to each other or not. The main thrust of his argument was that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father according to the scriptures cited, which you did not address. Your doctrine of the Trinity teaches that they are all equal to each other, with none of them being greater or lesser, nor subordinate to the other. He provided biblical references to support his case, which you did not refute nor accept.

Why? If it is one God, then it is reasonable to assume that that one God has one mind. The scriptures teach that God has one will:

Mark 3

:

35 For whosoever shall do the

will of God,

the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

1 Corinthians 1

:

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the

will of God,

and Sosthenes our brother,

1 Thessalonians 4

:

3 For this is the

will of God,

even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication

Hebrews 10

:

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the

will of God,

ye might receive the promise.

1 Peter 2

:

15 For so is the

will of God,

that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men

1 Peter 3

:

17 For it is better, if the

will of God

be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

1 Peter 4

:

2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the

will of God

.

1 John 2

:

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the

will of God

abideth for ever.

How can God have one will, without having one mind?

The Catholic/Protestant doctrine of the Trinity has bigger problems than whether they have “one mind” or not (which they would have to do if they are “one God”).

The question from the other thread was whether it was problem or not. It seems the LDS view it as a problem in many ways, thus this new thread. I didn't disagree that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father according to the scriptures cited, which is why I didn't address it. My response was to the point was if it's a problem or not.

And the Doctrine of the Trinity says there are three persons, but one God. And in order to have three persons, there must also be three minds, as we understand the term. Now, the fact that they are in perfect agreement, doesn't have to indicate there there is only one mind. So, references in scripture to the "mind" of God, or the "Will" of God doesn't disagree with the idea of the trinity and separate personages.

The Trinitarian doctrine is incomprehensible to man; it is a mystery. In attempting to talk with good Catholics I find a range of beliefs about the topic and certainly a great similarity among them. The doctrine is a creation of man in order to confirm the divinity of Jesus while maintaining monotheism. The only belief that makes this doctrine monotheistic is the concept of one "substance", which is completely foreign in scripture. At best it is a philosophical construct that somehow takes three distinct persons and makes them One.

Orthodox Christians like to use this belief in order to define who is a "real" Christian. Unfortunately, this doctrinal requirement is wholly outside of the Bible and, if used, would negate the membership of all the early disciples from Jesus to all the apostles. None of them taught and none of them used this doctrine to define who is and who is not a disciple.

Regardless, this doctrine has become far more important in the minds of orthdox Christians than belief in Jesus Christ himself. Faith in Christ does not merit the name Christian, but belief in the Trinity is virtually the most important teaching for true Christians.

Truth is important and those who follow Christ are disciples of truth and should seek all truth. LDS seek all truth and in doing so recognize the truth found in all religions, Christian and non-Christian alike. We also declare where falsehood or half-truths exist and the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but a teaching a man with no basis in the words of Jesus.

I would disagree. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the very writings of the Apostles. Of course the word isn't used, but the word is only a description of what is plainly there.

I would say it a different way, however. I wouldn't say the doctrine is incomprehensible to man, but rather God's very nature is incomprehensible, and the closest we have come is to describe it as a trinity. It is my guess that this is one reason why Joseph Smith came up with the poly-theistic view, since he couldn't comprehend a God that was three persons, but one God. It is far easier to just say there are three Gods, because we have no reference point with which to relate to a being that is three persons, but yet is one being.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Hughes

[altersteve]

Hughes,

The Trinity teaches that there is one God in three persons, united in essence and substance. Latter-day Saints teach that there are three distinct and separate persons in one God, figuratively speaking, united in heart, mind, intent, purpose, glory, and perfection, which is exactly what the Bible teaches. Nowhere does the Bible say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in essence or substance. The "three gods" of the Godhead that Joseph Smith taught are called gods by the very definition of the term "gods," and with that definition in mind, you realize that Latter-day Saints are NOT polytheists. And who are you to say what Joseph could and couldn't comprehend? Do you know him personally?

Edited July 16, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

As far as salvation, and another gospel, Paul's message was very simple. Anything beyond the grace of christ, is heresy.

Then Paul himself was a heretic. He preached well beyond "the grace of christ [sic]" (as I understand the common usage among Evangelicals).

That aside, I call for reference that what Paul meant in Galatians was what you (plural and singular) claim it to be. The logical (not eisegesical) meaning of Paul's statement is that the Galatians had already apostatized and that Paul was chastising them for their having left the Gospel he had preached to them. In fact, you have little evidence, and far from any proof, what it was that Paul preached to them in the first place.

If it was as simple as you claim, all the New Testament would have been a short, one-sentence (perhaps one-paragraph) message: Don't do anything, all you need it the "Grace of Christ", He'll do it all, and you only have to believe. (I have seen self=professed Evangelicals unequivocally say that if anyone even tries to follow the commandments that Christ gave, he is demeaning grace, and will be damned because of it.)

In short, as with most "proof texts" Evangelicals wrest from their moorings in the Bible to lambast us Saints, this one does not mean anything like what you all claim, and, in fact, supports the LDS position better than any other rational interpretation.

Lehi

Edited July 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

As far as salvation, and another gospel, Paul's message was very simple. Anything beyond the grace of christ, is heresy.

What you have just said is a big heresy. The Bible teaches that the “grace of Christ” is no use to you at all unless you repent.

John 17 doesn't refute the idea of the trinity. Instead it supports it. Three persons in one God.

No way does John 17 support the Trinitarian theology of post Apostate Christendom. It portrays Jesus praying to God His Father; in the same way that I might be praying to God our Father. How is His praying any different from my praying or anybody else’s praying?

The Trinity doesn't say that there is only one person, it says, there are three persons, but one God.

So are you suggesting that God is not a person? How do you deal with those scriptures which portray the “One God” as being a person, and having a personality, mind, and will of His own?

So, it's reasonable when different persons (Father and Son) talk to each other. I wouldn't rewrite it they way you did.

That presents a crazy kind of picture. It is not a doctrine that is taught in the Bible.

The question from the other thread was whether it was problem or not. It seems the LDS view it as a problem in many ways, thus this new thread.

What was a problem? I am not following you.

I didn't disagree that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father according to the scriptures cited, which is why I didn't address it.

That is the orthodox Trinitarian position, that they are not subordinate. They are all equal to each other.

And the Doctrine of the Trinity says there are three persons, but one God.

See above. Is God therefore not a “Person”?

And in order to have three persons, there must also be three minds, as we understand the term. Now, the fact that they are in perfect agreement, doesn't have to indicate there there is only one mind. So, references in scripture to the "mind" of God, or the "Will" of God doesn't disagree with the idea of the trinity and separate personages.

In the LDS Church we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of “one mind”. That does not mean that they literally have one mind; but that they are fully agreed in all things. But with your definition of the Trinity, either God (i.e. the One God) is not a Person at all (therefore cannot have a “mind” or “will” of His own), or else in reality you are dealing with four “Persons” and not three. So which is it? Does the “One God” have no “mind” of His own at all, or are there four “Persons” in your Trinity and not three?

I would disagree. The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the very writings of the Apostles. Of course the word isn't used, but the word is only a description of what is plainly there.

It is a very twisted reading of the words that lead to that doctrine. The Bible talks about the Three Divine Beings; but it doesn’t give them the kind of attributes that the Trinitarians give them. There is a third possibility which you are overlooking, and that is that the Trinitarian theology is unbiblical and false.

[Ambrose]

And the Doctrine of the Trinity says there are three persons, but one God. And in order to have three persons, there must also be three minds, as we understand the term. Now, the fact that they are in perfect agreement, doesn't have to indicate there there is only one mind. So, references in scripture to the "mind" of God, or the "Will" of God doesn't disagree with the idea of the trinity and separate personages.

While I will not here argue for the veracity of the Church's sacred dogmas, especially that most holy doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, that the one God of the Trinitarian confessions has three minds is not orthodox doctrine will indeed be shown.

The first error here seems to be in whether or not you predicate names to God equivocally or analogically. Those adhering to the Sacred Tradition of the Fathers treat the name "person" as analogically, not equivocally, given to God, just as the name "animal" is given analogically to man. The Angelic Doctor explains: . . . Something may be included in the meaning of a less common term which is not included in the more common term; as rational is included in the meaning of man, and not in the meaning of animal. So that it is one thing to ask the meaning of the word animal, and another to ask its meaning when the animal in question is a man. Also, it is one thing to ask the meaning of this word person in general and another to ask the meaning of person as applied to God.

And that ancient Doctor of Grace says in answer to the question of how we say the word person in regard to God: Humanlanguage labours altogether under great poverty of speech. . . Not that it might be completely spoken but that it might not be left wholly unspoken [de Trin. V,9]

The second error here is that if person denotes a single,mind absolutely, then you fall into the errors of Nestorius, as those holy orthodox Fathers of Nicea held that at the Incarnation, Christ assumed the whole of human nature which is of a rational nature, that the human nature of Christ had a mind. These same Fathers held that this human nature was united hypostatically to the Divine Nature. One person, two natures, two minds, and two wills (for will follows from intellect).

" We also preserve unperverted the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, receiving the dispensation of the flesh as neither without soul nor without mind nor incomplete." [Tome of Leo (in synodical letter of the Council of Constantinople)]

The third and final problem that I see with your claim that there are three divine minds, is that the holy fathers of Nicea teach us that the Omniscient is one even in the Three, that the Three Persons share one perfect and complete knowledge. Now knowledge is not distinct from the mind, as Augustine teaches (de Trin. X), thus one knowledge belongs to one mind.

While the Mormon might dismiss the Fathers as unauthoritative and irriligious, we Trinitarians must hold fast to their words for it is they that have faithfully taught us this Sacred Doctrine. But you are at variance with these doctors in how they meant the word person when applied to the Divine, and in whether there is but one mind of God.

I recommend, sir, the works of Augustine, Hilary, and Boethius who all wrote under that beloved name: On the Trinity.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Ambrose

[altersteve]

While the Mormon might dismiss the Fathers as unauthoritative and irriligious . . .

CFR please. Because that is not true. Unauthoritative, maybe, but certainly not irreligious by any means.

. . . we Trinitarians must hold fast to their words for it is they that have faithfully taught us this Sacred Doctrine.

So it is the Church Fathers that teach the doctrine of the Trinity, and not the Bible?

Edited July 16, 2011 by altersteve

[shalamabobbi]

I don't think they are borg... Those dudes assimilated people...

Well, yes.

Whatever the nature of the trinity, this verse states that the same nature/kind of unity exists between those who are saved and God, as exists between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

[Ambrose]

CFR please. Because that is not true. Unauthoritative, maybe, but certainly not irreligious by any means.

"Irriligious" in that they would not be counted as defending the true faith as to the Mormon the ancient creeds are counted as an abomination.

[altersteve]

"Irriligious" in that they would not be counted as defending the true faith as to the Mormon the ancient creeds are counted as an abomination.

That's not what irreligious means, but I see your point. That said, you haven't replied to my other question and I'm interested to know your answer. Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity (three Persons united in essence and substance as one God, who has no substance) because the Christian Fathers taught it, even though it is not found in the Bible, a fact that most scholars are in agreement with? Would that mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is an addition to biblical teaching? How do you know that the Fathers were teaching correct doctrine, especially when said doctrine seems to conflict with what the Bible says, especially passages such as John 17, and when there is no evidence of said doctrine being taught or even known prior to the Church Fathers' writings? Did the Fathers receive a revelation? And with all this in mind, wouldn't it mean that the Bible is not complete, or without error?

Edited July 16, 2011 by altersteve

[Hughes]

Hughes,

The Trinity teaches that there is one God in three persons, united in essence and substance. Latter-day Saints teach that there are three distinct and separate persons in one God, figuratively speaking, united in heart, mind, intent, purpose, glory, and perfection, which is exactly what the Bible teaches. Nowhere does the Bible say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in essence or substance. The "three gods" of the Godhead that Joseph Smith taught are called gods by the very definition of the term "gods," and with that definition in mind, you realize that Latter-day Saints are NOT polytheists. And who are you to say what Joseph could and couldn't comprehend? Do you know him personally?

LDS are not polytheists? That's news to me.

I always understood that the "council of the Gods" were not one God, but more than one, which makes them multi-Gods or Poly-theistic? How am I mistaken?

My impression of Joseph Smith, from reading what he wrote, is that he wasn't too smart. And one example of that is his changing the doctrine of the Trinity to a polytheistic doctrine (council of the Gods).

Then Paul himself was a heretic. He preached well beyond "the grace of christ [sic]" (as I understand the common usage among Evangelicals).

That aside, I call for reference that what Paul meant in Galatians was what you (plural and singular) claim it to be. The logical (not eisegesical) meaning of Paul's statement is that the Galatians had already apostatized and that Paul was chastising them for their having left the Gospel he had preached to them. In fact, you have little evidence, and far from any proof, what it was that Paul preached to them in the first place.

If it was as simple as you claim, all the New Testament would have been a short, one-sentence (perhaps one-paragraph) message: Don't do anything, all you need it the "Grace of Christ", He'll do it all, and you only have to believe. (I have seen self=professed Evangelicals unequivocally say that if anyone even tries to follow the commandments that Christ gave, he is demeaning grace, and will be damned because of it.)

In short, as with most "proof texts" Evangelicals wrest from their moorings in the Bible to lambast us Saints, this one does not mean anything like what you all claim, and, in fact, supports the LDS position better than any other rational interpretation.

Lehi

Paul wrote down exactly what he preached to the Galatians in the book of Galatians. The logical meaning is also what Paul said, was that they left the gospel of grace and were mixing it with the law. There is no statement of "apostatized" in the book.

What you have just said is a big heresy. The Bible teaches that the “grace of Christ” is no use to you at all unless you repent.

No way does John 17 support the Trinitarian theology of post Apostate Christendom. It portrays Jesus praying to God His Father; in the same way that I might be praying to God our Father. How is His praying any different from my praying or anybody else’s praying?

So are you suggesting that God is not a person? How do you deal with those scriptures which portray the “One God” as being a person, and having a personality, mind, and will of His own?

That presents a crazy kind of picture. It is not a doctrine that is taught in the Bible.

What was a problem? I am not following you.

That is the orthodox Trinitarian position, that they are not subordinate. They are all equal to each other.

See above. Is God therefore not a “Person”?

In the LDS Church we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of “one mind”. That does not mean that they literally have one mind; but that they are fully agreed in all things. But with your definition of the Trinity, either God (i.e. the One God) is not a Person at all (therefore cannot have a “mind” or “will” of His own), or else in reality you are dealing with four “Persons” and not three. So which is it? Does the “One God” have no “mind” of His own at all, or are there four “Persons” in your Trinity and not three?

It is a very twisted reading of the words that lead to that doctrine. The Bible talks about the Three Divine Beings; but it doesn’t give them the kind of attributes that the Trinitarians give them. There is a third possibility which you are overlooking, and that is that the Trinitarian theology is unbiblical and false.

When did I ever say repentance wasn't necessary?

In John 17, Jesus prays to his Father, which is completely consistent with the Trinitarian view. Jesus was fully man, and fully God, as a man he prayed to God his father, just as we do.

Your question, "How do you deal with those scriptures which portray the “One God” as being a person, and having a personality, mind, and will of His own?" isn't a problem at all. Because often we see scriptures that refer to God in the general sense, and of course there's a personality/mind/will in play.

I said, "So, it's reasonable when different persons (Father and Son) talk to each other."

You said, "That presents a crazy kind of picture. It is not a doctrine that is taught in the Bible."

How is it crazy? That two different persons talk to each other? Indeed, John 17 is just such an example. Or when Jesus was baptized, and the Father said, "This is my son..."

I'm not sure it's an important point. But, the author of the other thread stated that the Trinity was a problem, doctrinally. And I replied that it wasn't and why, which lead to this thread.

I'm no theologian, nor do I play one on TV. So, if my view doesn't match the Orthodox Trinitarian position, I'm sorry. But it appears to me that the Son is positionally subordinate to the Father, just as husband and Wife are equal, but have different roles or positions. So equality isn't effected by their roles or positions.

While I will not here argue for the veracity of the Church's sacred dogmas, especially that most holy doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, that the one God of the Trinitarian confessions has three minds is not orthodox doctrine will indeed be shown.

The first error here seems to be in whether or not you predicate names to God equivocally or analogically. Those adhering to the Sacred Tradition of the Fathers treat the name "person" as analogically, not equivocally, given to God, just as the name "animal" is given analogically to man. The Angelic Doctor explains: . . . Something may be included in the meaning of a less common term which is not included in the more common term; as rational is included in the meaning of man, and not in the meaning of animal. So that it is one thing to ask the meaning of the word animal, and another to ask its meaning when the animal in question is a man. Also, it is one thing to ask the meaning of this word person in general and another to ask the meaning of person as applied to God.

And that ancient Doctor of Grace says in answer to the question of how we say the word person in regard to God: Humanlanguage labours altogether under great poverty of speech. . . Not that it might be completely spoken but that it might not be left wholly unspoken [de Trin. V,9]

The second error here is that if person denotes a single,mind absolutely, then you fall into the errors of Nestorius, as those holy orthodox Fathers of Nicea held that at the Incarnation, Christ assumed the whole of human nature which is of a rational nature, that the human nature of Christ had a mind. These same Fathers held that this human nature was united hypostatically to the Divine Nature. One person, two natures, two minds, and two wills (for will follows from intellect).

" We also preserve unperverted the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, receiving the dispensation of the flesh as neither without soul nor without mind nor incomplete." [Tome of Leo (in synodical letter of the Council of Constantinople)]

The third and final problem that I see with your claim that there are three divine minds, is that the holy fathers of Nicea teach us that the Omniscient is one even in the Three, that the Three Persons share one perfect and complete knowledge. Now knowledge is not distinct from the mind, as Augustine teaches (de Trin. X), thus one knowledge belongs to one mind.

While the Mormon might dismiss the Fathers as unauthoritative and irriligious, we Trinitarians must hold fast to their words for it is they that have faithfully taught us this Sacred Doctrine. But you are at variance with these doctors in how they meant the word person when applied to the Divine, and in whether there is but one mind of God.

I recommend, sir, the works of Augustine, Hilary, and Boethius who all wrote under that beloved name: On the Trinity.

Thank you for that. I'm certainly not as well read as you are.

My only problem with all that, is I can't quite grasp how they can't have different minds if they are different personages. For example, when Jesus prayed to have this cup pass from him, he was using his mind, and praying to his Father, who has his mind, as Jesus said, not my will, but thine be done. Two wills are in play in that passage. There is no will without a mind, at least in English.

Well, yes.

Whatever the nature of the trinity, this verse states that the same nature/kind of unity exists between those who are saved and God, as exists between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

The prayer is for unity, that we might share in that unity, however, Jesus also prays, "24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

That we would see his "glory", not that we also have the exact same glory or "exaltation" due us because as Jesus is God, he is the source of all life/energy/and everything. Which means we can only partake of it as he shares it with us and are connected to him, the source.

So, in some ways I suppose it's similar to the Borg Collective, however the major difference is that we are being connected to the source of all life and energy, not a collective mind powered by Omega particle 010. AND... being connected to the infinite source of life, invigorates our personality, it doesn't erase our personality, as the Borg seemed to.

I'm sure there are other differences as well... like no unsightly tubes hanging out everywhere... ;-)

Edited July 17, 2011 by Hughes

[SAVELLI]

We are to talk about the "Jewish and ISLAMIC and LDS viewpoint" of who is the "just ONE God, Supreme Being"

Problems with upload of the DRAWING on symbolic representation of the SUPREME BEING, the ONE GOD in all Gods.

.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/ed3ee1df34bbfe3179c358e6d03238ccb07651cb48e21e7f5c343c681a6580846g.jpg

What should or could be the "SUPREME BEING, the I AM WHAT I AM", Who ("What") speaks through "His'" Divine VERBs = Gods, as if Holly Ghost speaks through us?

For sure Book of Mormon, in Book of Alma, teaches us that there is just one such "SUPREME BEING (the One GOD, always TRUE and LIVING as the only I AM WHAT I AM: in the singular time and person". He is not in any "TRINITY": was ALONE before all Gods, as Heavenly Father, became Gods).

,

For Jewish people we can reason as being the Supreme Jehovah and our Jehovah God is "His" supreme "Divine Verb, spokesman" for us. He is a "Supreme Proxy of Powers and features". Thus our Jehovah is as Supreme Priest of Supreme Divinity and Priesthood... (the symbol being the “Supreme Divine SAP, the living water that flows through all the Supreme Tree of Life, including through the TRINITY of Trees closely related to us…). See drawing already provided above.

For Muslim (Islamic people), we have such Supreme Being as ALLAH, AL ILAH, Supreme Divinity for Gods. For sure ALLAH has Supreme SERVANTS, “divine verbs and spokesmen”, we call “God”. And in fact God, our Heavenly Father, a Holy man, had a son. It is in Koran Book, very clearly. But it is said that Jesus Christ besides being sun of so greatest ALLAH’s Servant (God), is not biologic son of Supreme Being. Nobody is… Also Koran Book says clearly Adam was God and ALLAH ordered all to “worship” Adam as God. Lucifer and his angels rebelled against ALLAH’s decision that is all God’s decision. Because of this they were expelled out of Heaven. Brigham Young taught clearly the doctrine of Adam God. Koran book is plenty of reference about Book of Mormon, but biased people are unable to discover/unveil them. Koran book deals with the theme of “TRINITY”, I guess in the proper way. Koran book is very corrupted in some parts but the text itself warns about for those with open eyes. Koran book teaches about the War in Heaven, in pre-existence. And teach about "Gods" under ALLAH: as supreme "Servants". Your 2 hands are "you", no doubt. But they are just "servants" of "You". The same all that compose the "you". Where is sited "you"? Where is sited Supreme Being?

For sure NONE DISCUSSION was going on about Gods existence (like about Heavenly Father, Holly Ghost and Jesus Christ and others, or about "TRINITY"), in the event mentioned in Book of Mormon, in Book of Alma 11:22 to 31. Because the specific discussion theme was about the Supreme Being, as the Supreme One God. It was not about the Trinity being one God. OPEN THE EYES.

With best personal regards, sincerely yours, Savelli

Edited July 17, 2011 by SAVELLI

[Ambrose]

That's not what irreligious means, but I see your point. That said, you haven't replied to my other question and I'm interested to know your answer. Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity (three Persons united in essence and substance as one God, who has no substance) because the Christian Fathers taught it, even though it is not found in the Bible, a fact that most scholars are in agreement with? Would that mean that the doctrine of the Trinity is an addition to biblical teaching? How do you know that the Fathers were teaching correct doctrine, especially when said doctrine seems to conflict with what the Bible says, especially passages such as John 17, and when there is no evidence of said doctrine being taught or even known prior to the Church Fathers' writings? Did the Fathers receive a revelation? And with all this in mind, wouldn't it mean that the Bible is not complete, or without error?

Please, forgive my oversight, I did not see that you had included a question about the Fathers. Trust that I will return to your many questions on Monday. As an indication of my reply, I would ask if there were such a single volume as "the Bible" when most of the Fathers were teaching.