Trinity

[Ambrose]

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 . . .

I thank you for recognizing my response, as I can see you now being bombarded by many questions.

Briefly, you are right to say that there is no will (though there be appetitive powers) without mind. You are also right to see two wills and thus two minds at prayer in that passage as the Orthodox position is that the two minds both belong to Christ: one human, one divine.

However, it is not necessary for more than one mind to be communicating for it to be counted as communication as Augustine proves in the Tenth book of his treatise on the Trinity. A mind indeed communicates (and knows) itself through itself.

[Hughes]

I thank you for recognizing my response, as I can see you now being bombarded by many questions.

Briefly, you are right to say that there is no will (though there be appetitive powers) without mind. You are also right to see two wills and thus two minds at prayer in that passage as the Orthodox position is that the two minds both belong to Christ: one human, one divine.

However, it is not necessary for more than one mind to be communicating for it to be counted as communication as Augustine proves in the Tenth book of his treatise on the Trinity. A mind indeed communicates (and knows) itself through itself.

A couple of things...

First, when Jesus prayed (Matt 26), his human will didn't pray to his divine will, and if that is what you are saying, then we'd have to conclude that the writer was deceiving us, because it clearly states that he prayed to his father, "Not my will, but thine be done..."

Two wills. Jesus (incarnate human/divine, the "Godman") praying to his Father.

Second, I quickly read Book Ten of Augustine, and I don't see any proof that he's saying Jesus' mind was communicating with itself via prayer addressed to the Father. I agree, that our minds communicate (and knows) itself through itself, but fail to see how that means Jesus will wasn't communicating with his Father's will.

[volgadon]

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.

I find it hard to reconcile your POV with the frankly binatarian outlook of much of Judaism, as seen by the Logos/Sophia/Memra/Sephiroth figures, and with the importance of angels, and with the multiple references in the NT to other divine beings, and with the fact that one did not mean the only one in existence to the exclusion of all others.

[altersteve]

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).

No, LDS are not polytheists. Polytheism is the worship of more than one deity. That does not describe the worship of Latter-day Saints. We worship one God, the Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and by the power of the Holy Ghost, three beings who are perfectly united in heart, mind, intent, purpose, love, spirit, and glory, and that makes us monotheistic. All other "gods" in existence, the "council of the gods," are considered "gods" in the loosest sense of the word. Again, the accepted definition of the word "god" is any heavenly or angelic being, and that is what Latter-day Saints mean when they say that other gods exist. These other "gods" are nothing more than other heavenly beings whom we have nothing to do with. We have no idea who they are, what they do, or why they're there, but we do know that they are all under the authority of the God of gods: Heavenly Father. This is perfectly consistent with biblical teaching.

As for Joseph Smith not being "too smart," I fail to see where you're getting that. When I read his writings, I see a very intelligent man. His views, religious and political, were not the views of some simpleton.

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.

I am aware that the Bible was still being formulated when the Fathers were doing their thing. But my question was whether you believe something that the Fathers taught, even though said teaching did not exist before then and when said teaching actually conflicts with what the Bible says. It seems to me, in this situation, that you can either believe what the Bible says, or you can believe what the Church Fathers say, because there is nothing in the Bible that indicates the doctrine of three persons united in essence and substance as one being without substance. The Bible simply does not teach such a confusing doctrine, for "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Edited July 17, 2011 by altersteve

[erichard]

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.

...

Hi,

I find your history very interesting. I went to Italy for the LDS church on a mission. Here is something I wrote that kinda dovetails with the Savelli conversion to Christianity:

Around 400 years after Christ, the Roman empire, which was in great decline, decided to reinvent itself as Christianity, which was increasingly popular.

In establishing their orthodoxy, they used Greek philosophical creeds to define what the Bible teachings mean. These creedal ideas were then essentially "added" to the Bible in defiance of Revelations 22:18.

Their version of "following Christ" claimed to be not only the correct one, but the ONLY POSSIBLE correct one-- and any attempt to be "Christian" outside their established orthodoxy was punished severely if found out. This fear based "one version of Christianity" went on for about a thousand years, and seeks to continue even today as much as possible.

Thus, Christianity was basically hijacked by cunning politicians using philosopical creeds. LDS call it the great apostacy.

The established creeds described "God" as an uncreated, everexisting, immaterial, inconceivable being of "three persons", with blank check "all power", existing outside of time and space that created our earth and all things out of absolutely "nothing".

Because of the intense fear associated with the creedal doctrines (you could be burned alive if you questioned them), many people even today, rooted into family tradition, can only understand the Bible in creedal terms.

But the creeds are, and always were false. They were used for political purposes and did not come as the "Word of the Lord" to the prophets of Israel as the Bible came.

Richard

[Hughes]

I find it hard to reconcile your POV with the frankly binatarian outlook of much of Judaism, as seen by the Logos/Sophia/Memra/Sephiroth figures, and with the importance of angels, and with the multiple references in the NT to other divine beings, and with the fact that one did not mean the only one in existence to the exclusion of all others.

I'm focusing on the foundation of Judaism, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD"

Angels and other beings aren't in the picture, as the nature of God is. And I agree, that a binatarian view can be derived from much of the OT literature, which opens the door to the trinitarian view, but even then, God isn't many gods, but one.

No, LDS are not polytheists. Polytheism is the worship of more than one deity. That does not describe the worship of Latter-day Saints. We worship one God, the Father, in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and by the power of the Holy Ghost, three beings who are perfectly united in heart, mind, intent, purpose, love, spirit, and glory, and that makes us monotheistic. All other "gods" in existence, the "council of the gods," are considered "gods" in the loosest sense of the word. Again, the accepted definition of the word "god" is any heavenly or angelic being, and that is what Latter-day Saints mean when they say that other gods exist. These other "gods" are nothing more than other heavenly beings whom we have nothing to do with. We have no idea who they are, what they do, or why they're there, but we do know that they are all under the authority of the God of gods: Heavenly Father. This is perfectly consistent with biblical teaching.

As for Joseph Smith not being "too smart," I fail to see where you're getting that. When I read his writings, I see a very intelligent man. His views, religious and political, were not the views of some simpleton.

I am aware that the Bible was still being formulated when the Fathers were doing their thing. But my question was whether you believe something that the Fathers taught, even though said teaching did not exist before then and when said teaching actually conflicts with what the Bible says. It seems to me, in this situation, that you can either believe what the Bible says, or you can believe what the Church Fathers say, because there is nothing in the Bible that indicates the doctrine of three persons united in essence and substance as one being without substance. The Bible simply does not teach such a confusing doctrine, for "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

So, you don't worship Jesus? You don't pray to Jesus?

In the New Testament there are no other gods. There are false gods, those demons that try to portray themselves as gods, but are not.

I disagree with the definition that the word god can be aptly applied to any heavenly or angelic being. For, what's the point of calling an angel an angel if you call them a god as well?

I also disagree about Joseph Smith, there are many examples, another was his "banking scheme" an utter failure. The words he used in the first 'translations' of the BoM that had to be changed so they didn't sound like they were coming from a simpleton. Of course, this is just my opinion.

I also disagree that the Trinity is a confusing doctrine. It's isn't that confusing to understand. What is difficult is the lack of reference points we have to comprehend how it all works. As in, how can one being be three persons?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

There seems to be a lot that is news to you.

The LDS are no more polytheistic that any other Christian is.

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness:

Emphais mine

1 Corinthiana 8:5-6

5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him.

John 17:21-23

21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

And further: Ye ARE Gods; Is twice stated in the Bible. Once in Psalms and once by Jesus himself.

Emphasis mine

You are beset by Gods, and you have the potential to become one yourself. You just don't know it yet.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Hughes]

Hi,

I find your history very interesting. I went to Italy for the LDS church on a mission. Here is something I wrote that kinda dovetails with the Savelli conversion to Christianity:

"Around 400 years after Christ, the Roman empire, which was in great decline, decided to reinvent itself as Christianity, which was increasingly popular.

In establishing their orthodoxy, they used Greek philosophical creeds to define what the Bible teachings mean. These creedal ideas were then essentially "added" to the Bible in defiance of Revelations 22:18.

Their version of "following Christ" claimed to be not only the correct one, but the ONLY POSSIBLE correct one-- and any attempt to be "Christian" outside their established orthodoxy was punished severely if found out. This fear based "one version of Christianity" went on for about a thousand years, and seeks to continue even today as much as possible.

Thus, Christianity was basically hijacked by cunning politicians using philosopical creeds. LDS call it the great apostacy.

The established creeds described "God" as an uncreated, everexisting, immaterial, inconceivable being of "three persons", with blank check "all power", existing outside of time and space that created our earth and all things out of absolutely "nothing".

Because of the intense fear associated with the creedal doctrines (you could be burned alive if you questioned them), many people even today, rooted into family tradition, can only understand the Bible in creedal terms.

But the creeds are, and always were false. They were used for political purposes and did not come as the "Word of the Lord" to the prophets of Israel as the Bible came."

Richard

Since the creedal ideas were derived from the concepts found in the Bible, and the Trinity is taught here too, please tell me where you think it's incorrect:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, light from light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary

and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Hughes

[Hughes]

Hughes:

There seems to be a lot that is news to you.

The LDS are no more polytheistic that any other Christian is.

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let US make man in our image, after our likeness:

Emphais mine

1 Corinthiana 8:5-6

5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are dall things, and we by him.

John 17:21-23

21. That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

And further: Ye ARE Gods. Is twice stated in the Bible Once in Psalms and once by Jesus himself.

Emphasis mine

You are best by Gods, and you have the potential to become one yourself. You just don'y know it yet.

So, do you worship Jesus?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

I worship God the Father, through His Son Jesus the Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[ebeddoulos]

So, do you worship Jesus?

Clever child - The answer is a resounding ...

YES!

“Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33)

“And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.” (1 Nephi 11:24)

“Behold, it is my will, that all they who call on my name, and worship me according to mine everlasting gospel, should gather together, and stand in holy places;” (Doctrine & Covenants 101:22)

“And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.” (Matthew 28:9)

“And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:17)

“And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.” (2 Nephi 25:29)

“And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:” (Luke 24:52)

“Therefore, I command you to build a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.” (Doctrine & Covenants 115:8 )

“And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.” (Revelation 5:14)

“And when they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves, they did cry out with one accord, saying: Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.” (3 Nephi 11:16-17)

Do you?

Edited July 17, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[altersteve]

So, you don't worship Jesus? You don't pray to Jesus?

Jesus instructed His disciples to pray to the Father. So that's what we do, because Jesus told us to. If we were told to pray to Jesus, we would do so. Who do you pray to? And yet again, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. They are united, just not united in essence or being, which is what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Latter-day Saints reject that. But since the Father and the Son are one God (speaking as one, acting as one, thinking as one), to worship one is to worship the other.

So yes, we worship Jesus Christ. No, we don't pray to Him. Your point?

[urroner]

I think that Hughes is flustered that we dare to believe differently from him. He states his beliefs as if they were fact and he states that there is basically only one way to interpret the scriptures and that, of course, is his way.

I remember years ago on ZLMB when we asked the "true Christians" to come up with a list of doctrine that one had to accept in order to be a Christian. A couple of them came up with a list, a list skillfully devised to make sure to force all Mormons out of Christianity. It soon became noticeable that in their attempt to come up with that list, they were also forcing out a lot of people they considered to be Christians.

IIRC, the major area of contentions were the exact makeup of the Trinity, the roles of grace and works in salvation, the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible, and the doctrine of OSAS. I don't believe they ever came up with a list that included all the people they considered Christian and excluded Mormons.

I also got a chuckle out of their statement that the list really didn't matter because true Christians agreed on the basics of the gospel, but if those areas of disagreement aren't considered to be the basics of the gospel, than what is?

[erichard]

Since the creedal ideas were derived from the concepts found in the Bible, and the Trinity is taught here too, please tell me where you think it's incorrect:

...

Hi,

Well, the Nicene creed seems innocent enough. What is wrong is that it does not come from the same source as the Bible itself: The Word of the Lord to the Prophets of Israel. I will not condemn you for entertaining it if you do not condemn me for rejecting it.

But what was more wrong was all the creedal based writings and ideas, such as the Trinity, that were enforced as the only truth by terror over hundreds of years.

Michael Servetus was a sincere Bible believer who rejected the Trinity. He said just what Mormons say about the Trinity-- that it is not found in the Bible and came from Greek Philosophers. He was burned alive at the stake for this in 1553. He was not the first one.

I said:

The established creeds described "God" as an uncreated, everexisting, immaterial, inconceivable being of "three persons", with blank check "all power", existing outside of time and space that created our earth and all things out of absolutely "nothing".

This is my way of saying it. Can it be said that way?

The Mormon understanding of the God spoken of in the Bible is very different than this creedal version. It contradicts the creeds, but it does not necessarily contradict the Bible.

Can you not see that by accepting the man-made creeds one sets up an obstacle against accepting more truth when it comes from the same source as the Bible itself came?

Richard

[zerinus]

When did I ever say repentance wasn't necessary?

By his quote:

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

That means what it says. It rules out anything other than “grace,” including repentance.

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.

You went further than that. You said that John 17 supports the Trinity. It doesn’t.

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.

You are now talking in contradictory terms. Either God (the One God), is a Person or not. Either He has an independent Mind, Personality, and Will of His own or He does not. If He does, then your “Trinity” is thrown into confusion, because we now have four “Persons” in the Trinity, and not three. If, on the other hand, the One True God is not a “Person,” and He does not have an independent Personality, Mind, and Will of His own, then you are going completely contrary to what is written all over the scriptures. You need to make up your mind which side of the fence you want to jump. You can't have it both ways.

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.

That is no excuse. You are taking a stance that is fundamentally theological, and then trying to dodge the inconsistencies in your logic by the excuse that you are not a theologian. That won’t get you off the hook. If you are not a theologian, then perhaps you shouldn’t get involved in a theological discussion.

[zerinus]

A couple of things...

First, when Jesus prayed (Matt 26), his human will didn't pray to his divine will, and if that is what you are saying, then we'd have to conclude that the writer was deceiving us, because it clearly states that he prayed to his father, "Not my will, but thine be done..."

Two wills. Jesus (incarnate human/divine, the "Godman") praying to his Father.

So Jesus had two wills: His "human will" was praying to the Father. What was His other "will" (the "divine will") doing? And who was the Son, the "human will" or the "divine will"? Was His divine will the Son or wasn't He? And was His "divine will" praying or wasn't He?

[urroner]

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

[altersteve]

IIRC, the major area of contentions were the exact makeup of the Trinity, the roles of grace and works in salvation, the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible, and the doctrine of OSAS.

Which is funny because the Bible seems to be perfectly clear on all of those.

There is one thing and one thing only that makes you a Christian: your acceptance and worship of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you do that, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. I would also add that your Christianity depends on how you act, because if you truly worship the Lord, then you will act the way He wants you to, and far too many Christians seem to be more focused on tearing others down instead of lifting them up. It doesn't matter how you interpret the character of God or Christ, the nature of their unity, or how you view the Bible. People who say that somebody else is not a Christian absolutely amaze me. That is not their decision, nor is it their right, to tell others which religion they belong to, or to define Christianity on their own terms, I believe that they will be judged by God for that. It's absolutely unbelievable, completely ridiculous, to me. Latter-day Saints accept Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians as Christians. Why they can't treat us with the same courtesy is totally beyond me.

Rant over.

Edited July 17, 2011 by altersteve

[urroner]

Which is funny because the Bible seems to be perfectly clear on all of those.

There is one thing and one thing only that makes you a Christian: your acceptance and worship of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you do that, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. I would also add that your Christianity depends on how you act, because if you truly worship the Lord, then you will act the way He wants you to, and far too many Christians seem to be more focused on tearing others down instead of lifting them up. It doesn't matter how you interpret the character of God or Christ, the nature of their unity, or how you view the Bible. People who say that somebody else is not a Christian absolutely amaze me. That is not their decision, nor is it their right, to tell others which religion they belong to, or to define Christianity on their own terms, I believe that they will be judged by God for that. It's absolutely unbelievable, completely ridiculous, to me. Latter-day Saints accept Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians as Christians. Why they can't treat us with the same courtesy is totally beyond me.

Rant over.

Maybe I have it all wrong, but I think that in order for one to be a good Christian, one needs to following the principles laid out in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount.

[SAVELLI]

Think about the Supreme Being as just ONE (it is in Book of Mormon, in Book of Alma "11:22" up to 11:31), the One God for all Gods. This didn't come from theologians.

We can reason the Supreme Being as the FIRST ORIGIN of the Supreme Tree of Life, as if a Supreme Vine's Tree.

Next (below) I will provide a Cashew Tree as example of Supreme Tree, instead with Vine's Tree.

Because we have in Brazil a very gigantic (very huge) such "model" in 3-D (3 dimension), that is very much very old and much spread, we are to use it.

Mainly because it spreads as Vine's Tree do. Any Cashew Tree provides a long branch that bends to the soil and there sprout new roots.

And from the new roots start a new Cashew Tree, as if a new Tree of Life.

But the two Trees, Cashew Tree, are quite like Father and Son Trees that remain united, for ever, through the Thick Stem (branch).

Thus Tree Cashew Son (as if Tree of Life Son) can provide its "sap" (living waters) from its own roots to circulate through whole Tree Cashew Father and Vice-Versa.

And the process continues, as from Son to Grand-son, and to Grand-Grand-Son, etc.

The result is that from just one "Supreme and PRIMORDIAL" Cashew Tree, the symbolism of the Supreme Being, originated all other "Cashew Tree" (descendents, like Tree of Life Son). And they are physically interconnected as being just "one". They remain as "one being".

And the "sap" generated from one Tree of Life can circulate through all others Tree of Life and including through the Supreme and Primordial and Transcendental Supreme Tree of Life.

They are one, but to send the "divine sap" from an older Tree of Life (as from the Supreme Tree of Life) you need to follow like a hierarchy from priesthood, from Father to the Son.

It is evident that any Tree of Life symbolism (Cashew Tree "father") remains for ever including the "Tree of Life Sons" and other their Tree of Life Descendents.

Thus the Tree of Life Father (God Father) is always Greater than the Tree of Life Son, as continues to "include them" as if son(s), as just "branches" (younger extensions).

It is evident that Tree of Life Supreme Father of all is the Supreme Being, symbolism of the Supreme One God, before any other God had originated from Him. The I AM.

In the next (below) drawing, you can see that the Cashew Tree of Life FATHER had 2 branches, of very vigorous growth and fast, that touched the ground, generated "roots" and they became "independent" Tree of Life SON (at the extreme right) and HOLLY Ghost (in foreground, in front of Father Tree of Life).

The Father Tree of Life (God symbolism) remains "physically" united to the SON Tree of Life. And independently also remains "physically" united to the HOLLY GHOST Tree of Life. They are just "One being", as they are physically and functionally "united as ONE", as Father's Tree of Life, that is greater than them, the SONs.

Thus for Holly Ghost Tree of Life send his "divine sap" to us it is required that our Tree of Life direct commandant (in which we are "grafted") ask the Tree of Life "father" to authorize such movement of "divine sap" passing through the Father Tree of Life (God Father).

But Tree of Life Father is also linked to other Tree, the Tree of Life Grand-Father and that is the only connection toward the Supreme Tree of Life, which is just ONE, but is also living in all other Trees of Life "descendents" as we are in the Supreme Tree of Life.

http://www.mediafire...90eec41d06g.jpg

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

And the physical representation, model, of above gathering of Trees of Life, of Gods, as being included in the Supreme Tree of Life, is shown in the very huge Cashew Trees in the beach of Pirangi, at the town of Natal (it is a beach town, in the very North-East of Brazil; airplanes depart from there to cross Atlantic Ocean to Europe and Africa).

http://www.mediafire...fa8603c8b6g.jpg

Click over the URL to see the next picture very much enlarged. Think about the Cashew Tree as a better model than Vine's tree for intellectual reasoning.

http://www.mediafire...bb9fc88c36g.jpg

Click on previous URL and see under (inside) the world largest Cashew Tree.

It is the best symbolism of the Tree of Life (better than Jesus' Vine Tree in John 15:1-6.

You can see the thick branches (stems) uniting distinct "Cashew Tree" that in fact live as JUST ONE BEING.

True "TRINITY" is like that union of Trees of Life, of Cashew Tree (above): they are independent but remain united as "one".

The "Tree" is a good example that they live in harmony. It is not possible for a Tree move away or in conflict with Father or Son Cashew Trees.

As if you right hand could travel outside of you or have conflict with your left hand or if both are not under just one supreme command.

But if required, they can have autonomous (involuntary) movement, as by electrical shocks, contact with very hot things, etc.

Should it be a true symbolism of "TRINITY"? More than 3 Trees of Life.

If so, such TRINITY is only as part of something "GREATER" God's Association. Clear teaching in King's Follet speach.

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

[zerinus]

Since the creedal ideas were derived from the concepts found in the Bible, and the Trinity is taught here too, please tell me where you think it's incorrect:

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, light from light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary

and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This is what is incorrect:

of one Being with the Father;

Where does it say that in the Bible? And what does it mean anyway?

[zerinus]

So, do you worship Jesus?

Yes, we worship Jesus.

[Hughes]

Hughes:

I worship God the Father, through His Son Jesus the Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Thanks but that wasn't the question.

Clever child - The answer is a resounding ...

YES!

Do you?

Thank you.

Indeed I do, thanks for asking.

Jesus instructed His disciples to pray to the Father. So that's what we do, because Jesus told us to. If we were told to pray to Jesus, we would do so. Who do you pray to? And yet again, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. They are united, just not united in essence or being, which is what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Latter-day Saints reject that. But since the Father and the Son are one God (speaking as one, acting as one, thinking as one), to worship one is to worship the other.

So yes, we worship Jesus Christ. No, we don't pray to Him. Your point?

So, since LDS worship the Father, and the Son, and since they are separate individual Gods. Then it appears to me that the LDS worship two Gods, the Father and the Son. How is that not Polytheism?

Polytheism is the belief of multiple deities -note the restriction to worship isn't found in this definition.

Polytheism is the belief that there are many gods. Breaking the word down, “poly” comes from the Greek word for “many,” and “theism” from the Greek word for “God.”

pol·y·the·ism (pl-th-zm, pl-thz-m) n. The worship of or belief in more than one god.

Hi,

Well, the Nicene creed seems innocent enough. What is wrong is that it does not come from the same source as the Bible itself: The Word of the Lord to the Prophets of Israel. I will not condemn you for entertaining it if you do not condemn me for rejecting it.

But what was more wrong was all the creedal based writings and ideas, such as the Trinity, that were enforced as the only truth by terror over hundreds of years.

Michael Servetus was a sincere Bible believer who rejected the Trinity. He said just what Mormons say about the Trinity-- that it is not found in the Bible and came from Greek Philosophers. He was burned alive at the stake for this in 1553. He was not the first one.

I said:

The established creeds described "God" as an uncreated, everexisting, immaterial, inconceivable being of "three persons", with blank check "all power", existing outside of time and space that created our earth and all things out of absolutely "nothing".

This is my way of saying it. Can it be said that way?

The Mormon understanding of the God spoken of in the Bible is very different than this creedal version. It contradicts the creeds, but it does not necessarily contradict the Bible.

Can you not see that by accepting the man-made creeds one sets up an obstacle against accepting more truth when it comes from the same source as the Bible itself came?

Richard

I am not one who supports burning people at the stake for not believing in the trinity. I'm a little unclear why that's important to mention.

I did see your quote before, but I find it's important to quote the exact source, which is why I asked a specific question about one Creed. Maybe you could help me out and quote which creed it is that you don't like, because I see biblical texts supporting those ideas.

Of course creeds aren't scripture, and the source for the idea of the trinity is from the NT, what the apostles taught, not the creeds, nor Greek philosophy.

By his quote:

That means what it says. It rules out anything other than “grace,” including repentance.

You went further than that. You said that John 17 supports the Trinity. It doesn’t.

You are now talking in contradictory terms. Either God (the One God), is a Person or not. Either He has an independent Mind, Personality, and Will of His own or He does not. If He does, then your “Trinity” is thrown into confusion, because we now have four “Persons” in the Trinity, and not three. If, on the other hand, the One True God is not a “Person,” and He does not have an independent Personality, Mind, and Will of His own, then you are going completely contrary to what is written all over the scriptures. You need to make up your mind which side of the fence you want to jump. You can't have it both ways.

That is no excuse. You are taking a stance that is fundamentally theological, and then trying to dodge the inconsistencies in your logic by the excuse that you are not a theologian. That won’t get you off the hook. If you are not a theologian, then perhaps you shouldn’t get involved in a theological discussion.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. Grace never rules out repentance...

Well, we disagree about John 17 then.

Either, I'm talking in contradictory terms, or there's a misunderstanding.

You say that when the Bible says, "GOD" (Theos or one of the many names for God). That this must indicate a 4th person of the "Quadinitry?"

But, when I disagree, you don't allow me to say that sometimes the Biblical text is speaking generally, and referencing "God" in general. I can only be contradicting myself?

Why is it that a Trinitarian, such as myself, can't understand the Bible for what it plainly says. When sometimes it just says, "GOD" why can't it be referring to the whole Godhead?

Why is it that you feel the need to say that I'm being contradictory?

Fact remains that my position isn't inconsistent or illogical. You may disagree with it, and I yours, but illogical? Sorry.

So Jesus had two wills: His "human will" was praying to the Father. What was His other "will" (the "divine will") doing? And who was the Son, the "human will" or the "divine will"? Was His divine will the Son or wasn't He? And was His "divine will" praying or wasn't He?

You'll have to direct your question to Ambrose, as you quoted me asking him the same basic question.

This is what is incorrect:

"of one Being with the Father;"

Where does it say that in the Bible? And what does it mean anyway?

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.”

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

John 8:58J esus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

What does "of one Being with the Father" mean?

One being, God. The shared attributes that make God, divine if you will, that are shared between the three. I don't think I can explain it adequately, as I said before, we don't have a reference point for one Being and that one Being also three persons.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Hughes

[urroner]

Maybe you could help me out and quote which creed it is that you don't like, because I see biblical texts supporting those ideas.

Of course creeds aren't scripture, and the source for the idea of the trinity is from the NT, what the apostles taught, not the creeds, nor Greek philosophy.

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question Hughes, but when you say you see biblical texts supporting the creeds, are you saying the text supports them without any questions or are you saying that your interpretation of the scriptures support them?

[altersteve]

Again, Hughes, the Father and the Son are one, but not one in being. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are united in essence or substance, or being, as one being without substance. But that doesn't make any sense, and the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. There is no evidence of such a doctrine existing prior to the Nicene Creed. We worship both the Father and the Son, two separate and distinct individuals, but since they are in perfect unity with one another in every way except being, we are not polytheists. They are one God, members of one eternal Godhead, whom we worship. Since we worship one God, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a monotheistic religion. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

I think you and I are saying essentially the exact same things, just with different terms. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are NOT one literal being; when the scriptures say that they are one, it is not meant to be taken literally. That's why John 17 refutes the idea of three consubstantial beings. If Jesus is praying for us to be one with Him the same way that He is with the Father, then He and the Father cannot be one in essence or substance, can they? Because if they are, then Jesus was essentially saying that we could also be of one literal substance or essence with Him, which of course is absurd. The "oneness" that Jesus speaks about, as well as the Father living in Him, is entirely metaphorical.

Edited July 17, 2011 by altersteve