Trinity

[Anakin7]

From my lights True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Thought/Practice/Walk have a Anchient/Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social Godhead/Trinity. My use and definition of "Monarch" is different than the one you explained. These variations are at odds with one another in the Christian community. Any Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox ecccesiastical leader would strongly blast you for your western form/model of vthe trinity and would theologicaly spank you for your western trinity word games and show the sabellian heresy underneath the Western Trinity skin.

May True Grace be with you.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[altersteve]

Will chapter 47 of Gospel Principles be taught in your meetings? Are you not studying through the entire manual?

Of course exaltation (the subject of chapter 47) is taught in our meetings. I didn't say it's not. I said that the "God was once not God" idea isn't. That concept is not found in Gospel Principles, anyway.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve:

You wrote:

Of course exaltation (the subject of chapter 47) is taught in our meetings. I didn't say it's not. I said that the "God was once not God" idea isn't. That concept is not found in Gospel Principles, anyway.

Let's see. Here are some excerpts from Gospel Principles chapter 47 (emphasis added):

When we lived with our Heavenly Father, He explained a plan for our progression. We could become like Him, an exalted being....

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation....

These are some of the blessings given to exalted people: ...2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20-23)....

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did.

According to these statements, God the Father "was once a man like us"; he is "an exalted being"; "exalted people...become gods"; and by "our progression" we also can attain "exaltation" and in that way "succeed even as He did." These statements would seem rather clearly to assume that the Father went from being a man to becoming an exalted being and thus became a god. Since GP quotes with approval statements from Joseph Smith made in the very context of teaching explicitly that God has not always been God, I don't see why one would deny this to be implicitly part of the doctrine here, unless one is embarrassed by the idea.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

The only example that we use of man becoming God is of Jesus the Christ.

See Theosis

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml

Also see John 17: 20-24

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

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.

24. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

[altersteve]

"Exalt" means to lift higher. Jesus Christ was exalted, but even He was still God both during and before His mortal ministry. Could the Father not have exalted Himself by allowing Himself to pass through mortality and obtain a physical body, to receive a fullness of joy, just as we were required to do? I see no reason why not. Jesus Christ was also "once a man like us," but "like us" in the sense that He was mortal and was subject to the same temptations and pains that we are subject to, not that He was a sinner. There is nothing in LDS doctrine saying that God the Father was once a sinner, or a human being exactly like we are, which is what you seem to be implying, or that He was once not God. The "infinite regression of gods" idea is also not LDS doctrine.

The fact is that the Church teaches that God the Father passed through mortality, but it does NOT teach that there was a time where He was not God. How, when, and where God was mortal, and how He was exalted to His current state, is not clear at this time.

And if you are accusing me of being "embarrassed" with the fact that Joseph taught that God was not always God, you are mistaken. (And whatever he meant by that is not clear, since parts of the King Follett discourse were not recorded, and since he was not alive long enough to expand on and clarify this teaching, so it's not really clear how he fit these ideas together, and since he obviously believed the Bible and the Book of Mormon and their statements of how God has always been God—but even if he meant what he said, it doesn't bother me.)

Edited July 18, 2011 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider,

Here you are agreeing with Joseph's interpretation of John 5:19 in the King Follett Discourse (p. 346). On what basis do you decide what parts of the KFD to accept and what parts to reject?

John 5:19 poses no problem to orthodox theology. Jesus did not say, "the Son does nothing except what he saw the Father do" (in the far distant past), but rather, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees the Father doing." Notice that the two verbs emphasized are present tense. Jesus was saying that he was doing the same kind of works that the Father was also doing. In context Jesus is referring to the divine prerogative of giving life (see vv. 20-26). Joseph Smith actually argued that Jesus was referring to his impending death and resurrection, but this interpretation fits neither the wording nor the context of John 5:19.

You are free to disagree with anything I say, of course, but I wonder if we can agree that orthodox theology is incompatible with the view that God the Father has a physical body and in particular is incompatible with this idea as it is understood in LDS doctrine.

Basically, I use the scriptures as my proof for sound doctrine. The KFD is not doctrine for the LDS Church. As such, I think one would find that some LDS would think it fine that God has a father and many others who would disagree.

I would also agree that orthodox theology disagrees with God being anything but spirit. Of course, from a biblical standpoint both positions are supportable.

[Storm Rider]

Anakin7,

For example, redefining Jesus to be the firstborn of Heavenly Father and Mother's spirit children and the first of them to become a God is from our point of view a serious doctrinal error and is obviously incompatible with any form of orthodox Trinitarianism.

Does that mean that it is such a significant error that it is capable of rejecting the saving Grace of Jesus Christ?

[Storm Rider]

There is a difference between a religion's dogma (teachings that members are not free to reject) and a religion's official doctrine (teachings that the religion's teaching office formally articulates). That God was once a man and became a God may not be LDS dogma, but it is official LDS doctrine.

Official doctrine??? How about it is one of the trite phrases made famous by one of the prophets. Regardless, are you saying that Jesus, God, was once a man. Becoming a God is patently false doctrine and is not part of LDS theology. God was once a man and as St. Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that men might become gods." But I digress. This concept is strictly orthodox and was repeated by many of the early church fathers. What part of this do you not believe in? If Jesus and God are One, then LDS theology is correct in that god became man. If orthodox theology is correct, then LDS theology is correct.

I supspect that we will find that EV disagree with orthodox theology.

[altersteve]

For example, redefining Jesus to be the firstborn of Heavenly Father and Mother's spirit children and the first of them to become a God is from our point of view a serious doctrinal error and is obviously incompatible with any form of orthodox Trinitarianism.

And orthodox Trinitarianism is from our point of view a serious doctrinal error and is obviously incompatible with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ.

CFR that Latter-day Saints are "redefining" who Jesus is. The Bible plainly teaches, first of all, that Jesus is the Firstborn of the Father. Second, LDS theology teaches that Jesus is God, not just "a god." And third, it is not stated in LDS theology that Christ became God, or a god, at all, but that all of us, including Jesus, are eternal in our very nature. Since Jesus' nature is the nature of God, He has been God eternally, and He has always been foreordained to be the Savior and Redeemer of the Father's children and the world(s) they inhabit.

[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?

Thank you for your patience in awaiting my response. I hope that your day yesterday partook of Beauty and edified both you and yours.

Much of what you ask is ill-suited for a prolonged conversation in this thread, but I will do my best to briefly answer your questions without too far derailing Hughes thread.

I. I profess the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity for that is what has been handed on to me from the Bishops, who received that sacred word from the Apostles who did trust Our Lord's teaching. This should indicate to you my position on the historical presence of this dogma in the Apostolic era, and its presence in those very words that are truly counted as inspired.

That said, I do not accept Sacred Writ to be complete (at least in the way I think you mean this), for the Deposit of Faith has been entrusted to us in two forms, one seen and one heard. Or as the Tridentine Fathers formulated, ". . . this truth and discipline are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions . . ."

While you might not see the Dogmas of the Church in Scripture, I do, and I am suspicious of many so-called scholars who follow not the methods of the catechetical schools.

[Rob Bowman]

steve,

You wrote:

"Exalt" means to lift higher. Jesus Christ was exalted, but even He was still God both during and before His mortal ministry. Could the Father not have exalted Himself by allowing Himself to pass through mortality and obtain a physical body, to receive a fullness of joy, just as we were required to do? I see no reason why not.

Hypothetically, I see your point, but this is not what Joseph Smith taught in the KFD.

You wrote:

Jesus Christ was also "once a man like us," but "like us" in the sense that He was mortal and was subject to the same temptations and pains that we are subject to, not that He was a sinner. There is nothing in LDS doctrine saying that God the Father was once a sinner, or a human being exactly like we are, which is what you seem to be implying, or that He was once not God.

I neither said nor implied that in LDS doctrine God the Father was once a sinner. That isn't the issue I raised. Since you brought it up, let me ask you this, however: is there anything in LDS doctrine saying that God the Father was not once a sinner?

You wrote:

The "infinite regression of gods" idea is also not LDS doctrine.

That's another issue I didn't bring up. But again: Is there anything in LDS doctrine that precludes this idea?

You wrote:

The fact is that the Church teaches that God the Father passed through mortality, but it does NOT teach that there was a time where He was not God. How, when, and where God was mortal, and how He was exalted to His current state, is not clear at this time.

Is it your claim that the LDS Church never taught that God was once not God, or that this is not its teaching at the present time?

You wrote:

And if you are accusing me of being "embarrassed" with the fact that Joseph taught that God was not always God, you are mistaken. (And whatever he meant by that is not clear, since parts of the King Follett discourse were not recorded, and since he was not alive long enough to expand on and clarify this teaching, so it's not really clear how he fit these ideas together, and since he obviously believed the Bible and the Book of Mormon and their statements of how God has always been God—but even if he meant what he said, it doesn't bother me.)

Clearly, your faith is in Joseph Smith, not in his doctrine. If he taught that God was once not God, that's okay with you; if he taught that God was always God, that is also okay with you. It doesn't matter to you what he taught, you accept him as a prophet. I get that.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

Where in the Bible does it say that Father and Son lack oneness in Being? Nowhere directly.

It actually does. The biblical language suggests that the Father and the Son are two distinct and separate beings, in the same way that we are from each other. Jesus prays to His Father for example, in the same way as we do. He claims that He was sent by His Father (as we might be), and is returning to Him. He says that the Father is greater than Him, etc. Throughout the NT He uses a language that suggests something other than the "oneness of being" you are suggesting. That is the most natural, the most obvious meaning of those words. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that the Bible teaches "oneness of being," not on me to prove the opposite. The Bible does not teach "oneness of being" unless proven otherwise.

Clearly, these ideas are developed from implications of the biblical record.

The trouble is that there are no such “implications”. If there are, the burden of proof is on you to show that there are, and you haven’t.

Whether right or wrong, we cannot restrict our beliefs only to those truths that are explicitly stated. Ideas have consequences.

* * *

Again, no such “idea” is found in the Bible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there is, and you haven’t.

Edited July 19, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Grace is another topic... I don't really have time to continue to respond to it here.

Another dodge!

I'm not dodging a question, rather I was trying to explain that the Trinity doesn't mean nor ever would mean 4 persons.

I didn’t say that it did. What I am saying is that that is the logical implication of it which needs to be dealt with, and neither you nor the Trinitarians have done so.

And if you honestly don't think that "God" being addressed generally doesn't include the whole Godhead, then I can't help you.

I don't need any help from you; but you obviously need help from someone. That just doesn’t answer the question. You are obviously incapable of answsering it, and neither are the rest of the Tinitarians.

I think that 3DOP answered you better than I could have done. (Thanks by the way!)

Small comfort! 3DOP’s post was answered above.

[zerinus]

I neither said nor implied that in LDS doctrine God the Father was once a sinner. That isn't the issue I raised. Since you brought it up, let me ask you this, however: is there anything in LDS doctrine saying that God the Father was not once a sinner?

Yes. Mormonism teaches that the Father has always been God, and God cannot sin, or He would "cease to be God".

That's another issue I didn't bring up. But again: Is there anything in LDS doctrine that precludes this idea?

Yes. Mormonism teaches that God the Father is the greatest of all, than Whom there is no greater. That precludes the idea of an infinite regression of Gods, because it would suggest other Gods greater than Him.

Is it your claim that the LDS Church never taught that God was once not God, or that this is not its teaching at the present time?

Accepting the dictum that the official doctrine of the Church is in the standard works, and that anyone’s teaching that does not conform to it is not correct, then answer would be No. That means that if it has been taught, it was wrong, and it shouldn’t have been.

Clearly, your faith is in Joseph Smith, not in his doctrine. If he taught that God was once not God, that's okay with you; if he taught that God was always God, that is also okay with you. It doesn't matter to you what he taught, you accept him as a prophet. I get that.

Joseph Smith was a prophet, and a very great one, no doubt.

Edited July 19, 2011 by zerinus

[3DOP]

Zerinus

It actually does. The biblical language suggests that the Father and the Son are two different and separate beings. Jesus prays to His father the same way as we do. He claims that He was sent from Him and is returning to Him. He says that the Father is greater than Him, etc. Throughout the NT He uses a language that suggests something contrary from "oneness of being". That is the most natural, the most obvious meaning of those words. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to show that the Bible teaches "oneness of being," not on me to prove the opposite. The Bible does not teach "oneness of being" unless proven otherwise.

3DOP

Hi again Zerinus.

I am afraid you don't seem to be using the term being, the way it is used in the Creed. "One in being with", or consubstantial with, as used at Nicea and Chalcedon does not mean what you seem to be suggesting. Let me try to explain.

Do you deny that you have the same being as your parents? Are you made of different stuff that makes you a different form of life? Of course not. You are human from human. That is what it means to be consubstantial. It never meant that Jesus and the Father do not communicate as distinct and separate Persons having the same divine Being. One in being with means that the Father's life is given to the Son. The question at hand (at Nicea) was about how God really truly meant it when He revealed that he had an "only begotten Son". After all, this was the language of generation. Surely it must be adoptive sonship, said some. The naysayers were incredulous. God Almighty wouldn't just generate His complete life to His Son analogous to biological nature where ducks beget ducks and spiders beget spiders? Does God beget God too? The answer, according to the expression, Consubstantialem Patri, was a resounding, "Yes". He does. Jesus is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, according to the Creed. The purpose of Consubstantialem Patri is to affirm that the same eternal, divine life of God the Father is also given to the Son.

If, like the Arians, you hold that the Son's life is ontologically inferior to His Father's, that is your business. I am not sure, all other things being equal, it would make you a truer Mormon than I would be. I thought you were supposed to believe that we are the same species as God the Father. Now it seems that you are making a fuss because the Nicene Creed affirms against the Arians that Chirst is the same "species" as God the Father!

Zerinus

The trouble is that there are no such “implications”. If there are, the burden of proof is on you to show that there are, and you haven’t.

3DOP

The burden of proof is on me to show what? I am not challenging your beliefs. I am not even trying to prove that what I believe is true. How can I prove what I believe, before you even agree with me about what I believe? I am only explaining what I believe.

Zerinus

Again, no such “idea” is found in the Bible. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there are, and you haven’t.

3DOP

My burden is to demonstrate three centuries of theological development from the Bible? Why? Even if I was trying to prove a case, I am Catholic, not some guy who agrees with you that every truth they hold is explicit and clear in the Bible. I categorically deny that the Bible is an adequate vehicle to resolve this controversy anyway. If there is any "Bible Burden", it has to be yours, not mine! Heh. Going back to the Creed, God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God, and One in Substance" means that just as horses don't beget hares so God didn't beget an inferior form of life. Begotteness implies true Fatherhood whereby the complete life of God is reproduced in the Son. That is what the Creed means. Surely you don't have any desire to transform a truth upon which we should be in agreement into something sinister or something stupid?

Thanks for the reply.

3DOP

Edited July 19, 2011 by 3DOP

[zerinus]

You are equivocating, that is to say, not using the term being, the way it used in the Creed. "One in being with", or consubstantial, does not imply what you are suggesting. I explained it once and it is not difficult. If it was difficult, I wouldn't be able to understand it.

Do you deny that you have the same being as your parents? Are you made of different stuff that makes you a different form of life? Of course not. You are human from human. That is what it means to be consubstantial.

True; but I wouldn’t use that argument to assert that me and my parents, or all of humanity for that matter, are in some metaphysical sense “one man,” which is what you are doing with regard to the Trinity. Clearly, you are using that argument to make a statement about the Trinity that cannot be applied to me and my father, or to the rest of humanity. Therefore with due respect, I think you are the one who is “equivocating” here.

If, like the Arians, you hold that the Son's life is ontologically inferior to His Father's, that is your business. I am not sure it make you a better Mormon than I would be. I thought you were supposed to believe that you are the same species as God the Father. Now you are making a fuss because the Nicene Creed says that Christ is the same species as God the Father!

That is not the theological position of Mormonism, and it is not what I am arguing for. Please don’t dodge the argument.

The burden of proof is on me to show what? Where does this "burden on me, burden on you" business come from? I am not challenging your beliefs.

But I am challenging yours!

I am just trying to explain my own beliefs, how they are compatible with yours, and you clearly misunderstand.

Your beliefs in this regard are not compatible with mine, as explained above.

My burden is to demonstrate three centuries of theological development from the Bible? Who do you think I am? Some Protestant who agrees with you that every truth they hold is explicit and clear in the Bible?

What makes you so sure that those “three centuries of theological development” have been correct, or led to the correct conclusions? You obviously rely on your tradition, which we are not obliged to accept.

I categorically deny that the Bible is an adequate vehicle to resolve this controversy.

I agree, which is why we have modern revelation. The difference is that we don’t believe your Tradition is adequate to the task, whereas our Revelation is.

If there is any "Bible Burden", its yours, not mine.

Come on now! You made a claim about the Bible that I have shown not to be correct. You either accept my conclusions or provide evidence to back up yours.

[jo1952]

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?"

Soooooo well done!!!!! I gave you a "+"!!!!!

Love,

jo

[jo1952]

Thanks but that wasn't the question.

Thank you.

Indeed I do, thanks for asking.

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.

Do you believe that Satan exists?

Regards,

jo

Edited July 19, 2011 by jo1952

[volgadon]

volgadon,

Regarding angels, you wrote:

CFR that angels "often were worshipped alongside God."

Gladly.

Here are a few references.

Razim, the First Heaven 1:2-4, 123-126. These, among others, provide instructions for pouring out libations to angels.

The Fourth Heaven 25-28, the First Heaven 29-31. Incense burning.

The First Heaven 160-164. Animal sacrifice.

The Fourth Heaven 59-63. Prayer to and prostration before Helios.

Colossians 2:18. Paul warns against angel worship.

Tosefta Hulin 2:18 warns against sacrificing to Michael.

The Palestinian Talmud Berachot 13a states that although a man doesn't dare go in to his patron without requesting anaudience through one of the servants, God answers petitions directly. This shows that worshiping angels was meant to increase one's chance of receiving a favourable answer to a petition by soliciting the help and favour of the angels.

[3DOP]

I am sorry to disappoint you Zerinus. What does "consubstantialem Patri" mean? I deny that it necessarily implies metaphysical oneness. I never made such an argument. You are not challenging my position.

My only biblical claim that I can recall had to do with when I said that nowhere does the Bible directly deny that the Son is "one in being with" the Father. Consubstantialem is not talking about metaphysical oneness, or else it could not be used to say that we are consubstantial with Christ as man. Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with us as Man, as He is consubstantial with the Father as God. So when you start talking about using it as a proof for monotheism, you are not in my opinion, using the expression as it is used in the Creeds, or as I use it. I am certainly not compelled to argue in favor of the position you wish me to oppose when I don't believe it anyway.

The Nicene Creed is written to combat the Arian heresy. I have demonstrated with a comparison of the Council of Chalcedon that consubstantial, according to its usage by the Church, implies a nature that is the same in all essentials, whether we speak of man, God, or beast.

Edited July 19, 2011 by 3DOP

[jo1952]

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.

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.

Hi Hughes,

I see several problems with the Trinity. Perhaps you or other Trinitarians can help solve them for me. Before we get started, though, I would like to let you know that I do not think it is important that we have the correct “nature” of God in our heads in order to be saved. This post is to really discuss things which appear to me to conflict within the Trinity theory itself; and is for discussion purposes only.

I. John 10:25-36 (emphasis added; divided with my comments between some verses)

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Not only has Jesus continually given glory to the Father throughout His ministry, He is also teaching us here that the Father is greater than all. To my understanding, Trinitarians believe that there is no hierarchy in the three Persons of God. Yet Jesus is plainly teaching that Father is “Greater than all”. BTW, I find it interesting that Jesus uses the words “no man”. Could this be because unless we recognize that God the Father is the One True God over and above any other god(s)? Do other gods have the power to pluck us from Father’s hand? It appears that Satan tries all the time to lead us astray and down the wrong paths. Satan is not a man; he has no physical body; nor can he obtain one; but he is the god of the physical earth. In NOT being a man, does he have the power to pluck us from Father’s hand?

30 I and my Father are one.

Yet Jesus just finished explaining that the Father is greater than all. I would say that Father, being greater than all (and I believe Jesus is referring to gods), is also greater than Jesus. After all, Jesus recognizes Father as His God. So how are we to interpret this statement, “I and my Father are one”? I believe we have clues to this when Jesus talks about US becoming “one” with Him (Jesus), just as He is “one” with the Father. Obviously, we are not Jesus, nor do we become Jesus, even when we are one with Him. And if being one with Jesus is “even as Jesus and the Father are one”, by becoming one with Jesus we also become one with the Father, we surely are NOT, nor do we become, the Father.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

I will just repeat what Jesus said one more time since Jesus is not a liar: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” So why does man try to wriggle their way out of this teaching??Isn’t it man who has tried to waive this away??

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

My point in referring to these passages is that Jesus has written in the Law that WE are gods. So, there are billions of gods who have been born on the earth. Do Trinitarians believe what Jesus has taught? Or does the Trinity require that you explain this teaching away so that there can be no other “real” gods in existence?

II. Mark 3:29

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

How is it possible to blaspheme one of the Persons in the Trinity (who is as much God as are the other two Persons), and not be forgiven of this sin? However, it is okay to blaspheme the other two Persons? The above verse, btw, is another excellent passage which demands some explanation on the part of those who believe that unless you are Trinitarian, you cannot be saved. So where do you draw the line? Someone who denies the Holy Ghost certainly cannot, therefore, believe in the Trinity; yet though this sin is unforgivable, it does NOT guaranty eternal damnation. IOW, Jesus has taught that you can blaspheme both Father and Son, and still be forgiven; which to me indicates you can still receive Salvation. Now, denying the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. However, since this still does not guaranty eternal damnation, that means a person can still be saved (also an interesting mystery for the orthodox Christian…..how can a person be saved who has committed an unforgivable sin??), even though they have denied one of the Persons in the Trinity. Actually, Jesus has taught you can deny all three and still not necessarily be eternally damned. Doesn’t that mean that a person doesn’t HAVE to believe in the Trinity to keep from being damned?

III. Romans 11:25-32 (emphasis added)

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

It sure doesn't look like the Jews need to believe in the Trinity. We have been told right here that they will ALL be saved.

There are other unsolved problems which appear to me, but these should suffice for now.

Regards,

jo

[Hughes]

Do you believe that Satan exists?

Regards,

jo

Yes

Hi Hughes,

I see several problems with the Trinity. Perhaps you or other Trinitarians can help solve them for me. Before we get started, though, I would like to let you know that I do not think it is important that we have the correct “nature” of God in our heads in order to be saved. This post is to really discuss things which appear to me to conflict within the Trinity theory itself; and is for discussion purposes only.

I. John 10:25-36 (emphasis added; divided with my comments between some verses)

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Not only has Jesus continually given glory to the Father throughout His ministry, He is also teaching us here that the Father is greater than all. To my understanding, Trinitarians believe that there is no hierarchy in the three Persons of God. Yet Jesus is plainly teaching that Father is “Greater than all”. BTW, I find it interesting that Jesus uses the words “no man”. Could this be because unless we recognize that God the Father is the One True God over and above any other god(s)? Do other gods have the power to pluck us from Father’s hand? It appears that Satan tries all the time to lead us astray and down the wrong paths. Satan is not a man; he has no physical body; nor can he obtain one; but he is the god of the physical earth. In NOT being a man, does he have the power to pluck us from Father’s hand?

30 I and my Father are one.

Yet Jesus just finished explaining that the Father is greater than all. I would say that Father, being greater than all (and I believe Jesus is referring to gods), is also greater than Jesus. After all, Jesus recognizes Father as His God. So how are we to interpret this statement, “I and my Father are one”? I believe we have clues to this when Jesus talks about US becoming “one” with Him (Jesus), just as He is “one” with the Father. Obviously, we are not Jesus, nor do we become Jesus, even when we are one with Him. And if being one with Jesus is “even as Jesus and the Father are one”, by becoming one with Jesus we also become one with the Father, we surely are NOT, nor do we become, the Father.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

I will just repeat what Jesus said one more time since Jesus is not a liar: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” So why does man try to wriggle their way out of this teaching??Isn’t it man who has tried to waive this away??

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

My point in referring to these passages is that Jesus has written in the Law that WE are gods. So, there are billions of gods who have been born on the earth. Do Trinitarians believe what Jesus has taught? Or does the Trinity require that you explain this teaching away so that there can be no other “real” gods in existence?

II. Mark 3:29

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

How is it possible to blaspheme one of the Persons in the Trinity (who is as much God as are the other two Persons), and not be forgiven of this sin? However, it is okay to blaspheme the other two Persons? The above verse, btw, is another excellent passage which demands some explanation on the part of those who believe that unless you are Trinitarian, you cannot be saved. So where do you draw the line? Someone who denies the Holy Ghost certainly cannot, therefore, believe in the Trinity; yet though this sin is unforgivable, it does NOT guaranty eternal damnation. IOW, Jesus has taught that you can blaspheme both Father and Son, and still be forgiven; which to me indicates you can still receive Salvation. Now, denying the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. However, since this still does not guaranty eternal damnation, that means a person can still be saved (also an interesting mystery for the orthodox Christian…..how can a person be saved who has committed an unforgivable sin??), even though they have denied one of the Persons in the Trinity. Actually, Jesus has taught you can deny all three and still not necessarily be eternally damned. Doesn’t that mean that a person doesn’t HAVE to believe in the Trinity to keep from being damned?

III. Romans 11:25-32 (emphasis added)

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

It sure doesn't look like the Jews need to believe in the Trinity. We have been told right here that they will ALL be saved.

There are other unsolved problems which appear to me, but these should suffice for now.

Regards,

jo

Jo, How is the trinitarian view any different than the LDS version of the Godhead?

IF three distinct person are in the Godhead, and yet that is considered monotheistic by the LDS, how is that any different than three distinct persons in the Trinity, and yet one God?

[zerinus]

I am sorry to disappoint you Zerinus. What does "consubstantialem Patri" mean? I deny that it necessarily implies metaphysical oneness. I never made such an argument. You are not challenging my position.

Are you defending the Nicene Creed or are you defending the Trinitarian theology of present day Christendom (the “three Persons in one God” theory)? I agree that the two may not be compatible. It may be that the Nicene Creed does not in fact teach the Trinitarian theology of present day Christianity (Catholic or Protestant). But you need to clearly distinguish between the two so that our arguments (and my discussions with Hughes) don’t get mixed up, because that is how they understand the Nicene Creed, even if you don’t. In your post #54 you made this statement:

Where in the Bible does it say that Father and Son lack oneness in Being? Nowhere directly. Clearly, these ideas are developed from implications of the biblical record.

You need to make clear what you mean by “oneness of being”. If you mean by it that the Father and the Son are made of the same “stuff” and nothing more (in the same way that me and my dad are made of the same “stuff” and nothing more), then I don’t have any problem with that. The problem arises out of the fact that Trinitarians don’t understand it that way. By “oneness of being” they mean that the farther and the Son are literally “One God” in an incomprehensible metaphysical sense—in a sense that cannot be applied to me and my dad for example.

You made that statement in response to what I had said to Hughes, and made it sound like you are defending the Trinitarian doctrine that he was teaching (which is how he had understood it, and so did I). If you are not defending the doctrine that he is teaching, you need to made that clear from the outset, so that neither he nor I mistakenly think that you are.

My only biblical claim that I can recall had to do with when I said that nowhere does the Bible directly deny that the Son is "one in being with" the Father.

Sure, in the Bible Jesus says that He and His Farther are “one;” and then goes on to say that we all may become “one” with Him and His Father, in the same way that they are “one”. If by “oneness of being” you mean that, and nothing more, then I have no problem with it. The trouble is that Hughes doesn’t understand it that way, and you need to make that clear so that he (or I) don’t get the wrong idea, as he clearly did.

Consubstantialem is not talking about metaphysical oneness, or else it could not be used to say that we are consubstantial with Christ as man. Chalcedon says that Christ is consubstantial with us as Man, as He is consubstantial with the Father as God. So when you start talking about using it as a proof for monotheism, you are not in my opinion, using the expression as it is used in the Creeds, or as I use it. I am certainly not compelled to argue in favor of the position you wish me to oppose when I don't believe it anyway.

I was using it the way in which Trinitarians like Hughes understand it. I was debating with Him, and was trying to explain why his doctrine was not biblical. You intervened in such a way that appeared that you were defending his teachings. If you were not, you need to make that clear so that he does not misunderstand.

The Nicene Creed is written to combat the Arian heresy. I have demonstrated with a comparison of the Council of Chalcedon that consubstantial, according to its usage by the Church, implies a nature that is the same in all essentials, whether we speak of man, God, or beast.

See above. Whatever they meant by “consubstantial,” that word is not biblical; and as subsequent history has shown, its use was mistaken at best, because it has led to the incorrect theology of Trinitarianism that Hughes and other are now advocating. I am arguing against that incorrect belief. If you don’t share that incorrect belief, you need to make that clear from the outset so that people like Hughes don’t get wrong ideas (as he clearly did).

Edited July 19, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Yes

Jo, How is the trinitarian view any different than the LDS version of the Godhead?

IF three distinct person are in the Godhead, and yet that is considered monotheistic by the LDS, how is that any different than three distinct persons in the Trinity, and yet one God?

Nothing, except that they differ in two fundamental ways:

(1) The Mormon doctrine of the Godhead makes sense, but Trinitarianism doesn't.

(2) The Mormon doctrine of the Godhead is biblical, but Trinitarianism isn't.

[3DOP]

Zerinus

Are you defending the Nicene Creed or are you defending the Trinitarian theology of present day Christendom (the “three Persons in one God” theory)? I agree that the two may not be compatible. It may be that the Nicene Creed does not in fact teach the Trinitarian theology of present day Christianity (Catholic or Protestant). But you need to clearly distinguish between the two so that our arguments (and my discussions with Hughes) don’t get mixed up, because that is how they understand the Nicene Creed, even if you don’t. In your post #54 you made this statement:

3DOP

I am pointing out that your beef is NOT with the Nicene Creed.

Zerinus

You need to make clear what you mean by “oneness of being”. If you mean by it that the Father and the Son are made of the same “stuff” and nothing more (in the same way that me and my dad are made of the same “stuff” and nothing more), then I don’t have any problem with that. The problem arises out of the fact that Trinitarians don’t understand it that way. By “oneness of being” they mean that the farther and the Son are literally “One God” in an incomprehensible metaphysical sense—in a sense that cannot be applied to me and my dad for example.

3DOP

As a synonym for consubstantialem, "oneness of being" cannot necessarily imply that Father and Son are one in the sense which you oppose. Because of how the word is used at Chalcedon, it is evident that monotheism is not proven by consubstantiality.

Zerinus

You made that statement in response to what I had said to Hughes, and made it sound like you are defending the Trinitarian doctrine that he was teaching (which is how he had understood it, and so did I). If you are not defending the doctrine that he is teaching, you need to made that clear from the outset, so that neither him nor I mistakenly think that you are.

3DOP

We cannot say that the Nicene Creed teaches more than that Father and Son are made of the same stuff. What that "stuff" is determines monotheistic theology. If the "stuff" is finite, the implications are different than if "the stuff" is infinite. The Nicene Creed does not delineate on that question, and consubstantiality is therefore not in conflict with LDS thought.

Zerinus

Sure, in the Bible Jesus says that He and His Farther are “one;” and then goes on to say that we all may become “one” with Him and His Father, in the same way that they are “one”. If by “oneness of being” you mean that, and nothing more, then I have no problem with it. The trouble is that Hughes doesn’t understand it that way, and you need to make that clear so that he (or I) don’t get the wrong idea, as he clearly did.

I was using it the way in which Trinitarians like Hughes understand it. I was debating with Him, and was trying to explain why his doctrine was not biblical. You intervened in such a way that appeared that you were defending his teachings. If you were not, you need to make that clear so that he does not misunderstand.

3DOP

I don't have any intention of defending Hughes. I don't know if we agree or not. At one point he suggested that I had explained his position well, but I don't know. My intention is to defend the Council.

Zerinus

See above. Whatever they meant by “consubstantial,” that word is not biblical; and as subsequent history has shown, its use was mistaken at best, because it has led to the incorrect theology of Trinitarianism that Hughes and other are now advocating. I am arguing against that incorrect belief. If you don’t share that incorrect belief, you need to make that clear from the outset so that people like Hughes don’t get wrong ideas (as he clearly did).

3DOP

I explained above why I am unconcerned if post-biblical language is biblical.

A little late for work now...sorry for the brevity.

3DOP