Trinity

[zerinus]

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.

Mormons are polytheists in the same way that the Bible is polytheist. For example, God told Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). In that sense, yes, we are politheists.

Anytime anyone brings something with the term "biblical" this or that. It is always with the view that it is their interpretation.

Funny you should say that, because it is the Evangelicals who always bash the Bible in their arguments against both Mormons and Catholics. But you don’t seem to be able to make up your mind if the Bible is the final arbiter after all or not.

The LDS view remains confusing to me. Is it one God? or three? OR more? Don't the LDS also believe that the Father has a physical body?

There are many gods, yet they all worship one God, Who is the Father of all. Compared to Him there is no other god, because He is the greatest of all, and the God of all. Jesus was God, yet He worshipped Him, and so do all other gods and non-gods. The Father never worshipped the Son, nor prayed to the Son; but the reverse was true. The Son called the Father His God, not the reverse. The Father worships no one; and all other gods and non-gods worship Him. That makes Him the one true God of all other gods (see Moses 1:6).

So, we have the Father, has a separate physical presence, as does Jesus, and they don't share consubstanciation as explained by 3DOP. Yet you all consider yourselves monotheists. Now that is confusing.

3DOP has already made it clear that he doesn’t share your view of “consubstantiation,” unless he changes his mind and start saying something different!

You know, I ask straight questions and rarely get straight answers. It's just the way the LDS treat me I suppose. So, I'm being as honest as I can be. I said, "it appears to me..." and so it does.

Maybe you can help me understand this:

"And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God"

In what way exactly are three persons, one God?

In the same way that it says it in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30.)

Both scriptures are saying the same thing—which we understand differently from the way you do.

My question "How can three be one?" To the LDS is to understand how it can be, when they appear to attack the trinity for the same belief.

Thanks for the Athanasian Creed reminder. It sounds pretty good to me.

The modern Trinitarian theology is in fact derived from the Athanasian Creed, not from the Nicene Creed. But the Athanasian Creed has now become something of an embarrassment to Christendom; so they try to brush that under the carpet, and instead try to fit Trinitarianism into the Nicene mould, into which it does not fit.

Indeed the Doctrine of the Trinity does state that three persons, are one God. As the Athanasian Creed states.

It doesn’t actually. The Athanasian Creed employes language and concepts not found in the (original) Nicene Creed.

Which aspects of "the same being" (consubstantiality) do the LDS church reject?

All of it, because it is an ambiguous and unscriptural term capable of multiple interpretations and meanings. You understand it one way, 3DOP understands it another way, and somebody else another way still.

Thinking about this the last couple days, it seems to me that the reason God must be One God (monotheistic) has to do with the nature of any infinite being. As an infinite being, there is no where, no place, no thing that this being isn't present, or existent.

That is Aristotelian metaphysics, not biblical Christian doctrine. That concept of the “infinity of God” is alien to the Bible.

So, while we worship One God, the nature of this infinite being contains what we understand as three persons. Which, normally for us, different persons, would indicate different "beings", yet this can't be so when referring to an infinite being, otherwise the being referred to wouldn't be infinite.

In essence, it seems to me that it's the nature of infinitude that forces a monotheistic view of God.

You are looking for a God that is essentially meaningless, incomprehensible, whom you cannot make sense of, and to whom you can be held accountable. That kind of God doesn’t make sense to anybody, and is so distant and remote that you cannot feel accountable to. I have got bad news for you! You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The real God, infinite in His power, eternal in His glory and majesty, is someone who looks a lot like you; and one day you are going to have to stare into His eyes and give him an account of your actions. Does that frighten you? It should. It frightens me.

Edited July 21, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Mormons are polytheists in the same way that the Bible is polytheist. For example, God told Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). In that sense, yes, we are politheists.

Um, are you saying that Moses was exalted to Godhood in the celestial kingdom at the time that God spoke to him in Exodus 7:1? That doesn't make any sense.

[Rob Bowman]

Fly,

You wrote:

Whenever I hear a description of the Trinity that says 3 distinct persons in one "being", that is Divine attributes, or they are one God because they each share Divine attributes, then it makes me come to the conclusion that the One God is not the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but is the Divine attributes which they share. That way God can be one being(divine attributes) in 3 persons.

Yet if I follow that out, then anyone that becomes "one" with Jesus as He is "one" with the Father, meaning they too, share divine attributes, then that person becomes part of the Godhead, which of course means the Trinity is no more, it is now a Quadrinity...and so on and so forth until all that are "saved" become a part of the Godhead.

I don't think anyone would agree with that, but that is where that trail leads me.

I hear this objection a lot, mostly from Jehovah's Witnesses. You are correct in saying that no one agrees with the idea of a Quadrinity or Quaternity (that is the usual term). The argument is essentially a straw man.

It would not be correct to say that the three persons are one God "because they each share Divine attributes" if what you mean by this is that they are one God as a consequence or result of sharing divine attributes. If the doctrine is true, the three persons are one God eternally and necessarily. Their sharing the divine attributes shows or reveals them to be one God if we accept as a premise that only one God in fact has those attributes. Hence:

• Only one God has the attribute of omnipotence.
• The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each has the attribute of omnipotence.
• Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

The one God is not the divine attributes; the divine attributes are characteristics or descriptive truths about the one God.

[jo1952]

Hi Hughes:

You told Ebeddoulos this:

Thanks for the Athanasian Creed reminder. It sounds pretty good to me.

;

which indicates to me you may actually understand what it says. On Page 5, post #96, and on Page 6, post #104, I asked some questions of you and answered questions you came back with. But you have never answered my questions. I am hoping that since you can make sense of the Athanasian Creed, that you will be able to address and answer my questions.

Actually, I am hoping that ANY Trinitarian will try to address and answer my questions. I have asked these same questions on other boards; but have yet to hear back from a Triniarian who has answered the questions rather than ignoring them or sending me down a rabbit trail in order to avoid answering them. I truly and honestly would like to hear your reasoning and logic, since I have pointed to specific passages in the Bible which, apparently, no Triniarian is either able to answer or is just ignoring them because they don't want to see how the Trinity does not hold up in their light.

Thank you,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

Juan,

You wrote:

From My LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive http://www.geocities.../whoisjesus.htm

Your web article is a tissue of misunderstandings and misrepresentations, some of which you appear to have culled from other anti-Trinitarian sources. (One in particular I recognize as a standard Jehovah's Witness misrepresentation.) Thomas Jefferson was not a respected theologian; he was a deist who rejected all of the miracles of the Bible, including Jesus' resurrection. Albert Ritschl was an anti-supernaturalist theologian who rejected not only the Trinity but the preexistence of Christ. When you do quote Trinitarian writers, you quote them out of context. For example, you quote various sources as saying that the New Testament does not contain a formal or systematic doctrine of the Trinity; but these same sources, in the same context, make the point that the doctrine is firmly rooted in what the NT does teach.

[Rob Bowman]

jo1952,

In post #96, you asked about John 10:29, commenting:

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”.

I discussed this question at length in a blog post on Parchment and Pen; that post was part of a series on John 10:30 in its context.

With regard to John 10:34-36, you wrote:

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?

There's a lot going on here that your comment misses. In LDS doctrine, mortal human beings are not gods, but may become gods after their deaths and resurrections. Whatever Jesus is saying in his quotation of John 10:34-36, it does not fit LDS doctrine.

With regard to Mark 3:29, you asked:

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?

I don't see how the LDS doctrine that the three personages are one "Godhead" in the sense of being a triumvirate of three ruling Gods solves this problem. You don't think the Holy Spirit is superior to Christ, do you?

From an orthodox perspective, there is no problem because Jesus is not diminishing his importance in relation to the Holy Spirit but talking about two different kinds of sin. Those who spoke against the Son of Man could be forgiven because it is possible for people to have false views of Jesus and repent of them. Those who witnessed the unmistakable working of the Holy Spirit's witness to Christ and were so hardened to it that they blasphemously dismissed it as the work of the devil had committed a sin from which there was no repentance (Matt. 12:31-32 is the passage that draws this contrast explicitly). The issue here is not the comparative metaphysical nature of the Son and the Spirit but the comparative spiritual condition of people who for a time reject Christ and those people who resist the clear witness of the Spirit to Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Whatever Jesus is saying in his quotation of John 10:34-36, it does not fit LDS doctrine.

Actually it fits very well in LDS theology. We are gods in embryo. But gods in embryo are still gods. AS we are the literal offspring of God, not in the flesh.

Of course, the discussion has been had several times on the LDS interpretation of John 10:34-36 so there is no reason to rehash it.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Can we agree that in John 10:28-38, Jesus is claiming to be God's "Son" in a sense not applicable to other human beings?

Actually it fits very well in LDS theology. We are gods in embryo. But gods in embryo are still gods. AS we are the literal offspring of God, not in the flesh.

Of course, the discussion has been had several times on the LDS interpretation of John 10:34-36 so there is no reason to rehash it.

[Anakin7]

Juan,

You wrote:

Your web article is a tissue of misunderstandings and misrepresentations, some of which you appear to have culled from other anti-Trinitarian sources. (One in particular I recognize as a standard Jehovah's Witness misrepresentation.) Thomas Jefferson was not a respected theologian; he was a deist who rejected all of the miracles of the Bible, including Jesus' resurrection. Albert Ritschl was an anti-supernaturalist theologian who rejected not only the Trinity but the preexistence of Christ. When you do quote Trinitarian writers, you quote them out of context. For example, you quote various sources as saying that the New Testament does not contain a formal or systematic doctrine of the Trinity; but these same sources, in the same context, make the point that the doctrine is firmly rooted in what the NT does teach.

Which trinity do you adhere to Rob ?, it is obvious that to us [Though we love you] that you subscribe to a greek neo-middle platonic form/model of the trinity [Western view]. Others have observed this as well outside the LDS Christian Mansion.

See http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/diety/trinity/html . Also you misrepresented me I simply posted a reference to a web address I did not quote anyone, that is not loving your fellow man,not nice.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Can we agree that in John 10:28-38, Jesus is claiming to be God's "Son" in a sense not applicable to other human beings?

Let me look at that a little more closely. Hold on.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let me look at that a little more closely. Hold on.

The interesting thing here is that Jesus was claiming to be God's Son. We understand that to be "in the flesh". Jesus then sites the scriptures that tell us that we are all gods.

So in one sense I agree with you. While the scriptures have more than one application to what Christ is talking about as he was trying to establish his divinity by using scripture that applies to all, "Ye are gods".

[Rob Bowman]

Anakin,

You wrote:

Which trinity do you adhere to Rob ?, it is obvious that to us [Though we love you] that you subscribe to a greek neo-middle platonic form/model of the trinity [Western view].

See my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. I couldn't care less whether one accepts a Western or Eastern theological model for articulating the doctrine. What matters is fidelity to the biblical revelation.

You wrote:

Also you misrepresented me I simply posted a reference to a web address I did not quote anyone, that is not loving your fellow man,not nice.

You introduced the link with the words "From My LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive," which I took to mean that you were responsible for the material on that web page. In any case, what I said about that web page is true. Can you agree that it misrepresents Jefferson, Ritschl, and other authors it cites?

Edited July 22, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Flyonthewall]

Fly,

You wrote:

I hear this objection a lot, mostly from Jehovah's Witnesses. You are correct in saying that no one agrees with the idea of a Quadrinity or Quaternity (that is the usual term). The argument is essentially a straw man.

It would not be correct to say that the three persons are one God "because they each share Divine attributes" if what you mean by this is that they are one God as a consequence or result of sharing divine attributes. If the doctrine is true, the three persons are one God eternally and necessarily. Their sharing the divine attributes shows or reveals them to be one God if we accept as a premise that only one God in fact has those attributes. Hence:

• Only one God has the attribute of omnipotence.
• The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each has the attribute of omnipotence.
• Therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.

The one God is not the divine attributes; the divine attributes are characteristics or descriptive truths about the one God.

That is IF we accept the premise that only one God has those attributes. Since, in fact, 3 distinct individuals have those attributes, that seems like it shoots down the premise that only one can have them.

IF the premise is correct, then the three must be pieces of a whole, otherwise it is simply verbal and philisophical gymnastics.

I see the concept of the Trinity as being similar to Nicodemus' comment on being born again.

[3DOP]

Deleted

Edited July 22, 2011 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Hughes.

It doesn't seem right to say the whole truth about how I feel. But I will say, without admitting guilt, I am very very sorry I ever posted on this thread. Hughes, I am especially sorry for how my words have been used to insist that we disagree. I do not know what you believe. I don't wish to oppose you. I guess that's all I should say. I am sure I take my self far too seriously. If it weren't for Zerinus' persistence in saying that I oppose you, Hughes, I think I might have just disappeared instead of making this last post. I do not dispute my hyopocrisy, but Zerinus misrepresents me as far as how I consider your position. He doesn't understand much of what I have said. Anyway...it will all blow over soon enough, as ugly and distasteful as it seems to me for now.

A thousand apologies...

3DOP

[Anakin7]

Anakin,

You wrote:

See my outline study on the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity. I couldn't care less whether one accepts a Western or Eastern theological model for articulating the doctrine. What matters is fidelity to the biblical revelation.

You wrote:

You introduced the link with the words "From My LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive," which I took to mean that you were responsible for the material on that web page. In any case, what I said about that web page is true. Can you agree that it misrepresents Jefferson, Ritschl, and other authors it cites?

Thank you Rob, I have seen these O.T, N.T prooftext in the past by others to prove the "Trinity", however others have taken these same verses to show there form/model of there Trinity as the true and correct one. Many see through what they percieve as the word games and rhetoric of western trinitarianism and show it's Sabellian/Modaliism undergarments. These are those that very familiar with greek/history/rhetorical dialectic of others.

My "LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive" [Archive - storage of material] was material from other web sites and not responsible by my person. There observations have been shown to be not far from what many see today. Thank you for your reply.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDs JEDI KNIGHT

[Hughes]

I don't track this logic. To be an infinite being, which LDS believe God is, you are saying that because you see him manifested in three beings that is evidence of his being infinite? It seems circular. It seems to be that most Trinitarians dance between modalism and the orthodox view of the Trinity. It is the "substance" that unites them, not the fact that God is infinite. Do you think there can only be one infinite being? Jesus cannot be infinite at the same time as God? Why? If God shares his glory what does the recipient become? Can God share his glory?

I am not trying to derail the thread into a discussion on theosis or exaltation, but just focusing on the sharing of glory is the point.

God is not manifested in three persons and yet just one face; I am thinking of a Janus-like god on steroids. The Trinity, I think, explains them as three distinct persons, but they are one in the mystery of "substance" or essence.

It just does not make sense to me. Standing on scripture, it is just so much more logical, more apparent that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings/persons and one in purpose. They are one Godhead.

"...manifested in three beings that is evidence of his being infinite?"

No, God is infinite because he's God, based on who he is, his nature. Just as we are finite, by our nature.

"Do you think there can only be one infinite being?"

Right. Logically, if there were two infinite beings (two or more) then our definition of infinite wouldn't carry much weight. In many ways, those two (or more) would be one.

Let's think of it on a smaller scale. Let's say that we have a one square foot box. In the box is one square foot of water. Now lets say that you wanted to also hold one square foot of oil in your box at the same time, could you do that? Obviously not. It's already filled with the water.

In the same way, all that exists, is filled with God's existence (Omni-present), therefore there cannot be another Omni-present *being*.

"Jesus cannot be infinite at the same time as God? Why?"

Jesus isn't another *being* in the trinitarian view. He's not another God. He's apart of the same God, he is a different person, not a different being.

"If God shares his glory what does the recipient become? Can God share his glory?"

If God shares his glory with us (humanity) what do we become? Human as God originally intended in the beginning. There are shared attributes, and those he can't share. Of those shared attributes, are Love, Joy, Peace, Life, etc. Of those he can't share, such as Omni-etc. So, when God shares his glory with us, we receive those shared attributes.

The bible doesn't state that there are three beings. That would be polytheistic.

Latter-day Saints reject the Trinity because it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three consubstantial beings united in essence or substance as one being that has no essence or substance. This is what doesn't make any sense, and what is false. Instead, they are united in every other way—in heart, mind, intent, purpose, glory, power, love, light, etc. This is how they are one. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. It's like how the Bible says that a man and wife are "one flesh." Obviously this is not to be taken literally. Rather, they are one in the sense that a person is (or, at least, should be) united with his or her spouse in all other ways.

The trinity doesn't state there are three beings.

However, three separate beings united in purpose, etc, are three separate beings or Gods, which is not one God, but three.

And you are correct, "These two shall be one flesh" indicates their unity, however, no one claims that man and woman are one human/being.

Hi Hughes:

You told Ebeddoulos this:

;

which indicates to me you may actually understand what it says. On Page 5, post #96, and on Page 6, post #104, I asked some questions of you and answered questions you came back with. But you have never answered my questions. I am hoping that since you can make sense of the Athanasian Creed, that you will be able to address and answer my questions.

Actually, I am hoping that ANY Trinitarian will try to address and answer my questions. I have asked these same questions on other boards; but have yet to hear back from a Triniarian who has answered the questions rather than ignoring them or sending me down a rabbit trail in order to avoid answering them. I truly and honestly would like to hear your reasoning and logic, since I have pointed to specific passages in the Bible which, apparently, no Triniarian is either able to answer or is just ignoring them because they don't want to see how the Trinity does not hold up in their light.

Thank you,

jo

I'm very sorry I haven't had time to answer every question. Busy week, and now I'm getting ready to go out of the weekend. I will go through those posts in a few minutes and see if I can answer some of them. I'll try not to duplicate Rob's efforts.

Hughes.

It doesn't seem right to say the whole truth about how I feel. But I will say, without admitting guilt, I am very very sorry I ever posted on this thread. Hughes, I am especially sorry for how my words have been used to insist that we disagree. I do not know what you believe. I don't wish to oppose you. I guess that's all I should say. I am sure I take my self far too seriously. If it weren't for Zerinus' persistence in saying that I oppose you, Hughes, I think I might have just disappeared instead of making this last post. I do not dispute my hyopocrisy, but Zerinus misrepresents me as far as how I consider your position. He doesn't understand much of what I have said. Anyway...it will all blow over soon enough, as ugly and distasteful as it seems to me for now.

A thousand apologies...

3DOP

I really hope you don't feel too bad. I never felt like we were at odds. I appreciated your input, especially about explicit and implicit doctrines of the Bible. Of course you are correct, that everything isn't explicitly stated.

I also enjoyed your description of substance/essence, it made me think. What Zerinus may not understand is that this isn't a game where one side wins and another loses. At the end of the day scores don't matter, who is right or wrong doesn't matter. If we all have learned something, then we all win.

[Hughes]

jo1952,

In post #96, you asked:

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?

The trinity doesn't explain away this teaching. Monotheism does. There can be only one God, all the rest are "acting" as if they were gods, when in reality they can't ever be.

Romans 11:25-32

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.

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.

I don't think anyone here has said that one needs to have perfect theology to be saved. Nor have I heard anyone here say that one has to believe in the Trinity to be saved. Salvation remains God's domain. And he promised all of Israel will be saved, based on his covenant with them.

jo1952,

In post #104, you asked:

Then you also believe in more than one god.

I reject that there exists more than one God in existence. Satan isn't equal to God in anyway. He's a created being, just as we are, but God is not. He may be a "ruler" of the air for a time, but he's no equal to God. Using the word, "god" to mean "ruler" only serves to confuse the issue.

Whereas you have twelve possible deity combinations, I would offer that the LDS have a core of four:

* The Godhead - when referring to all three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

* The Father - the original Supreme Being existing separately and apart from all other god beings. As the Supreme Being, He is Greater than all other gods; thus in recognizing His Supremacy, we are monotheistic.

* The Son - the only begotten Son of the Father; the Creator of our world; Christ the Savior and Redeemer of mankind on the earth; existing separately and apart from all other god beings.

* The Holy Ghost - the Comforter; the witness on the earth whereby we can know Spirit to spirit that Jesus is the Christ; the Spirit designated by the Father to lead and guide mankind to all Truth revealed to mankind on the earth; existing separately and apart from all other god beings.

I am not trying to play word games, not at all.

What I am doing is pointing out that when the words, "god beings" is used, doesn't this have to indicate a separate god? I mean what you seem to be describing as a Godhead, is three gods united in purpose, not one God, but three. Simply saying they are united doesn't change the fact that the term, "god beings" is also used.

I'm sorry I didn't see much a question in this particular post...

[Vance]

"Do you think there can only be one infinite being?"

Right. Logically, if there were two infinite beings (two or more) then our definition of infinite wouldn't carry much weight. In many ways, those two (or more) would be one.

There is no logic in that statement at all.

In geometry, all lines are infinite in length. (Only line SEGMENTS are finite.) Using your logic there can only be ONE line.

In geometry, all planes are infinite in length. Using your logic there can only be ONE plane.

Your faulty logic is guiding you into error.

[Hughes]

There is no logic in that statement at all.

In geometry, all lines are infinite in length. (Only line SEGMENTS are finite.) Using your logic there can only be ONE line.

In geometry, all planes are infinite in length. Using your logic there can only be ONE plane.

Your faulty logic is guiding you into error.

Sorry I must not have been clear.

Using your analogy, if there exists only one line of existent space, then only one infinite line could fit into that one line of existent space.

Or if there exists but one plane of existent space, then only one infinite plane could exist inside that space.

This if logical given the definitions of space and infinitude.

IF God is infinite and fills all with his presence, there can be only one.

[LeSellers]

IF God is infinite and fills all with his presence, there can be only one.

CFR that "God ... fills all [space] with his [sic] presence".

Further, you originally said that if a square foot box were filled with a square foot of water ... .

First, there is no such thing as a square foot of water. But if we assume there is, then it is more than possible to fill a hypothetical square foot box (itself an oxymoron) with an infinite number of hypothetical square feet of water. (Methinks thou meantest "cubic foot".)

Prithee, does ∞/∞ = 0/0 = 1, 0, or ∞? Infinity is a very hard concept to grasp. In actuality, it's an infinite number of hard concepts to grasp.

And, lest we forget, a cubic foot box can hold a cubic foot of water and a great deal of salt at the same time. Unless God is infinitely dense, other things can exist in the same space-time as He does. In fact, the very (false) premise that He fills all with His presence requires that there be other things, including you, in the same space He so fills.

Lehi

[Vance]

Sorry I must not have been clear.

Or just illogical.

Using your analogy, if there exists only one line of existent space, then only one infinite line could fit into that one line of existent space.

Have you ever heard of circular logic?

Geometric space is three dimensional. Lines are 1 dimensional (length only, no width or height). So your analogy is flawed.

Or if there exists but one plane of existent space, then only one infinite plane could exist inside that space.

Geometric space is three dimensional. Planes are 2 dimensional (no thickness). So your analogy is flawed.

This if logical given the definitions of space and infinitude.

Nah.

IF God is infinite and fills all with his presence, there can be only one.

Nah, God needs to only be infinite in one dimension to be infinite. It isn't required that He be infinite in 3-dimensional space to be infinite.

Also, God doesn't fill "all with (H)is presence", unless you think h*** is filled with His presence. So help me out here and answer this question. Does God fill h*** with His presence?

[Hughes]

CFR that "God ... fills all [space] with his [sic] presence".

Further, you originally said that if a square foot box were filled with a square foot of water ... .

First, there is no such thing as a square foot of water. But if we assume there is, then it is more than possible to fill a hypothetical square foot box (itself an oxymoron) with an infinite number of hypothetical square feet of water. (Methinks thou meantest "cubic foot".)

Prithee, does ∞/∞ = 0/0 = 1, 0, or ∞? Infinity is a very hard concept to grasp. In actuality, it's an infinite number of hard concepts to grasp.

And, lest we forget, a cubic foot box can hold a cubic foot of water and a great deal of salt at the same time. Unless God is infinitely dense, other things can exist in the same space-time as He does. In fact, the very (false) premise that He fills all with His presence requires that there be other things, including you, in the same space He so fills.

Lehi

You are correct, a cubic foot thanks.

The premise is that no other infinite *beings* could exist. As if they did the wouldn't fill all space, but only a portion, and hence not be infinite. Therefore, only one infinite being can exist.

And as for your CFR, notice I said, "IF"... You don't have to believe that an infinite God exists. And there's no way to prove or disprove such, given that it would take an infinite being to do so, which logically would prove, not disprove the premise. And since I know I am not one, I am inadequate to prove such a being exists. I do believe he does and is however.

Or just illogical.

Have you ever heard of circular logic?

Geometric space is three dimensional. Lines are 1 dimensional (length only, no width or height). So your analogy is flawed.

Geometric space is three dimensional. Planes are 2 dimensional (no thickness). So your analogy is flawed.

Nah.

Nah, God needs to only be infinite in one dimension to be infinite. It isn't required that He be infinite in 3-dimensional space to be infinite.

Also, God doesn't fill "all with (H)is presence", unless you think h*** is filled with His presence. So help me out here and answer this question. Does God fill h*** with His presence?

I was using your analogy, which you now are calling flawed. I don't care to play games. You want to declare yourself the winner, be my guest. You're the winner!

As to God's presence.

Psalm 139:7

Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;

if I make my bed in the depths [Hebrew Sheol], you are there.

9If I rise on the wings of the dawn,

if I settle on the far side of the sea,

10even there your hand will guide me,

your right hand will hold me fast.

11If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me

and the light become night around me,”

12even the darkness will not be dark to you;

the night will shine like the day,

for darkness is as light to you.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Hughes

[jo1952]

jo1952,

In post #96, you asked about John 10:29, commenting:

jo1952, on 18 July 2011 - 10:22 PM, said:

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”.

I discussed this question at length in a blog post on Parchment and Pen; that post was part of a series on John 10:30 in its context.

Hi Rob!

I do wish to thank you for responding to me! Finally, a Trinitarian who is willing to address my questions; and with a great deal of logic, I would add.

I enjoyed reading your blog post on Parchment and Pen as this did very well address my comment about Jesus’ statement wherein He claims that His Father is “Greater than all”. I noticed that part of your defense was to make certain that readers did not mistakenly think that Jesus was not God by making such a statement. Now, I believe that Jesus IS “a” God; but He is not the Supreme God, and that He is actually the Only Begotten Son of the Supreme God. IOW, they are not both the same Supreme God. But you already know this since that is part of the belief system of the LDS. FYI, I would like to point out that I never believed the Trinity to be correct even when I was a Lutheran.

Your explanation is eloquent and you have done a beautiful job of supporting your belief of how Jesus can make such a claim as Father is “Greater than all”, and not be referring to Himself because He makes this statement while He is in the flesh, etc. However, it is my belief that all such explanations fall apart when faced of how to justify we can become “one” with Jesus “even as He and the Father are ‘one’”. That is when a non-Biblical logic emerges from the mind of man. Man has great difficulty imagining that he could possibly, or should possibly, ever consider himself to be in any way able to be of that same substance or consubstantiality which are common between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. So it is that they will use that same man logic to explain away passages from both the OT and NT which teach that we are gods, or sons and daughters of the Most High. Once man rejects the possibility that their very own spirit could not have come forth from the Supreme God (Father), then they are forced to consider other causes for their existence, which then involve the creation of both their body AND their spirit as having been of the Son.

The reasoning mind of the man who believes that when “life is breathed” into the physically created body (which was crafted by Jesus from the dust of the earth), is a separate and eternal spiritual substance which came forth from Father, then no further allocution of non-Biblical logic needs to be infused into the passages which would appear to be in conflict if no outside (of the Bible) explanations were used. Thus, there would be need to change the meaning of what “becoming one” is all about when referred to man vs when referred to the members of the Persons of the Godhead. IOW, being “one” is the same in both situations. Anything that has come forth from the Supreme God IS of that same “substance”; or, as I sometimes refer to it, “God DNA”.

What distinguishes Jesus from the rest of us is that He has Father’s spiritual DNA – just as all of mankind does because our spirits have all come forth from the Father. However, Jesus also has Father’s “God DNA” in His physical body as well. That part of Jesus’ being a son of Man comes from His mother, Mary. The “God” part of Jesus’ body of flesh comes from His Father. Of course, this is a simplification of the totality of Jesus’ Godhood; but should suffice for the purposes of this discussion. We will never be of the same level of the Godhood of Jesus; and none of us can make that same claim of having Father as the Father of our flesh. However, becoming a joint-heir with Jesus is much more than what man thinks it means. Again, man, in his desire to believe that he is nothing compared to either Jesus or to Father (and, indeed, we are much less than either of the them), keeps insisting that being a joint-heir could not possibly mean that their common spiritual “substance” came forth from the Father. Therefore, being a joint-heir couldn’t possibly be taken literally in the same way that a physical father and son on the earth.

I believe that everything on the earth is patterned after what exists in the spirit world. In fact everything that exists in the physical world, existed first in the spirit world.

With regard to John 10:34-36, you wrote:

Quote

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?

There's a lot going on here that your comment misses. In LDS doctrine, mortal human beings are not gods, but may become gods after their deaths and resurrections. Whatever Jesus is saying in his quotation of John 10:34-36, it does not fit LDS doctrine.

You are correct. I did not make it clear that I was speaking about our spirits. LDS doctrine IS clear that we are all the spirit children of the Supreme God. As His spirit children, we ARE gods. You may call us gods “in embryo” if you wish. Not all of us will be exalted and realize our full potential and use of our god abilities. However, as His children, we are indeed gods. Consider your own children (and here we can consider consubstantiality in the same manner) are your offspring. They are part of you, and they have part of you in them. They are not alien beings, no matter what they grow up to be. As a “human” parent, you have “human” children. In this same sense, when the Supreme God has “spirit” children, we do not “become” something different than Him.

Inasmuch as my question was not intended to ask you your interpretation of answering it from the POV of what you think the LDS believe, I would appreciate it if you would still answer the actual question I originally asked. IOW, according to your theology, 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?

With regard to Mark 3:29, you asked:

Quote

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?

I don't see how the LDS doctrine that the three personages are one "Godhead" in the sense of being a triumvirate of three ruling Gods solves this problem. You don't think the Holy Spirit is superior to Christ, do you?

Absolutely not. However, it is the Holy Ghost who is the witness on the earth. Spirit to spirit, His witness is more sure and has more Power behind it than anything a man can say; including the man, Jesus (while He was in the flesh).

1 John 5:7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This is not a question of whether Jesus is diminishing His importance (which He is not doing, btw). Jesus is teaching us about the Power of the witness of the Holy Ghost. It is the JOB of the Holy Ghost to BE the witness on the earth. Since our spirits are housed in an earthly tabernacle of flesh, it is ONLY the Power of the Holy Ghost on the earth which can REACH us “Spirit to spirit”. IOW, it is the Holy Ghost who has been given the Power on the earth to witness and be able to convince the spirit within our physical body. As spirit beings living in a mortal physical body, Father has provided a method to communicate with us from the spirit world; the Holy Ghost. The Word (Jesus) is NOT a witness on the earth. He bears record in Heaven – NOT on earth. The words He spoke while on the earth were the words spoken by Him in the flesh. They did not have the power to reach our spirit.

From an orthodox perspective, there is no problem because Jesus is not diminishing his importance in relation to the Holy Spirit but talking about two different kinds of sin. Those who spoke against the Son of Man could be forgiven because it is possible for people to have false views of Jesus and repent of them. Those who witnessed the unmistakable working of the Holy Spirit's witness to Christ and were so hardened to it that they blasphemously dismissed it as the work of the devil had committed a sin from which there was no repentance (Matt. 12:31-32 is the passage that draws this contrast explicitly). The issue here is not the comparative metaphysical nature of the Son and the Spirit but the comparative spiritual condition of people who for a time reject Christ and those people who resist the clear witness of the Spirit to Christ.

It looks to me like in context we pretty much agree on the difference of the “Power” of the Holy Ghost’s witness over Jesus’ own witness. Yet, once again, you have not answered my question. Perhaps I did not make the intent of my question clear enough. Inasmuch as the three Persons of the Trinity make up the same One God, it seems that the logic which addresses one of the Persons should be applicable to all three Persons for the reason that all three make up One God. Therefore, the sin of blasphemy would effectively be a sin against all three Persons of God. It appears that you have somehow allowed your logic to separate God for the purposes of allowing this teaching to “fit” the Trinity so that the sin does not really affect the One God. IOW, this is a disconnect, even if temporary, of the logic which normally holds all three Persons as One God. Perhaps the following paragraph will explain better what it is I am trying to say.

The other aspect of this particular question also creates the inevitable evidence presented by Jesus, that ultimately, the person who has a sin that remains unforgiven (and this a pretty huge sin in my mind), may still be saved. How does an orthodox Christian reconcile this? I am especially and specifically interested in your answer because a person who blasphemes one Person of the Trinity God may still be saved even though they obviously do not accept the Trinity, by virtue of the fact they have denied the Holy Ghost. Isn’t it the teaching of Orthodoxy that unless a person accepts the Trinity they cannot be saved? Now, I know that not all orthodox Christians accept this particular teaching (which in itself creates yet more questions….), but many DO adhere to this. How do they explain that this obviously cannot be a correct doctrine if someone who blasphemes and does not accept a Person within the Trinity can still be saved?

Thank you, Rob. Regards,

jo

[altersteve]

I find it amusing, Hughes, how you are comfortable with telling us how many gods we believe in.

You also said that the Trinity is not three beings. So Jesus is not a being? He's not a person? Regarding your citation of the Psalm that indicates God's omnipresence, Brigham Young said:

Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so. He is no more every where present in person than the Father and Son are one in person. God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness.

This conversation just makes me realize how little you truly understand of LDS theology, Hughes. I suggest that you sincerely seek to know what we believe before you start labeling us as being "polytheistic," "un-Christian," or whatever else you think we are.

Edited July 22, 2011 by altersteve