What's Your Analogy Of The Trinity

[mfbukowski]

Three questions:

1. Do you believe the spirit of Christ that fills the immensity of space is material and substantive in nature?

2. Do you believe when the saints are said to be filled with the Spirit of God that they are filled with  substantive spiritual matter or are simply feeling an emotion?

3. Do you believe the spiritual substance that animates the resurrected body of Christ imparts divine powers and attributes to the Saviour?

Please tell me that you know that your questions contain many assumptions about the definition of every single word.

 

If you are not a trial lawyer you missed your calling.

 

But please do tell me the difference between substantive spiritual matter and emotions?

[Ahab]

Three questions:

1. Do you believe the spirit of Christ that fills the immensity of space is material and substantive in nature?

2. Do you believe when the saints are said to be filled with the Spirit of God that they are filled with substantive spiritual matter or are simply feeling an emotion?

3. Do you believe the spiritual substances that animates the resurrected body of Christ imparts divine powers and attributes to the Saviour?

1. No. His material spirit resides in his body and can not be separated from it, just as our material spirit won't ever sepatate from us, again, after we are resurrected.

2. It is possible for the Spirit of God (aka the Holy Ghost) to enter our material body so that we would then have His spirit and our spirit in our material body at the same time, but that isn't always the case when we feel the influence of the Holy Spirit. It's akin to feeling the influence of another person who is near us or communicating with us without them actually being in our body with us. And it's more than just an emotion, since it also involves receiving thoughts from His person..

3. Yes. The material substances that animate his resurrected material (other) body are parts of his material spirit, and it is by his material spirit that he can communicate with our material spirits and do anything else that he can do as a person. Think about what he was before he gained his mortal body in Bethlehem, and all he could do even before he was born on this Earth. And then think about what we were before we were born here, and what we may someday be and be able to do when we are resurrected just as he is.

[teddyaware]

Just realized there is a irony in the way this thread has developed: Our non-LDS Christian friends believe there are three separate and distinct personages in the Godhead who are to be considered one God because of an undefined, shared, immaterial (I presume) "substance." Meanwhile, the posts I submitted on this thread were calculated to demystify the traditional Christian Trinity's mysterious immaterialism, by declaring that the inscrutable and undefined immaterial substance that unifies the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is in reality none other than highly refined spiritual matter known to the Latter-day Saints as the Holy Spirit, just as set forth in the Lectures on Faith...

"As the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit; they are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. (Lectures on Faith 5)"
 
My belief that the Holy Spirit is an actual tangible substance capable of conveying light, life and power to the recipient has been met with protestations that the Holy Spirit isn't actually a highly refined spiritual substance but is, rather, an immaterial abstraction. Does this place my opponents somewhat in the same kind of category of thought in which the non-LDS Trinitarians find themselves -- a belief in a Godhead unified by immateriality rather than by highly refined but very real and powerful physical properties inherent in celestial spiritual matter?
 
This begs some questions based some of the verses found in the 88th section of the Doctrine and Covenants...

6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;
7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.

 

Do some LDS believe that the light of the sun is made of real light particles in the physical universe or is the sun's light an illusory abstraction we only think we see?

 

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

 

Do some LDS believe the light of the moon is also an immaterial mental illusion?

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

 

Do some LDS believe the light of the stars is also an immaterial mental illusion?

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

 

In the above verses, we are told one of the are of the light of Christ is the physical light we perceive, enjoy and utilize with our human eyes while on the earth; another earthly manifestation of the light of Christ are our mental processes which are centered in the brain. Are these earthly manifestations of the light of Christ real phenomena experienced in the physical universe, or are they merely immaterial figments of imagination?   

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

 

Are the manifestations of the light of Christ, as observed throughout the universe, real physical phenomena or is all we see just imaginary thought within the human mind? Is it possible to fill the immensity of space with an imaginary light?  

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

 

It's easy to discern the fact that it is true that the aforesaid manifestations of the light of Christ fill our world and the universe. Then, without missing a beat, we are told that manifestations of the light of Christ are not only around all things but are in all things as well. Is it possible for something that is immaterial to be in all things in the same way the physical sun gives light to all things?

 

Then the kicker: The light of Christ is not only something one can see with the eyes, and with scientific instruments, but it also has power to give life to all things. By all things I take this to mean life on earth as we now know it, and the more glorious manifestations of life in the worlds to come. Is it possible for an immaterial abstraction that has no life, substance or materiality to resurrect bodies crumbled to dust, and then bestow them with eternal life in the celestial kingdom?

 

Another question I have is that if the light of Christ has real physical manifestations in the material universe, where is the cutoff point where said light ceases to be real substance and then becomes abstract thought?  

 

If the ultimate answer to all these questions is that the light of Christ, especially in its higher manifestations, is ultimately an abstract process of thought, as anticipated by Plato, then we Latter-day Saints are closer to our Trinitarian brethren than we may realize.   

Edited January 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Please tell me that you know that your questions contain many assumptions about the definition of every single word.

 

If you are not a trial lawyer you missed your calling.

 

But please do tell me the difference between substantive spiritual matter and emotions?

There are no emotions experienced in the human body without a physical brain, and I presume there are no emotions felt by a disembodied spirit unless said spirit has a spiritual body and an accompanying spiritual nervous system to serve as a living matrix for those emotions. There can be no emotion without materiality. The Spirit of the Lord is not disembodied thought, it is living, conscious substance. Nothing can't think or feel.

Edited January 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Holy cow.

 

How can you possibly "know" any of this makes more sense than any other stories made up by anybody?

 

I'll have to pray about it.

 

Oh wait- I already have.

 

I know- I'm just not righteous enough to be able to climb to the sublime heights others have.

[ERayR]

Please answer the question. Is the light of God in these verses referring to something of material substance? A simple yes or a no will do.

 

Is light a material substance?

[3DOP]

Vance

And all of the translators up until modern times were predisposed to letting their Trinitarian doctrine influence the translation, thus getting us the "I am".

 

3DOP

So that would mean that Jewish translations would go with the correct "I am becoming", right?

[Ahab]

Think about what the light of Christ is, some more. It seems that some people think it's what makes his body glow like a light bulb, or as bright as the sun in the sky. As if that is what does or will make us glow when we receive his light and his glory.

But that's not what is being referred to. The light and glory of God refer to the intelligence of God, as when we say the glory of God is intelligence or light and truth. It was by his intelligence that the sun was created as a light for this planet,.and it is by or by using his intelligence that he creates everything he makes, and made, and will make. And do you think his intelligence is material, apart from his spirit, which is where his intelligence actually is? It is true that his creations show evidence of intelligent design, but those things aren't actually his own intelligence. Just as a house I may build would be evidence of my intelligence while not actually being my intelligence itself.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Ahab

[Vance]

Vance

And all of the translators up until modern times were predisposed to letting their Trinitarian doctrine influence the translation, thus getting us the "I am".

 

3DOP

So that would mean that Jewish translations would go with the correct "I am becoming", right?

Let's see,

Exodus 3:14 CJB

Complete Jewish Bible

God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [i am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [i Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'"

Doesn't look like a slam dunk either way.

[PtolemyGlenn]

The Latter-day Saints believe God the Father and Jesus Christ are men of perfect holiness who have glorified human bodies of flesh, bone and Spirit, but not blood. The LDS believe the Holy Ghost is a separate and distinct personage of spirit but has no body of glorified flesh, bone and Spirit, as do the Father and the Son.I understand the non-LDS Christian world believes God the Father has not a body of flesh and bone, but the Latter-day Saints do believe this. This is why Paul said the Son is in "the express image of His (the Father's) person."

Have to agree to disagree.

[Ahab]

Have to agree to disagree.

Why do people say that? I agree that others disagree with me sometimes but I don't actually agree to disagree with anyone. I wouldn't even agree for you to agree with me. So it's always up to each person to agree or disagree with others and I don't need to agree to any if it.

[PtolemyGlenn]

Why do people say that? I agree that others disagree with me sometimes but I don't actually agree to disagree with anyone. I wouldn't even agree for you to agree with me. So it's always up to each person to agree or disagree with others and I don't need to agree to any if it.

Its just one of those social graces that we empart on one another. Its a polite way to say, that is your view but mine is different.

It stops society from going one another with a baseball bat.

[Damien the Leper]

 

Confused after watching this?

 

Solid orthodoxy there. Modalism, Partialism, Arianism...nasty business they are.

[Damien the Leper]

An analogy I use is water.

You have water= God

When it freezes it turns to ice = Jesus

When you boil it it turns to steam = Holy Spirit

Its all still water.

They are not three seperate entities but are 3 in 1.

 

Modalism is a heresy.

[Damien the Leper]

Donall and Conall meet Mormon missionaries:

 

[PtolemyGlenn]

Modalism is a heresy.

One God in 3 person with each one being distinct. When people dont get that. I use the ice analogy. But I do not represent modalism.

[Damien the Leper]

One God in 3 person with each one being distinct. When people dont get that. I use the ice analogy. But I do not represent modalism.

 

Actually, from a chemical perspective, the properties of ice, water and vapor do not exactly match. They are not the same but results of another.

[Vance]

Actually, from a chemical perspective, the properties of ice, water and vapor do not exactly match. They are not the same but results of another.

Actually, from a chemical perspective they are exactly the same. (H2O is H2O is H2O). It is from a phase or energy state that they are different.

[Damien the Leper]

Actually, from a chemical perspective they are exactly the same. (H2O is H2O is H2O). It is from a phase or energy state that they are different.

 

Thanks for the correction, Vance. I never was good at chemistry. Stoichiometry killed me.

[The Nehor]

The Trinity is like boiling a small fish.

[Damien the Leper]

The Trinity is like boiling a small fish.

 

Stop it.

[3DOP]

Let's see,

Doesn't look like a slam dunk either way.

 

The combinations from the Jewish interpreter: "I am what I am", "I am what I will be", "I am or I will be", and so on seems compatible with what I believe. They seem to me to lack the idea of progression in God that "I am becoming" has. In fact, "I am what I will be" argues for a state of sameness rather than progression. Even if we isolate the clause "I will be", it allows a static state. Of course there is no reason to isolate, "I will be" from the context. Within the context as translated by this Jewish version, it seems far removed from the clearly progressive view which translates it is "I am becoming."

 

If it is a Trinitarian predisposition that caused early and current translations of Scripture to be corrupted against "I am becoming", how do you explain the Jewish translation? They are not closet Trinitarians. I tried a little bit online and couldn't find anything that says, "I am becoming". Even the LDS site has it "the Trinitarian way." If Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and LDS versions all retain "I am" maybe you could admit it is an honest mistake? Please note that I am not trying to get you to say that "I am becoming" is wrong or that "I am what I will be" is correct.

 

It seems to me like when other non-Trinitarian sources adopt similar translations, it demonstrates that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't critical as to how Ex. 3:14 has been translated. It isn't necessary to make Trinitarian translators dishonest for making a mistake with Ex. 3:14. I do not care to discuss which translation is true. I accept what others say having no skills of my own adequate for judging either way. I could concede that "I am" is a mistake, but I would still have to complain about your reasoning for why this verse has been so translated. The virtually ubiquitous presence of this "Trinitarian" translation, even among non-Trinitarians, makes me doubt your assertion against "all of the translators".

 

I am unable to criticise translation work, but it is within my ability to be critical about this assertion. It seems like perhaps you have overreached in making such an assertion. If it is true it would be very troubling to Catholics like me indicting as it does many highly respected and proficient linguists including at least one canonized saint. I think you should either withdraw the assertion or provide some kind of evidence about how you know "all of the translators", including St. Jerome, put aside their academic skills to promote a Trinitarian agenda in the translation of Exodus 3:14. According to what we Catholics have been taught about St. Jerome, the principle translator of the Latin Vulgate: "He does not try to cloak over his ignorance, he admits that there are many difficulties in the Bible; at times he seems quite embarrassed." (Catholic Encyclopedia, entry on St. Jerome). To be willing to be embarrassed because of fidelity to your craft is a fine habit. Assuredly we can find where Jerome translates in a way that doesn't satisfy his theology so well as he would wish. Can I believe that Jerome is the kind of man who would be guilty of this:

 

And all of the translators up until modern times were predisposed to letting their Trinitarian doctrine influence the translation, thus getting us the "I am".

 

And God said unto Moses, ^aI Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. (lds.org)

Edited February 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

The combinations from the Jewish interpreter: "I am what I am", "I am what I will be", "I am or I will be", and so on seems compatible with what I believe. They seem to me to lack the idea of progression in God that "I am becoming" has. In fact, "I am what I will be" argues for a state of sameness rather than progression. Even if we isolate the clause "I will be", it allows a static state. Of course there is no reason to isolate, "I will be" from the context. Within the context as translated by this Jewish version, it seems far removed from the clearly progressive view which translates it is "I am becoming."

 

If it is a Trinitarian predisposition that caused early and current translations of Scripture to be corrupted against "I am becoming", how do you explain the Jewish translation? They are not closet Trinitarians. I tried a little bit online and couldn't find anything that says, "I am becoming". Even the LDS site has it "the Trinitarian way." If Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and LDS versions all retain "I am" maybe you could admit it is an honest mistake? Please note that I am not trying to get you to say that "I am becoming" is wrong or that "I am what I will be" is correct.

 

It seems to me like when other non-Trinitarian sources adopt similar translations, it demonstrates that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't critical as to how Ex. 3:14 has been translated. It isn't necessary to make Trinitarian translators dishonest for making a mistake with Ex. 3:14. I do not care to discuss which translation is true. I accept what others say having no skills of my own adequate for judging either way. I could concede that "I am" is a mistake, but I would still have to complain about your reasoning for why this verse has been so translated. The virtually ubiquitous presence of this "Trinitarian" translation, even among non-Trinitarians, makes me doubt your assertion against "all of the translators".

 

I am unable to criticise translation work, but it is within my ability to be critical about this assertion. It seems like perhaps you have overreached in making such an assertion. If it is true it would be very troubling to Catholics like me indicting as it does many highly respected and proficient linguists including at least one canonized saint. I think you should either withdraw the assertion or provide some kind of evidence about how you know "all of the translators", including St. Jerome, put aside their academic skills to promote a Trinitarian agenda in the translation of Exodus 3:14. According to what we Catholics have been taught about St. Jerome, the principle translator of the Latin Vulgate: "He does not try to cloak over his ignorance, he admits that there are many difficulties in the Bible; at times he seems quite embarrassed." (Catholic Encyclopedia, entry on St. Jerome). To be willing to be embarrassed because of fidelity to your craft is a fine habit. Assuredly we can find where Jerome translates in a way that doesn't satisfy his theology so well as he would wish. Can I believe that Jerome is the kind of man who would be guilty of this:

 

And God said unto Moses, ^aI Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you. (lds.org)

The idea that perfection=completion and a static state is totally Greek philosophy and is so entrenched in our culture it is hard to imagine it otherwise.

 

But a God who is unchanging cannot interact with his children- after all interaction IS a change in state from state 1 to state 2.

 

Heraclitus was a Greek who believed in a process metaphysics, but he lost out to Plato.  Western civilization would have been totally different if Heraclitus would have prevailed- perhaps Catholics would be Mormons. 

[3DOP]

The idea that perfection=completion and a static state is totally Greek philosophy and is so entrenched in our culture it is hard to imagine it otherwise.

 

But a God who is unchanging cannot interact with his children- after all interaction IS a change in state from state 1 to state 2.

 

Heraclitus was a Greek who believed in a process metaphysics, but he lost out to Plato.  Western civilization would have been totally different if Heraclitus would have prevailed- perhaps Catholics would be Mormons. 

 

Okay Mark. I am not arguing that we are correct, only that we are at least honestly wrong. As I admitted, I don't have the tools to be critical about translations. I bristle more at Catholics being accused of dishonesty than I do of merely being told Catholics are wrong. Wrong is okay. Wrong is expected.

 

As for perfection...I didn't mention it. My only contention at this point is that non-Trinitarians seems to translate the same way as us folks who are "predisposed" the wrong way.

Edited February 2, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Hi again Vance.

 

On further reflection, I retract my "complaint". I don't think you intended to be saying things the way I read (pronounced red, past tense) them. Of course, if you wish to clarify that you were saying all translators were indeed intellectually dishonest, I could be willing to reintroduce my complaint. Otherwise, I am content to let that matter drop.

 

I would still contend that it seems odd, if mistranslation has been due to a predisposition to the Trinity, that Jewish translations fail to correct the error. 

 

Rory

Edited February 2, 2014 by 3DOP