Is There Not An Apparent Problem To The Doctrine Of The Trinity?

[Rodeo]

Not really sure what difference it makes if we see God as a Spirit or a being with a physical body?

[pogi]

Not really sure what difference it makes if we see God as a Spirit or a being with a physical body?

 

The teaching that the Father has a glorified physical body is a central feature in the  plan of salvation and progression as taught by Mormons.  As literal children of Heavenly Father, and through the atonements of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, we can become like God in all attributes.  This knowledge gives meaning to our understanding of the resurrection and our relationship with the Father.  It is a testament that we are his offspring and can literally inherit all that he has and is.  If he was a spirit, and yet we will be resurrected with glorified bodies, then we have a reason to question the nature of our relationship with the Father.  Instead of being His children, we would merely be His subjects of interest.

 

One can obviously still worship the Father beliving that He is a spirit, but a correct understanding of our relationship with Him, adds layers and textures to that relationship that make it more meaningful.

[cdowis]

Cdowis, Jesus at the time He said the words you referred to were said while He was still in the form of a suffering servant (Phillipians 2) in which He was as a man (the word became flesh) in dependence on the Holy Spirit for living on earth in the way He expects us to

 

So He was not homoousia (one substance) with the Father while he was on the earth.  I agree with you totally, and, after the resurrection,  He was not homoousia with the Father.  In fact He told us that we disciples would be "one with the Father" in the same way that He was one with the Father.

 

The Father and Holy Spirit do not have resurrected bodies as Jesus does (in addition to His spiritual nature before the incarnation) as God is a spirit (John 4:24).

 

And Christ said that he was the bread of life, that he was a vine, that he was a door.  God is spirit in the same way that we "worship him in spirit".

 

In the resurrection we will be like Him (Jesus) in a resurrected state in a glorified physical form which does not have the limitations as ours do now which will die unless physically alive at the Resurrection Day (will be changed from mortal to immortal along with all others but some to eternal punishment, believers to eternal life):

 

Christ has a resurrected body with flesh and bones and the Father is "spirit".  Then you agree that they are not "one substance" or homoosia.  After the resurrection he told Mary that he had not ascended to the Father.  He was no longer the "suffering servant" in mortality, but clearly was not "one substance".

 

"One Substance" is a doctrine of man, not taught in the scriptures, and this was confirmed by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Edited May 5, 2014 by cdowis

[Ran]

I am not trusting wikipedia for anything. Nor is anything Aquinas says clear in my opinion.  The man was clearly a genius but the changes in our modes of thought have made him unintelligible in my opinion to anyone who thinks in a postmodern way.  That doesn't mean he was "wrong"either.

 

My only point is that Ratzinger seems to be moving away from substance and toward seeing persons as relations which is a completely postmodern notion, and in my opinion a major break with Scholasticism.

 

I am certainly not saying that Aquinas thought that,

 

That's interesting. I would have described the notion of person is relation — with regards to God — as being deeply rooted in the Thomistic tradition, and thus as Scholastic as you can get: e.g., 

 

"[R]elation must necessarily be the same as person" (Thomas Aquinas, ST 40.1.1).

 

Perhaps I'm less postmodern than others, but that statement doesn't strike me as being ambiguous.

 

The Trinitarian notion of person=relation appears to be clearer with regards to its introduction into anthropology. Ratzinger writes that Boethius' definition of person as an "individual substance of a rational nature — which Thomas Aquinas himself inherited — is "insufficient" and "cannot clarify anything about the Trinity or about Christology." If I'm reading Ratzinger correctly, he proposes that the notion of person=relation, which in the Thomistic tradition is used in the discussion of God as Trinity, is the only model of personhood that makes sense when talking about the human being.

 

It seems clear to me that the Trinitarian usage of person=relation isn't out of continuity with the Scholastics, or Thomists specifically, but the anthropological usage of it does seem novel: perhaps with regards to the latter it does have a postmodern roots, but I'll have to do more reading on it. A theologian writes that John Paul II also viewed "man as a subsistent relation in the manner of the Trinitarian persons" — it would be interesting to see how much of John Paul II's studies on Scheler's writings influenced the former's relational interpretation of the human being; perhaps it's more feasible to draw a postmodern link there.

 

Would you give me your take of Ratzinger discussion of Kant and Feuerbach? I'm trying to figure out how this relates to Buber's "I - Thou" proposition:

"The bracketing from Christian piety of the reality of the 'we' that emerges in the three-fold [liturgical] formula 'through Christ in the Holy Spirit to the Father,' and that binds us into the “we” of God and into the 'we' of our fellow human being happened as a consequence of the anthropological turn in Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity and was one of the most momentous developments of the Western Church. In fundamental ways it influenced both the concept of the Church and the understanding of the person which was now pushed off into the individualistically narrowed 'I and you' that finally loses the 'you' in this narrowing. It was indeed a result of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity that the persons of God were closed wholly into God’s interior. Toward the outside, God became a simple 'I,' and the whole dimension of 'we' lost its place in theology.”[12] The individualized 'I' and 'you' narrows itself more and more until finally, for example in Kant’s transcendental philosophy, the “you” is no longer found. In Feuerbach (and thus in a place where one would least suspect it) this leveling of 'I' and 'you' into a single transcendental consciousness gave way to the breakthrough to personal reality. It thus gave the impetus to reflect more deeply on the origin of our own being which faith recognizes as once and for all disclosed in the word of Jesus the Christ.*

"Note 12. On Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity up to 391, see O. du Roy, L'intelligence de la foi en la Trinité selon saint Augustin (Paris, 1966); for the further development, see M. Schmaus, Die psychologische Trinitätslehre des heiligen Augustinus (2nd ed.; Münster, 1967). Today, of course, I would not judge as harshly as I did in the lecture above, because for Augustine the 'psychological doctrine of the Trinity' remains an attempt to understand which is balanced by the factors of the tradition. The turn brought about by Thomas through the separation of the doctrine of the one God and the theological doctrine of the Trinity was more incisive. It led Thomas to consider the formula 'God is one person' legitimate, although it had been considered heretical in the early Church (Summa Theologica III, 3, 3 ad 1). On the subject of the 'we,' see H. Mühlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person (2nd ed.; Münster, 1967)."

[Rodeo]

The teaching that the Father has a glorified physical body is a central feature in the  plan of salvation and progression as taught by Mormons.  As literal children of Heavenly Father, and through the atonements of Jesus Christ and the resurrection, we can become like God in all attributes.  This knowledge gives meaning to our understanding of the resurrection and our relationship with the Father.  It is a testament that we are his offspring and can literally inherit all that he has and is.  If he was a spirit, and yet we will be resurrected with glorified bodies, then we have a reason to question the nature of our relationship with the Father.  Instead of being His children, we would merely be His subjects of interest.

 

One can obviously still worship the Father beliving that He is a spirit, but a correct understanding of our relationship with Him, adds layers and textures to that relationship that make it more meaningful.

Makes perfect sense.

[mfbukowski]

That's interesting. I would have described the notion of person is relation — with regards to God — as being deeply rooted in the Thomistic tradition, and thus as Scholastic as you can get: e.g., 

 

"[R]elation must necessarily be the same as person" (Thomas Aquinas, ST 40.1.1).

 

Perhaps I'm less postmodern than others, but that statement doesn't strike me as being ambiguous.

 

The Trinitarian notion of person=relation appears to be clearer with regards to its introduction into anthropology. Ratzinger writes that Boethius' definition of person as an "individual substance of a rational nature — which Thomas Aquinas himself inherited — is "insufficient" and "cannot clarify anything about the Trinity or about Christology." If I'm reading Ratzinger correctly, he proposes that the notion of person=relation, which in the Thomistic tradition is used in the discussion of God as Trinity, is the only model of personhood that makes sense when talking about the human being.

 

It seems clear to me that the Trinitarian usage of person=relation isn't out of continuity with the Scholastics, or Thomists specifically, but the anthropological usage of it does seem novel: perhaps with regards to the latter it does have a postmodern roots, but I'll have to do more reading on it. A theologian writes that John Paul II also viewed "man as a subsistent relation in the manner of the Trinitarian persons" — it would be interesting to see how much of John Paul II's studies on Scheler's writings influenced the former's relational interpretation of the human being; perhaps it's more feasible to draw a postmodern link there.

 

Would you give me your take of Ratzinger discussion of Kant and Feuerbach? I'm trying to figure out how this relates to Buber's "I - Thou" proposition:

"The bracketing from Christian piety of the reality of the 'we' that emerges in the three-fold [liturgical] formula 'through Christ in the Holy Spirit to the Father,' and that binds us into the “we” of God and into the 'we' of our fellow human being happened as a consequence of the anthropological turn in Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity and was one of the most momentous developments of the Western Church. In fundamental ways it influenced both the concept of the Church and the understanding of the person which was now pushed off into the individualistically narrowed 'I and you' that finally loses the 'you' in this narrowing. It was indeed a result of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity that the persons of God were closed wholly into God’s interior. Toward the outside, God became a simple 'I,' and the whole dimension of 'we' lost its place in theology.”[12] The individualized 'I' and 'you' narrows itself more and more until finally, for example in Kant’s transcendental philosophy, the “you” is no longer found. In Feuerbach (and thus in a place where one would least suspect it) this leveling of 'I' and 'you' into a single transcendental consciousness gave way to the breakthrough to personal reality. It thus gave the impetus to reflect more deeply on the origin of our own being which faith recognizes as once and for all disclosed in the word of Jesus the Christ.*

"Note 12. On Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity up to 391, see O. du Roy, L'intelligence de la foi en la Trinité selon saint Augustin (Paris, 1966); for the further development, see M. Schmaus, Die psychologische Trinitätslehre des heiligen Augustinus (2nd ed.; Münster, 1967). Today, of course, I would not judge as harshly as I did in the lecture above, because for Augustine the 'psychological doctrine of the Trinity' remains an attempt to understand which is balanced by the factors of the tradition. The turn brought about by Thomas through the separation of the doctrine of the one God and the theological doctrine of the Trinity was more incisive. It led Thomas to consider the formula 'God is one person' legitimate, although it had been considered heretical in the early Church (Summa Theologica III, 3, 3 ad 1). On the subject of the 'we,' see H. Mühlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person (2nd ed.; Münster, 1967)."

I'm not the guy to ask. I know Kant pretty well I am definitely not a scholar on the others here and not qualified to give an opinion. I have read them all, but only in a spotty way, because they do not relate to my main areas of interest.

[seed]

All,  Assume that I misunderstand the nature of God, regardless of what position I take.

 

What is the perceived cost of that misunderstanding?

 

I mean, in practice does anyone perceive that our father in heaven will count any sin to us because of this misunderstanding?

 

If no, then having different churches because of this point would be causing us to be divided for a reason that does not matter to God.

 

I mean please tell me again why this is so important of topic.   It for sure is interesting,  but is it important ?

[cdowis]

All,  Assume that I misunderstand the nature of God, regardless of what position I take.

 

What is the perceived cost of that misunderstanding?

 

I mean, in practice does anyone perceive that our father in heaven will count any sin to us because of this misunderstanding?

 

If no, then having different churches because of this point would be causing us to be divided for a reason that does not matter to God.

 

I mean please tell me again why this is so important of topic.   It for sure is interesting,  but is it important ?

 

Excellent question and Christ taught us:

John 17 {3] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

Unless we understand the nature of God, we cannot understand our purpose here on earth, and the Plan of Salvation.  Adam was created in the image of God, and we must understand what that means to have life eternal.

[mfbukowski]

All,  Assume that I misunderstand the nature of God, regardless of what position I take.

 

What is the perceived cost of that misunderstanding?

 

I mean, in practice does anyone perceive that our father in heaven will count any sin to us because of this misunderstanding?

 

If no, then having different churches because of this point would be causing us to be divided for a reason that does not matter to God.

 

I mean please tell me again why this is so important of topic.   It for sure is interesting,  but is it important ?

To me it is a question of believing or not believing.

 

I don't even think that it is possible to believe in gibberish, and if a supposed description makes no sense, I personally could not believe in it.

 

I suppose one could just say that God is a mystery, but I cannot pray to a mystery.

 

No one is going to get it exactly "right", I am sure, but I must have an understanding right or wrong of what I believe.

 

Does God care what we believe?

 

If he does, he had better give us a way to know for sure what he wants, or certainly it would be unjust for him to expect us to get it right, absent some method to do so.

 

I think he does that in Moroni 10-4-5 and Alma 32 . (Book of Mormon)

Edited May 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[seed]

To me it is a question of believing or not believing.

 

I don't even think that it is possible to believe in gibberish, and if a supposed description makes no sense, I personally could not believe in it.

 

I suppose one could just say that God is a mystery, but I cannot pray to a mystery.

 

No one is going to get it exactly "right", I am sure, but I must have an understanding right or wrong of what I believe.

 

Does God care what we believe?

 

If he does, he had better give us a way to know for sure what he wants, or certainly it would be unjust for him to expect us to get it right, absent some method to do so.

 

I think he does that in Moroni 10-4-5 and Alma 32 . (Book of Mormon)

Thanks,  I did read the reference again.

 

Would you expand on the topic some and share about what is the punishment from an LDS view for a person that believes in trinity ? 

 

I mean,  God will do such and such to that person because they have a false understanding.   What is the such and such ?

 

Does God consider them a bad seed that should be cast out ?  (its an unintended pun that my id is seed).

[mfbukowski]

Thanks,  I did read the reference again.

 

Would you expand on the topic some and share about what is the punishment from an LDS view for a person that believes in trinity ? 

 

I mean,  God will do such and such to that person because they have a false understanding.   What is the such and such ?

 

Does God consider them a bad seed that should be cast out ?  (its an unintended pun that my id is seed).

Don't worry, your LDS insurance policy is paid in full.

 

If you honestly believe in the trinity and are doing the best you can to find the truth, you will be fine.

[seed]

Don't worry, your LDS insurance policy is paid in full.

 

If you honestly believe in the trinity and are doing the best you can to find the truth, you will be fine.I

 

I believe in standard LDS theology on the topic.  As does a former Catholic that I know very well.

 

But what if..    Do we think God really cares about it, or is it only us humans that make it an issue?  I mean there isn't an eleventh commandment such as "thee shall not do trinity."   Or is there...

 

If a person misunderstood this,  but followed all the laws would there be an issue ?

 

[mfbukowski]

No

[Storm Rider]

I believe in standard LDS theology on the topic.  As does a former Catholic that I know very well.

 

But what if..    Do we think God really cares about it, or is it only us humans that make it an issue?  I mean there isn't an eleventh commandment such as "thee shall not do trinity."   Or is there...

 

If a person misunderstood this,  but followed all the laws would there be an issue ?

 

 

I think that the Church teaches the nature of God as a matter of course; however, it does not hold the same degree of importance in LDS theology as it does in orthodox theology.  The doctrine of the Trinity has been and is used as THE measure to define who is and who is not Christian; who can claim any form of relationship with Jesus Christ; who is a member of a cult or not; those who can be saved by the atonement of Jesus.  

 

I don't think there is any doctrine or teaching greater than Jesus Christ, Son of God, crucified and resurrected. The teaching on the nature of God has no saving ability tied to its knowledge. 

Edited May 12, 2014 by Storm Rider

[mfbukowski]

I think that the Church teaches the nature of God as a matter of course; however, it does not hold the same degree of importance in LDS theology as it does in orthodox theology.  The doctrine of the Trinity is has been and is used as THE measure to define who is and who is not Christian; who can claim any form of relationship with Jesus Christ; who is a member of a cult or not; those who can be saved by the atonement of Jesus.  

 

I don't think there is any doctrine or teaching greater than Jesus Christ, Son of God, crucified and resurrected. The teaching on the nature of God has no saving ability tied to its knowledge.

Well the bottom line is that for us progression continues on the other side. So if you genuinely don't understand it here, you will understand it there, and after your work is done (vicarious ordinances for the dead in the temple) you will be on your way. No harm no foul.

[EllenMaksoud]

So accoding to the traditional doctrine of the trinity, God is one being that manifests himself as three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However not three Gods but one God. The roles never cross.

Most fundamental Christians believe that the resurrection is literal, and that Christ has a body of flesh and bone. They also believe that God (the Father) is spirit. If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

Is it just me, or is the LDS doctrine of the Godhead the only one that makes sense? I get confused hearing other faiths talk about the Godhead.

I don't know whose doctrine it is, but as for me, God is  God and has been that way always. Jesus the Christ was with God in the beginning, or shortly there after. I have heard some people say that the Holy Spirit if God's wife. The point is that we can not entirely know God. Job 36:26  "Look, God is greater than we can understand." I do not need to understand every little thing about Creation and how  God made it.  That's what I believe. I've seen arguments about Jesus the Christ being the God of the OT, and I was convinced for a while. Now I think they are just building a doctrine on over explaining something.

 

Did God exist before the big bang? I do not know. He says he has always existed, so I believe him. I have repeatedly witnessed two religous experts say almost exactly the same thing and still fight about something. Who is the fool? What do you think God thinks?

 

There are a couple doctrines that are practiced and they are from the pit of Hell. One is that as we live, if we are faithful, then we get better and better. The Bible does not say that. The day we die, we are just as fallen as the day we are born.  Another one I hear is that a TR makes us more worthy. and that to get one you have to be worthy. Someone just does not understand God there.

[coolrok7]

Post #172- Storm Rider: It is stated in Genesis 2 how God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life. He doesn't explain the why of it nor do I care as I accept what God has for us for eternity.

 

In the resurrection we will have glorified physical forms like Jesus had, we will be like Him for we will see Him as He is. Sounds good to me. Restored to perfection before the fall without anymore willful disobedience involved.

 

The purpose is to live in eternity with God in perfection. Like I used to tell my kids when they were young, a sort of Disneyland without ever being bored. I've always had a great time there.

 

 

[coolrok7]

Post # 175 Vance: Not separating but explaining what is known as the incarnation of Jesus as Him coming in the flesh. Not the Father or Holy Spirit, all together with Jesus, the Godhead.

[Vance]

In the resurrection we will have glorified physical forms like Jesus had, . . .

Like Jesus HAS, not had. Jesus still HAS his glorified physical body and always will. Otherwise His resurrection would be a sham.

[Vance]

Post # 175 Vance: Not separating but explaining what is known as the incarnation of Jesus as Him coming in the flesh. Not the Father or Holy Spirit, all together with Jesus, the Godhead.

Let me rephrase, your statements seem to separate Jesus from divinity or godhood. You write as though Jesus, the man, was not or could not be divine or be a god.

I suspect it is because of the very false notion that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and man. Yet it clearly IS bridgeable because by your own theology Jesus bridged it.

[Vookman]

Trinity= 1 eternal god, manifested in three persons.  They are consubstantial, meaning they share the same essence in a way which neither divides the essence nor creates more than one god.  It is the logical solution to the problem for a strict monotheist trying to harmonize the statements referring to each person of the godhead as a god, while trying to deny that they meant multiple gods.

 

It is the kind of argument that makes LDS issues around polygamy look simple.

 

I favor putting the verses of scripture into play which make such a position impossible:

 

Acts 7:55-56  Jesus standing to the right side of God, thus indicating the resurrected Jesus is not God, and God has location and form.  Further, God is not referenced as the Father, so in Trinitarian speak it could just as easily be the Holy Ghost or, for that matter, the Son standing next to the Son.  He could be moving really fast, like the Flash, creating an optical illusion of being in two places at once.

 

Mark 16:20; Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22, Matt 26:64; These are all descriptions of Jesus having a physical location to the right side of God.  None of these are symbolic uses where Jesus is representative of God's power by being his "right hand man", or the person enforcing the will of God.  Doesn't matter, he is still described as separate from God.

Matt 22:44-45, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42 is Jesus quoting the OT where Jehovah says to the Lord, sit at my right hand.

John 17:3  Life eternal is to know the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.  Does that make Jesus the only untrue god?  In Jesus' own words, Jesus is not the True God.

John 1:1 is most correctly understood as a depiction of God and the Word, who has a nature similar to God, but is a separate divine being.  That makes two divine beings, each correctly characterized as having the nature of God.  But the Word is WITH God.  Logically, a thing cannot be with itself.  It is itself.  It is not just the JW's who assert the correct translation is "and the Word was a god."  Really no effective way to argue only one god is present.  When you couple this with John 1:18, where the Word is described as the "only begotten god" in the bosom of the father.  There are two gods here.  

 

At the very least, there are two divine beings present, which means the doctrine of the Trinity faces not just one tangential circumstance where the text is somewhat squishy, but there are more than a dozen passages directly viewing the presence and nature of God and Jesus, and in each and every instance they are physically and in their being or nature separate and distinct.

 

I present this evidence often to anti-Mormons, and they essentially ignore their own definitions about there being only one God in three persons, since these verses are explicitly stating Jesus/Christ/the Word is distinct from God.  They then redefine God, in these verses, as meaning the Father.  But they don't KNOW it is the Father, since the verses don't state that.  They must turn God, whom to them is an essence, into the Person of the Father, otherwise their Trinity definition fails to explain the divine interaction in these verses.  If there is only one God, and Jesus is next to God, then the definition of any reasonable person would be that Jesus is separate from God.  It is illogical that a thing can be next to itself.  Unless we also can have God make a rock too heavy for him to lift or other such illogical applications of reasoning.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Vookman

[saemo]

 

 

Trinity= 1 eternal god, manifested in three persons.  They are consubstantial, meaning they share the same essence in a way which neither divides the essence nor creates more than one god.  It is the logical solution to the problem for a strict monotheist trying to harmonize the statements referring to each person of the godhead as a god, while trying to deny that they meant multiple gods.

 

I present this evidence often to anti-Mormons, and they essentially ignore their own definitions about there being only one God in three persons, since these verses are explicitly stating Jesus/Christ/the Word is distinct from God.

 

Trinitarian theology is clear that Father is distinct from the Son and the Son is distinct from the Father.

 

 

 

They then redefine God, in these verses, as meaning the Father.  But they don't KNOW it is the Father, since the verses don't state that.  They must turn God, whom to them is an essence, into the Person of the Father, otherwise their Trinity definition fails to explain the divine interaction in these verses.  If there is only one God, and Jesus is next to God, then the definition of any reasonable person would be that Jesus is separate from God.  It is illogical that a thing can be next to itself.  Unless we also can have God make a rock too heavy for him to lift or other such illogical applications of reasoning.

 

No, when I say God, I mean, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

As for your verses regarding the right hand of the Father, it is covered here.

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

663 Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified."

664 Being seated at the Father's right hand signifies the inauguration of the Messiah's kingdom, the fulfilment of the prophet Daniel's vision concerning the Son of man: "To him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." After this event the apostles became witnesses of the "kingdom [that] will have no end".

 

Which is not symbolic, but the reality of the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

God has revealed that He is One. God has revealed that He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We accept what God has revealed about Himself.

 

LDS place symbolic meaning to the oneness of God, Trinitarians do not.

Edited May 14, 2014 by saemo

[Vance]

I present this evidence often to anti-Mormons, and they essentially ignore their own definitions about there being only one God in three persons, since these verses are explicitly stating Jesus/Christ/the Word is distinct from God.  They then redefine God, in these verses, as meaning the Father.  But they don't KNOW it is the Father, since the verses don't state that.  They must turn God, whom to them is an essence, into the Person of the Father, otherwise their Trinity definition fails to explain the divine interaction in these verses.  If there is only one God, and Jesus is next to God, then the definition of any reasonable person would be that Jesus is separate from God.  It is illogical that a thing can be next to itself.  Unless we also can have God make a rock too heavy for him to lift or other such illogical applications of reasoning.

WOW!!!

The post above is a case in point.

[Ran]

Trinity= 1 eternal god, manifested in three persons.  They are consubstantial, meaning they share the same essence in a way which neither divides the essence nor creates more than one god.  It is the logical solution to the problem for a strict monotheist trying to harmonize the statements referring to each person of the godhead as a god, while trying to deny that they meant multiple gods.

 

It is the kind of argument that makes LDS issues around polygamy look simple.

 

I favor putting the verses of scripture into play which make such a position impossible:

 

Acts 7:55-56  Jesus standing to the right side of God, thus indicating the resurrected Jesus is not God, and God has location and form.  Further, God is not referenced as the Father, so in Trinitarian speak it could just as easily be the Holy Ghost or, for that matter, the Son standing next to the Son.  He could be moving really fast, like the Flash, creating an optical illusion of being in two places at once.

 

Mark 16:20; Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:22, Matt 26:64; These are all descriptions of Jesus having a physical location to the right side of God.  None of these are symbolic uses where Jesus is representative of God's power by being his "right hand man", or the person enforcing the will of God.  Doesn't matter, he is still described as separate from God.

Matt 22:44-45, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42 is Jesus quoting the OT where Jehovah says to the Lord, sit at my right hand.

John 17:3  Life eternal is to know the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent.  Does that make Jesus the only untrue god?  In Jesus' own words, Jesus is not the True God.

John 1:1 is most correctly understood as a depiction of God and the Word, who has a nature similar to God, but is a separate divine being.  That makes two divine beings, each correctly characterized as having the nature of God.  But the Word is WITH God.  Logically, a thing cannot be with itself.  It is itself.  It is not just the JW's who assert the correct translation is "and the Word was a god."  Really no effective way to argue only one god is present.  When you couple this with John 1:18, where the Word is described as the "only begotten god" in the bosom of the father.  There are two gods here.  

 

At the very least, there are two divine beings present, which means the doctrine of the Trinity faces not just one tangential circumstance where the text is somewhat squishy, but there are more than a dozen passages directly viewing the presence and nature of God and Jesus, and in each and every instance they are physically and in their being or nature separate and distinct.

 

I present this evidence often to anti-Mormons, and they essentially ignore their own definitions about there being only one God in three persons, since these verses are explicitly stating Jesus/Christ/the Word is distinct from God.  They then redefine God, in these verses, as meaning the Father.  But they don't KNOW it is the Father, since the verses don't state that.  They must turn God, whom to them is an essence, into the Person of the Father, otherwise their Trinity definition fails to explain the divine interaction in these verses.  If there is only one God, and Jesus is next to God, then the definition of any reasonable person would be that Jesus is separate from God.  It is illogical that a thing can be next to itself.  Unless we also can have God make a rock too heavy for him to lift or other such illogical applications of reasoning.

 

 

The Trinitarianism of the Catholic heritage proposes the real distinction — by reason only of relation — of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from one another, each of whom is that supreme Reality denoted by the term "God".

 

Since this view proposes that each is God, "whole and entire," the Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot be described as sharing (that is, dividing) the same essence — in fact, the Catholic Church explicitly denies it; sharing entails division. Thus your second sentence needs to be amended if it is to accurately present the Trinitarian position.

 

Because this view proposes that each is God, and thus, each can be denoted with the term "God," the juxtaposition found in the New Testament of Jesus and God — the one whom Jesus calls "Father" — as though they were next to each other or facing each other in dialogue is not an insurmountable difficulty for Trinitarianism. 

 

The more I read these conversations, the more I'm convinced that the notion of person as relation must be recovered for any mutual understanding on the Trinity to advance. In Trinitarian theology, "person" is nothing else but pure, subsistent and real relation, which means that relational correlatives — Father and Son, in this case — can't be separated without rendering them unintelligible.

[mfbukowski]

The Trinitarianism of the Catholic heritage proposes the real distinction — by reason only of relation — of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from one another, each of whom is that supreme Reality denoted by the term "God".

 

Since this view proposes that each is God, "whole and entire," the Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot be described as sharing (that is, dividing) the same essence — in fact, the Catholic Church explicitly denies it; sharing entails division. Thus your second sentence needs to be amended if it is to accurately present the Trinitarian position.

 

Because this view proposes that each is God, and thus, each can be denoted with the term "God," the juxtaposition found in the New Testament of Jesus and God — the one whom Jesus calls "Father" — as though they were next to each other or facing each other in dialogue is not an insurmountable difficulty for Trinitarianism. 

 

The more I read these conversations, the more I'm convinced that the notion of person as relation must be recovered for any mutual understanding on the Trinity to advance. In Trinitarian theology, "person" is nothing else but pure, subsistent and real relation, which means that relational correlatives — Father and Son, in this case — can't be separated without rendering them unintelligible.

Ultimately I think that would turn Catholicism into Mormonism, which sounds like a great idea to me.