Does The Book Of Mormon Clarify The Nature Of The Godhead

[mfbukowski]

 

The word Atrinity@ does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  Indeed, the NT exhibits no more than Atriadic coordination@ rather than a divine unity of three-in-on, which some take to be tritheism.  Egyptologists Jan Assmann and the late Klaus Baer (among others) have, moreover, maintained that the Christian Trinity and the notion of hypostasis were taken from ancient Egyptian religion.*

 

Both God and the Holy Spirit are described anthropomorphically in the Book of Mormon.  In that context, it is not possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head B one God (II Nephi 31:21, Jacob 4:5, Alma 11:44, III Nephi 11:32, 35-36, Mormon 7:7, Ether 12:41, Moroni 10:34).  Formal language of cross-identification (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as metaphorical, so that Athe will of the Son@ is Aswallowed up in the will of the Father@ (Mosiah 15:7).  In fact, David Paulsen and Ari Bruening argue for a social trinity in III Nephi.**

*   Klaus Baer (then of the Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one.  According to him, the Christian Trinity was developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]).  Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female.  All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him.  AThe divine@ is a monophysite substance and could be seen as one god, as in Coptic Christianity.  My personal notes of Baer lecture at BYU (Provo, Utah), Aug 20, 1974.  However, J. Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or Atriunity@ at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, in his Search for God, 177-180,238-239.

**  Paulsen & Bruening, AThe Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,@ in Skinner & Strathearn, eds., Third Nephi, 191-233.

 

It is very well known that Greek philosophy was derived largely from Egypt.  Many of the earliest philosophers studied there, and Pythagoras was especially influenced by Egyptian ideas, and that is a direct link to Plato.

 

Plotinus was a Platonist and it was through him that Platonism entered Christianity.  So there is a direct link between Egypt and the Christian Trinity with Pythagoras and Plato as the intermediaries.  All this is well documented, and can be found in almost any history of Philosophy.

 

All one has to do is look up Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus in wikipedia- it's all there.

Edited January 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

 

Almost nothing in the world is completely unambiguous 

 

Language itself is symbolic.  The word "chair" has nothing to do with a "real" chair.  And what kind of chair did you mean anyway?

[mfbukowski]

The classical Trinity has three distinct persons, so that is not different. It is the teaching of one substance that 'forms' the One God that needs to be clarified or corrected (in the LDS view), is this substance, this essence, this nature an attribute or some sort of immaterial element or something else. It seems to be this substance is merely defined not by what it is (at least not beyond the substance of God) but by what it is claimed to do---somehow three persons are one being because they are this substance (it does not even seem appropriate to say they "share" the substance because that implies a division between the substance and the individuals that does not exist, they are the substance that is God as much as they are the individuals).

If the substance is a nature such as the human nature that all humans share, the Trinity poses no problems for LDS. But most classical Trinitarians seem to reject this concept of nature and teach the One Being is not just a collective noun, like Family, but is somehow an individual being that is also three individual persons (and not like triplets or a hive mind or anything our finite minds can grasp) That this would be nonsense in our finite world is resolved by defining God as an infinite being...which makes sense to others but leaves me unsatisfied.

I am not sure the BoM challenges this idea of substance, there would IMO have been no need to directly deal with it given this was an Old World concept development.

PS: I think I got this right but there are always nuances an outsider might miss, so as always those who are Trinitarians (classical to avoid those who want to claim the title but not the belief I am speaking of) feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted something.

"Substance" is seen as the stuff that makes up the universe.  It is contrasted with "accidents" which are illusions- accidents would be things like color, shape, the nature of a thing etc.

 

So if one believes in substance, one might believe that gold can become lead because both share the "substance" of being metallic, but each has different "accidents"- different illusory appearances which are not "real".  Alchemy was based on the idea that all one had to do to turn lead into gold was to change its "accidents" keeping its metallic substance.

 

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.^[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,^[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species^[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.^[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,^[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.^[10] The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."^[11]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

 

Similarly, the persons of the Trinity are seen as "one" because they share the same "substance" or "nature" or "being".

 

All of these arguments of course rely on the ambiguity of language to even partially make sense- there is no such thing as "substance"- the word is a general term, and abstraction used to describe specific properties held in common by different materials.  Olive oil, motor oil and vaseline could be said to be "oily substances" but the idea that therefore they share some metaphysical properties and are therefore interchangeable is of course ridiculous.

 

And that is the substance or essence or nature of the argument about substance or nature or essence.  It is all linguistic confusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is very well known that Greek philosophy was derived largely from Egypt.  Many of the earliest philosophers studied there, and Pythagoras was especially influenced by Egyptian ideas, and that is a direct link to Plato.

 

Plotinus was a Platonist and it was through him that Platonism entered Christianity.  So there is a direct link between Egypt and the Christian Trinity with Pythagoras and Plato as the intermediaries.  All this is well documented, and can be found in almost any history of Philosophy.

 

All one has to do is look up Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus in wikipedia- it's all there.

Exactly, Mark.  Few seem to recognize the importance of Alexandria, Egypt, for the intellectual life of late antiquity.  All the most important philosophers and theologians of that time were there(or visiting), in order to partake of the vast library there.

[Flyonthewall]

It is very well known that Greek philosophy was derived largely from Egypt.  Many of the earliest philosophers studied there, and Pythagoras was especially influenced by Egyptian ideas, and that is a direct link to Plato.

 

Plotinus was a Platonist and it was through him that Platonism entered Christianity.  So there is a direct link between Egypt and the Christian Trinity with Pythagoras and Plato as the intermediaries.  All this is well documented, and can be found in almost any history of Philosophy.

 

All one has to do is look up Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus in wikipedia- it's all there.

Hmmm... humorous to think Pythagoras has a link to the Trinity.

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm... humorous to think Pythagoras has a link to the Trinity.

Yeah- not really humorous at all.  Where do you think the representation of the trinity as a triangle came from?  Seriously!  Three sides, one figure..  Look at the dollar bill- a PYRAMID- not just a triangle- with the all-seeing eye.

 

Pythagoras thought that math was the "true" reality and all we see around us was illusion.  Today we think that all we see around us is true reality and math is the rules our brains use to construct the way it all works.

 

Totally opposite.

Edited January 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That's where we got the idea that God is Everywhere- an abstract spirit who fills the universe- a Principle, the Form of Goodness, instead of the Hebrew idea that He is our loving Father in Heaven.

 

We have Pythagoras to thank for all of that.

[teddyaware]

"Substance" is seen as the stuff that makes up the universe.  It is contrasted with "accidents" which are illusions- accidents would be things like color, shape, the nature of a thing etc.

 

So if one believes in substance, one might believe that gold can become lead because both share the "substance" of being metallic, but each has different "accidents"- different illusory appearances which are not "real".  Alchemy was based on the idea that all one had to do to turn lead into gold was to change its "accidents" keeping its metallic substance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

 

Similarly, the persons of the Trinity are seen as "one" because they share the same "substance" or "nature" or "being".

 

All of these arguments of course rely on the ambiguity of language to even partially make sense- there is no such thing as "substance"- the word is a general term, and abstraction used to describe specific properties held in common by different materials.  Olive oil, motor oil and vaseline could be said to be "oily substances" but the idea that therefore they share some metaphysical properties and are therefore interchangeable is of course ridiculous.

 

And that is the substance or essence or nature of the argument about substance or nature or essence.  It is all linguistic confusion.

 

I don't think you thought your argument all the way through (and you know I like you Mark). Chew on this: Jesus tuned water into wine and, apparently, turned some other physical substance (perhaps molecules of air?) into loaves and fishes -- baked and cooked loaves and fishes no less (you know we believe God cannot create something out of nothing). So I think it would be a rather simple thing for God to rearrange some protons, neutrons and electrons from some metal element, like lead, and turn it into pure gold.

 

Now as far as the supposed lack of commonality of the substances of metal elements is concerned, consider the fact that every metal element -- when you get down to basic building blocks -- is composed of the common substances known as protons, neutrons and electrons. So all metal elements are formed from common substances that all metal elements have in common. 

Edited January 14, 2015 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

That's where we got the idea that God is Everywhere- an abstract spirit who fills the universe- a Principle, the Form of Goodness, instead of the Hebrew idea that He is our loving Father in Heaven.

We have Pythagoras to thank for all of that.

Ahh, I see. It's all because of him, huh.

Bad, bad, bad Pythagoras.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Substance Being Essence, God and Godhead are synonyms in the Trinitarian vernacular . They are always ONE or singular and Persons is always plural. Since the Trinity teaches within the nature of the ONE GOD are three separate and distinct persons. Jesus prayed to the Father a separate persons.    

[teddyaware]

That's where we got the idea that God is Everywhere- an abstract spirit who fills the universe- a Principle, the Form of Goodness, instead of the Hebrew idea that He is our loving Father in Heaven.

 

We have Pythagoras to thank for all of that.

 

Because of my limited status, this will be the last post I can make for a while; for when I hit "post" on this one, I will have  officially rum out of posts...

 

Mark, I just can't understand why you seem to have a such a problem with what BH Roberts calls the reality of "God imminent in nature." Pythagorus didn't originate this idea; it is the prophets of God who have oft spoke of God's presence filling the immensity of space. I'll limit my supporting quotations to 3 scriptural references, one from an ancient prophet and two from a modern one. First we'll hear from David:

 

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed inhell, behold, thou art there. (Psalms 139)

 

Next we'll hear from the Prophet Joseph Smith in the great "Olive Leaf" revelation:

 

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. (D&C 88)

 

And another from the Olive Leaf: 

 

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; (D&C 88)

 

While it goes without saying the LDS Church declares both the Father and the Son have physical bodies that occupy limited space, nevertheless, why drive a wedge between ourselves and the other Christian denominations by not driving home the point that we also believe God is ever present throughout the universe by means of the infinite and eternal power of His Holy Spirit? 

 

Edited January 14, 2015 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Because of my limited status, this will be the last post I can make for a while; for when I hit "post" on this one, I will have officially rum out of posts...

Mark, I just can't understand why you seem to have a such a problem with what BH Roberts calls the reality of "God imminent in nature." Pythagorus didn't originate this idea; it is the prophets of God who have oft spoke of God's presence filling the immensity of space. I'll limit my supporting quotations to 3 scriptural references, one from an ancient prophet and two from a modern one. First we'll hear from David:

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed inhell, behold, thou art there. (Psalms 139)

Next we'll hear from the Prophet Joseph Smith in the great "Olive Leaf" revelation:

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. (D&C 88)

And another from the Olive Leaf:

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; (D&C 88)

While it goes without saying the LDS Church declares both the Father and the Son have physical bodies that occupy limited space, nevertheless, why drive a wedge between ourselves and the other Christian denominations by not driving home the point that we also believe God is ever present throughout the universe by means of the infinite and eternal power of His Holy Spirit?

If Pythagoras had only made it clear that it's an [and] situation and not just an [either/or] situation, then all of us would be in agreement. But he didn't. And now we have him to blame.

Bad, bad, bad Pythagoras.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you thought your argument all the way through (and you know I like you Mark). Chew on this: Jesus tuned water into wine and, apparently, turned some other physical substance (perhaps molecules of air?) into loaves and fishes -- baked and cooked loaves and fishes no less (you know we believe God cannot create something out of nothing). So I think it would be a rather simple thing for God to rearrange some protons, neutrons and electrons from some metal element, like lead, and turn it into pure gold.

 

Now as far as the supposed lack of commonality of the substances of metal elements is concerned, consider the fact that every metal element -- when you get down to basic building blocks -- is composed of the common substances known as protons, neutrons and electrons. So all metal elements are formed from common substances that all metal elements have in common. 

Well I am sorry you wasted your last post on this.  My "argument" was not an argument- it was a few-line summary of 2000 years of the history of western philosophy and it was probably a lousy job because it was so short.

 

It wasn't about science, it was about philosophy and substance theology.  If you want to defend substance theology you should be a Catholic and believe in transubstantiation of the host, since after all it is a "simple thing for God to rearrange protons, neutrons, and electrons. While you are at it, you would also have to argue that the Catholic Trinity makes sense because three people are made of the same neutrons and protons.

 

The trick with substantiation of course is to keep the flesh looking like bread and "some metal element" looking like say, copper while it becomes "actually" gold.

 

Sorry- read up some Aquinas on transubstantiation and I think you will see in a minute, it is not a defensible argument unless your whole faith in God and everything holy depends on it.  http://www.didymus.org/thomas-aquinas-on-transubstantiation.html

[Rivers]

The doctrine of the trinity makes sense because it allows for monotheism to still be true.

If the three persons are seperate entities, than we have polytheism or tritheism.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Rivers

[mfbukowski]

Because of my limited status, this will be the last post I can make for a while; for when I hit "post" on this one, I will have  officially rum out of posts...

 

Mark, I just can't understand why you seem to have a such a problem with what BH Roberts calls the reality of "God imminent in nature." Pythagorus didn't originate this idea; it is the prophets of God who have oft spoke of God's presence filling the immensity of space. I'll limit my supporting quotations to 3 scriptural references, one from an ancient prophet and two from a modern one. First we'll hear from David:

 

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed inhell, behold, thou art there. (Psalms 139)

 

Next we'll hear from the Prophet Joseph Smith in the great "Olive Leaf" revelation:

 

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. (D&C 88)

 

And another from the Olive Leaf: 

 

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; (D&C 88)

 

While it goes without saying the LDS Church declares both the Father and the Son have physical bodies that occupy limited space, nevertheless, why drive a wedge between ourselves and the other Christian denominations by not driving home the point that we also believe God is ever present throughout the universe by means of the infinite and eternal power of His Holy Spirit? 

 

Sorry- look up the word "immanent" as opposed to "imminent".   "Transcendent" is usually seen as the opposite of "immanent". If BH really said that, he hadn't read his Kant.  Omnipresence is associated with "transcendence" and is not the LDS God as he is usually understood.

 

We believe in a God who has a location and is WITHIN the universe, so he can interact with mankind as a Father.

 

A transcendent God would be outside the universe looking in- like a Pythagorean god.  Such a god would be a principle, or spirit or thought or Idea or "The Force".

 

For us, the Light of Christ permeates the universe but that "force" is not God himself- the Light of Christ is God's intelligence. 

 

 36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

 

God is not "light", his intelligence is.  All that means is that he knows everything that is "going on" with his creations- THAT is how his intelligence permeates space.

 

If I were to talk to you on the phone, your intelligence could be present to me- it could "permeate" our discussion, but YOU would be wherever you are.

 

God just has a really good neuro/spirtual interface, that's all. 

 

But he is "immanent" in LDS theology. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”² We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

 

Edited January 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

The doctrine of the trinity makes sense because it allows for monotheism to still be true.

If the three persons are seperate entities, than we have polytheism or tritheism.

 

Trinitarians believe that God is three persons but one being, it contradicts logic.  

 

[canard78]

This thread has gone off on a tangent that was unintended. I'm not making an argument for the trinity and I'm not really very interested in whether trinitarianism is logical or not.

It was specifically about whether the Book of Mormon offers clarity on the matter. Clarity in the way that the 1838 version of the first vision describes the godhead for example.

I've not seen anything yet.

Edited January 15, 2015 by canard78

[Sevenbak]

It was specifically about whether the Book of Mormon offers clarity on the matter. Clarity in the way that the 1838 version of the first vision describes the godhead for example.

I've not seen anything yet.

 

What immediately comes to mind is 3 Nephi 11:

 

 7 Behold my ^aBeloved Son, ^bin whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

 8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they ^asaw a Man ^bdescendingout of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

 9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:

 10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

 

 11 And behold, I am the ^alight and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter ^bcup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in ^ctaking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the ^dwill of the Father in all things from the beginning.

[Sevenbak]

Or chapter 19.  It seems amazingly clear to me...

 

 

19 And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and ^abowed himself to the earth, and he said:

 20 Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have ^achosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world.

 21 Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words.

 22 Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in ^ame; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them.

 

 23 And now Father, I ^apray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them ^bas thou, Father, art in me, that we may be ^cone.

[Sevenbak]

Ok, one more... but I believe the point is pretty clear.  I just don't see how these can be dismissed away...  Chapter 18.

 

 

27 Behold verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you another commandment, and then I must go unto my ^aFather that I may fulfil ^bother commandments which he hath given me.

35 And now I go unto the Father, because it is expedient that I should go unto the Father ^afor your sakes.

[teddyaware]

Well I am sorry you wasted your last post on this.  My "argument" was not an argument- it was a few-line summary of 2000 years of the history of western philosophy and it was probably a lousy job because it was so short.

 

It wasn't about science, it was about philosophy and substance theology.  If you want to defend substance theology you should be a Catholic and believe in transubstantiation of the host, since after all it is a "simple thing for God to rearrange protons, neutrons, and electrons. While you are at it, you would also have to argue that the Catholic Trinity makes sense because three people are made of the same neutrons and protons.

 

The trick with substantiation of course is to keep the flesh looking like bread and "some metal element" looking like say, copper while it becomes "actually" gold.

 

Sorry- read up some Aquinas on transubstantiation and I think you will see in a minute, it is not a defensible argument unless your whole faith in God and everything holy depends on it.  http://www.didymus.org/thomas-aquinas-on-transubstantiation.html

 

Am I correct in presuming that by taking a cue from the above you don't put much credence in the scriptural testimony that Christ turned water into wine and likely changed some other form of matter in to baked bread and cooked fishes?

[teddyaware]

Sorry- look up the word "immanent" as opposed to "imminent".   "Transcendent" is usually seen as the opposite of "immanent". If BH really said that, he hadn't read his Kant.  Omnipresence is associated with "transcendence" and is not the LDS God as he is usually understood.

 

We believe in a God who has a location and is WITHIN the universe, so he can interact with mankind as a Father.

 

A transcendent God would be outside the universe looking in- like a Pythagorean god.  Such a god would be a principle, or spirit or thought or Idea or "The Force".

 

For us, the Light of Christ permeates the universe but that "force" is not God himself- the Light of Christ is God's intelligence. 

 

God is not "light", his intelligence is.  All that means is that he knows everything that is "going on" with his creations- THAT is how his intelligence permeates space.

 

If I were to talk to you on the phone, your intelligence could be present to me- it could "permeate" our discussion, but YOU would be wherever you are.

 

God just has a really good neuro/spirtual interface, that's all. 

 

But he is "immanent" in LDS theology. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/the-only-true-god-and-jesus-christ-whom-he-hath-sent?lang=eng

 

But you ignore the plain meaning of the scriptures I quoted that say God, not just His influence, is omnipresent. Why do so many scriptures present a personal omnipresent God, rather than just simply make it clear God is not omnipresent, but only His influence. The writers of scripture could have very easily made that point clear, but they didn't. The question is why? And I ask this question as one who believes God's body occupies a very limited space in a seemingly infinitely vast universe There must be some important reason why the scriptures teach a personal God is round about and in and through all things. 

 

And yes, Brigham H Roberts really did say that in Mormon Doctrine of Deity. I guess he was remiss in putting the testimonies and plain words of the prophets ahead of the philosophy of the unordained Immanuel Kant.

Edited January 15, 2015 by teddyaware

[Spammer]

It wasn't about science, it was about philosophy and substance theology.  If you want to defend substance theology you should be a Catholic and believe in transubstantiation of the host, since after all it is a "simple thing for God to rearrange protons, neutrons, and electrons. While you are at it, you would also have to argue that the Catholic Trinity makes sense because three people are made of the same neutrons and protons.

 

Catholics and Orthodox don't believe the divine "substance" is comprised of matter, therefore God is not made of neutrons, protons, and electrons.  We believe God is immaterial, a being of pure, infinite spirit, a transcendent being - meaning he's outside and beyond any and all universes, outside all times and spaces. God only acquires protons, neutrons, and spatial coordinates when he takes on matter and enters time and space, as Christ, the divine Logos, did through the Incarnation when he took human flesh and was born in Bethlehem.   The same thing happens on the altar at every Mass and Divine Liturgy, where Christ is incarnate in the consecrated bread and wine (Catholics and Orthodox believe the same thing about the Eucharist, though the Orthodox don't accept and use Aquinas' substance theology to explain the change).  

 

Just wanted to clarify our belief.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Spammer

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

ONE GOD or substance yet three separate persons 1X1X1=1

 

Jesus prayed to God the Father a separate persons, Trinitarians do not believe in modalism

[bluebell]

ONE GOD or substance yet three separate persons 1X1X1=1

 

Jesus prayed to God the Father a separate persons, Trinitarians do not believe in modalism

 

To be fair, some trinitarians are not good at explaining their beliefs and that's why so many LDS think they believe in modalism.  I have a friend who is evangelical and this is how she described the Trinity to me-

 

"The Judge represents God the Father, who takes on the role of Jesus Christ the Savior to pay our debt for sin, while the Holy Spirit prompted him to do this. You see, he is the same person, but has many different roles and those roles have different jobs. Just like us! I am **** but I am also a mom, I am also a wife, I also have a job. I am still myself, one person, but function differently and have a different purpose for each role that I play."

 

She described this after I already told an lds friend that her concept of Trinitarianism was actually modalism and that most trinitarians view modalism as a heresy.