About trinity in Christianity

[Jane.Doe]

Terry asks: So, according to orthodox LDS doctrine: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have always coexisted and will always coexist ?

Correct.

Terry: Allow me to share the following article from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 2006) which will convey my limited understanding of the "history of and surrounding Snow's couplet. https://www.religiousforums.com/dat...04/33760_5333b2429873653304c8f9d6b86fc7f2.pdf
I've searched, briefly, for an LDS response to the article but haven't found one. If you or someone you know can refer me to an LDS response, I'd be much obliged.

It is best to let Evengelcials explain Evangelical theology, and LDS to explain LDS theology. This essay is... (I'm trying to find a polite way to say this) extremely biased and inaccurate in its presentation. If you want me or Katz to address any part here, we'd be happy to. But LDS people didn't spend the time to write "in response to your anti-LDS essay..." response.

Terry: I am slightly familiar with LDS doctrine, having been, since 1990, a genealogical research addict, and a long-time, bi-weekly face at the nearby Family History Center on Temple grounds in Santa Monica until around 2000. After a shift in focus to non-genealogical matters, I took up the hunt again around 2005, by which time increasing on-line resources diminished my need to make the trip to the Santa Monica FHC. The addition of DNA research possibilities made my research even more exciting. And I've had the profound pleasure and honor of identifying eight or so biological parents of persons who sought such information.

Well, as a fellow genealogy nerd, I got to say all that is awesome.

One consequence of our exchange has been my decision to recant my previous characterization of LDS as polytheistic Christianity, as you had hoped. However, .... now, I have a new puzzle to solve.

Great. I have enjoyed chatting with you and completely welcome and more questions/chats in the future.

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur:

Terry: Potential misconceptions clarified.

Katzpur:

Terry: I am slightly familiar with LDS doctrine, having been, since 1990, a genealogical research addict, and a long-time, bi-weekly face at the nearby Family History Center on Temple grounds in Santa Monica until around 2000. After a shift in focus to non-genealogical matters, I took up the hunt again around 2005, by which time increasing on-line resources diminished my need to make the trip to the Santa Monica FHC. The addition of DNA research possibilities made my research even more exciting. And I've had the profound pleasure and honor of identifying eight or so biological parents of persons who sought such information.

Katzpur:

Terry: Just so's you know, I did indeed read all that you wrote which I just omitted in the last quotation from your message. Reading it led me to do a bit of googling, and I came across the word "Theosis" and the 2-volume set "Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology". I'll continue to explore that topic at my leisure.

One consequence of our exchange has been my decision to recant my previous characterization of LDS as polytheistic Christianity, as you had hoped. However, .... now, I have a new puzzle to solve.

Hello again, Terry. Thanks for your comprehensive response. I glanced at the file you attached, and it appears to be worth reading. Unfortunately, I'm going to be super busy (i.e. away from home) for most of today and tomorrow, but I'll do my very best to get back to you on Monday. Since the article is 20 pages long, would it be possible for you to tell me which part of it to focus on as I write my response.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Katzpur: Since the article is 20 pages long, would it be possible for you to tell me which part of it to focus on as I write my response.

It's kind of you to offer to read the article I shared and write a response. However, I'm reluctant to encourage you to do so on my behalf ... here, in public view. Been there, done that kind of thing, and I'm not inclined to wrestle in the mud with the knuckleheads who don't know when to quit or pigs who enjoy it without the slightest interest in reasonable civility. [If past experience is a reasonable predictor of the future, I expect one or two are likely as not to come out of the woodwork to watch you and me dance.] So, I'm going to decline your offer.

To be sure, I have no doubt you'd do your very best to satisfy my curiosity and that your very best would be purt' near, if not exactly, what I'm interested in finding out and about as close to orthodox LDS doctrine as I could hope to get.

Read the article at your leisure, if you're inclined to. But if you want to know what part sticks in my craw and are interested in responding to it, you'll have to do it by email. I can be reached at [email protected].

 

[rrobs]

Yesterday I spoke with a very nice taxi driver and we came in on religion, He a Muslim and I Buddhist had a very nice chat, so he asked me if I understand the trenity of Christianity, but I was uncertain
My question is, is there anyone who can explain the Trinity for me?

Another way to phrase your question is::

Would anybody be able to explain how a son could be his own father, or how a father could be his own son? But, as if that's not confusing enough, one would also have to explain how each of those could also be a ghost, which would have to be its own father and son, blah, blah, blah.

Anyone that is honest with themselves would have to admit that the "blah, blah, part" part is the only part that kind of makes any sense. The rest sure doesn't.

1Cor 14:33,

for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace; as in all the churches of the saints.
​

The trinity is about as confusing as confusion gets, therefore it can not be from God. When God created the universe He set in place all the laws of nature which are highly dependent on mathematics. God know the differences between "one" and "three" and He never avers that "one" can be "three" or visa versa. One is one, and three is three. Every preschool child knows the difference. It takes religion to spoil that logic and it's done a bang up job of doing so.

I wonder how many non-Christians are so because of the trinity. I can't say as I blame them for not wanting to adopt what is basically an insane idea.

​

 

[Clear]

It's kind of you to offer to read the article I shared and write a response. However, I'm reluctant to encourage you to do so on my behalf ... here, in public view. Been there, done that kind of thing, and I'm not inclined to wrestle in the mud with the knuckleheads who don't know when to quit or pigs who enjoy it without the slightest interest in reasonable civility. [If past experience is a reasonable predictor of the future, I expect one or two are likely as not to come out of the woodwork to watch you and me dance.] So, I'm going to decline your offer.

To be sure, I have no doubt you'd do your very best to satisfy my curiosity and that your very best would be purt' near, if not exactly, what I'm interested in finding out and about as close to orthodox LDS doctrine as I could hope to get.

Read the article at your leisure, if you're inclined to. But if you want to know what part sticks in my craw and are interested in responding to it, you'll have to do it by email. I can be reached at [email protected].

Hi Terry Sampson ;

I was cruising through the LDS forum and noticed you also brought this same point up there. I have interest in early Judeo-Christian texts and their early doctrines and interpretations and so made a comment on this blog and it's discussion there : "Eternal Progression In a Mormon Multiverse" if you still have any interest in this theme.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey and your interest in early Christian doctrines is helpful and insightful.

See you Terry

Clear

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yesterday I spoke with a very nice taxi driver and we came in on religion, He a Muslim and I Buddhist had a very nice chat, so he asked me if I understand the trenity of Christianity, but I was uncertain
My question is, is there anyone who can explain the Trinity for me?

My understanding is what could be considered a Trinity, but not the official explanation.

I see the Father as the main body who sits on the throne. Jesus, who now doesn't sit but stands on the throne, is the personification of Gods words. The Holy Spirit is how God interacts with the world. It is equivalent to his hands that makes things.

So, the Father is the source of both. The Father thinks. When he thinks, he says words in order for things to happen and it is also how he communicates to others, it was manifest as Jesus (maybe also the Angel of the Lord). Therefore Jesus says what the father thinks. Both the Father and the Word can control the Holy Spirit. So the Word and the Spirit are extensions of the main body that sits on the throne in Revelation.

That is me sort of taking it from verses such as John 1:1 and Revelation.

It is probably heretical.

 

[Niblo]

It is probably heretical.

No 'probably' about it!

 

[Samael_Khan]

No 'probably' about it!

To be honest, I don't think that they are that dogmatic about the mechanics of the Trinity. The only person I know who is is James White. His view though i cannot get from scripture.

 

[Niblo]

To be honest, I don't think that they are that dogmatic about the mechanics of the Trinity. The only person I know who is is James White. His view though i cannot get from scripture.

I think you will find that the Church....and my experience is of the Catholic Church....in indeed dogmatic about it! Look at my post on page 4!

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think you will find that the Church....and my experience is of the Catholic Church....in indeed dogmatic about it! Look at my post on page 4!

I see that from your post. I don't get the idea that all three are equal from the scriptures. Jesus and the Holy Spirit seem to be very subservient and dependent on the Father. In fact, only Jesus and the father are seen as sitting on the throne. the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be seen on it. It doesn't sit on the throne. Therefore it is art least inferior in that extent.

 

[Niblo]

I see that from your post. I don't get the idea that all three are equal from the scriptures. Jesus and the Holy Spirit seem to be very subservient and dependent on the Father. In fact, only Jesus and the father are seen as sitting on the throne. the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be seen on it. It doesn't sit on the throne. Therefore it is art least inferior in that extent.

I'm away from home at the moment, and about to get dragged to a shopping trip. If you wish, God willing, we can discuss this matter at some time soon. In the meantime, take care.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm away from home at the moment, and about to get dragged to a shopping trip. If you wish, God willing, we can discuss this matter at some time soon. In the meantime, take care.

That would be great. Sorry about you having to shopping against your will. Hope you survive. Take care.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The only person I know who is is James White. His view though i cannot get from scripture.

White is indeed! And, IMO, understandably so if and when one explores Reformed Calvinist theology. As for his view, my Post ##114 is my version of a brief portion of White's book, The Forgotten Trinity. In his book, however, he cites scripture; in my post I did not. The nice thing about the book is that you can get a more focused presentation of his views than he gives in his Youtube talks.

 

[Samael_Khan]

White is indeed! And, IMO, understandably so if and when one explores Reformed Calvinist theology. As for his view, my Post ##114 is my version of a brief portion of White's book, The Forgotten Trinity. In his book, however, he cites scripture; in my post I did not. The nice thing about the book is that you can get a more focused presentation of his views than he gives in his Youtube talks.

I guess I should read The Forgotten Trinity at some point. I will check out your post too.

To be honest, I think that it is a very confusing and unnecessary subject. If we were really supposed to understand the true relation between The Father and Jesus and The Holy Spirit it would have been clearer. I stick to the understanding that if the Bible isn't clear on something with explicit statements then don't be dogmatic about it.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Mind if I play here in your sandbox briefly?

The doctrine of the Trinity is a meaty subject, for sure, with plenty in it to chew on. For the record, I am not interested in persuading you to accept it, i.e. place your confidence in it. I am merely offering my understanding of it which I have received from others. Take it; leave it; or do what you will with or about it.

I've gone through this thread, albeit quickly, and readily understand and sympathize with your comments:



However, ... allow me to offer the following:

I. The Trinity consists of three Divine Persons. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (also called, by some, the Holy Ghost.

• The Father is not the Son;
• The Father is not the Holy Spirit;
• The Son is not the Father;
• The Son is not the Holy Spirit;
• The Holy Spirit is not the Father; and
  
• The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

If I said no more, you'd rightly be inclined to believe that the Trinity is a polytheistic doctrine. However, ... I say more.

2. Each Divine Person is God. [Note that I did NOT say that each is a god.

• The Father is God.
• The Son is God.
• The Holy Spirit is God.

I have heard the matter put this way: There is one "what" and there are three "Who"s. I'm not particularly excited by that statement, but I mention it because it was given to me by the same who gave me #1 and #2.

The most common depiction of the Trinity that I have seen is this one:

View attachment 28196

3. The Doctrine of the Trinity contains three "legs", i.e. equally important fundamentals or core beliefs:

• Monotheism: There is only one God;
• There are three Divine Persons; and
• The three Divine Persons are coequal and coeternal.

The importance of all three fundamentals may be seen in the following graphic:
View attachment 28200

In the graphic above, the three fundamentals are highlighted in orange.

• Denial of monotheism leaves an arrow pointed at "Polytheism." A polytheistic Christian is commonly deemed a heretic by monotheistic Christians.
  • I believe that I am correct if I say that members of the Latter-day Saints of Jesus Christ (a.k.a. Mormons) are polytheistic Christians.
• Denial of the three Divine Persons leaves an arrow pointed at "Modalism." Modalist monotheistic Christians, a.k.a. modalist monarchists, as I understand, say that that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just three modes or aspects of the one God, e.g. "One-ness" Pentecostals and Sabellius and his followers (a third-century priest).
  
• Denial of the Coequality and Coeternality of the three Divine Persons leaves an arrow pointed at "Subordinationism." Subordinationist Christians believe that the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine but subordinate to the Father, e.g. this Arian heresy was condemned in the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.).
• Denial of both (a) the three Divine Persons and (b) their Coequality and Coeternity yields a very monotheistic Christianity, e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses.
  • I'm inclined to believe that Jehovah's Witness monotheists are closer to Muslims (but certainly NOT the same as Muslims), and probably closer than faithful Jews.

I'll end this message here.

Cool post. good summary. This is similar to what i have read before.

I do not find that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal, so I would vote for Arius' view. I don't care much about conclusions that are not based on clear cut scripture. So I wouldn't consider Arianism a heresy myself.

An interesting addition:

In the above, a Jewish bible scholar gives a talk to Jews about how before Maimonides the Israelites believed that God had multiple bodies. If his conclusions are true, then that means that the Trinity holds more weight.

 

[wellwisher]

The best way to understand the mystery of trinity is with an example. In this example, there is a man named Joe. Joe is a father to his children, a husband to his wife, and a son to his parents. Joe is one person, but he plays three distinct roles, in terms of his interactions with the three generations of his immediate family.

Joe is firm, but fair, with his children. He is loving and understanding with his wife and he is respectful to his parents. Joe is not trying to be everyone's friend, but is trying to maximize each unique relationship.

Where the trinity gets confusing, is during the holidays when all three generations come together, under the same roof, for a common purpose. It is now less clear cut where the boundaries are, when Joe's wife and mother team up to embarrass him, or when his children and his parents play the new video game together, and he is the only adult in the room. Or when his wife indulges the children, and allows them holiday liberties. Now Joes may decide to become just Joe, the friend.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The best way to understand the mystery of trinity is with an example. In this example, there is a man named Joe. Joe is a father to his children, a husband to his wife, and a son to his parents. Joe is one person, but he plays three distinct roles, in terms of his interactions with the three generations of his immediate family.

Joe is firm, but fair, with his children. He is loving and understanding with his wife and he is respectful to his parents. Joe is not trying to be everyone's friend, but is trying to maximize each unique relationship.

Where the trinity gets confusing, is during the holidays when all three generations come together, under the same roof, for a common purpose. It is now less clear cut where the boundaries are, when Joe's wife and mother team up to embarrass him, or when his children and his parents play the new video game together, and he is the only adult in the room. Or when his wife indulges the children, and allows them holiday liberties. Now Joes may decide to become just Joe, the friend.

In this case though, Joe isn't one individual playing many roles. In the Trinity God actually has three distinct personas that exist at the same time in their own individual bodies, which are all coeternal.

Also in your explanation, there would have to be no Trinity at some point. God would have just existed as a single persona. Since Joe was originally a son. Then he became a husband and then he became a father. Only one role would be eternal while he had to manifest new personas once he achieved a different role.

I think a better way to explain it is three robots, not exactly identical in appearance, but that have the same software downloaded on their system which work separately but are constantly in communication with each other. They have different experiences but the same base software. So they are in unity but with different experiences.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Ha! I have Sommer's book. I like the Youtube version. Thanks! It may help me chew my way through Sommer's 350 page book.

I'm tempted to write more, but it's almost 5:00 am and I was working on a response to another message, so will postpone my "more" till later (assuming that I can remember to do so).

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ha! I have Sommer's book. I like the Youtube version. Thanks! It may help me chew my way through Sommer's 350 page book.

I'm tempted to write more, but it's almost 5:00 am and I was working on a response to another message, so will postpone my "more" till later (assuming that I can remember to do so).

He has a book??!!! I would buy that. Hope you remember

 

[Terry Sampson]

https://www.amazon.com/Bodies-God-W...enjamin+D.+Sommer&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1