The Trinity

[Quiddity]

So maybe you could tell us why you are sure it is correct and that it does not compromise our belief in monotheism

I see now. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Ok, I'm not sure if I can do it justice but I will give you a couple points that can help.

1. It's historicity in early writings
2. God seems to show quite a liking to the family setting. "My people". This would account for why He projects himself in three people. To make HIS OWN family.
3. I believe the Catholic Church

That's all you can muster out of me.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

OK, when the Gospel becomes "highly abstract, difficult philosophical theology" it's usually because someone's trying to justify a doctrine that is not true. I've read all the creeds, I've seen the explanations, and it's a jumble of contradictions and flowery prose meant to do nothing but confuse, thus the layman is unworthy of figuring out spiritual affairs in that he cannot understand this doctrine - he had better not worry about reading the Bible or trying to understand it; it would be better for him to just listen to whatever his minister tells him. I believe that was the logic that spawned the reformation (amidst other things, of course). If the Catholic church ahd it her way we would still be without Bibles, listening to a minister tell us that it says this and this is what it means, but all in Latin. Funny how the universal church of Christ couldn't even salvage its own language.

I'm surprsied your Mormon. I will desist from commenting out of respect for the other LDS members. Let me collect myself and we can continue in a later time.

~Victor

 

[dan]

I'm surprsied your Mormon. I will desist from commenting out of respect for the other LDS members. Let me collect myself and we can continue in a later time.

~Victor

Well thank you for sparing my brethren from my tainting stink. I'll reserve my comments out of not judging people, but my argument requires attention, not my character.

 

[Merlin]

Nah... was it the "hogwash" comment? I just like to say that.
Earlier...
“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin." Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).
"For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 121 (A.D. 155).
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).
"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).

Hope that helps....

Nothing new there then. More or less at the time Matthew was writing his embellished version. These were a couple of generations after Christ. So, when did it all start?

Is it necessary anyway. Many Christian sects manage without it.

"Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages"

Why pray to all 3, when if they are all the same person, just praying to and praising one would be the same.

 

[Quiddity]

Why pray to all 3, when if they are all the same person, just praying to and praising one would be the same.

If you focus on only the Father when the Father Himself projects Himself into 3, do you think you'll be missing out on anything?

ABSOLUTELY!!! :bounce

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Hogwash.... the divinity of Christ was proclaimed from the begining of the Church... the formal defintion may have come at a later date, but writings from early Church fathers (Tertullian, Justin, Tatian the Syrian, Athenagoras, Ignatius of Antioch) show the foundation of Trinitarian theology before the close of the year 200AD.

I assuming you're referring to Arianism (which Mormons reject), but it is altogether possible to accept the divinity of Christ without believing in the Trinity.

 

[michel]

I assuming you're referring to Arianism (which Mormons reject), but it is altogether possible to accept the divinity of Christ without believing in the Trinity.

I agree, although I am a 'trinitian' myself.

 

[Katzpur]

Unitarian Christians, (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalists) do not.

But they don't believe Christ was divine either, do they? I thought they accepted Him as a great moral teacher, but nothing more. (On the other hand, I've learned, while being on this forum, that Unitarians are free to believe pretty much as their conscience guides them. Wouldn't that allow for a range of belief, even for Unitarian Christians?)

 

[Katzpur]

We look at God the Father as THE God. The New Testament calls Jesus God and at the same time we find Jesus calling His Father the only God. We tend to think of "God" as more a title than a name, and the "Godhead" fits better for me. They are all members of the Godhead and all carry the title God, but God the Father is the one referred to when generally speaking of God. There is only one God the Father, but the Bible is repleat with other mentions of people carrying the title god. Some insist that they are lowercase and are therefore different, but the Hebrew words are identical - eloheim. There is one Godhead, and it is made up of three individuals. They are all one in purpose, will and perfection; but they are seperate and distinct entities.

I think Dan's explanation is good, and he expressed our belief in much the same way as I would. I'll just add that when the Bible speaks of "one God," it is really speaking of "one Godhead." (Webster's Unabridged gives "God" as a synonym for "Godhead," so I think it's entirely accurate to make the substitution.) When the Bible describes the Father and the Son as "one," I don't think it is speaking in terms of their physical nature. After all, Jesus was a corporeal being here on earth who was praying to His Father "in Heaven." Whether the Father is corporeal or not (we LDS believe He is), He was obviously not the same individual as His Son.

There are many instances in which the word "one" is used as Jesus used it in His great intercessory prayer in John 17. Greeting cards to a newlywed couple often say, "Now you two are one." At the conclusion of a meeting in which various points of view are debated and a single conclusion drawn, the person conducting the meeting might say, "We are one." The 325-voice Mormon Tabernacle Choir is often said to be singing in "one voice." I think that for people to take Jesus' statement that "I and my Father are one," to mean physically one is to misunderstand the whole idea of their unity of will, purpose, mind and heart.

 

[Green Gaia]

But they don't believe Christ was divine either, do they? I thought they accepted Him as a great moral teacher, but nothing more. (On the other hand, I've learned, while being on this forum, that Unitarians are free to believe pretty much as their conscience guides them. Wouldn't that allow for a range of belief, even for Unitarian Christians?)

No, they are Christian is every other sense. There's not many in the US who are not UUs. To find a "old" Unitarian Christians, you have to go Europe; Transylvania and Hungary mainly. They are Biblical Unitarians: God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God, but not God Himself. Although, you will find in Europe (and most theistic UUs would be this as well), Rationalist Unitarians: God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is not the Son of God, but merely a "good and wise man" who taught others how to lead a better life there as well.

Does that help?

(FYI: Anyone who doesn't agree with this, I don't mind answering questions, but I not looking to debate. )

 

[Katzpur]

No, they are Christian is every other sense. There's not many in the US who are not UUs. To find a "old" Unitarian Christians, you have to go Europe; Transylvania and Hungary mainly. They are Biblical Unitarians: God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God, but not God Himself. Although, you will find in Europe (and most theistic UUs would be this as well), Rationalist Unitarians: God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is not the Son of God, but merely a "good and wise man" who taught others how to lead a better life there as well.

Does that help?

(FYI: Anyone who doesn't agree with this, I don't mind answering questions, but I not looking to debate. )

I see what you mean, but Merlin had previously asked:

How do you reconcile the relationship then between God, Jesus, and the Holly Ghost, bearing in mind there is only one God.

I think what he was trying to get at was how can a person (1) accept the divinity of Jesus Christ (2) also claim to be monotheistic, and (3) also reject the doctrine of the Trinity. If someone doesn't believe Jesus to have been divine in the first place, the second and third points would pretty much be non-issues. The Latter-day Saints believe all three statements: Jesus Christ was and is divine; there is only one God; the Trinity is a flawed way of describing their unity.

(Or maybe I misunderstood what he was asking. )

 

[Scott1]

The Latter-day Saints believe all three statements: Jesus Christ was and is divine; there is only one God; the Trinity is a flawed way of describing their unity.

Well said... I've never had a LDS member explain it so clearly. Frubals to thee.

 

[Scott1]

I assuming you're referring to Arianism (which Mormons reject), but it is altogether possible to accept the divinity of Christ without believing in the Trinity.

OK ... so which part is not divine?

Is it the Holy Spirit not being divine that makes a LDS member deny the Trinity?

 

[Aqualung]

OK ... so which part is not divine?

Is it the Holy Spirit not being divine that makes a LDS member deny the Trinity?

The part that is flawed is thinking they are 1 in substance and essence.

 

[dan]

OK ... so which part is not divine?

Is it the Holy Spirit not being divine that makes a LDS member deny the Trinity?

LDS members deny the Trinity because it is our belief that the Godhead is made up of three seperate and distinct individuals. They are one in purpose, will, divinity and perfection, but they inhabit different bodies - two corporeal and one spiritual. We believe the Bible is clear on this distinction and I feel the idea of the Trinity as a complicated theological treatise came about as the result of the reconciliation of the scriptures with the accepted philosophies of the day (Neo-platonism specifically).

 

[Katzpur]

OK ... so which part is not divine?

Is it the Holy Spirit not being divine that makes a LDS member deny the Trinity?

It looks like Aqualung and Dan both beat me to the punch. As both of them pointed out, we believe all three members of the Godhead to be divine. It is almost entirely with respect to our understanding of their physical nature that we reject the doctrine of the Trinity. It's the interpretation of the word "one" that we object to... you know, the idea that they "one in substance." But it's even possible that we aren't correctly understanding your use of the word "substance." Whenever I hear that word, I immediately think in terms of physical makeup. And not only can I not reconcile the idea of three beings all being part of a single substance, I can't imagine praying to a "substance." As I recall, one of the early Church councils dealt with the use of the Greek terms meaning "of the same substance" and "of like substance." We see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as all having the same "divine attributes." In other words, they all have every one of the qualities a being would have to have in order to be called "God." But these are spiritual attributes (perfect and absolute love, knowledge, power, etc.), and not physical attributes.

 

[Scott1]

It looks like Aqualung and Dan both beat me to the punch.

Well... Aqua didn't explain much, and dan's on my ignore list, so you'll have to help.

As both of them pointed out, we believe all three members of the Godhead to be divine.

So do we....

It is almost entirely with respect to our understanding of their physical nature that we reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

God and the Holy Spirit have a physical nature? I don't get it....

It's the interpretation of the word "one" that we object to... you know, the idea that they "one in substance."

So they are made of different stuff? Divine. Divine Light. etc.. I still don't get it.

We see the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as all having the same "divine attributes." In other words, they all have every one of the qualities a being would have to have in order to be called "God."

Trinity explains the relationships and origins of the Godhead... not attributes.

Looking forward to learning more.... thanks Katz.

 

[Aqualung]

Well... Aqua didn't explain much, and dan's on my ignore list, so you'll have to help.

Oh, sorry. The trinity, as I understand it, has the father, son, and holy ghost being one in stubstance, being one being. We have the father being one being, the son as another being, and the holy ghost as a third being. These three aren't united, except in purpose. The Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone, whereas the holy ghost is just a spirit. I think the trinity has just one spirit-y thing, with three "factes"? We have 3 seperate things.

God and the Holy Spirit have a physical nature? I don't get it....

The Father and the Son do. The Holy Spirit doesn't. (and in case Kowalski wants to read this thread, these are my beliefs.)

So they are made of different stuff? Divine. Divine Light. etc.. I still don't get it.

They are made up of different stuff, like you and I are made up of different stuff. We both have seperate bodies. And then the Holy Ghost is made up of different stuff because it doesn't have a body at all.

 

[Katzpur]

God and the Holy Spirit have a physical nature? I don't get it....

We believe that God the Father has a glorified, immortal body of flesh and bones, just like His Son, Jesus Christ, who is said to be "the express image of His Father's person." We believe that, of the three members of the Godhead, only the Holy Ghost is non-corporeal. This is why He is known as the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. If both the Father and the Holy Ghost were incorporeal, there would be little reason for the Holy Ghost's descriptive title. There would actually be little point to His existance at all. But because He has no physical substance, He is able to be everywhere at once, and to function as revelator, teacher, comforter, etc. That's part of His unique role and purpose.

So they are made of different stuff? Divine. Divine Light. etc.. I still don't get it.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the phrase "different stuff." But the way I look at it, you and your wife both have bodies of flesh. Do you share your flesh? No. Do you both have the same flesh? No, you each have your own flesh. On the other hand, both of you have flesh that is composed of the same basic elements. We see the Father and the Son's "stuff" in that same way. God is said in various verses to be "light," "love," and "spirit." None of these attributes in any way exlude the others. They are simply three of His many, many attributes.

Trinity explains the relationships and origins of the Godhead... not attributes.

I agree, but it explains the relationship between the Father and the Son that doesn't seem to me to be in line with what the Bible teaches. To me (and I could say, to the Latter-day Saints in general), it expands upon what the Bible teaches and, in doing so, ends up distorting the true picture. (When you say "Trinity," I'm using the term as it is defined by the creeds. And I don't find the Nicene Creed to be as troublesome as the Athanasian Creed. In other words, will do believe in a trinity of sorts -- just not "The Trinity".)

Kathryn

 

[dan]

Ooooo...I'm on his ignore list. And I've been trying to be more respectful lately, too.