SteveVH

After reading through this thread something has become apparent to me. The Trinity is confusing to anyone who would hold the postion that God is an exalted human being. Viewing God from this viewpoint it is understandable why three Persons in one God would just not make sense. From a human standpoint how can one being consist of three persons? It cannot. But God is not human, he is divine. When Christ became human he had to humble himself; he had to "lower himself" from his divine state to take on human flesh. You would first have to do away the pre-supposition that God is nothing more than man except in his level of exaltation. This seems to be very basic to Mormon theology and therefore is difficult to overcome. From the Trinitarian viewpoint this does not pose a problem. We believe that God subsists in and of himself, from eternity and had no need of progressing from a lower to a higher state of being. God has always been God and is infinitely above us in every way, especially in our nature. So how do we come to the conclusion that God is three Persons in one divine being? As Soninme has pointed out, we begin with the truth that is stated over and over again in the Scriptures that there is only one God. That is a truth that provides the foundation as to how we must view God. We then find out, as was revealed through Jesus Christ, that the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Do we then do away with the original truth that there is only one God? Are there now three? No, we cannot dismiss the original revelation that there is only one God. We also look at the name (not names) of God. We are told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not in the names. His very name is a Trinity. It is a divine relationship. Notice the words "Father" and "Son". What do they indicate? They indicate a relationship, not proper names of individuals. They are distinct in their relationship with each other. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son and the Son eternaly the Son to the Father. It is an eternal, mutual exchange of love between the Father and the Son, which results in the Holy Spirit who is that love. When Christ came to earth, it was not 1/3 of God that came to earth. It was God in his fullness because he cannot be separated. Where the Son is, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also present. Why? Because there is only one God. When Christ does his will, it is the Father's will because there is only one God, not three. They possess the same will, not three different wills in agreement with each other. I have asked this question on another thread, several times, without having anyone yet answer it. It is extremely important to this discussion. Why do you think that Jesus is called the only Son of God? Are we not also called sons and daughters of God? How then can Jesus be the only Son of God? In addition, we are told that we become sons and daughters of God through adaption. What do you think that means? I would really appreciate the Mormon view on this. Thanks.

Thank you so much for your help.

"God" is not a title, or a position, or an office. God is a divine being and there is no other. "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..." (Isaiah 45:5) He does not need us or anything else in order to be God. He is God from all eternity, before anything else that exists. His creation shows forth his glory, but does not add to his glory. He has always possessed all the power, authority and glory that he will ever possess, even before creation, and that power, authority and glory is infinite. We were created out of nothing but gratuitous love, not because God needed us for anything. He has always existed, not as a solitary being, but as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To believe that God "became" anything, again, contradicts his omnipotence. One who is dependent upon anything or anyone else to accomplish something is not "all-powerful". Again, you belive in a God who changes, who "becomes" something greater than he once was. This conflicts even with the Book of Mormon: "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18). I would agree 100% with that statement. This places you in a position of holding two contradictory beliefs in your mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

Thanks. I'll try again.

Let me try one more time. There is only one God. God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; three distinct "persons" only in relationship with each other, but the same divine being. God, in his essence, is a family. The Father is eternally the Father to the Son. The Son is eternally the Son to the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son which is so real that it constitutes a distinct person. Where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy SPirit is, there also are the Father and the Son. They are one being. God cannot be thought of in human terms. He is divine, we are not. God is not solitary, but rather a Trinity of persons in relationship with each other. The Father does not act independently from the Son or the Holy Spirit. The same is true for the Son and the Holy Spirit. They have one divine will (not three divine wills in agreement with each other) and consist of one divine essence. God is the only being that possesses the divine essence as his nature. We do not. I have never heard of a "creator nature". God has a divine nature in which he is all powerful and able to do anything he chooses, including the ability to create, from nothing, all that exists, as the scriptures tell us. "All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be." (John 1:3) I have no idea how you arrive at the conclusion that if God is a Creator then prior to creation there would be no God. That is like saying that prior to the Grand Canyon there was no Colorado River. It is God that caused creation therefore he had to exist before creation. Prior to creation there was nothing but God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is all-powerful and eternal, without beginning or end and is not dependent upon any other thing for his existence or his creative power. He said "Let there be..." and it was. That is the difference between our belief in the nature of God. You believe he was created and had to progress to the point where he could create. But what you then have is an eternal regression of gods, without end, and without anyone starting the process; not one, eternal, uncreated God. And yes, God is unchanging. He has been and will be God from eternity. He did not change through some sort of progression. He did not "become". He has always possessed all of the glory and power that he now has. He is not an exalted human being. He is God and is fundamentally different in his nature than his creation. Through the gift of his love and mercy he allows us to share in his divinity. He elevates our human nature to the divine nature which is something we do not possess on our own. Only God possesses divinity as his original nature, we do not. My background is in title. I deal with different entities and breathing human beings all the time. There is a great distinction between an artificial entity (corporation, LLC, Limited Partnership, etc.) and a living, breathing person. I think most people would make that distinction without confusing the two. If you can't tell the difference then I don't know what to say. Well, one may make that argument but it would be a false argument. A child has a human nature, exactly as its parents do. A seed contains within it the very nature of the tree it will become. Its nature does not change. God has a divine nature and that nature is his alone. We receive it from him, not from our own nature. Our nature is human. God's nature is divine. I have asked this before and it has just been ignored. Maybe you could give it a shot. Why do you think that Jesus is called God's only Son? Are we not also sons and daughters of God? Why do you think he makes that distinction? Why do the scriptures tell us that we are sons and daughters by adoption rather than natural offspring of the Father? And isn't it strange that I would come to the same conculsion concerning your beliefs? You are correct. It is not. Man was not created in a fallen state. Our fallen state is the result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. However, every person subsequent to Adam and Eve are born into a fallen state. The state of the world around us is proof of that. Human nature changed from the state in which it was first created, and not only nature, but all of creation. Things are not always as they appear, especially when influenced by what we want to believe or have been taught to believe. That goes both ways.

The deal is that I have tried several times to register and can't seem to get an email back in order to accomplish this. I was told that they were having some problems, so I should probably try again.

But it would clash with logic and reason. Nothing exists of its own power other than God, the uncreated from which all else came into existence. Please expain to me how this is possible.

So will I. That is not our God.

Its a little funny that if you do not agree with me it is because I don't understand what I'm talking about and don't have the ability to explain it properly. When the reverse happens, when I don't agree with a Mormon poster, I am told it is because I don't have the ability to understand as I am not as spiritually enlightened as they are; if I were only Mormon the Holy Spirit would enlighten me. I'm sorry you don't understand. I don't know how to explain it more clearly. What I do know is that you approach the Trinity with a pre-disposition that is opposed to the very idea. I think we all do that to some extent, so I don't hold it against you. It is a natural reaction when someone challenges our belief system. But it would be nice if we could all be a little more objective in our approach and not dimiss something out of hand without considering, objectively, the point being made.

Okay, Justice.

This seems like a pretty silly argument. I don't care where something started. The term "right hand" probably started with the fact that it is the strongest arm on most people, therefore representing power. I don't really care. What matters is how it is being used; what meaning is being conveyed. For one to take this as meaning that God the Father has a right arm (whether he does or not) is to miss the meaning intended to be conveyed. But I don't really care. If it makes you feel better then believe what ever you want to believe.

Please show me where I said they were "one in body". If I did then it was a complete accident. I said they are one in being. Having said that, I will say that where ever the Father is, the Son and the Holy Spirit are also. Where the Son is, the Father and the Holy Spirit are also. Same with the Holy Spirit. They cannot act independently of one another because they are one being. That is why Jesus can only do his Father's will. The Father's will is Jesus' will and the will of the Holy Spirit. Justice, we are speaking of God. A God greater than we can possibly understand. It is not easy for any of us to wrap our minds around the infinite, eternal God. We get castigated, especially by Mormons, for using the term mystery, as if we could fully grasp God within our finite minds. But God is a mystery, meaning a truth that we have not fully grasped. I completely agree that we will be partakers of the divine nature. That is what I mean when I say that we will share in God's divinity. The difference is that we receive divinity as a gift. God has always been divine by his very nature. We have not. Therefore there is a difference between God's divine nature and our human, mortal nature. We do not possess that nature independent of God. It is his nature, not ours, that we share in. So I completely agree with the scripture passages you quoted.

Visions are symbols of reality, they are not reality themselves. They represent persons, things, events, etc. to convey a real message. Do you think that when you see Jesus in heaven that he will look like a lamb? Peter was a Jew. The Gentiles were thought of as the "unclean". The vision of unclean animals was a vision concerning the Gentiles, not pigs. How can you say it is literal? Do you think God was trying to tell him to eat pork? The fact that they are symbols is exactly why they are not literal; they are symbols. The phrase "right hand of God" does not mean that God has a literal right hand, whether you believe he has a physical body or not. That is not what is being conveyed. That he has power and authority is what is being conveyed by the term. Sorry, I really don't understand your question. The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position. Many things should be taken into consideration for this phrase to make sense. The phrase "right hand" is a metaphor. We read of God exercising his authority by his right hand. This is a Hebrew idiom and cannot be taken in its literal sense. It is a sign of something literal, but so is the phrase "kicking the can down the road". We are not suppose to think that someone is literally kicking a can down the road, but that they are procrastinating. Right after Peter writes of the resurrection he says 1 Pt.3:22 "Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having made subject to him". The second part of the sentence explains the first. It is a sign of power and authority, not a literal right hand. So it is as in Mt.28:18 all authority was given to him in both heaven and earth. This is something he did not have as he came to earth in a state of humility (Phil.2:5-8). Jesus returned to Father sitting down, which symbolizes that his work is done. Jn.14:28, 16:16,17, 20:17. There is now a man at the right hand of God the Father, who is God the Son. Acts 2:32-35, Heb.10:12, Eph. 1:20, 1 Pt. 3:22.

I believe that after we die, and assuming that one is heaven bound, that they will be more themselves then they ever were in this life. Our souls contain our intellect and our will and join God and all of the saints and angels in heaven, not as part of some heavenly blob, but as ourselves, as individuals, united with God and each other. On the last day, however, we will be rejoined with our bodies which have been glorified, and have become spiritual bodies. Not only will our immortal soul live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again. But to answer your real question, we remain humans whose nature has been elevated to a state of divinity, being a part of the Body of Christ and participating in the life of God. So I will always be me, but perfected by the grace of God.

I'll give it a shot. A candle is "like" the sun in that it gives off heat and light. But a candle is not the sun and will never have the "glory" that the sun has.

Did I say that the Father was not God? There is nothing ambiguous at all about the term "person". One definition is that it is a composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality. That person can be divine, or human, or angelic. It implies a conscious, living, rational being. Well, you are just flat out incorrect here. A corporation is not "legally a person". A corporation is a legal "entity" as opposed to a "person". That is why laws concerning corporations are different from laws concerning people. The term "person" refers to a "who" rather than a "what", a "someone", rather than a "something". A corporation is a "something" not a "someone". Can you have dinner and a conversation with a corporation? If man has to "acquire" something, it means that he does not already possess it. I agree that we will have a divine nature after the resurrection, not because we already possess it, but because God transforms our human nature by infusing it with his divine nature. The idea that an eternal divine being, all powerful and all knowing, who created our human nature, could then transform that very nature into something greater, is illogical to you? Do you not believe that he is all-powerful (omnipotent). I think your notion of what it means to "be one" is flawed. We will be one with God because we will share his very life by sharing in his divinity. He was always divine. That is his nature. God transforms human nature to become like his divine nature because we do not, in our natural state, already possess it. It is something that must be given to us because we cannot attain it on our own. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts." (Isaiah 55: 8, 9)

Oh, I get it. But you have not answered my question:

I'm not quite sure what you think you have proven with these passages. They were all "visions" and therefore cannot be taken literally. Peter had a vision of unclean animals of which he was to eat. The vision actually had to do with preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. That is the nature of a vision. John had visions of strange beasts as described in Revelation. Do you think they were real, or did they mean something else? And how do you reconcile this with the fact that Scripture tells us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart (mind) conceived of what God has planned for those who love him"? Please address that specifically if you don't mind. I have no doubt that Stephen saw what he described, just before his death. It certainly does not translate into God the Father having a body of flesh and bone. God does have a body, the body of Jesus Christ. Standing at God's right hand is an idiom used to describe power and glory, it doesn't mean that the Father literally has a right hand. And thanks, your "smilie" was a nice touch.

If my understanding of the Trinity was your understanding of the Trinity I would reject it as well. What you have described is not the Trinitarian view at all, so it appears that you were taught incorrectly at your Baptist Bible camp. If you understood the Trinity you would understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons; that the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, for starters. It was quite proper and good that Jesus told people to worship his Father. Your statements create a false premise upon which you attempt to build an argument. Yes, I'm sure you are correct. The bishops of the Catholic Church have spent over 2,000 years in back rooms, twisting their moustaches, while they plan and plot to destroy faith in the one, true God. Give me a break. Your Bapist background, with its notions of private interpretation, seems to still be ingrained in you. And I am sure that you have arrived at your current belief system by picking up a Bible and coming to that conclusion with no influence from the leaders of your church. In my tiny little town of about 10,000 people I have witnessed the Baptist Church split into four separate churches within the last ten years, because anyone can pick up a Bible and understand it with no discussion, explanation or debate. They are their own infallible authority.

From the Catholic view, actually, we will be more human than ever before. God does not change our humanity, he transforms it from the fallen state in which we find ourselves to the being we were truly created to be. God completes our humanity by our sharing in his divine life. We will always be human, for the rest of eternity. Angels will be angels for the rest of eternity. God does not change who we were created to be, he lifts us up so that we may attain the fullness of what it means to be human. Our "spirit" is part of what it means to be human. This is what I mean when I say that you do not seem to distinguish between divinty and humanity? Our "spirit" was created, therefore it is not divine in and of itself. Do you believe that God is fundamentally different in his being than we are? We are speaking of our nature as opposed to God's nature. From what I understand, the Mormon belief is that the only difference between us and God is the level of progression or exaltation, not a fundamental difference in the "stuff" of which we are made. This why Jesus is called God's only Son. If we are all God's sons and daughters, why then is Jesus called God's only Son. We become God's sons and daughters by adoption because we are created human beings, not divine beings with no beginning. We will live for the rest of eternity with God, but our existence begins at a point in time because divinity is not part of our nature. It is something added to our nature at the resurrection, a gift from God that allows us to share in his divine life. "Supernatural" means "above" our human nature. Divinity is not something we naturally possess. It is a gift of God given at the resurrection to those who will spend eternity with him. So we are always talking about "man". God will infuse our human nature with his own divinity so that we can be in his presence and share in the love between the Father and the Son. We were created for this purpose. I am glad that you recognize that we now exist in a fallen state. And I agree that we are now less than what we were created to be and that we will become what we were truly created to be. Our relationship to God, broken in the Garden of Eden, will be restored. Our life on this earth is a temporary state in that it will end someday, but our nature is not a temporary nature. We will always be human. A glass of milk does not cease to be a glass of milk because one adds chocolate to it. It is now a glass of milk with the sweetness and flavor of chocolate. Divinity, which is a different nature from humanity, transforms human nature to become like itself through the reception of the divine Word, Jesus Christ. So, in my faith tradition, we become "like" God through the reception of his gift. God and man are not the same "species", so to speak. God adds the sweetness of divinity to our humanity so that we rise above our natural human state.

As a Catholic I cannot help but comment here. What Joseph Smith was speaking about is private interpretation of the Bible and the obvious discrepancies that arise for those who practice this in their faith, making themselves the final authority on the meaning of Scripture. Believe it or not I completely agree with him, and so does the Catholic Church. I thought you might find the following comments from John Henry Newman, a convert to Catholicism in the late 1800's, who later became a bishop and Cardinal in the Catholic Church, interesting: "Surely then, if the revelation and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times and places, should be given to us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guaranty its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is of temporary and what is of lasting obligation? Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries [reference to the Reformation], where, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its compliment the gift of infallibility." (John Henry Newman, On the Inspiration of Scripture, ed. J. Derek Holmes and Robert Murray (Washington:Corpus Books, 1967,III.) As far as Catholics not agreeing on some passages of Scripture, it really is a moot point. I could care less as to a particular interpretation of an individual Catholic. It has absolutely no standing in our Church. We are required to read Scripture in light of the Church's interpretation, not our own. I would think that you would probably agree as regards your own Church. Obviously one of us is wrong as to who that proper authority might be, but the point remains the same.

I get this from the teaching of my Church, based upon Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I'll be happy to reserach this further, if you wish, but one Scriptural reference is this: “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” —Ephesians 6:12 here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the issue: "328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition. Who are they? 329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is ‘spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is ‘angel': from what they are, ‘spirit,' from what they do, ‘angel.'"188 With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word."189 330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.190 Christ "with all his angels" 331 Christ is the center of the angelic world. They are his angels: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . ."191 They belong to him because they were created through and for him: "for in him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him."192 They belong to him still more because he has made them messengers of his saving plan: "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?"193" I'm happy to discuss this further, but I think it may be drawing us away from the topic of this thread. My reference to angels was in the context of who Jesus is, in the Trinitarian tradition and the difference between the nature of God (divine) and all things created by God, including both humans and angels. Creation will share in God's divinity, which is His nature, not ours. The point being that "spirit" does not translate into "divinity". There are no "spirits" who are divine in and of themselves, save the Holy Spirit.

So do I, although it is not a dual nature, it is "human" nature. Human nature consists of body, soul and spirit. I suppose we would have to define each of those in order to understand each other properly, but I am very aware that we are much more than lumps of flesh walking around on a planet. I don't fail to see that at all. But what I think you are doing is equating "spirit" with "divinity". The angels are pure spirit, but they are not divine. Only God is divine. This is the distinction that is all important to understand. There are different levels of "spirit". All "spirits" apart from God, are created spirits. God is the uncreated, pure Spirit. To be human means to be flesh and spirit. Our bodies are not just a shell in which our spirits live. Our bodies are very much a part of what it means to be human. That is why we will be joined again with our bodies. Our bodies will be glorified, but we do not receive "another" body. Our bodies will be, instead, tranformed and gifted with divine nature at the resurrection. They will no longer be subject to corruption, nor subject to the physical laws of nature. Our humanity will be lifted up and transformed. We will receive a "super-nature" (above nature) and become supernatural human beings.

Why do we try and describe heaven when God has told us that "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived of what God has planned for those who love him."? What we know has been revealed by God himself. We will spend the rest of our lives uncovering the depth of this revelation, until we see God "face to face". There is a great danger in making God in our own image and likeness and then believing that we can grasp him.

Thank you. I'm not really sure what the question has to do with the Trinity. It looks like we're back to the pre-mortal existence topic in which you believe that you chose to come to earth and acquire a mortal body in order to go through trials and tribulations which are necesary in order for us to progress to godhood. In other words, we chose to be what we are and God did not and is therefore not responsible for our behavior. This is opposed to the Christian belief that we were created by God at conception, with free will, and that is us who freely choose to either obey or disobey God. And so you are going to make the argument that God is therefore responsible for everything we do, including sin, and everything we will suffer, as if we had no choice in the matter; after all we cannot help who we are; we were created this way. I will try and answer this below. We have to stop right here. No, God did not create some men and women to suffer for an eternity. He created all men and women out of love for us, so that we might in turn love him and live with him in complete happiness for eternity. The Scriptures tell us that God desires that none be lost. He certainly did not create us for the purpose of suffering for eternity. He created us for the purpose of loving and being loved for eternity. Suffering for eternity is our choice, not God's. He created all men and women with the gift of free will. That is a good part of us being created in his image and likeness. We have free agency and the ability to choose to either love God or not love God; to live in relationship with God or to live apart from God. None of us are created with a nature that prevents us from choosing to love God. It would be an unjust God, indeed, who would create a flawed being without the ability to choose love and then punish that being for acting accordingly. It would be like punishing a dog for having four legs and a tail. The gifts of free will and intellect insure that this is not the case. We choose our own destiny. Because they were not created to fall. They were created to love God. It was they who chose instead to disobey God and suffer the consequences of a life lived apart from God. God even warned them of those consequences. Yet, even in our sin, God chose to save us. That cannot be left out of the equation. We are not pre-programmed robots with no choice in the matter. It is all our choice, even today. We can choose to be in relationship with God or not. If we choose not to be in relationship with God we will suffer the consequences of that choice. We will live without God and that is called hell. It is not a punishment of God. It is getting exactly what we chose with our own free will. God did make us exactly the way he wanted us. He did not make us sinful. God made us without any stain of sin whatsoever. But he made us with free will so that we may choose to love him. Within that choice is the option of choosing otherwise, which is exactly what Adam and Eve did and exactly what each of us do every time we sin. Again, you are assuming that we have no choice in the matter. When it comes time for judgment day what should we say: "You made me this way. It's your fault I did the things I did"? No. Every sin I have committed I have chosen to commit, otherwise it is not sin. And man very much has a say in his salvation. We can choose to accept the redeeming grace of God or not. God could not be more merciful. It is always up to us to choose the gift, however. Bottom line is that we were created as free beings, not pre-programmed robots with no say in our eternal destiny. I can finally see, however, where many of your beliefs originate and it is with the believe in a pre-mortal existence. It is why you believe that the disobedience of Adam and Eve was a good and necessary thing and that none of you will suffer the pains of hell because you already made your choice before you were born. The worst you have to fear is a lower level of heaven. It is all really starting to fall into place and I thank all of you who have shared your beliefs with me. They make absolutely no sense with out understanding this fundamental belief from which most others originate.