The Trinity Questions – For Traditional Christians

[Islander]

Man was created in the image of God. (Adam) Mankind on the other hand was created in the image of imperfect Adam.

You must be a lawyer.....Man, Men or Mankind is the SAME THING. Resorting to semantics to justify a theological position seems like a very weak argument. There is ample evidence in the bible to assert that we ARE the offspring of God.

[Guest ceeboo]

There is ample evidence in the bible to assert that we ARE the offspring of God.

:confused:

OK, GO!!!!!

[HiJolly]

The point is that God cannot be found merely within our 4 dimensional time-space, cause if he needed that to exist then he couldn't exist before he created the universe we live in.

It would be sensible that eternity had a separate time dimension. That is if string theory proves to be true there is up to 7 dimension not used currently within our universe.

See, this is where being a mystic really pays off. LoL. 11 dimensions.

In the Kabbalah, there are 10 attributes of Godliness that correspond to the 'dimensions'. Plus one that is not technically an attribute, and is not advertised (Da'at). That makes 11. Cool.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

The point is that God cannot be found merely within our 4 dimensional time-space, cause if he needed that to exist then he couldn't exist before he created the universe we live in.

Oh, yes, almost forgot. AND I believe that God is both manifest and transcendental in nature, though the Church only teaches and emphasizes the manifest God* (ie, Joseph's First Vision). The manifest nature is found within the dimensions of our universe, the transcendent is outside it. Both are real.

HiJolly

*exceptions would be D&C 88 & 93

[HiJolly]

But if G-d created our universe out of something that already existed and that belong exclusively to him then even improvements become his and any reward or punishment could be metered out according to contract or covenant, which is exactly how the justice and mercy of G-d works. Everything used to create this universe was G-d’s and belonged to him and as such owner of all things he has complete sovereign over all things and therefore no one can benefit except by contract or covenant. It does not matter if anyone improves anything – without authorization they have no claim and in true justice cannot demand benefit. For example someone cannot come mow my lawn and demand I pay them for it unless we have an agreement or contract. But if there is no “history” of exclusive ownership then there is no claim beyond the “improvements” that are made.

Now I previously indicated I would show how G-d is the only rightful owner of all things. I begin with the Einstein equation of “E = M {times} C (squared)”. This tells us that mass (all physical stuff) can be “created” or organized by the manipulation of energy and light. It is very interesting to me that the scriptures tell us that the first step in creation involved the manipulation of light. The light in question came from G-d’s own personal repository of light. I would point out that G-d is an owner of light and all the light used in creation was his. The second thing needed was energy. Again I submit that G-d’s personal repository of energy (or power) was used exclusively to create this universe.

I see no point in the argument that G-d created the physical universe from nothing. It makes no sense to me. How can it be argued that only G-d could be the creator but that he did so without using any of his power or light??? If his power and light was part of creation than the discussion is placed to rest – there was no creation from nothing. There was something that G-d used and all things came directly from that something.

The Traveler

Woohoo! It's like Christmas all over again. Good man, Traveler.

Something that might help: the Jewish mystics call Ein "nothing". There you go. From Ein comes Ein Sof. From Ein Sof comes Ein Sof Aur. From there, we get the manifest universe. Something from nothing IS possible, if you know the vocabulary.

Of course in LDS terminology we think of it as God's light (glory) eminating into space (the cube of space) and forming through covenant all the universe that is manifest. Or at least, *I* do.

HiJolly

[AnthonyB]

mel,

Could you, when you get a chance, answer my questions at the beginning of the tread, it would increase my sample....

Edited January 9, 2009 by AnthonyB

[AnthonyB]

Hijolly,

It is the lack of "transcendentalness" in LDS expression that does get me perplexed.

LDS are so concerned in hammering home the manifest that it seems to leave God as a mere "super" man.

I believe in a God, who has revealed that He is always with me, that there is no where I could go to escape Him. A God who knows my innermost thoughts and hearts intentions better then I know them myself. A God who is the ultimate expression of infinite love, mercy, goodness, kindness. God is my "childhood" hero, my perfect examplar. I strive to be hopefully ever more like Him knowing that an eternity of trying would only be the beginning of the journey.

Somehow having Him live on a planet near a star called Kolob, with a real body and as a man who managed to work his way to Godhood leaves Him sounding (to me) as much less divine. I don't comprehend that the things in above paragraph which I hold dear about God would be compatable with the LDS vision of God.

Of course the answer would be Jesus, who was fully God and fully man. However LDS don't appear to have a dual nature Christology and the idea of the limiting/masking divine nature by assuming manhood. Your Father God is permanently incarnate and simultaneously unlimitedly divine.

Edited January 9, 2009 by AnthonyB

[Traveler]

Hijolly,

It is the lack of "transcendentalness" in LDS expression that does get me perplexed.

LDS are so concerned in hammering home the manifest that it seems to leave God as a mere "super" man.

I believe in a God, who has revealed that He is always with me, that there is no where I could go to escape Him. A God who knows my innermost thoughts and hearts intentions better then I know them myself. A God who is the ultimate expression of infinite love, mercy, goodness, kindness. God is my "childhood" hero, my perfect examplar. I strive to be hopefully ever more like Him knowing that an eternity of trying would only be the beginning of the journey.

Somehow having Him live on a planet near a star called Kolob, with a real body and as a man who managed to work his way to Godhood leaves Him sounding (to me) as much less divine. I don't comprehend that the things in above paragraph which I hold dear about God would be compatable with the LDS vision of God.

Of course the answer would be Jesus, who was fully God and fully man. However LDS don't appear to have a dual nature Christology and the idea of the limiting/masking divine nature by assuming manhood. Your Father God is permanently incarnate and simultaneously unlimitedly divine.

It seems to me that your expression of Jesus

Jesus, who was fully God and fully man

is:

1. Never expressed in scripture

2. A complete contradiction of itself

3. Meaningless and not connected with reality

4. More closely associated with pagan thought than Christianity.

5. Far more flawed that all your criticism of LDS combined.

I would point out to you your statement:

I strive to be hopefully ever more like Him

is the essence of the LDS doctrine that:

1. We were created to be "like" him.

2. The destiny of man is to be so like him that we are one - which is an ancient term meaning that there is no distinguishable or recognizable difference

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

Hijolly,

It is the lack of "transcendentalness" in LDS expression that does get me perplexed.

LDS are so concerned in hammering home the manifest that it seems to leave God as a mere "super" man.

I hope you don't mind me being this blunt, but I would NEVER describe God as a "mere" ANYTHING.

He fills me to overflowing with Fire, with Love, with Joy. I'll grant each of these is an aspect of His transcendent Self and Oneness, but hey, that's why I'm a mystic, after all.

But I'm also a Mormon, and each of these great experiences has occurred within an LDS context. So, I'm both. And VERY happy. As the mysteries begin to unfold before me, I start to see how they all fit together. I have to unlearn some things, but ultimately everything I have learned simply strengthens and supports the LDS Church and its mission. I can't express how happy I am about that.

I believe in a God, who has revealed that He is always with me, that there is no where I could go to escape Him. A God who knows my innermost thoughts and hearts intentions better then I know them myself. A God who is the ultimate expression of infinite love, mercy, goodness, kindness. God is my "childhood" hero, my perfect examplar. I strive to be hopefully ever more like Him knowing that an eternity of trying would only be the beginning of the journey.

I know how you feel. Except 'eternity' is an awfully big word, ya know? Almost as big as God. Doctrine and Covenants 19

Somehow having Him live on a planet near a star called Kolob, with a real body and as a man who managed to work his way to Godhood leaves Him sounding (to me) as much less divine. I don't comprehend that the things in above paragraph which I hold dear about God would be compatable with the LDS vision of God.

I do. It is helpful, I think, to keep separate stuff LDS leaders have said, and what the LDS Church accepts as doctrine. Please carefully read this: Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom I don't typically worry a lot about stuff that isn't doctrine and doesn't make sense. There's far too much other stuff that is really, really awesome. The exception would be when enemies of the Church attack by using these things as a weapon. Say, the Adam-God teachings of Brigham Young. I did worry about that, but only because somebody thought it was a problem. It isn't, but I spent about 20 years figuring that out. But that's not my typical approach -- usually I just move on when I see something that doesn't make sense.

Of course the answer would be Jesus, who was fully God and fully man. However LDS don't appear to have a dual nature Christology and the idea of the limiting/masking divine nature by assuming manhood. Your Father God is permanently incarnate and simultaneously unlimitedly divine.

Oh sure we do. It's just not DOCTRINE. Heh. Interesting, isn't it? I love it. Think of the implications of what I've been saying about doctrine. There is a key hidden in there.

Remember that 99% of our doctrine, teachings and emphasis are on the eminent God. Yes, He of physical body. Sort of (read Joseph's King Follett Sermon to see what I mean by "sort of"). We are not like the Gnostics or even Creedal Christians, who ascribe to the belief that physicality cannot be sublime or perfect. We consider that to be a notion that does not describe things as they are. Mostly.

I do not believe that God is 'permanently incarnate', though I *never* speak of that in Church, because that view has to do with His transcendent nature. It is not a part of what the Church is about, even if it is true. Might seem complicated, but Heavenly Father is helping me through it.

I believe the Church is justified in this self-limitation of the view of God's nature, because of the mission of the Church. And the weakness of man. I see where it all fits very well. But I couldn't, without the guidance and inspiration that God has granted me. And I know because of this process, that *I* cannot teach it to another. And I'm not, I'm just telling you some of my thoughts.

Mystery, perplexity, enigma, cypher, parable, symbol, paradox. When the mind cannot describe, when the ineffable reveals itself to you, what do you do? You just go with it.

Let's take, as an example, Saul's conversion experience. Was God transcendent there? How about the stoning martyrdom of Stephen -- Was God transcendent, or immanent there? How about the mount of transfiguration? Did the Apostles REALLY see something there? There's plenty to contemplate.

HiJolly

[Islander]

It may be useful to consider that our expressions of the nature of God and Christ are but mere approximations of their reality. Language and insight have always been limited when it comes to articulating about divinity. We tend to discuss what seems more relevant, important and meaningful to us but it does not mean that other aspects of divinity and our relationship to it are less relevant.

It is interesting that in most direct reference to The Father in the NT, more specifically in Revelation, The Father does not move or speak. He is sitting on the throne but does not articulate.

Of God the Father we have but passing references, glances and a view that is oblique and at times out of reach. Not that it is so but that's how we experience it given the limited references. Jesus is much more real to us. He is unquestionably more tangible and close because of His role in salvation and the Atonement. Jesus is our foothold on the ladder to exaltation, as we can almost "see Him" on the dusty roads of the Holy Land follwed by the Apostles. We can also feel His embrace and comforting hand around our shoulders as we struggle with issues of mortality and obedience to His commandments.

It is not a rejection of the omnipresence of God the Father or lack of awareness of His transcendental nature. For most Latter-day Saints The Savior is "more real," closer, available, reachable and present in the scriptures and in our lives.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Islander

[mel6890]

1)Yes

2)Yes

3)Yes

4)Yes

5) B, but i don't really know what the creeds are, or at least i don't know it if i do so i think my answer doesn't really count

[LittleNipper]

I believe that it is about GOD becoming a human in order to save that which HE created and loved, rather than making humans gods. The key is that everything is all about GOD and HIS glory as opposed to what is in it for us as mere created beings.

[Islander]

I believe that it is about GOD becoming a human in order to save that which HE created and loved, rather than making humans gods. The key is that everything is all about GOD and HIS glory as opposed to what is in it for us as mere created beings.

Yes and now. The Glory and Honor be His forever and ever. We will worship our Lord, Savior and God for eternity. GOd-The-Father remains the absolute ruler of the universe. But his purpose or intent was to "—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

The Atonement was for us. He came to show us the way so that we may dwell with HIM and be with HIM.

"In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where cI am, there ye may be also.

And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know."

It is also clear from the text that our destiny is dictated by HIM and we are to sit with HIM on the right hand side of the Father. Most other Christians stop here. They do not want to think about what that means. It seems like it is blasphemy to ponder on what it implies. But it is written, for those that are faithful and true, that bare witness of the Christ and endure to the end we will access the kingdom of God and inherit it as the Apostle says:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

There is nothing figurative in that statement.

[prisonchaplain]

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

There is nothing figurative in that statement.

Your last line implies that we must interpret ourselves being the children of God in literal manner. If God the Father gave birth to us--if we are literally the stuff that He is--if we are the same species--then we are Gods. The New Agers are right.

On the other hand, it is not bizarre at all to understand "children of God," to mean tha we are eternal followers, worshipers, lovers of God, and that He will indeed exalt us to unknown greatness. There is no need to interpret "children of God" biologically, imho.

[LittleNipper]

The saved become glorified because of what GOD has done for them. GOD is glorified in spite of anything we may or not do. Glorification hinges on HIM and not anyone or anything else.

[Islander]

Your last line implies that we must interpret ourselves being the children of God in literal manner. If God the Father gave birth to us--if we are literally the stuff that He is--if we are the same species--then we are Gods. The New Agers are right.

On the other hand, it is not bizarre at all to understand "children of God," to mean tha we are eternal followers, worshipers, lovers of God, and that He will indeed exalt us to unknown greatness. There is no need to interpret "children of God" biologically, imho.

It is obvious that it does not relate to biology. I was referring to exaltation and our ability for unknown/infinite potential in terms of grace as offered by HIM as joint heirs with Christ.

It is clear that we will never surpass The Father or Christ. As I said, we will worship and honor Him forever. The doctrine in LDS theology does not relate to our position (created) vs The Creator. It hints, rather, to our potential whether an ion or a trillion ions we don't know. But that it is possible one day we will come to be like Him. It should not concern any of us currently but the critics have made it a trivia item.

[LittleNipper]

It is obvious that it does not relate to biology. I was referring to exaltation and our ability for unknown/infinite potential in terms of grace as offered by HIM as joint heirs with Christ.

It is clear that we will never surpass The Father or Christ. As I said, we will worship and honor Him forever. The doctrine in LDS theology does not relate to our position (created) vs The Creator. It hints, rather, to our potential whether an ion or a trillion ions we don't know. But that it is possible one day we will come to be like Him. It should not concern any of us currently but the critics have made it a trivia item.

My belief is that the saved will be glorified as CHRIST is glorified; however, unlike CHRIST those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation. Those glorified will forever be sealed as GOD's adoptive children and everything they do will be GOD inspired and directed.

[LittleNipper]

It seems to me that your expression of Jesus

is:

1. Never expressed in scripture

2. A complete contradiction of itself

3. Meaningless and not connected with reality

4. More closely associated with pagan thought than Christianity.

5. Far more flawed that all your criticism of LDS combined.

I would point out to you your statement:

is the essence of the LDS doctrine that:

1. We were created to be "like" him.

2. The destiny of man is to be so like him that we are one - which is an ancient term meaning that there is no distinguishable or recognizable difference

The Traveler

However, there are recognizable differences. Those saved have been redeemed. CHRIST never needed redemption. I believe CHRIST has taken on qualities of the first Adam in order to accomplish this redemption and so those so redeemed will become as GOD entended Adam to remain.

[Traveler]

My belief is that the saved will be glorified as CHRIST is glorified; however, unlike CHRIST those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation. Those glorified will forever be sealed as GOD's adoptive children and everything they do will be GOD inspired and directed.

Your quote "those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation" says to me that you really do not believe your are an heir of G-d. Unless you do not define creation as something of G-d. Most that refer to G-d refer to him as the creator therefor if one is an heir of G-d and creation is a primary defination of G-d then to to be his true heir they must be heir to creation. If G-d could not create he whould not be G-d. If you will never create you will never be an heir of G-d (even by adoption).

I believe that the primary distinction of G-d from every other creature is that he is the creator. I cannot think of any more distinction of G-d. If someone is an heir of G-d they inherit not that which can be had by any other creature but that which is unique to G-d. Someone could be an heir of angles or an heir or all that is good but not quite G-d. But the scriptures are clear. Those that are “whole” and “one” with G-d are heirs of all that G-d has. And again the only unique distinction of G-d is creation. Therefore to be an heir of G-d one must be heir to creation.

The Traveler

Edited February 9, 2009 by Traveler

[Traveler]

However, there are recognizable differences. Those saved have been redeemed. CHRIST never needed redemption. I believe CHRIST has taken on qualities of the first Adam in order to accomplish this redemption and so those so redeemed will become as GOD entended Adam to remain.

So you believe Adam was never intended to be like G-d or an example of his image (what G-d does)?

You in your faith do not believe that what G-d does is a reflection of his image? Do I understand you correctly?

The Traveler

Edited February 9, 2009 by Traveler

[LittleNipper]

Your quote "those glorified individuals will never be able to create nor sustain a creation" says to me that you really do not believe your are an heir of G-d. Unless you do not define creation as something of G-d. Most that refer to G-d refer to him as the creator therefor if one is an heir of G-d and creation is a primary defination of G-d then to to be his true heir they must be heir to creation. If G-d could not create he whould not be G-d. If you will never create you will never be an heir of G-d (even by adoption).

I believe that the primary distinction of G-d from every other creature is that he is the creator. I cannot think of any more distinction of G-d. If someone is an heir of G-d they inherit not that which can be had by any other creature but that which is unique to G-d. Someone could be an heir of angles or an heir or all that is good but not quite G-d. But the scriptures are clear. Those that are “whole” and “one” with G-d are heirs of all that G-d has. And again the only unique distinction of G-d is creation. Therefore to be an heir of G-d one must be heir to creation.

The Traveler

An heir is not the founder of or an originator. An heir can be someone who receives what someone else accomplished, but does not in fact have the same skills of business, talent, etc... The simple fact is that GOD is everlasting. We will always have a point of origin.

[LittleNipper]

So you believe Adam was never intended to be like G-d or an example of his image (what G-d does)?

You in your faith do not believe that what G-d does is a reflection of his image? Do I understand you correctly?

The Traveler

I believe Adam was created triune in nature: Body, Soul, Spirit. Adam was creative (he named the animals and did gardening). Adma conversed with GOD.

[Faded]

An heir is not the founder of or an originator. An heir can be someone who receives what someone else accomplished, but does not in fact have the same skills of business, talent, etc... The simple fact is that GOD is everlasting. We will always have a point of origin.

What does the word "heir" mean? Let us take Prince Charles for example. He is heir to the throne of England. When Queen Elizabeth dies, he will become King. He will not be less powerful than his mother was. He will not be inferior to her in any way. He will gain the throne, crown and kingdom for the rest of his life. Just as Queen Elizabeth owes her position to those who came before her, so to Charles will owe his position to her. Without being born of royal blood, he would not have that privilege.

Now when we begin to talk of God the Father being the Supreme Lord of all the Universe, this will not change because He is not mortal and is obviously not going to die and He is not going to cease to exist. But we take Him at his word when He tells us that we are literally his children -- so ultimately we have the same potential. If we are made heirs through Christ to inherit a throne, crown and kingdom from God in some far distant future, then the first thing we must acknowledge is that we would owe it all God our Father and to Jesus Christ. Yet the imagery is very clear. An heir to a throne, crown and kingdom becomes what his predecessor is. Obviously, we would have to be that in another universe because God is not going to cease to reign in this one.

I do not see any reason to place limits on what God can make us. If he intends to make me like He is, then who am I to doubt His ability to do so? I cannot imagine it. I cannot begin to think I'm deserving in any way. I trust that He will get me there if that is what He intends to do. After all, God can do anything. Why should I doubt Him?

We do not accept nor believe in the notion that our existence begins at birth. We believe that the most basic spiritual essence from which we are made is eternal. So you're point that "God is everlasting and we are not" doesn't make sense in terms of LDS belief.

[LittleNipper]

What does the word "heir" mean? Let us take Prince Charles for example. He is heir to the throne of England. When Queen Elizabeth dies, he will become King. He will not be less powerful than his mother was. He will not be inferior to her in any way. He will gain the throne, crown and kingdom for the rest of his life. Just as Queen Elizabeth owes her position to those who came before her, so to Charles will owe his position to her. Without being born of royal blood, he would not have that privilege.

Now when we begin to talk of God the Father being the Supreme Lord of all the Universe, this will not change because He is not mortal and is obviously not going to die and He is not going to cease to exist. But we take Him at his word when He tells us that we are literally his children -- so ultimately we have the same potential. If we are made heirs through Christ to inherit a throne, crown and kingdom from God in some far distant future, then the first thing we must acknowledge is that we would owe it all God our Father and to Jesus Christ. Yet the imagery is very clear. An heir to a throne, crown and kingdom becomes what his predecessor is. Obviously, we would have to be that in another universe because God is not going to cease to reign in this one.

I do not see any reason to place limits on what God can make us. If he intends to make me like He is, then who am I to doubt His ability to do so? I cannot imagine it. I cannot begin to think I'm deserving in any way. I trust that He will get me there if that is what He intends to do. After all, God can do anything. Why should I doubt Him?

We do not accept nor believe in the notion that our existence begins at birth. We believe that the most basic spiritual essence from which we are made is eternal. So you're point that "God is everlasting and we are not" doesn't make sense in terms of LDS belief.

I do not believe in reincarnation. Any inheritance we might claim is THROUGH CHRIST JESUS. CHRIST does not have to qualify HIMSELF in any way. GOD can do anything HIMSELF but we will always depend on GOD for any future existance we may be given --- unlike GOD ALMIGHTY. That is how my Bible study comes across to me.

Edited February 18, 2009 by LittleNipper

[Islander]

I do not believe in reincarnation. Any inheritance we might claim is THROUGH CHRIST JESUS. CHRIST does not have to qualify HIMSELF in any way. GOD can do anything HIMSELF but we will always depend on GOD for any future existance we may be given --- unlike GOD ALMIGHTY. That is how my Bible study comes across to me.

How did you get to "reincarnation"? Nobody has mention it here.