The Trinity Questions – For Traditional Christians

[Traveler]

I can feel the hug of my Heavenly Father more powerfully than that of my earthly one, despite his non-corporeal nature. Surely there are some testimonies that are more sure than anything the physical realm can produce. No?

How do you know it is a hug and not something else and how do you know that it is G-d and not some other very powerful being capable of replicating (falsifying - counterfeiting) some of G-d power? The "more sure than" statement has me interested.

The Traveler

[chriscb]

I like how Mike Warnke explained the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He compared it to homemade apple pie. Mmmmmm. Now, he wasn't talking about that frozen store bought stuff. He was talking about the kind Grandmother would make. You cut three equal pieces but you don't take it out of the pie pan. On the outside, we see 3 divisions but on the inside (under the crust) it's all one apple filling. So, I suppose the same can be said of God. On the outside we see 3 divisions (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) but on the inside is one divine essence.

Edited December 16, 2008 by chriscb

[prisonchaplain]

How do you know it is a hug and not something else and how do you know that it is G-d and not some other very powerful being capable of replicating (falsifying - counterfeiting) some of G-d power? The "more sure than" statement has me interested.

The Traveler

Feelings alone can lead to heresy. Scripture along to the worst Phariseeism. When Scripture and Spirit align, then I know that the battle I fight is not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and principalities. And yet, greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world.

[Traveler]

Feelings alone can lead to heresy. Scripture along to the worst Phariseeism. When Scripture and Spirit align, then I know that the battle I fight is not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and principalities. And yet, greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world.

Thank you for your response. From my own background - I grew up in a family that did not hug. To be honest hugging makes me uncomfortable with the one exception of my wife. Touching is, without any question in my mind, a physical thing, a carnal thing and a sensual thing. I understand very well the difference between spiritual things and physical carnal sensual things.

I am confused in that you attempt to explain things that are spiritual with reference to things that are physical then imply that you are attempting to overcome (do battle with) something that is not physical but spiritual. Perhaps if I can ask again – if you are involved in “a battle” which is not flesh and blood – How do you distinguish light from darkness (which is a physical not spiritual sense)?

You seem to imply that if something in the flesh corresponds with scripture then it must be of G-d. I find this most interesting because my method is the exact reverse. It is only when that which is physical (including scripture) is validated by that which is divinely spiritual that I think it correct and all truth (including scientific) I believe to be validated in the end in this manner.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I like how Mike Warnke explained the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He compared it to homemade apple pie. Mmmmmm. Now, he wasn't talking about that frozen store bought stuff. He was talking about the kind Grandmother would make. You cut three equal pieces but you don't take it out of the pie pan. On the outside, we see 3 divisions but on the inside (under the crust) it's all one apple filling. So, I suppose the same can be said of God. On the outside we see 3 divisions (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) but on the inside is one divine essence.

The problem with the above explanation is that it ignores some very important ancient notions of G-d. The Hebrew word for one G-d is ehad. This word brings into context wholeness. Meaning that G-d is whole and complete without anything necessary that is or can be missing. In math we define this notion as necessary and sufficient. If there are parts or ways to differentiate G-d outside of the wholeness one does not understand G-d in that they have an “impure” or incomplete understanding. To me the Trinity is so inwardly contradictory that I have concluded that such thinking “compartmentalizes” the G-dhead persons outside of understanding of what makes G-d or man whole.

When I have pointed out the inward contradictions of the Trinity I am told by Trinitarians that G-d cannot be understood by man and that is what makes G-d so great a G-d. I understand this thinking to reference someone that is not born of G-d and therefore is not one with him therefore impossible to have a whole or complete understanding or concept of G-d that enlightens and makes man whole – not confused.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, often we say the same things, but from different approaches. You say that your spirit confirms what is flesh and blood. What I actually said was that both aspects must confirm one another. You prioritize the spiritual confirmation, whereas I want both spiritual and physical. Or, to be specific, Bible and that still small voice.

You specifically asked me how I know that the spiritual voice I hear is the voice of God, or Christ. I responded that it would comport with the Bible. You respond by saying you want your Bible to conform to the spiritual voice. It should be both/and not either/or, imho.

[Traveler]

Traveler, often we say the same things, but from different approaches. You say that your spirit confirms what is flesh and blood. What I actually said was that both aspects must confirm one another. You prioritize the spiritual confirmation, whereas I want both spiritual and physical. Or, to be specific, Bible and that still small voice.

You specifically asked me how I know that the spiritual voice I hear is the voice of God, or Christ. I responded that it would comport with the Bible. You respond by saying you want your Bible to conform to the spiritual voice. It should be both/and not either/or, imho.

PC: I always enjoy our conversations and believe that I understand myself as well as you through our conversations. I would love to spend a day or two conversing with you. I very much enjoy learning of your perspective. As a scientist the physical universe has always been a curiosity of mine. At the same time I have discovered that the spiritual universe is just as vast and complex. The two are like mirrors of each other.

Many years ago while studying quantum mechanics I developed a theory that all things spiritual exist and are just as real as all things physical. All things physical exist within the dimensions that we can experience within our physical self. Likewise all things spiritual exist in a separate dimension where the laws of physics are in essence different. The two (spiritual and physical) exist not as parallel realities but as intersecting realities.

I used some of the same equations that Einstein used to derive E=MC(squared) and discovered that there is an alternate method to calculate forces that interact. This is done not at the center of the objects but in the intersecting volumes (force fields) that surround each object. By using a particle accelerator there is a delta between attractions or repulsions of the field volumes verses the center of the object of high speed particles. The delta demonstrates the existence of an additional unseen dimension.

I did not mean to flood you with this stuff. Only to point out my reason for understanding the connection between that which is spiritual (in a intersecting dimension) and that which is physical and can be experience within the dimensions of time and space which we can record within the same dimensions of time and space.

Now that I have explained all this – it is my belief that a spiritual hug does not exist in the same manner in which a physical hug exist. That if G-d was to hug that it would take place in our physical dimensional space that we experience in the same manner that we would have a hug from anyone else. But the influences and impressions of that which is spirit can only be realized by that which is spiritual that is within us. And that which is spiritual exist without temporal dimension. Which now leaves us with only one possibility. That our spiritual self not being a temporal dimension must therefore exist outside of time and therefore is not created as is that which is physical and temporal. If this spiritual dimension did not exist within us then there is nothing of G-d (of of the spirit) we could experience or sense in any way possible within the dimensions that we exist.

And so it is that I have tried to make sense of what you are trying to tell me – but I am not sure if I understand what it is that you have experienced to be real or imagined. That is why I ask the questions. I will stop here because I have discovered that all that is known must be known by our spirit otherwise it is not known but imagined.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I believe I understand you. It's an interesting argument--and one that happens to support the LDS doctrine of premortal eternal existence. I just wonder if my understanding of the human spirit having a finite beginning, but an eternity to look forward to could not also fit into your explanation. After all, despite our beginning, we have become eternal beings.

[AnthonyB]

PC,

Just curious...

Did God create time? (the time we experience)

Did God therefore exist before time?

If God currently exits in eternity, does he as postulated by Augustine, exist outside time?

If we enter eternity, will we exist outside time?

If something exists outside of time, how can you say that it only occurs after a specific time, when it is no longer bound/"related to" by that time?

What I am trying to get to say is that if we enter eternity, time as we know it ceases to have any effect on us. Eternity is not IMHO a continuation of this current time but stepping outside and beyond it.

[hankpac]

None of this has makes any effect on our eternal progression, nor our salvation. You can get as deep as you want., and explore the unponderable questions of mankind and time, but that only distracts us from the primary issue: striving for obedience to the commandments, and being as Christlike as possible.

You will know all the answers on the other side of the veil, and will marvel that you were ever so tied up in such triviality.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I believe I understand you. It's an interesting argument--and one that happens to support the LDS doctrine of premortal eternal existence. I just wonder if my understanding of the human spirit having a finite beginning, but an eternity to look forward to could not also fit into your explanation. After all, despite our beginning, we have become eternal beings.

PC: When I put this all together I did so with a bias of my background. It is something we all do as we put together our paradigm of understanding. The interesting thing had to do with the hard math applied to Fourier and Laplace transforms as the point of reference approaches the speed of light, time approaches zero or stops but does not go negative. In other words the temporal dimension (time) no longer exist. Also all points within the defined space (our universe) become boundary points. Think of a piece of paper representing a two dimensional plain. All of the points on that paper are boundary points with our 3 dimensional space which means all points on the plain can be accessed directly from our 3 dimensions and intersect our space. This demonstrates a possible way that G-d has access directly to everything in our physical universe.

The problem I had with time is that if we have a connection (spirit intersection) then the spiritual connection could not have a temporal part. This means that time (according to the math) does not exist. It also means that G-d can know the future as well as we can know the past.

I have gotten a little off point here. But the bottom line is – I do not know how, with the math and this paradigm, there can be a finite beginning to anything in the spiritual dimensional space. The interesting thing is that it all fits and can be explained by the same physics (math) by which we currently understand our physical universe. It also means that the randomness of quantum mechanics is not random at all but determined by “distortions” generated from the connections and intersections to the spiritual dimension.

Anyway I am not going to demand that this paradigm must be – but I have found that I can explain all I know from scripture and revelation concerning the possibility that G-d and spirit exist beyond the dimensions of our current experience. – Thanks for listening.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

I know many may find such speculation fruitless but for me it helped answer some spiritual questions that I think do have a very practical effect on the way one lives life.

I don't like several of the tenets of Calvinism but was drawn towards it because it seemed the only way to maintain the sovereignty of God. How can God be sovereign and yet allow free will. IMHO using foreknowledge just seemed to move the question but not answer it.

Placing God outside time, and having him therefore experiencing all our time simultaneously seems to be a really great way of maintaining both divine sovereignty and free will.

I'm aware that we can get trapped into counting the angels on a pin head. However I have also seen people who want to be so practical in their faith that they banish all theological thinking and live shallow lives without the slightest thought on their beliefs.

Any number of people I consider great followers of Jesus managed to do both. I see no harm in pondering on God and attempting to progress in my understanding of Him. I shall never fully understand until I pass through the veil/stand in the presence of God but I rejoice in the little my mind can comprehend.

[prisonchaplain]

PC,

Just curious...

Did God create time? (the time we experience)

Did God therefore exist before time?

If God currently exits in eternity, does he as postulated by Augustine, exist outside time?

If we enter eternity, will we exist outside time?

If something exists outside of time, how can you say that it only occurs after a specific time, when it is no longer bound/"related to" by that time?

What I am trying to get to say is that if we enter eternity, time as we know it ceases to have any effect on us. Eternity is not IMHO a continuation of this current time but stepping outside and beyond it.

I understand your theory. Here's how I see it.

God lives in this: <--->

We live in this: .--->

If creation out of nothing is true, then I don't see how it can be otherwise.

[prisonchaplain]

None of this has makes any effect on our eternal progression, nor our salvation. You can get as deep as you want., and explore the unponderable questions of mankind and time, but that only distracts us from the primary issue: striving for obedience to the commandments, and being as Christlike as possible.

You will know all the answers on the other side of the veil, and will marvel that you were ever so tied up in such triviality.

Whether we are co-eternal with the Father, and whether he is our Maker and Fashioner, but not the one who originated our essence, may seem trivial. I consider it of the utmost importance. God's nature, our nature, and how they interrelate is core doctrine.

[Traveler]

I know many may find such speculation fruitless but for me it helped answer some spiritual questions that I think do have a very practical effect on the way one lives life.

I don't like several of the tenets of Calvinism but was drawn towards it because it seemed the only way to maintain the sovereignty of God. How can God be sovereign and yet allow free will. IMHO using foreknowledge just seemed to move the question but not answer it.

Placing God outside time, and having him therefore experiencing all our time simultaneously seems to be a really great way of maintaining both divine sovereignty and free will.

I'm aware that we can get trapped into counting the angels on a pin head. However I have also seen people who want to be so practical in their faith that they banish all theological thinking and live shallow lives without the slightest thought on their beliefs.

Any number of people I consider great followers of Jesus managed to do both. I see no harm in pondering on God and attempting to progress in my understanding of Him. I shall never fully understand until I pass through the veil/stand in the presence of God but I rejoice in the little my mind can comprehend.

There are some things I believe ought to be considered in discussions about G-d.

1. That science and religious thought do not have to ignore each other.

2. That what is true in science can be used to understand G-d and vice versa. We do not have to discard one kind of thinking to endorse the other.

3. That G-d is not unlike us – we are in his image and what G-d does is not impossible or even unreasonable for man. In fact we should use G-d as our “perfect” example.

4. Nothing is learned without seeking. Knowledge is a good worthwhile desirable thing that should be sought for. There is no such thing as a trivial truth – G-d incorporates, utilizes and endorses all truth. To not be interested in truth is to not really be interested in G-d. It does not matter if a truth is “necessary” for salvation or not but truth is necessary to be free. G-d is a G-d a truth and to mock and ignore or turn away from truth is to mock and ignore or turn away from G-d.

5. I am not trying to say my theory is 100% truth or right – only that it is possible. I am not even saying that it is the only possibility – but it is the best of all possibilities I know of. I am a practical type; I will use that which I understand fits the best until something better comes along.

6. The things of G-d are not fantasy, magic, foolishness or unknowable but precise and exact truth that is brilliantly intelligent and not unlike all other realities.

Thank you for joining the discussion.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Whether we are co-eternal with the Father, and whether he is our Maker and Fashioner, but not the one who originated our essence, may seem trivial. I consider it of the utmost importance. God's nature, our nature, and how they interrelate is core doctrine.

One thing about the eternal nature of man that I find interesting revolves around the old arguments of free will versed determinism. In my paradigm all things in the physical are determined by something that precedes it. I cannot think of how man could possibly have free will unless nothing precedes the essence of man. I like the LDS notion because it does away with the argument “Why should I change (repent) – G-d made me the way I am”. With the eternal possibility G-d is not responsible for the way anyone is. It allows us to understand that G-d gives us the latitude to be what we determine we are and becoming by evolving based on our will and ability to learn from our experience.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

I understand your theory. Here's how I see it.

God lives in this: <--->

We live in this: .--->

If creation out of nothing is true, then I don't see how it can be otherwise.

PC,

I'd agree with your graphs as far as our time dimension goes.

Aren't you however making "time" eternal? Did God create all things except "time"?

I don't know how much physics you've studied but Einstein's relativity theories insist that time and space are inseperably linked. You cannot have time without having space, we live a four dimensional time-space interwoven universe.

If you insist on having time before the creation act then you must have space (and therefore matter). Which leaves you without realising it supporting the LDS eternal matter belief.

[Hemidakota]

Even eterntity has a time clock but not on a telestial level.

[Traveler]

Even eterntity has a time clock but not on a telestial level.

If my understanding - and calculations are correct time is only a factor in the physical (sometimes called temporal) universe. Note that temporal does not mean physical but associated with time. Often we speak of that which is "not" spiritual as being temporal.

The Traveler

[KristofferUmfrey]

Even eterntity has a time clock but not on a telestial level.

and it's batteries never go dead or need to be recharged.

[AnthonyB]

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.

For those interested in the idea about other dimensions I'd recommend, "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, although if your one of the many who bought Hawkins "A Brief History of Time" and failed to complete it, be warned Greene's book is probably a step up in complexity (IMHO).

Edited December 19, 2008 by AnthonyB

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, my concern with your relieving God of creating the essence of humanity is that He becomes something other than my Origin. My Maker, perhaps...but, seemingly something less. On the other hand, we become something more if there is an aspect of us is eternal. We increase, and He decreases. Rather different from the Apostle John's declaration, "I must decrease that He might increase."

Anthony, my understanding is that time begins with creation. It, like us, was created out of nothing.

[Traveler]

Traveler, my concern with your relieving God of creating the essence of humanity is that He becomes something other than my Origin. My Maker, perhaps...but, seemingly something less. On the other hand, we become something more if there is an aspect of us is eternal. We increase, and He decreases. Rather different from the Apostle John's declaration, "I must decrease that He might increase."

Anthony, my understanding is that time begins with creation. It, like us, was created out of nothing.

Thank you for your response. I have never been able to investigate with someone that holds the ideas of creation you hold. Please do not take anything personal but I just do not understand how someone could come to such a conclusion as that G-d created all things from nothing. I will explain two important principles that I believe come into direct conflict with this thinking.

The First has to do with the freedom and will of man and the rewards or punishments G-d gives to man. I have already expressed this idea before and I cannot figure out how you address this conflict. The concept is that G-d created everything the way it is; there was no other input other than G-d’s. Therefore if someone rejects G-d and his goodness it can only be because they (or it) were created such to do exactly that. I see no way around this principle. G-d is therefore to blame for all evil – G-d should be the first of anyone cast into hell because he is the genius the created every sinner, demon and child of hell to do exactly what they do. Because G-d knows the future he knows exactly what he does so if his creation would desire evil over goodness it could only because he created his creation to be that. He could have (and should have) spared all the suffering of innocence. Since he started with “nothing” he had total and complete control over all outcomes of everything and if there is true justice then G-d is the only one that could be responsible for anything. I do not know how there can be justice if G-d is a creator from nothing and all things, which are nothing more or less than as G-d created them. Any blame to anyone or anything other than G-d could not be just. Therefore such a G-d could not have true mercy either. One could rightly argue that G-d is not merciful or just if he is happy and willing to punish anyone else for what he alone “created”.

The Second great conflict has to do with ownership. I will explain how I believe G-d is the only rightful owner of all that exist in our physical universe and no one else has claim to anything. But if G-d created everything from nothing; that means that everything does not really belong to him – only that which only he alone has improved, is rightfully his. This is because he started with nothing therefore he cannot say that what is; was always his. Likewise anyone that also has made improvements (however small or seeming insignificant) can argue their share of things based on their improvements. To deny this share of improvement would make G-d unjust.

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

Edited December 20, 2008 by Traveler

[mel6890]

Do "traditional Christians" as you put it, believe that we are created in the image of God?

If so, then how is that possible when the trinity is nothing like us? (that is how it appears to me at least)

If Jesus will retain his perfected resurrected body, then doesn't this fundamentally change the nature of the trinity? And doesn't that mean that at one time he did not have one? How can they be one person ever again after a resurrection? And then does the Father have a body too? Does the holy ghost have a body too? Why would the Lord come to get a body if being a spirit was superior? What is the purpose in doing so...if he/it is already everything he needs to be and has been that way thru the eternities?

Why did God the Father call Jesus his son if he in reality was not his son at all, but a part of him or expression of him?

If you were to see the trinity in person, what would it look like?

And isn't part of the description of the trinity that they have no parts or passions? Why the questions about emotions? And how can they have no parts....but be resurrected?

Did Moses believe in the trinity? Did Adam? Did they teach the trinity in the 10 commandments or in the Law of moses? Did Jesus teach the trinity? If so where?

When Jesus came to earth, why did he pray to the Father? Why did he ask the Father to bless the people? Why did he defer to the Father and say so many times that he only did the will of the father? Why was he allowed to be tempted? Why did he ask why the Father had forsaken him? I ask all of these and wonder why he would talk to himself in such a manner as a servant or as someone who deferred to someone of higher authority.

What is the purpose of the creation of man from the perspective of the trinity? Why was there a need for a sacrifice? Why are we invited to become like something that is impossible to become?

Yes....I have many questions. But I figured it was ok to ask since the OP seems to want LDS people to understand. So....there are my questions....the things that confuse me. Maybe you can help me understand.

I would recommend watching this sermon on the trinity, it helped to clear up some of my misunderstandings and i think it will answer most of your questions :)

Mars Hill Church | Doctrine | Trinity: God Is

Edited January 8, 2009 by mel6890
I forgot the link :)

[Interested]

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