The Trinity


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

...2. In verse 26 the verb "make" (asah) and the noun "image" (tselem) are in the plural.

Since I do not know Hebrew, I will defer to the NET Bible notes:

Then God said, “Let us make47 humankind48 in our image, after our likeness,49 so they may rule50 over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth,51 and over all the creatures that move52 on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)

47 sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

48 tn The Hebrew word is אָדָם (’adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ (אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.

49 tn The two prepositions translated “in” and “according to” have overlapping fields of meaning and in this context seem to be virtually equivalent. In 5:3 they are reversed with the two words. The word צֶלֶם (tselem, “image”) is used frequently of statues, models, and images – replicas (see D. J. A. Clines, “The Etymology of Hebrew selem,” JNSL 3 [1974]: 19-25). The word דְּמוּת (dÿmut, “likeness”) is an abstract noun; its verbal root means “to be like; to resemble.” In the Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical. The “image of God” would be the God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the created order as his earthly vice-regents.

sn In our image, after our likeness. Similar language is used in the instructions for building the tabernacle. Moses was told to make it “according to the pattern” he was shown on the mount (Exod 25:9, 10). Was he shown a form, a replica, of the spiritual sanctuary in the heavenly places? In any case, what was produced on earth functioned as the heavenly sanctuary does, but with limitations.

50 tn Following the cohortative (“let us make”), the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) conjunctive indicates purpose/result (see Gen 19:20; 34:23; 2 Sam 3:21). God’s purpose in giving humankind his image is that they might rule the created order on behalf of the heavenly king and his royal court. So the divine image, however it is defined, gives humankind the capacity and/or authority to rule over creation.

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It clear that that is how they choose to interpret the the passage - according to their own culture and ideology. What is less clear is what the original author intended.

There is a singular for God and the author or at least the late copies of what the author wrote don't use it.

Umm... did all the various translators get the entire Bible wrong?

Are you saying they should have translated Elohim "Gods" each of the over 2500 times it is used in the Tanakh?

Should Gen 1:27 really read "So "the Gods" created man in "Their" own image; in the image of "the Gods" "They" created him; male and female "They" created them?

What about Exodus 3:14? "And Elohim said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”

Should it read "the Gods said to Moses, "We are who We are"?

Originally Posted by Snow

...2. In verse 26 the verb "make" (asah) and the noun "image" (tselem) are in the plural.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear Who the "Us" and "Our" is Who did the making in Genesis 1:26 if we let scripture interpret scripture.

I have given these verses before with no response but a claim of dishonesty, that for the life of me, I just don't understand but here goes again.

The Father did the creating;

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O Lord, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter;

And all of us are the work of Your hand.

The Son did the creating,

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

The Holy Spirit did the creating,

Job 33:4 “The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

The one and only God "I the Lord" did it " by Myself" "all alone"

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things,

Stretching out the heavens by Myself

And spreading out the earth all alone.

Three Persons Who are called capitol "G" God (never Gods) are said by holy scripture to have created yet it also says that there is only one God and He created all things by Himself all alone.

I know "Trinity" is not well received by many but I ask again, according to the holy scriptures, Who created all things?

Three distinct Persons one God.

Edited by Soninme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm... did all the various translators get the entire Bible wrong?

Are you saying they should have translated Elohim "Gods" each of the over 2500 times it is used in the Tanakh?

Should Gen 1:27 really read "So "the Gods" created man in "Their" own image; in the image of "the Gods" "They" created him; male and female "They" created them?

What about Exodus 3:14? "And Elohim said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”

Should it read "the Gods said to Moses, "We are who We are"?

Are you for real?

It's not like this isn't common knowledge. Look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Soninme

Umm... did all the various translators get the entire Bible wrong?

Are you saying they should have translated Elohim "Gods" each of the over 2500 times it is used in the Tanakh?

Should Gen 1:27 really read "So "the Gods" created man in "Their" own image; in the image of "the Gods" "They" created him; male and female "They" created them?

What about Exodus 3:14? "And Elohim said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.”

Should it read "the Gods said to Moses, "We are who We are"?

Are you for real?

It's not like this isn't common knowledge. Look it up.

Ok :rolleyes: I've been looking for your translation but can't seem to find it.

Could you at least give a link to the one you're talking about cuz I really want to be real.

Oh, and honest too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Not sure where to address this... but mormonwiki.com says to discuss the articles there in the lds.net forums.

In the entry entitled "Mormon Doctrine - An Introduction" there is a subheading "The Nature of Deity" which states: "Mormon doctrine does not state a belief in the trinity (three gods in one)"

This needs to be changed, since it does not acurately convey the true Christian understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine does not claim "three gods in one." Rather, the doctrine teaches "three Persons, one God." This is fundamentally different. Let me try and clarify...

Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But they are not three different Gods. Jesus is not just "a god," but, along with the Holy Spirit and The Father they, together, are God. God does not exist without all three.

The mormonwiki article should be edited to state, ""Mormon doctrine does not state a belief in the Trinity (three persons in one being)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The trouble is that the Trinity is complex and there's no short way to describe it. I've also had Trinitarians chafe at "three persons in one being" as they felt that this too is not accurately explaining the Trinity. From there the discussion turns to Homoousias: That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one "ousía" --that is Greek for saying they are of the "same substance" and are equally God. But ousía doesn't precisely mean "substance" exactly. Homoousias really means "same nature or essence." At this point I hesitantly interject, "It sounds like it might be the same thing we believe in." To this the Trinitarian scoffs and tells me I'm just not understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.

That's the point where I give up trying to understanding it.

Better just to leave it as it is. "Three Gods in one" is as good as any shorthand description and more easily comprehended by your Latter Day Saint reader. At least it doesn't open up the Pandora's Box of "one what?" It's just "one." Nothing to see here folks, move along!

I really have no idea who deals with the contents of momonwiki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the correct thing to do be to define the Trinity according to the Nicene Creed instead of dumbing it down to something that is "easily comprehended by your Latter Day Saint reader?"

While I would agree that most self-proclaimed Trinitarians in the U.S. of A. don't have a good grasp of the doctrine, and therefore many rank-and-file Christians can't adequately communicate the concept, that doesn't mean that the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't have a definition. I would think it would be in the interest of Mormonwiki to make sure they are clearly expressing the actual doctrine, rather than presenting a mischaracterization... even if it is well intentioned when doing so. It would otherwise be all-too easy for someone, reading the site, to make the accusation that Mormonwiki is intentionally misrepresenting the Nicene Faith.

Many conversations between non-LDS and LDS break down with accusations of misrepresentation of the other's beliefs because of less then precise definitions. In this case, the mormonwiki page is simply importing an LDS concept (that the Father, Son and Spirit are three Gods) into the non-LDS Trinitarian concept (that they are three persons who, united together, are one God.) The resulting definition is self defeating. Any LDS reading that definition would be left with the idea that Trinitarians beleive in something that cannot make sense. Correcting the definition would result, at least, in a better understanding of what Trinitarians actually believe instead of leaving the reader misinformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, it's not up to me or anyone on this site. I have no idea who runs Mormonwiki, but if you feel your belief is being misrepresented, why not get in touch with whomever runs that site?

As to the Nicene Trinity making sense -- I'd love to be able to understand it. I've tried long and hard to do so. The only conclusion I can ever come to is exactly what you said: "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." You're welcome to try to enlighten me. I have my own beliefs on the matter and those beliefs aren't going to change anytime soon. But I really do try my best to at least understand what other people believe in. The Trinity is one thing that has always eluded my ability to comprehend. I've tried for a long time to make sense out of it, but I've yet to succeed.

The problem is that to me, the Trinity sounds like a self-contradicting logical impossibility. Three separate and distinct beings who are the separate and not separate at the same time. They are three but they are not three -- they are one. There are many fine object lessons such as 1x1x1=1 or a thee leaf clover or an egg. But none of these things have any similarity nor relevance to an individual human being. And the beginning point is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct people. It would be like my dad and his two brothers. They are three separate and distinct people. So the logical leap I'd have to make here is conceiving of my Dad and his two brothers as "one being." Well, I can't say that makes any sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The problem is that to me, the Trinity sounds like a self-contradicting logical impossibility. Three separate and distinct beings who are the separate and not separate at the same time. They are three but they are not three -- they are one. There are many fine object lessons such as 1x1x1=1 or a thee leaf clover or an egg. But none of these things have any similarity nor relevance to an individual human being. And the beginning point is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct people. It would be like my dad and his two brothers. They are three separate and distinct people. So the logical leap I'd have to make here is conceiving of my Dad and his two brothers as "one being." Well, I can't say that makes any sense to me.

Faded, I think being able to see God in the Trinity is helped by seeing God as infinite while man is finite. That's easier for the non-LDS believers because that is exactly how we see God compared to man. While LDS see both God and man as both being infinite in their own way. You'll not really understand the Trinity until you see God and man as different beings.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded, I think being able to see God in the Trinity is helped by seeing God as infinite while man is finite. That's easier for the non-LDS believers because that is exactly how we see God compared to man. While LDS see both God and man as both being infinite in their own way. You'll not really understand the Trinity until you see God and man as different beings.

M.

Problem is that just isn't true. We don't view God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit as finite beings. They are just as infinite as you believe God to be. Some false doctrinal theorizing has dabbled in thinking of them as less than infinite, but this is corrected by the Church leadership if and when it arises, and is often accounted one of the "Seven deadly latter-day heresies." All three are limitless in power, knowledge and influence. The only limitation -- if you want to call it that -- that exists for them is that they have reached a status where they have become incapable of sin.

Conceiving of Jesus Christ as non-human is problematic for me, simply because we know that he was human. He walked among us and experienced mortal life just as all of us do. He rose up from the dead and is immortal now -- but so will each and every one of us also be raised from the dead, so this alone does not erase his species, at least not in my mind. Now Nicene Trinity doctrine has determined that God the Father is bodiless. So you have two Spirits and one embodied person. All infinite. We still begin with the basic understanding that they are all three persons and separate beings. If we concede that they are not the same species as human then they're still incredibly similar to human. Then you would say, three infinite beings that are all one being. It still comes back to the logical contradiction of three individuals that are the same individual while retaining their separateness. If we were to think of it like multiple personality disorder or the popular three-leaf clover, then we end up with Modalism, which is considered a heresy and a departure from Trinitarian dogma. If we say that they're really just one and they only seem to be three, we end up with another heresy called Unitarianism. What we are left with is a logical impossibility that must simply be left unexplained and uncomprehended. Three distinct and separate individuals that are also one individual. 3 = 1.

If we were to say that these three separate beings are interconnected in ways beyond comprehension and explain no further, then the Godhead and the Trinity would amount to the same thing. There would be the notable difference that we see the Father as both Body and Spirit, but that would be the only real point of difference. If the oneness of the three is left unexplained then there's room for either point of view in your understanding of God. We already believe that they are "One Eternal God without end." We don't think of them as three separate Gods -- at least not in the way that our critics would like to say we do. United together, all are three indispensable in fulfilling their common purpose of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. They exist in perfect harmony with each other, and there is no shadow of disunity. If we dabble a bit in the notion of "Homoousias" which I'm told implies "same nature or essence" that too fits within my understanding of God. As Joseph Smith describes it, the Father and the Son look so alike that there was no possible way for him to distinguish one from the other. A lot like identical twins I suppose. So we are still not finding divergence in the two points of view yet.

It seems that's where I get stuck. On the one hand, I can conclude that Trinitarians believe in something incredibly similar to what I already believe in. Every step to explain why it's different ends up becoming a step towards the logical contradiction of 3 = 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is that just isn't true. We don't view God the Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit as finite beings....

I never said you view God as finite, I said infinite. But you also view man as infinite, as in premortal; whereas non-LDS do not.

Non-LDS Christians believe God has always existed. God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All 3 persons are not created, they are the Creator. Jesus is God's Son but not in a created fashion. When Jesus became man, God became man. When Jesus atoned for our sins, God atoned for our sins. Before God created anything He was still God. Before God created man, man did not exist.

Now LDS see man as being just as eternal as God. LDS see Jesus as a literal son that existed first as intelligence but was created as Spirit. He is literally a Son of God, just as mankind are sons/daughters of God.

How LDS and non-LDS view God and mankind, make it possible for God's creation to view God and his creation differently. I am in the non-LDS category therefore it is easy for me to accept the Trinity.

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen captures the important distinction in LDS teaching. Of more import than whether God is a trinity of one substance is that God is infinite (we all agree) and his creation is not (we disagree). How ironic! We vaguely agree about God, but mostly disagree about ourselves. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-LDS Christians believe God has always existed. God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All 3 persons are not created, they are the Creator. Jesus is God's Son but not in a created fashion. When Jesus became man, God became man. When Jesus atoned for our sins, God atoned for our sins. Before God created anything He was still God. Before God created man, man did not exist.

Now LDS see man as being just as eternal as God. LDS see Jesus as a literal son that existed first as intelligence but was created as Spirit. He is literally a Son of God, just as mankind are sons/daughters of God.

How LDS and non-LDS view God and mankind, make it possible for God's creation to view God and his creation differently. I am in the non-LDS category therefore it is easy for me to accept the Trinity.

M.

I follow the bit about how we view humankind differently. The LDS view of the premortal state of humankind is pretty unique in comparison to most of Christianity.

In light of this difference it is easy to see one of the bigger hurdles standing in the way of understanding. From one viewpoint, we are very similar to God. In another viewpoint we are nothing like him. We wouldn't call Premortal Jesus Christ "created" but rather "begotten." The basic definition of "begotten" gets confused as well, for the Trinitarian would view conception in the womb as a creation of body, spirit and soul from inanimate material. To us, conception and birth are transitional and only creational of the body, not the spirit. We don't fully understand how a spirit is begotten exactly but we do know that it doesn't involve making something out of nothing. Not all things have been revealed and we know enough for the time being.

Now one thing that bears remembering: We would also say that God has always been God, Christ has always been Christ, etc. It has not been fully explained, but here's my take on that. How can both eternal progression and an eternal status as God be possible? In the words of Doctor Brown, "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally ..." If we conceive of a being for whom time is no longer relevant (which we both agree is part of what God is) then you're talking in terms of 4th or 5th dimensional thought. Impossible to fully comprehend of course. The essential piece of the puzzle in relation to the subject at hand. If a fifth dimensional being dyes his hair blue, then it has always been blue and it will always be blue. The 5th dimensional being's concept of time is one great whole, seen from beginning to end. So if you are something now, you always were that something. This is more the field of scientists and theorists than religion, but it fits very well into religion IMHO. And hopefully that didn't completely confused and bewilder you. It's my own way of understanding things, not official Church doctrine.

Your idea of humankind being created (body soul and spirit) certainly does help differentiate between God and man. But it doesn't solve the problem of 3=1. If I have three eggs, I have 3 eggs. If I have three apples, then I have three apples. If I attempt to look for any item that has three parts composing a whole like an egg, then I've successfully recreated Unitarianism. If I conceive of something that changes between three forms like a chameleon, then I've successfully recreated Modalism. In both cases, I know that I've just recreated what Nicene Trinitarians view as "damnable heresies." The problem is conceiving of three separate and distinct beings, and then trying to wrap my head around them being one being at the same time, all while not relinquishing their separateness. Three parts of the greater whole of God is what we both already believe in. We just appear to mean something different when we say it. But how is it different? I'm just focusing on what God is right now, not past and not future.

One related question though: Does Jesus Christ have a body and a soul and a spirit according to Trinitarian teaching?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Now one thing that bears remembering: We would also say that God has always been God, Christ has always been Christ, etc. It has not been fully explained, but here's my take on that. How can both eternal progression and an eternal status as God be possible? In the words of Doctor Brown, "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally ..." If we conceive of a being for whom time is no longer relevant (which we both agree is part of what God is) then you're talking in terms of 4th or 5th dimensional thought. Impossible to fully comprehend of course. The essential piece of the puzzle in relation to the subject at hand. If a fifth dimensional being dyes his hair blue, then it has always been blue and it will always be blue. The 5th dimensional being's concept of time is one great whole, seen from beginning to end. So if you are something now, you always were that something. This is more the field of scientists and theorists than religion, but it fits very well into religion IMHO. And hopefully that didn't completely confused and bewilder you. It's my own way of understanding things, not official Church doctrine.

Your idea of humankind being created (body soul and spirit) certainly does help differentiate between God and man. But it doesn't solve the problem of 3=1. If I have three eggs, I have 3 eggs. If I have three apples, then I have three apples. If I attempt to look for any item that has three parts composing a whole like an egg, then I've successfully recreated Unitarianism. If I conceive of something that changes between three forms like a chameleon, then I've successfully recreated Modalism. In both cases, I know that I've just recreated what Nicene Trinitarians view as "damnable heresies." The problem is conceiving of three separate and distinct beings, and then trying to wrap my head around them being one being at the same time, all while not relinquishing their separateness. Three parts of the greater whole of God is what we both already believe in. We just appear to mean something different when we say it. But how is it different? I'm just focusing on what God is right now, not past and not future.

The bold part of the first paragraph may help us glean the answer to the bold part of the 2nd paragraph. :)

God exists outside of time and space because he created it; but God can also make himself a part of our world, our time and space. Either way he is the same God. If it might be difficult to comprehend what existing outside of time and space would be like, then it goes without saying that a three in one being would also be difficult to fully comprehend. If God can be amazing and do amazing things because he is God, then his existence, his nature, his being can also be that amazing.

One related question though: Does Jesus Christ have a body and a soul and a spirit according to Trinitarian teaching?

I would say yes, because Jesus was also Man. We will all have a bodily resurrection like Christ, so I would imagine that our soul and spirit would be reunited with our new glorified body to make us whole again.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extra-dimensional thought bit is just me overanalying and overthinking things. It's not LDS doctrine, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up. It's just an interesting theory of mine. If you haven't dabbled in extra-dimensional theory, it's not worth even bothering thinking about.

The question on Christ is mostly for clarification sake. There was no reason for me (being raised Latter Day Saint) to imagine that God the Father did not have a body in other people's beliefs. Then later, I learned that most Christians believe that the Father has no body.

The real reason for asking boils down to trying to piece together the Trinitarian explanation that I'd heard about how, "Let us make man in our own image ..." works within the scope of Trinitarian thought. The explanation was that man was created with three parts: Spirit, body and soul. What I was trying to work towards was if there was only a weak correlation or a very strong one for when God created man "after our likeness."

If Christ was the body, and the Father was the "soul" and the Holy Spirit was the Spirit -- then it would kinda make sense, since God would have three aspects. But for it to really work, it seems that it would require Christ to only be a body, otherwise "in our image and after our likeness" would seem to involve 5 aspects instead of 3 (Father the Spirit + Body of Christ + Spirit of Christ + Soul of Christ + Holy Spirit).

Once again, that's me overthinking things as usual.

I guess that what I would come back to though is this: I can explain my own belief in God readily enough. It only becomes complex when you tack on "infinite and eternal" but the basics are very simple to conceive. Three beings acting in perfect unity and harmony, end of story. Very simple and not hard to explain even to a very young child.

But I most definitely can't explain the Trinity with any great ease. The moment that you concede that it's just too complicated and just not something that can be understood, it contradicts what jaiotu's was saying. He is claiming that, "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." is a false statement. See the problem? He appears to be making the case that it's all very easy to understand or that it's all very logical. Well ... I'm just not getting that. Not at all. If the very foundational concept of the Trinity -- that three beings are one being while somehow retaining their separateness and distinctness: Well, the idea is either easy to understand or it is not. I'm not getting where it's simple at all. But am I missing something?

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that Simple=Right and Complicated=Wrong. But the statement, "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." seems like it would remain true unless somebody can at least make sense out of it. All that I've been able to glean of Trinitarian thought thusfar in my life boils down to, "God is a logical paradox, and an impossibility that you just have to accept as fact." My brain rebells more and more against the concept the more I try to understand it.

I'll have to admit that when jaiotu seemed to imply that it was very easy to understand, I got pretty excited. But at the moment all I've accomplished is giving myself a headache.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extra-dimensional thought bit is just me overanalying and overthinking things. It's not LDS doctrine, so I probably shouldn't have brought it up. It's just an interesting theory of mine. If you haven't dabbled in extra-dimensional theory, it's not worth even bothering thinking about.

I didn't think is was LDS doctrine but if it's possible to understand extra-dimentional theory even a little bit, there's a possibility to wrap your head around the Trinity. :)

The question on Christ is mostly for clarification sake. There was no reason for me (being raised Latter Day Saint) to imagine that God the Father did not have a body in other people's beliefs. The real reason for asking boils down to trying to piece together the Trinitarian explanation that I'd heard about how, "Let us make man in our own image ..." works within the scope of Trinitarian thought. The explanation was that man was created with three parts: Spirit, body and soul. What I was trying to work towards was if there was only a weak correlation or a very strong one for when God created man "after our likeness."

If Christ was the body, and the Father was the "soul" and the Holy Spirit was the Spirit -- then it would kinda make sense, since God would have three aspects. But for it to really work, it seems that it would require Christ to only be a body, otherwise "in our image and after our likeness" would seem to involve 5 aspects instead of 3 (Father the Spirit + Body of Christ + Spirit of Christ + Soul of Christ + Holy Spirit).

Once again, that's me overthinking things as usual.

Yeah, I think you're overthinking it a little. Not all non-LDS Christians believe in the idea that God's intention to create mankind in his "likeness", means a similar 3 in 1 analogy. But for me, the "likeness" that we have in common with God is this 3 in oneness. If God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit than how appropriate for God to create man with a similar formula. Adam (one man) is created with a body, soul and spirit. Everything he needs to physically, mentally and spiritually live. Just because God decided to save us in the flesh, doesn't mean that this 3 in oneness changes or become distorted. God became man but God is also still God.

But I most definitely can't explain the Trinity with any great ease. The moment that you concede that it's just too complicated and just not something that can be understood, it contradicts what jaiotu's was saying. He is claiming that, "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." is a false statement. See the problem? He appears to be making the case that it's all very easy to understand or that it's all very logical.

I think because jaiotu accepts the Trinity and understands it as best as any human can, he therefore might find it difficult to see why others find it not so easy to comprehend - correct definition and all.

Well ... I'm just not getting that. Not at all. If the very foundational concept of the Trinity -- that three beings are one being while somehow retaining their separateness and distinctness: Well, the idea is either easy to understand or it is not. I'm not getting where it's simple at all. But am I missing something?

The correct way to define the Trinity is with specific words. The Trinity is three persons in one God (being, nature, essence). Scripture tells us that there is only one God (only one divine being). That can never change. But scripture also shows us that there is a Father, Son (Jesus) and Comforter (Holy Spirit). Scripture, in very subtle ways, shows us that these 3 have relationships with each other. All three have Godlike qualities, characteristics but there can't be three Gods because scripture tells us there is only one, therefore all three are one God.

...All that I've been able to glean of Trinitarian thought thusfar in my life boils down to, "God is a logical paradox, and an impossibility that you just have to accept as fact." My brain rebells more and more against the concept the more I try to understand it....

And for me, I love the fact that God is a paradox. I don't think I would want God not to be a paradox. If God wasn't a paradox then to me, he wouldn't be God. :)

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correct way to define the Trinity is with specific words. The Trinity is three persons in one God (being, nature, essence). Scripture tells us that there is only one God (only one divine being). That can never change. But scripture also shows us that there is a Father, Son (Jesus) and Comforter (Holy Spirit). Scripture, in very subtle ways, shows us that these 3 have relationships with each other. All three have Godlike qualities, characteristics but there can't be three Gods because scripture tells us there is only one, therefore all three are one God.

Just for accuracy's sake, there's a bit more to it than that. Translators of the Bible are consistent about one thing that they probably shouldn't be consistent about: Disregarding words that denote plurals when referring to God. The root words vary. Elohim, Eloheim, etc. They are generally forms of that. Hebrew Elohim in English translations of the Bible is usually rendered as gods when referring to pagan deities, and as God when referring to the God of Israel.

But the underlying problem this: Who said it was right and proper to take a plural word from Hebrew and convert it into a singular word in English? Elohim ends up being translated as "God" but it would be more accurate to translate it as "Gods." What you end up with is, "there is only one Gods." and "One Eternal Gods without end." and things like that. It actually makes a lot more sense out of the creation story in Genesis since "God" keeps referring 'Himself' in the first-person plural. "We" and "us" and "our" etc.

It muddles the absoluteness of the Trinity just a bit. It doesn't prove either point of view right or wrong, but it's good food for thought.

And for me, I love the fact that God is a paradox. I don't think I would want God not be a paradox. If God wasn't a paradox then to me, he wouldn't be God. :)

M.

I suppose you tend to stick with what you know. Since God has never been a paradox for me, then trying to wrap my head around a paradox and still consider it God just doesn't work out very well. Obviously the reverse is also true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faded, thanks for the advice regarding attempting to directly contact the administrator of Mormonwiki.com. That's exactly what I am doing in addressing this Forum, as the method provided on Mormonwiki.com is to address all comments to these forums. Perhaps that is a little like WalMart telling customers to address their complaints to the Sears' customer service department, but it is what it is.

I think you might be inadvertantly bearing false witness against me Faded. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but in several places you've claimed that I said that "Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." That is NOT what I said. You've taken my statement out of context. I was referring to the definition of the Trinity on Mormonwiki.com. What I said, regarding that definition, was that "any LDS reading that definition would be left with the idea that Trinitarians beleive in something that cannot make sense."

This was not an admission that the doctrine of the Trinity does not make sense. I was pointing out that the definition provided on Mormonwiki.com does not make sense.

Like I said, I doubt that you were trying to intentionally misrepresent what I said. I'm sure that it was merely the result of reading through my post all too quickly.

Question: Are you familiar with the concept of a "tesseract?" A tesseract can be defined mathematically, but is very difficult to visualize because it exists in more dimensions then the ones that we three-dimensional beings can perceive. We can "project" a tesseract into 3-dimensional space to TRY and make it understandable but when we do so, the resulting projection still does not capture the reality of a tesseract:

Posted Image

Yet we know that a tesseract makes mathematical sense: Posted Image

Similarly, we can attempt to illustrate the Trinity in all manner of analogies, but they all fail to fully capture the reality of the Trinity. You simply cannot illustrate that which is supernatural by falling to natural illustrations. For instance: There is only ONE Supreme Court of the United States, but there are Nine Supreme Court Justices. Likewise, there is only ONE God, but there are three persons in this one God. The illustration fails, however, because unlike God, the Nine members of the Supreme Court do not abide in each other. It should be easy to undertand how the members of the Trinity abide in each other without actually being each other. If you believe you are filled with The Holy Ghost (who is a person) you do not necessarily believe that you, yourself are in fact the Holy Ghost. Likewise, while the Father, Son and Spirit are all God, the Father is not the Son, the Spirit is not the Father and the Son is not the Spirit, yet they all abide in each other so that when Jesus says that He and the Father are one, he can do so without contradiction.

The Bible is replete with phrases about Christians being found "in Christ" and Christ being "in us." This is all metaphysical, supernatural.

The doctrine of the Trinity presupposes the existence of a God who is not bound by nature's laws. A God who is not merely an organizer of pre-existent materials but rather a God who creates a universe out of nothing. He therefore stands apart from his creation and does not have to conform to the limitations of that creation.

The Trinity most assuredly CAN be understood. The Trinity is simply often misunderstood, just as the concept of a tesseract, when imported from it's mathematical consistent 4-dimensional space into natural 3-dimensional space can be misunderstood.

Perhaps a good starting point, on wrapping you mind around understanding that something can exist outside of what we understand to be the natural world, would be "Flatland" by Edwin Abbot. It was written in the 1880's and has been adapted to film: The Official Movie Version of: FLATLAND

Edited by jaiotu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for accuracy's sake, there's a bit more to it than that. Translators of the Bible are consistent about one thing that they probably shouldn't be consistent about: Disregarding words that denote plurals when referring to God. The root words vary. Elohim, Eloheim, etc. They are generally forms of that. Hebrew Elohim in English translations of the Bible is usually rendered as gods when referring to pagan deities, and as God when referring to the God of Israel.

But the underlying problem this: Who said it was right and proper to take a plural word from Hebrew and convert it into a singular word in English? Elohim ends up being translated as "God" but it would be more accurate to translate it as "Gods." What you end up with is, "there is only one Gods." and "One Eternal Gods without end." and things like that. It actually makes a lot more sense out of the creation story in Genesis since "God" keeps referring 'Himself' in the first-person plural. "We" and "us" and "our" etc.

It muddles the absoluteness of the Trinity just a bit. It doesn't prove either point of view right or wrong, but it's good food for thought.....

I found this explanation regarding when to read the word Elohim as plural or singular.

Elohim:Plural or Singular? Part 1

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Trinitarians believe in something that cannot make sense." <-- This is what you're disagreeing with. I got that already. The only thing I said is that you're claiming this statement is false. What I'm saying is that unless you can actually make sense out of the Trinity, then the statement is pretty much correct. And I said that earlier about the Trinity: "God is a logical paradox, and an impossibility that you just have to accept as fact."

Maureen seemed quite accepting of this statement, and if I might put words in her mouth, "That's the beauty of it." (If I'm wrong in this presumption I'm sure she'll correct me.)

Do you agree that God as defined by the Trinity is a paradox and a logical contradiction that is impossible for the human mind to make sense out of? If you agree that this is a fair statement, then the statement, "it cannot make sense" on mormonwiki is justified, isn't it? (Bear in mind I'm taking your word for it, if you want me to read the actual statement on Mormonwiki, I'll need a link to it.)

The Trinity most assuredly CAN be understood.

In my experience, it can be explained, but never understood.

The Biblical and common statements of Christ being in us and the Holy Spirit being in us is helpful, but it is also non-helpful for the very reason you point out: I don't become God by having the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit in me, so we must be talking about something quite different. It bears mentioning that that LDS doctrine accepts the metaphorical description of "being in Christ" "the Spirit in me" and things like that -- but in the strictest sense, we do not believe that any of them literally dwells inside us anymore than we view Christ as an actual lamb. We would view it more like sunshine -- it shines everywhere and you can feel it, but that doesn't mean that the Sun itself is inside you. The Sun does not have to be inside you provide all of it's benefits. I can have a lot of my dad in me, but it doesn't mean that my dad is actually "inside me." It just means that we think alike and look alike and act alike and so on.

The Godhead would involve much of that sort of thing. The Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Son has a lot of his Father in Him, so much so that they are exactly alike in every possible way. Etc. Metaphorically they are certainly in each other just as they are in each of us that believes in them and seeks after them. The Godhead makes perfect sense in conjunction with your statement about one Supreme Court but nine justices. Of course it would require the justices to each be omnicient, omnipotent and to always be in perfect agreement with one another at all times. I think we'd have a lot less nonsense coming from the Supreme Court if they were a tad more like that.

The Trinity seems to be something else altogether though. Making sense out of it has been a goal of mine for years now, and I do appreciate the attempt to help me understand it.

Now if we consider the requested rephrasing "three beings, one God" I think that's a perfectly reasonable request. The problem is, it doesn't differentiate between the Trinity and the Godhead. That phrase is also a good summary description of the Godhead. So any reader might incorrectly assume we believe in the same thing. I'm all in favor of accuracy, but how would you suggest solving that dilemma?

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this explanation regarding when to read the word Elohim as plural or singular.

Elohim:Plural or Singular? Part 1

M.

It's interesting, but doesn't really hurt the underlying point I'm making, since we would say that "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is one eternal God without end" is a perfectly valid statement. The confusion of phraseology is largely why "Godhead" ended up coming into common use for Latter Day Saints. Three Gods, one Godhead, and the word that is used to describe denote individual members of the three or all three together in the Bible is Elohim which ends up being translated "God." So to ease some of the confusion, Latter Day Saints will refer to all three as "The Godhead." Any of the three of them can and is referred to individually as "God" though the general usage favors using "God" only to refer to the Father. Again, the point is to alleviate confusion. While all three are Gods, if we limit "God" to the Father, "Christ" to the Son and "The Spirit" to the Holy Spirit, then we can better keep track of who we're talking about. "Godhead" makes grammatical sense in English, while "Gods" often doesn't. "One eternal Godhead without end" instead of "One eternal Gods without end" for example.

As the link points out, they make the assumption that the plural word Elohim is supposed to be singular based upon adjectives and verbs. But it's presupposing either Trinitarianism or Unitarianism to be correct by doing so. It does not allow for the intended meaning to be "the collective body of the Gods" for which verbs and adjectives would be singular of course. We would simplify "the collective body of the Gods" to "the Godhead." It seems to me that there's a very good reason that a plural is used to denote God in the Bible. In Latter Day Saint jargon, it would simply mean "one or more members of the Godhead." It is interesting how it is used: Always retaining remembrance that "the Godhead is not one but it is three." So even if all members are not present within the context of the verse, all are represented and remembered in wording.

You might find it interesting to note that the word Elohim originally meant "collective body of the gods" to the Canaanites. Elohim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It seems logical to me that this usage would have continued on in the Biblical record, but used in reference to the true collective body of Gods.

Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if we consider the requested rephrasing "three beings, one God" I think that's a perfectly reasonable request. The problem is, it doesn't differentiate between the Trinity and the Godhead. That phrase is also a good summary description of the Godhead. So any reader might incorrectly assume we believe in the same thing. I'm all in favor of accuracy, but how would you suggest solving that dilemma?

That gets back to my original post. How do we solve the dilemma in a way that post accurately expresses the doctrine of the Trinity, yet still contextualizes the doctrine in a way that is understandable to the LDS way of thought? How do we accurately convey the differences in a way that does not whitewash them but is still respectful of both sides?

Here's my suggestion for a replacement of the text on Mormonwiki:

"Mormon beliefs regarding the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost bare similarities and differences to the traditional Christian concept of the Holy Trinity. Mormon's generally agree that the Nicene Council was correct when it identified that the Bible teaches that Father was God, the Son was God and the Holy Ghost was also God. However, Mormons would tend to agree with each other that, without the aid of divine revelation, the council was in error when it attempted to use reason to solve the apparent contradition of the Bible also teaching that there is only one God. The resulting solution was the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity which teaches three divine beings united together as one God. In contrast, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are accurately expressed in the LDS doctrine of the Godhead."

Yes. This is a bit more verbose, but it does accurately express what Trinitarians believe while properly placing the Trinitarian belief in a frame of reference which makes it accessible to the LDS reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share