Sir Isaac Newton against Trinity

[rameumptom]

From the earliest days of the Church, the teaching has been that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, but different in person. This is what is meant when we say he was begotten of the Father, rather than created by the Father. If a woman begets a child, the child is flesh and bone, the same substance as the woman. If a man creates a table, the table is made of wood, a different substance. If Jesus were of a different substance from the Father, this would mean that he was created, rather than begotten. But the teaching of the Church has always been that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not created. This is how he is able to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. He came to earth to do the will of the Father, subjecting himself to the Father's authority, but in doing so, he did not relinquish his divinity.

And LDS can agree with this concept. Except that Trinitarians take it one step further in making Jesus not Begotten of the Father, but just the same substance (although they say both). In the Trinity, God and Jesus are not "co-equal" but are the same, just different persons.

Modalism would have 3 people driving in one vehicle, describing "co-equal". Trinity has one being driving three vehicles at the same time, describing "sameness". Just because one claims to use the terms, does not mean those terms are being used properly.

When Jesus stated the Father was greater than himself, he meant it. He can be begotten of the Father and of the same substance, but there is still a difference. As the King is greater than the Prince, but are alike in other ways, so are God and Jesus. The King shares power and authority with the Prince, making him seem like the King in every aspect. But he still is subordinate to the King, who holds one piece of authority the Prince does not have. Jesus has told us to give all glory to the Father. He told one person, "why call thou me good? There is no one good except the Father." "Good" here meaning perfect and absolute.

In the LDS Godhead, Jesus receives all power and glory from the Father. Yet because he receives it FROM the Father, he is still subordinate. And Newton states the same thing, referencing John's Revelation. God gives the sealed scroll to the Lamb to read. God shares all with the Lamb, yet it is still God doing the sharing to a subordinate who is worthy. Up to the point that the Lamb receives the scroll, it is power and information the Lamb did not have.

[FunkyTown]

Just as FYI, Christ's declaration in John 14 has always been taken by me as a statement of humility on Jesus' part, out of deference for his FATHER. He is a dutiful son, who honors his Father. Nothing in the passage would seem to relate to his essential nature.

My concern with this particular topic is that Newton was a great thinker and great man.

But is the Gospel according to Newton necessarily important?

I'm always uneasy whenever someone tries to use non-scriptural references to prove something is possible. I think a scriptural argument could be made and it's important to struggle for truth with the information provided.

Anyone - Famous or anonymous, wise or foolish, can state anything they want about God and his nature. It doesn't make them right.

It doesn't make them wrong, either. I prefer not to lean on my own understanding, but to accept the teaching God chooses to give to me. :)

[Dymmesdale]

And LDS can agree with this concept. Except that Trinitarians take it one step further in making Jesus not Begotten of the Father, but just the same substance (although they say both). In the Trinity, God and Jesus are not "co-equal" but are the same, just different persons.

Modalism would have 3 people driving in one vehicle, describing "co-equal". Trinity has one being driving three vehicles at the same time, describing "sameness". Just because one claims to use the terms, does not mean those terms are being used properly.

When Jesus stated the Father was greater than himself, he meant it. He can be begotten of the Father and of the same substance, but there is still a difference. As the King is greater than the Prince, but are alike in other ways, so are God and Jesus. The King shares power and authority with the Prince, making him seem like the King in every aspect. But he still is subordinate to the King, who holds one piece of authority the Prince does not have. Jesus has told us to give all glory to the Father. He told one person, "why call thou me good? There is no one good except the Father." "Good" here meaning perfect and absolute.

In the LDS Godhead, Jesus receives all power and glory from the Father. Yet because he receives it FROM the Father, he is still subordinate. And Newton states the same thing, referencing John's Revelation. God gives the sealed scroll to the Lamb to read. God shares all with the Lamb, yet it is still God doing the sharing to a subordinate who is worthy. Up to the point that the Lamb receives the scroll, it is power and information the Lamb did not have.

Trinitarians absolutely believe that Jesus is begotten of the Father. If you would like clarification on what trinitarians believe, I would recommend you read the Athanasian Creed. It's readily available on the internets.

It is pretty dangerous to introduce new terminology in describing how the trinity exists as three-in-one, and how it operates. Being, and vehicle, introduce some difficulty in understanding the concept. I believe that the Trinity is an infinitely difficult concept, but the Holy Ghost has given certain providence to the Church, which describes the trinity almost uniformly as "one God, in three persons."

I have no problem saying that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in authority. It is when His divinity is brought into question that I begin to have problems.

To address the instance in which Jesus said there is none good, but one, that is, God, the man who called him good master did not address him as God, or Christ. He addressed him in a human assumption. Jesus was making the point that no human master, however good, can approach the goodness of God. Paul says the same thing in Romans. There is none righteous, no, not one.

[Traveler]

As we look to the scriptures to give us understanding we find that among all the Bible scriptures that the book of the Gospel of John is the most informative. I believe and trust this particular book of scripture more than any “creed” or declaration as to the G-dhead.

Some background. John was an apostle of Jesus and was a personal witness of the life and teachings of Jesus more than any other single author of any Bible scriptures. He is the “best” authority. He was one of only two others with Jesus at the event referenced as the “transfiguration”. He was 1 of 3 that was close enough to Jesus at Gethsemane to witness what took place there and the only one to record the event as an actual witness. He is the only one to give direct witness as someone present at the death and crucifixion of Jesus. In short John is the best and most complete authority on Jesus we have in the Bible. I will take the liberty to summarize what John informs us concerning Jesus Christ.

1. John tells us that Jesus was with G-d from the beginning (whatever the beginning is – theologians can debate this point but however that is defined Jesus was there)

2. John tells us that through Jesus all things that are created were created. It is important to note here that John also tells us that everything Jesus did was because he was “commanded” to do so by the Father.

3. John tells us that he was personally taught by Jesus that the Father is greater than Jesus.

A poster who calls themselves Dymmesdale says the following:

I have no problem saying that Jesus is subordinate to the Father in authority. It is when His divinity is brought into question that I begin to have problems.

I am not sure how the second sentence relates to the first sentence. John is clear that we understand that it is Jesus in his divine role that all things are created. Therefore without diminishing the divinity of Jesus as the creator G-d in any way – John also makes clear in his Gospel witness of Jesus that as divine and great as we understand Jesus to be – that the Father is greater. Over and over is this doctrine clearly stated in the Gospel of John that even though Jesus is G-d that he is subordinate to the Father and not equal to the Father. This subordination goes far beyond just authority. For example, John, as the only witness present to record Jesus at Gethsemane indicates clearly that even the divine (G-dly) will of Jesus is subordinate to the Father.

I believe John is the authority – more than any creed and more than and doctrine of Trinity later established I declare my belief in John that Jesus is subordinate to the Father even though Jesus is G-d. Which BTW John records that the ancient experts in scripture (the Scribes and Pharisees) challenged Jesus that even though he was G-d that they rejected the notion that he could not be G-d and because G-d to them was greater – and Jesus never corrected the notion. And it is important to note that this was the primary reason that those same Jews sought to put Jesus to death.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I continue to fail to see what you see--that John is in any way addressing Jesus' state of being, or his metaphysical essence. What the gospel writer repeats is that Jesus defers to his Father. I obey my boss too. However, he is not a god, and I am not subhuman. Likewise, Jesus is submissive to his Father. That does not make him anything less than God.

[Dravin]

Traveler, I continue to fail to see what you see--that John is in any way addressing Jesus' state of being, or his metaphysical essence. What the gospel writer repeats is that Jesus defers to his Father. I obey my boss too. However, he is not a god, and I am not subhuman. Likewise, Jesus is submissive to his Father. That does not make him anything less than God.

I think Travel's gist, and correct me if I'm wrong Traveler, is that Jesus is God and he is subordinate to the Father, they aren't mutually exclusive. Much like how you are subordinate to your boss but you are both Human. I am jumping in late though, so I could be being whooshed by some nuance.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I continue to fail to see what you see--that John is in any way addressing Jesus' state of being, or his metaphysical essence. What the gospel writer repeats is that Jesus defers to his Father. I obey my boss too. However, he is not a god, and I am not subhuman. Likewise, Jesus is submissive to his Father. That does not make him anything less than God.

You miss the point. Whatever Jesus is - the Father is greater. In other words the Father is a greater G-d. You keep looking at it as though Jesus is something less and in that you error. Jesus taught that the Father is greater. What I do not understand is why you (and the proponents of the Trinity) do not want to accept Jesus' word in that you keep adding qualifiers or exceptions to what Jesus taught. For example you said that the Father is only greater in authority – I demonstrated that is not what the scriptures indicate. According to the scriptures the Father’s will is also greater.

So are you saying that Jesus’ will is not divine and should not be considered the will of a G-d? If so then you and I disagree – completely. I have no problem in accepting the specific teaching of Jesus that the Father is greater. That is what I believe. Until someone demonstrates some way that the Father is not greater - I (unlike you) assume it is in every way. I have a problem with any man that adds their opinion to what Jesus teaches; thinking that they understand better and can explain better what Jesus should have said.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

You miss the point. Whatever Jesus is - the Father is greater. In other words the Father is a greater G-d. You keep looking at it as though Jesus is something less and in that you error. Jesus taught that the Father is greater. What I do not understand is why you (and the proponents of the Trinity) do not want to accept Jesus' word in that you keep adding qualifiers or exceptions to what Jesus taught. For example you said that the Father is only greater in authority – I demonstrated that is not what the scriptures indicate. According to the scriptures the Father’s will is also greater.

Will is authority, no? You are right, though. I still sense I am missing what you want to say. You say Father is greater, no qualifiers. But do you really mean to say that the Father is a superior being? That He is a different quality metaphysically--in his essence?

You insist on no qualifiers, and yet Jesus words came within a context. And indeed, even that episode came within the larger context of all his words and ministry. That framework does give us parameters for the phrase "my father is greater than I." Until you clarify specifically where trinitarians have gone amiss, all I can do is keep repeating that Jesus was not addressing the questions of nature that the doctrine of the Trinity does. So, when trinitarians say Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, there is no contradiction. Their natures are the same, but their roles are different.

So are you saying that Jesus’ will is not divine and should not be considered the will of a G-d? If so then you and I disagree – completely. I have no problem in accepting the specific teaching of Jesus that the Father is greater. That is what I believe. Until someone demonstrates some way that the Father is not greater - I (unlike you) assume it is in every way. I have a problem with any man that adds their opinion to what Jesus teaches; thinking that they understand better and can explain better what Jesus should have said.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

I can't help but think that trinitatians seem to often mix or blur the distinction between essence and being. (Or maybe I'm not getting something.)

All oranges have one essence, all dogs have one essence, all people have one essence, all persons of the Godhead have one essence. They share the essential attributes of eternal divinity. To say something shares the same essence or is one in essence is not the same as saying it is one being.

However what do trinitarian mean when they say God is one being.

It doesn't rule out functional subordination. It is acceptable to believe that the son can be seen as functionally subordinate to the Father.

It doesn't exclude spatial distincton. The Father wasn't crucified, the Son wasn't poured at Pentecost.

It doesn't preclude communicaton or the expression of emotions between the persons.

I personally accept the idea that scriptures teaches that God is one god. That appears to me to be an attribute of God. If Jesus is fully the same essence as God, then one of things he must share is the attribute of "oneness".

Or in the words of John...."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." To be "with God" means that in some sense the Word is distinct from God. "the Word was God" means he must be in some sense God, with all that means.

[Traveler]

Will is authority, no? You are right, though. I still sense I am missing what you want to say. You say Father is greater, no qualifiers. But do you really mean to say that the Father is a superior being? That He is a different quality metaphysically--in his essence?

You insist on no qualifiers, and yet Jesus words came within a context. And indeed, even that episode came within the larger context of all his words and ministry. That framework does give us parameters for the phrase "my father is greater than I." Until you clarify specifically where trinitarians have gone amiss, all I can do is keep repeating that Jesus was not addressing the questions of nature that the doctrine of the Trinity does. So, when trinitarians say Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, there is no contradiction. Their natures are the same, but their roles are different.

So are you saying that Jesus’ will is not divine and should not be considered the will of a G-d? If so then you and I disagree – completely. I have no problem in accepting the specific teaching of Jesus that the Father is greater. That is what I believe. Until someone demonstrates some way that the Father is not greater - I (unlike you) assume it is in every way. I have a problem with any man that adds their opinion to what Jesus teaches; thinking that they understand better and can explain better what Jesus should have said.

The Traveler

If you know of any scripture that defines the essence and nature of G-d then perhaps I could understand why you have a question. It is written in scripture that when the saints will see Christ they will be like him. So do you have a problem in thinking that even then; that Christ will be greater than us? Do you think there is some manner in whch Christ is not greater than you?

I believe that man is in the image and likeness of G-d - but in all things in which we are his image and likeness - G-d is still greater than us. BTW it appears to me that the ancient concept of image and likeness is a stronger notion than the modern concept of essence and nature. When you say essence and nature I am at a loss because I do not have any way to relate such a thing to anything G-d teaches in the scriptures. It is my impression that such things are man made doctrines that really do not realate didrectly to anything of G-d.

There is much about the nature of man being different than G-d because of the fall but the doctrine of the fall is a whole other discussion.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

TRAVELER: If you know of any scripture that defines the essence and nature of G-d then perhaps I could understand why you have a question. It is written in scripture that when the saints will see Christ they will be like him. So do you have a problem in thinking that even then; that Christ will be greater than us? Do you think there is some manner in whch Christ is not greater than you?

Well, yes. We will be like him. We will be glorified. We will rule and reign with him. We will see as he sees. But, must that mean that we will make some kind of metaphysical and genetic leap, and literally become co-equal, co-eternal with Jesus? We suddenly stumble over a whole host of other doctrinal distinctives. Suffice to say, from a Protestant/Catholic perspective, it is impossible for the created to become exactly and completely what the Creator is, by the simple fact that we have an absolute beginning--a distinct point in time when we started to be. Jesus, on the other hand, has always been.

I believe that man is in the image and likeness of G-d - but in all things in which we are his image and likeness - G-d is still greater than us. BTW it appears to me that the ancient concept of image and likeness is a stronger notion than the modern concept of essence and nature. When you say essence and nature I am at a loss because I do not have any way to relate such a thing to anything G-d teaches in the scriptures. It is my impression that such things are man made doctrines that really do not realate didrectly to anything of G-d.

I rely on the historic teachings of the Christian church, one that I do not believe has yet experienced a Great Apostasy. You rely on latter-day prophecies and Scriptures from Joseph Smith. We both use "added spiritual tools" to inform our conversation, while attempting to engage one another using our common scriptures (the Bible). It's intriguing, but does have it's limits. I think we do understand each other as far as we can from friendly different perspectives.

[rameumptom]

PC,

I think that Traveler and most LDS view God as a literal Father of Jesus Christ. "Begotten" is a literal term for us, not a term that has to be explained in other terms, as it is in the concept of Trinity.

So, we have a Father and Son who own a business (Elohim and Son?). Both are partners in the business, but the Father always has a bit more tenure, experience, and authority. While the Son can do business for the company, it is always with the Father's will and direction in mind.

Elohim is God. Jesus is God. But there are gradients of godhood, as Newton suggests.

[Traveler]

Well, yes. We will be like him. We will be glorified. We will rule and reign with him. We will see as he sees. But, must that mean that we will make some kind of metaphysical and genetic leap, and literally become co-equal, co-eternal with Jesus? We suddenly stumble over a whole host of other doctrinal distinctives. Suffice to say, from a Protestant/Catholic perspective, it is impossible for the created to become exactly and completely what the Creator is, by the simple fact that we have an absolute beginning--a distinct point in time when we started to be. Jesus, on the other hand, has always been.

I rely on the historic teachings of the Christian church, one that I do not believe has yet experienced a Great Apostasy. You rely on latter-day prophecies and Scriptures from Joseph Smith. We both use "added spiritual tools" to inform our conversation, while attempting to engage one another using our common scriptures (the Bible). It's intriguing, but does have it's limits. I think we do understand each other as far as we can from friendly different perspectives.

Two things we have discussed in which the Father is greater than Jesus (the Son) are:

1. Authority.

2. Will (I do not see will and authority as exactly the same thing)

More review of scripture indicates that there are more fundamental differences.

Luke 2:52 – The wisdom of the Father is greater than that of Jesus – who is The Son.

Heb 5:8 – The knowledge of the Father is greater than that of Jesus – who is The Son.

Both of these scriptures clearly differentiate between even the abilities of The Father and The Son

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, could it be that Jesus' limitation of knowledge was due to his willful humiliation? Remember that in Philippians 2 we're told Jesus became "a little lower than the angels." Perhaps with his ascension he regained that Godhood that he did not grasp, so that he might become flesh and dwell amongst us.

[Moksha]

If only he'd been against calculus... :)

If only he had the Trinity drop on his head.

[Faded]

From the earliest days of the Church, the teaching has been that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, but different in person. This is what is meant when we say he was begotten of the Father, rather than created by the Father. If a woman begets a child, the child is flesh and bone, the same substance as the woman. If a man creates a table, the table is made of wood, a different substance. If Jesus were of a different substance from the Father, this would mean that he was created, rather than begotten. But the teaching of the Church has always been that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not created. This is how he is able to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. He came to earth to do the will of the Father, subjecting himself to the Father's authority, but in doing so, he did not relinquish his divinity.

The essentials of this statement are correct and the LDS church would not disagree.

"The [Trinity] doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being. Each person is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. Since the beginning of the third century the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." "

The closer the explanation gets to defining Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "the same being" the more Latter Day Saints disagree. A mother and her child are not the same being. A father and his child are likewise not the same being.

But to say that all three are exactly alike in attributes, character and nature is fine with Latter Day Saints for the most part (excepting that the Holy Spirit currently has no physical body while we know that Christ does have one.)

The biggest trouble we have with the Trinity is often that it is too confusing. Explained one way, it fits LDS teaching. Explained another way, it doesn't.

Terms like "being", "co-eternal", "co-equal" get interpreted in different ways. Just about every word involved has variant definitions to best suit one's preferred doctrine on the matter.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Faded

[Justice]

Sometimes tradition has to give way to logic in order to arrive at the truth.

Luke 22:

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

If you believe the Bible, then traditional views must give way to truth.

Christ was begotten of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh. By the mere usage of the word begotten, it means Christ was born, or had a beginning. We are all spiritual offspring of the Father. Christ is greater than us all, not because His essence is different, but because He is greater, and was therefore chosen. "Greater" is something He did not have to be, but something He chose to be. This is made evident by this passage in Luke.

It requires a fundamental shift from "God created all things from nothing" toward "this is the way things have always been," meaning Fathers and Mothers have always existed and have always been exalting and perfecting their children.

This fundamental difference will keep LDS at odds with the rest of Christianity.

I believe that if one just gives it long and deep thought, they must see that God did not "one day" or "at one time" decide to create man. It would require a total paradigm shift. It would require Him to drastically change the way things are. It would mean that one moment God did nto create man, yet in the next He did. It would require God to have changed in one moment.

Logic clearly leads one to the understanding that we are not the first children and He did not create the universe from nothing. It has always existed, very much the same way it does now, or else God fundamentally changed the moment He created man.

[Justice]

All oranges have one essence, all dogs have one essence, all people have one essence, all persons of the Godhead have one essence. They share the essential attributes of eternal divinity. To say something shares the same essence or is one in essence is not the same as saying it is one being.

Ponder on this point. It is pure logic and truth.

"One" can mean many different things. In John 17, Jesus makes it clear that He is "One with the Father" in will and purpose. The verse in Luke tells us it's because the Son subjected His own will to the Father's, not because they are the same Being. Yes, made of the same substance, but each unique and individual. We are flesh and bones, and so is Jesus' body flesh and bones. That does NOT mean we are the same person as Jesus, but of the same physical make-up. We become one with Him by keeping His commandments, as Jesus kept the commandments of the Father.

In John 17 He also asks that all who keep His commandments will be one with them.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Now, either you believe this "one" He describes is in will and purpose, or you believe He is asking that we join their substance and become the same "trinity" being with them. If that is the case, it will no longer be just the trinity, but the infinity.

I have to ask why people believe that this 3-in-1 make up of God is necessary? God made man and woman in His image so that we can understand more about Him. We are man and woman, each separate and unique. We will be man and woman when we are resurrected, separate and unique. Shouldn't this be used at a guide to understand His being and character?

And, if we are not His chidren, then why all this wasted time and effort for lesser intelligences? It's like you offering your only son as a sacrifice to save the trees and plants. It just doesn't make sense unless we are His offspring.

[Justice]

Traveler, could it be that Jesus' limitation of knowledge was due to his willful humiliation?

No. If a being is something, it cannot be less because of humility. You cannot be so humble that you forget what you know. You cannot decide that you will have less knowledge once you have it. That is why sin has eternal consequences.

Remember that in Philippians 2 we're told Jesus became "a little lower than the angels." Perhaps with his ascension he regained that Godhood that he did not grasp, so that he might become flesh and dwell amongst us.

It depends on what you believe an angel is. The Book of Mormon gives us interesting insight on how God views the term "angel" (which the Bible confirms).

Alma 29:

1 O that I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people!

The term "angel" seems to be tied to "being granted the wish of your heart." We have stories of how some were granted the desires of their heart because God saw their hearts and saw that they would desire no other things but that man would be exalted, and that they would do whatever was required to make it happen. This is the final resting place of those who become angels. They are given the desire of their heart. They become one in will and purpose with God, but failed to meet ALL the requiements of exaltation and eternal increase. They dwell with God in the heavens and help bring about His purposes.

That Christ decended below the angels and had to learn to subject His will to the Father's makes perfect sense in this verse in Philippians you quoted.

In fact, Paul also says:

Galatians 4:

14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

This verse makes it clear that "temptations" are tied to the flesh, and when subjected to mortal flesh, as Christ was, we must learn to overcome our desires, and supplant them for God's. When one has done this, the term God uses is "angel."

Edited March 21, 2010 by Justice

[Blackmarch]

That is refreshing to see! However, one doesn't really need to be a great thinker to realize the fallacy of the trinity. As I read the scriptures, I find probably ten scriptures that support the idea of the Godhead for each one scripture that could be interpreted as a Trinity.

If it were so easy to see I don't think as many would accept it. The adversary knows well how to cloud things up.

[Traveler]

Traveler, could it be that Jesus' limitation of knowledge was due to his willful humiliation? Remember that in Philippians 2 we're told Jesus became "a little lower than the angels." Perhaps with his ascension he regained that Godhood that he did not grasp, so that he might become flesh and dwell amongst us.

A couple of thoughts - Jesus' knowledge was not limited? It was increasing but there is no indication that there was a limit. But this is a separate issue; that I think would be most interesting to discuss. That is, the issue that Jesus was not really a g-d but a being of lower status during his ministry on earth. Is this something you personally believe?

My understanding is that the scriptures clearly indicate that the Father is greater than Jesus – even by official declaration by Jesus. The doctrine of equal nature and essence is something introduced by early Trinitarians that does not appear to me to have firm scripture relevance but tenuous interpretations open to justifiable criticism – hardly a means to justify doctrine and denounce hearsay.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It is my personal belief that the idea that the basic concepts to understand G-d cannot be understood by man is very misleading on two accounts. First because man was created by G-d in his image and likeness by such creation it is inherent in man to understand the true G-d to which he was created in the image of. If man was truly in G-d’s image and likeness he could understand G-d. Why would G-d create man unable to understand that which is most important to man.

The second notion is that with G-d all things are possible for man. In other words – when man becomes spiritually reborn the possibilities of knowing and understanding of G-d should be both unbounded and seemingly less difficult. If coming closer to G-d complicates the understanding of him and confuses the individual – there is a definite disconnect from the divinity purported in holy scripture.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

On the MADB they are having a discussion on the Trinity, and someone asked what the key differences are between LDS and traditional Christians. I posted the following response, with some additions for this wonderful list:

To couch it in traditional terms, we believe in a social Trinity. We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. But they are one in purpose, thought, effort, and unity. We are one America, but made up of millions of Americans. Hopefully we find ourselves headed mostly in the same direction.

We need to realize that traditional Trinity beliefs view God as a nebulous and amorphous thing called Spirit. There is no defined size or limit, as it can both fill all space but also wholly fit in one's heart. Mankind can never actually equal God, as we are made up of different stuff than God is. God is incomprehensible, because he is not made of anything like what we've ever seen or experienced. I mean, imagine one God with three persons! It cannot be defined, and the creeds that define the Trinitarian God shows just how complex and incomprehensible it all is. For this reason, they explain these things as a mystery which is unknowable to man.

LDS belief in the Godhead (or social Trinity) is this: We are made of the same stuff as God is. Spirit is matter, and both God and we are made of matter and Spirit. God either has always been God, or developed into a God under his own Father, depending on which Mormon you ask. Either way, God the Father has, for us, always been God. Since God is defined differently than in the traditional Christian churches, we can become as he is. Jesus is physically separate from the Father, but equal in the Godhead. In some things he is subordinate to the Father, yet the Father shares all his power and glory with the Son, so they are also equal.

Paul states that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God. He also stated that we are children of God, and as children can be heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. So, there is both a subordination AND an equal partnership going on at the same time. But what is Godhood? The Book of Revelation states that through Christ, we will become "kings and priests" or a kingdom of priests unto God the Father (Rev 1:5-6). We are told we will sit on God's throne and reign with him (Rev ch 3, ch 20). We get the understanding of a Sovereign King and vassal kings underneath him, who are given King/God status, yet they still receive it from God the Father through Christ.

Being God's literal spirit children, we can grow up to be like him, just as an acorn can grow up to be the mighty oak. This is different than traditional Christianity, because they view God as being of a different substance than anything else. Even those who believe in deification do not view it as LDS do, because there is no change from impure substance to the pure substance that makes up God in their theology. God can give great glory and power to man, but cannot make him exactly as God is. For some reason, God is all powerful, yet not powerful enough to convert his children into his exactness and image. The potter can make a useful and beautiful vase from clay, yet cannot bring it fully to life.

In the LDS Godhead, we do believe that God can bring the vase fully to life. Just as God made Adam from the dirt, breathing air into him to give him life, we believe that God can breathe his power into us, changing us from mortal to immortal, from man to deity, from god-in-embryo to fully god.

[prisonchaplain]

No. If a being is something, it cannot be less because of humility. You cannot be so humble that you forget what you know. You cannot decide that you will have less knowledge once you have it. That is why sin has eternal consequences.

I guess I simply disagree. People block out memories as a psychological defense. Further, just as LDS teach that we have "a veil of forgetfulness" that keeps us from remembering premortality, why would it be impossible for Jesus to put on a veil of humanity that limits his knowledge? You say he could not by definition. I'm not sure why you insist on that.

[prisonchaplain]

A couple of thoughts - Jesus' knowledge was not limited? It was increasing but there is no indication that there was a limit.

He was not even sure who it was that touched him, when the woman with the issue of blood received her healing. As the Son of God, he surely knew who on Earth received healings. But here, in the flesh, he did not.

But this is a separate issue; that I think would be most interesting to discuss. That is, the issue that Jesus was not really a g-d but a being of lower status during his ministry on earth. Is this something you personally believe?

He surely did give over his powers as God when he came in the flesh.

My understanding is that the scriptures clearly indicate that the Father is greater than Jesus – even by official declaration by Jesus.

But greater how? Why do you read into Jesus' statement that He is of a lesser species or being than his Father? That doesn't even make biological sense, if he's the only begotten.

The doctrine of equal nature and essence is something introduced by early Trinitarians that does not appear to me to have firm scripture relevance but tenuous interpretations open to justifiable criticism – hardly a means to justify doctrine and denounce hearsay.

To the contrary, the New Testament declares Jesus to be the only begotten of God. How is it possible that God's only Son would be some being less than himself?