Trinity Revisited

[Justice]

You are applying your LDS concept to the word "first born".

That wasn't my intention. I was trying to get across that the words do mean something. Regardless of where they come from and what they meant in ages past, they mean something. We can see what firstborn meant all throughout scripture. We see that the "right" of the firstborn fell on the firstborn son. The only times that right was not carried out was when the firstborn son rejected or lost his priveledge.

First-born doesn't imply literal birth

Yes, it literally does, and it literally did. It was a right given to the first born male, hence "firstborn." I understand it also included that the son had to be worthy of it, but it was the first born son's priveledge if he was... in ALL cases.

It doesn't mean that God gave birth to Israel, nor does it mean that Israel is the first nation on earth (for sure Egypt came before). It only means that Israel holds the highest place before God.

I feel like you're mocking me. I know that God did not give birth to Isreal literally, but He did atone for their sins and adopt them into His family, spiritually. The symbol for which is baptism, or a second birth. We become the church of the Firstborn.

Don't loose sight of the fact that the reason Israel was called "Firstborn" was a symbol of the fact that their God WAS the Firstborn. By taking upon them His name, by adoption, they became sons and daughters of the Firstborn.

It all fell back on the fact that Jehovah was the Firstborn. That right always fell to the first born son if he was worthy. We know Christ was worthy, and we also know He was the Firstborn of the Father in the flesh... which leads to my point that He was the Only born of the Father in the flesh. Why was He called Firstborn... which led to the symbolism of "firstborn" throughout history? It all hinged on Christ being the Firstborn somewhere.

[Justice]

The firstborn was the child who would be head of the home. He conducted funeral and rememberance observances, usually inherited the lion's share of the family estate, and maintained responsibility for family cohesion. It did not always indicate chronological birth order. In the context of the letter we find this in, it speaks to Christ's honored role, not his subordination.

As I mentioned, it did always indicate chronological birth order as long as that firstborn was worthy.

[Justice]

Is this LDS teaching--that Jesus forgot his premortal existence, and NEEDED a body? I find that astounding. My understanding is that God needs nothing, and that Christ understood his identity. In particular, in John 8:58 Jesus says that before Abraham was, "I AM." In so doing, He is declaring himself to be Yahweh...and they tried to stone him for blasphemy, as a result.

Do you believe the infant Jesus had all knowledge? What do you make of this:

Luke 2:

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

[Justice]

I'd like to hear more comments of the fact that God said it is not good for man to be alone. He then made man a woman whom he was suppose to love and cleave to. Adam understood this:

Genesis 2:

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam was immortal while in the Garden of Eden. It is logical (there's that word again) that God intended them to be together forever.

God was with Adam in the Garden. But, God saw / knew there was something He could not be for Adam. To be happy, Adam needed more than God could give him. Only by having woman could man be happy. This personal, one-on-one relationship where love could reach it's full potential.

Adam lived for 938 years as a mortal. I don't know how long Eve lived, but it's safe to say they spent many years together, doing as God instructed them... to love each other and become as one.

...only to be separated again when they die?

I'd like to call on pure logic!

If God could not provide Adam what he needed in the Garden without woman, it is logical to assume He cannot after either. It is man and woman perfected and glorified together that gives man a fulness of joy. Man without woman cannot receive a fulness of joy.

I would rather stay mortal on earth for an eternity, enduring hardships, suffering, hunger, and pain, and be with my wife, than to have our union severed and dwell anywhere God would put us.

Adam must have felt this same way. He was not deceived. He saw his wife had fallen out of God's presence, and he chose to be with her as mortals. I don't blame him one bit.

Again, this is pure logic, whether it is written in scripture or not, because I feel this way about my wife. I love my wife and I want her to continue to be my wife. The One true God would not sever our union that He, Himself blessed and commanded. It's illogical, and surely a misunderstanding of scripture... because it surely contradicts why God even gave a woman to man to begin with.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Justice

[LDSChristian]

I just read over the Nicene Creed. Trinitarians might want to read it. It doesn't exactly tell what Trinitarians think it does.

" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.

God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.

Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.

By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.

He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.

He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.

We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."

Of course, the one holy true church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Anyway, where does that state or even imply God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is a triune God? Even the Nicene Creed states God the Father is the ONE true God.

"He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father,"

Meaning Christ's same body that He had when He was on the earth, His resurrected body. For those that misunderstand, I am NOT saying they are one person.

[Maureen]

It wasn't a question at all. It was a scripture that refutes what you claimed about men and divine nature.

2 Peter 1:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

I remember this now and I believe I replied with Post #66.

http://www.lds.net/forums/558189-post66.html

I would interpret "partakers of the divine nature" as we participate with God because we are now part of his family. I don't believe it means that mankind has a "divine nature" like God.

M.

[Maureen]

...Anyway, where does that state or even imply God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is a triune God?...

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen (1988 ecumenical version (ELLC))

English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The words that I have bolded are the ones that show or even imply that God is a Triinity (Tri-unity).

M.

[LDSChristian]

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen (1988 ecumenical version (ELLC))

English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The words that I have bolded are the ones that show or even imply that God is a Triinity (Tri-unity).

M.

Yes I see the words used. No, the Nicene Creed does not speak of a triune god. In fact, the parts you bolded disprove the triune god concept. Not even the 1990 Catholic version teaches it even though they think it does and they created this idea to begin with.

[Jason_J]

Yes I see the words used. No, the Nicene Creed does not speak of a triune god. In fact, the parts you bolded disprove the triune god concept. Not even the 1990 Catholic version teaches it even though they think it does and they created this idea to begin with.

The purpose of the Nicene Creed, and the Council of Nicaea, wasn't to define the Trinity. It was to address the issue of Jesus' relationship to the Father. The Trinity is therefore indirectly addressed when the Nicene Creed states that the Son is "one in Being" with the Father. And that is what the Trinity is about, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct, yet are "one in Being".

The bolded parts do not disprove the Trinity. In the Creed, we see that the Father is referred to as "one God", yet Jesus is also referred to as God ("God from God"), and is said to be "one in Being" with the Father. This is standard Trinitarianism.

The Creed that addresses the Trinity is called the Athanasian Creed.

[prisonchaplain]

Do you believe the infant Jesus had all knowledge? What do you make of this:

Luke 2:

52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

No. Jesus was fully human, and had given up his power as God. He remained God, but was voluntarily limited. It is even likely that when Jesus asked "Who touched me?" (the woman with the issue of blood), his question was actual, not rhetorical.

[prisonchaplain]

I'd like to hear more comments of the fact that God said it is not good for man to be alone. He then made man a woman whom he was suppose to love and cleave to. Adam understood this:

Genesis 2:

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam was immortal while in the Garden of Eden. It is logical (there's that word again) that God intended them to be together forever.

God was with Adam in the Garden. But, God saw / knew there was something He could not be for Adam. To be happy, Adam needed more than God could give him. Only by having woman could man be happy. This personal, one-on-one relationship where love could reach it's full potential.

Adam lived for 938 years as a mortal. I don't know how long Eve lived, but it's safe to say they spent many years together, doing as God instructed them... to love each other and become as one.

...only to be separated again when they die?

If I am not mistaken, you are contending for the doctrine of Eternal Marriage. I would first recall that we will be very aware and loving towards our family members in heaven. It's just that our love will be so much fuller that we will not need to limit our affections to family units. Besides. we take Jesus' declaration that there will be no marrying in heaven to be a very direct description. There's not much logic we can apply that would take that statement away.

[Seminarysnoozer]

No. Jesus was fully human, and had given up his power as God. He remained God, but was voluntarily limited. It is even likely that when Jesus asked "Who touched me?" (the woman with the issue of blood), his question was actual, not rhetorical.

If He gave up his power as God (which is the same power Heavenly Father has) by what power did He perform miracles?

[Dr T]

Good question Snoozer. I'd say Jesus did NOT cease to have the power of deity ever. Jesus did empty himself (kenosis) as is said in Philipians but I believe he only added humanity to his divinity and did not cease to be God at all. Yes there is a time when Jesus said "Only the Father knows the hour of Jesus' return" but I have too hard a time saying he did not posses a divine characteristic. If he didn't have them then I'd have too hard a time calling him God. I think Jesus' emptying of himself was only an outward appearance of divinity not actually giving it up.

[Maureen]

...The Creed that addresses the Trinity is called the Athanasian Creed.

Yes, very true. I love this creed, it goes into great detail.

M.

[Justice]

Besides. we take Jesus' declaration that there will be no marrying in heaven to be a very direct description. There's not much logic we can apply that would take that statement away.

As do we.

But, we also recognize that Jesus gave certain of His disciples power, that whatsoever they "bound" on earth would be "bound" in heaven. I can only think of one thing that will be both on earth and heaven... people. Marriage is a covenant relationship, and all covenant relationships, when entered into by God's authority, please God and He honors them. All ordinances follow this same structure.

Using both scriptures together (the current one with Matt 18:18) it is also logical to conclude that, with proper authority given from God, man and woman can be bound (or sealed) while yet mortal, and that union will be recognized in heaven. Jesus specifically said there would be no marrying "in the resurrection," or in Mark:

Mark 12:25

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

It is very clear He is being specific about an action that will not happen after the resurrection. Like baptism and all other ordinances, it is a mortal covenant. This is why we have temples and perform saving ordinances for those who pass on from this life without having made those covenants.

The question asked of Jesus said nothing of the authority of God, and in fact verily denied it altogether. Because, they did not know or understand the scriptures that an eternal union would need to be severed (unbound) before entering into another. Had they understood that the question was moot.

[Justice]

If I am not mistaken, you are contending for the doctrine of Eternal Marriage.

Yes, with logic and not scripture (even though, as you see, scripture does support it).

I would first recall that we will be very aware and loving towards our family members in heaven.

Especially aware and loving towards our family members? Don't you believe family relationships will be severed?

It's just that our love will be so much fuller that we will not need to limit our affections to family units.

This seems to contradict your previous comment. I mean, I get what you're saying, but when you get down to brass tax, how can you not love your family members more unless earth's relationships are severed and forgotten? How can I love anyone as much as I love my wife? How can I love the big burly guy I work with (whom I do love by the way--he doesn't need to be a member of my family for me to love him even now) as much as I love my wife?

I know what you're saying, PC. But, unless I am caused to forget these relationships (I suppose like we forget our pre-earth life them coming here) then I will love my wife more than all.

And, another attempt at logic, is gender eternal? Will we be male and female when we are resurrected? It seems eerie that that part of us will be removed. If removed, I can begin to understand what you're saying. If not, I can't even fathom the thought.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Besides. we take Jesus' declaration that there will be no marrying in heaven to be a very direct description. There's not much logic we can apply that would take that statement away.

We do too this is why one must be sealed by the priesthood power before the resurrection because after the resurrection there is no marriage nor are they given in marriage.

Remember that what is sealed on Earth by the priesthood power of God is also sealed in heaven for eternity. We are told by Christ in regards to marriage what God has joined together let no man put asunder.

This mortal existence is a period of probation to prepare for eternity those who have not prepared cannot do so after resurrection and judgement, then it is too late to prepare.

[Guest]

Yes I see the words used. No, the Nicene Creed does not speak of a triune god. In fact, the parts you bolded disprove the triune god concept. Not even the 1990 Catholic version teaches it even though they think it does and they created this idea to begin with.

LDSChristian... GIVE IT UP!

It's just starting to really make you look bad.

I am LDS now and you are making LDS look bad. WE don't tell OTHERS what THEY believe just like WE EXPECT others not tell us what WE believe.

Do not tell me you know more about the Trinity than the Trinitarians - you will lose that battle and just enhance the gulf that separates you from your fellow Christians!

[Guest]

Yes, with logic and not scripture (even though, as you see, scripture does support it).

Especially aware and loving towards our family members? Don't you believe family relationships will be severed?

This seems to contradict your previous comment. I mean, I get what you're saying, but when you get down to brass tax, how can you not love your family members more unless earth's relationships are severed and forgotten? How can I love anyone as much as I love my wife? How can I love the big burly guy I work with (whom I do love by the way--he doesn't need to be a member of my family for me to love him even now) as much as I love my wife?

I know what you're saying, PC. But, unless I am caused to forget these relationships (I suppose like we forget our pre-earth life them coming here) then I will love my wife more than all.

And, another attempt at logic, is gender eternal? Will we be male and female when we are resurrected? It seems eerie that that part of us will be removed. If removed, I can begin to understand what you're saying. If not, I can't even fathom the thought.

And since I'm on a roll with LDSChristian, I am going to give you a warning as well...

You don't have to agree with the Non-LDS folks. But don't tell them they are illogical. There is logic to it just like I presented to you. You just don't agree with it.

Hey, I get you. I don't agree with it either. But, that doesn't make it illogical. Firstborn to you may mean LITERALLY firstborn. That's not what firstborn to PC means. That's NOT ILLOGICAL either.

It makes it sound demeaning when you call PC a person who can't grasp logic to support his beliefs.

[Guest]

Whew! I got that out of my chest.

I'm fine now. Carry on.

:)

[Justice]

Woah. You appear to be the only one getting upset.

And since I'm on a roll with LDSChristian, I am going to give you a warning as well...

You don't have to agree with the Non-LDS folks. But don't tell them they are illogical. There is logic to it just like I presented to you. You just don't agree with it.

Thanks for the warning, but I am trying to understand. I am stating what doesn't make sense to me, I already said that. I am not telling anyone what makes sense to them. My intent is if I express what make sense to me and what doesn't, someone can help me understand how it makes sense.

Yes, there are tough questions, and people may have to question their beliefs, but I hope by doing so they can help me understand.

Hey, I get you. I don't agree with it either. But, that doesn't make it illogical. Firstborn to you may mean LITERALLY firstborn. That's not what firstborn to PC means. That's NOT ILLOGICAL either.

I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me. All I ask for is something I can understand.

It makes it sound demeaning when you call PC a person who can't grasp logic to support his beliefs.

Where did I say that? Actually, what I believe happened is PC gave a very generic response, probably because he was busy. I know him to be very capable of understanding logic and he explains himself quite well. This time, however, I felt he did not. If that's his best explanation for the topic then we will soon see. If not, I hope to get a more in depth answer so I can understand better.

As I originally said, I believe it all goes back to our different understandings of what spirit is. I am keeping this in mind as the conversation progresses. More often than not topics like these get shut down before the hard questions are asked and anwered because they get heated. I'm trying to avoid this by being civil, yet I'm trying to ask probing questions... not meant as criticism of anyone's views, but trying to understand.

I apologize if I've come across as you describe.

[Guest]

Woah. You appear to be the only one getting upset.

Yep... I got upset at LDSChristian. And yep, I'm the only one getting upset - or expressed it. I don't take kindly to LDS people attacking Trinitarians in that manner. I hold LDS to a higher standard by benefit of our Articles of Faith.

I wasn't upset at you, though. I was on a roll...

As I originally said, I believe it all goes back to our different understandings of what spirit is. I am keeping this in mind as the conversation progresses. More often than not topics like these get shut down before the hard questions are asked and anwered because they get heated. I'm trying to avoid this by being civil, yet I'm trying to ask probing questions... not meant as criticism of anyone's views, but trying to understand.

I apologize if I've come across as you describe.

Yes, you came across as I described because you are challenging doctrine and calling it illogical. You can't apply the same logic you apply to LDS to non-LDS doctrine. Because, you have to FIRST AND FOREMOST acknowledge that they come from only "half" the set of scriptures than you do and with a different interpretation of it to boot.

What I see here is, instead of trying to understand why they believe that way, you instead challenge why they don't believe your way.

So, to truly understand what we are trying to say, you have first to shed everything that is LDS that is not found in anything outside of it.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

[Guest]

I'll help PC out:

Especially aware and loving towards our family members? Don't you believe family relationships will be severed?

This seems to contradict your previous comment. I mean, I get what you're saying, but when you get down to brass tax, how can you not love your family members more unless earth's relationships are severed and forgotten? How can I love anyone as much as I love my wife? How can I love the big burly guy I work with (whom I do love by the way--he doesn't need to be a member of my family for me to love him even now) as much as I love my wife?

I know what you're saying, PC. But, unless I am caused to forget these relationships (I suppose like we forget our pre-earth life them coming here) then I will love my wife more than all.

No, they won't be severed in the way you think. It is going to be enhanced. Because, by virtue of the perfect love of God (because we are going to be as He is) - the entire human race that makes it to heaven is going to be your family. Loving equally.

Justice - this is really not that far removed from LDS. As a matter of fact - this is one that I have accepted as NOT IN CONFLICT between LDS and my RCC days. Remember the promise of Elijah... from your children's children all the way back to Adam is going to be linked - that makes EVERYBODY your family. So that, your love for your spouse is not going to be eclipsed by your love for your father/mother or the love for your children and by extension to their fathers and children all the way from Adam to the end of time. Yes, that includes the big burly guy you work with. Because that big burly guy will be raised up in perfect love just like you. PERFECT. LOVE. As Jesus has perfect love for us dying for everyone including your burly guy.

In the RCC mindset - this means that your wife is not going to be your family... instead... the WHOLE WORLD who makes it to heaven is going to be your family.

It is the same to me.

In my understanding, the thought of eternal families is a promise that if I remain true to Christ as well as my husband being true to Christ as well as my children being true to Christ that we will all live in the Celestial Kingdom (or whichever Kingdom is suited for us) together. There are no kingdoms in RCC - it's just heaven.

So, there is still no contradiction. Just an enhanced understanding.

And, another attempt at logic, is gender eternal? Will we be male and female when we are resurrected? It seems eerie that that part of us will be removed. If removed, I can begin to understand what you're saying. If not, I can't even fathom the thought.

I can't fathom the logic that just because we are now one big family instead of 2 billion different families that it removes gender somehow.

___________________

This is what I meant when I said that I am grateful for my Catholic upbringing. The foundation was not changed, it was enhanced when I embraced the complete gospel.

Edited January 28, 2011 by anatess

[Seminarysnoozer]

In my understanding, the thought of eternal families is a promise that if I remain true to Christ as well as my husband being true to Christ as well as my children being true to Christ that we will all live in the Celestial Kingdom (or whichever Kingdom is suited for us) together. There are no kingdoms in RCC - it's just heaven.

So, there is still no contradiction. Just an enhanced understanding.

I can't fathom the logic that just because we are now one big family instead of 2 billion different families that it removes gender somehow.

This is what I meant when I said that I am grateful for my Catholic upbringing. The foundation was not changed, it was enhanced when I embraced the complete gospel.

I think this is true for many aspects of the gospel compared to the fullness of the gospel. It is kind of like arguing that the rules of addition are not true because we have algebra. They are both true, one is more complex and detailed than the other.

I agree with this idea that we will be very close as family with everyone in our Kingdom, this is in agreement with us even now calling each other brother and sister. The difference though is that through the covenants established here and through the fullness of the gospel we obtain additional benefit and support. That is what makes a covenant different from a commandment. It took me a long time to see the difference between the two. But until one sees that there truly is a difference between a covenant and a commandment it is hard to see how a spousal relationship or how a relative who is sealed to you would be different than a relationship with anyone else. It is not just that 'families can be forever', the more exact way of saying it should be 'families that have a covenant and keep their covenant can be together forever'.

I think another important concept is to appreciate the fact that the glory of God is that He directly shares in our successes, if we have a covenant with him. This is why it is worse to break a covenant as opposed to breaking a commandment. If I am under a binding, sealing covenant with my family then I will have the chance to "share" in the glory of all of my family's successes in the world to come. This is part of the formula for eternal increase. Glory is limited if it is just based on your own achievements.

In a small way this is similar to how we feel when we watch one of our children play a soccer game and win, for example. If the other team won why is it that we don't jump up for joy and shout as loud or at all as we would if our child's team wins. Because we have a special bond with our child, of course. That kind of joy will not be as intense without those special bonds of family, I believe. There will still be joy with anyone's success but it is just joy, not a shared glory, so to speak. Having said all of that, I believe, everyone in the Celestial Kingdom will be sealed to each other by way of the work we do in the temple and will be one of the biggest differences between the Celestial and Terrestrial Kingdoms.

[prisonchaplain]

If He gave up his power as God (which is the same power Heavenly Father has) by what power did He perform miracles?

By the power of the Holy Spirit--the same power He gave us. That's why he could send out the 12, and then the 70, to do miracles.