John 17


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

While mankind is created in the image of the Father, Jesus Christ is the express image of the Father. What Christ looks like is what the Father looks like. Since the Son is the express image of the Father and has a body of flesh and bone then the Father has a body of flesh and bone as well.

I'm not sure that "express image" implies that the reflection is physical anymore than "image" itself does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, many do say they're 3 beings in 1 person.....

I find that hard to believe that a trinitarian would be so sloppy with a definition of the Trinity. Now a person, like yourself, who does not believe in the Trinity, would more likely be very mistaken with such a definition as you have shown above.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, many do say they're 3 beings in 1 person. And these 2 verses are great against the "trinity".

I agree with Maureen that your quote is quite a sloppy and poor expression of the Trinity. Here is a better one, cited by Dr. Jim Feeney:

One good, time-tested definition of the Trinity reads like this:

one God, eternally existent in three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

His sermon on the subject breaks it down pretty simply--especially for a guy with one of them thar PHD thingies after his name. :-)

The Holy Trinity Demystified

Edited by prisonchaplain
add link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that hard to believe that a trinitarian would be so sloppy with a definition of the Trinity. Now a person, like yourself, who does not believe in the Trinity, would more likely be very mistaken with such a definition as you have shown above.

M.

Agreed. In all the years I've been a part of discussions on the Trinity, I've yet to see a Trinitarian describe it as three beings in one person. Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's all semantics. The real issue isn't that God is three persons, it's that the essence of what God is isn't unique to God in LDS thought. We are all the same substance, essence as God. In a sense, we are all God until we are damned. But we are neither the Father, Son or Holy Ghost.

But, I think this idea that Man and God are not different in essence or substance or that God isn't somehow alone in the universe, separate from his creations that makes traditional Christians nervous.

So, really it's how literal do we take "in His image" or "Heavenly Father." Is it metaphorical or literal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's all semantics.

Maureen, PC, and Jason, I know this may stab at your beliefs, but believe me, I'm not here to make fun of what anyone believes, however, bear is right.

We are not good at the words or word placing when we describe "Trinity." But, trust me, there's no harm meant when we switch person or being, or anything else. We have the mental image of what the Trinity describes, we just don't have the words right.

We honestly do seek to gain understanding of what you believe. But, frankly, the words just don't make sense. Sure, the wording of the Trinity does fit an interpretation of the words of the Bible, but outside of mystifying God to something incomprehensible, the words don't make sense as they try to stand alone outside of the Bible.

There just simply is not another example of this kind of life. We were made in His image, so we use us as a reflection, which I believe was intended to help us understand Him better. We don't see that the "Trinity" interpretation is the only one that can be had from the words of the Bible. There are other possibilities, and one of those possibilities follows perfectly with what a 14 year old boy said who saw God, both the Father and the Son, for himself.

I know he saw Them. Therefore, it's not just word interpretation for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Maureen that your quote is quite a sloppy and poor expression of the Trinity. Here is a better one, cited by Dr. Jim Feeney:

His sermon on the subject breaks it down pretty simply--especially for a guy with one of them thar PHD thingies after his name. :-)

The Holy Trinity Demystified

What practical significance does the Trinity belief provide for the individual worshiper?

In the back of someone's mind if they worship God as a trinity versus three Gods in one Godhead, how would that change their outward worship or belief system beyond that fact?

I guess, I am not following the core belief significance of this seemingly semantics-only point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen, PC, and Jason, I know this may stab at your beliefs, but believe me, I'm not here to make fun of what anyone believes, however, bear is right.

We are not good at the words or word placing when we describe "Trinity." But, trust me, there's no harm meant when we switch person or being, or anything else. We have the mental image of what the Trinity describes, we just don't have the words right.

We honestly do seek to gain understanding of what you believe. But, frankly, the words just don't make sense. Sure, the wording of the Trinity does fit an interpretation of the words of the Bible, but outside of mystifying God to something incomprehensible, the words don't make sense as they try to stand alone outside of the Bible.

There just simply is not another example of this kind of life. We were made in His image, so we use us as a reflection, which I believe was intended to help us understand Him better. We don't see that the "Trinity" interpretation is the only one that can be had from the words of the Bible. There are other possibilities, and one of those possibilities follows perfectly with what a 14 year old boy said who saw God, both the Father and the Son, for himself.

I know he saw Them. Therefore, it's not just word interpretation for me.

The only thing I can add to this is ... Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not good at the words or word placing when we describe "Trinity." But, trust me, there's no harm meant when we switch person or being, or anything else. We have the mental image of what the Trinity describes, we just don't have the words right.

Yep. Part of it is that when trinitarians are describing the trinity they are, generally, using nuanced and (to them) defined theological terms. In other circumstances being = person for all practical purposes so the distinction is lost on LDS and it can be like a woman trying to point out two different shades of pink to a man who just doesn't see it. Nothing wrong with that, we have our own 'custom' definitions, I suspect every religion does, but it does result in confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Part of it is that when trinitarians are describing the trinity they are, generally, using nuanced and (to them) defined theological terms. In other circumstances being = person for all practical purposes so the distinction is lost on LDS and it can be like a woman trying to point out two different shades of pink to a man who just doesn't see it. Nothing wrong with that, we have our own 'custom' definitions, I suspect every religion does, but it does result in confusion.

Consider your analogy stolen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may seem to reinforce other scriptures that you hold to, but without that, I have never encountered any interpretation of this passage that would suggest, much less insist, that it requires the Father to have a body. I previously posted a link from a Jewish educational site that explains part of their basic understanding about God's nature is that he is IN-corporeal (Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d). Nothing in the New Testament suggests any kind of break with that understanding of the Father. The shocker was Jesus appearing as the Son of God, in the flesh.

That understanding, unfortunately for your position, was the minority view in Judaism until the 13th c. AD. It was mainly held by philosophers heavily influence by the Aristotelian Mu'tazilites in the Muslim world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What practical significance does the Trinity belief provide for the individual worshiper?

In the back of someone's mind if they worship God as a trinity versus three Gods in one Godhead, how would that change their outward worship or belief system beyond that fact?

I guess, I am not following the core belief significance of this seemingly semantics-only point.

It is important to understand both that Jesus is God and that God is one single God, who is alone in who and what He is. At the same time we recognize that there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are one God, yet distinct persons.

Believers will see mystery in this Triune God. Skeptics (of the Trinity) will see confusion, and find it difficult to reconcile the three in one. We agree with you about the distinctness of the three persons, but you find it hard to understand our loyalty to strict monotheism. It's understandable. You hope to become Gods, so why would you be married to absolute monotheism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There just simply is not another example of this kind of life. We were made in His image, so we use us as a reflection, which I believe was intended to help us understand Him better. We don't see that the "Trinity" interpretation is the only one that can be had from the words of the Bible. There are other possibilities, and one of those possibilities follows perfectly with what a 14 year old boy said who saw God, both the Father and the Son, for himself.

I know he saw Them. Therefore, it's not just word interpretation for me.

I will point out that just seeing the Father and Son in the grove is not what pushes us away from believing in the Trinity. Many on this thread agree that they are 3 persons because of similar evidences with the baptism of Jesus. It's not until D&C 130 that we deviate with the Father having a body of flesh and bones. And I suspect we could probably fight our way past John's "no man has seen the Father at any time", by arguing he was right, back then.

We moved away from the Trinity doctrine, not because of what Joseph saw (the Father and the Son standing together), but because of what he heard - "they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt".

The closest thing we have to a Godhead creed would be excerpts from D&C 20:

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved—

Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh, but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost, who truly testified of him in all things, should have eternal life,

As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

And even this doesn't really expose the relationship of the Godhead with each other, how there are 3 distinct "personages", but one God. I would submit that their oneness is more than just unity of will; that it is truly a "mystery" - something that can only be known through revelation. Without that revelation, we are left to split hairs over "ousia" and "purpose", but with that revelation we can just say "they are one" and there will be no ambiguity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that hard to believe that a trinitarian would be so sloppy with a definition of the Trinity. Now a person, like yourself, who does not believe in the Trinity, would more likely be very mistaken with such a definition as you have shown above.

M.

How is it hard to believe that's how most trinitarians believe? Yes, most do believe they're a 3-being-in-1-person God. I understand the "trinity" concept. The official declaration is described in the Nicene Creed albeit the concept has changed over the years. The official belief is they're of one substance. Actually its more developed in the Athanasian creed. Especially when it comes to the Holy Ghost. The original Nicene Creed said this much about the Holy Ghost: "And in the Holy Ghost." That's it. By the way, do you believe in the Catholic version or the Eastern Orthodox version?

Edited by apexviper13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. In all the years I've been a part of discussions on the Trinity, I've yet to see a Trinitarian describe it as three beings in one person. Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect.

You haven't but I have heard people describe it that way. 3 beings being 1 person in God. I've heard the alternate: God being 1 being in 3 persons. I've heard people that claim they believe in the "trinity" to describe it as Modalism. Just because you people don't hear some mention it this way doesn't mean nobody says they're 3 beings in 1 person that is God.

Edited by apexviper13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't but I have heard people describe it that way. 3 beings being 1 person in God. I've heard the alternate: God being 1 being in 3 persons. I've heard people that claim they believe in the "trinity" to describe it as Modalism. Just because you people don't hear some mention it this way doesn't mean nobody says they're 3 beings in 1 person that is God.

Which brings me to what I already said: "Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 17 goes out of the way to say it is exactly how they are one... no more, no less.

"perfect in one"

If this oneness spoken of in John 17 is one in it's perfection, it would mean the ultimate oneness that they share.

It further clarifies...

"as we are one"

"even as we are one"

Better comparison language doesn't exist in written form.

This is describing how the Father and Son are one. It says clearly they are perfect in will and unity, and wants all believers to share in the same "perfect" oneness as they have.

I understand that scriptures need to be interpreted based on other scripture, but if there is another place that describes this "oneness" that exists between them as being "bodily" then show it.

It is easy to weasel word one's understanding of any statement, scriptural or otherwise. It seems to me that the best way to avoid either intentional or unintentional misinterpretation might be to use literal meanings.

The Holy Spirit has confirmed in my heart that the meaning of "one" cited in the above passage is numerical singularity. In other words one-and-the-same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess, I am not following the core belief significance of this seemingly semantics-only point.

I would say that it is the only way they can rectify the problem of three Gods mentioned in the Bible, yet consisting only of one God.

All Christians believe the "three" is numerical.

The discussion is over if the "one" is numerical.

If it is, then something mystical has to be done with the numbers to make both 3 and 1 true.

If it is not, then 3 is true, and one in unity is true.

The problem with our view is the Bible seems plain at times that there is only 1 God, none beside Him, before Him, or after Him.

Both sides can explain how these words support their view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it hard to believe that's how most trinitarians believe? ...

Most you say? It is hard to believe because you are stating it without any verification. It is just your opinion. I am a trinitarian and I know that the Trinity states the 3 in 1 is three persons in one God.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

three persons in one God.

Which is exactly what the Godhead is to Mormons. Then we argue about semantics after that. The issue I have is when someone says, "Mormons don't believe in the Trinity" which then you have to ask what you think Mormons believe. I bet you will get a lot of answers, but none of them would be "three persons in one God". I have heard that we believe Jesus was/is not divine. That he wasn't God in the beginning, or that he was a prophet. Sometimes people confuse our beliefs with Jehovah Witnesses on the nature of God and the Godhead/Trinity. But in the end, most outsiders would scratch their heads on exactly what the difference is.

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