Son of God?

[Snow]

Snow, you are the one playing games, since you know perfectly well that there are no verses in the Bible that directly says that God is a trinity. So what?

Oh Maureen, need I remind you of your own post? ["Snow, I don't agree with your assessment about the Trinity being non-biblical"]

Obviously I know it's not in the Bible... it's hardly fair to accuse me of playing games when I am responding directly, without obfuscation to your claim.

Not only is it not explicitly in the Bible, the creation of additional, non-biblical material was required in order to invent the doctrine of the Trinity.

You already know how Trinitarians come to the conclusion that God is a trinity. You choose to not believe the Trinity doctrine, and that's fine, don't believe it. So what's your point? Do you think your inane questions are going to convince the non-LDS that we're so wrong and now you've come to our rescue? What's your agenda?

M.

Yes, I know how Trinitarians created new material, used pagan philosophy, overthrew what was previously the orthodox position (subordination) under the threat of death (Constantine's decree after Nicaea) and eventually, over 400 years after Jesus died, to arrive at the modern idea of the Trinity.

My question to you, still unanswered, is why bother believing something that is by definition incompressible and not in the Bible?

It's a legitimate question. Why not believe something that is, either in the Bible or comprehensible, or both?

[Hala401]

You don't need to worry. The Vulgate is in Latin, not Greek - Version Vulgata for the vulgar or common tongue.

My first exposure to Christianity was in my late 20's and it was basically Baptist, The Roman Road, Navigators and all that. I was not a pew warmer and actually studied the Bible. It just feels so icky to have been lied to by people I was told to trust and then find that they basically withheld information.

I mean, if they went to seminary and all that, how could they not have been taught at least Latin? I mean how can someone feel they are qualified to preach if they do not know the whole truth? This is very disillusioning.

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry for not understanding your meaning, PC, but what is it about the Holy Trinity that you believe the passages about Jesus' baptism illustrates for those who already believe?

Vort, the main affirmation is that all three appear in the same scene. Jesus is called "my Son," by the Father, and the Holy spirit descends upon him.

[Snow]

My first exposure to Christianity was in my late 20's and it was basically Baptist, The Roman Road, Navigators and all that. I was not a pew warmer and actually studied the Bible. It just feels so icky to have been lied to by people I was told to trust and then find that they basically withheld information.

I mean, if they went to seminary and all that, how could they not have been taught at least Latin? I mean how can someone feel they are qualified to preach if they do not know the whole truth? This is very disillusioning.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed it. What do you feel lied to about?

[maiku]

Vort, the main affirmation is that all three appear in the same scene. Jesus is called "my Son," by the Father, and the Holy spirit descends upon him.

That's funny, we always used that scripture on my mission to show how The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were three separate individuals.

The Father, in heaven, speaks of His Son who is on Earth, and the Holy Ghost, also on Earth but separate from the Son, testifies of the event.

If this passage doesn't show that the Godhead consists of three separate beings, I don't know what does.

[prisonchaplain]

This makes sense to me. In fact, I did not press Him on any of these details. He revealed Himself to Joseph Smith, and many witnessed angels, gold plates, and Christ Himself, and it is all available for us to read. I read it. I did not press Him.

I think He wants us to know. I don't think He wants us wondering or confused. But, we have to have an open mind and seek.

I didn't start asking until I saw they had been revealed. They aren't a mystery to me. They aren't incomprehensible to me. I can explain them to you just as I understand them. That's something you cannot do with the Trintiy belief (at least not yet).

Yet, we believe we are His literal children. Children are not disrespectful when they ask, in sincerity, "Father, who art thou?" He reveals what He will. The only reason these seem disrespectful to you is because you believe if He wanted us to understand then He would tell us, without us having to ask. Interestingly enough, He did tell us. I'm sharing with you what He said.

This is my point. He has! And, He says the relationship does require the above. That the men who made up the Trinity were not inspiried when they did. The Church had fallen and men's views became corrupt.

PC, it's a beautiful thing! We are offspring of God, just as Paul states. There isn't a single belief in the world that offers more vision of His love and relationship to us!

I understand your difficulty being on an LDS forum. You can't very well say "you are just wrong." Open your mind if for a split second and see the possibilities of us being God's literal children. How amazing! How indescribable! How understandable God is!

I love you, PC, and I appreciate the discussion. I have learned a lot even if I don't understand.

Suffice to say I think you do understand my perspective, and I can grasp yours. If Joseph Smith really experienced God as he claimed to do, then your reactions and questions make sense. If he did not, then wow...

In any case, I do appreciate the conversation...very much.

[prisonchaplain]

It just feels so icky to have been lied to by people I was told to trust and then find that they basically withheld information.

I mean, if they went to seminary and all that, how could they not have been taught at least Latin? I mean how can someone feel they are qualified to preach if they do not know the whole truth? This is very disillusioning.

I too wonder what it is you feel you were lied to about. Most evangelical and Baptist seminaries do not teach Latin at all. They usually teach koine Greek and Hebrew. Often the Hebrew is optional. Even Catholic priests often only learn a working knowledge of Latin.

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (Koine)...so why the concern about Latin?

[prisonchaplain]

That's funny, we always used that scripture on my mission to show how The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were three separate individuals.

The Father, in heaven, speaks of His Son who is on Earth, and the Holy Ghost, also on Earth but separate from the Son, testifies of the event.

If this passage doesn't show that the Godhead consists of three separate beings, I don't know what does.

In a sense, you explain my point. This passage is a great booster for already held beliefs. However, it proves little to skeptics. Surely there are three in the scene--be they persons or beings. I suppose even suboridinationists could say that the Son only receives what the Father gives him--proving his superior position. So, the passage is used after explaining the particular doctrine, at which point the student often says, "Why yes, now it is so clear!"

[maiku]

In a sense, you explain my point. This passage is a great booster for already held beliefs. However, it proves little to skeptics. Surely there are three in the scene--be they persons or beings. I suppose even suboridinationists could say that the Son only receives what the Father gives him--proving his superior position. So, the passage is used after explaining the particular doctrine, at which point the student often says, "Why yes, now it is so clear!"

That's what I forgot to ask earlier!

Every time the Trinity is brought up, I see 3 persons, 1 being

Can someone explain the difference?

Last time I checked, I was one person and one being.

[prisonchaplain]

That's what I forgot to ask earlier! Every time the Trinity is brought up, I see 3 persons, 1 being Can someone explain the difference? Last time I checked, I was one person and one being.

It's how we say that each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is distinct in his personhood, and yet truly one essential God--one being. Too clarify the contrast, we surmize that saying the three are totally separate beings that just agree on everything cannot be called monotheism, no matter how you slice it. We want to insist that God is one, and is, as Justice described our belief, "wholly separate" from his creation--us.

[maiku]

Allow me to ask this then, if the Son has a body (since He resurrected), and He is the same being as the Father, doesn't that mean that the Father has a body too?

[Dr T]

Hi Maiku,

No it does not mean the Father has a body too. Jesus, was the only one to take on humanity. One God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

[Dravin]

Hi Maiku,

No it does not mean the Father has a body too. Jesus, was the only one to take on humanity. One God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

I think the one thing that consistently trips up LDS is the sense of the word being. At times it almost seems like it applies because it makes them one rather than it being a description of their oneness (because for what ever reason the 'proper' sense of the word is slippery for us).

Almost like:

Person 1: They are three distinct person.

Person 2: But we only have a God, they can't just be three persons.

Person 1: Well they're one in being.

Person 2: *nodding*

I don't mean to say that the thought process was shallow or that the words chosen were chosen willy nilly to just patch up (say what I will about the creeds I can't accuse them of being thoughtless) the Trinity because to be fair one could probably post a similar "almost like" but replace one in being with one in purpose (the LDS 'solution' as it were).

Theological concept 'blind spots' are kinda interesting when you think about them. This post is solidly in the musing category as opposed to the making a point category.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Dravin

[maiku]

Hi Maiku,

No it does not mean the Father has a body too. Jesus, was the only one to take on humanity. One God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

how can the Son have a body but not the Father if they are ONE being?

[Dr T]

I like one in essence. What it fundamentally is. Divine. There is One and only one true God.

[Dr T]

Because it is like this: Redirect Notice

[Maureen]

...My question to you, still unanswered, is why bother believing something that is by definition incompressible and not in the Bible?

It's a legitimate question. Why not believe something that is, either in the Bible or comprehensible, or both?

Are you sure this is the same question you've been asking? It seems to keep changing, IMO.

Incompressible? Really, that's the word you're using? I know of no idea or doctrine where God is described as "compact".

It is my choice for what I believe. I see the trinity doctrine in the Bible, as do many other Christians. I am very confident with how I comprehend God. I prefer to worship a triune God than a God of flesh and bones.

Why is it necessary for you to think of God as man-like before he seems comprehensible? Has God the Father ever said that he is flesh and bones in LDS scripture? Why do you put more veracity in Joseph Smith's vision of a Father God with flesh and bones?

M.

[Dravin]

Because it is like this: Redirect Notice

Change "is" to "are" and you'd have a workable depiction of the Godhead. You know I think it may be the similarities that make the differences that much harder to grasp for some of us. :)

[maiku]

Are you sure this is the same question you've been asking? It seems to keep changing, IMO.

Incompressible? Really, that's the word you're using? I know of no idea or doctrine where God is described as "compact".

It is my choice for what I believe. I see the trinity doctrine in the Bible, as do many other Christians. I am very confident with how I comprehend God. I prefer to worship a triune God than a God of flesh and bones.

Why is it necessary for you to think of God as man-like before he seems comprehensible? Has God the Father ever said that he is flesh and bones in LDS scripture? Why do you put more veracity in Joseph Smith's vision of a Father God with flesh and bones?

M.

I don't even need LDS scripture to understand that God has a body of flesh and bone

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

[maiku]

I like one in essence. What it fundamentally is. Divine. There is One and only one true God.

Can you elaborate, I don't understand how this is a response to my question.

Sorry, but the drawing doesn't help either.

[Dravin]

Has God the Father ever said that he is flesh and bones in LDS scripture?

There is this:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Note I'm not trying to jump into the middle of your tumble with Snow, I just don't know if you are aware of the above scripture or not.

[Dr T]

I coudn't say "are" because the Father would be "is", and the same for the Son and the Holy Spirit. Those are not plural but singular so the word "is" would be appropriate there. We have a lot of similar words but with different meanings. I can see how that can be confusing.

[Dr T]

I was responding to Darvin's post on #334.

[Maureen]

There is this:

Originally Posted by Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Note I'm not trying to jump into the middle of your tumble with Snow, I just don't know if you are aware of the above scripture or not.

But these are words that Joseph Smith is saying. God the Father himself, is not making this statement.

M.

[Dravin]

I coudn't say "are" because the Father would be "is", and the same for the Son and the Holy Spirit. Those are not plural but singular so the word "is" would be appropriate there. We have a lot of similar words but with different meanings. I can see how that can be confusing.

I wasn't trying to suggest that "are" would work for you, sorry if I gave that impression. My intention was in line with the rest of your post, that the similarities counter-intuitively make things more confusing not less.