Son of God?

[Maureen]

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)

This is Christ speaking not God the Father. Even traditional Christians believe that Jesus is resurrected and has a glorified body. Do you know of any scripture that has God the Father saying he has flesh and bones?

M.

[Snow]

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

M.

As you well know, I should hope, there is no known instance of God saying anything. There is only people claiming to speak for God or unprovable accounts of what someone (usually anonymous) says God said.

[Dravin]

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

M.

And? Is there an importance to the nuance of this in your sub-discussion with Snow (I've not been following along)? Or would you not consider if say Peter was quoted as teaching such in the Bible (scripture you consider canon) to be significant? If the former I'll apologize for stepping on toes and be on my way, if the later I'm kinda curious.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Dravin

[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.

Not to jump in the middle here but I don't see that as a legitimate answer to Snow's question either.

I want to first say that you are fully free to believe what you wish, and I respect that. The question that was asked was:

Why do you believe in something that is considered "incomprehensible" and non-biblical?

[maiku]

This is Christ speaking not God the Father. Even traditional Christians believe that Jesus is resurrected and has a glorified body. Do you know of any scripture that has God the Father saying he has flesh and bones?

M.

RIGHT!

That goes back to my original point, if the Father and Son are the same being, how can one have a body and the other not?

[Snow]

RIGHT!

That goes back to my original point, if the Father and Son are the same being, how can one have a body and the other not?

An interesting question. By definition it is all incomprehensible but also according to definition the substance is not divided... and the body is matter but spirit is not matter so it seems to be a contradiction of itself.

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible..."

[Dr T]

They are one essence-God. The three, (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy spirit is not the Father and vice versa yet together they make up one God. Again, they are not the same personage but are one God.

[Maureen]

Not to jump in the middle here but I don't see that as a legitimate answer to Snow's question either.

I want to first say that you are fully free to believe what you wish, and I respect that. The question that was asked was:

Why do you believe in something that is considered "incomprehensible" and non-biblical?

To you the Trinity is not comprehensible or non-biblical, but to me it is very comprehensible and biblical. I can't answer the question your way because I don't believe the way you believe.

M.

[Dravin]

RIGHT!

That goes back to my original point, if the Father and Son are the same being, how can one have a body and the other not?

My understanding is, admittedly limited, that the being isn't referring to physical similarity. For instance if I talked about human beings physicality (and the form of that physicality) are part of what makes us have a shared being. However being as it applies to the Trinity is is not talking about physicality but other aspects, in this case their divinity, that link them together. I almost wonder if it might be appropriate to say they are of one type, in this case the divine.

If you think of being in a different context, such as say how both a man and a woman can be Alaskan even though they are different sexes, the disparity becomes easier to step outside of to understand what Trinitarians are saying. If you think you can handle that you can even take it a step further and think about how both a man and a cheese can be of a French 'being'.

Dr. T, Maureen, Is my explanation workable? Or did I slaughter the Trinity? If so it wouldn't be the first time. At least I no longer confuse it with modalism, so I'm not completely resistant to education.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Dravin

[Maureen]

RIGHT!

That goes back to my original point, if the Father and Son are the same being, how can one have a body and the other not?

Only the Son became incarnate, the Father remained in Heaven (so to speak) in his distinctness as Father.

M.

[Snow]

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".

More game playing Maureen. Really... what's the purpose of that - who are you trying to score points with. It's a typo, obviously.

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.

Yes - we all know this is America or Canada or something and you are free to believe as you wish. That had nothing to do with my question... which you assiduously avoided... again.

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.

It's a choice. I choose to accept revelation/scripture of The Restoration as, as valid as the Bible. That's my faith-based rational. I am still waiting for yours... since it is not based on scripture or revelation and has as one of it's creators, Constantine (who recommended the concept of same-substance) who was a very, very unsavory character, evil is not too strong of a word.

[Maureen]

My understanding is, admittedly limited, that the being isn't referring to physical similarity. For instance if I talked about human beings physicality (and the form of that physicality) are part of what makes us have a shared being. However being as it applies to the Trinity is is not talking about physicality but other aspects, in this case their divinity, that link them together. I almost wonder if it might be appropriate to say they are of one type, in this case the divine.

If you think of being in a different context, such as say how both a man and a woman can be Alaskan even though they are different sexes, the disparity becomes easier to step outside of to understand what Trinitarians are saying. If you think you can handle that you can even take it a step further about how both a man and a cheese can both be of a French 'being'.

Dr. T, Maureen, Is my explanation workable? Or did I slaughter the Trinity? If so it wouldn't be the first time. At least I no longer confuse it with modalism, so I'm not completely resistant to education.

Dravin, you're doing great - at least you're making the effort in understanding.

M.

[Snow]

To you the Trinity is not comprehensible or non-biblical, but to me it is very comprehensible and biblical. I can't answer the question your way because I don't believe the way you believe.

M.

1. Do you not understand that it is incomprehensible... by definition.

2. And yet you fail, time after time, to demonstrate that it is Biblical. That's not a knock in and of itself since no one has ever been able to but then, most knowlegeable people don't claim that it is (biblical). You can't very well be called un-knowledgeable so what gives?

[Maureen]

More game playing Maureen. Really... what's the purpose of that - who are you trying to score points with. It's a typo, obviously....

You should change your Username to "Typo". There's a thing called the Edit button, you should use it once in a while, or in your case, with every post.

Bye Snow.

M.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Maureen

[Dravin]

Dravin, you're doing great - at least you're making the effort in understanding.

M.

I think the underlying doctrine of the physicality of the Father and the ultimately Godly nature of physicality heavily colors our, or at least my, attempts to really grok the trinity. The possession of a resurrected body is a divine attribute so when a Trinitarian says they share a divine being/attribute/type that concept, that assumption, tends to tag along inside a LDS person head and muddles things up.

I know it's weird but the idea of nationality (ala people, food, and cars) makes it easier to grok.

[Maureen]

And? Is there an importance to the nuance of this in your sub-discussion with Snow (I've not been following along)? Or would you not consider if say Peter was quoted as teaching such in the Bible (scripture you consider canon) to be significant? If the former I'll apologize for stepping on toes and be on my way, if the later I'm kinda curious.

I got the impression from Snow, that if God the Father or Jesus hadn't declared themselves a trinity, then it wasn't so. Therefore, I'm assuming if that's the main thing that will make Snow think the Trinity is legit, then he's got to apply the same logic to "the flesh and bones" doctrine. If God has never said himself that he is flesh and bones, then why believe it? Why would Joseph Smith's words have more veracity than the book of John?

M.

[Dravin]

I got the impression from Snow, that if God the Father or Jesus hadn't declared themselves a trinity, then it wasn't so. Therefore, I'm assuming if that's the only thing that will make Snow think the Trinity is legit, then he's got to apply the same logic to "the flesh and bones" doctrine. If God has never said himself that he is flesh and bones, then why believe it? Why would Joseph Smith's words have more veracity than the book of John?

M.

In past versions of this discussion Snow has usually insisted apostolic understanding of the Trinity as sufficient. Did he tighten up the parameters for this one? At any rate it's clear there is a specific import due to the nature of the conversation. Sorry for stepping on your toes.

[Maureen]

In past versions of this discussion Snow has usually insisted apostolic understanding of the Trinity as sufficient. Did he tighten up the parameters for this one? At any rate it's clear there is a specific import due to the nature of the conversation. Sorry for stepping on your toes.

Not at all. He's banging his head against the wall, so I've ended the conversation.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

RIGHT!

That goes back to my original point, if the Father and Son are the same being, how can one have a body and the other not?

Because they are distinct persons. We can go round and round...trinitarians believe that God is one, yet three. The oneness we ascribe to is essential--they truly are one being. Yet, the distinct nature of the persons is truly distinct--they are individuals.

So our conversation goes: 1? 3! 3? 1!...

There is a divine mystery to this, if it is true. From my perspective, LDS remove the mystery, and make it partially more logical by saying that they really are just three who agree. The Father takes a more definite supremacy as the one God at the head of the Godhead. In the process, you gain a different issue--you are perceived as abandoning monotheism.

[maiku]

Because they are distinct persons. We can go round and round...trinitarians believe that God is one, yet three. The oneness we ascribe to is essential--they truly are one being. Yet, the distinct nature of the persons is truly distinct--they are individuals.

So our conversation goes: 1? 3! 3? 1!...

There is a divine mystery to this, if it is true. From my perspective, LDS remove the mystery, and make it partially more logical by saying that they really are just three who agree. The Father takes a more definite supremacy as the one God at the head of the Godhead. In the process, you gain a different issue--you are perceived as abandoning monotheism.

But here's the thing, I'm not trying to go round and round, or be confrontational. Maureen accused me of not making the effort to understand but that's what I've been trying to do the whole time. I respect all of your beliefs while at the same time trying to understand them.

So after 30 something pages, this is my current understanding:

Trinitarians (and others who share this belief) believe that God is somehow 3 persons and 1 being but it is a mystery, and we don't know how that works, correct?

Are these 3 persons in one being comparable to 3 personalities in one human?

[Vort]

So our conversation goes: 1? 3! 3? 1!...

Eleven cubed!

[Dravin]

Eleven cubed!

No, you add the second number to the first for your 'tens place' and subtract the fourth number from the third for your 'ones place'.

[Snow]

You should change your Username to "Typo". There's a thing called the Edit button, you should use it once in a while, or in your case, with every post.

Bye Snow.

M.

Ah clever. Instead of all the silly game playing, could you not have simply answered the question and avoided all the drama and acrimony?

People have some basis for their belief. I was interested in yours.

[Snow]

I got the impression from Snow, that if God the Father or Jesus hadn't declared themselves a trinity, then it wasn't so. Therefore, I'm assuming if that's the main thing that will make Snow think the Trinity is legit, then he's got to apply the same logic to "the flesh and bones" doctrine. If God has never said himself that he is flesh and bones, then why believe it? Why would Joseph Smith's words have more veracity than the book of John?

M.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Them not declaring doesn't cause it to be. I understand why Catholics believe it - the Trinity. I don't recall you being Catholic so I am still trying to figure out why you believe it Maureen.

Let me explain. It's not you in particular. Any one can believe what they choose. I am trying to grasp the non-Catholic, orthodox mindset. Surely most people believe one doctrine over another because that is what they were told to believe. You, Maureen, have always been one of the more thoughtful posters so I was hoping to get something substantive from you.

I am not sure why you aren't engaging in the issue. Obviously you are peeved at me, and I guess I understand why but I am not peeved with you. I have always respected your knowledge and your intentions... well mostly anyway.

[beefche]

But here's the thing, I'm not trying to go round and round, or be confrontational. Maureen accused me of not making the effort to understand but that's what I've been trying to do the whole time. I respect all of your beliefs while at the same time trying to understand them.

So after 30 something pages, this is my current understanding:

Trinitarians (and others who share this belief) believe that God is somehow 3 persons and 1 being but it is a mystery, and we don't know how that works, correct?

Are these 3 persons in one being comparable to 3 personalities in one human?

Here is how I understand the concept of the Trinity.

Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct "people." But they are a different "species" than humans. But, there are only 3 of this "species" called Divine. They do not "share" a body nor are they 3 people in one body. Only Jesus has a body--Father and Holy Ghost do not have bodies. That is why they are one--they are a distinct "species" and are the only ones of this "species."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Maureen or PC. I used quotes because that's how I am able to comprehend the Trinity, not that Tritarians use those words. I understand that Tritarians are very exact on the wording they use to describe the Trinity.