Shelly200 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 would you mind if I started another thread on this?Feel free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 The problem is that there isn't an Earthly example that can perfectly illustrate the Trinity, because the Trinity is a supernatural concept; all natural examples fall short. It is similar to trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist who only uses science; science cannot prove or disprove God, because science deals with the natural, material world, and God exists outside of the bounds of the natural, material world. So our material examples of the Trinity can help us get closer to Him, but will never explain His existence perfectly or completely. Which is frustrating, yes, but once again, God does not (and should not) fit into our intellect. I agree with all of this. The other factor is that we use these illustrations, be they simple equations, triangles, eggs, stages of water to explain the general idea to students in our doctrine classes. Since they are not resistant to the teaching, they generally get the illustration as a way of helping us picture the nature of God. In a debate, or even a "convicted conversation" with those who do not share our doctrinal beliefs, the limitations you point out become so much more glaring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Of course an immortal God does not have a beginning. Traditionalists believe God created out of nothing. We do not believe in the premortal existence.If you do not believe in the premortal existence--then how can one believe that Christ existed prior to His birth to Mary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 I do not see that the analogies you describe are modalistic--none of them have to be, unless taken too far. 1x1x1=1.Each person has his distinct place in the equation. Nevertheless, they are one, and only they are one. How do you compare that statement to the scriptures:St John17:21-22--"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. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) If you do not believe in the premortal existence--then how can one believe that Christ existed prior to His birth to Mary?The premortal existence of man. PC probably figured it was sufficiently implied by context (the message board, the religion of the person he was talking to, and the topic). Edited December 21, 2011 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 Originally Posted by Dr T View PostNo 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)Could anyone explain how the "homoousios" God----the same substance God--can divide the God between the physical body of Christ and the non physical nature of God the Father?Homoousios means same substance. How can they be different substances and "homoousios" at the same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 21, 2011 Report Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Originally Posted by prisonchaplain View PostOf course an immortal God does not have a beginning. Traditionalists believe God created out of nothing. We do not believe in the premortal existence.dberrie---If you do not believe in the premortal existence--then how can one believe that Christ existed prior to His birth to Mary?The premortal existence of man. PC probably figured it was sufficiently implied by context (the message board, the religion of the person he was talking to, and the topic).1 Timothy2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" Edited December 22, 2011 by dberrie2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 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.How can God be totally separate from His creations--and they be His offspring:Acts17:29--"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."The word used here in Acts17:29 is "genos":Strong's #1085: genos (pronounced ghen'-os)genos1) kindred1a) offspring1b) family1c) stock, tribe, nation1c1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular peopleRead more: Strongs's #1085: genos :: Greek/Hebrew Definitions :: Bible ToolsIt is also the word which the English "genes" or "genetics" were derived from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 1 Timothy2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"Lovely and completely missing the point. PC believes that Christ has always existed and that he is a different substance than man. As such the existence of the premortal Jehovah does not require a belief in the LDS doctrine of the premortal existence of man from his perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Jesus is the eternal Son of God by relationship. He is his Father's Son. He did not start as something else and become God's son. He has always been what He is. He was not created. Are you suggesting that he had to be born physically to become God's Son?The "Only Begotten" Son--yes. Since we are all spirit children of God the Father--then that designation of the Son, as the "Only Begotten"--- takes on a unique meaning which could only be found in the flesh.Hebrews12:9--"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Originally Posted by Dravin View PostThe premortal existence of man. PC probably figured it was sufficiently implied by context (the message board, the religion of the person he was talking to, and the topic).Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post1 Timothy2:5--"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"Lovely and completely missing the point. PC believes that Christ has always existed and that he is a different substance than man. As such the existence of the premortal Jehovah does not require a belief in the LDS doctrine of the premortal existence of man from his perspective.One need only to resort to the Bible to find Christ the man, born of mortal woman, and His immortal existence as man following His death--and His preexistence prior to the twain.The preexistence of man is a fact, according to the Bible, regardless of LDS beliefs, which agree with the Bible.What is your evidence that flesh and bone is a different substance than mankind in general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 dberrie, please re-read the site rules, especially #2. You can also read the Article of Faith #11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 One need only to resort to the Bible to find Christ the man, born of mortal woman, and His immortal existence as man following His death--and His preexistence prior to the twain.The preexistence of man is a fact, according to the Bible, regardless of LDS beliefs, which agree with the Bible.The point is that PC was commenting on the LDS doctrine of the premortal existence of mankind. Ignoring he was referring to a specific LDS doctrine by trying to demonstrate anything of substance because "Christ existed premortally and the Bible calls him a man in this scripture" is just trying to score cheap rhetorical points.What is your evidence that flesh and bone is a different substance than mankind in general?My evidence of what? Why exactly am I providing evidence for something I've not claimed? What's your evidence that the moon is made of blue cheese with a Gouda center? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 I really appreciate this thread. My understanding of the trinitarian position is that God the Father is in very fact the father of God the Son. God the Son is in very fact the sone of God the Father.And, if we can believe the scriptures--God the Father is also the very God of Jesus also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostOne need only to resort to the Bible to find Christ the man, born of mortal woman, and His immortal existence as man following His death--and His preexistence prior to the twain.The preexistence of man is a fact, according to the Bible, regardless of LDS beliefs, which agree with the Bible.The point is that PC was commenting on the LDS doctrine of the premortal existence of mankind. Ignoring he was referring to a specific LDS doctrine by trying to demonstrate anything of substance because "Christ existed premortally and the Bible calls him a man in this scripture" is just trying to score cheap rhetorical points.I don't believe that the example of Christ is "cheap". If He was the Way, truth, and light of the world--then His example is significant--in all points of principle.If Christ was a preexistent spirit, and went into a body produced of mortal woman--then what is to say that is not an example of truth revealed? What would prevent the truth of other preexistent spirits entering physical bodies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 I don't believe that the example of Christ is "cheap".I don't either. Are we playing a game? Is the point to make a bunch of random statements of things we don't believe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 I don't either. Are we playing a game? Is the point to make a bunch of random statements of things we don't believe?Who do you identify as "we"?My statements reflected the Biblical doctrines concerning Christ's preexistence and subsequent inhabitation of the physical body. What do you find objectionable to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Who do you identify as "we"?My statements reflected the Biblical doctrines concerning Christ's preexistence and subsequent inhabitation of the physical body. What do you find objectionable to that?The fact that you're taking PC's statements out of context so you can 'win' some sort of Bible bash against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 The fact that you're taking PC's statements out of context so you can 'win' some sort of Bible bash against him.Why do you believe that the example of Christ is out of context of the preexistence of mankind--especially seeing that Christ was listed inside of that parameter by the Bible itself?If Christ was the way, truth, and light of the world--how is His example not reflective of mankind in general?How is that out of context? How can the example of Christ be so? In what way?If PC considers it out of context--why don't you allow him to answer for himself? Are all conversations only through vicarious spokepersons---and only in accordance with your perspective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Why do you believe that the example of Christ is out of context of the preexistence of mankind--especially seeing that Christ was listed inside of that parameter by the Bible itself?If Christ was the way, truth, and light of the world--how is His example not reflective of mankind in general?How is that out of context? How can the example of Christ be so? In what way?If PC considers it out of context--why don't you allow him to answer for himself? Are all conversations only through vicarious spokepersons---and only in accordance with your perspective?Until you stop equating your comments with the example of Christ we won't be getting anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 If you do not believe in the premortal existence--then how can one believe that Christ existed prior to His birth to Mary?He's the Son of God. I'm not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 How do you compare that statement to the scriptures:St John17:21-22--"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. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"Jesus was calling us to unity. The Father and the Son are united in purpose. Traditionalists do not deny this. We happen to believe they are also united in their essential nature--something that this particular passage is not addressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 How can God be totally separate from His creations--and they be His offspring:Acts17:29--"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."The word used here in Acts17:29 is "genos":Strong's #1085: genos (pronounced ghen'-os)genos1) kindred1a) offspring1b) family1c) stock, tribe, nation1c1) i.e. nationality or descent from a particular peopleRead more: Strongs's #1085: genos :: Greek/Hebrew Definitions :: Bible ToolsIt is also the word which the English "genes" or "genetics" were derived from.We are God's offspring because he made us--not because he gave birth to us. His image is in us though, so we are properly called the children of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberrie2000 Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostWhy do you believe that the example of Christ is out of context of the preexistence of mankind--especially seeing that Christ was listed inside of that parameter by the Bible itself?If Christ was the way, truth, and light of the world--how is His example not reflective of mankind in general?How is that out of context? How can the example of Christ be so? In what way?If PC considers it out of context--why don't you allow him to answer for himself? Are all conversations only through vicarious spokepersons---and only in accordance with your perspective?Until you stop equating your comments with the example of Christ we won't be getting anywhere.What example of Christ, in principle--do you find alien to all of mankind?And it is not my comments I am equating with the example of Christ, but the example of Christ typing that of mankind, in principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 The "Only Begotten" Son--yes. Since we are all spirit children of God the Father--then that designation of the Son, as the "Only Begotten"--- takes on a unique meaning which could only be found in the flesh.Hebrews12:9--"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?""Only begotten" has been translated as "One and only." Jesus is uniquely God's Son, because they are the same essence--they share a co-equal, co-eternal existence as the Godhead. We do not share that with the Father. We are his children by creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.