Lorenzo Snow Couplet

[Traveler]

Traveler, you have failed to see the logic of the Trinity as explained in scripture. You have done this in other threads and posters, like myself, have pointed out your errors but you don't seem to accept that you are in error in understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one in physical attributes they are one in essence. They share the same, one and only essence of divinity. Which is what makes them God. Only Jesus became incarnate, lived a human life, died and was resurrected. And he is God with a glorious body.

M.

I thank you for trying to clarify the Trinity. However, I have understood that the difference between man and G-d according to Trinitarian doctrine is much more than that which is physical. So my question to you is if Jesus (the Son) was the only essence of G-d capable of having the human attributes. Or was Jesus appearing as a man a pretense that was not real - or in other words just pretending while in essence maintaining his real divine essence.

The other possibility is that the Father has all the human attributes just as Jesus manifested - in which case the couplet stands even the criticism of Trinitarians that as man is even the Father once was. And that is most interesting.

But clarify for me - is Jesus "one" with the Father? Are the Father and the Son one G-d that are one in attributes?

The Traveler

[Maureen]

I thank you for trying to clarify the Trinity. However, I have understood that the difference between man and G-d according to Trinitarian doctrine is much more than that which is physical. So my question to you is if Jesus (the Son) was the only essence of G-d capable of having the human attributes. Or was Jesus appearing as a man a pretense that was not real - or in other words just pretending while in essence maintaining his real divine essence.

Jesus became incarnate which made him human and at the same time retained his divinity. He was truly man and truly God.

The other possibility is that the Father has all the human attributes just as Jesus manifested - in which case the couplet stands even the criticism of Trinitarians that as man is even the Father once was. And that is most interesting.

Trinitarians do not accept that the Father became human only the Son.

But clarify for me - is Jesus "one" with the Father? Are the Father and the Son one G-d that are one in attributes?

I think this depends on how you define attributes. If you are referring to physical attributes then no, the Father and the Son are not one physically. They are one in nature or essence. Like I said before they share the same, one and only divinity. Divinity is the attribute of God. So in other words they are one because of their divine attribute.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

So my question to you is if Jesus (the Son) was the only essence of G-d capable of having the human attributes. Or was Jesus appearing as a man a pretense that was not real - or in other words just pretending while in essence maintaining his real divine essence.

The other possibility is that the Father has all the human attributes just as Jesus manifested - in which case the couplet stands even the criticism of Trinitarians that as man is even the Father once was. And that is most interesting.

But clarify for me - is Jesus "one" with the Father? Are the Father and the Son one G-d that are one in attributes?

The Traveler

Traveler, I'm not sure where the bolded idea comes from. Trinitarians do not discuss whether the Father or the Spirit might be able to become incarnate. I imagine they could have. However, Father asked Jesus to do it. We can only assume that this is best.

Is your deeper question how it is that we insist that the Godhead is one in a deeper sense that mere agreement, and yet we say that it is three distinct persons? We use the word essence, and you want a break down as to what that word entails and does not entail? For example, Jesus became incarnate, and the Father and Spirit did not. Jesus remains corporeal and the Holy Spirit was sent in his place, for this very reason.

We might be able to profer some examples of the Godhead's oneness, and other examples of the distinct personalities. However, if you want an engineer's definition we'll likely disappoint.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If you remember we began this discussion talking about Jesus coming to earth and becoming a man. This is from the extension of the discussion that as man is G-d once was. You implied that Jesus could come to earth and be a man and do so vicariously for the Father in the same manner that we are able to do baptisms for the dead. I was trying to understand why you made such a comment.

Here is my post:

Notice that my main emphases concerned "attributes" of G-d. I pointed out that Jesus took upon him the attribute of man and my question is how could he have a different attribute than the Father and still be one in the Father - your answer was that he could do that vicariously in the same manner that we do baptisms for the dead. So I am exploring how it is that you believe a person can obtain an "attribute" by the vicarious work of another.

You will note that in my question I asked specifically if if an attribute could acquired vicariously.

The Traveler

I can see that, yes, we were not talking about the same things. I was more referring how the Father could take on all the things that were done before Him as His own. And since this life is one eternal round, the Father having taken on all that was before Him allows Christ to do what He saw His Father do (even though He may not have been the one who actually did it - He just took it on as His own).

Let me ask a question before I answer yours. What is the need for a body to become like our Heavenly Father? and Do our attributes change upon resurrection? I would say yes. The body contains a set of attributes as one body is like the glory of the sun, another is like the glory of the moon and then there are many others that take on the varied glories of the stars. (metaphorically speaking). Right now, my body attributes do not contain any of those glories. So, once I receive one of them, I will take on the attributes associated with that particular body. I hope to be worthy of such a gift. (key word - gift) If it is a gift, it was not personally created by me, then it was received by a vicarious act, namely the vicarious sacrifice of my Savior.

[ElectofGod]

I am going to jump in this discussion. I do agree with what traveler is saying on this one. Whats the point of even going through suffering or pain or trials if we can just live vicariously through Christ. I will just let him do it all for me. lol

Trinity:

God: The Father

Jesus: The Son

Holy Spirit: The mind of God, Record of Heaven, Holy Ghost, The God within each of us.

-----------

We become Christ's as his adopted Sons when we do what we see him do. (Joseph Smith stated "I [Joseph] only do what I see the Father do")

The Father: Christ

The Son: US

Holy Spirit: The mind of God, etc...

The three allows us to be one by having the holy spirit and doing all things it tells us to do we are ONE with God. Because we only do what we see the Father do. What is the purpose of the Son [Christ]? To present us to the Father who's job is to purify us (perfect).

Someone brought up about Christ suffering and God. I will paraphrase Joseph Fielding Smith as quoted by Truman G Madsen in his lectures on the prophet Joseph Smith series. When did Christ ever see the Father [Heavenly Father] suffer? "It was revealed to him in a vision".

The father will never ask us to do something he himself has not experienced in some way or form. The law of "adoption" is an eternal principle as well. The Father may be one with Christ but they are not 100% equal in dominion, principalities... The story of the talents can also be applied to "being faithful over all things", we gain a great posterity as we are faithful over what we currently have.

[Traveler]

Maureen and PC:

Whenever I have had a discussion with Trinitirians concerning the nature of G-d they inform me that the essence of G-d is different than the essence of man. That even with G-d - man could not become a being of the same essence. Then in the next breath I am told that Jesus became incarnate and became fully man????

I believe the couplet of Lorenzo Snow is a very important consideration and the doctrine of Christ becoming a man to atone for sin. So the question is the truth or error in the statement - as man is G-d once was. Was indeed true in all arguments and possibilities was Christ ever a man or not? I am not asking if G-d pretended to be a man but if in reality Jesus was a man without some divine pretending exception.

If Jesus was in very essence a man then we know G-d has the power to make man a G-d. But before we can get to the second part we must know for surety if G-d can be a man - of if in the eternal divine scheme of things that which is G-d is by essence different from man and therefore not in reality possible?

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Traveler, I think a good question to ask is why did God become man.

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

God became Man to save mankind. And only God can save us. God is divine, man is human. God is the creator, man is the created. God has his reason for becoming man, what would be the reason for man to become God? Especially if there can only be one God.

M.

[Maureen]

Traveler, here's something to read that might answer your questions in depth. If you don't want to read the whole essay, check out the paragraph titled The Incarnation & Kenosis.

Christology: Jesus Christ | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Maureen and PC:

Whenever I have had a discussion with Trinitirians concerning the nature of G-d they inform me that the essence of G-d is different than the essence of man. That even with G-d - man could not become a being of the same essence. Then in the next breath I am told that Jesus became incarnate and became fully man????

Why can Jesus become man if man cannot become God? Or, why can the Creator become what He creates, but the created cannot become the Creator?

It is not difficult for me to understand this. The Almighty can humble himself. However, the mortal one cannot exalt himself.

He who is limitless may choose to limit himself. The one who is limited and bound cannot unbind himself and become limitless.

I believe the couplet of Lorenzo Snow is a very important consideration and the doctrine of Christ becoming a man to atone for sin. So the question is the truth or error in the statement - as man is G-d once was. Was indeed true in all arguments and possibilities was Christ ever a man or not? I am not asking if G-d pretended to be a man but if in reality Jesus was a man without some divine pretending exception.

Are you saying that what Lorenzo Snow meant was that Christ was once a man? I had understood the couplet to mean that Father God was once a mere mortal and that he progressed to godhood.

If Jesus was in very essence a man then we know G-d has the power to make man a G-d.

Except that before Jesus was a man He was God. Philippians says that Jesus humbled himself, becoming a little lower than the angels.

So, Christ's ascension was a RETURN and an ACCEPTANCE of the sacrifice...not an example of men becoming God.

[Traveler]

Why can Jesus become man if man cannot become God? Or, why can the Creator become what He creates, but the created cannot become the Creator?

It is not difficult for me to understand this. The Almighty can humble himself. However, the mortal one cannot exalt himself.

He who is limitless may choose to limit himself. The one who is limited and bound cannot unbind himself and become limitless.

Are you saying that what Lorenzo Snow meant was that Christ was once a man? I had understood the couplet to mean that Father God was once a mere mortal and that he progressed to godhood.

Except that before Jesus was a man He was God. Philippians says that Jesus humbled himself, becoming a little lower than the angels.

So, Christ's ascension was a RETURN and an ACCEPTANCE of the sacrifice...not an example of men becoming God.

Before we try to come up with a solution for everything we need to first come up with the answer to the first question. When we consider the question of Lorenzo Snow we can start with the most simple parts to which we have information and if possible can come to agreement.

So the first considerations is: As mas is G-d once was. We know that Jesus can be called G-d. I think we can all agree to that. Now the question is - was Jesus once a man. This should not be a difficult question to answer. However, once we conclude - we cannot go back and change our answer in order to verify another statement. For example if we say G-d is the creator and man is the created then we cannot say G-d was ever a created being. That is utter nonsense because G-d cannot be created if he already existed.

But there are more problems - if we say that G-d created something and that something then became a part of him - then there is a part of G-d is different and we must admit that G-d is not the same today as he was in the beginning. If the essence of G-d is different than man then if G-d were to become man by essence - then the essence of what is G-d would be lost. If it was still intact then in essence G-d was never in reality man.

But my point is that if G-d ever changed to be the man Jesus then we know that is is possible for the very essence of G-d to be the very essence of man. If Jesus was a man and we say that he is now a G-d then with the simplest application of logic we know that man can become G-d and Jesus is the example.

Before we go anywhere else and try to discover anything else we can say either yes or no to Jesus once being a man and now being a G-d. We can agree or we can say that is a false doctrine and we need not look to anything else and there is no reason to continue. But if we agree concerning Jesus in truth was once a man - then we may consider more possibilities. But if it is not possible for Jesus to be a man - we are done and there is nothing more to consider concerning this topic. Agreed? or no?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Traveler, here's something to read that might answer your questions in depth. If you don't want to read the whole essay, check out the paragraph titled The Incarnation & Kenosis.

Christology: Jesus Christ | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

M.

I wonder if this is what you believe - I read the paragraph and found it riddled with contradictions and avoided the question - was Jesus a man as we are to understand man to be? I am not sure - the section seem to try to say Jesus was a man but then creates adjectives that indicate that if we are to define man to which you and I would qualify - Jesus was no such thing but something quite different and still worthy of worship as G-d. But if we define man as a created thing unworthy of worship - the paragraph become meaningless nonsensical dribble.

The question is - do we believe Jesus was a man. If we agree to that point then we can discuss other points and the possible logic of them and we can consider the plausibility of other ideas, concepts and doctrines but we must be clear on this one point and say that we agree or no. It accomplishes nothing to say Jesus was a man not not really a man but a being of dual nature. Man has no such dual nature and if Jesus was a dual nature and a man then we must agree that all men have that exact same dual nature and that the dual nature become a definition of man. Other wise Jesus was not a man but something else that we can call a dual nature thing that is some ways is like a man but in reality is something quite different.

The Traveler

Edited April 23, 2013 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler,

Jesus is God and Jesus was fully man. We agree on that.

Jesus was ascended to the Father. In this He was exalted. So, since we agree that he is now corporeal, is he still man...is man now part of the essence of God?

Even if we (Trinitarians) were to argue that Jesus is no longer man, that he was exalted to his proper condition is God the Son, in fullness--even so, we must admit that God was once man in his essence.

You suggest that this means man can become God, because the man Jesus did. Must this be the conclusion, though? Could it not be that since Jesus alone was incarnate, that his reversion to glorified Godhood is unique, and unreplicable by mortal men, who, after all, have never been God?

[Traveler]

Traveler,

Jesus is God and Jesus was fully man. We agree on that.

Jesus was ascended to the Father. In this He was exalted. So, since we agree that he is now corporeal, is he still man...is man now part of the essence of God?

Even if we (Trinitarians) were to argue that Jesus is no longer man, that he was exalted to his proper condition is God the Son, in fullness--even so, we must admit that God was once man in his essence.

You suggest that this means man can become God, because the man Jesus did. Must this be the conclusion, though? Could it not be that since Jesus alone was incarnate, that his reversion to glorified Godhood is unique, and unreplicable by mortal men, who, after all, have never been God?

Wow - I believe bells should be wringing that we have made an agreement on such an important point. Thank You. I find this point to be one of the great wonders of Jesus. To give up so much to condescend and to be man. Before we go on - I hope all stand in wonder at this point and appreciate the sacrifice Jesus made - just in being born a man child.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

The punchline is that Jesus wants us to have the same humility.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. -- Philippians 2:5-8

[Traveler]

The punchline is that Jesus wants us to have the same humility.

I prefer to think rather that Jesus wants us to realize that man (us) can have the same G-dlyness as him.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Traveler, I think Trinitarians and LDS (you in particular) view Jesus very differently. Before the beginning, before time and space even existed there was God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Trinitarians do not see Jesus as a spirit child of Heavenly parents. We do not view him as a spiritual sibling. He is not like us because he is God. He was not an intelligence, then a spirit child, he did not require a body like LDS believe Heavenly Father's spirit children require bodies. Jesus has always been God. Which is why Trinitarians say God became man.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Maureen captures our vast differences well. Note how it informs our view of the Philippians passage. Do we pursue Christ's G-dlyness or his humility? Perhaps we achieve christlikeness (godliness) by emulating his willingness to come down among us. To quote a practical example from the Boy Scouts, "A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child."

[Windseeker]

Maureen captures our vast differences well. Note how it informs our view of the Philippians passage. Do we pursue Christ's G-dlyness or his humility? Perhaps we achieve christlikeness (godliness) by emulating his willingness to come down among us. To quote a practical example from the Boy Scouts, "A man never stands so tall as when he stoops to help a child."

Since I'm LDS and Christ is my Savior humilty = G-dlyness. I don't see how you can pursue one without the other.

[prisonchaplain]

Windseeker...you, I, Maureen, and Traveler would probably all agree that humility is a righteousness worth pursuing. The difference that keeps niggling at us is between godliness (holiness, love, goodness, etc.) and G-dlyness (Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, I'm assuming).

[Traveler]

Traveler, I think Trinitarians and LDS (you in particular) view Jesus very differently. Before the beginning, before time and space even existed there was God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Trinitarians do not see Jesus as a spirit child of Heavenly parents. We do not view him as a spiritual sibling. He is not like us because he is God. He was not an intelligence, then a spirit child, he did not require a body like LDS believe Heavenly Father's spirit children require bodies. Jesus has always been God. Which is why Trinitarians say God became man.

M.

Before we get into notions of speculation based on our various view points - I am trying very hard to determine that upon which we agree and then to drill down to that subtle point of first difference. I realize that we can bring up a spectrum of concepts and find a gulf of precieved and defined differences - but I want to initialize the cause of actual difference.

Do you believe Jesus was a man. In other words do you believe as man is Jesus once was. This is not just some idea but a very important point. He either was a man or he was not - what is your belief?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Windseeker...you, I, Maureen, and Traveler would probably all agree that humility is a righteousness worth pursuing. The difference that keeps niggling at us is between godliness (holiness, love, goodness, etc.) and G-dlyness (Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, I'm assuming).

Once - some time ago you said G-d is the creator and man is the created and therefore one can never be the other. Before we get into any of that I am wondering if Jesus really was ever once a man.

I believe this is a most important discussion. Before we try to solve any other question - are you sure that you believe this notion that Jesus ever once was actually and really a man?

This seemingly simple doctrine - has very far reaching and in some reaches very complex repercussions.

Added. Often in discussion with Trinitrians seem to play word games and say Jesus was fully man and fully G-d. To me the fully G-d is given in complete contradiction to the fully man statement and what the two statements mean to them and what is being conveyed. This because that say that which is G-d is to be differentiated from that which is man. But before we get into any speculations as to what is or may be different I am trying to understand the Trinity. Is it possible in the doctrine of the trinity to understand, admit and believe that Jesus was a man.

The Traveler

Edited April 23, 2013 by Traveler
Added the Added paragraph

[mikbone]

Do you believe Jesus was a man. In other words do you believe as man is Jesus once was. This is not just some idea but a very important point. He either was a man or he was not - what is your belief?

Yes.

[prisonchaplain]

Jesus was a man--fully. We say he remained fully God because God does not stop being God. Nevertheless, during Jesus' sojourn on Earth He embraced limitation. As one example, when Jesus was touched by the woman with an issue of blood power left Jesus. He felt diminished, or weakened. He asked, "Who touched me?" Some would argue that the question was meant to illicit faith and confidence in the woman--that Jesus, as God, knew who the woman was. This is probably wrong. He was a man--truly. It is most likely that he did not know who the woman was. The miracles Jesus performed were such as we perform. We do them in Christ's name, but it is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus relied on that same power. He did so because he was a man.

I perceive that you will draw some conclusions that you believe are logical, based upon my agreement that Jesus was man. I cannot promise that I will agree with those conclusions. If/then conclusions are sometimes flawed. To throw out the first qualifier, I would insist that Jesus did not cease being God, even though he willingly gave up infinite power, omnipresence, and omniscience during his time among us.

[Windseeker]

Windseeker...you, I, Maureen, and Traveler would probably all agree that humility is a righteousness worth pursuing. The difference that keeps niggling at us is between godliness (holiness, love, goodness, etc.) and G-dlyness (Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, I'm assuming).

So what is the difference to you between pursuing the attributes of Heavenly Father (becoming like him) and seeking to live with him?

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

We get the way, the truth and eternal life thru him. Is there a way without truth or life without a way?

I feel like I'm jumping into a conversation midway and not understanding all the pretext. I've read this thread but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

I understand we see their nature differntly (trinity vs seperate and distinct) but how do you feel lds believing we can literally become like him change what we are pursuing?

[Maureen]

...Do you believe Jesus was a man. In other words do you believe as man is Jesus once was. This is not just some idea but a very important point. He either was a man or he was not - what is your belief?

Yes I believe that Jesus was once a man.

But like PC mentioned, your conclusions based on my belief that Jesus was a man, may not seem reasonable to me. He was a man and at the same time we was God.

M.