Another attempt at describing the Trinity

[prisonchaplain]

Let's try mathematics:

Trinitarianism: 1X1X1 = 1: God the Father X God the Son X God the Holy Spirit = one God.

LDS: 1+1+1 = 3 ---> 1: Father plus Son plus Holy Spirit = 3 gods who make one Godhead, serving one purpose.

Oneness modalism: 1 = 1&1&1 ---> Jesus serves in the role of Father, of Son, and of Holy Spirit.

[rameumptom]

AnthonyB,

The creed that states God has no body, parts or passions, means he has no emotions - at least not as we understand them. So, when John tells us that "God so loved the world", it really is meaningless according to this creed, as we do not know what love means to God.

And then, when applied to Calvin's TULIP (another creed), we see that God cannot be as loving as the scriptures state, because he chooses whom he will save and condemn solely on a whim. Good works and faith are meaningless, because all is predestined, and if you are predestined by God to burn in hell, you can believe and repent and obey commandments all you wish, and it won't help you.

Then is the issue of a God of love that condemns those who have never had a chance to hear His message. How is that loving? St Augustine took it to the level that even little children that are not baptized will burn in hell. Christians have sought formulae to get around that awful idea - Catholics chose limbo as a side option (until recently when it was rejected as non-Biblical, and are now seeking an alternative to save children from hell). Other Christians choose to believe that God will save them anyway, even if they didn't repent and choose faith in Christ. Many Christian groups have decided to toss the commandments, in order to save more people, whether it be on abortion, homosexuality or even murder (which Paul condemned).

There are a lot of great Christian churches out there teaching people faith in Christ. I'm just concerned about creeds that are not based on actual Bible teachings that stand in place of the scriptural teachings.

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

I disagree on how you appear to parse the sentence. I would think that it should be understood as no body parts or no body passions. It is not IMHO meant preclude emotions but bodily passions. Which I think they would have meant the things that being bodily makes us passionate for. That is intimate physical relations, food and even sleep. (Have you ever gone over 24 hours without sleep and felt how passionately your body desires it.)

I should hope I shouldn't need to argue that God doesn't lust after women, and that He does not have that body passon. Nor that hunger drives him to eat.

Now for me the bible makes it clear that God neither sleeps nor slumbers. Elijah when he is taunting the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, ridicules them that their God may be taking a nap but that his God always answers. If God has body passions then He need would sleep, so how does he hear people pray to him when he is asleep.

Now you may raise the question about Jesus retaining His body, but Paul makes it clear (1 Cor 15)that this is a spiritual body, so I would see that He would have a body but I don't think He is still captive to the body passions as we are on this earth.

[rameumptom]

I am not parsing the sentence. Do a review of what the Anglicans and others have written about it, and you'll see that God is without human-like passions, including human-like love.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Now you may raise the question about Jesus retaining His body, but Paul makes it clear (1 Cor 15)that this is a spiritual body, so I would see that He would have a body but I don't think He is still captive to the body passions as we are on this earth.

Jesus himself made a point of emphasising that he was resurrected in a physical tangible body, not a spiritual one.

[Maureen]

I am not parsing the sentence. Do a review of what the Anglicans and others have written about it, and you'll see that God is without human-like passions, including human-like love.

Human love can be fickle. God instead shows his creation agape love.

M.

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

Your right I'm not an Anglican, so I can't define exactly what they mean by it. I think the human emotions are an image of God's not vice-versa. He is the perfect example of our human emotions, excepting those passions or emotions that our carnal or bodily.

I suppose you'd have no trouble apply the verb "eros" to God.

I curious though do LDS believe God the Father needs to sleep, eat, bathe, and eliminate bodily fluids and solids?

Willow,

If you get a chance read 1Cor15 Paul makes it clear that the will have Christ like resurrected bodies and those will be spiritual bodies. Maybe Christ's body after the ascension was slightly different to the resurrection one.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Willow,

If you get a chance read 1Cor15 Paul makes it clear that the will have Christ like resurrected bodies and those will be spiritual bodies. Maybe Christ's body after the ascension was slightly different to the resurrection one.

I think here you are confusing the word 'spirit' with the word 'spiritual' and the word 'natural' with the word 'physical'.

We have already seen that in Scripture we are told the natural man is an enemy to God. That doesn't mean that physical bodies are an enemy to God. We are told to conquer the natural man in order to become closer to God. Does this mean that we should kill ourselves to be free of our physical bodies? Of course not. Have you never heard of anyone being referred to as being a spiritual person? It doesn't mean that they are a ghost. We can be spiritual in this life before we even die, and in fact we should be striving towards being more spiritual.

All that verse 44 is telling is is that when we are resurrected we will be spiritual. We will be resurrected into a perfected physical body but we will not have the natural desires and instincts of 'the natural man' - we'll have passed through this trial period of our faith and have moved on to another stage. We WILL have passed through a stage of being a spirit (ghost) before our resurrection yes indeed, but when we are resurrected that stage will be over. Our spirits will be united with a perfected physical body. I'm sure this isn't just LDS teaching because it wasn't new to me when I joined the church. This is something I'd been fully aware of in the Baptist church.

[rameumptom]

rameumptom,

Your right I'm not an Anglican, so I can't define exactly what they mean by it. I think the human emotions are an image of God's not vice-versa. He is the perfect example of our human emotions, excepting those passions or emotions that our carnal or bodily.

I suppose you'd have no trouble apply the verb "eros" to God.

I curious though do LDS believe God the Father needs to sleep, eat, bathe, and eliminate bodily fluids and solids?

LDS belief is God's emotions are akin to human's. However, he has perfected them. An interesting verse in Alma tells us to "bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love" (Alma 38:12). A perfectly bridled set of passions would equate to God-like agape/eros. In this way, we can actually learn to be like God, as we can understand that, while imperfect, our emotions and thoughts can actually reflect his on some levels.

We do not know if God, whose body is perfected and glorified, needs to sleep, etc. We do know from Genesis that God rested after creating the Earth. We also know that the resurrected Jesus ate with his disciples. So God CAN do some of these things, though I'm not certain if they are necessary.

[S2LR]

I think here you are confusing the word 'spirit' with the word 'spiritual' and the word 'natural' with the word 'physical'.

We have already seen that in Scripture we are told the natural man is an enemy to God. That doesn't mean that physical bodies are an enemy to God. We are told to conquer the natural man in order to become closer to God. Does this mean that we should kill ourselves to be free of our physical bodies? Of course not. Have you never heard of anyone being referred to as being a spiritual person? It doesn't mean that they are a ghost. We can be spiritual in this life before we even die, and in fact we should be striving towards being more spiritual.

All that verse 44 is telling is is that when we are resurrected we will be spiritual. We will be resurrected into a perfected physical body but we will not have the natural desires and instincts of 'the natural man' - we'll have passed through this trial period of our faith and have moved on to another stage. We WILL have passed through a stage of being a spirit (ghost) before our resurrection yes indeed, but when we are resurrected that stage will be over. Our spirits will be united with a perfected physical body. I'm sure this isn't just LDS teaching because it wasn't new to me when I joined the church. This is something I'd been fully aware of in the Baptist church.

I agree with what is said here. From modern day scripture we get more clarification with what Paul is teaching in 1 Corith. 15 (see D&C 88:20-31).

IMHO, the Bible teaches quite clearly that Christ resurrected with a glorified body of flesh and bones (see Luke 24:39) and that he will return in a like manner with this same glorified body (see Acts 1:11 and Zech 13:6). To assert that Christ dumped his glorified body off after he cleared the clouds during his ascension is absurd. Such an assertion would suggest that he died twice since dying, by definition, is a separation of the spirit and the body. It's more plausible to believe that Christ dwells in heaven with his glorified body of flesh and bones and that he will return with this body at his second coming.

[jadams_4040]

I'm only joking Anthony! I was brought up a Roman Catholic, and have had the Trinity explained to me a number of different ways, and it still baffles me...however I do find it difficult to think of God the Father and Jesus being seperate people..

Maybe try remembering verses in the bible such as , My god, my God why hast thou forsaken me? {spoken by Jesus}

Or, father take from me this bitter cup not as i would , but as thou will be done. {spoken by Jesus}

There are many such verses in the bible, that contradict the trinity, And also if one studies up on just how the trinity beleife came about in the first place, that information alone is enough to convince anyone of its non correctness.:)

[JonboySquarepants]

which verses contradict the trinity? i see verses that can be read and understood and interpreted as Jesus and the Father being seperate personages, but how many say that they are not God? How many verses are there that say that there is only one God? after that, how many verses are there that say that there is more than one God? then, how many verses that say that God wasn't always a God? the idea of the tinity teachs that there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; not three Gods but one Eternal God.

i think it is as easy for me to believe in the trinity as it is for LDS to believe in an eternal regression of gods, not one being eternally a God.

[rameumptom]

which verses contradict the trinity? i see verses that can be read and understood and interpreted as Jesus and the Father being seperate personages, but how many say that they are not God? How many verses are there that say that there is only one God? after that, how many verses are there that say that there is more than one God? then, how many verses that say that God wasn't always a God? the idea of the tinity teachs that there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; not three Gods but one Eternal God.

i think it is as easy for me to believe in the trinity as it is for LDS to believe in an eternal regression of gods, not one being eternally a God.

We agree with Trinitarians that the Father and Jesus are both God(s). The point being made is that the Trinitarian creeds emphasize the Father and Son as one being, not two separate beings (though described as two persons of the same being). They are not separate, and so events such as Jesus praying to God, establishing they have separate wills, that God can forsake Jesus, that God can proclaim his acceptance of Jesus at his baptism, Jesus resurrected physical body, and that Stephen sees Jesus standing on God's right hand, ALL signify two physically separate beings.

As for the verses that say there is only One God, there are easy answers for that. John 17, Jesus tells us to be one, even as he and the Father are one. I do not think any Christians read that as all of us becoming one single amorphous entity. Rather, we are to be united in will and thought and desire, as the Godhead is.

Biblical scholars, like Margaret Barker and William G. Dever have taught that the original Hebrews in the First Temple and before, believed in a divine council of Gods. The concept of only one God came later with the changes made by the Priestly and Deuteronomic groups, and they edited the scriptures to try and eliminate much of the divine council. But they failed. Margaret Barker shows in "The Great Angel" that God and Jesus are separate beings, with Jesus being the Messianic Great Angel, Yahweh, and that early Christians understood that separation.

As for God not always being God, we LDS admit we have little revelation regarding that concept. What we do know, is that God has always been God for us; and that there has always been a Godhead since the beginning (Big Bang or whatever?). My KJV Revelation 1:5-6 says that Jesus "hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father....", which pretty much describes Jesus' Father, God, having a Father, as well. Regardless of the concept, it is something that has been restored. What is more perfect, the Father never having been mortal, or Jesus that was mortal and resurrected with a physical body that somehow becomes a part of God, but can't become part of God, since it is of impure substance, of which God is always of pure substance? In such an instance, should not mortality and the resurrection have caused a literal separation of God from himself? Otherwise, how can he both be resurrected and pure Spirit at once?

Historically, scholars show that God is anthropomorphic. Historically, scholars show there was a divine council of separate Gods, including El Elyon and Yahweh. Historically, scholars show that later temple priests sought to gain control of the religion by combining El and Yahweh into one God, and removing continuous revelation and angelic visitations from Jewish religion. Margaret Barker states that Jesus attempted to restore these concepts, which is one key reason the Sanhedrin sought his death.

Scholars, like Bart Ehrman, show us that the exact same thing occurred in the early Christian church. Revelation was stopped and the Bible finished, so that the proto-orthodox church could gain control from the other churches that claimed revelation and authority of God. These are rather strong historical evidences showing that the Trinity of One God does not go back to the days of Christ, or through the Jews before King Josiah's reforms.

While I believe that LDS and other traditional Christians basically believe in the same Jesus and God, I believe that the better we understand what and who God is, the better we can worship and follow Him.

[AnthonyB]

rameumptom,

I can't help but think that you think we actually believe in "Patripassianism", that the Father suffered on the cross. Beleiving in one being does not preclude that being being in two physcial locations. The Father did not suffer on the cross, the son did. LDS seem to have a nexus between physcial location and being, to "mere" Christians there are two "capable of being in seperate places" persons in one being.

[JonboySquarepants]

Ram, yes there are verses like the one you mention in john 17. i'm not saying that there aren't verses that can be read and interpreted the way that you see it. all i'm saying though, is don't draw your conclusions based on a few verses. over and over and over again the Bible teachs that there is only one God. it never says that there is more than one God. it never says there is a group of Gods in charge of all of us. but i see where you're coming from. there is a lot of history that the Bible has come through. it's been written by so many different people and in so many different languages and has been translated from copies of copies of copies. there are no originals; none that i'm aware of anyway.

so, where else can we look? how about the book of mormon. what does the book of mormon say? sure, the book of mormon was written by different people spanning hundreds of years. but it was all translated by one guy by the power of God. it's teachings have not been corrupted by copies of copies of translations of translations, right? it's my understanding that God gave j. smith the words, j. smith read the words to his scribes, and his scribes wrote them down. when it was recorded correctly, the next passage was given him. so, how many Gods does the book of mormon say there are? how many times in the book of mormon does it say 'father son and holy ghost, which are/is one God?'

and are you really serious about rev. 1:5-6? it is not saying that God has a father. "...unto God and his[Jesus'] Father..." not "unto God and his[God the Father's] Father..." i mean honestly, could you try to squeeze that in there any tighter?

[rameumptom]

rameumptom,

I can't help but think that you think we actually believe in "Patripassianism", that the Father suffered on the cross. Beleiving in one being does not preclude that being being in two physcial locations. The Father did not suffer on the cross, the son did. LDS seem to have a nexus between physcial location and being, to "mere" Christians there are two "capable of being in seperate places" persons in one being.

I know that Trinitarians do not believe in Patripassianism. I understand that the Trinity is a "mystery" that is not comprehensible, hence one being being in two places at once. However, for someone who studies logic and philosophy, it begs the question of where logic ends and faith in an incomprehensible mystery being begins....

[rameumptom]

Ram, yes there are verses like the one you mention in john 17. i'm not saying that there aren't verses that can be read and interpreted the way that you see it. all i'm saying though, is don't draw your conclusions based on a few verses. over and over and over again the Bible teachs that there is only one God. it never says that there is more than one God. it never says there is a group of Gods in charge of all of us. but i see where you're coming from. there is a lot of history that the Bible has come through. it's been written by so many different people and in so many different languages and has been translated from copies of copies of copies. there are no originals; none that i'm aware of anyway.

so, where else can we look? how about the book of mormon. what does the book of mormon say? sure, the book of mormon was written by different people spanning hundreds of years. but it was all translated by one guy by the power of God. it's teachings have not been corrupted by copies of copies of translations of translations, right? it's my understanding that God gave j. smith the words, j. smith read the words to his scribes, and his scribes wrote them down. when it was recorded correctly, the next passage was given him. so, how many Gods does the book of mormon say there are? how many times in the book of mormon does it say 'father son and holy ghost, which are/is one God?'

and are you really serious about rev. 1:5-6? it is not saying that God has a father. "...unto God and his[Jesus'] Father..." not "unto God and his[God the Father's] Father..." i mean honestly, could you try to squeeze that in there any tighter?

Wrong. Over and over and over again, the Bible teaches us that there is a diversity of Gods (divine council), but only one God of Israel! Job (ch 1) tells of the sons of God (divine council) and Lucifer (also a part of that council) going to Yahweh and challenging him for supremacy of Israel. Isaiah 6 shows the divine council, and Isaiah's symbolic stance as Messiah, when he answers the call of "Whom shall I send?" Even John the Revelator sees the divine council, surrounding the throne of God prior to the trumpets and dispensations and destructions are begun in the Apocalypse. And that doesn't explain Stephen seeing Jesus standing on the right hand of God - either he did see this, or God deceived him in a vision.

The Book of Mormon DOES say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God, but always in the context of the "Doctrine of Christ" (2 Ne 31, 3 Ne 11). That doctrine is for us to receive the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, and live them, until we become one, even as the Godhead is one. Here we get the same teaching as we get from Jesus in John 17. And when truly studied in context, it is the ONLY reasonable way to read it!

Next, when the resurrected Christ came to the Nephites, it was clear that he was separate from the Father. Father introduced him. Jesus prayed to him. Jesus stated that the Nephites prayed to him and not the Father, only because he was in their presence. If they were the same being, such a distinction would not be necessary.

As for Revelation 1:5-6, I realize that other translations say differently. But KJV clearly shows that Jesus "made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." I see that as you parsing scripture. However, if someone is going to insist on "sola scriptura", then I'm going to insist that they considered the KJV, which is the most common available English version, as God-breathed and completely correct. Now, if you do not believe in sola scriptura, then we are open on the debate of new revelation that transcends the Bible's incomplete teachings!

[JonboySquarepants]

rev. 1:6 says "...And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." i think if i'm reading this as you are, then it's ...

and [jesus] made us kings and priests unto God and his[God's]Father; to him[?] be glory and dominion for ever and ever. amen.

first, why do we need to be kings and priests unto God's Father? second... well, i'm not going to tell you how you have to read the scritpure. i'm gonna just explain how i'm reading it and that should be good enough. verses 5 and 6 are one sentence starting near the end of 5 and ending with 6. the main subject in this sentence is Jesus Christ, as stated at the beginning of verse 5. when the pronouns 'his' and 'him' are being used in those verses, it's referring IMO to Jesus Christ. so, when it says "...unto God and his Father..." i'm reading the 'his' as Jesus Christ.

i'm reading the scriptures you've given me and i don't see anywhere in the context of those scriptures the teaching that there is more than one God. i'm not saying that there isn't a father son and holy spirit, but i do say that those three are not three seperate Gods; scriptures say they are all God. you're telling me that the sons of God and lucifer are all Gods? i didn't get that impression when i read it. where is the verse that says there is more than one God? there are plenty of verses that say there is only one God. i understand that the word one can be used to mean in unity and purpose, but i don't think that is always the meaning of it when referring to there being one God. but hey, maybe this is me be close-minded.

[NateHowe]

How is it inconceivable for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to each be "God," and yet separate individuals? "God" is a title, not a name.

[JonboySquarepants]

i just don't see them as seperate Gods. i see a father son and holy spirit, but i only see one God; not three.

[NateHowe]

They are united in purpose, but scriptural accounts of their physical nature show that they are separate in person. That does not invalidate your feeling that they comprise the one true God we worship. However, they do have distinct roles: The Father made the plan and gave the law, the Son is the intercessor between us and the Father, and the Holy Ghost testifies of them and directs man to truth. If the Father and the Son were the same person, there would be no logical place for a mediator (Christ).

[JonboySquarepants]

i'm not saying there are three persons, but neither do i see those three persons as three Gods. as i understand(limited as i am), the son is neither the father nor the holy spirit, the father is neither the son nor the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is neither the father nor the son; but all three are one God. as to physical nature, scriptures refer the father as a spirit.

[rameumptom]

You have to study the background of the Bible, to understand the Divine Council. It was a council of Gods, headed by El Elyon/Elohim, and his sons. El Elyon divided the nations of the earth to his sons in the Council, with Yahweh receiving the most coveted prize: Israel. These sons were Gods of the nations they were given.

Some of the Sons of El (Sons of God), were incompetent and were replaced or overthrown by others of the Sons of God. In one Biblical passage, Yahweh states that there never was another God before him, and there won't be anymore after him. He was referencing the fall of the Canaanite God (I believe it was Yam, someone correct me?), who was replaced by Baal. Yahweh was stating that he always was God of Israel, and would never be replaced.

Job tells of a challenge by the Sons of El to Yahweh, who were trying to obtain Israel for themselves. Yes, Lucifer was with the Sons of El, and it is suggestive that he makes the challenge, as if he is/was a member of the divine council! Yahweh defeats his challengers, as Job stays faithful regardless of what he is afflicted with.

With time, the Israelites are carried off to other nations, where they are surprised to have prophets (Moses, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.) who tell them that Yahweh has power in the other nations, as well. Essentially, Yahweh obtains the power over all the nations of the Earth over his competitors in the divine council.

As for whether the Trinity is one God or three Gods, all I can say is the Bible and early Church Leaders are very certain of them being physically separate Beings. Origen stated that Christ was God, but subordinate to the Father, for instance. Jesus wants us to be one, even as he and the Father are one (John 17) - showing they are separate beings, or that we will all be one Spirit Being in the resurrection (are there any other options? I don't think so). Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which means he literally saw two beings, or God deceived him. Since God does not lie, there must be two separate beings that Stephen saw. And this agrees with Joseph Smith's First Vision - Father and Son as two physically separate beings that were united in all purposes and relational things.

One can accept the great majority of the passages as to what they not only infer, but what they actually say, or one can parse the Bible according to his/her own beliefs.

[rameumptom]

One more thought on Lucifer as a member of the divine council. Isaiah 14 refers to the King of Babylon as falling from his design to be king of the world, and then symbolically ties it to Lucifer. John the Revelator tells us that Lucifer caused a war in heaven and took one-third part of the host of heaven with him. What was his intent? According to Isaiah, it was to place his throne above God's throne! Sounds a lot like his intention in challenging Yahweh for Job, does it not? Yet, as with the other challengers in the divine council, Yahweh throws Lucifer down, casting him out of heaven for rebellion. The members of the divine council had two choices: fight Yahweh, or submit to his greater rule. Later, Yahweh asks Job if he was them when the "Sons of El shouted for joy" at the creation - clearly referring back to the divine council and those divine Sons of El!

In the Book of Abraham, Abraham sees the Divine Council in vision. He sees the Great ones standing around God, and the Lord turns to Abraham and tells him he was a member of that Divine Council and was chosen before the world was created! So, how could Abraham be a divine being, and yet come to mortality? In the same way Jesus/Yahweh did - a Divine Son of God before mortality, and still a Divine Son of God after resurrection.

Kind of all ties in, doesn't it? And there are lots of other points I could make on this, but hopefully this should give all an idea of the Divine Council was a group of Divine Beings, Sons of El. Margaret Barker, in fact, establishes the difference between Sons of El and sons of Yahweh. The former are divine beings and the second group are mortals that have chosen Yahweh as God.

[rameumptom]

i'm not saying there are three persons, but neither do i see those three persons as three Gods. as i understand(limited as i am), the son is neither the father nor the holy spirit, the father is neither the son nor the holy spirit, and the holy spirit is neither the father nor the son; but all three are one God. as to physical nature, scriptures refer the father as a spirit.

And scripture states that "God is Spirit (not "A" Spirit) and we must worship him in spirit and truth." Am I to believe then that I cannot, as a physical being, worship God, because I am not pure spirit or truth?

In their letters in their later years, Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed the concept of the Trinity. President Adams stated that "some may say I am no Christian" because, while he accepted the concept that "God is Spirit", he wanted to ask, "what does that mean exactly?"

Why must God, as a Spirit, be as the Trinitarians describe him? Why can't he have a physical body, as well as a Spirit? Why can't this Spirit being have other attributes that Jesus did not bother to mention to the Samaritan woman, because he was trying to teach her that God was more than an idol or statue (as Samaritans were wont to worship), but was an actual being of Spirit. Or more precisely, a Being with a Spirit, or life to him!

The Bible also says "God is love" and "God is a fire", etc. How can he be Spirit and Fire and Love at the same time, unless these are attributes that describe some of God's characteristics, and not the entirety of God? After all, the Trinitarian creeds call God "unknowable" and "incomprehensible"; but Jesus stated that Life Eternal is to know God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3). Call me confused, if you will, but I just cannot comprehend how I can comprehend an incomprehensible being!