Trinity?

[lurker]

I've been discussing the concept of the Trinity with some Christian friends this week. Can anyone give me some scriptures from the Bible that agree with the LDS belief that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three seperate beings? Also, is anyone aware of other Christian denominations that share our belief? Thanks.

[Jenda]

Lurker, it is sad to realize that most people claim to believe in the Trinity, but in reality don't. The LDS belief is actually much closer to the actual definition of the Trinity than any other Christian denomination out there. The trinity, strictly defined is three persons united in one purpose. (Trinity = Tri-unity)

Most others, when describing their belief in the godhead, actual define modalism which basically states that there is one God with three modes (or manifestations) each with a different purpose/function.

There is no support for the trinity in the Bible, one way or the other, which is why it is such a hotly debated topic. However, there is loads of support (for both positions) in the BoM. B)

[Arcobaleno Nero]

Hello. I saw a T-shirt in the mall that helps me to believe that God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are three seperate beings physically.

The shirt said "I'm a Schizophrenic. And so am I."

I don't have the scriptures off hand but why would God refere to Himself as His own son?

And When Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan, why would He tell "himself" that He is his beloved son in whom He is well pleased, and then do a fly-by at His own baptisim as a dove over Himself?

Also, in the book of Genesis it says "Let us" create....

The LDS doctrine just makes better sence to me so far.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is how the posts here are all the time I am going to have much fun with this.

[Jenda]

Arcobaleno Nero, none of the references in your post are exclusive to the Trinity, they are easily explained in the other model. When you realize that in the modalistic interpretation all the modes have their own form and purpose, it is easy to see how all three can be in the same place at the same time, each referring to the other.

[Nicodemus]

Is that a scene from Fight Club in your avatar?

I regret having seen that movie. Not only were there inappropriate parts (brief, but inappropriate nonetheless) it was so violent.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 13 2004, 06:57 PM

Lurker, it is sad to realize that most people claim to believe in the Trinity, but in reality don't.  The LDS belief is actually much closer to the actual definition of the Trinity than any other Christian denomination out there.  The trinity, strictly defined is three persons united in one purpose.  (Trinity = Tri-unity)

Most others, when describing their belief in the godhead, actual define modalism which basically states that there is one God with three modes (or manifestations) each with a different purpose/function.

There is no support for the trinity in the Bible, one way or the other, which is why it is such a hotly debated topic.  However, there is loads of support (for both positions) in the BoM.    B)

I totally disagree! It is true that some people believe in modalism, but a person can believe in the Trinity without confusing it with modalism.

I find it so strange that no matter how many times the Trinity is explained to show that the persons of the Godhead are distinct from each other, that that is usually ignored.

I offer no Bible verses, since if you’re determined to not accept the Trinity in them, why bother. I offer the Athanasius Creed instead:

The Creed of Saint Athanasius

…That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,

neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father,

another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,

is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.

The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

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

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,

but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.

And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity

to acknowledge every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say,

There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,

neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;

one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another;

But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid,

the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

M.

[Traveler]

Just some thought about the Trinity.

1. The Trinity denies the Fall of man. Meaning that in the fall man was excommunicated from G-d the Father.

2. The Trinity denies that Jesus is the only mediator and intercessor for man with the Father.

3. The Trinity denies the Christ - that he is the G-d of the Old Testament that presented himself to man in the “Name” of the Father. Because he represents the Father in the name of the Father the Trinity doctrine denies that he can take upon himself the name of the Father - Therefore they claim man (Moses, Abraham and others) needs no mediator but that the G-d of the Old Testament was the Father.

4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from. In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of “one” G-d the Hebrew word “ehad” is used. “Ehad” has two meanings. The first is the counting meaning of one. If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one. Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect. The second meaning of “ehad” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage. If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine. Therefore in all cases for defining “ehad” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture.

5. No prophet ancient or Modern has ever endorsed the Trinity doctrine. In addition no ancient documents prior to the Creeds where the Trinity doctrine was invented has the doctrine been presented. Only by wild speculation of interpretations by man is the Trinity established.

The Traveler

[Jenda]

I got my information about that from the ChristianForums board. There were several discussions about the Trinity, and person after person said they believed in the Trinity, then proceeded to describe one of the various forms of modalism.

[Jenda]

Traveler, how does the Trinity do number 2?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 14 2004, 09:39 AM

Just some thought about the Trinity.

Obviously your own thoughts.

1. The Trinity denies the Fall of man.  Meaning that in the fall man was excommunicated from G-d the Father.

Wrong!

2. The Trinity denies that Jesus is the only mediator and intercessor for man with the Father.

Wrong!

3. The Trinity denies the Christ - that he is the G-d of the Old Testament that presented himself to man in the “Name” of the Father.  Because he represents the Father in the name of the Father the Trinity doctrine denies that he can take upon himself the name of the Father - Therefore they claim man (Moses, Abraham and others) needs no mediator but that the G-d of the Old Testament was the Father.

Wrong! It does just the opposite.

4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from.  In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of “one” G-d the Hebrew word “ehad” is used.  “Ehad” has two meanings.  The first is the counting meaning of one.  If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one.  Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect.  The second meaning of “ehad” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage.  If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds.  A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine.  Therefore in all cases for defining “ehad” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture.

I am not familiar with the word "ehad", but considering you got 1 to 3 wrong I wouldn't be surprised if this one is way off too.

5. No prophet ancient or Modern has ever endorsed the Trinity doctrine.  In addition no ancient documents prior to the Creeds where the Trinity doctrine was invented has the doctrine been presented.  Only by wild speculation of interpretations by man is the Trinity established.

Only in your opinion.

M.

[lurker]

I find it so strange that no matter how many times the Trinity is explained to show that the persons of the Godhead are distinct from each other, that that is usually ignored.

I have read over the creed you quoted and continue to be sincerely confused. Perhaps if you answered this question for me, it would help clear things up: If you were to see the Trinity, what would you see? In LDS theology, of course, you would see the Father as one seperate and distinct person, and Christ as a different seperate and distinct person (both with Celestial bodies, btw) and then the Holy Ghost as a seperate and distinct spirit who does not have a body but is a being who cannot transform himself into anything else or physically be at more than one place at one time.

[Ray]

If you were to see the Trinity, what would you see?

Good question, but this knowledge cannot be gained by logic alone.

For instance, a modalist would cite the scripture where Jesus said that those who see Him have seen the Father, while a trinitarian would explain that Jesus meant that someone seeing Him was essentially seeing the Father because they are both united in what I refer to as “powers” and “attributes”.

As with all other spiritual matters, the true answer can only be received by revelation.

[lurker]

I'm not so much looking for someone to tell me the true answer on the board. I just want to understand the different perspectives. Perhaps because I grew up LDS and have not really considered the concept of the Trinity much before now, the language is rather confusing to me and it is difficult to decipher what each group actually believes. Because denominations use such abstract language to explain their beliefs regarding the Trinity, it seems that the groups say the same thing while meaning very different things. For example, both my Catholic and my Mormon friends would probably agree with the statement: "Christ and God are seperate, yet they are one." However, I'm pretty sure that they would understand it to mean different things. (To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the Catholics mean yet, that's why I'm asking this question). In my last post, I descriptively explained, using the most concrete terms possible, what the Trinity would look like from an LDS perspective. Using similar concrete terms, can any one answer the question from a Protestant, Catholic, or any other perspective?

If you were to see the Trinity, what would you see?

[lurker]

For instance, a modalist would cite the scripture where Jesus said that those who see Him have seen the Father

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. I'm sure that pretty much all Christian denominations agree with what Jesus said. But they interpret it very differently. When a modalist quotes the scripture, what picture of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit does he have in his mind? In the most concrete terms possible, what are they saying that their beliefs are.

[Snow]

If you want verses that show they are seperate:

Mark 1:10-11

Luke 3:21-23

Matt 3:15-17

Acts 7:55-56

1 Peter 3:22

John 14:28

and on and on and on and on

If the Father and Son were one you would have to read the above like this (Matt 26-39-42) "Oh ME, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me! Nevertheless, not as I will, but as I will.

In the Church we believe in a "oneness as expressed in:

John 17-21-23

Romans 12:5

1 Corinthians 12: 12-13

Galatian 3:28

etc. where the followers, us, can be "one" in the Father and the Son, or one in Christ or one with Christ, though still remaining seperate bodies.

We accept John 14:11 but understand it needs to be read with 17:21-22 that show the nature of God's "oneness." It says:

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us..."

So, whatever it means that the Father and Son are one, it cannot possibly be that they are one in the same person - ontologically - because we too are going to be one in them the exact same way that they are one. That is exactly what the text says, literally. It is untarnished by a philosophical extrapolation made centuries later.

[Setheus]

When the Romans were led by a tribune were there not three men forming one leadership? I think that is exactley how the godhead is. Three personages, one godhead.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 14 2004, 08:46 PM

If the Father and Son were one you would have to read the above like this (Matt 26-39-42) "Oh ME, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me! Nevertheless, not as I will, but as I will.

That is a very immature interpretation. One I would expect from someone who is 19 or 20 years old, who has not had enough life experiences to know that there are various shades of gray in any subject. Snow, just because you choose not to believe in that particular concept, please don't give the impression that you have no concept of what the true beliefs about it are. I just don't buy it.

If you don't believe in it that is fine, just say so, don't denigrate it. That is why people hate getting into discussions with you. You really don't know everything, you just think you do. And it is not attractive.

[Setheus]

YA SNOW! I REMEMBER ONE TIME YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING....but I was mistaken.

[Ray]

Heh, while it is true that Snow does not know everything, he does know the truth about this issue. It's just that he can't convey that truth through logic alone.

I believe you also know the truth about this issue too, Jenda, so why does it seem that you are offensive to what Snow was trying to share?

Heh, it seems that some of us can't even agree with each other without being contentious.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jun 15 2004, 06:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jun 15 2004, 06:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jun 14 2004, 08:46 PM

If the Father and Son were one you would have to read the above like this (Matt 26-39-42) "Oh ME, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me! Nevertheless, not as I will, but as I will.

That is a very immature interpretation. One I would expect from someone who is 19 or 20 years old, who has not had enough life experiences to know that there are various shades of gray in any subject. Snow, just because you choose not to believe in that particular concept, please don't give the impression that you have no concept of what the true beliefs about it are. I just don't buy it.

If you don't believe in it that is fine, just say so, don't denigrate it. That is why people hate getting into discussions with you. You really don't know everything, you just think you do. And it is not attractive.

Hey Jenda,

Take a guess how "mature" it is for you to dismiss what I say, not by saying what is incorrect about it, but by saying it is immature. Actually I don't know if it mature or not but it is the exactly a very bright response.

If you don't like what I say, they say you don't like it but don't denigrate it - or is taking your own advice too difficult. Hypocrisy doesn't look very good on you today Jenda, why don't you go back to correcting my spelling - again.

[Snow]

Okay Jenda,

I have to go check in with my parole officer. When I come back, maybe you will have addressed my post's content rather than me. Don't get me wrong, I think it fine if you want to make me the issue, but that won't win the debate for you.

Go ahead and explain HOW the trinity/godhead in ontologically one being. Feel free to use the Bible as your source material - if you get stuck, like christianity of the 3rd and 4th centuries did, feel free to import some Greek philosophy and use some words like homoousios, co-substantial and ungenerated - maybe even trinity itself.

[Jenda]

I was not taking a position on this issue, necessarily (although I lean more modalist than trinitarian), however, I was stating that I was sure you could make a stronger, more mature defense over the weak, immature defense you made. And more people would look up to you in awe and wonder. B)

That is all I was saying.

[Setheus]

I think that YOU stood in "awe and wonder " of Snow and you couldn't stand that notion so you did the only thing you could do...you attacked.

[shanstress70]

Setheus, I'm not trying to cause trouble... but, why do you love Snow so much? It seems like you idolize him.

I think he's a cool guy, don't get me wrong. He's not THAT cool!!!

JK, Snow.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 15 2004, 10:47 AM

I think that YOU stood in "awe and wonder " of Snow and you couldn't stand that notion so you did the only thing you could do...you attacked.

As much as I like Snow, even the best of us have our off days (and that was one of his. )