Trinity?

[Setheus]

Its not so much that I idolize Snow, as it is that I like to start trouble. I'm just picking the side I agree with the most and am rubbing it in the "aposing" sides face. You know, being a brat!

Don't worry my jealous friend. I adore you too.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 15 2004, 02:58 PM

Its not so much that I idolize Snow, as it is that I like to start trouble. I'm just picking the side I agree with the most and am rubbing it in the "aposing" sides face. You know, being a brat!

Don't worry my jealous friend. I adore you too.

Ahhh, makes perfect sense now!

[Rodney]

Heh...

[lurker]

Everyone is babbling about which poster is the most mature, but no one seems to know the answer to the question. We've established, in concrete terms, how LDS would see the Trinity. But, what of other Christian faiths? Again, I pose the question: If you were to see the Trinity what would you see?

What does a modalist believe he would see?

What does a Catholic believe he would see?

What do most non-LDS Christians believe they would see?

In discussing this question with my Catholic friend, she was unable to give me an answer. On the board, the question continues to be evaded. Perhaps this is because people don't have an answer. Or perhaps not???

[broadway]

I have heard the arguement made (and used to make that same arguement myself) that the image we were created was of God and he has three parts...much the way Freud explains it (id, ego and superego).

My physical body (Christ), my spirit (Holy Spirit) and my mind (God)

However, I have since realised how far I was reaching to grasp something that couldn't be grasped. So then I just dismissed it by saying "Well, no one can comprehend the mind of God. Just because I cannot fathom it doesn't mean it isn't true"

After converting to the LDS church, things are much easier for me. The idea of a godhead makes much more sense, scripturally speaking.

I understand how hard it is to believe either concept of God. Both concepts take faith. One must study out the scripture rather than listening to what a preacher tells them. That is the only way anyone will come up with the truth.

[Jason]

Rather than reinvent the wheel:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

enjoy

PS, if anyone ever wants to know why I personally reject the LDS version of the Godhead, let me know.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 15 2004, 08:43 AM

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.

You're really not trying to be snotty? Well alright but that's the way it sounded.

You think that my take was immature and weak? How? What about it was weak? Saying that is was a nothing response. Demonstrate that I have misstated some key point or twisted it.

What I think I did was cut through the philosophical obfuscation and get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that the classical view thinks that God and the Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically one being; that they are the same material entity. Here is the standard of orthodoxy:

"...and concurring in one Person, and one Substance, not parted, or divided into two persons, but one and the same..." (Council of Chalcedon)

The Creeds go to great lenghts to hammer home the point that the Father and Son of of one sustance, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseperately" That is, they can't be divided, they can't be seperated and that fact, in orthodoxy, is inconfusedly and unchangeably certain. In that view when Christ says God, he is INDIVISIBLY talking about himself. When Jesus says that to "touch him not as he as not yet ascended to his Father, he is INSEPERATELY talking about himself. That is not me talking, that is the orthodoxical statement of the trinity talking.

Put whatever fancy spin you want on it, like the idea that God (the Father) looks in the mirror and sees his reflection (the Son) and his love for himself is so great that the outflow of love is the Holy Spirit - - - whatever, the bottom line is that the trinitarian view, at its core, after all the Helenistic philosophy has been stripped away, is that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being, ontologically.

Far from being immature, my response cuts away the fluff and gets to the very heart of the matter. It's a mature and reasoned response. You just don't like it because highlights a seemingly absurd position. I agree, I think it is absurb (maybe no more absurd than other religious dogma, but absurd nevertheless) and unsupportable from a scriptural perspective - why do you think it took centuries of creeds and councils to hammer it out? Because it is not clear in the Bible - that's why.

Most orthodox Christians readily admit that the trinity is a "mystery" Why is that? Because the very nature of it is incomprehensible. Why would Christ pray to himself? It's a mystery but he did if orthodoxy is to be believed.

[Jason]

Good reply, Snow.

[lurker]

ExMormon-Jason,

Why do you personally reject the LDS version of the Godhead?

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 15 2004, 03:33 PM

Good reply, Snow.

Thanks Jason,

As you know, my belief is that if I just keep hitting the keyboard hard enough and long enough, eventually something other than random letters will pop out.

... and thanks for the suppor Setheus, whatever your motivation is.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by lurker@Jun 15 2004, 02:42 PM

But, what of other Christian faiths? Again, I pose the question: If you were to see the Trinity what would you see?

...In discussing this question with my Catholic friend, she was unable to give me an answer. On the board, the question continues to be evaded. Perhaps this is because people don't have an answer. Or perhaps not???

It is a difficult question lurker. For one thing us mortals are finite beings and find it "difficult" to conceive of a infinite being. But to give it a try (a very weak try) I would say IMO that I would be able to see Christ (since he once was human and is now resurrected) and through him I would be able to differentiate him from the Father and the Holy Spirit. I have no idea how I could truely imagine the Father or the Holy Spirit. I personally give the Father anthropomorphic characteristics when I think about Him or pray to Him, but I have no idea what the Father really looks like.

I like this description from Jason's link:

He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom...

In a way I agree with Snow's version of "orthodox trinity understanding" except I could never say that Christ was praying to himself because even though I see "the three" as one divine entity, I cannot see the 3 persons of that entity as anything but separate from each other, personality wise, ego wise, if that makes any sense. There is only one God (divine entity) and they are that one God.

M.

[Jason]

Lurker,

Though I've not been able to articulate it very well, I reject the idea of distinct personalities because it would demonize the Father.

I see the Father (being Jehovah in my view) as vicious and cruel. Ordering many innocents to their death in order to comply with His law. I see a great lack of mercy and kindness all in order to comply with this rigid code that He put in place.

It is for this reason that I could never be Jewish. Ordering thousands of people and perhaps millions of animals to their deaths to appease his wrath is not a God that I could with good conscience worship.

Now, I can intellectually circumvent this problem with the Trinity. Here we have the Father literally suffering and dying on the cross, due to the crazy laws of Judaism. Because God is subject to the same laws that he himself has imposed on man, he is no longer a cruel tyrant, but one who places the law above even himself. For that, he earns my respect.

There, hope that makes some sense.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 15 2004, 04:57 PM

Lurker,

Though I've not been able to articulate it very well, I reject the idea of distinct personalities because it would demonize the Father.

I see the Father (being Jehovah in my view) as vicious and cruel. Ordering many innocents to their death in order to comply with His law. I see a great lack of mercy and kindness all in order to comply with this rigid code that He put in place.

It is for this reason that I could never be Jewish. Ordering thousands of people and perhaps millions of animals to their deaths to appease his wrath is not a God that I could with good conscience worship.

Now, I can intellectually circumvent this problem with the Trinity. Here we have the Father literally suffering and dying on the cross, due to the crazy laws of Judaism. Because God is subject to the same laws that he himself has imposed on man, he is no longer a cruel tyrant, but one who places the law above even himself. For that, he earns my respect.

There, hope that makes some sense.

So, then, you are a modalist?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 15 2004, 03:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 15 2004, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 15 2004, 08:43 AM

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.

You're really not trying to be snotty? Well alright but that's the way it sounded.

You think that my take was immature and weak? How? What about it was weak? Saying that is was a nothing response. Demonstrate that I have misstated some key point or twisted it.

What I think I did was cut through the philosophical obfuscation and get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that the classical view thinks that God and the Son and Holy Ghost are ontologically one being; that they are the same material entity. Here is the standard of orthodoxy:

"...and concurring in one Person, and one Substance, not parted, or divided into two persons, but one and the same..." (Council of Chalcedon)

The Creeds go to great lenghts to hammer home the point that the Father and Son of of one sustance, "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseperately" That is, they can't be divided, they can't be seperated and that fact, in orthodoxy, is inconfusedly and unchangeably certain. In that view when Christ says God, he is INDIVISIBLY talking about himself. When Jesus says that to "touch him not as he as not yet ascended to his Father, he is INSEPERATELY talking about himself. That is not me talking, that is the orthodoxical statement of the trinity talking.

Put whatever fancy spin you want on it, like the idea that God (the Father) looks in the mirror and sees his reflection (the Son) and his love for himself is so great that the outflow of love is the Holy Spirit - - - whatever, the bottom line is that the trinitarian view, at its core, after all the Helenistic philosophy has been stripped away, is that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being, ontologically.

Far from being immature, my response cuts away the fluff and gets to the very heart of the matter. It's a mature and reasoned response. You just don't like it because highlights a seemingly absurd position. I agree, I think it is absurb (maybe no more absurd than other religious dogma, but absurd nevertheless) and unsupportable from a scriptural perspective - why do you think it took centuries of creeds and councils to hammer it out? Because it is not clear in the Bible - that's why.

Most orthodox Christians readily admit that the trinity is a "mystery" Why is that? Because the very nature of it is incomprehensible. Why would Christ pray to himself? It's a mystery but he did if orthodoxy is to be believed.

Since, at the heart of the modalistic view of the Godhead is the belief that God and Father are not synonymous (necessarily), you can't take the view that the Son is the Father (although, there are some extreme versions of modalistic belief that do believe just that (but they are extremes.))

In a modalistic godhead, God has three manifestations with three distinct purposes. God is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Holy Spirit. But, the Father is not the Son, nor is he the Holy Spirit. Same goes with Christ. Christ is the Son, but he is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit. And the same with the Holy Spirit.

Because they have different manifestations with different purposes, the manifestation who is the Son can, indeed, talk to the manifestation who is the Father. It really is not a far-fetched idea.

Think of identical twins. They started as the exact same human being and split, and each is exactly like the other but has a different body and different thoughts. And they can talk to each other.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 15 2004, 05:49 PM

Since, at the heart of the modalistic view of the Godhead is the belief that God and Father are not synonymous (necessarily), you can't take the view that the Son is the Father (although, there are some extreme versions of modalistic belief that do believe just that (but they are extremes.))

Makes no sense. Modalism says that the Father and Son are the same ontological being, just not at the same time. So if the Son is praying to the Father, he is then praying to what he will be when he is not busy being the Son:

Mormonism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but thine, be done. ..."

Trinitarism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but mine, be done. ..."

Modalism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but the will of the mode I will switch into later, be done. ..."

In a modalistic godhead, God has three manifestations with three distinct purposes.  God is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Holy Spirit.  But, the Father is not the Son, nor is he the Holy Spirit.

...and that the whole point. It is nonsenscial. Even other Christians think modalists are nuts. Still, underpinning it all, even though they are not each other, then are all the same being. Go figure.

Because they have different manifestations with different purposes, the manifestation who is the Son can, indeed, talk to the manifestation who is the Father.  It really is not a far-fetched idea.

It's not? If that were the case, don't ya think the Bible might have mentioned it?

Think of identical twins.  They started as the exact same human being and split, and each is exactly like the other but has a different body and different thoughts.  And they can talk to each other.

Absolute bad analogy. Twins are not the same being. the Trinity is the opposite of different beings. The trinity is ONE single being, even if it is with different modes.

[Jason]

Jenda,

Here's what I found on modalism:

"The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book "Adversus Praxean" are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians (see PRAXEAS). "

Not exactly what I believe. I still believe it was the Son who died.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 15 2004, 06:29 PM

Jenda,

Here's what I found on modalism:

"The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book "Adversus Praxean" are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians (see PRAXEAS). "

Not exactly what I believe. I still believe it was the Son who died.

That is only one form of modalism, a very extreme form. They believe that God the Father became God the Son who then became God the Holy Spirit. So, in their belief, God the Father and God the Son no longer exist. Only God the Holy Spirit.

Sabellianism differs from Monarchian modalism, in fact, and in fact theologians of the 3rd century stated Sabellianism was fairly close to trinitarianism, but called Monarchian modalism a heresy.

Anyway, there are about as many views of modalism as there are of trinitarianism. It is not highly important anyway. I don't think that God cares if you believe in one or the other, or a combination of the two, as long as you believe in Him.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 15 2004, 06:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 15 2004, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 15 2004, 05:49 PM

Since, at the heart of the modalistic view of the Godhead is the belief that God and Father are not synonymous (necessarily), you can't take the view that the Son is the Father (although, there are some extreme versions of modalistic belief that do believe just that (but they are extremes.))

Makes no sense. Modalism says that the Father and Son are the same ontological being, just not at the same time. So if the Son is praying to the Father, he is then praying to what he will be when he is not busy being the Son:

Mormonism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but thine, be done. ..."

Trinitarism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but mine, be done. ..."

Modalism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but the will of the mode I will switch into later, be done. ..."

You continue to state that there is only one being, and so X must be true. That is not true. You look at one model of modalism and claim that that is what everyone has to believe, and that is not true. It is the same argument that the born-againers use against the LDS that you complain so highly about and state is not true. You can't have it both ways.

In a modalistic godhead, God has three manifestations with three distinct purposes.  God is the Father, He is the Son, He is the Holy Spirit.  But, the Father is not the Son, nor is he the Holy Spirit.

...and that the whole point. It is nonsenscial. Even other Christians think modalists are nuts. Still, underpinning it all, even though they are not each other, then are all the same being. Go figure.

Because they have different manifestations with different purposes, the manifestation who is the Son can, indeed, talk to the manifestation who is the Father.  It really is not a far-fetched idea.

It's not? If that were the case, don't ya think the Bible might have mentioned it?

Think of identical twins.  They started as the exact same human being and split, and each is exactly like the other but has a different body and different thoughts.  And they can talk to each other.

Absolute bad analogy. Twins are not the same being. the Trinity is the opposite of different beings. The trinity is ONE single being, even if it is with different modes.

How can you say what I highlighted? You just described modalism. The trinity is three beings with one purpose, not one being with different modes.

Make up your mind. Do you believe in one being with different modes, or do you believe in three beings with one purpose?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 15 2004, 06:23 PM

...Modalism says that the Father and Son are the same ontological being, just not at the same time. So if the Son is praying to the Father, he is then praying to what he will be when he is not busy being the Son:

Mormonism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but thine, be done. ..."

Trinitarism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but mine, be done. ..."

Modalism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but the will of the mode I will switch into later, be done. ..."

Sa·bel·li·an·ism n.

A version of Monarchianism holding that the Godhead was differentiated only into a succession of modes or operations and that the Father suffered as much as the Son.

sabellian

\Sa*bel"li*an\, n. (Eccl. Hist.) A follower of Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais in the third century, who maintained that there is but one person in the Godhead, and that the Son and Holy Spirit are only different powers, operations, or offices of the one God the Father.

The above is synonmous with the definiton of modalism. Modalism sees God as one person who changes modes. Modalism does not see God as 3 persons, but as one person with 3 different modes of operation.

Trinitarism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but mine, be done. ..."

This is incorrect because even though Christ was fully God he was also subject to the Father.

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

(Athanasian Creed)

And since the trinity sees the Father and Christ as distinct persons it only makes sense that Christ would pray to the Father - and be bound by the will of the Father not his will.

M.

[Snow]

error

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 15 2004, 07:15 PM

The trinity is ONE single being, even if it is with different modes.

How can you say what I highlighted? You just described modalism. The trinity is three beings with one purpose, not one being with different modes.

Jenda,

I wish you would slow down and think about what you are saying. You say that I say, "... and so X must be true." Actually I didn't but what do you think I said "X" is?

You look at one model of modalism and claim that that is what everyone has to believe, and that is not true.

Nope. I didn't say that. I didn't even think that. Read my post again, it says nothing about everyone or anyone having to believe anything, let alone believe one modal of modalism.

The trinity is ONE single being, even if it is with different modes.

How can you say what I highlighted?  You just described modalism.  The trinity is three beings with one purpose, not one being with different modes.

That makes no sense what so ever. In the bolded part, I describe trinitarianism in that it believes that God is ontologically one being and then went on to point out that even the modalists believe that God is ontologically one being. I wasn't describing modalism in that statement - just pointing out that even they believe that God is just one being.

Your last sentence is just plain wrong. Unless you are Mormon, the trinity is not 3 beings with one purpose. Trinitarians believe in one being. Just like the modalists. Actually you can't find out what trinitarians believe. Never has a more confusing expression of belief been made. This is from the Athanasian Creed:

"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 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 is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 15 2004, 08:28 PM

Trinitarism:

"NEVERTHELESS not my will, but mine, be done. ..."

This is incorrect because even though Christ was fully God he was also subject to the Father.

Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. (Athanasian Creed)

And since the trinity sees the Father and Christ as distinct persons it only makes sense that Christ would pray to the Father - and be bound by the will of the Father not his will.

M.

Reason it out Maureen. Even if Christ is subject to the Father, He IS the same being as the Father. That makes him subject to himself.

I am not expecting a satisfactory answer because the doctrine is self-contradictory. The only way that it can be explained is to make an appeal to mystery.

I'll grant that the mind of God cannot be fathomed by man but I am not willing to accept something that cannot be fathomed just because a bunch of priests voted on the idea 1700 years ago.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 15 2004, 08:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 15 2004, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 15 2004, 07:15 PM

The trinity is ONE single being, even if it is with different modes.

How can you say what I highlighted?  You just described modalism.  The trinity is three beings with one purpose, not one being with different modes.

Jenda,

I wish you would slow down and think about what you are saying. You say that I say, "... and so X must be true." Actually I didn't but what do you think I said "X" is?

You stated that "X" means that because they are the same being that they must have the same purpose, same will, same thoughts, etc., and that there would be no sense in communicating in prayers (as you demonstrated) because each mode would know what the other mode is thinking/feeling/doing since they are the same "ontological" being. So, therefore, modalism is wrong.

You look at one model of modalism and claim that that is what everyone has to believe, and that is not true.

Nope. I didn't say that. I didn't even think that. Read my post again, it says nothing about everyone or anyone having to believe anything, let alone believe one modal of modalism.

You say that by refusing to allow that there are differing forms of modalism with incorporate differing concepts of the godhead than Monarchian modalism teaches. If God the Father is a different manifestation from God the Son, with it's own form and function, then why do you keep repeating ""NEVERTHELESS not my will, but the will of the mode I will switch into later, be done. ..." nonsense. The will and purpose of God the Son never was the will and purpose of God the Father, that He denied His own will to do the will of the Father does not mean that they had to be separate beings.

The trinity is ONE single being, even if it is with different modes.

How can you say what I highlighted?  You just described modalism.  The trinity is three beings with one purpose, not one being with different modes.

That makes no sense what so ever. In the bolded part, I describe trinitarianism in that it believes that God is ontologically one being and then went on to point out that even the modalists believe that God is ontologically one being. I wasn't describing modalism in that statement - just pointing out that even they believe that God is just one being.

Your last sentence is just plain wrong. Unless you are Mormon, the trinity is not 3 beings with one purpose. Trinitarians believe in one being. Just like the modalists. Actually you can't find out what trinitarians believe. Never has a more confusing expression of belief been made. This is from the Athanasian Creed:

"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 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 is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."

Sorry, you are wrong about the last point (well, you aren't wrong in that that creed is indeed confusing ). I have studied the godhead quite a bit while trying to decide where I fit with my beliefs, and my studies have proved that most Catholics and Protestants (the denominations not necessarily the people) believe this, "The word, Trinity, refers to the three persons (also known as hypostases) who, according to these traditions, are the single God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Hypostases meaning "any of the three persons of the Godhead constituting the Trinity especially the person of Christ in which divine and human natures are united"

People have just not studied to find out what they say they believe in really is. They hear the word Trinity, know that if they don't want to be considered a heretic then they have to claim to believe in that concept whether they really do or not.

In my first post in this thread, I claimed that the LDS come closer to believing in the Trinity than any other denomination because of their specific beliefs. I went on to say that while others claim to believe in the Trinity, when pressed to describe their belief, they describe modalism. That is all my first post stated.

From the Easton Bible commentary

Trinity - a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (and all the online dictionaries I looked in)

1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma

[Traveler]

QUOTE

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

Wrong! ??????

Please explain - If it is possible for man to come unto the Father by an name change of the Father or the father pretending to be someone else then man has not fallen. If man can approach the Father or has ever approached the Father since the fall of Adam then there was no real fall. Are you telling me that it is the Doctrine of the Trinity that Man has had no interface of any kind of contact with the Father since the fall? That it is the Son of G-d and only the Son that deals with man throughout all Scripture since the fall?

QUOTE

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

Wrong! ????

With who did Moses deal with according to the doctrine of the Trinity? The Father or the Son?

QUOTE

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. ????Really?

What person of the G-d head did Moses receive the 10 commandments from?

QUOTE

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.

The is a very important notion. Your ignorance here, on this point is one possible reason that you has such great misunderstanding on the other points.

QUOTE

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.

As I have read translation of the original documents from which the Trinity Doctrine came - In particular the Nicene Creed. It is stated specifically that the reason for creation of the creed is because the Scriptures were not sufficient. I want you to think on that notion as I ask this next question. Can you supply any documentation that indicates any Christian apologist tied the Doctrine of the Trinity directly to specific scripture prior to 600 AD. Would you please supply that Christian apologist and their reference.

The reason I ask the above question is because it is my opinion - and I would dearly love to be corrected by some historical document. As near as I can determine the Trinity doctrine being supported by scripture is fabrication of modern times because of criticisms that has arisen. And that the connection of scripture is only established by variant readings based on speculations in interpretations and translations. For example: discovery of ancient commentary such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds indicate that interpretations used today by Trinitarians was not part of the ancient tapestry of understanding. Can you provide any historical documentation to demonstrate otherwise.

All I ask is that you back up your prejudice with some historical reference.

Thanks

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 15 2004, 08:53 PM

Reason it out Maureen. Even if Christ is subject to the Father, He IS the same being as the Father. That makes him subject to himself.

I am not expecting a satisfactory answer because the doctrine is self-contradictory. The only way that it can be explained is to make an appeal to mystery.

I'll grant that the mind of God cannot be fathomed by man but I am not willing to accept something that cannot be fathomed just because a bunch of priests voted on the idea 1700 years ago.

Snow - I think the word "being" must be defined. I define it as person, therefore you are incorrect because Christ and the Father are different and separate persons in the Godhead. They are the same entity, meaning they are the same God (divine essense) but in that one divine essense they are 3 separate persons.

It may not make sense but God does not have to make sense, that's what makes him God. And I find that the Athanasian Creed breaks the details of the trinity down to such detail that it makes sense to me - I love that creed. :)

Jenda - I doubt though that Christians of today whether Catholic or Protestant do not fear of being named a heretic if they do not agree with the Trinity. Chances are they would find a different belief system that they could agree with. The inquisition ended centuries ago.

M.