LDS Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - Thread Split

[Jane_Doe]

Thank you. However, this still doesn't tell me anything. What is substance referring to? That was the question asked by another poster and myself. "Super-meta-physical substance" and "super-meta-physical being" don't tell me anything, and, I've never heard a Trinitarian use those phrases.

Those are excellent questions, and I'm asked them many times myself, and never really gotten a straight answer from Nicene believers.

So again, asked earlier, what is your understanding of the word?

I did not see this question earlier, my apologies. The Word (referencing John 1:1) = Christ.

 

[Albion]

Let's be simple: the Bible doesn't mention anything about God's substance at all. This renders any further elaborations pointless.

Of course it's does not. The question has been asked here on CF and it's asked all the time--is the Trinity the true nature of God or not?

If you don't like the word "substance" being used (and still have no idea what you meant by the word
"co-substanition." Is that actually a word?), then don't use it. We're still left with the Bible testifying to God being One, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all referred to as that God.

How would YOU explain it then, staying of course with this Bible testimony?

 

[Jane_Doe]

How would YOU explain it then, staying of course with this Bible testimony?

How would I explain the Father/Son/Spirit being ONE, using the Bible? Through unity! John 17:21.

 

[Peter1000]

Well why don't you describe the Trinity as you understand it to us.

My understanding comes from both the Nicene & Athanasian Creeds;

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

"That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance"

There is a big difference here between the two of them yet at the same time the same a thread which pulls them together.

"nor dividing the substance" & 'One being with the Father'

It just does not make any sense to me at all, Jesus call God/El his father and God. You can't be your own Father, you can not be your own God.

Thanks for this post. It is difficult to explain the idea of "neither confounding the person, nor dividing the substance". Especially "nor dividing the substance".

If the substance cannot be divided, then God the Father and Jesus and the HS are all in one substance. The 3 persons are separate, but not their substance. Where the Father goes, there goes the Son, there goes the HS. If their substance is ever separated, it is the end of the trinity doctrine.

Can I say that? Where the Father is, there is Jesus, there is also the HS. Where the Father goes, Jesus goes, also the HS goes. They are always together, because if they are separated, the trinity doctrine is false.

 

[Albion]

How would I explain the Father/Son/Spirit being ONE, using the Bible? Through unity! John 17:21.

Yes, three persona of one God, not three separate beings who are united in purpose.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Yes, three persona of one God, not three separate beings who are united in purpose.

(*Jane making the purposeful decision to suspend her disbelief and objections for the time being, and focus now on just understanding your view*)

I'm assuming that in your view God does not have multiple personality disorder. How does your view of God differ from someone with multiple personalities?

And how does this relate to ""neither confounding the person, nor dividing the substance"?

 

[Peter1000]

I'm running out to work right now, will respond in more detail later, but suffice it to say that:

1) I will wait, as was asked initially, to see what the understanding of "substance" is, to be able to say if it is found in the Bible or not.

2) Your last sentence above demonstrates that you do not understand the Trinity. We do not believe that Jesus is His own Father.

But you do believe that God and Jesus's substance is the same and cannot be divided. You do not confuse their 2 persons, but you cannot divide their substance (whatever that is?).

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, three persona of one God, not three separate beings who are united in purpose.

"3 persona of 1 God" sounds like what Sebellius believed.

Sebellius was part of the start of the 3 in 1 God. It got started around 200ad when Praxeus stated that God and Jesus and the HS were the same person.
And their identities were in the form of a mode or mask. Sebellius in 300ad maintained the same thought and it morphed from there.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Was there a schism between Eutychian and Cyril followers?

Eutychian teaching was recognized as heresy so that wouldn't be schism. "Cyril followers" are Christians - technically, all Christians are "Cyril followers" since none of us disagree with what St. Cyril has taught.

 

[Albion]

(*Jane making the purposeful decision to suspend her disbelief and objections for the time being, and focus now on just understanding your view*)

I'm assuming that in your view God does not have multiple personality disorder. How does your view of God differ from someone with multiple personalities?

The standard, orthodox, conventional view of God is that the Trinity is not about one God who has alternate personalities.

And how does this relate to ""neither confounding the person, nor dividing the substance"?

That means that we ought not to think of God as a single entity who manifests himself to us differently, from time to time, depending upon the circumstances and the role being played...or, OTOH, as three separate beings merely united in purpose like some sort of committee we call "God."

 

[Albion]

"3 persona of 1 God" sounds like what Sebellius believed.

It's not, although there's a similarity. Sebellius taught that there were no real differences between the three, that God merely came across to us differently at different times. The term used at Nicaea--persona--implies more than that.

 

[Peter1000]

It's not, although there's a similarity. Sebellius taught that there were no real differences between the three, that God merely came across to us differently at different times. The term used at Nicaea--persona--implies more than that.

Persona seems to differentiate the 3 Persons. The problem that I see is the doctrine of "not dividing the substance".

First, what is Their substance?

Second, if 1 Persons substance changes from the other 2, does that collapse the Trinity?

Third, if the 3 Persons are separated for even a moment in time, does that collapse the Trinty?

 

[Jane_Doe]

(*Again, Jane making the purposeful decision to suspend her disbelief and objections for the time being, and focus now on just understanding your view*)

The standard, orthodox, conventional view of God is that the Trinity is not about one God who has alternate personalities.

Ok. So how does this view differ from a person with multiple personalities? (What your post #365 reminded me of).

That means that we ought not to think of God as a single entity who manifests himself to us differently, from time to time, depending upon the circumstances and the role being played...or, OTOH, as three separate beings merely united in purpose like some sort of committee we call "God."

I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure how this relates/explains "neither confounding the person, nor dividing the substance"?

 

[Hoghead1]

It's not, although there's a similarity. Sebellius taught that there were no real differences between the three, that God merely came across to us differently at different times. The term used at Nicaea--persona--implies more than that.

The Nicene Creed says nothing abut "persona." Where did you get that idea? Also, Sabellius thought the Trinity represented different roles God plays, so yes, there was a difference between them.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Thank you. However, this still doesn't tell me anything. What is substance referring to? That was the question asked by another poster and myself. "Super-meta-physical substance" and "super-meta-physical being" don't tell me anything, and, I've never heard a Trinitarian use those phrases.

So again, asked earlier, what is your understanding of the word?

'."the word" is logos in the Greek. Originally it simply meant 'to reason. If I do a math problem in my head then I am logos(ing). If I then try to explain that math problem to others then they are hearing my logos(ing). The Greeks began to worship the logos and to treat it like it was an actual being. A being which could exist outside of matter. This concept was later incorporated into the Trinity.

But that concept would have been very foreign to the Hebrew John. I decided to look at how John and Jesus used the word as they spoke. Now Jesus probably spoke either Aramaic or a low form of Greek which was a mix of Aramaic and Greek used for commerce. Every single time it is used to repress their thoughts;

John 4:37 And herein is that saying/logos true, One soweth, and another reapeth.

So as I look at John 1:1 I tried to assume that was John's intent, after all he never heard of the Trinity. Plus Jesus never refers to himself as 'the word of God' but that he brings the word of God to us.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

Barclay writes it this way
1: When the world had its beginning, the Word was already there; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. This Word was in the beginning with God.

By using the words "In the Beginning" he was invoking Gen 1 where Moses gives an opening statement "In the Beginning God created heaven and earth" then he proceeds to explain just how God did it. John is doing the same thing here.

In the beginning was the reasoning of God. What was God's purpose "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness." In Mormon Doctrine we as spirit children of God lived with him and he explained this purpose to us. We call it the Gospel or the plan of happiness.

The central figure of that purpose was Jesus/Yahweh, he is the good news of salvation or the word was with God.

In Mormon Doctrine Jesus is the God Yahweh or the Word was God.

As I contemplated this passage I just happened to look at Joseph's rendering of it and he hit the nail on the head

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thanks for this post. It is difficult to explain the idea of "neither confounding the person, nor dividing the substance". Especially "nor dividing the substance".

If the substance cannot be divided, then God the Father and Jesus and the HS are all in one substance. The 3 persons are separate, but not their substance. Where the Father goes, there goes the Son, there goes the HS. If their substance is ever separated, it is the end of the trinity doctrine.

Can I say that? Where the Father is, there is Jesus, there is also the HS. Where the Father goes, Jesus goes, also the HS goes. They are always together, because if they are separated, the trinity doctrine is false.

Yes, but that amounts to arguing that the three are each separate, unique personalities. The oneness of God is in the fact they are all Deity. However, that still yields three gods.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Yes, but that amounts to arguing that the three are each separate, unique personalities. The oneness of God is in the fact they are all Deity. However, that still yields three gods.

One thing that helped me make up my mind was learning that the word Elohim is plural and it connotes a plurality of power. Also Rev 3
"21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." there is one seat of power but it is shared.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm running out to work right now, will respond in more detail later, but suffice it to say that:

1) I will wait, as was asked initially, to see what the understanding of "substance" is, to be able to say if it is found in the Bible or not.

2) Your last sentence above demonstrates that you do not understand the Trinity. We do not believe that Jesus is His own Father.

"Substance" is a concept from Hellenic metaphysics, not Scripture. You definitely will not find this concept in Scripture.

 

[Hoghead1]

Layman's version (I could do the greek philosophical as well):
1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Spirit is God
4) None of the above (Father/Son/Spirit) are the same person
5) There is only 1 God.
6) The way in which the Father/Son/Spirit are all 1 God but 3 different persons is because they all share a common super-meta-physical substance which makes them 1 super-meta-phyiscial being.

Trinity is NOT (all of these are heresies): the clover analogy, the different roles analogy, the water/ice/vapor analogy, the Borg analogy.

I am looking specially for verses supporting point #6 (1-5 have no argument with here).

If they are three different personalities, how is this any different from tritheism?

 

[Hoghead1]

It's been posted a thousand times--God is one (Genesis), Jesus is God (New Testament in Jn 1:1ff and many other places), and the HS is God and described by use of a personal pronoun (Jn 16:12-15). No matter what language is used to explain this, it amounts to a Trinity. If any of it is left out, of course that amounts to denying the Trinity by denying part of the Bible.

Yes, but that is not the immediate issue. The immediate issue is how to provide a metaphysical framework to explicate and express all three as one God.