1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God, not 3 Gods?

[walkingwiththeLORD]

Why do you disbelieve in the Trinity or 3 God persons in One Godhead?

God bless

 

[fatboys]

Why do you disbelieve in the Trinity or 3 God persons in One Godhead?

God bless

We believe that there are three Gods in one Godhead. They distinct and separate beings but work in perfect unity within the Godhead which is as if it is one God

 

[Hieronymus]

different but not that distinct according to the Bible.
All persons of YHWH Elohim share their traits quite often.

 

[LoAmmi]

To which group is this directed? LDS?

 

[Hieronymus]

This is a good lecture on it:

 

[walkingwiththeLORD]

To which group is this directed? LDS?

Its open to anyone

 

[Super14LDS]

Why do you disbelieve in the Trinity or 3 God persons in One Godhead?

God bless

Here is a brief excerpt to an article that describes the LDS perspective and how theology has shifted over time.

... We believe that the oneness of God lies in their perfect unity of mind, purpose, and will, wherein each can represent the others. To worship the Son is to worship the Father, to believe in the Son is to believe in the Father. Looking to Jesus Christ does not take us to some other God, but to the Father.

Which definition of oneness did Christ teach? Clearly the latter - for he prays (John 17:11,21-24) that Christians might be one even as the Son and the Father are one. That's clearly not a oneness of substance nor an assimilation into one Being, but a oneness of unity. ... - http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/oneness.shtml#one

 

[Hoghead1]

Why do you disbelieve in the Trinity or 3 God persons in One Godhead?

God bless

Any doctrine suggesting that there are three subjectivities within the Godhead automatically collapses into tritheism. Also, you are using the modern definition of "person." The traditional Trinitarian o ne was very different, denoting a role.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The traditional Trinitarian o ne was very different, denoting a role.

Subsistence, hypostasis; not role. A "role" would be precisely what is rejected in the Church's rejection of Sabellianism. And what is intended, almost certainly, in the concept hypostasis is the concept of being real. The Father is real, as opposed to imaginary; an interior relation as opposed to a mere external one. "Father" is not a mask which God wears as suits Him, "Father" denotes a fundamental reality within the interior being of God, there is this something that is, indeed, properly called "Father" as distinct from another something that is properly called "Son"; these terms do not denote the "face" which God wears merely in dealing with the world, but is interior to God's Self. Father and Son relate to one another, without a division of their unity of being, there remains the oneness of God, not merely in will or purpose, but in "nature", "substance", "essence", in being, in God-as-God. God-as-God means there is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; not as imaginary or merely in the perception of us mortals, but in the Who of God, it is God's identity as God that He is Father in relation to Son, Son in relation to Father, and Holy Spirit in relation to Father and Son.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are two images I'd like to focus on, and why I think both are problematic:

As one may guess this is intended to depict the Trinity. And while the Shield here conveys a pretty accurate Trinitarian formula, the three-faced figure is problematic. It reminds me a bit of these guys from the old animated Transformers movie:

These are the Quintessons, a race of multi-faced machines, who (as I recall) would spin around when each would speak.

The problem here is that I think it gets us very much to the problem of Modalism or Sabellianism. Where God is, in essence, a figure who puts on faces/masks.

Here's the other image I wanted to point out,

This image avoids the problems of the first, though introduces its own. Never mind the fact that it depicts the Father as an old man in violation of the rulings of the Second Council of Nicea; what is problematic I think is in thinking of the Trinity as three separate figures. This is, basically, Tritheism.

This gets at the heart of the problem in trying to depict the Trinity at all, or in attempting to use analogies for the Trinity. They almost always result in some sort of heresy.

Now the first image does a good job insisting on the unity of God, and the second does a good job insisting on the concrete inter-relatedness of the three; but simultaneously the two fail, in my opinion, for the reasons I've already explained.

Though on a purely aesthetic perspective, the latter is definitely better than the former--the first image is downright creepy if you ask me.

I would say this also gets us to the problem of questions, such as, "In Heaven, how many figures will we see, one or three?" or in another thread, someone asked how many chairs would we put out for God? I think the problems in both of these images highlight the problems in attempting to answer questions like that.

God is the One-and-Three and the Three-and-One. Holy Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hoghead1]

There are two images I'd like to focus on, and why I think both are problematic:

As one may guess this is intended to depict the Trinity. And while the Shield here conveys a pretty accurate Trinitarian formula, the three-faced figure is problematic. It reminds me a bit of these guys from the old animated Transformers movie:

These are the Quintessons, a race of multi-faced machines, who (as I recall) would spin around when each would speak.

The problem here is that I think it gets us very much to the problem of Modalism or Sabellianism. Where God is, in essence, a figure who puts on faces/masks.

Here's the other image I wanted to point out,

This image avoids the problems of the first, though introduces its own. Never mind the fact that it depicts the Father as an old man in violation of the rulings of the Second Council of Nicea; what is problematic I think is in thinking of the Trinity as three separate figures. This is, basically, Tritheism.

This gets at the heart of the problem in trying to depict the Trinity at all, or in attempting to use analogies for the Trinity. They almost always result in some sort of heresy.

Now the first image does a good job insisting on the unity of God, and the second does a good job insisting on the concrete inter-relatedness of the three; but simultaneously the two fail, in my opinion, for the reasons I've already explained.

Though on a purely aesthetic perspective, the latter is definitely better than the former--the first image is downright creepy if you ask me.

I would say this also gets us to the problem of questions, such as, "In Heaven, how many figures will we see, one or three?" or in another thread, someone asked how many chairs would we put out for God? I think the problems in both of these images highlight the problems in attempting to answer questions like that.

God is the One-and-Three and the Three-and-One. Holy Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

I think you are right about depicting teh Trinity as three separate , unique personalities. Any doctrine that puts three subjectivities or minds or personality within the Godhead automatically collapses into tritheism. However, I am not in agreement with you on modalism. For example, just about everyone of us has more than one role. I can be a teacher, student, and writer, depending on circumstances. Same with God. Also, modalism can be understood as addressing different aspects of one mind or personality, as we find in the psychological models of the trinity in Augustine and Calvin, for example. Too many members in the forum are reading in a modern definition of "person" into Trinitarian formulas. The historic Trinitarian definition was more of a "role."

 

[Ironhold]

As one may guess this is intended to depict the Trinity. And while the Shield here conveys a pretty accurate Trinitarian formula, the three-faced figure is problematic. It reminds me a bit of these guys from the old animated Transformers movie:

These are the Quintessons, a race of multi-faced machines, who (as I recall) would spin around when each would speak.

Via -

http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Quintesson

I'm one of the editors of the site, so yeah...

It varies from work to work how the Quintessons are depicted, both physically and in regards to culture & race.

The multi-faced individuals are the "judges", the leaders of the Quintesson race in the original 1980s fiction. Each face represents a different facet of their personality, and the faces have the ability to, in essence, take counsel with each other; this is where the being rotates around, as each face goes to speak.

The judges are the only Quintessons in the original 1980s fiction that have multiple faces. The rest - the bailiffs, scientists, executioners, and others - only have the one face and are more humanoid in design.

In the original 1980s cartoons, it was established that the Quintessons created the race that would become the Transformers. These early machines were intended as slave labor, either for use by the Quintessons themselves or to be sold off to whoever was willing to buy them. They were overthrown when a robot named A3 led a successful rebellion on the planet that would become Cybertron, but in due time a string of civil wars broke out that led to the ultimate Autobot / Decepticon conflict. The Quintessons sat idle during the bulk of this, but the events of "The Transformers: The Movie" compelled them to the fore, at which point they emerged to threaten and scourge Autobot and Decepticon alike in an effort to either re-enslave or destroy the two factions.

In a twist, however, one judge ended up helping save the universe from the Hate Plague, an infection that literally caused all sentient beings to violently turn on each other once they were contaminated. Rodimus Prime, the current leader of the Autobots, sent one of his best lieutenants to find a Quintesson in the hopes that it could revive Optimus Prime, a previous leader who fell in battle. Not only does the judge revive him, he also revives a number of other Autobots who fell in an effort to keep the Hate Plague from spreading. Unfortunately, by this time, Rodimus himself had become infected, and so Optimus has to challenge him in order to recover a powerful artifact known as the Matrix of Leadership.

The Matrix contains the wisdom of all of the past leaders of the Autobots, and so Optimus concludes that if there's a solution for ridding the world of the plague it's in there. Optimus successfully defeats the maddened Rodimus to get possession of it, and finds that yes, the Matrix knows what to do. It takes all of the accumulated wisdom of the generations, but the Hate Plague is erased from the galaxy.



I'll leave everyone to consider the religious and societal parallels.

 

[Rescued One]

Mormons claim there are three separate gods in a godhead and two are subservient to the highest one. The lowest one is subservient to both above him. That makes whichever god is speaking in Isaiah 44:8 a liar.

Isaiah 44
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

 

[Rescued One]

I think you are right about depicting teh Trinity as three separate , unique personalities. Any doctrine that puts three subjectivities or minds or personality within the Godhead automatically collapses into tritheism. However, I am not in agreement with you on modalism. For example, just about everyone of us has more than one role. I can be a teacher, student, and writer, depending on circumstances. Same with God. Also, modalism can be understood as addressing different aspects of one mind or personality, as we find in the psychological models of the trinity in Augustine and Calvin, for example. Too many members in the forum are reading in a modern definition of "person" into Trinitarian formulas. The historic Trinitarian definition was more of a "role."

Modalism is ridiculous. The one god of modalism prays to himself, sends himself, is a ventriloquist. Modalists insist that Jesus did not exist until His birth on earth. That isn't true.

 

[drstevej]

We believe that there are three Gods in one Godhead. They distinct and separate beings but work in perfect unity within the Godhead which is as if it is one God

Is Heavenly Mother one of the Three? If not, isn't it odd that Heavenly Father is God and Heavenly Mother is not?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Is Heavenly Mother one of the Three? If not, isn't it odd that Heavenly Father is God and Heavenly Mother is not?

In the Old Testament She played a larger role, she was El Shaddai, God with breast. She would bless with blessings of the womb as in Gen 49
"25 Even by El of thy father, who shall help thee; and by El Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

The male chauvinist who translated the Bible wrote her out!

 

[Peter1000]

Why do you disbelieve in the Trinity or 3 God persons in One Godhead?

God bless

We do believe that there are 3 God persons in 1 Godhead. That is no problem.

The problem is your OP description: 1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 1 God, not 3 Gods?

We believe in the following formula: 1 God + 1 God + 1 God = 3 Gods, in 1 Godhead, and They are so unified in Their purpose, it is as if They are 1 God.

Our formula reconciles all OT and NT scriptures concerning the nature of the Godhead. The OP formula does not reconcile all OT and NT scriptures concerning the nature of the Godhead. If you were to do a study, you would find that I am right.

 

[Peter1000]

Is Heavenly Mother one of the Three? If not, isn't it odd that Heavenly Father is God and Heavenly Mother is not?

About 90% of your posts these days refer to a Heavenly Mother. You must be fixated on this concept. So here is the Christian answer to a Heavenly Mother.

This comes from post #433 - From the thread of "Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - thread split" from ViaCrucis and the writings of Friar Hans Urs von Balthasar:
It is because he bears fruit out of himself and requires no fructifying that he is called Father, and not in the sexual sense, for he will be the Creator of man and woman, and thus contains the primal qualities of woman in himself in the same simultaneously transcending way as those of man. (The Greek gennad can imply both siring and bearing).

IOW God the Father has both the primal qualities of man and woman and can "beget" a son on His/Her own. He/She can both sire and bear.

Is this what you believe?

 

[Peter1000]

Mormons claim there are three separate gods in a godhead and two are subservient to the highest one. The lowest one is subservient to both above him. That makes whichever god is speaking in Isaiah 44:8 a liar.

Isaiah 44
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If God the Father was standing in front of Isaiah He could say: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God, I know not any." He would be fully aware that His Son Jesus existed and the HS existed separate from Him. But he would still make this statement, because Their Godhead, although made up of 3 Gods, hence Godhead, are so unified in Their purpose and mind and will, it is as if They are 1 God.

If Jesus stood in front of Isaiah, He could say: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God, I know not any." He too would be fully aware that His Father, God the Father existed and the HS existed separate from Him. But he would still make this statement, because Their Godhead, although made up of 3 Gods, hence Godhead, are so unified in Their purpose and mind and will, it is as if They are 1 God.

If the HS stood in front of Isaiah, He could say: "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God, I know not any."
He too would be fully aware that God the Father existed and Jesus, the only begotten Son of God existed, separate from Him. But he would still make this statement, because Their Godhead, although made up of 3 Gods, hence Godhead, are so unified in Their purpose and mind and will, it is as if They are 1 God.

I hope you get the point. Any 1 of the 3 can stand before Isaiah and make this statement. It is as if they are 1 God.

 

[Peter1000]

Modalism is ridiculous. The one god of modalism prays to himself, sends himself, is a ventriloquist. Modalists insist that Jesus did not exist until His birth on earth. That isn't true.

Modalism is not ridiculous. That is where the 3 in 1 God all started. The early NT Christians knew that Jesus was the Son of God, but that he was also God. Not God the Father, but God the Son, obviously separate and distinct from his Father, God the Father, who was in heaven, and who sent him to earth, and who Jesus prayed to and called his Father and God. Real obvious there are 2 different Gods.

As years passed this concept was challenged, how could Jesus be God, and God the Father be God too. That makes 2 Gods. So Sabellius comes along and proposes modalism to solve the problem.

The only difference between the nature of modalism and the Trinity is the 3 Gods are called modes in modelism, and in the Trinity they are called Persons. Technically, no difference, just a subtle difference of words.

Just in the relationship between God the Father and Jesus and the HS, tell me what you think the difference is between modalism and Trinity? For instance we know that Jesus existed before his birth. We know there is a co-equal relationship, etc. Just explain the difference between modes and persons. Thanks.