The Trinity & Premortal Existence

[Ran77]

With pun intended, the difference between the Holy Trinity the LDS Godhead is substantial.

How so?

I understand your pun, but I am not seeing how there is anything significant about the differences in belief here. Please take a moment and help me see what you are seeing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No. It is not correct. You have drawn that conclusion yourself. He did not think a sinful thought. He expressed a legitimate mortal feeling, the pursuit of which would have been sinful. To flee from his foreordained mission would have been sin. To think ill of the Father for having followed through with His plan would have been sin. He committed no sin.

Earlier, which I asked you if Jesus had any inclination to sin you cited this example as His inclination to sin. Now it appears you are saying that this was no inclination at all. So, back to my earlier question, did Jesus have any inclination to sin?

 

[prisonchaplain]

How so?

I understand your pun, but I am not seeing how there is anything significant about the differences in belief here. Please take a moment and help me see what you are seeing.

If the Godhead is three substances, rather than one, then it becomes so much harder to defend the faith as being a monotheistic one. Even we trinitarians have an admittedly difficult time convincing Muslims and Jews that our belief in one God who is three persons can be called faith in one God. Separate those three persons into three totally seperate beings and that difficulty is magnified, perhaps irreprably. Even some LDS scholars admit that official teaching might better be labeled henotheism.

 

[SoftSpoken]

If the Godhead is three substances, rather than one, then it becomes so much harder to defend the faith as being a monotheistic one. Even we trinitarians have an admittedly difficult time convincing Muslims and Jews that our belief in one God who is three persons can be called faith in one God. Separate those three persons into three totally seperate beings and that difficulty is magnified, perhaps irreprably. Even some LDS scholars admit that official teaching might better be labeled henotheism.

Personally, as I mentioned earlier, I'm really getting used to the henotheism label. Let people call me what they will. God knows I worship Him.

It's also interesting (maybe not) that I feel the exact opposite as far as defending the faith from the "other side." I would find it nigh unto impossible to explain to a Jew or Muslim the Trinitarian view of God. Just our choices in theology you think? Or maybe you consider it very difficult to explain the LDS view if you're using only the Bible? I can see that to a point. The scriptures of the Restoration most certainly facilitate such an explanation.

 

[Zechariah]

I guess what seems so simple and clear in scripture to me regarding the Godhead, is not so to others. Maybe I'm just of too simple a mind.

 

[Ran77]

If the Godhead is three substances, rather than one, then it becomes so much harder to defend the faith as being a monotheistic one. Even we trinitarians have an admittedly difficult time convincing Muslims and Jews that our belief in one God who is three persons can be called faith in one God. Separate those three persons into three totally seperate beings and that difficulty is magnified, perhaps irreprably. Even some LDS scholars admit that official teaching might better be labeled henotheism.

I don't see this as substantial. In the end, if you believe what you do about the nature of God and I believe what I do about the nature of God, how will that affect our walk with Him? I believe it has a very insignificant affect us. But I certainly defend your right to think this is substantial.

Thank you for explaining it to me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Originally Posted by SoftSpoken

No. It is not correct. You have drawn that conclusion yourself. He did not think a sinful thought. He expressed a legitimate mortal feeling, the pursuit of which would have been sinful. To flee from his foreordained mission would have been sin. To think ill of the Father for having followed through with His plan would have been sin. He committed no sin.
​

Earlier, which I asked you if Jesus had any inclination to sin you cited this example as His inclination to sin. Now it appears you are saying that this was no inclination at all. So, back to my earlier question, did Jesus have any inclination to sin?

Bump for Softspokenhttp://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=54201366