Caught off guard -- I couldn't explain the Trinity

[gazelam]

What causes the mormon Church to believe God the Father has a flesh and bone body?

Two main reason…

1. We believe that the doctrine of an anthropomorphic God is taught in the Bible.

When the ancient Israelites were warned against their wickedness, they were told they’d be scattered, and…

Deuteronomy 4:28 There you shall serve gods that are works of human hands, of wood and stone, gods which can neither see nor hear, neither eat nor smell.

God clearly hears, eats, and smells.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness.

Hebrews 1:3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Genesis 32:30 I have seen God face to face

1. We believe that God has again sent prophets to the earth and they have confirmed the ancient Biblical teaching.

I hope this helps…

 

[mhmtas63]

God is one substance, Father, Son, and Spirit are consubstantial . What you are proposing here is that they are different substances. Claiming you mean otherwise doesn’t change that. It’s just exactly what “consubstantial” is intended to rule out by definition. They are not parts. Each is the whole “apple pie” in itself. That you press the issue tells me you don’t understand where the gaps are in the metaphor. And, I mean no insult as this is difficult stuff, it tells me you don’t grasp some of the dogmas regarding the Trinity. God is one substance, without parts

Father, Son and Spirit make three. Three persons make three. Consubstantial! If you make three cakes from same paste so there are three cakes which are "consubstantial. But it is “three” not one.

God could not be submitted and forced. If there are three distinct personalities(!) so every personality must be “god”. Which one obey other? And if one obey other so how could that one stand as god?

Jesus were on the world but Father were not and divine substance is simple and infinite. But some part on the world and some is not!?

Mysteries!!! I would like that in films.

Father is the unique God. Jesus was just a human and prophet. Holy Spirit is angel Gabriel who once got form of a dove. That dove must be very divine and consubstantial with God!

How such clever people could believe in such mysteries!!!

Jesus is not God but from God. I believe in Jesus to be sent by God as He declared very clearly. He is the life and resurrection. Ofcourse if you believe that He was sent by Father.

Jesus did not want make Himself to be sacrifice.

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Luke, 22.

Ohhh… Jesus said : “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done”. Will of a god nevertheless will be done! Son is absolutely submitted to Father.

Satan works very hard…

 

[mhmtas63]

1. We believe that the doctrine of an anthropomorphic God is taught in the Bible.

When the ancient Israelites were warned against their wickedness, they were told they’d be scattered, and…

Deuteronomy 4:28 There you shall serve gods that are works of human hands, of wood and stone, gods which can neither see nor hear, neither eat nor smell .

God clearly hears, eats, and smells.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image , after our likeness.

Hebrews 1:3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being , and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

These are just “analogies”.

God is always out of time and matter. But God create and act time and matter.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

God is one substance, Father, Son, and Spirit are consubstantial . What you are proposing here is that they are different substances. Claiming you mean otherwise doesn’t change that. It’s just exactly what “consubstantial” is intended to rule out by definition. They are not parts. Each is the whole “apple pie” in itself. That you press the issue tells me you don’t understand where the gaps are in the metaphor. And, I mean no insult as this is difficult stuff, it tells me you don’t grasp some of the dogmas regarding the Trinity. God is one substance, without parts

Father, Son and Spirit make three. Three persons make three. Consubstantial! If you make three cakes from same paste so there are three cakes which are "consubstantial. But it is “three” not one.

You’re assuming that person is equivalent with being. It is not. Three persons, one being. One being, three persons.

God could not be submitted and forced. If there are three distinct personalities(!) so every personality must be “god”. Which one obey other? And if one obey other so how could that one stand as god?

This is why there is no submission in the Trinity.

Jesus were on the world but Father were not and divine substance is simple and infinite. But some part on the world and some is not!?

The Divine Nature is simple and infinite. Jesus was a union between the Divine Nature and a human nature. Christians do not believe that God turned his substance into flesh. The Divine Substance was not partly on this world, it cannot be localized in such a way. But the human nature, the human body and human soul could be. God is not divided.

Father is the unique God. Jesus was just a human and prophet. Holy Spirit is angel Gabriel who once got form of a dove. That dove must be very divine and consubstantial with God!

That is not what consubstantial means. There is one God, one simple essence, who is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who assumed a human nature in a glorious mystery through the Son, but not dividing Himself.

Jesus is not God but from God. I believe in Jesus to be sent by God as He declared very clearly. He is the life and resurrection. Ofcourse if you believe that He was sent by Father.

Jesus did not want make Himself to be sacrifice.

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Luke, 22.

Ohhh… Jesus said : “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done”. Will of a god nevertheless will be done! Son is absolutely submitted to Father.

As I said, Jesus was one person who was a union of the Divine Nature and a human nature, and that union included a human body, a human soul, and a human intellect with a human will. Jesus’s human intellect and will was anxious about his passion, but it submitted itself to the will of God.

 

[gazelam]

You should have said “For example, [in my opinion, I think] the Bible teaches that there are other eternal things besides God.”

I appreciate the suggested edit, but [in my opinion, I think] it’s best that I just compose my own comments by myself.

That’s one interpretation, grounded on the LDS belief that the Father was not always God, but became God. This implies a plurality of gods.

To go from “eternal things other than God” straight to “plurality of gods” is a leap of logic that I as a simple person don’t see. Please elaborate if you care to.

Here’s another interpretation. Whatever is meant by ‘eternal things,’ God alone is uncreated. There is only one God. That is the proper context for that passage.

For the record, in the Bible when the verb “to create” is referenced it means "to improve upon something already existing. (I understand full well that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants use “to create” to mean making something out of absolute nothing.) So using the Biblical meaning, you’re referring to a God that is unimproved upon.

Benedictine Priest Stanley L. Jaki explains it this way:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

When considering which interpretation is correct, don’t forget that any Bible passages you interpret were given to you to interpret by the Catholic Church.

Actually, the Bible passages I reference were given to us by God.

3 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness

Our church fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, made all the decisions about which NT books would count as scripture. The New Testament is a Catholic collection that you’ve borrowed.

I’m grateful for all of the effort that was made to preserve the Bible.

 

[gazelam]

These are just “analogies”.

God is always out of time and matter. But God create and act time and matter.

So, why do you suppose that a god who already doesn’t see, hear, eat, or smell, would warn the wicked Israelites that if they don’t repent they’ll be subject to gods “which can neither see nor hear, neither eat nor smell”?

 

[normdplume]

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.

God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.

Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.

By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.

He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.

He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.

We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Is this version of the Nicene Creed correct? It doesn’t match that on other websites, including the USCCB.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

Thanks.

 

[mhmtas63]

So, why do you suppose that a god who already doesn’t see, hear, eat, or smell, would warn the wicked Israelites that if they don’t repent they’ll be subject to gods “which can neither see nor hear, neither eat nor smell”?

God can see and hear everything as without time and matter. Seeing and hearing of God is eternal as other attributes are eternal. God knows every action of us. There is no need to be material to see and hear. Angels are not mterial at least the material we see. But angels can see or hear.

Hearing, smelling are faculties God had given mankind. Ofcourse God has these attributes but as eternally. I mean hearing or smelling of God is not like us. We can see just very few but God see everything eternally.

When our souls (will) get out of bodies yet we will be(our souls) able to hear or see without eyes and ears. Soul has those faculties. The essence of God is terenal which cannot be compared to soul or angel.

 

[mhmtas63]

As I said, Jesus was one person who was a union of the Divine Nature and a human nature, and that union included a human body, a human soul, and a human intellect with a human will. Jesus’s human intellect and will was anxious about his passion, but it submitted itself to the will of God.

Every human soul has a relation to God. But that do not make human to be God. God knows human more than humanbeing itself. That relation is that God know human soul and become manifest through it.

Divine nature has no any union with any matter or soul. If you claim that the divine essence has an union with a human soul so that goes to pantheism. Or to as Muhyiddin Arab said " Everything or observation is he(God)".

As I said Jesus is from God without any union with divine essence.

 

[mhmtas63]

That is not what consubstantial means. There is one God, one simple essence, who is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who assumed a human nature in a glorious mystery through the Son, but not dividing Himself.

Is that not very certain: three persons(three gods)?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

That is not what consubstantial means. There is one God, one simple essence, who is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who assumed a human nature in a glorious mystery through the Son, but not dividing Himself.

Is that not very certain: three persons(three gods)?

Three persons, one God. Three persons, one being.

Consubstantial means of the same substance, the same nature.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

As I said, Jesus was one person who was a union of the Divine Nature and a human nature, and that union included a human body, a human soul, and a human intellect with a human will. Jesus’s human intellect and will was anxious about his passion, but it submitted itself to the will of God.

Every human soul has a relation to God. But that do not make human to be God. God knows human more than humanbeing itself. That relation is that God know human soul and become manifest through it.

Divine nature has no any union with any matter or soul. If you claim that the divine essence has an union with a human soul so that goes to pantheism. Or to as Muhyiddin Arab said " Everything or observation is he(God)".

As I said Jesus is from God without any union with divine essence.

It is not pantheism, it’s one particular instance. The human nature is also not divine in itself, it’s still human. Jesus is one person with two natures and two wills: the divine nature and will and a human nature and will.

 

[mhmtas63]

The Divine Nature is simple and infinite. Jesus was a union between the Divine Nature and a human nature. Christians do not believe that God turned his substance into flesh. The Divine Substance was not partly on this world, it cannot be localized in such a way. But the human nature, the human body and human soul could be. God is not divided.

“Christians do not believe that God turned his substance into flesh.” I am not sure if Christians comprehend the issue as you claim!

“Jesus was a union between the Divine Nature and a human nature” . No. The unique relation between us and God is that God become manifest and act and effect through materials and souls.

What is the natural of that union? If divine essence is out of time and matter so how could that union be accomplished?

 

[mhmtas63]

You’re assuming that person is equivalent with being. It is not. Three persons, one being. One being, three persons.

Three persons emerged from divine nature! No…

Yet three persons mean three gods.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

The Divine Nature is simple and infinite. Jesus was a union between the Divine Nature and a human nature. Christians do not believe that God turned his substance into flesh. The Divine Substance was not partly on this world, it cannot be localized in such a way. But the human nature, the human body and human soul could be. God is not divided.

“Christians do not believe that God turned his substance into flesh.” I am not sure if Christians comprehend the issue as you claim!

But what I stated is the doctrine and teaching of the Christian Church and all truly Christian denominations.

“Jesus was a union between the Divine Nature and a human nature” . No. The unique relation between us and God is that God become manifest and act and effect through materials and souls.

What is the natural of that union? If divine essence is out of time and matter so how could that union be accomplished?

The Divine Nature is not moved or changed. It is eternal, immutable, with one eternal act and will stretching to all time, yet that act affects all temporal creation. All that was moved in the Incarnation was the human nature thatbwas assumed.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You’re assuming that person is equivalent with being. It is not. Three persons, one being. One being, three persons.

Three persons emerged from divine nature! No…

Yet three persons mean three gods.

Three persons didn’t emerge from the Divine Nature. The Divine Nature is the Trinity.

And no, I mean one God, one being, one essence. Person and Being are not absolutely equivalent terms, nor is a 1 to 1 ratio metaphysically necessary, nor does what we mean by divine person correspond to exactly what we typically conceive of when we think of a human person.

 

[Wesrock]

@mhmtas63

What does it mean for a man to know something. I’m talking about a philosophy of knowledge. When he knows something, he has the pattern of it in his mind, yes? Not a physical pattern, but knowledge of what it is, yes? He grasps it as an abstract concept, a universal. Yes?

 

[mhmtas63]

And no, I mean one God, one being, one essence. Person and Being are not absolutely equivalent terms, nor is a 1 to 1 ratio metaphysically necessary, nor does what we mean by divine person correspond to exactly what we typically conceive of when we think of a human person.

Yet there would be three persons who would share Godhead. That harm the idea of “one God”! I see you do not mean there are more than one God but the idea you assert goes to polytheism or at least open a gate to it.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

And no, I mean one God, one being, one essence. Person and Being are not absolutely equivalent terms, nor is a 1 to 1 ratio metaphysically necessary, nor does what we mean by divine person correspond to exactly what we typically conceive of when we think of a human person.

Yet there would be three persons who would share Godhead. That harm the idea of “one God”! I see you do not mean there are more than one God but the idea you assert goes to polytheism or at least open a gate to it.

There is only one divine intellect, not three, and only one divine will, not three. All three persons are co-eternal, but there is only one eternal, not three eternals.

The Godhead isn’t partitioned. The Godhead is God is the Trinity. The Trinity is not from God or in God, but is God.

 

[Wesrock]

Was someone seriously suggesting the holy spirit was captured by the son as a prize for the father?

Yes… and I’ve seen that brought up in three different topics by three different usernames claiming to be Roman Catholic who are all currently suspended. Not sure what’s going on, though I’ve some suspicions which I won’t air.