I've decided after the exchange with LDSTrue that it might help if we had basic Trinitarianism explained here. Now I'm not asking at this point that you agree to the doctrine. I hope you do eventually at course. I'm just wanting it to be that when you argue against it, you argue against the true version and not a straw man. Consider it this way. If someone argues against Mormonism, do you want them to argue against what you really believe, or what they think that you believe that is entirely false?

This also is not a "Debunk the Trinity" thread. Before you can debunk it, you need to know what it teaches. I'll also if need be recommend books on the doctrine to help out. The sad reality is that the average Christian you meet does not know the doctrine well and will misrepresent it. So why should you trust me?

Well, I am a Seminary student and I do take the doctrine seriously as Christians on here will attest to and I've read much, written much, and taught much about it. I figure if we start off this way, it will make our dialogues much easier. You can ask questions about "What do you think about such and such a verse?" but I'd like those to be with the intent of learning what I believe and not seeking to debunk what I believe. This is one thread I hope remains as civil as possible and if the Mormons here want to start their own thread for questions on Mormonism, by all means feel free.

If I don't get to a question immediately also, well I do have a life outside of the net. Give me time.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

I've decided after the exchange with LDSTrue that it might help if we had basic Trinitarianism explained here. Now I'm not asking at this point that you agree to the doctrine. I hope you do eventually at course. I'm just wanting it to be that when you argue against it, you argue against the true version and not a straw man. Consider it this way. If someone argues against Mormonism, do you want them to argue against what you really believe, or what they think that you believe that is entirely false?

This also is not a "Debunk the Trinity" thread. Before you can debunk it, you need to know what it teaches. I'll also if need be recommend books on the doctrine to help out. The sad reality is that the average Christian you meet does not know the doctrine well and will misrepresent it. So why should you trust me?

Well, I am a Seminary student and I do take the doctrine seriously as Christians on here will attest to and I've read much, written much, and taught much about it. I figure if we start off this way, it will make our dialogues much easier. You can ask questions about "What do you think about such and such a verse?" but I'd like those to be with the intent of learning what I believe and not seeking to debunk what I believe. This is one thread I hope remains as civil as possible and if the Mormons here want to start their own thread for questions on Mormonism, by all means feel free.

If I don't get to a question immediately also, well I do have a life outside of the net. Give me time.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix;
If you decide you want to show some humility for a change and ask some questions, things will go much nicer for you....

Okay, let’s start with Jesus.
The Christian world knows Jesus is the Son of God, was crucified and resurrected.

Therefore, in Trinitarian thought:

1. Is Jesus a separate and distinct individual “being” from the Father?
2. If not, why not?
3. If so, how so?
4. What is the difference between “person” and “being”
5. Does a “person” have shape and form?
6. Does a “being” have shape and form”
7. Is a “person” visible?
8. Is a “being” visible?
9. Was Jesus separate and distinct from His Father while with His Father in heaven prior to the Father sending Him to the baby in Mary’s womb?
10. Did His resurrection unite His body with His spirit for all time and eternity?
11. Will Jesus always be visible with His resurrected body?
12. Does Jesus ever lay down His body again?
13. If Jesus laid down His Body again wouldn’t that be considered His second death?
14. Will Jesus always be the Son of God?
15. Did Jesus have His own free will; did He choose to obey His Father?
16. Why do you say there is no autonomy?
17. If Jesus is God, why do you say God is a spirit without form or shape when obviously Jesus has form and shape?
18. What is the reason Jesus said “to my God and Your God, to my Father and your Father” instead of ‘to our God and to our Father?’
19. By living the gospel and obeying the commandments are we gradually changing and partaking of the nature of God?
20. Was it okay in your opinion to be related to Lucifer, “son of the morning” prior to his fall, his casting out of heaven with a third of the host of heaven and him becoming Satan? Lucifer was in Heaven with God long enough to become known as "son of the morning" and did have enough influence to convince billions of spirits to follow him to the point of being cast out of Heaven. He must have been a influential good guy at some point prior to his fall.

Your answers could help us understand why you accuse us of worshiping "another Jesus" and "the fake Jesus" etc...

Thanks, when you get time...

I have a friend who has consistently told me that the doctrine of trinity did not begin until the council of nicea with the advent of the nicene creed.


Your thoughts?

Originally posted by LDSTrue

Okay, let’s start with Jesus.
The Christian world knows Jesus is the Son of God, was crucified and resurrected.

Therefore, in Trinitarian thought:

1. Is Jesus a separate and distinct individual “being” from the Father?

No

2. If not, why not?

Individual first off would mean that he could be autonomous from the Father. The Trinity dwells in an eternal inter-relationship. Also, we say distinct only as separate and distinct implies physicality to the nature of the Godhead.

4. What is the difference between “person” and “being”

Person refers to a center of consciousnss. The word can be used to refer to physical persons. Being when used refers to the Godhead entirely and not to an individual person in the Godhead.

5. Does a “person” have shape and form?

If you mean a person like you or I, yes. If you mean a person such as in the Godhead, no.

6. Does a “being” have shape and form”

If you mean in the physical sense, no.

7. Is a “person” visible?
8. Is a “being” visible?

See above.

9. Was Jesus separate and distinct from His Father while with His Father in heaven prior to the Father sending Him to the baby in Mary’s womb?

The Son has always been distinct. Separate is either a redundancy then or implying physicality.

10. Did His resurrection unite His body with His spirit for all time and eternity?

Yes.

11. Will Jesus always be visible with His resurrected body?

Yes.

12. Does Jesus ever lay down His body again?

No.

13. If Jesus laid down His Body again wouldn’t that be considered His second death?

He cannot. Death has no power over him.

14. Will Jesus always be the Son of God?

Always has been. Always will be.

15. Did Jesus have His own free will; did He choose to obey His Father?

Yes.

16. Why do you say there is no autonomy?

Because it's true. The Son says that he lives because the Father lives and only does what the Father tells him. The Son cannot live as a "rogue deity".

17. If Jesus is God, why do you say God is a spirit without form or shape when obviously Jesus has form and shape?

To say "Jesus is God" is to say that Jesus embodies the fullness of the attributes of deity in his person. Trinitarians do not see Jesus's body as deity in any way. Jesus is deity who dwells in a physical body.

18. What is the reason Jesus said “to my God and Your God, to my Father and your Father” instead of ‘to our God and to our Father?’

He is the God of Jesus and the Father of Jesus by nature. He is our God and Father only by adoption.

19. By living the gospel and obeying the commandments are we gradually changing and partaking of the nature of God?

The passage in 2 Peter refers to the attributes such as holiness. We are becoming moral and holy.

20. Was it okay in your opinion to be related to Lucifer, “son of the morning” prior to his fall, his casting out of heaven with a third of the host of heaven and him becoming Satan? Lucifer was in Heaven with God long enough to become known as "son of the morning" and did have enough influence to convince billions of spirits to follow him to the point of being cast out of Heaven. He must have been a influential good guy at some point prior to his fall.

The sin of satan was that he saw the goodness of Heaven and put his goodness over God's goodness. I believe it was a sin committed immediately or very very shortly after his creation. He and the fallen demons never saw God and never will.

Your answers could help us understand why you accuse us of worshiping "another Jesus" and "the fake Jesus" etc...

Thanks, when you get time...

If you seek clarification, just ask. It's not to be a debate here. I probably won't answer the rest of the evening. Sunday afternoons are time off from TWeb.

Originally posted by Newsboys6

I have a friend who has consistently told me that the doctrine of trinity did not begin until the council of nicea with the advent of the nicene creed.


Your thoughts?

There are a number of books you can go and buy that will show the Trinitarian focus in the early church fathers even if the terminology was not there. I recommend James White's "The Forgotten Trinity." You'll also get a good understanding of it then as well.

Second, the council of Nicea was about the relationship of the Son to the Father and who the Son was. The Holy Spirit only had a line given. The Trinity was not the object of discussion.

Third, put the burden of proof on your friend. Ask them to back their case.

Hope this helps!

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

6. Why do you say there is no autonomy?

Because it's true. The Son says that he lives because the Father lives and only does what the Father tells him. The Son cannot live as a "rogue deity".

Do they have separate minds?

Can they think independently of each other? For example, can Jesus form his own thought without the cooperative effort of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in forming that thought?

It would help if you could give scriptural support for your beliefs or give external (non-scriptural)support for your beliefs, ie other sources or logic.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

Do they have separate minds?

Can they think independently of each other? For example, can Jesus form his own thought without the cooperative effort of the Father and the Holy Ghost, in forming that thought?

Now this is where it gets interesting because I'm not sure how an omniscient being would, as it were, "form thoughts." It's not like God has anything to learn. They all each know all things, but yet, each of them would also have truth only applicable to them. The Father could not truly say "I am begotten." The Son could not truly say "I am from the Father and the Spirit." and the Spirit could not say "I am the Father." Each of them knows all truth, but each of them knows what applies to himself in the Trinity. Thus, I do say that there are three persons and each person has his own will and intellect and knows all things.

Originally posted by LDSTrue

16. Why do you say there is no autonomy?

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

Because it's true. The Son says that he lives because the Father lives and only does what the Father tells him. The Son cannot live as a "rogue deity".

Scripture Verse:

John 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

How does Trinitarian thought interpret John 14:31 with regard to autonomy?

Scripture Verse:

Matt. 27: 46
46 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Mark 15: 34
34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?

Thanks, when you have time...

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

I do have a life outside of the net.

ECREE.

Originally posted by JB

ECREE.

you forgot about Smallville.

Originally posted by LDSTrue

How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?

Thanks, when you have time...

oh, those pesky little details! stop making them work so hard!

short answer: everything is explained by the trinity because we say so. therefore the trinity makes sense. end of argument!

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

Now this is where it gets interesting because I'm not sure how an omniscient being would, as it were, "form thoughts." It's not like God has anything to learn.

That would indicate that they are non-thinking beings, if they never form thoughts.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

They all each know all things, but yet, each of them would also have truth only applicable to them. The Father could not truly say "I am begotten." The Son could not truly say "I am from the Father and the Spirit." and the Spirit could not say "I am the Father." Each of them knows all truth, but each of them knows what applies to himself in the Trinity. Thus, I do say that there are three persons and each person has his own will and intellect and knows all things.

So then it would mean that their wills and intellects are independent of the others? Right?

And it would also indicate that One of them can "experience" something w/o the cooperative participation of the other 2, right?

And it would also follow then that even though they, each of them, "KNOW" all things, they have not each of them "EXPERIENCED" all things, right? So somehow for the trinity, you are saying that actual "experience" is not necessary for knowing all things. Is this how you see it?

Originally posted by LDSTrue

Scripture Verse:

John 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

How does Trinitarian thought interpret John 14:31 with regard to autonomy?

What's there to explain? The Son submits his will to the Father. By autonomy, I do not mean they don't have their own will, but that neither person lives apart from the other.

Scripture Verse:

Matt. 27: 46
46 “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Mark 15: 34
34 “And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?

Thanks, when you have time...

Quite simple. We say that there was something that really happened, but the Son never ceased to exist nor did he cease so submit his will to the Father.

I really don't see the objection here....

Originally posted by barnasha

oh, those pesky little details! stop making them work so hard!

short answer: everything is explained by the trinity because we say so. therefore the trinity makes sense. end of argument!

Hey Barny. You wanna have a go at this? You never did form a coherent argument in the thread in comparative religions against the Trinity no matter how much I kept pushing you on it.

Originally posted by OtherCheek

That would indicate that they are non-thinking beings, if they never form thoughts.

No. That would mean they're all-thinking beings in that they think all truths at all times.

So then it would mean that their wills and intellects are independent of the others? Right?

And it would also indicate that One of them can "experience" something w/o the cooperative participation of the other 2, right?

And it would also follow then that even though they, each of them, "KNOW" all things, they have not each of them "EXPERIENCED" all things, right? So somehow for the trinity, you are saying that actual "experience" is not necessary for knowing all things. Is this how you see it?

No. I don't think experience is necessary for knowing the propositional truth of all things, only what it is like to experience it. We've never been crucified, but no one looks at what Jesus did and thinks "I wonder if that was painful...."

I would say the Son is the only one who knows the experience of being crucified as the Father did not suffer on the cross and that would be the Son only in his humanity. The Spirit knows being proceeded from the Father and the Son and the Father knows the experience of begetting the Son.