Another attempt at describing the Trinity - Page 2

WillowTheWhisp · #11 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 04:55 AM

So how come then we have the verse of scripture where Jesus says, "Nevertheless not my will but thine"? If they are both the same entity then there wouldn't be a 'my will' and 'thy will' would there?

Dale · #12 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 10:53 AM

I ran into the explanation Jesus the man was subordinate to God, but not the God part.

Maureen · #13 (**permalink**) 01-24-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

So how come then we have the verse of scripture where Jesus says, "Nevertheless not my will but thine"? If they are both the same entity then there wouldn't be a 'my will' and 'thy will' would there?

We can paraphrase your quote and say "Nevertheless not Jesus' will but the Father's." We all agree that the Father exists and so does Jesus. Saying that the Father and Jesus have the same divine essence, does not negate their own diversity within that essence.

M.

Dale · #14 (**permalink**) 01-25-2008, 12:02 PM

Let's say the 2nd person of the Trinity could be seperated from the other pat's of God for a moment. Could he then if made a seperate being be called a person like any of us? God is supposed the be a person in the modern sense. Allister E. McGrath in my Understanding The Trinity book said that was appropriate definition God fit's.

Why wasn't the 2nd person of the Trinity in my scenario a person before? Jesus God part in my scenario kept everything he had when he was with the other part's of God. I am proposing no changes were made, but to let him exist by himself.

Maureen · #15 (**permalink**) 01-25-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

Let's say the 2nd person of the Trinity could be seperated from the other pat's of God for a moment. Could he then if made a seperate being be called a person like any of us? God is supposed the be a person in the modern sense. Allister E. McGrath in my Understanding The Trinity book said that was appropriate definition God fit's.

Why wasn't the 2nd person of the Trinity in my scenario a person before? Jesus God part in my scenario kept everything he had when he was with the other part's of God. I am proposing no changes were made, but to let him exist by himself.

For one thing God cannot be divided into parts, God is God. And the use of the word person to describe God, is for our benefit, since we are limited in our finite way in describing an infinite being. God has always been God, one in three, three in one. The three persons of the Godhead have always existed together as God. We may try to understand how these persons relate to each other and ourselves, but we cannot divide their essence or make them different than what they already are, to make it easier for us to define them.

M.

WillowTheWhisp · #16 (**permalink**) 01-25-2008, 03:29 PM

We are going to go round and round in circles on this one because people who are firm in their Trintarian beliefs will not be persuaded that there are three distinct persons and those of us who are sure they are seperate beings will never be convinced they can be three in one and one in three.

Maureen · #17 (**permalink**) 01-25-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

We are going to go round and round in circles on this one because people who are firm in their Trintarian beliefs will not be persuaded that there are three distinct persons...

That you have wrong, because we already agree they are distinct from each other, we just don't define their distinctiveness as being equal to multiple Gods.

Quote:

...and those of us who are sure they are seperate beings will never be convinced they can be three in one and one in three.

Yes, we are kind of going in circles but, just so I'm clear Willow, you believe that the Father, Son and HS are 3 Gods, is that correct?

M.

Dale · #18 (**permalink**) 01-25-2008, 11:14 PM

Maureen-I did not ask my question to convince you. I struggle with understanding why the 2nd person of the Trinity is not like an individual person, but i am. The idea the person's arn't seperate doesn't help me very much.

Officially my Community of Christ/RLDS favor's the Trinitarian view of God. The Southern Baptist Convention on a handout on us misunderstood are belief statemen, so accused us wrongly of modalism. But my copy of Exploring The Faith which explained our belief statement content wise favor's the creedal Trinity. Not being a creedal church we have had Anti-Trinitaranism also which is how i feel.

Maureen · #19 (**permalink**) 01-26-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale

Maureen-I did not ask my question to convince you. I struggle with understanding why the 2nd person of the Trinity is not like an individual person, but i am. The idea the person's arn't seperate doesn't help me very much.

Dale - Why do you think that Jesus is not individual? The 3 persons of the Godhead are separate from each other but since there is only ONE God, all we can do is try to understand to the best of our limited human ability and with a little help from the Holy Spirit himself, how three 3 persons can be the ONE and only God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not make up 3 equal parts of God, they are God. They are individually God, so when we talk of Jesus, we are also talking about God. They are God collectively; God loves us, saves us and sanctifies us. I hope I'm understanding what you are trying to ask.

M.

AnthonyB · #20 (**permalink**) 01-26-2008, 04:43 AM

People from LDS seem to have a nexus that every individual person must be a seperate being. I think Lewis in "Mere Christianity" p 137-141 does a great job of getting the Trinitarians ideas across. It allows for a God who takes personalhood to the level beyond where we currently are. When the bible says God is love, trinitarian thought allows that attribute to have eternal expression. The one original being was forever 3 person and therefore capable of being in loving realtionship eternally.

If LDS find trinitarianism confusing than it is exactly how I find your views. If some of what I'm about to say is muddled I apologize but after several months reading your posts and articles about LDS you still stump me.

Jesus was eternal God, but I haven't seen anyone describe exactly how that occurred? Was He defied at the council when He laid out His plan or was he already God eternal?
The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, who is devine, how did that occurr?
The Father passed through stages of existence as we must to achieve Godhood, but it doesn't appear that either of the other persons in the Godhood did.
We must be in an eternal marriage to reach deification and there is a possibility that the Father is in an eternal marriage but where does that leave the other 2 persons in the godhood, neither of whom is married?
Jesus is our examplar of God, God revealed in flesh to us, yet it is the Father's possible path that we should follow not Jesus?