Trinity diagram

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Russ

Through all of that, however, there was never any doubt in his mind to simply say no.

How we should understand this p***age if Jesus had no doubts?

Hebrews 5:7
...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,...

That is not reflecting a man without doubts and distress.

Trinity

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Russ

Simple. God doesn't "have" agency.

God is the author of it.

His laws, his rules, his universe, his game.

I kind of see what you are saying, but kind of not. I mean, when a king made rules for his kingdom, and gave or rejected agency of others; He himself still had agency; and could still decide what rules he wanted to make. So, I still don't see this really answering if God has agency. Does God think? Does He have intelligence; and please dont' say He is intellgence, because that would just make me ask, how does He use His intelligence if He has no agency?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Trinity

How we should understand this p***age if Jesus had no doubts?

Hebrews 5:7
...who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,...

That is not reflecting a man without doubts and distress.

Trinity

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me

MacG

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Russ

The LDS religion is foolish to proclaim that Jesus was a person who became God, rather "a" god" or "another God," by choice of agency.

That's because you don't understand who Jesus is and that He has a Father.

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by MacG

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me

MacG

Good post. Very interesting comment.

Trinity

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by MacG

This part of the thread is interesting to me even though it is kind of moot in that it is finished and if our reasoning is incensed at the idea that Christ could not have sinned it was somehow less than fair we need to be less egocentric and consider that He who considered it not robbery to be considered equal with God humbled Himself and was found in the form of a man.

At any rate, you have on one hand Jesus in the garden begging 3 times to let the cup p*** if there was a plan B and ultimately accepting there was none,
accepted His father's will, sounds like temptation - conflicting desires. Hebrews says that we "have not a high priest that cannot sympathize with our weaknesses" as opposed to the haughty callous priests that they were used to. On the other hand we have Jesus saying that He only says and does what His Father in Heaven does.

Temptation implies resisting something, breaking a vow, eating too much, disobeying. Now one's nature comes into this. If I command my hypothetical mailman chasing dog to not chase I could maybe see some conflicting desires when the mailman comes. Would my cat have the same impulse? The dog is tempted and the cat is not. What if I had a Dat or a Cog, a critter with both natures, the dog nature would be pulling against the cat's nature - conflicting desires. So 100% nature of God and 100% nature of man. Conflicting natures to me means there is a possibility, if not then He had the ability to be tormented, stretched by temptation farther than any mere man and hence the great anguish, even apparant vascillation but ultimate obedience, in the garden.

Whether He could sin or not it is clear He had the capacity to suffer more in the way of temptation than any other man.

Well I have probably have crossed some heresy line somewhere, no offense any one. Just seeking for answers, don't follow me

MacG

I enjoyed this post. Thankyou. I agree; if Christ had no ability to choose, it would lessen the victory of His sacrifice greatly; and give me no reason to think that He can relate to me or my trials at all.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Russ

Simple. God doesn't "have" agency.
God is the author of it.
His laws, his rules, his universe, his game.

---So any Bible reference to Jesus making a choice, is just wrong because Jesus has no free will? And if God can't have anything that He is also the author of, doesn't that create all kinds of problems? Jesus can't have humility because He is the author of it, etc.?

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So any Bible reference to Jesus making a choice, is just wrong because Jesus has no free will? And if God can't have anything that He is also the author of, doesn't that create all kinds of problems? Jesus can't have humility because He is the author of it, etc.?

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So any Bible reference to Jesus making a choice, is just wrong because Jesus has no free will? And if God can't have anything that He is also the author of, doesn't that create all kinds of problems? Jesus can't have humility because He is the author of it, etc.?

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

Wait....

Pro Truth said that. :-)

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Russ

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

Wait....

Pro Truth said that. :-)

I have no problem with this. You seem to mistake whether I am asking whether Christ has made the right choices, rather than if He has the ability to choose? If Christ had no trial in the choice as it was out of His hands, then how can I ever think that He can understand my trials?

[nrajeff]

Julie made the obvious point that needs to be made. No one here is wondering whether deities sometimes make wrong choices. The question is whether a person who always chooses the right choice, really does so because He has NO choice in the matter. Seems to me that the word "choice" coming up so much in the discussion, implies that there is "choice" available. Just because someone always chooses good, doesn't meant that he was unable to choose bad. The times in your life when you choose good, you choose to do what's right. You could have made a bad choice but you didn't. It's not because you were unable to make the bad choice.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I have no problem with this. You seem to mistake whether I am asking whether Christ has made the right choices, rather than if He has the ability to choose? If Christ had no trial in the choice as it was out of His hands, then how can I ever think that He can understand my trials?

That's the amazing thing about God! He knows you far more than you even know yourself. He has your hairs numbered! He knows what you're going to do 10 years from now - God knows your entire future. He knows how many particles of matter that is in your body! He knows what you're going to think far before you think it.

Believe me when I say this: God understands your trials more than you do. He wants you to place those burdens in His hands. God is the ultimate Best Friend.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

Julie made the obvious point that needs to be made. No one here is wondering whether deities sometimes make wrong choices. The question is whether a person who always chooses the right choice, really does so because He has NO choice in the matter. Seems to me that the word "choice" coming up so much in the discussion, implies that there is "choice" available. Just because someone always chooses good, doesn't meant that he was unable to choose bad. The times in your life when you choose good, you choose to do what's right. You could have made a bad choice but you didn't. It's not because you were unable to make the bad choice.

Believe me, I completely understand what you're saying; however, God is not man. God is on a completely different level and is the very definition of "Holy".

EDIT: I'm curious if we could get back on topic about the diagram. Any Biblical verses or p***ages that seem to be in conflict with the message of the diagram in the OP? I know I can find some BoM p***ages.

Also, I apologize for not responding quickly lately. I'm actually traveling on business and have been working ridiculous hours. Things will be back to normal for me by next week............I think!

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by Russ

Simply put, Jesus is God. Jesus is perfect. Every choice He makes is the righteous choice. I'm unsure why anyone would have any issue with this.

Wait....

Pro Truth said that. :-)

Plagiarism!!!! (well put, though )

[nrajeff]

The diagram is so ambiguous that I could either agree with everything on it, or disagree with at least one part. ***uming god and deity are synonymous, I can agree that each of the 3 persons is deity, and that each of the 3 persons is not any of the other 2 persons. So the triangle has limited value in weeding out the "TBTs" (true blue trinitarians) from EMH's (evil monolatrist heretics) such as myself. If you define god as "the sole and ultimate creator of the universe and every thing and being in it except that creator itself" then the triangle becomes an illogical paradox, therefore I would not say I agree with the triangle. Maybe the triple-point of the water molecule would do a better *** of describing Trinitarianism's God, than the triangle does. Or maybe not.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

The diagram is so ambiguous that I could either agree with everything on it, or disagree with at least one part. ***uming god and deity are synonymous, I can agree that each of the 3 persons is deity, and that each of the 3 persons is not any of the other 2 persons. So the triangle has limited value in weeding out the "TBTs" (true blue trinitarians) from EMH's (evil monolatrist heretics) such as myself. If you define god as "the sole and ultimate creator of the universe and every thing and being in it except that creator itself" then the triangle becomes an illogical paradox, therefore I would not say I agree with the triangle. Maybe the triple-point of the water molecule would do a better *** of describing Trinitarianism's God, than the triangle does. Or maybe not.

Thanks, Jeff - I'm mostly concerned that if you can find a single Biblical verse that contradicts the message of the diagram because I can find none. Perhaps I'm missing something.

What I see when I am reading the diagram is simply this:

There is one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. However, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father.

It just seems to me that since this is the definition of the Trinity doctrine, and because the definition has absolutely zero conflict with the Holy Bible (and actually is in complete harmony with the Bible), it seems completely logical that God is Triune in nature. In other words, the Trinity is the very definition of the nature of God.

I can find some Book of Mormon references that conflict with the diagram but can not find a single one in the Bible. Let me know if you come up with one. Thanks!

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

Thanks, Jeff - I'm mostly concerned that if you can find a single Biblical verse that contradicts the message of the diagram because I can find none. Perhaps I'm missing something.

---As far as I can tell, all you are missing is that the devil is in the details--the semantics. Depending on what meanings we give to the triangle and its terms, it either is supported by the Bible, or it isn't, IMO. That's why a definitive answer to your question is gonna be very hard to give.

What I see when I am reading the diagram is simply this:

There is one God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. However, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father.

---But the New Testament has verses that state that the Father is the Living God and the Father and God of Jesus' disciples, while it has none saying that Son is. The NT has no verses saying that the Holy Ghost is the father of spirits. My point is that merely saying that each of the 3 Persons is "God" is too vague to use in the center of the triangle. It ends up being misleading and confusing. Suppose in the center we instead write "The ultimate creator of all things and spirits, the Most High Deity to whom all other persons owe allegiance." Now run all 3 Persons through the exercise again, and it doesn't work anymore. That's because we disambiguated the term in the center. Jesus is deity, yes, but He is not The ultimate creator of all things and spirits, the Most High Deity to whom all other persons owe allegiance, and neither is the Holy Spirit. Only the Father qualifies. That's one huge problem with The Triangle as originally drawn.

It just seems to me that since this is the definition of the Trinity doctrine, and because the definition has absolutely zero conflict with the Holy Bible

--As I said, if we don't scrutinize the implications, you are right, otherwise, there is conflict.

it seems completely logical that God is Triune in nature. In other words, the Trinity is the very definition of the nature of God.

--I still don't see much logic in it being the most accurate description of the 3 Persons. But to answer your question: In the vague format originally drawn, and as long as we don't look too closely at definitions, no, I can't find any Bible verses that definitively contradict The Triangle. That does not mean it's valid, of course. I could make up a theology that is not explicitly refuted by any Bible verse, but I bet you could shoot holes in it nonetheless.

[Pro-Truth]

With all due respect, Jeff - all I see you is dancing.

Though, I would welcome you to make up a theology that you feel is not explicitely refuted by the Bible and let's take a look at the Bible to see what it has to say.

The diagram is nothing that I made up. It has existed for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

The Bible says that there is only one God. There are three Persons identified, accepted, and referred to as "God": The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. There is only one Deity and that is "God". God is three Persons.

I'm asking you to provide any verse or p***age that disagrees with the very definition of the Trinity and I don't believe you can. I've looked quite heavily into this subject and have come up empty. Therefore, I must also conclude that God is Triune by nature. There isn't any way to get around it, I believe. I'm asking you or any other Mormon to show me where or how I'm in error with my conclusion.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

With all due respect, Jeff - all I see you is dancing.

-- I am being diplomatic. You should be grateful that I am being more restrained in my expressions of disagreement than I usually am. I am trying to keep us from being as mutually antagonistic as we often were at CARM.

Though, I would welcome you to make up a theology that you feel is not explicitely refuted by the Bible and let's take a look at the Bible to see what it has to say.

--You think it would difficult to make up a theology that isn't definitely refuted by the Bible? Heck, look at Trinitarianism, for exa....oh, yeah, sorry.

The diagram is nothing that I made up. It has existed for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

---I know that; I have been seeing The Triangle for at least 20 years. I am still unimpressed by it.

The Bible says that there is only one God.

--And Jesus is that God's son.

I'm asking you to provide any verse or p***age that disagrees with the very definition of the Trinity and I don't believe you can.

---The verses that state the inferiority of the Person of the Son, refute the myth of absolute equality of the 3. They are equal in their substance, but not in their preeminence. The Father is the greatest. All that "co-" stuff was made up because someone thought it blasphemous to believe that one Person is superior to the other 2.

I've looked quite heavily into this subject and have come up empty. Therefore, I must also conclude that God is Triune by nature.

--No, there is no law saying you must do that.

There isn't any way to get around it, I believe.

---What we believe, and what actually is, may be different things. The Arians were quite sure that THEIR theology was supported by scripture, and not only supported by it--they believed their theology was MORE supported than Athanasian theology. Just because you and I think they were mistaken is immaterial, since to them, your theology and my theology are less-supported, and I bet the Arians could have quoted scriptures that they believed refuted us. That means little to me, and it should mean little to you.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

-- I am being diplomatic. You should be grateful that I am being more restrained in my expressions of disagreement than I usually am. I am trying to keep us from being as mutually antagonistic as we often were at CARM.

I really appreciate it, Jeff - I truly do. Though, I don't recall you and I antagonizing one another. The only person that I can think of where I couldn't help myself from antagonizing was the LDS member: EVAN at CARM. As for you, it seems to me that you and I have always had good and enjoyable debates and I think we'll continue to do so here.

--You think it would difficult to make up a theology that isn't definitely refuted by the Bible? Heck, look at Trinitarianism, for exa....oh, yeah, sorry.

lol, Jeff....I mean, let's at least be reasonable. I can think of Book of Mormon p***ages that come into conflict with the Trinity diagram. I can also come up with mul***udes from the D&C and PofGP as well as quotes from LDS authorities. But, I cannot find a single verse in the Bible that comes into conflict with the diagram. I'm simply requesting from you or any other LDS member to see if they can.

---I know that; I have been seeing The Triangle for at least 20 years. I am still unimpressed by it.

Do you find it impressive that the diagram doesn't conflict with the Bible, yet, it conflicts with the Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP, and quotes from LDS General Authorities?

--And Jesus is that God's son.

I know, as a born again Christian and by having debates with several hundreds of Mormons, that when Mormons say that "Jesus is the Son of God", they mean that in the most literal way. I don't see Jesus being the "literal Son of God" at all - at least, not in the same way that Mormons do. The Jesus I know is co-equal with God the Father and is the exact same God. I see Jesus as being eternally distinct from God the Father, but, I also see Jesus as never having a beginning. Jesus is not subordinate by nature to God the Father.

I not only see Jesus as the "Son of God"; however, I also see Him as "God, the Son". The term "Son of" literally means "In the order of". When Jesus was talking to the High Priests in the Temple, when He said that He was the "Son of God", the High Priests understood that as Jesus making Himself equal with God. This is precisely what Jesus was communicating to them and never at any point did Jesus try to correct them from a potential misunderstanding. This is just one example.

[quote]---The verses that state the inferiority of the Person of the Son, refute the myth of absolute equality of the 3. They are equal in their substance, but not in their preeminence. The Father is the greatest. All that "co-" stuff was made up because someone thought it blasphemous to believe that one Person is superior to the other 2.[quote]

Each of the three Persons are equal in substance and they are unique - no other shares the same substance. As for their preeminence, they all are equal; however, have different roles. I can share some examples if you like.

--No, there is no law saying you must do that.


---What we believe, and what actually is, may be different things. The Arians were quite sure that THEIR theology was supported by scripture, and not only supported by it--they believed their theology was MORE supported than Athanasian theology. Just because you and I think they were mistaken is immaterial, since to them, your theology and my theology are less-supported, and I bet the Arians could have quoted scriptures that they believed refuted us. That means little to me, and it should mean little to you.

I'm under the belief that it's important to consider proper Biblical interpretation by allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. In other words, when faced with difficult verses or p***ages, we should also consider what is being said by easier, more clear p***ages to shed light on the more difficult ones. I'm sure we'll get more into this as we continue to debate.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

I really appreciate it, Jeff - I truly do. Though, I don't recall you and I antagonizing one another.

--Then you are more forgiving, or more forgetful, than I. I remember treating you quite harshly.

As for you, it seems to me that you and I have always had good and enjoyable debates and I think we'll continue to do so here.

--I sincerely hope we will here, because fierce battle wears me out.

I can think of Book of Mormon p***ages that come into conflict with the Trinity diagram.

---Maybe I can, too, but what I see most from anti-BOM folks is comments that the BOM teaches Trinitarianism, and therefore the church's failure to teach Trinitarianism puts the church in conflict with the BOM.

But, I cannot find a single verse in the Bible that comes into conflict with the diagram. I'm simply requesting from you or any other LDS member to see if they can.

---I am fairly confident that I could do it if I tried, but it would be pointless because you'd find an interpretation of the verse that resolves the problem. Just as I would do with any BOM verse you cite that seems to militate against my beliefs. It's a game doomed to stalemate.

Do you find it impressive that the diagram doesn't conflict with the Bible, yet, it conflicts with the Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP, and quotes from LDS General Authorities?

---It's too ambiguous to impress me. I can find BOM, D&C, etc. quotes that agree with the triangle. The Triangle needs to elaborate in order to set itself up as a definitive excluder of LDS/BOM teachings, and it does not elaborate. It just says "Each Person is god and each Person is not any other Person." It is probably sufficient to exclude Modalism and Arianism from itself but not LDSism.

Each of the three Persons are equal in substance and they are unique - no other shares the same substance.

--I know some other Trinitarians who I think would disagree. For one thing, ****ousios is now interpreted to mean that all 3 Persons ARE the same substance, i.e. they are literally inseparable. LDS believe that the Persons are each a pure spirit at their essential core, but they are individuals. And we are called heretics for so believing. For another thing, my other Trin. friends say that of the 3 Persons, Jesus is unique with His 2 natures--divine, and human.

As for their preeminence, they all are equal; however, have different roles. I can share some examples if you like.

--I would just respond by sharing the verses where Jesus declares His Father to be greatest and most knowledgeable.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

I would like for any Mormon to find a single verse in the Holy Bible that contradicts the message of the following Trinity diagram:



I have never been able to find one in the Bible; however, I know of p***ages in the Book of Mormon that do, which shows that they are not in harmony with one another. For instance:

Ether 3:14 (in the Book of Mormon) tells us, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son."

Also, Mosiah 15:1-5 "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very bEternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

Both of those Book of Mormon p***ages contradict the diagram, but, not a single verse in the Bible does - that is, unless you can find one! I never have been able to.

Often LDS authorities refer to "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost". You can find it in recent conference addresses.

I think your drawing is mostly accurate, except for a missing piece. I would add a large circle around the entire triangle. And label that large circle "Godhead". Then it could be a diagram of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--Then you are more forgiving, or more forgetful, than I. I remember treating you quite harshly.


--I sincerely hope we will here, because fierce battle wears me out.

lol, don't worry, Jeff. Let's just continue to have great dialogue!

---Maybe I can, too, but what I see most from anti-BOM folks is comments that the BOM teaches Trinitarianism, and therefore the church's failure to teach Trinitarianism puts the church in conflict with the BOM.

That's the irony! Within the Book of Mormon, I can think of p***ages that are right in line with Trinitarianism...and for the most part the Book of Mormon is! But, like I said, I can think of at least a couple of p***ages that are more in line with modalism, which would conflict with the diagram.

As for the Bible, I cannot find a single verse or p***age that conflicts with the diagram. I guess, that's the point I'm trying to communicate.

---I am fairly confident that I could do it if I tried, but it would be pointless because you'd find an interpretation of the verse that resolves the problem. Just as I would do with any BOM verse you cite that seems to militate against my beliefs. It's a game doomed to stalemate.

Actually, I disagree, Jeff. But then again, maybe we should just try and see what happens. I'm sure that we can use our reasoning ability to get to the bottom of things. One thing I've always appreciated about you, Jeff, is that you come across as being far more reasonable than most. Perhaps you feel the same way towards me? Who knows...but, I know that we can at least reason together and see what's going on...

---It's too ambiguous to impress me. I can find BOM, D&C, etc. quotes that agree with the triangle. The Triangle needs to elaborate in order to set itself up as a definitive excluder of LDS/BOM teachings, and it does not elaborate. It just says "Each Person is god and each Person is not any other Person." It is probably sufficient to exclude Modalism and Arianism from itself but not LDSism.

The way I view the Bible, for example, is that it is consistent from Genesis through Revelation. It's as if there is a tiny thread connecting each page as each of the 66 Inspired Books work in harmony.

With that said, I know I can come up with verses or p***ages in the BoM, D&C, and PofGP that all agree with the diagram; however, there are also places where I see that they come into conflict.

--I know some other Trinitarians who I think would disagree. For one thing, ****ousios is now interpreted to mean that all 3 Persons ARE the same substance, i.e. they are literally inseparable. LDS believe that the Persons are each a pure spirit at their essential core, but they are individuals. And we are called heretics for so believing. For another thing, my other Trin. friends say that of the 3 Persons, Jesus is unique with His 2 natures--divine, and human.

I'm unsure of any Trinitarian who would disagree... The Trinity is based on these basic Biblical facts:

1. There is only one God.
2. There are three Persons identified, referred to as, and accepted as "God"

- Therefore, God is Triune by nature.

It really doesn't get any more complicated than that.

--I would just respond by sharing the verses where Jesus declares His Father to be greatest and most knowledgeable.

One thing you have to consider is that while Jesus was on Earth, He was 100% man and 100% God. He was the "Godman", if you will. One thing Jesus did not say is that the Father is "better" than Him. Sure, while Jesus was on Earth, there is no question that His capacity was not at the level of God the Father; however, His nature was equal.

[Pro-Truth]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Often LDS authorities refer to "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Ghost". You can find it in recent conference addresses.

I think your drawing is mostly accurate, except for a missing piece. I would add a large circle around the entire triangle. And label that large circle "Godhead". Then it could be a diagram of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead.

Hey Fig - thanks for joining in! Good to see you...

What I'm mainly trying to ask is if there is a single Biblical verse or p***age that you can think of or find that would come into conflict with the message of the diagram. The diagram is precisely what the Trinity concept teaches.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Pro-Truth

Hey Fig - thanks for joining in! Good to see you...

What I'm mainly trying to ask is if there is a single Biblical verse or p***age that you can think of or find that would come into conflict with the message of the diagram. The diagram is precisely what the Trinity concept teaches.

Well, I don't know that I would disagree with your diagram since it is could also be used to depict the concept of the Godhead.

But let me ask you this. In your Trinitarian view, what do the lines between the circles represent?