quote:

---

I would respectfully welcome a discussion on any Scriptures that support the Trinity, because I have struggled with this issue since I was a little girl at school and none of the nuns or priest could convince me; the best I ever got was (paraphrasing) "It's a mystery and if you don't understand it you lack faith and will burn in hell". Who says that to a 12yr old girl! (Hence my issue with the Hellfire doctrine)

---

• Have Jesus addressing the Father as if He were another person.
• Talk about the Holy Spirit as if It/He/She were another person.
• Talk about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, making it clear that they comprise the Godhead.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It always amazes me that Protestants who stick so closely to the Sola Scriptura ideal are so willing to accept the Trinity because it is nowhere adequately expounded in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
12uthy's comment seems like a request for a discussion on Scriptures that support the Trinity, but Freddy you seem to be asking for an attempt to explain the Trinity.

---

True. Her comments about being unsatisfied with the "mystery" explanation was part of her request.

Either way is fine with me, especially since I don't expect to be able to direct anyone's comments anyway.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.

---

Thanks for the verses on the divinity of Jesus, but you seem to have forgotten the flip side of the Trinity - one God.
What you have outlined is tri-theism.

The unitarians I have spoken with don't deny the deity of Jesus - they just deny that he is a separate "person" from the Father and the Spirit.

---

quote:

---

1. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).
2. It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: THIS IS JEHOVAH we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isa. 25:9).
3. Behold, the LORD JEHOVIH will come in strength, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd (Isa. 40:3, 5, 10-11).
4. Behold, the days come that I will raise up to David a righteous offshoot, who shall reign a king, and shall prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth: and this is His name whereby they shall call Him, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15, 16).
5. Behold, I send Mine Angel, who shall prepare the way before Me, and the LORD whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple. (Mal. 3:1, 2; 4:5).
6. I saw, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; and there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages may worship Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed; and all dominions shall worship Him, and obey Him (Dan. 7:13, 14, 27).
7. Jehovah, remember David, who sware unto Jehovah, and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,If I shall enter within the tent of my house,if I shall go up upon my couch,if I shall give sleep to mine eyes, until I find out a place for Jehovah, a habitation for the Mighty One of Jacob. Lo, we heard of Him at Ephratah, we found Him in the fields of the forest. (Ps. 132:1-7, 9).
8. The Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and hear a Son, and shall call His name GOD-WITH-US (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22, 23).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:
Thanks for the verses on the divinity of Jesus, but you seem to have forgotten the flip side of the Trinity - one God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QB] It always amazes me that Protestants who stick so closely to the Sola Scriptura ideal are so willing to accept the Trinity because it is nowhere adequately expounded in Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
The one, if you'll forgive the pun, redeeming feature of PSA to me, is that the entity being punished in this Atonement model is God Himself. If Jesus Christ is not God then all possible models of the Atonement, including the ones I think are true, appear to me to collapse to nonsense.

---

You could have gone all day without saying that.

To my mind, PSA does nothing but present a God who is too terrible to believe in. I would choose Arianism any day.

But the Gospels present a Jesus who defeats the power of darkness itself. That, to me, is what requires Him to be God.

And, as I mention above, that's what the messianic prophecies clearly say anyway.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Now here's a shocking confession for a non-conformist protestant. I accept as doctrinal truth the doctrine of the Trinity and the fully divine/fully human nature of Christ because of their authoritative declaration by the early church councils. These two doctrines do more to protect Christians from error than any others. Those who put them together after reflection on both scripture and the resurrection life of Christ in the church did us all a favour.

We can all go through again the processes of reflection and argument - and disagreement - and problems with heretical belief - which led to these formulations. But why bother? I'm much more inclined to accept the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the work of these early councils.

It is good for protestants to come to terms with the undeniable fact that while belief in the authority and inspiration of scripture is necessary, it is not always sufficient. I reckon many of need to do some work in our understanding of the doctrine of the church.

And, no, I am not an Orthodox sockpuppet.
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
What Barnabas just said.
 

---

Posted by Bonaventura (# 5561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

However, if that church tradition contains an element of imposition by fear [e.g., we can't explain it but if you don't believe you'll go to hell) the whole idea of describing the nature of God in a certain way loses some of its power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

To my mind, PSA does nothing but present a God who is too terrible to believe in. I would choose Arianism any day.

But the Gospels present a Jesus who defeats the power of darkness itself. That, to me, is what requires Him to be God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.

She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Actually Freddy, simple PSA theology that emphasises the punishment that is heaped upon the Son by the Father is actually heading into a pseudo-arian direction by emphasising the separateness of the Son and the Father.

---

Excellent point. This is just the way I see it. PSA is Arianism in disguise.

But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility. It is fine to say that it is a mystery, but this really amounts to no explanation at all.

As long as the Trinity is taken seriously, that idea is inevitably an idea of three gods. Thankfully most Christians don't even think about it. They just hold an idea of "God" in their minds, as is by far the most common biblical concept.

Given this disadvantage, isn't it more rational to accept the gospel references to "Father" and "Son" as metaphor, and to take literally Jesus' declaration that "he who has seen Me has seen the Father"? Why choose the imagery of Jesus praying and crying out to the Father over other passages that contradict it?
 

---

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
"And that, by the way, is perhaps the most important difference between Christianity and all other religions: that in Christianity God is not a static thing--not even a person--but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance."

-C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility.

---

quote:

---

But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility. It is fine to say that it is a mystery, but this really amounts to no explanation at all.

---

quote:

---

As a totally orthodox trinitarian, I would say that 1 John 5 v 7 is an interpolation into the Bible. John didn't write it. It is however a clear intimation of what the second century church believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
what about this as an illustration
*snip*
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.

She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As a totally orthodox trinitarian, I would say that 1 John 5 v 7 is an interpolation into the Bible. John didn't write it. It is however a clear intimation of what the second century church believed.

As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.

My (less than perfect) point was that Elizabeth is monarch, wife and mother all at the same time, but that the 'person' of monarch is not the 'person' of wife, the 'person' of wife is not the 'person' of mother.

She is three in one - a trinity of persons in one being.

---

Elizabeth Windsor is one person performing three roles. Perhaps - a big perhaps - if she suffered multiple personality syndrome (or whatever it is called) she might be a little closer to the notion of three persons, but still not seriously so.

The Father and the Son, for instance, not only talk about each other in the third person ("This is my Beloved Son" etc), but also in the second person: (Jn 17.5) "glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory I had with thee before the world was made".

The "thou and me" language is the language of deepest personal relationship. The Father and the Son have a "face to face" relationship of perfect knowledge, perfect love, perfect unity of will. The Father and the Son are one God (there cannot be two omnipotents - who would win a fight?) - but they possess an "I-You" relationship to each other. The Trinity is necessary for God to be love: the Father loves the Son from all eternity, and the Son loves the Father from all eternity. If God is a single person, whom does he love?

The multiple personalities of the disordered mind are not real persons: but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the most perfect community of love - absolutely one in knowledge, power, and presence (omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresence). God is a perfect unity of Love: the Father, Son and Spirit possess a closeness that is far beyond our experience - _everything_ the Father knows is known to the Son - no secrets at all, no "private thoughts", complete and total and instant sharing of the innermost thoughts of the heart, if you will.

If you and I were omniscient, I would know everyone of your thoughts as you thought them, and you would know everyone of my thoughts as I thought them. Either this would be sheer claustrophobic hell, and we would destroy each other - or we would possess a unity and transparency to each other unknown in actual human experience. No two human beings ever experience that degree of intimacy and closeness, but I imagine God does.
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 
Sorry I'm late to the party, dh rebooted the comp yesterday and I've only just got back.
Glad to see you started without me

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Divinity of the Son is clearly seen in
John 1 v 1: the Word is with God and is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Mark 2 v 5 - 7: only God can forgive sins but Jesus does it anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

John 8 v 58: Jesus assumes the name of the Godhead for himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

John 20 v 28: Jesus accepts divine worship from Thomas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Philippians 2 v 5 etc: Not Pauline theology but his quotation of a hymn in common use that ascribes both the nature and title of Divinity to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The Divinity of the Spirit is clearly seen throughout Scripture beginning with Genesis 1 v 2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

That the Holy Spirit is a person, rather than a force or influence is seen as passages where he is referred to as 'he': John 16 v 13.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

An example of where he is directly referred to as God is Acts 5 v 3 - 4.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It's also interesting that the very early church battled with doecetism - ie that Jesus only seemed to be human. They had no problem convincing people of his divinity, but they had to reassert the idea that Jesus was also a real man in the face of those who said he didn't really suffer on the cross, that he never left a shadow or even that he walked just above the ground, leaving no footprints. It's only as the waters grew muddy away from the source that the teachers in the church felt they had to combat those who taught Jesus was a mere man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

And don't forget the baptismal formula that ascribes a collective, singular name to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - ie in the name of the Father...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I see no mystery, no difficulty here.
If you accept the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, as clearly demonstrated in Scripture and required by the Christian theology of Incarnation and Atonement, then the Trinity is not a problem at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

If however, you reject the Divinity and Deity of Jesus, then of course the Trinity becomes a stumbling block.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

The question must be, of course, do you reject the Trinity because you refuse the Deity of Jesus, or do you reject the Deity of Jesus because you can't grasp the obvious teaching of scripture on a trinitarian Godhead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It seems to me that all Unitarian thinking people reject the Trinity simply because they are prejudiced against the Divinity of the Son of God in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Divinity of the Son is clearly seen in
John 1 v 1: the Word is with God and is God.

---

I believe I already explained this scripture on the other thread.

---

quote:

---

1. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).
2. It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: THIS IS JEHOVAH we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isa. 25:9).
3. Behold, the LORD JEHOVIH will come in strength, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd (Isa. 40:3, 5, 10-11).
4. Behold, the days come that I will raise up to David a righteous offshoot, who shall reign a king, and shall prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth: and this is His name whereby they shall call Him, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15, 16).
5. Behold, I send Mine Angel, who shall prepare the way before Me, and the LORD whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple. (Mal. 3:1, 2; 4:5).
6. I saw, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; and there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages may worship Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed; and all dominions shall worship Him, and obey Him (Dan. 7:13, 14, 27).
7. Jehovah, remember David, who sware unto Jehovah, and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob,If I shall enter within the tent of my house,if I shall go up upon my couch,if I shall give sleep to mine eyes, until I find out a place for Jehovah, a habitation for the Mighty One of Jacob. Lo, we heard of Him at Ephratah, we found Him in the fields of the forest. (Ps. 132:1-7, 9).
8. The Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and hear a Son, and shall call His name GOD-WITH-US (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:22, 23).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:

quote:

---

But, to get back to the OP, a Trinity of three omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Beings is an absurd impossibility. It is fine to say that it is a mystery, but this really amounts to no explanation at all.

---

You are confusing 'being' with 'personhood' here, and you end up with tritheism.

Person or hypostasis in trinitarian language does not denote an individual or a being as we moderns understand the term.

One being, three hypostases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
what about this as an illustration
*snip*
The female known as Elizabeth is one biological entity.

She is a wife.
She is a mother.
She is a monarch.

---

As was pointed out previously this is modalism, or sabellianism.

It denies the reality of the relationships within the godhead. It is just one God who reveals different aspects of his personality to others.

Does Elizabeth the wife ever plead with Elisabeth the monarch or listen to Elisabeth the mother?

---

Possibly - Elizabeth the mother might well behave in a certain way because she is the Queen. As a wife, she might behave a certain way because she is also a mother. She might not speak to herself in words, but it may be that the position she holds dictates her behaviour in other spheres.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
12uthy.

Many thanks for predictably using you grossly distorted version of the Bible to back up your prejudiced argument.

I think you'll find that no church accepts your rewritten Bible as authentic opr authoritative - other than the Jehovah's Witnesses to which you belong.
 

---

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 
Could I put in a word for the JWs' New World Translation of the Bible, as its accuracy seems significant to this discussion? Yes, the translators obviously did bring their theological preconceptions to the task of translating - but that's inevitable; all translators bring their own theological slant, inevitably and usually unconsciously.

I belong to an NT Greek discussion list and John 1.1 comes up quite regularly. There are serious academics on the list, and the general agreement seems to be that the NWT's handling of the verse can be defended as a possible, though perhaps not very likely, translation. As someone who reads Greek I think the NWT NT (obviously I can say nothing about the OT as my Hebrew's minimal) is generally a pretty accurate translation, though the translators' determination to give as exact a translation of Koine Greek as they could does make the English painfully stilted at times.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
At least it's a bit better than a certain version of John 1 we've read about recently that says that "the Word" should be translated as the plan.
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 
Hi folks,
This will be my last post for today since my health is non-too good atm but since I effectively started this fire, I feel I must clarify a few things.

Mudfrog,
I appreciate your explanation about the three "persons" and I agree that English semantics is responsible for much of the confusion.
However, if we are to take each role of God as a separate person, why limit it to a Trinity. After all, is he not:
A creator (The Father)
a Redeemer (The Son)
an evangeliser (The Spirit) but also
a Judge
an avenger and
a mighty warrior

That would make him a polytheism.

But enough of the "theospeak".
Until we can agree on a definition of the terms divinity and deity, I shall try to lay out my beliefs regarding the "3 persons" and their relationship to each other.

Jehovah is the Almighty and Eternal God and creator of all things.
Having said that, it is clear (at least to me) from Scripture that Jesus was the first person that He created and that all "other things" were created "through" Jesus but according to Jehovah's will. Thus Jesus can truly be said to be his "only begotten son"
(Since you evidently believe that the NWT is untrustworthy I shall use the English Standard Version.)

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Pro 8:22 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Pro 8:23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth,
Pro 8:26 before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
Pro 8:27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Pro 8:28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
Pro 8:29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
Pro 8:30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
Pro 8:31 rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.


Since he is evidently a creation by Jehovah, he cannot be the same person although I concede that it could be said that he is a part of him.

The Spirit, I believe, is only a person in the sense of it being anthropomorphise in order to reassure his disciples. For every scripture that refers to the Spirit as a person, there are many, many that refer to it as a motivating and creating force.

Thus, God created all things "through" Jesus and the Holy Spirit which is why we are baptised in the name of these three.

Likewise it can be said that since the Holy Spirit is used to accomplish his will and both have come from Jehovah, both these "persons" can be said to be a part of the one God, Jehovah. Just as we can be said to have a spirit which is a part of us.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

Hope this clarifies things a bit, if not you'll have to talk amongst yourselves for a while because I going to bed to rest.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Rest up, 12uthy.

And when you get back, I'd really like to hear your take on that passage of Isaiah that Freddy cited.

quote:

---

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As far as my illustration of Elizabeth Windsor being modalism; I thought modalism was when God was Father THEN Son, THEN HS in turn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
We have been over this many times. Is it a dead horse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
Could I put in a word for the JWs' New World Translation of the Bible, as its accuracy seems significant to this discussion? Yes, the translators obviously did bring their theological preconceptions to the task of translating - but that's inevitable; all translators bring their own theological slant, inevitably and usually unconsciously.

I belong to an NT Greek discussion list and John 1.1 comes up quite regularly. There are serious academics on the list, and the general agreement seems to be that the NWT's handling of the verse can be defended as a possible, though perhaps not very likely, translation. As someone who reads Greek I think the NWT NT (obviously I can say nothing about the OT as my Hebrew's minimal) is generally a pretty accurate translation, though the translators' determination to give as exact a translation of Koine Greek as they could does make the English painfully stilted at times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The only problem, k-mann, is that whether we use modalism or not we still don't understand what God is in Trinity- he is illusive to our understanding. So what the heck is a Person when referring to God? It sure ain't the same thing I mean when speaking of a human person. "Person" is just a word to fill in a space of unknown and perhaps unknowable.

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 9 - The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light;
Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shined.

Isaiah 42 - I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the prison, Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.

Isaiah 60 - Arise, shine; For your light has come! And the glory of the LORD is risen upon you. 2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, And deep darkness the people; But the LORD will arise over you, And His glory will be seen upon you. The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising.

Mark 4 - For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light.

Luke 1 - the Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,

John 1.4 - In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it… 9That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

John 3.19 - And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 8.12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

John 12 “And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.

John 9 “For judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may be made blind.”

John 18 - For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

---

quote:

---

John 1.18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Doesn't it work much better to see the Father-Son language as metaphor for "God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding" and "God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Doesn't it work much better to see the Father-Son language as metaphor for "God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding" and "God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him"?

---

Not when God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him says to God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding, "Nevertheless not my will, but Thy will, be done."

---

quote:

---

12uthie wrote

(John 8:58) 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Trinity at least begins to explain how God can appear to have two wills. I don't see how on your theory that can be explained, Freddy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Except he was with the Father in the beginning, so the gradually-becoming-God thing doesn't float.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Trinity at least begins to explain how God can appear to have two wills. I don't see how on your theory that can be explained, Freddy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
He was already as God as he was going to get. Of course in the flesh he might not have REALIZED that yet. Is that what you are saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The Trinity does look like tritheism. I see that there must be some mysterious difference between "being" and "person." This still amounts to no explanation.

---

quote:

---

I personally would say, as is said in the Athanasian Creed, that the three are like the soul, body, and activity of a single individual.

---

quote:

---

I've never heard a good defense for the NWT's inconsistent translation of kurios.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
The term "person" has undergone a vast change of meaning when it was used in the Athanasian creed. Ironically the term persona was taken from the theatrical world and had connotations to a mask.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Do you think that the trinity is a problem to be solved or a mystery which you experienced and be transformed by?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I only wish that this was clearer in the popular imagination. Then people wouldn't wonder which one to pray to.

---

One prays to the Father in the name of Jesus through the Holy Spirit

quote:

---

Good question. I guess I would go with problem to be solved, since a clear sight of God is an important part of transformation.

---

I just can't help myself. I have to show what my favourite saint, Ephraem the Syrian would say

Wrong
1. Mistaken confidence in reason as
all-competent: leads to presumption.
Right (Ephrem)
1. Acknowledge inadequacy of reason
and of all concepts: humility.
Wrong
2. Literalism and rationalism: failure to
distinguish levels of thought and find
the mean between equivocal and univocal;
subjects God to limited human
concepts; tends to determinism.
Right (Ephrem)
2. Prefer use of symbols, because of
their power to encourage heuristic
experience, in which free will is in
play. Prefer contemplation of
God’s Mystery.
Wrong
3. Over-confidence in argument leads to
quarrels and schisms.
Right (Ephrem)
3. Result: preservation of charity
and union.

quote:

---

Like Lyda Rose I'm hoping for an explanation of how the Messiah is the Everlasting Father of Isaiah 9. Isn't Jesus the "Our Father" that we pray to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:

quote:

---

Like Lyda Rose I'm hoping for an explanation of how the Messiah is the Everlasting Father of Isaiah 9. Isn't Jesus the "Our Father" that we pray to?

---

Nope,
the LXX does not have the four titles, but instead the one title: "Messenger of great counsel" (NETS Septuagint)

---

Wow. I never knew that. Well, I guess that solves it.

I guess no one ever told Handel.

I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

---

That would be the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

---

That would be the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do you have a link to an approved LXX English version so that I could look at the passage in context? Thanks, MT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
Ley Druid said

quote:

---

I've never heard a good defense for the NWT's inconsistent translation of kurios.

---

Have a look at this site , which deals with translating the tetragrammaton. It's from a mainstream perspective, but includes an interesting discussion with Greg Stafford, a scholarly Witness.

---

quote:

---

The restoration of "Jehovah" into the New World Translation Christian Scriptures is the primary focus of our publications. This restoration of the divine name is based on the claim that the Tetragrammaton was used by the original inspired authors. However, after examining the extant manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures and evaluating the history of the period, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the circulating Christian Scriptures in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From your own source

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son.

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii).

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question.

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. <snip> This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature.

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. <snip> Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

12uthie wrote

(John 8:58) 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

---

This is one of those places where the difference between the version you use and the ones the rest of us use really matters. And as long as you use your version and the rest of us use any other version I have ever heard of, we're going to be split on what this means.

All versions I have seen translate the Greek of that verse as "Before Abraham was, I AM."

That matters, because I AM was the name God/the Father used to identify himself to Moses, and was the name by which God continued to be known throughout Jewish history. Jesus isn't saying he existed before Abraham -- a pointless thing to say in and of itself. He is identifying himself with the Name of God -- and in that culture, that meant identifying himself with God in a specific and blasphemous way -- unless he was in fact God.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

It goes on to trace the Trinity to earliest church tradition, for example:

quote:

---

CE writes:
The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii).

---

Modern errors attributed to the ante-Nicene Fathers, like claiming that the Son is a created being, are dealt with one by one.

Next it clarifies that the Trinity is a, perhaps the, mystery of revelation:

quote:

---

CE writes:
The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question.

---

Hence there will always be a "darkness" about this concept for us in this life, and reasons's job is not to thoroughly understand this mystery, but simply to show that there is no contradiction in what faith declares.

Next we find a very thorough and IMHO entirely fair assessment of the Greek Father's development of the Trinity doctrine. For example:

quote:

---

CE writes:
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. <snip> This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature.

---

Then we finally reach the Latin intepretation, which is not set over and above the Greek one, but rather as a different take which, following St Augustine, stresses unity. Obviously, the role of relations a la St Thomas Aquinas is discussed. For example:

quote:

---

CE writes:
It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. <snip> Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence.

---

The text is lengthy, but quite readable. I hope the short quotes whet the appetite for reading the whole thing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Modern errors attributed to the ante-Nicene Fathers, like claiming that the Son is a created being, are dealt with one by one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
The two words rendered I AM therefore can not be directly equated unless we have anyone on the board who reads both languages and can enlighten us.

At John 8:58 Jesus used the Greek word explained in Strong's Dictionary thus:
G1510
εἰμί
eimi
i-mee'
First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): - am, have been, X it is I, was. See also G1488, G1498, G1511, G1527, G2258, G2071, G2070, G2075, G2076, G2771, G2468, G5600.


Whereas at Exo 3:14 he explains the Hebrew word thus

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
As an illustration: the aforementioned verse: "he is the image of the invisible God" is a classic example. Perhaps a lurking scholar of Plato would like to pick up on exactly what St. Paul meant by it; he wrote in a culture strongly influenced by Plato, amongst others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
Doubtless discussion of this verse in the light of Platonism would be interesting but it would seem that most scholars these days tend to interpret Paul and the early church first and foremost in the light of the Judaism of the period and only secondarily in the light of Hellenistic philosophy.
This has led scholars such as Richard Bauckham to come up with a perhaps surprisingly radical reading of the 'highness' of NT Christology even in quite early texts.

---

quote:

---

You also say that we can't understand the words of the NT etc without understanding its cultural and philosophical background. I don't see anybody denying that.

---

quote:

---

But (assuming I understood your point correctly - apologies if I didn't) does reading it against such a background challenge the view that the NT presents Jesus as God? And if so, how?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Rest up, 12uthy.

And when you get back, I'd really like to hear your take on that passage of Isaiah that Freddy cited.

quote:

---

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).

---

That one.

---

Sorry Freddy and Lyda*Rose, I've been doing some research, I wasn't ignoring you

Ok Freddy that is a long list so I will do my best:

Isaiah 9:6-7 I don't know what translation you are using so I will paste it in from the KJV that I used when I was a Catholic and most frequently use now since it has the Strong's no's listed:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(KJV)
I can see how this impressive list of titles might suggest that the Messiah and ultimate King of God's Kingdom might be Jehovah God, however the term everlasting Father can rightly be atributed to Jesus since he was used to create man in the first instance (according to God's will and using his Spirit). Likewise the title Mighty God could suggest this, however it is conspicuously different from the term Almighty God. As brought out before the term God can be attributed to anyone, or anything that we choose to venerate, hence we could venerate anyone or thing including our own bodies (see Col 3:5). Thus Mighty God would give him a suitable title for his exulted position yet still inferior to the Almighty God, Jehovah.
Note also that it is the zeal (which could be translated spirit) of Jehovah that accomplishes this not the Messiah

Isaiah 25:9
Since Jehovah is the one who sent Jesus, then it is by Jehovah that we are saved, this merely lays the praise for doing so at the feet of the correct Saviour, our God and Father Jehovah.

Jeremiah 33:15,16 is particularly interesting according to which translation you use.
Jer 33:16

(ASV) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness.

(BBE) In those days, Judah will have salvation and Jerusalem will be safe: and this is the name which will be given to her : The Lord is our righteousness.

(CEV) In those days, Judah will be safe; Jerusalem will have peace and will be named, "The LORD Gives Justice."

(DRB) In those days shall Juda be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely: and this is the name that they shall call him , The Lord our just one.

(ESV) In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called : 'The LORD is our righteousness.'

(GB) In those dayes shall Iudah be saued, and Ierusalem shall dwell safely, and hee that shall call her , is the Lord our righteousnesse.

(GNB) The people of Judah and of Jerusalem will be rescued and will live in safety. The city will be called 'The LORD Our Salvation.'


(KJV+) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.

(Webster) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety: and this is the name by which she shall be called, JEHOVAH our righteousness.

(YLT) In those days is Judah saved, And Jerusalem doth dwell confidently, And this is he whom Jehovah proclaimeth to her: `Our Righteousness.'

As you can see in the majority of cases the interpretation seems to be that the one who is being called "Jehovah our righteousness" is Jerusalem not the messiah.

The use of a derivative of Jehovah's name in other people's or place names is not uncommon in the Bible, for example Jeremiah means literally Jehovah Exalts or possibly Jehovah Loosens(such as from the womb).

I will get back to you on the other scriptures you cited as I don't want to overdo it and make myself unwell again.

hth

[ 02. May 2005, 08:58: Message edited by: 12uthy ]
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
12uthy, your last post is a better illustration than I ever could have managed, of the pointlessness of translating words and ignorning concepts.
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 
PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
12uthy,

Thank you. You are giving some great replies.

I am fascinated that you think that this explains away all of passages identifying Jesus or Messiah and Jehovah. I can see using this kind of logic to question one or two of the references. But is it really logical to force so many references into that mold?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Isaiah 25:9
Since Jehovah is the one who sent Jesus, then it is by Jehovah that we are saved, this merely lays the praise for doing so at the feet of the correct Saviour, our God and Father Jehovah.

---

quote:

---

It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: THIS IS JEHOVAH we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isa. 25:9).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is also true that when the early Christians said "Jesus is Lord" they were actually affirming that Jesus is YHWH.

The Greek word for Lord is the word used by the LXX in place of YHWH in the OT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
If the two persons were one, wouldn't the writer have used the same word.
Hence as I understand that verse, Jehovah is sending a messenger of the covenant, and that he will reign as King in his Kingdom, but not equal to himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
I'd just like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, this is the first time that I've actually come close to understanding how the Trinity doctrine came into being.
I confess that I did, to some extent, assume that those who believed in the Trinity did so out of ignorance. I now realise that not to be the case.

---

quote:

---

Contrary to the opinion of some here, I am not one of those JW's who believes that we alone have the keys to salvation. That is why I'm here.

---

I just wanted to say that that cheered me up immensely.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The easiest and most logical conclusion is that the same person - Jesus, the Lord God Almighty, spoke them all.

---

Makes sense to me.
 

---

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Quakers have traditionally taken the position--which probably seems paradoxical to other Christians--of acknowledging God as Father, God as Son, and God as Holy Spirit, while refusing to use the word "trinity" or subscribe to any creed. The reasons being that neither the word "trinity" nor any explicit schema defining it occurs in scripture, and (more substantively) that we believe that attempts to delineate the internal relations of God to himself in various persons so as to produce a definitive verbal formulation are nothing more than vain speculation about the unknowable, and serve only to create occasions for division among Christians, not unity.

Timothy
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
12uthy, have you read St Athanasius' On The Incarnation ? The condemnation of Arianism by the Church was not an enforced political decision but based on these arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Quakers have traditionally taken the position--which probably seems paradoxical to other Christians--of acknowledging God as Father, God as Son, and God as Holy Spirit, while refusing to use the word "trinity" or subscribe to any creed. The reasons being that neither the word "trinity" nor any explicit schema defining it occurs in scripture, and (more substantively) that we believe that attempts to delineate the internal relations of God to himself in various persons so as to produce a definitive verbal formulation are nothing more than vain speculation about the unknowable, and serve only to create occasions for division among Christians, not unity.

Timothy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
12uthy,

Are you happy with idea that someone or something less than God dwells within you?

And, are you happy with the idea that the Church is a Temple to something that isn't God?

Daron

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah

---

12uthy, how do you explain Luke 2:30 in the light of this observation?

'For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people.' (NIV)

'...because mine eyes did see Thy salvation, which Thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples.' (YLT)

'For mine eys have seen thy salavtion, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people.' (KJV)

Yes, YHWH is salvation. But Scripture clearly says that Jesus is the one that Simeon was speaking about. (see v.33)

Daron

---

quote:

---

For I am the Lord your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;

“I, even I, am the Lord,
And there is no savior besides Me."
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Is 43:11). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

quote:

---

6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7 ‘Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’ ”
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Is 44:6). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
The basic concept of the Trinity can be plainly read in the “Creed” (Credo) recited by Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians to this day.

---

quote:

---

Trinitarian Christians insist that the One God, has made Himself manifest in three persons.

---

quote:

---

Let us look at this more closely. In asserting this, Christians would assume that Latter-Day Saints do not believe that Jesus Christ lived before He was in His bodily form. This could not be further from the truth.

---

quote:

---

The fulfillment of God’s word! It is no wonder, therefore, that in the verse mentioned above, He refers to Jesus Christ as “the word.”

---

quote:

---

Even more striking in this verse, we read “and the word was with God.” This would assert a separation between them. In Greek, it can also be translated as “face to face with God.” John explicitly explains that the two were seperate.

---

quote:

---

Further on we read that "the word was God." Another striking verse, which seems to correlate with Trinitarian thought at first glance. However, by acknowledging that Jesus Christ was (is) the “word”, whatever He does, is an order of God. Furthermore, the “word” is God. God made the Earth, by Jesus Christ (Jehovah.) This complex truth becomes hard to understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah

---

12uthy, how do you explain Luke 2:30 in the light of this observation?

'For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people.' (NIV)

'...because mine eyes did see Thy salvation, which Thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples.' (YLT)

'For mine eys have seen thy salavtion, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people.' (KJV)

Yes, YHWH is salvation. But Scripture clearly says that Jesus is the one that Simeon was speaking about. (see v.33)

Daron

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
12uthy,

Are you happy with idea that someone or something less than God dwells within you?

And, are you happy with the idea that the Church is a Temple to something that isn't God?

Daron

---

The only thing that dwells within me that did not come from my beloved God is sin

---

quote:

---

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 14:16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

quote:

---

... those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 8:8). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah

---

12uthy, how do you explain Luke 2:30 in the light of this observation?

'For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people.' (NIV)

'...because mine eyes did see Thy salvation, which Thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples.' (YLT)

'For mine eys have seen thy salavtion, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people.' (KJV)

Yes, YHWH is salvation. But Scripture clearly says that Jesus is the one that Simeon was speaking about. (see v.33)

Daron

---

I think you may have misunderstood me.
Jesus was indeed the one of whom he was speaking, and he is indeed God's means of salvation. Simeon was not saying that he has seen God, but his means of salvation, ie Jesus.

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:
anglicanrascal, I am not sure that is a very kind thing to say to our guest. Who are you to say in whom the Spirit lives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah

---

12uthy, how do you explain Luke 2:30 in the light of this observation?

'For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people.' (NIV)

'...because mine eyes did see Thy salvation, which Thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples.' (YLT)

'For mine eys have seen thy salavtion, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people.' (KJV)

Yes, YHWH is salvation. But Scripture clearly says that Jesus is the one that Simeon was speaking about. (see v.33)

Daron

---

Yes, that's especially important in the light of verses like Isaiah 43:3 & 11:

quote:

---

For I am the Lord your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;

“I, even I, am the Lord,
And there is no savior besides Me."
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Is 43:11). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

Isaiah 44 continues:

quote:

---

6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7 ‘Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’ ”
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Is 44:6). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

Because Jesus is Jehovah there is no conflict between Jesus being our saviour and Jehovah being our only saviour.

Pax,
anglicanrascal

---

OK lets put this in perspective,

At the time of Jesus, Israel was under the rulership of Rome.
Yet it had a King, Herod. (Actually the different districts had different Kings)

The Romans permitted Herod to rule, but not to the extent or exclusion of the rulership of Caesar as Emperor.

Thus Jehovah, the Father, is, always has been and always will be Sovereign of the Universe, yet in recognision of Jesus' sacrifice and absolute faithfulness and love He has assigned his Son as King over the earth. This does not make him one and the same person.

On that point, Elder Moroni, where do you get the idea that Jesus is Jehovah if you do not believe in a trinity?
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
12uthy,

Are you happy with idea that someone or something less than God dwells within you?

And, are you happy with the idea that the Church is a Temple to something that isn't God?

Daron

---

The only thing that dwells within me that did not come from my beloved God is sin

---

I think mt was referring to John 14:16-18:

quote:

---

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 14:16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

If you do not know him, if you have not received the Holy Spirit, then you must be vary wary because the warning of Romans 8.

quote:

---

... those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 8:8). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

The Apostle Paul makes it very plain that if, as you said 12uthy, the Holy Spirit does not dwell in you, then you do not belong to Christ, you are in the flesh and cannot please God. That is a very dangerous position to be in.

Please pray for the Holy Spirit to enter your life and your heart.

Pax,
ar

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

'For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people.' (NIV)

'...because mine eyes did see Thy salvation, which Thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples.' (YLT)

'For mine eys have seen thy salavtion, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people.' (KJV)

Yes, YHWH is salvation. But Scripture clearly says that Jesus is the one that Simeon was speaking about. (see v.33)

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

---

He saw his Lord and Saviour - while he would have known from his OT that Jehovah is the only Saviour - as per my earlier post.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Please pray for the Holy Spirit to enter your life and your heart.

Pax,
ar

---

Thank you for the warning, actually I do, several times each day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
He saw his Lord and Saviour - while he would have known from his OT that Jehovah is the only Saviour - as per my earlier post.

---

If you read the scriptures again you will find that Simeon was saying that his eyes had seen the means by which God saves, not God himself.

I suspect we are never going to agree on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Yes he did

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Let me illustrate it this way,
If you were dangling off the edge of a cliff, and I was the only one there.
Who would you say was your only means of saving, me or the rope I throw to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Let me illustrate it this way,
If you were dangling off the edge of a cliff, and I was the only one there.
Who would you say was your only means of saving, me or the rope I throw to you?

---

The analogy is false. We are talking about the person who takes on the title of saviour of the world. In your example there would only be one saviour - the rope would not be a saviour.


Pax,
ar

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

Jehovah can use whatever and whoever he chooses to accomplish his will.
Who better than the one person who has been with him from the beginning and with whom he created the earth and everything in it:

<snip>

Simply because Jesus was a separate person does not mean that we were saved by anyone other than Jehovah, or that anyone else could do so.

However I accept that Jesus and Jehovah are inseperable, but they are inseparable because they are beloved father and son and because of their unparalleled personal affinity, their wills coincide so perfectly, not because they are part of the same person.

I think we have gone as far as we can on this subject and I agree to differ, but I appreciate the Trinity doctrine much more, thank you.

I still think that it is an unnecessary and therefore dangerous complication to God's Message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

Jehovah can use whatever and whoever he chooses to accomplish his will.
Who better than the one person who has been with him from the beginning and with whom he created the earth and everything in it:

<snip>

Simply because Jesus was a separate person does not mean that we were saved by anyone other than Jehovah, or that anyone else could do so.

However I accept that Jesus and Jehovah are inseperable, but they are inseparable because they are beloved father and son and because of their unparalleled personal affinity, their wills coincide so perfectly, not because they are part of the same person.

I think we have gone as far as we can on this subject and I agree to differ, but I appreciate the Trinity doctrine much more, thank you.

I still think that it is an unnecessary and therefore dangerous complication to God's Message.

---

12uthy, I hope you don't think me stupid, but I am really struggling to understand your position. If Jesus and God are separate individuals (presumably immortal) how can we at the same time say there is only one God (given that we have just identified two)?

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
However, if we are to take each role of God as a separate person, why limit it to a Trinity. After all, is he not:
A creator (The Father)
a Redeemer (The Son)
an evangeliser (The Spirit) but also
a Judge
an avenger and
a mighty warrior

That would make him a polytheism.

---

quote:

---

On that point, Elder Moroni, where do you get the idea that Jesus is Jehovah if you do not believe in a trinity?

---

quote:

---

Jesus is God but is not part of the trinity..?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
12uthy, on this (I think) and other threads you've said that the word "god" was used to refer to anyone in a position of authority, rather than necessarily a diety. So, saying "the Word was (a) god" could simply mean he had authority, much as a king or emporer might, rather than being divine in the sense Trinitarian Christians would normally understand the phrase. Have I understood your position correctly?

If so, how do you handle the Ten Commandments? Specifically, "you shall have no other gods". Because the word there nust surely apply to a diety, either that or for most of Israels history they deliberately sinned in having leaders over them - first Moses, the Joshua and the Judges and then Saul, David, Solomon and the kings that followed them. And, the first Christians definitely deliberately sinned by worshipping Jesus.

---

This has to do with your definition of Worship.
There are those within my religion that believe that certain gestures are acts of worship. For example saluting the flag, which is one reason JW children have so much trouble in school in the States.
That being said, would I be right in curtseying to a member of the royal family. Personally this would not conflict with my conscience (even though I'm not a royalist) because I do not consider curtseying to be an act of worship towards the state, only a gesture of respect for the authority of the land (whether I agree with that authority or not )

So, in order to have no other God's we must not give an inappropriate degree of reverence to anything or anyone other than our God, Jehovah.

Therefore, while I will praise Jesus I will only pray to and worship Jehovah (and not a triad of Gods).
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Jesus is a God.

---

quote:

---

Christ has gained exaltation AFTER His death - as we believe we will to.

---

So he wasn't God before his death, and St John was mistaken?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I believe the idea is that you too can become a god.
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Jesus is a God. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. Members of the Mormon Church do not use the term "Trinity" simply because it denotes a oneness between the three. Although we believe that members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)are seperate - they are one in purpose. Therefore, the argument that a man shouldn't serve "two masters" becomes irrelevant to us. Christ has gained exaltation AFTER His death - as we believe we will to. Therefore, to refer to Jesus Christ as a "God" would not neccessarily meant that it is He we worship. In actual fact we do not directly worship Jesus Christ at any time - not even in hymns. We always pray in the name of Jesus Christ, but to our Heavenly Father. I can't remember who it was, but a General Authority of the church once said: "We worship the glory of the Father, and the selflessness of the Son."

Essentially, every single human being is as close to the Father as Jesus Christ is. If we believed in a concept like the Trinity, then this would mean that we all too must be included in it. Jesus Christ had to gain His exaltation just in the same way that we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
This has to do with your definition of Worship.
There are those within my religion that believe that certain gestures are acts of worship. For example saluting the flag, which is one reason JW children have so much trouble in school in the States.
That being said, would I be right in curtseying to a member of the royal family. Personally this would not conflict with my conscience (even though I'm not a royalist) because I do not consider curtseying to be an act of worship towards the state, only a gesture of respect for the authority of the land (whether I agree with that authority or not )

So, in order to have no other God's we must not give an inappropriate degree of reverence to anything or anyone other than our God, Jehovah.

Therefore, while I will praise Jesus I will only pray to and worship Jehovah (and not a triad of Gods).

---

quote:

---

So, to clarify, you are saying that you can have other gods, but just not have them as more important than Jehovah?

---

quote:

---

I understand your comment about receiving a latter-day revelation but 1) how come we can't discuss that with you and 2) how can you be so sure that your new knowledge is more reliable than our old knowledge?

---

quote:

---

How many are there, then? And why do you worship just one of them?

quote:

---

Christ has gained exaltation AFTER His death - as we believe we will to.

---

So he wasn't God before his death, and St John was mistaken?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
So, in order to have no other God's we must not give an inappropriate degree of reverence to anything or anyone other than our God, Jehovah.

Therefore, while I will praise Jesus I will only pray to and worship Jehovah (and not a triad of Gods).

---

So, to clarify, you are saying that you can have other gods, but just not have them as more important than Jehovah?

I'm not sure that this is consistant with the biblical narrative as I read it.

[Incidentally, why is the name Jehovah? Surely that is an anglicised word - if the name is so important, why are you using a word that it plainly isn't?]

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:

How many Gods are there? Please don't think that this is a shallow statement which I am about to make. It is a real LDS belief and there is MUCH reason behind it. How many Gods? = How many people have died who have gone through the LDS temple? How many people have had proxy baptisms and endowments? How many people from other worlds have gained exaltation? The number would be infinite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
We believe that there are other "exalted beings". We believe that the Father and Son are both Gods in their own right.

---

quote:

---

However, the only God with which WE have anything to do with (concerning worship, glorification and praise) is Elohim (the father.)

---

quote:

---

No John was not mistaken. Perhaps in the essay I posted I didn't get the point accross to you that when John says "the word was [a] God" that they very "word" is God and not Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

How many Gods are there? Please don't think that this is a shallow statement which I am about to make. It is a real LDS belief and there is MUCH reason behind it. How many Gods? = How many people have died who have gone through the LDS temple? How many people have had proxy baptisms and endowments? How many people from other worlds have gained exaltation? The number would be infinite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
I just explained something very badly - as my missionary companion has noticed!

The official church stance on whether Jesus Christ was a God, is this:
1)Jehovah WAS a God at the creation of the world
2) JESUS CHRIST [in His bodily form] was NOT a God while He was on the Earth
3) Jesus Christ is now fully God

About your comment on the name of Jehovah. We accept that there are no vowels in the original name "yud" "hey" "vav" "heh" however Latter Day revelation has shown us (LDS) that the correct way to pronounce and spell the name is Jehovah. We believe the translator Joseph Smith was inspired directly from God - it should be noted however that Joseph Smith did not have profound insight.

---

So how do you spell it in a language that does not use our alphabet, or are you saying that he is only a God of English speaking people?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
How did the death of a mere man save me?

How did a mere man become God?
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great price with direct inspiration from God. Joseph Smith also only wrote the Book of Mormon in English. Therefore, the English copy of the book of Mormon (the first translation) contains the English name we would give to Jehovah. Although universally in the LDS church the name of Jehovah is used - there is no reason why the name cannot be transliterated into the appropriate language (should it be neccessary.) However, looking at the Hebrew form of the name, "YHVH" there is an absolute possibility (which we believe to be so) that the name given to Moses was actually "Jehovah." The name "Jehovah" is not neccessarily angliscized in the way that it is written in English! It is an educated guess by biblical scholars as to which vowels could have been consituted into the name.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How did the death of a mere man save me?

How did a mere man become God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Okay - let me define what I mean by exalted being and God.

---

Please do. With respect, the rest of your post, didn't.

So far you've said the following (apologies if my paraphrasing or memory is inaccurate)
There are an infinite number of Gods.
Jesus was not a God until after his death.
Jesus was never the Father.
Only the Father is the Creator, source of all being, etc, who the rest of us call God.
The Word in 1 John 1 is actually God (and by this you mean the Father).
The Word in 1 John 1 is not Jesus.
(I note that you haven't answered then, how God became flesh if not Jesus).
All people existed logically prior to the creation of the universe.

Forgive me, but I'm having difficulty discussing this because you haven't defined your terms.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
[tangent]This is the best thread on the Trinity and the nature of Christ! Instead of a bunch of trinitarians splitting hairs on modality and the nature of Persons, we have a number of really distinct theological points of view. Plus we are learning scads about JW and LDS. Kudos, guys!

I hope this gets aworthy retirement in Limbo.[/tangent]
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
I was just thinking the same thing!

Thank you Elder Maroni and 12uthy. You are very helpful and interesting.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
1 John 1

---

Everyone please translate what I wrote into what I obviously meant
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
[TANGENT]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
We believe the translator Joseph Smith was inspired directly from God - it should be noted however that Joseph Smith did not have profound insight.

---

Very interesting comment.

I should note that I am a Swedenborgian. Many Mormons read Swedenborg as his books were the source of much of what Smith wrote about heaven.

Anyway, you're not the only one in this discussion who believes in alternate authoritative revelations.

Of course, one could argue that this is exactly what the traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches are. [/TANGENT]
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
And Ley Druid, I think you've misunderstood me - I'm not trying to attack or defend anyone, just pointing out that there are arguments to be made on both (or all?) sides of the discussion.

---

quote:

---

I think it's a great mistake to dismiss the Witnesses as a bunch of wild theological crazies;

---

quote:

---

others may not agree with their interpretations of scripture, or the conclusions they draw from them, but they can always, in my experience, back them up with reasons.(I say this with feeling, having had a stand-up fight with a Witness friend over the Trinity, and he really knew his stuff!)

---

quote:

---

Witnesses are deeply devoted to studying the Bible, and their approach to it strikes me as very logical and consistent, even if it's not one that I, as a liberal Christian aware of modern scholarship, could possibly buy into.

---

That is very rich of you. So from your position of privelege, you could never buy into it, but you won't bother sharing your awareness of modern scholarship with those who might be ignorant of it. Heck, you don't have to. Instead you make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims of how the NWT is "a pretty accurate translation", fruit of a "determination to give as exact a translation of Koine Greek". But why should you take responsibility for anything you post; I mean, we all know that this is stuff that you, "as a liberal Christian aware of modern scholarship, could possibly buy into."
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Thanks for answering 12uthy! By the way I hope you don't feel that too many people are 'on your case'. If it's too much just pm me or just decline to answer!

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
12uthy,

Are you happy with idea that someone or something less than God dwells within you?

And, are you happy with the idea that the Church is a Temple to something that isn't God?

Daron

---

The only thing that dwells within me that did not come from my beloved God is sin and no I am not happy about this, and will echo Paul's words on this:

The point I wish to make is that we do not need to revere God's gift as if it were a God in itself in order to use it and cherish it. If a loved one gave you a gift would you treat that gift as though it were that loved one or would you cherish it because it was a gift from a dear loved one.

<snipped to removed tangent on sin>

I still view it as an unnecessary confounding of the simple Christian message, which is this:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.(KJV) <snipped to remove tangent on phariseeism>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Thanks for answering 12uthy! By the way I hope you don't feel that too many people are 'on your case'. If it's too much just pm me or just decline to answer!

Are you saying that Jesus Christ is God's gift? John clearly does! If you are saying that Jesus Christ is God's gift, are you saying that this gift dwells within you?

As you rightly say, John 3:16 clearly states that God's gift is a person: namely Jesus Christ; 'he gave his only Son'.

Furthermore, Scripture states in too many places to mention that Christ is to indwell the believer. So, Christ the person indwells the believer; right? Now, are you saying that Christ, a person who is less than God, dwells within you?

Are you really saying that you are a temple to someone, or something, that is less than God? Yes or no?

For my part, if I am to be a temple, I want to be a temple to God. Anything else would be idolatrous surely?

---

Is Jesus Christ God's gift? Yes

Does this gift dwell within me?
In the sense that I love him and follow his steps as closely as humanly possible, yes. But it would be more accurate to say that I hope to have his spirit dwell within me. Since Jesus had Jehovah's spirit it could thus be said that I hope to have Jesus' spirit too. (Does that make sense, I'm getting a bit tired )

I personally am not the temple, the Congregation of Jehovah's followers make up the temple (and by that I don't mean just JW's).
Collectively we all make up the body of Christ (not literally of course) of which I'm probably something like a toe.

(1 Corinthians 12:12-13) 12 For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. 13 For truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit.
(sorry I'm too tired to go searching through the interlinear so you'll have to make do with the unreliable NWT )

So yes in a way I am a temple, or at least a part of one, to Jehovah God and no-one else. The way in which we have Jesus dwell in us is not by some mystic rite but through love and faithfulness in our hearts, plain and simple.

hth
With all my Christian love
ps I don't feel as though you are "on my case", I only appreciate the opportunity to share my views and hear others ideas
(Malachi 3:16-18) 16 At that time those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name.
17 “And they will certainly become mine,” Jehovah of armies has said, “at the day when I am producing a special property. And I will show compassion upon them, just as a man shows compassion upon his son who is serving him. 18 And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.”

, thanks
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:Is Jesus Christ God's gift? Yes. Does this gift dwell within me? In the sense that I love him and follow his steps as closely as humanly possible, yes.

---

quote:

---

I personally am not the temple, the Congregation of Jehovah's followers make up the temple (and by that I don't mean just JW's). Collectively we all make up the body of Christ (not literally of course) of which I'm probably something like a toe.

---

quote:

---

So yes in a way I am a temple, or at least a part of one, to Jehovah God and no-one else.

---

quote:

---

The way in which we have Jesus dwell in us is not by some mystic rite but through love and faithfulness in our hearts, plain and simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Let me illustrate it this way,
If you were dangling off the edge of a cliff, and I was the only one there.
Who would you say was your only means of saving, me or the rope I throw to you?

---

The analogy is false. We are talking about the person who takes on the title of saviour of the world. In your example there would only be one saviour - the rope would not be a saviour.


Pax,
ar

---

No but I could not save you without it.
Jehovah can use whatever and whoever he chooses to accomplish his will.
Who better than the one person who has been with him from the beginning and with whom he created the earth and everything in it:

...

Simply because Jesus was a separate person does not mean that we were saved by anyone other than Jehovah, or that anyone else could do so.

---

quote:

---

... for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.Luke 2:11

---

quote:

---

“It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.” (Jn 4:42).

---

quote:

---

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.Eph 5:23

---

quote:

---

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.1 Ti 4:10

---

quote:

---

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.1 Ti 4:10

---

quote:

---

... grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.2 Pe 3:18. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

---

quote:

---

I still think that it is an unnecessary and therefore dangerous complication to God's Message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
No, it's a dangerous complication of God's message to believe that there are two or three separate gods in heaven, like a big god and a little god. We must give all our worship to the One True God of perfect unity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.

---

...and s/he quotes from a variety of translations, including the NWT (which s/he admits is dodgy ).
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
Okay, noted.... Carry on.
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.

---

...and s/he quotes from a variety of translations, including the NWT (which s/he admits is dodgy ).

---

Just to clarify, I did not admit that the NWT was dodgy, I merely acknowledged that some of you(generic) thought it was dodgy.
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
12uthy has been pretty considerate about drawing on texts that are in general usage even if the ones in this last post aren't.

---

...and s/he quotes from a variety of translations, including the NWT (which s/he admits is dodgy ).

---

Just to clarify, I did not admit that the NWT was dodgy, I merely acknowledged that some of you(generic) thought it was dodgy.

---

Granted

 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
TO RECAP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Okay - let me define what I mean by exalted being and God.

---

Please do. With respect, the rest of your post, didn't.

So far you've said the following (apologies if my paraphrasing or memory is inaccurate)
There are an infinite number of Gods.
Jesus was not a God until after his death.
Jesus was never the Father.
Only the Father is the Creator, source of all being, etc, who the rest of us call God.
The Word in 1 John 1 is actually God (and by this you mean the Father).
The Word in 1 John 1 is not Jesus.
(I note that you haven't answered then, how God became flesh if not Jesus).
All people existed logically prior to the creation of the universe.

Forgive me, but I'm having difficulty discussing this because you haven't defined your terms.

---

quote:

---

The identity of Jesus Christ with the Jehovah of the Israelites was well understood by the Nephite prophets, and the truth of their teachings was confirmed by the risen Lord who manifested Himself unto them shortly after His ascension from the midst of the apostles at Jerusalem. This is the record: "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying, Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands, and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world." It would appear unnecessary to cite at greater length in substantiating our affirmation that Jesus Christ was God even before He assumed a body of flesh. During that ante-mortal period there was essential difference between the Father and the Son, in that the former had already passed through the experiences of mortal life, including death and resurrection, and was therefore a Being possessed of a perfect, immortalized body of flesh and bones, while the Son was yet unembodied. Through His death, and subsequent resurection Jesus the Christ is today a Being like unto the Father in all essential characteristics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
There are an infinite number of "gods."
There is One God, One Lord - whom we worship. However, we believe that the whole purpose of human beings, is to become "exalted" ourselves. This is not merely a latter day belief. Read James 1:9. Therefore, if you call exalted beings "gods" then yes there are an infinite number of Gods. Notwithstanding this, there is one Lord God (Elohim) whom we worship and glorify.

---

quote:

---

It was a hard thing for me to work out myself exactly what Jesus Christ was before He came to the Earth. But Talmage - who is an Apostle of the church, has described it well:- Jesus Christ was a God before He came to the Earth, however He was unembodied (unlike God - who we believe has a tangible body of flesh and bones.) To reach further perfection, Jesus Christ (Jehovah) needed to come to the Earth to gain a body; another purpose to His resurrection.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure most here agree that Jesus Christ is "God" (or à mon avis "a God.") God has a physical body of flesh and bones - for He showed it to the apostles when He died. All those infinite number of "Gods" I talked about or "exalted beings" do NOT yet have physical bodies, and furthermore and not perfected like Elohim and Jehovah. There are few, however aside from Elohim and Jehovah like Enoch who we have no revelation about concerning His current state towards the plan of salvation.

---

quote:

---

OK - so a) what makes you think we are destined to be 'gods' b) was Christ just a 'god' in the sense that we all will be c) are there some who will be in heaven and not be 'gods'?

---

quote:

---

So, he was then he wasn't then he was again? Isn't this a bit convoluted? Whats the problem with believing he was the whole time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
]Latter Day revelation tells us that we are going to become "exalted" if we follow the plan of salvation. We believe in three kingdoms - the terrestrial (for Earthly people who had no faith at all but still will be resurrected), tellestial (for Christians or faithful people but who didn't follow the latter day plan of salvation) and the celestial (for endowed, sealed, married and faithful members of the church.) In the Celestial Kingdom we have been promised: "kingdoms, principalities, and a share in the glory of God."
As for Christ - because of His actions and being the most favoured in the eyes of Elohim, He is a God now equal to Elohim in stature, yet Elohim is His literal Father. We see Jesus as our Older brother, because in the pre-existance we were all born of God just like Jesus Christ - but He was the first.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.

---

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------
The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.
------------------------------------------

Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------
The problem is that a God cannot have an unperfected body.
------------------------------------

Why?

---

Flesh cannot exist in the presence of the Father - this is common knowledge throughout the Old Testament. Perfect flesh, however can - Jesus Christ ascended to His father with a body of flesh and bones - the Father too also having a body of flesh and bones (perfected.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Flesh cannot exist in the presence of the Father - this is common knowledge throughout the Old Testament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What are exalted beings? Apart from God? In what way wasn't Jesus' body, pre-incarnation, not perfect? By what biblical authority does any extra-biblical 'revelation' reverse the authority of the bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
No... Jesus did become flesh; there is no doubt about that. This is not the dispute; the dispute is: was the word a MAN while on the Earth.

---

I'm sorry EM, I'm trying to be as clear as I can be. Is it your belief that, when John's Gospel refers to the Word, he is not referring to Jesus Christ but to the Father alone? In each of these:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

If you do not dispute that "the Word was God" means actually the real One God and not some less-than-God meaning of the word, then I would like you to justify your assertion that Jesus is not God, in the real One True God sense.

If you're saying this is from your later revelation contradicting St John, I'll leave it at that. If, however, you're claiming that St John's Gospel is inspired, there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Ok this argument about John 1:1 has been going on for a while now so I'll comment verse for verse on LDS beliefs on this.

"In the beginning was the word..."
In the beginning - the beginning of time - the universe, when God created the Heavens and the Earth as paralleled in Genesis 1 - was the word - JESUS CHRIST (JEHOVAH)
"And the word was with God" (or "face to face with God.")
Nothing more to say except that this clearly demonstrates a seperation between the two.
And the word was [a] God.
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute. The Book of Mormon repeatedly appellates "the Holy One of Israel, the Holy God of Israel." He is a God - inasmuch as that He is the one who interacted with the Israelites. He was not, however, equal with the Father - He also did not have a physical body.

[ 04. May 2005, 12:27: Message edited by: Elder Moroni ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Thank you. Now could you clear up what you mean by the word God? Clearly, you don't mean what orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims and other monotheists mean by it.
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
This is very interesting! An LDS and a JW presenting heterodoxies that wouldn't have any less in common if they came from different planets! Which, if the LDS's are right, is probably true!

No, offence 12uthy (Ruthy)

Oh, and I guess Elder Moroni will the God of his own planet at some point. In which case he can blast any JW's that live there to Kingdom (Hall) come.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
haha. That's about the full extent of it yes! Although to be honest - I wouldn't care if I cleaned windows for all eternity in heaven as long as I got there!

Grey face - by o logos I just mean that Jesus is the similitude of the Father's command. "Let there be light" and (by Jesus) "there was light."

[ 04. May 2005, 12:56: Message edited by: Elder Moroni ]
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Grey face - by o logos I just mean that Jesus is the similitude of the Father's command. "Let there be light" and (by Jesus) "there was light."

---

But your whole premise is based on "God" in the translation of John 1 meaning two different things. In fact, in the same sentence.

The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If God means an exalted being in the sense that you think Jesus and a multitude are, then the first part doesn't have to mean that Jesus is not the Father at all. It could be referring to any other exalted being. But what point would John be trying to make?
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
So here we have a thread on the Trinity that is not about whether Trinity means three gods, but about whether Jesus is a god at all and what that means.

The LDS and JW angles really change things!
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You disagree completely with what? I like that, all by itself: "I disagree completely.". Yes, you do.
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
And the word was [a] God.
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute. The Book of Mormon repeatedly appellates "the Holy One of Israel, the Holy God of Israel." He is a God - inasmuch as that He is the one who interacted with the Israelites. He was not, however, equal with the Father - He also did not have a physical body.

---

quote:

---

As I have asserted many times throughout these posts (maybe on other boards but I've posted so many now I can't remember!) that when Jesus Christ died He became equal with God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
So here we have a thread on the Trinity that is not about whether Trinity means three gods, but about whether Jesus is a god at all and what that means.

The LDS and JW angles really change things!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
This is very interesting! An LDS and a JW presenting heterodoxies that wouldn't have any less in common if they came from different planets! Which, if the LDS's are right, is probably true!

No, offence 12uthy (Ruthy)

Oh, and I guess Elder Moroni will the God of his own planet at some point. In which case he can blast any JW's that live there to Kingdom (Hall) come.

---

No offense taken
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
And the word was [a] God.
JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute. The Book of Mormon repeatedly appellates "the Holy One of Israel, the Holy God of Israel." He is a God - inasmuch as that He is the one who interacted with the Israelites. He was not, however, equal with the Father - He also did not have a physical body.

---

How do you (and Ruthy if you're still reading!) explain that later Jesus accepts Thomas's confession (presumably regarded by John as normative else why include it) of Jesus as "My Lord and my God"? God in this instance takes the definite article - the God (of whom there is only one according to Scripture), not a divine being lower than the Almighty. Clearly he is referring to Jesus. What are we to make of it, if not an ascription of the same divinty as God has to Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.

---

The NWT says:
(John 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(John 1:14) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

As you can see the NWT does not alter all that much from your translation, I don't understand why you have such a downer on the NWT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Ok that may seem lame and I admit it, but answer me this, if Jesus is God why does he say at:

Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
However, He was ascending, and once ascended "all power in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28) was given to Him. That is, He was fully joined to the Father as the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God of the universe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cheesy*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.

---

The NWT says:
(John 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(John 1:14) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

As you can see the NWT does not alter all that much from your translation, I don't understand why you have such a downer on the NWT.

---

Cos there is a pretty major change of emphasis in that translation of that verse compared to all the other translations.

C

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Jesus is a God. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. Members of the Mormon Church do not use the term "Trinity" simply because it denotes a oneness between the three. Although we believe that members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)are seperate - they are one in purpose. ...

---

quote:

---

...And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Jesus Christ was sinless, because He was born half God half Man ...

---

quote:

---

We believe in three kingdoms - the terrestrial (for Earthly people who had no faith at all but still will be resurrected), tellestial (for Christians or faithful people but who didn't follow the latter day plan of salvation) and the celestial (for endowed, sealed, married and faithful members of the church.) In the Celestial Kingdom we have been promised: "kingdoms, principalities, and a share in the glory of God."

---

quote:

---

JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rusty John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
However, He was ascending, and once ascended "all power in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28) was given to Him. That is, He was fully joined to the Father as the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God of the universe.

---

I thought he was always, in his divine nature, in possession of these qualities. Is there much disagreement on this point?

---

quote:

---

All power has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.

---

Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Jesus is a God. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. Members of the Mormon Church do not use the term "Trinity" simply because it denotes a oneness between the three. Although we believe that members of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)are seperate - they are one in purpose. ...

---

Ah, yes -- that would explain the "Testimony of Three Witnesses," wouldn't it?

quote:

---

...And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS

---

As I recall, the old Temple movie showed those three gods-of-this-world as identical albino dudes with long white beards, sitting around confabbing on matching thrones. Interesting imagery.

Smith didn't understand the concept of the Trinity (which is not particularly surprising; he was, as advertised, essentially uneducated), so it's not surprising that he muffed up his theology here, as elsewhere. Mormons are essentially polytheists, in any case, and polytheism isn't really consistent with a Christian viewpoint. Or so it seems to me.

Rossweisse // doubtless your mileage differs!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Jesus Christ was sinless, because He was born half God half Man ...

---

So how does this make him different from, say, Herakles?

If your father-god is having sex (you did say something about a "literal sense") with mortal women, how is he different from, say, Zeus?

And if Satan is Jesus's literal half-brother, who is his mother?

quote:

---

We believe in three kingdoms - the terrestrial (for Earthly people who had no faith at all but still will be resurrected), tellestial (for Christians or faithful people but who didn't follow the latter day plan of salvation) and the celestial (for endowed, sealed, married and faithful members of the church.) In the Celestial Kingdom we have been promised: "kingdoms, principalities, and a share in the glory of God."

---

Steerage, tourist, and first class?

How is positing different classes of heaven consistent with a Christian point of view?

quote:

---

JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.

---

Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.

Rossweisse // wondering what kind of god would make one's spot in heaven depend upon human beings

---

First - Satan is Jesus' (and our) literal brother. (not half brother.) Second - the three classifications of the kingdoms of heaven are actually mentioned in the bible:

1Co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

The "Celestial Kingdom" shall be established on earth:

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 
Let me see if I have this straight:

My original objection to the Trinity was that it was not supported by Scripture. I concede that within the limits of interpretation that may not be the case.

However the main sticking points seem to be:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

My (unitarian) argument is that the word God here being "theos" cannot be considered exclusive to the one true God Jehovah on the grounds that when Jesus at John 10:34 referred to the OT scripture at Psm 82:6 where God himself refers to the mortal judges of the earth as "gods" (Hebrew el-o-heem) he translates it into the Greek theos, the same word. (pauses for breath)

This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.

This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.

Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)

The Trinitarian view, as I understand it, finds this a problem since it appears that Thomas called him "My God" and Jesus did not rebuke him (John 20:28). I on the other hand maintain that Jesus could be said to be a god without actually worshipping him "before" the True God, ie to a greater or equal degree to the worship of Jehovah.


On the matter of divinity, could someone please define this as it seems that many here seem to equate it with immortality which of course every spirit creature in heaven, including the angels can be said to be immortal since they are not destined to die. Only imperfect man and Satan and his demons are thus destined to die due to their sinning.

Personally I define divinity to be holy and perfect in the eyes of Jehovah and not exclusive to the person of God. In this sense any person who exists in or has been resurrected to heavenly perfection can be defined as being divine. Thus Jesus can be said to be divine and was whilst on earth because he was perfect when he was incarnated of Mary and continued perfect throughout his life, otherwise he could not have been a propitiatory sacrifice to atone for Adam and his offspring.

There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos) in the sense of being a judge, as appointed by his father and ours, Jehovah. Jesus himself conspicuously never called himself God, but often referred to himself as the Son of Man or Son of God and specifically said that the Father was (and still is IMO) greater than him.
(Romans 8:16) . . .The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.


Now on the matter of the Spirit. (Takes a deep breath)

We all are said to have a spirit which can be defined as that part of ourselves that motivates us into fulfilling our will (our vital force):

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Since we are created in his image, it seems logical that Jehovah would have a similar part of himself that motivates him to act in the way that he does.
Since Jehovah is not human and hence not bound by a human body, his spirit can move freely throughout the universe and motivate others:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no, prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

He promises to give his spirit (his vital force) to those who ask, because only those who ask for it are worthy of it.

It can be seen as divine because it is the very vital force of Jehovah and hence absolutely Holy.

As to your question m.t:
Why on earth would Jehovah make the Church, or individual Christians, into Temples for something less than himself: namely holy spirit?

He wouldn't, because the Holy Spirit is the very essence of himself.

That makes the Holy Spirit a part of Jehovah not a god in itself.
I have no problem with considering the HS being one with Jehovah, the part I find difficult is the separating of it into a separate individual person.

Does this help any, because all this talk of Jehovah being the same as Jesus or even not existing at all is kind of making my head spin.
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.

---

Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.

---

Sorry, I must be a bit thick or did I miss something - where did we find that the name Jehovah does not exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

JEHOVAH was a God - there is no dispute.

---

Well, yes, actually, there is, since there is no such name as "Jehovah;" it's a misreading and totally unscholarly. But I think others have gone into that fact already.

---

Sorry, I must be a bit thick or did I miss something - where did we find that the name Jehovah does not exist?

---

The tetragrammaton exists, yes. But the word Jehovah contains the vowels e o & a. These vowel were never in the original Hebrew text. The vowels that appear in the text as we have received it are the vowel pointing from the word Adonai meaning Lord. The tetragrammaton in the text as we have received it is intentionally unpronouncable because it is formed from two separate words. This is intentional.

The word Jehovah is simply one among many possible ways of pointing YHWH e.g. Yud -Veh-Vah-Heh would be more accurate or how about Jihavoh, or Johivah or Juhavih etc. All of the are equally plausible options: there is nothing to suggest that the Jehovah combination is the way to render the sacred name of God (YHWH).

---

Thank you I understand now.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
12uthy, I completely agree with you (apart from the names which you give to God and Jesus but we'd be splitting hairs there!)

quote:

---

My (unitarian) argument is that the word God here being "theos" cannot be considered exclusive to the one true God Jehovah on the grounds that when Jesus at John 10:34 referred to the OT scripture at Psm 82:6 where God himself refers to the mortal judges of the earth as "gods" (Hebrew el-o-heem) he translates it into the Greek theos, the same word. (pauses for breath)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Ok that may seem lame and I admit it

---

quote:

---

Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. '"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
As I have asserted many times throughout these posts (maybe on other boards but I've posted so many now I can't remember!) that when Jesus Christ died He became equal with God (ah.. I remember - it was quoted in the passage from Talmage.) Although Jesus Christ is now fully God - and is the God of all Israel - we worship Elohim through Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
This parallels, as you have noted, with "Elohim" which means "gods" rather than "God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.

This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.

Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)

---

quote:

---

The Trinitarian view, as I understand it, finds this a problem since it appears that Thomas called him "My God" and Jesus did not rebuke him (John 20:28). I on the other hand maintain that Jesus could be said to be a god without actually worshipping him "before" the True God, ie to a greater or equal degree to the worship of Jehovah.

---

quote:

---

There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos)

---

quote:

---

He wouldn't, because the Holy Spirit is the very essence of himself.

That makes the Holy Spirit a part of Jehovah not a god in itself.
I have no problem with considering the HS being one with Jehovah, the part I find difficult is the separating of it into a separate individual person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
there does not appear to be any loophole other than the one 12uthy proposes, namely that the translation above, and all other translations I've ever seen apart from the NWT, are wrong.

---

The NWT says:
(John 1:1) 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
(John 1:14) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

As you can see the NWT does not alter all that much from your translation, I don't understand why you have such a downer on the NWT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruthy:

We all are said to have a spirit which can be defined as that part of ourselves that motivates us into fulfilling our will (our vital force):

---

quote:

---

Since we are created in his image, it seems logical that Jehovah would have a similar part of himself that motivates him to act in the way that he does. Since Jehovah is not human and hence not bound by a human body, his spirit can move freely throughout the universe and motivate others.

---

quote:

---

He promises to give his spirit (his vital force) to those who ask, because only those who ask for it are worthy of it.

---

quote:

---

[holy spirit] can be seen as divine because it is the very vital force of Jehovah and hence absolutely Holy.

---

quote:

---

As to your question m.t:
Why on earth would Jehovah make the Church, or individual Christians, into Temples for something less than himself: namely holy spirit?

He wouldn't, because the Holy Spirit is the very essence of himself.

That makes the Holy Spirit a part of Jehovah not a god in itself.

---

quote:

---

I have no problem with considering the HS being one with Jehovah, the part I find difficult is the separating of it into a separate individual person.

---

If you can accept that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and that Jesus is also one with the Father (John 14:9-10) without either 'separating' them or confounding* them, you are getting close to the truth that is the Trinity After, Christians believe that YHWH is tri-une not tri-partite. Grasp the unity of the three and you're there!

*mistaking one for another

God Bless!
 

---

Posted by Aim for the Prize (# 7054) on :
 
Interesting discussion.

12uthy. Can I ask you, who is being reffered to in Psalm 45:6. Jehovah?

" Your throne, O God , is forever and ever."
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
As I have asserted many times throughout these posts (maybe on other boards but I've posted so many now I can't remember!) that when Jesus Christ died He became equal with God (ah.. I remember - it was quoted in the passage from Talmage.) Although Jesus Christ is now fully God - and is the God of all Israel - we worship Elohim through Jesus Christ.

---

But this is just not what John's gospel teaches - surely whatever you make of inarticular "God" at the beginning of John 1, you cannot get away from the fact that whatever divinity Jesus had, he had when he became human.

Incidentally the fact that God there has no article proves precisely nothing - it could of course in theory mean "a" god - but equally it could mean "God". It doesn't prove anything either way.

More to the point, how can you become God? If God is God, isn't that just what he's like, full stop? If Jesus wasn't God when he became human, I'm blowed if I can see how he became so later on without playing merry hell with the idea that God is who he is without change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation.

---

Where did he live when he was a non-exalted being? How did he create everything before he was exalted? Do you in fact believe that the Universe is self-existent and God is not?

You see, issues such as these rarely come out until we get into in-depth discussions and I'm grateful to you for expressing them here, but the deeper we go the more apparent it is that far from being close to orthodox Christianity, you are actually much further away from us in theology than Islam or Judaism.

Mormons and Witnesses often seem to be thrown together in lazy Christian thought as similar Arians. I'm fairly convinced this is not the case. JWs are from my understanding of what is true*, following a recognisably Christian heresy - I use the term in the technical, not the derogatory sense, no offence, 12uthy - but the LDS have in my opinion a completely different religion.

I don't mean any of that in the sense of rubbishing your beliefs or your right to hold them, although obviously I believe you're wrong or I would join you.

* usual disclaimers apply

---

Hi Grey Face,

Well I agree with you completely. We are a complete different religion. The basics are there - as in Jesus Christ being the redeemer - but the awkward theology which underlines the "frilly" parts of Christianity fundamentally differ when it comes to LDS and orthodox Christianit.

So... when did God become a man? First let me tell you that not a lot has been revealed to us about this at the moment. We await as always more information on the nature of God. However - it is accepted generally that Elohim was God before the universe / cosmos was created. To this you may ask: "then how was God a man? When man did not exist and the universe did not exist?" God was a non-exalted being - just like Jesus Christ. Imagine Jesus Christ now - He will go on to start His own kingdom in another dimension (sounds spacy but couldn't think of another word!) just as God did - this would mean that there was a chain of Gods - God's Father - his mother (yes mother!), and His Father and Mother and so on. This is why LDS place so much emphasis on family history (aside from vicarious baptism.)

Please let me apologize to you all. I was lay in bed last night thinking about what I posted. And it seems I have been VERY insensitive towards your beliefs. But moreso, I have portrayed myself as somebody who does not accept the full divinity of Jesus Christ - this is not so. I adore Jesus Christ, He is my redeemer, my saviour. We are HIS people - the church of JESUS CHRIST, of latter-day saints. I fear sometimes that I am giving you the wrong impression - there is only so much I can explain on a discussion forum when my native tongue is French! Please forgive me if I seem arrogant!
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aim for the Prize:
Elder Moroni.

You say there are countless gods according to LDS, but doesen't your own Book of Morman refute this?

"And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said, is there more than one God? ANd he answered, No." Al. 11:27-29

And if God is an exalted being, why does your book of Morman state:

"For I know God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to eternity" Mo 8:18

---

quote:

---

1) There is ONE God (Elohim) which we have anything to do with!

2) "eternity to eternity" denotes time. Just like the scripture: "God was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow." However - we must understand that before God created the cosmos - time did not exist as it does now. Even so - "GOD" - meaning, "NOW ELOHIM IS A GOD...he is unchangeable." He is NOW unchangeable since He became exalted.

Mormon scriptures certainly do NOT dispute that there are other Gods - Gods belonging to Elohim - read the Pearl of Great price - "the Gods" are mentioned on nearly every page through the Book of Abraham!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
First show me from scripture why this is not what John teaches - is it just your take on the Gospel of St.John because of what you think you already know or otherwise?

---

quote:

---

Secondly - LDS believe that God (Elohim, the Heavenly Father) was once a man (or a non-exalted being) and like Jesus Christ worked His way to exaltation. The famous LDS quote shows this well: "As God once was, man now is..."

---

This is what makes you so different. I have to echo greyface's remarks. This LDS POV is very far from the tradition of classical theism found in both Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Actually Buddhists would nod their heads at you mormons, at least as you present it.

Buddhist tradition generally do accept the existence of devas, that is godlings, but would deny the existence of a single creator God that is the source of everything isvara. However, in buddhist thought, it is precisely because these devas are only godlings that buddhists cheerfully can discount their importance to salvation.

May I ask you elder Moroni, since you explain that The Father and the Son are both exalted beings, and they themselves was born from other gods, presumeably in a long line from eternity (?) What then is the ultimate source of everything that is, seen and unseen? What is the absolute? What is beyond the god(ling)s?

Do the LDS have any teaching on this?



[ 05. May 2005, 13:23: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
First show me from scripture why this is not what John teaches - is it just your take on the Gospel of St.John because of what you think you already know or otherwise?

---

No - it is because of the text which I then immediately mentioned in my answer: John 1. Feel free to reread what I said about it.

Elder Moroni I would like to ask you: to what extent do you think the Old and New Testaments are in tension/conflict with the Book of Mormon? I was under the impression that that they were read as equally authoritative with one another. Or has the NT etc been somehow superseded in your understanding? I am asking because it seems to me on the one hand it sounds like we are conducting an intra-Christian debate - on the basis of Christian Scripture. Whilst on the other hand, you are citing scriptures which most Christians don't regard as authoritative, and which perhaps understandably don't really cut any ice with us (cf e.g. the warning at the end of Revelation not to add to Scripture). I ask as I think if I understood your presuppositions a bit more it would help me a great deal in this discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sean, to be pedantic, the warning at the end of Revelation minimally only applies to Revelation.

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."

---

I think the meaning is that we are not to change it, or add our own ideas to it. The rest of the OT and NT, however, are neither changes nor our own ideas, but are the consistent revelation of God.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Yes - and like John (which was written after Revelations) we believe that the Book of Mormon is absolutely divinly inspired. I agree completely with your concept.

But this:
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

...does not mean that we can not have ANY other scriptures after the Book of Revelation - or else we wouldn't have one of the most beautiful Gospels in the NT today!
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Still, it does apply if Joseph Smith's work is not, in fact, from God.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Well... brother (or sister!), on that note, we will have to agree to disagree. We've come to the end of the road with this argument, because it all rests on the reliability of Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet - you don't! Let's move on!
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Moroni,

Since when have prophets had the authority to cut covenants/testaments? When you talk of your scriptures being a 'testament' are you refering to a covenant to which they testify? Or are you using the word 'testament' to refer to a book or books?

If you are saying that there is another testament/covenant that improves upon the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, what may I ask is it? What promise has God made over above the promise of eternal life that we have in Christ?

If you cannot tell me plainly what this 'another covenant' is in terms of an agreement bewteen humanity and God based on God's faithfulness to a promise, then I will not read another word you post.

Sorry to be blunt, but i have no time for 'covenants' that detract from, add to, or in any other way occlude, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross as the final, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for sin and the eternal salvation of humanity. Why, tell me, does humanity need anything else.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Well... brother (or sister!), on that note, we will have to agree to disagree. We've come to the end of the road with this argument, because it all rests on the reliability of Joseph Smith. I believe he was a prophet - you don't! Let's move on!

---

I didn't quite say that. I just said that IF JS wasn't actually reliable THEN... I didn't say that he wasn't.

As I noted, I am a Swedenborgian. I think that Swedenborg received reliable revelations. He might well be wrong as well, bringing on the curses mentioned in Revelation and by Moses.

And don't forget that Catholics and the Orthodox believe that their church traditions are divinely inspired.

So it is not an open and shut case. One question, of course, is why we should believe any of them.

But I think that on a board like this we would want to stick we things that we all mutually believe.
 

---

Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Yes - and like John (which was written after Revelations)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So as it neither improves on nor corrects it is utterly superfluous. So as the Bible teaches clearly that God is three entities in one that does not stand corrected by LDS arian polytheism.

---

It corrects it for us!

tomb -

I would define "testament" as: testimony, witness, evidence, proof, attestation; demonstration, indication, exemplification; monument [to], tribute [to.]

But just as a covenant , as at Sinai , and used of OT by Paul (Gal. 3: 15–18). It is also used of a speech or blessing given to children or followers, as by Moses (Deut. 33); this served as the model for such works as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Let me put this plainly, a testament is not a book. A testament is a covenant (a binding agreement) made between God and humanity. The Book of Mormon: another 'testament' of Jesus Christ should, if it is true, clearly state what this 'other' testament (covenant) actually is.

The testament of Abraham is well known.
The testament of Jesus (through his blood, shed on the cross) is also well known.
What, then, is this 'other testament'?
What 'other covenant' is there?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
EM - it's not for correction and it is? Or it's not to correct Christians but Mormons? It's an esoteric calling then? Like Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Sorry Martin PC - you've lost me - I've lost the thread of convo you're refering to! Sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Let me put this plainly, a testament is not a book. A testament is a covenant (a binding agreement) made between God and humanity. The Book of Mormon: another 'testament' of Jesus Christ should, if it is true, clearly state what this 'other' testament (covenant) actually is.

The testament of Abraham is well known.
The testament of Jesus (through his blood, shed on the cross) is also well known.
What, then, is this 'other testament'?
What 'other covenant' is there?

---

Yes I mentioned the covenant earlier. The covenant (which is mentioned so many times throughout the BoM) is that: if we follow "these" commands (in the BoM) we have been promised exaltation. Not only this - we have been promised that if we use our priesthood (and motherhood) well... the spirit will always be with us, and all things will be known unto us - See Moroni 10:4.

To be honest with you though, I don't think this is what the LDS church means by "testament." - Not "covenant" anyway. Testament - to testify - from the Greek evalgelicos (in some places) can just mean "to preach" or "to support."

However, as some have mentioned, LDS take a different slant on some traditional Christian terminology (I know this will start a riot now!)
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
What I think it means is that Joseph Smith didn't understand what a testament was when he invented 'another testament'. He was under the false assumption that a testament is a book. You are mixing up the word testimony and the word testament.

The word occurs twelve times in the New Testament as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Sorry M.T - if I didn't explain - the book of mormon NOW is called another "testament of Jesus Christ." There was no such title when Joseph Smith wrote the book. There again - there were no page numbers, no scripture references, no chapters, no footnotes, headings and so forth.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I would really like to know what any of this has to do with the topic of this thread, which is whether or not the Bible offers support for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
Thank you, Ruth.

The topic is not whether LDS or JW theology is true, but whether the Bible supports:
1. The claim that Jesus is God
2. The claim that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is more than a metaphor.
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Ruth - it becomes very hard with Christians, LDS and JW in the room! But it's so interesting at the same time!

The reason we diverge so often is because - if we cannot agree on the nature of God - most other things are appendages and become hard to agree on.

Ok - starting the Trinitarian concept again I actually have a question about it:

Does the Trinity refer to the unity between the three personages, or the actual three personages themselves?
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Does the Trinity refer to the unity between the three personages, or the actual three personages themselves?

---

Yes

It refers to both the concept/mystery, and to God, who is triune.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
The Old and New Testaments are seen as equal with the Book of Mormon, provided it is translated correctly.

---

That would be in the Joseph Smith rewrite?

quote:

---

However, said one prophet: "The Book of Mormon is the most righteous book ever to be upon the Earth, and is the keystone of our religion."

---

quote:

---

...The reason why we disagree is not because the Book of Mormon conflicts with traditional-Christianity, but because yours and my idea of God are abherrently different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
It corrects it for us!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
...Who knew the LDS was PoMo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
That's simple, and it's why I believe that God is Trinity. Jesus is God - as John himself tells us. Yet he is somehow distinct from God. Therefore, there is more than one person involved in God. Jesus relates to God perfectly as a son. The one who relates to God the Father perfectly as a son cannot be less than divine himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
So we can't talk about God in three persons unless we have the understanding that they are all 'part' of one God? Can we say 'part' or is that a misunderstanding?

---

Yes, 'part' is a misunderstanding. I happy to explain but I'm off out...
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
This might be a long one - sorry in advance.

Firstly, sorry for muddying the waters with the Revelation reference. I certainly didn't mean it as a kind of knock-down proof text! Also sorry for taking the discussion off-topic - but I am finding it difficult to actually engage with Elder Moroni in particular since (no offence) your approach to Scripture seems somewhat slippery - as soon as we start to get into the exegetics of why adoptionism/arianism is wrong, you cite the Mormon Scriptures as evidence against it since they provide the interpretative grid through which you read the Bible. Perhaps we need another thread on which to discuss this question much more generally as I don't think I can actually engage with your position without going way off-topic (i.e. delving into what from my perspective is the question of why God in his trustworthiness would inspire such a misleading and incomplete account of his self-revelation in Jesus and waiting for centuries to correct it... although obviously this isn't how you would regard it EM).

Ruthy - I appreciate that you explained earlier why you don't think John portrays Jesus as the God - but I did put some other exgetical arguments to you on that one which I don't think you have taken in, particularly about Thomas' confession of Jesus as "my (the) God".

At the end of the day, I just can't accept the distinction between you draw between "divine" and "God" since surely this is the very distinction which the Bible works so hard to counteract (even though equally clearly it also contains traces [rather than teachings!] of a prior tradition where YHWH was one god among many). Surely one of the central thrusts of the OT is that God shares his divinity with nobody. To be divine is to be YHWH and he is utterly alone in his transcendence. To be other than YHWH is to be not-divine.

Some other comments/passages:

In the context of Jewish monotheism ONLY YHWH is to be worshipped - all else is idolatry. Worship/obeisance paid to Jesus if he is only divine in some subsidiary sense beneath God is idolatry since how could he, a creature, be worthy of worship? That is breaking the first commandment, and probably some others too.

The famous Philippians 2: Jesus is in the "form/nature" (Grk: morphe) of God. Obviously could be interpreted as being "divine but not quite in the Trinity" but again hard to make sense of in a Jewish context. Who else has the form/nature of God but God?

Equally famous is Colossians 1: the image (ikon) of the invisible God. Again, who could reveal and image God but God? This passage, like John 1, also points to Jesus's role in creation - and the OT knows only ONE creator... guess who

John's gospel - John frames his gospel with the two ascriptions of deity to Jesus... but within those two he also has Jesus variously claiming to be the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd (cf Psalm 23 - the LORD is my shepherd) and lots of other titles and roles belonging to God. To put it in CS Lewis's terms, John's Jesus is either God incarnate or the devil of hell, to arrogate not just some kind of exalted status onto himself but the very titles and qualities of God himself - similarly with Matthew's claims that he will be the Judge at the end of time.

That's quite a lot for now - sorry to overload... Basically my summary is: I really struggle to see how ALL of these passages can be read as Jesus being divine but not God himself, in the context of a Bible which states that there is only one God.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
At the end of the day, I just can't accept the distinction between you draw between "divine" and "God" since surely this is the very distinction which the Bible works so hard to counteract (even though equally clearly it also contains traces [rather than teachings!] of a prior tradition where YHWH was one god among many). Surely one of the central thrusts of the OT is that God shares his divinity with nobody. To be divine is to be YHWH and he is utterly alone in his transcendence. To be other than YHWH is to be not-divine.

---

quote:

---

John 10.33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35“If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36“do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38“but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand. John 10

---

quote:

---

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.
5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.
6 I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.

---

quote:

---

For openers, how does the Cross save us if Christ is not God, and what does it save us from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
My interpretation of what He saves us from, is that Jesus saves us on the most part for the sins we cannot put right ourselves.

---

quote:

---

'The bestowal peace and grace lies in the province of God, who alone can create these blessings... In attributing to Christ the divine power of creating and giving grace, peace, everlasting life, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins, the conclusion is inevitable that Christ is truly God... So viciuos is sin that only the sacrifice of Christ could atone for sin... Sin is an exacting despot who can be vanquished by no created power, but by the sovereign power Jesus Christ alone.'

---

quote:

---

However, why did Christ leave commandments on the Earth? Did He leave them simply as a nice way of life, or did He leave them because following these commandments are essential for entrance into Heaven?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
It has nothing to do with the love we show for Christ (alone) - although of course we must show love for Christ (if ye love me, keep my commandments.) Christ left commandments, specifically that we might go to heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Anyone else interested in exploring further the soteriological implications of Christology, which is I would suggest perhaps a more useful way of looking at Scripture than narrow proof-texting?

For openers, how does the Cross save us if Christ is not God, and what does it save us from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the big problems with the Trinity is that it leads to the idea that Christ's sacrifice frees us from the obligation to keep the commandments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.

This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.

Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)

---

I completely agree with you. If we give Jesus worship and he is not the Almighty God, then we are in serious trouble.

This becomes interesting if you look at how the word "worship" (pr?skun?? ?????????) is used in the New Testament. It is used to apply to God as much as it is used to apply to Jesus.

This chart is very interesting because it shows how the NWT translates the same word differently depending on who it applies to. About 35 times it applies to God, the Devil, demons, idols, "the beast" and "his image". All those times, the NWT translates the word as "worship". But the 15 times that it applies to Jesus, the word magically becomes "obeisance".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Yes, that does cause a huge problem - could you worship the flag, as long as you gave it less worship than you would give to Jehovah?

---

That is a very good question, which I admit atm I cannot justify. (but watch this space )

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos)

---

Again the JW argument runs into huge problems. The first commandment sctricly prohibits us having other Gods than the true one. If Jehovah is the "only true god" then where does that leave Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Ahh - you are getting so close here, Ruthy! The Holy Spirit is indeed the very essense of God - he is truly divine. There is nothing about him that is not God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
can I leave you with this page?

---

By all means, but I don't think that it clarifies much. I haven't had time to look up each of the references in the tables yet but I do have a few comments about the introductory paragraph:

It states that the Holy Spirit must be a person rather than a force because:
1)a force "could not speak" (Acts 13:2)

This is a gross simplification of the word epo in this verse.
Do our consciences not "speak" to us?
Do not actions "speak" louder than words?
Does not a witness have to "speak" yet Job 16:8 speaks of wrath (or in some translations wrinkles ) being a witness.
And if he were a person who could speak why would he use other people to speak for him:
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

and 2) A force could not be grieved.
Can we not be grieved in our spirit?
Isa 54:6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
May the Holy Spirit intercede for you!

Pax,
ar

---

Thank you likewise

[fixed code]

[ 06. May 2005, 18:27: Message edited by: John Holding ]
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Ephesians 2:8-10 Case closed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
"Narrow" proof-texting is the point of this thread. The question is whether Scripture supports the Trinity. The answer is therefore expected to include Scripture.

---

quote:

---

The soteriological implications of Christology are meaningless if the Scriptures do not support the Christology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Yes I agree that the HS is God...

---

quote:

---

...what I have issue with is the Trinitarian extrapolation that "he" is another person, in his own right, also.

---

How about John 14:15-17?

And I [God the Son] will ask [God] the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the [God the Holy] Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you

Remember:
We're His temple!
He is 'another' like Jesus
He's a [wonderful] counsellor i.e. He has a ministry

So He is God; He is ontologically continuous with Jesus; and He has a ministry. Does that sound like an impersonal force to you?
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
[The video is set in around Christ's time.] A man loans some money off a wealthy man to set up his own crop growing business. It ends up, the crops don't grow, and the man cannot pay the wealthy man back his money. The man is arrested, and brought to the loan broker for punishment. All of a sudden, another man (representing Jesus) comes in, and offers to pay off the loan, provided that the man who loaned the money works for Him in return. In a similar way, Christ compensates for the sins we commit by paying the price for His sacrifice on the cross (or in the garden of Gethsemane.) Salvation, therefore is solely dependant upon the mercy of Christ.

---

quote:

---

1. Christ's Earthly sacrifice, and the sacrifice of His glory on the Earth pays the price for the sins people have commited while in the days of their probation.

---

quote:

---

M.T Tomb - as aforementioned, I do not accept that we are a "sinful" people - I do believe that we all have the capability of being perfect - Enoch demonstrated this well. We are told Mat 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm saying that, taking Scripture as a whole, more than one understanding of soteriology may be derived. This is not, in essence, narrow proof-texting although I think you could say it's broad proof-texting. I'm talking themes, concepts, and so on derived from Scripture rather than individual verses.

This is why we disagree on interpretations of John 1.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
One of the big problems with the Trinity is that it leads to the idea that Christ's sacrifice frees us from the obligation to keep the commandments.

---

Say WHAT? There are oodles of Trinitarians who believe that we are still beholden to live lives in accordance with God's commands. So I don't think you can lay this particular bogeyman at the foot of the Trinity. Whatever you yourself believe about the Trinity, you should try to be accurate and fair when ascribing beliefs and actions to Trinitarians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Narrow proof-texting is not the point of the thread. There are ways of using Scripture as a whole, rather than looking at one, two or three passages and attempting to construct proofs based on those alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Still, I do lay that bogeyman at the foot of the Trinity because I believe that the substitutionary atonement is implicit in the dividing of God into three persons.

---

I think, before Elder Moroni said he'd made his last post, that I was about to demonstrate that the LDS believed in (P)SA without the Trinity and without believing that Jesus is God. Which makes things a fair bit worse, in my humble opinion.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
Agreed, Sean.

Just to add, Freddy, that I'd agree Tritheism has similar problems to polytheist/henotheist/Arian substitutionary atonement. Luckily, Trinitarianism has one God
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Sorry - you've misunderstood me - it's my last post on the "lies, lies, lies" thread not the general forum. I'm just not participating in threads that can affect my position within the church. I'm not easily offended by what people think about the church - I just can't break the covenants I made in the temple! C'est tout!

Please go ahead with your point grey face.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
That's good, EM. I was hoping you would stick around. These discussions are valuable.

As to my point - there are questions in my last post responding to yours.
 

---

Posted by Bonaventura (# 5561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree that no Christian would deny that they are beholden to live lives in accordance with God's commands.

Still, I do lay that bogeyman at the foot of the Trinity because I believe that the substitutionary atonement is implicit in the dividing of God into three persons.

I realize that most Christians do not take it that far, or accept the idea that "we are saved while we are still sinners." Nevertheless, this is the direction that a trinity of persons leads. The Athanasian Trinity of "soul, body and operation", however, is completely different.

---

Sorry Freddy, but I think you are completely mistaken.

First, the psychological analogy of the trinity is not from Athanasius himself nor from Eastern theology, but from the athanasian creed, which is latin and augustinian. It was the (augustinian) West which eventually formulated PSA. (Though St. Augustine did not formulate this himself).

The Cappadocians, who do not cling to PSA, have a somewhat different conception of the trinity in contrast to the psychological analogy that St. Augustine offered, yet they were not prone to PSA.

What do one of them say?

Gregory asks: to Whom was Christ sacrificed?

But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence St. Gregory the Theologian, The second oration on pascha

This bogeyman should not be put at the feet of the trinity, perhaps pseudo-arianism?

[ 06. May 2005, 15:19: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Hi Greyface,

I am a little confused as to what you are asking me. Are you asking does the LDS church adhere to a polytheistic, tritheistic or hedonistic doctrine on the Godhead? The best category I could fit it into is Hedonistic - but there are even underlying theological problems we have with that.
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
Moroni, I'm quite sure you mean henotheistic not hedonistic! But then again, you might mean hedonistic... how many wives do you have?
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
Haha yeah - that's the French mix up coming in - I knew it would do sooner or later. Henotheistic - que je veux-dire!
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Ephesians 2:8-10 Case closed.

---

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Faith does save us, first and foremost. But Jesus left commandments: "unless....ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Is this a contradiction? No. Because equally we know that faith without works are dead. (James 2:20). Faith and works are inseperable.

---

quote:

---

So likewise ye, when ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. Luke 17:10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Sorry Freddy, but I think you are completely mistaken.

First, the psychological analogy of the trinity is not from Athanasius himself nor from Eastern theology, but from the athanasian creed, which is latin and augustinian. It was the (augustinian) West which eventually formulated PSA. (Though St. Augustine did not formulate this himself).

The Cappadocians, who do not cling to PSA, have a somewhat different conception of the trinity in contrast to the psychological analogy that St. Augustine offered, yet they were not prone to PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
I was about to demonstrate that the LDS believed in (P)SA without the Trinity and without believing that Jesus is God. Which makes things a fair bit worse, in my humble opinion.

---

Right you are. The worst of both worlds.

What I like about LDS is the belief that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell. At least, I think they believe that.
 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 
My spelling! Arrrgh!
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
No not at all... we believe that ALL are saved. But... this sounds so lame but it's our belief... all good endowed members of our church, and a few of whom Christ has mercy on will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. All will be saved (apart from those few who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.)
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
No not at all... we believe that ALL are saved. But... this sounds so lame but it's our belief... all good endowed members of our church, and a few of whom Christ has mercy on will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. All will be saved (apart from those few who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.)

---

OK. Well, that should make the universalists happy.
 

---

Posted by Cheesy* (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
No not at all... we believe that ALL are saved. But... this sounds so lame but it's our belief... all good endowed members of our church, and a few of whom Christ has mercy on will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. All will be saved (apart from those few who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Well although this sounds arrogant, when you die, you will have the chance again to accept the true gospel, and can be with your whole family if you accept it in the Celestial kingdom - that, of course, is provided that somebody baptizes you vicariously in the Temple, which - if you have LDS family - will almost certainly happen!

---

quote:

---

m.t_tomb Christ's commandments are not a way to show our love for Him, although our love for Him is showed when we follow His commandments. His commandments, according to the orthodox tradition and experience, are the way for us to live in the kingdom of heavens right now and here. We enter the kingdom by following Christ's commandments, not by mere intellectual agreement that He is Lord.

---

quote:

---

Salvation does not come because we love and respect Christ, but because we have trust (aka faith) in triune god. If one puts all one's trust in God and makes one's life a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God, then God will give him / her salvation and He will be his / her god and they will be His holy people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Yes, I agree with you that Christ's commandments are the means by which we manifest the Kingdom; I said that in my previous post. But we don't enter the realm of Christ's Kingdom by obedience to those commands: entrance to the Kingdom, as Christ's parables clearly point out, is by God's invitation only. We obey after we've entered, not to gain our entrance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."

John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."


The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.

Unless of course, John is wrong.

---

Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
No, you are not saying that we enter the kingdom by doing what Christ commanded; I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
.
A trinity of persons may not seem to lead to the necessary conclusion that obedience to Christ is not the requirement for entrance into the kingdom. When you ask the question "How did Christ save us?" however, it goes that way pretty quickly.

On the other hand if Christ is simply God, and He saved us by overcoming the power of hell to make us free, then obedience to Him is the obvious requirement for entrance into His kingdom.

---

And trinitarians don't believe that Christ is god?
also all trinitarians accept PSA? Perhaps in your world...


 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!

---

Didn't he say "Before Abraham, I am"?

Of course there are other names; son of man, High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Emmanuel, Fullness of deity in bodily form....... Hard to come up with a strict, logical, no_further_questions_raised explanation for it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Matthew 22:1-14

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
Then are you concluding that YHWH is the name given to Jesus? Just to clarify? If so I certainly agree!

---

Didn't he say "Before Abraham, I am"?

Of course there are other names; son of man, High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Emmanuel, Fullness of deity in bodily form....... Hard to come up with a strict, logical, no_further_questions_raised explanation for it all.

---

I was working on the assumption that in the pre-Christian era the members of the Godhead were seperate entities. If we can focus on Jesus Christ as a person beforehand - seperated from God I mean - would you still give Jesus Christ the name of YHWH?

---

Elder Moroni, you should read the book 'Does God Change?' by Prof. Thomas G. Weinandy. I think it would blow your mind how far from Orthodoxy your thinking actually is!! The very idea of God changing ontologically seems bizarre to me. What further mental gymnastics does your religion require of you? I'm truly amazed that you actually believe this stuff!!
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
mt tomb:

Hi - I understand your post. However, never has a member of the LDS church stated that our beliefs are NOT far from orthodox Christianity. The truth is, the whole point of the LDS church is NOT to be parallel with orthodox Christianity. We believe it has apostasized - the "plain and precious things" have been removed from the gospel after the death of the Apostles. In addition to this, it would be immoral for us to change our beliefs according to the opinions / history of mainstream Christianity.

Abour our belief in God's unchangeable nature: we belief He was ONCE a man - yes (when I say a man, that "man" might not have been what we call a "man nowadays, as this was before the present cosmos was apparent.) However, when Elohim became exalted, it is THEN that we believe that God is unchangeable. We believe that God will not change, nor has ever changed since He became exalted.
 

---

Posted by Bonaventura (# 5561) on :
 
andreas1984

 

---

Posted by m.t_tomb (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Matthew 22:1-14

---

This is where Reformation got us.

---

Amen
 

---

Posted by Elder Moroni (# 9432) on :
 
If you remember, early, eaaaaarly on in this post (!) I promised you that I would give you an official answer on what we mean by "the word" in John 1:1 and how we view the Godhead. My Mission presidently has kindly answered my question, (He having more knowledge about the faith in general than me,) and so I will post it here for you to read:

Dear Brother and Sisters in Christ,

As heretofore shown in another connection, the Father operated in the work of creation through the Son, who thus became the executive through whom the will, commandment, or word of the Father was put into effect. It is with incisive appropriateness therefore, that the Son, Jesus Christ, is designated by the apostle John as, "the word;" or as declared by the Father "the word of my power." The part to justify our calling Him the Creator, is set forth in many scriptures. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers in this wise distinctively to the Father and the Son as separate though associated beings: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Paul is even more explicit in his letter to the Colossians, wherein, speaking of Jesus the Son, he says: "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." And here let be repeated the testimony of John, that by the Word who was with God, and who was God even in the beginning, all things were made; "and without him was not anything made that was made."

That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western himisphere. Samuel, the converted Lamanite, in preaching to the unbelieving Nephites justified his testimony as follows: And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of Heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things, from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name."

I hope this helps, and I hope that our Heavenly Father will richly bless you for your heavenly discussions.

I leave these words in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord.

Elder G. Fusato.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western himisphere. ...
I hope this helps, and I hope that our Heavenly Father will richly bless you for your heavenly discussions. ...

---

What about the Purgatorial and Hellish ones?

This egregiously overwritten foolishness actually doesn't support much of anything, but it does prompt me to suggest to you that a list of Mormon definitions of words (since so many of those differ from the ordinary definitions) might be helpful to your readers here.

For instance, when your chappie says "God the Creator," what he REALLY means is "god the organizer," since Mormons don't believe that one God created all that is -- rather, their gods took stuff they found lying around already and recycled it into this world.* As I recall, you also mean something very different by "salvation" than what Christians mean by the word.

As you might expect, using what most of us consider the demonstrably bogus "scriptures" of the Book of Mormon will not go very far in supporting your argument. Can you find something in the Bible -- the unSmithized version -- perhaps? That might be more convincing.

* This was the explanation for the fossils given me by one Mormon missionary; it was all just recycled material, from old worlds that weren't being used anymore. (The other explanation, from another Mormon missionary, was that the Devil put them there to confuse us. I asked him what despicable sort of god would allow such things, but he didn't have an answer.)
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."

John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."


The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.

Unless of course, John is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Or is YHWH as a title used to denote the entire godhead?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Matthew 22:1-14

---

Jesus taught Nicodemus that a man gets reborn when he gets baptised. At that moment the water and the Spirit give birth to a man once again. Jesus taught Nicodemus that it is necessary for a man to get reborn if one wants to enter the kingdom of heavens. The new birth is not the entrance to the kingdom. It is a necessary requirement so that one can enter the kingdom of heavens. One enters the kingdom of heavens by following Christ's commandments. But no, Reformation defies the experience of the church and teaches new things. What an act of pride to think that the entire tradition of the church, the christian message itself, gets nullified or adjusted by mentioning a couple of verses from the scriptures. Ignorance, pride and bad faith have gotten us in this situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:

p.s. Ruthy, I'm still waiting for your answer to my earlier post. Hope you are still interested in debate and that things went well at the hosp.

---

Haven't I answered this, sorry, can you refresh my memory, I'm struggling to keep up
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
....I was working on the assumption that in the pre-Christian era the members of the Godhead were seperate entities..... If we can focus on Jesus Christ as a person beforehand - seperated from God I mean - would you still give Jesus Christ the name of YHWH?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Now to m.t_tomb:

You said "And I maintain that nothing, not even 'asking', can make a person 'worthy' of God's gift of himself by his Spirit. Children do not need to be worthy of gifts; they are given out of love - pure and simple."

Agreed, but if we truly love God then we should ask and he assures us that if we ask with a pure heart, he will graciously grant it to us:
Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly, Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

(See also 1 John 3:21 and James 4:3)

You said "If you can accept that the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and that Jesus is also one with the Father (John 14:9-10) without either 'separating' them or confounding* them, you are getting close to the truth that is the Trinity After, Christians believe that YHWH is tri-une not tri-partite. Grasp the unity of the three and you're there!"

Yes but the problem is that the way in which Jesus is "one with the Father" ie metaphorically (If we are to take John 14:10 literally then we must take John 14:20 to be also, which plainly we cannot do)differs in the way that the Holy Spirit is God ie literally, therefore they are neither tri-une nor tri-partite.

---

Anyway, m.t_tomb if this is not what you were looking for, then I'm sure you will let me know
 

---

Posted by Aim for the Prize (# 7054) on :
 
12ruthy - I asked earlier who is being reffered to in Psalm 45:6. Jehovah?

" Your throne, O God , is forever and ever."

Any thoughts?
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aim for the Prize:
12ruthy - I asked earlier who is being reffered to in Psalm 45:6. Jehovah?

" Your throne, O God , is forever and ever."

Any thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aim for the Prize:
Doesn't read very well though does it?

"Your throne, O "Jehovah", is forever...

... Therfore "Jehovah", your "Jehovah" has anointed you....

mmm

and reading Hebrews 1, you certainly have to twist things to arrive at that conclusion doen't you?

---

I'm not sure of your point here, in what way does Hebrews 1 not harmonise with the idea that Jesus was annointed by "his God" Jehovah?
 

---

Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on :
 
On the matter of Scripture supporting the Trinity, I'd just like to draw your attention to this essay and would be interested in your comments:
http://www.commentarypress.com/eng-onetruegod.html

Must dash, see you tomorrow probably

ps a friend of mine on another forum has the signiture:
"If the holy spirit is a person, he sure is clumsy! (Acts 10:44)"

Ok, I'll go
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
And trinitarians don't believe that Christ is god?
also all trinitarians accept PSA? Perhaps in your world...

---

Yes, trinitarians certainly believe Christ is God. My point is that it is almost impossible to hold an idea of three persons that is not also an idea of three gods. Whereas it is much better to simply see Christ as God Himself, the one you pray to. Not the one you pray through, but just plain God.

And, no, trinitarians do not mostly accept PSA. But the answer to "How did Christ save?" will almost inevitably come very close in any trinitarian system.

The question is what fits with (Christian) Scripture.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."

John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."


The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.

Unless of course, John is wrong.

---

No John is not wrong, however on the matter of translation of scripture, as far as I am aware the Good News Bible is the only translation that renders it specifically as Jesus' glory, every other one uses the word "his" from autos:
Strong's dictionary says:
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-]) self, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare G848.

Thus contrasting starkly against the quote from Isaiah which you rightly attribute to YHWH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Isaiah 6 - "I saw the Lord (YHWH) high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple, etc, etc...
...Woe to me, for I have seen the King, the Lord Almighty."

John 12 v 41 (quoting Isaiah 6 v 9 - 11) - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."


The inescapable conclusion is that Isaiah saw Jesus on that throne, and ascribed to him the name YHWH, the Lord Almighty.

Unless of course, John is wrong.

---

No John is not wrong, however on the matter of translation of scripture, as far as I am aware the Good News Bible is the only translation that renders it specifically as Jesus' glory, every other one uses the word "his" from autos:
Strong's dictionary says:
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-]) self, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]), there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare G848.

Thus contrasting starkly against the quote from Isaiah which you rightly attribute to YHWH.

---

I quoted the NIV

And context clearly shows that the 'Him' is Jesus, because all the other 'Hims' in the passage refer to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm a trinitarian, I just don't think the Isaiah quote is the strongest case.

---

quote:

---

"He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me." John 12.44,45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, trinitarians certainly believe Christ is God. My point is that it is almost impossible to hold an idea of three persons that is not also an idea of three gods. Whereas it is much better to simply see Christ as God Himself, the one you pray to. Not the one you pray through, but just plain God.

---

To be honest I don't find it exceptionally difficult to hold an idea of a trinity (at least in its immanent version), without it collapsing into tritheism. What I find the most mind numbingly difficult is to get my head around the doctrine of the incarnation, that Christ is both perfect God and perfect man. You see it is precisely because I am aware of the issues involved with the immanent trinity which makes the incarnation difficult, and it is precisely why a kenotic christology won't cut the mustard.


 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that it is almost impossible to hold an idea of three persons that is not also an idea of three gods. Whereas it is much better to simply see Christ as God Himself, the one you pray to. Not the one you pray through, but just plain God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
To be honest I don't find it exceptionally difficult to hold an idea of a trinity (at least in its immanent version), without it collapsing into tritheism. What I find the most mind numbingly difficult is to get my head around the doctrine of the incarnation, that Christ is both perfect God and perfect man. You see it is precisely because I am aware of the issues involved with the immanent trinity which makes the incarnation difficult, and it is precisely why a kenotic christology won't cut the mustard.

---

Very interesting way of looking at it. I agree about kenotic christology. That can't be how it worked.

I would say, however, that it is precisely the concept of an immanent trinity that causes the difficulties with the Incarnation. I believe that if we conceive of Christ as God-With-Us, or God-as-He-is-visible-to-us, or the Divine Human, these difficulties go away.

Christ as the Word existed from the beginning, because humanity has always had a concept of God. But in taking on a human form He brought light into the world in a way that it had not existed before. Not that it hadn't existed, but it had not existed in the world.

An important concept here is that God works from first things through last things into intermediate ones. Not, as you would expect, from first things through intermediate ones into last. So He did not descend through a process of self-limitation. He was born as an infant and was lifted up.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
In god, there are three persons, just like there are almost 6 billion persons in man.

---

As I see it, there actually are almost billion individuals in man. So there are three individuals in God? And this isn't tritheism?

Explain to me again how I have no idea what the concept of one God means.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
This is John 12 v 37 - 43. The comments of John, not the words of Jesus:

"Even after JESUS had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they (the Jews) still would not believe in HIM.

This was to fulfil the word of Isaiah the prophet, "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

For this reason they (the Jews) could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn - and I would heal them."

Isaiah said this because he saw JESUS' glory and spoke about HIM (Jesus). Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in HIM (Jesus)."

Even if you substituted the word Jesus for HIM where it says Isaiah spoke about him, it would sttill habve to refer to Jesus otherwise it makes nos ense whatever. The grammar would be wrong because if it meant a third person, you would have to specify who that person was.

Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the Temple and referred to him as "The King, the LORD Almighty."
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
In god, there are three persons, just like there are almost 6 billion persons in man.

---

As I see it, there actually are almost billion individuals in man. So there are three individuals in God? And this isn't tritheism?

Explain to me again how I have no idea what the concept of one God means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And, no, trinitarians do not mostly accept PSA. But the answer to "How did Christ save?" will almost inevitably come very close in any trinitarian system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And, no, trinitarians do not mostly accept PSA. But the answer to "How did Christ save?" will almost inevitably come very close in any trinitarian system.

---

Tommyrot. Not in Orthodoxy.

---

You're right. I should have said "except in Orthodoxy." Thanks for pointing that out.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Man might exist in many persons, but there is only one man. There is one man in many persons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Man might exist in many persons, but there is only one man. There is one man in many persons.

---

So you are suggesting that the trinity is three individual beings who collectively make up "God" just as 6 billion individuals in this world collectively make up "man"?

---

Just let me take this opportunity to distance myself from andreas1984's use of the term "man."
 

---

Posted by Bonaventura (# 5561) on :
 
andreas1984:

The hypostases of the trinity are not one the way Fx. John, Peter and Paul by virtue of being humans are, despite sharing the same human nature and gender. They are all individuals

The hypostases of the trinity are one in that they are consubstantial, have one will and one power, it is important to qualify that. Thus we can talk about only one divine being, and monotheism.


[ 08. May 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...Infact, I emphatically do NOT agree with this idea. The idea is wrong - I will be the first to admit this. This is one of the many things in my religion that has not been given through revelation - it is not a doctrine. I believe that God is the creator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
The hypostases of the trinity are one in that they are consubstantial, have one will and one power, it is important to qualify that. Thus we can talk about only one divine being, and monotheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elder Moroni:
...That the Christ who was to come was in reality God the Creator was revealed in plainness to the prophets on the western himisphere. ...
I hope this helps, and I hope that our Heavenly Father will richly bless you for your heavenly discussions. ...

---

What about the Purgatorial and Hellish ones?

This egregiously overwritten foolishness actually doesn't support much of anything, but it does prompt me to suggest to you that a list of Mormon definitions of words (since so many of those differ from the ordinary definitions) might be helpful to your readers here.

For instance, when your chappie says "God the Creator," what he REALLY means is "god the organizer," since Mormons don't believe that one God created all that is -- rather, their gods took stuff they found lying around already and recycled it into this world.* As I recall, you also mean something very different by "salvation" than what Christians mean by the word.

As you might expect, using what most of us consider the demonstrably bogus "scriptures" of the Book of Mormon will not go very far in supporting your argument. Can you find something in the Bible -- the unSmithized version -- perhaps? That might be more convincing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I fear you have read them wrong. There are billions of men, yet only one human nature.

---

Um, you are wrong. Hear ye, hear ye, so that you can amend your ways (or ideas)

quote:

---

Gregory (On "not three gods" -- epistle to Ablabius)

The argument which you state is something like this: Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men; and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature.

We say then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are "many men", is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are "many human natures".

Thus it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit, so no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature, than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. But since the correction of the habit is impracticable... we are not so far wrong in not going contrary to the habit in the case of the lower nature, since no harm results from the mistaken use of the name: but in the case of the statement concerning the Divine nature the various use of terms is no longer so free from danger: for that which is of small account is in these subjects no longer a small matter.[/qb]

---

quote:

---

I think you are mistaken when you attempt to disect humanity into 'parts'. Likewise, I think you are mistaken when you attempt you disect God into 'parts'; he is Triune. You seem to be suggesting that 'part' of God isn't God: namely his spirit. That doesn't make sense to me. To suggest that my spirit isn't 'me', or indeed, that my body isn't 'me', is to fall into the grip of Pagan philosophy. It represents an unaccepatble departure from Judeo-Christian anthropology.

---

quote:

---

When you said that...

[holy spirit] can be seen as divine because it is the very vital force of Jehovah and hence absolutely Holy.

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that without something that isn't God (i.e. holy spirit), Jehovah would have no vitality? Are you really suggesting that God's vitality is derived from something (holy spirit) that is less than Jehovah himself? I hope not! Otherwise we have a Jehovah who can do nothing but for something (holy spirit) that is less than himself!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.

This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.

Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)

---

I completely agree with you. If we give Jesus worship and he is not the Almighty God, then we are in serious trouble.

This becomes interesting if you look at how the word "worship" (pr?skun?? ?????????) is used in the New Testament. It is used to apply to God as much as it is used to apply to Jesus.

This chart is very interesting because it shows how the NWT translates the same word differently depending on who it applies to. About 35 times it applies to God, the Devil, demons, idols, "the beast" and "his image". All those times, the NWT translates the word as "worship". But the 15 times that it applies to Jesus, the word magically becomes "obeisance".

---

This is indeed very interesting, and I must say quite a revelation to me, but I still maintain that this does not point to a trinity.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Yes, that does cause a huge problem - could you worship the flag, as long as you gave it less worship than you would give to Jehovah?

---

That is a very good question, which I admit atm I cannot justify. (but watch this space )

---

There's no rush, take your time!

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos)

---

Again the JW argument runs into huge problems. The first commandment sctricly prohibits us having other Gods than the true one. If Jehovah is the "only true god" then where does that leave Jesus?

---

Precisely where Jehovah put him, at his right hand, but still subordinate to the only true God, Jehovah.

If he is not subordinate tell me what
1Cor 15:24-28 means?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Ahh - you are getting so close here, Ruthy! The Holy Spirit is indeed the very essense of God - he is truly divine. There is nothing about him that is not God.

---

Yes I agree that the HS is God, what I have isssue with is the Trinitarian extrapolation that "he" is another person, in his own right, also.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
can I leave you with this page?

---

By all means, but I don't think that it clarifies much. I haven't had time to look up each of the references in the tables yet but I do have a few comments about the introductory paragraph:

It states that the Holy Spirit must be a person rather than a force because:
1)a force "could not speak" (Acts 13:2)

This is a gross simplification of the word epo in this verse.
Do our consciences not "speak" to us?
Do not actions "speak" louder than words?
Does not a witness have to "speak" yet Job 16:8 speaks of wrath (or in some translations wrinkles ) being a witness.
And if he were a person who could speak why would he use other people to speak for him:
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

and 2) A force could not be grieved.
Can we not be grieved in our spirit?
Isa 54:6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

---

quote:

---

The following is solid biblical evidence that points to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person in His own right and performs functions we attribute to personhood: He appoints missionaries (Acts 13:2; 20:28), He leads and directs them in their ministry (Acts 8:29; 10:19-20; 16:6-7; 1 Corinthians 2:13), He speaks through the prophets (Acts 1:16; 1 Peter 1:11-12; 2 Peter 1:21), He corrects (John 16:8), comforts (Acts 9:31), helps us in our infirmities (Romans 8:26), teaches (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3), guides (John 16:13), sanctifies (Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11), testifies of Christ (John 15:26), glorifies Christ (John 16:14), has a power of his own (Romans 15:13), searches all things (Romans 11:33-34; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), works according to his own will (1 Corinthians 12:11), dwells with saints (John 14:17), can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), can be resisted (Acts 7:51), and can be tempted (Acts 5:9).

In many languages, including Greek, words have masculine, feminine, or neuter genders which have no real counterpart in English. While the Spirit is often referred to by a neuter Greek pronoun, since the pneuma has a neuter tense in Greek (such as John 14:17, 26; 15:26), in other instances the masculine pronoun is used which emphasizes the Holy Spirit's personhood. Jesus said,

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom (neuter pronoun) the Father will send in my name, He (masculine pronoun) will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 15:16, RSV).

We see Jesus use similar language in John 15:26, and especially John 16:13:

"When the Spirit of truth comes, He (masculine pronoun) will guide you into all truth.”

---