Can someone explain the Trinity please...

[katiemygirl]

="Katzpur, post: 4167207, member: 2540"
Actually, we LDS don't believe in the Trinity any more than you JWs do. We don't see "God" as being divided into parts at all, and we see Jesus Christ as subordinate to the Father -- now and always.[

Good Morning! May God be with you and yours today. It's a new day. Let's try to have a Christ like spirit towards one another. Let us both behave as God would have us do. Deal?

After reading your explanations (several times over) yesterday about how you view the trinity, I am still confused. In many ways, it sounded like we were saying the same things. I hope you don't mind discussing it again with me. I really do sincerely want to understand what you believe.

This is my view of God. Tell me what don't you agree with, because I think this is how people see what they term "the trinity."

There is ONE God. God exists in three co-existent, co-eternal distinct persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God. Each of them is fully and completely God. Each is divine in nature. They are identical in essence (attributes and characteristics). They are ONE.

I also need you to clarify two things for me please. Do you believe Jesus was created?
Is Jesus God?

Thanks in advance. I really do want us to have a respectful conversation.

 

[JM2C]

[Asserting such a claim would need proof, right? Otherwise, one is arguing from ignorance. Here is my proof, please read and understand John 1:1-18.]
I agree, one would need proof. We both believe in different ways. God did not incarnate Himself. "Incarnate" is not use for God. But "manifesting" is. "Firstborn" is, etc, etc. God does not change. Incarnate is changing into something.

How did God manifest Himself in John 1:1-18? In verse 14 it explicitly says “and the Word became flesh”.

IOW, “and the Word was God” in verse 1 manifested or revealed Himself in a form of a man or took a bodily form or “manifested in the flesh -1Ti 3:16, John 1:14, Col 2:9” and that is the meaning of incarnation.

Before a spirit can manifest to a physical sense it needs to incarnate or change into a bodily form otherwise, our physical sense, our eyes, cannot see this spirit.

COL 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

I"m glad you used John 1-18. Proves my point. Thank you. Verses 1-13 is about God and John, then 14 is Jesus.

Please read again.

Jn 1:6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.

Jn 1:7 He/John came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

Jn 1:8 He/John himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

 

[Kolibri]

How did God manifest Himself in John 1:1-18? In verse 14 it explicitly says “and the Word became flesh”.

IOW, “and the Word was God” in verse 1 manifested or revealed Himself in a form of a man or took a bodily form or “manifested in the flesh -1Ti 3:16, John 1:14, Col 2:9” and that is the meaning of incarnation.

Before a spirit can manifest to a physical sense it needs to incarnate or change into a bodily form otherwise, our physical sense, our eyes, cannot see this spirit.

COL 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Please read again.

Jn 1:6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.

Jn 1:7 He/John came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

Jn 1:8 He/John himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

You are basing your interpretation of John 1:14 on a mistranslation of both John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9. Not that any restating of the reasons why these verses are being mistranslated in the ways you are convinced are correct will have any bearing on this debate. And yet, until there is a mutual understanding on these other 2 verses there will be no concord reached.

 

[Unification]

Friend? your words are not the rebuke of a friend. If they were, I'd gladly accept them. What you speak is judgement based on self-proclaimed special knowledge.

Jesus based his words on his Father's words. Often he would quote scripture to back up his teachings. Jesus showed great empathy for those that were humble and, after he presented himself to do God's will at his baptism, he was always busy preaching and teaching about God's Kingdom, proclaiming it as the only solution to mankind's problems. He taught a self-sacrificing love that went beyond loving one's neighbor as one's self. (John 13:34,35)

I have yet to read of you backing up your words with God's written word. I have yet to hear of you stressing obedience to the command to preach about God's Kingdom - you are always preaching some other gospel that involves linking oneself to some unverifiable Christ-consciousness.

The mind of Christ is very evident in that he brought "comfort from the Scriptures". He never tooted his own horn, but always stressed glory going to his God and Father. (Romans 15:4-6)

I challenge you to be a friend. I challenge you to cite scriptures to "reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all patience and art of teaching." (2 Tim 4:2) I challenge you to not let us think you are tickling your own ears with a false gospel - one that is not firmly grounded in scripture. (2 Tim 4:3)

You are being taught. You just don't listen. No eyes to see or ears to hear. Reaction without responding. The scripture you see is earthly, writing and black ink, the scripture written by the Spirit of God can only be taught by God. If Christ were IN you, God would be with you,the hope of glory, you'd have eyes to see and ears to hear, but you keep choosing external means to learn lies as opposed to seeking truth within.
No matter what's taught to you in truth, your adversary/deceiver which is your conditioned and trained mind.... Cannot see the light. Open your mind just a tad, friend... Let Christ teach you. Instead, you're trying to understand something spiritual, with literal and earthly and historical lessons by yourself and your "elders" teaching you. A friend will direct someone to the Lord in truth, not to their man empire confregation of control and lies.

 

[Kolibri]

You are being taught. You just don't listen. No eyes to see or ears to hear. Reaction without responding. The scripture you see is earthly, writing and black ink, the scripture written by the Spirit of God can only be taught by God. If Christ were IN you, God would be with you,the hope of glory, you'd have eyes to see and ears to hear, but you keep choosing external means to learn lies as opposed to seeking truth within.
No matter what's taught to you in truth, your adversary/deceiver which is your conditioned and trained mind.... Cannot see the light. Open your mind just a tad, friend... Let Christ teach you. Instead, you're trying to understand something spiritual, with literal and earthly and historical lessons by yourself and your "elders" teaching you. A friend will direct someone to the Lord in truth, not to their man empire confregation of control and lies.

And you have not even tried to quote scripture. Is the Bible, in your opinion, or private revelation, all man's thoughts then?

 

[Katzpur]

JayJay, I'll answer your question about how Mormons see God, but I am simply not going to get into a debate with you about whether you believe our position to be valid or not. You need to understand that right up front.

Yet don't you see the son and the holy spirit as part of God?

It is impossible for me to conceive of God as some kind of a substance that has parts. I see "God" as a title that can be used either to refer to God the Father (which is generally how we LDS use it) or to any member of the Godhead. We do believe in a Godhead comprised of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. "Godhead" is a collective noun (like team). We see God the Father as reigning supreme.

 

[JM2C]

The Hebrew word for virgin is bethu-lah'. This however is not the Hebrew word used at Isaiah 7:14. Rather this passage uses the word 'al-mah', which translates as maiden, or young woman whether virgin or non-virgin. However, Matthew employed the Greek word par-the'nos when quoting Isaiah 7:14. And this word definitely translates to the English word "virgin." This is not an error, but a refinement of the type of maiden that this prophesy would find its final fulfillment in.

Moffatt was very much accurate to use the term "young woman" as that is what a maiden is, and that translation was translating the word directly from the Hebrew and not from the Greek Septuagint.

When Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, he quoted Isaiah’s 7:14 from the Septuagint/OG/LXX. It says back then [during Matthew‘s time], and this was before any other translations/interpretations and adulterations and alterations of the words of God by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, where in Isaiah’s 7:14 in the Septuagint/Original Greek/LXX it says: “parthenos/virgin” and not “neanis/young woman” as translated by these renegades.

IOW, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and you and I were not yet present at the time of the Septuagint/OG/LXX where Matthew and the other writers of the New Testament were using the Septuagint/OG/LXX as their reference of OT prophesies about the Lord Jesus Christ.

We simply were not there at that time. Matthew’s 1:23 quotation of Isaiah’s 7:14 was justified until Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion altered the meaning of the word “Parthenos/virgin” into “neanis/young woman” This is after 500 years from the translation of the Ancient Hebrew text to the Septuagint/OG/LXX.

Now, where this “young woman with child” came from?

You said that Moffatt got his translation from the Hebrew and not from the Greek Septuagint.

What Hebrew text are you referring here? Is this the ancient Hebrew text where the Original Septuagint/LXX was based on and where Matthew got his quotes from, or from the Masoretic text?

Again, Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus renegades from Christianity, and Jewish proselytes, their rendering of "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 by "neanis" (young woman) instead of "Parthenos/LXX/Septuagint" (virgin) and from here on to the Masoretic text where Moffatt got his translations not word for word but added “with child” meaning “not a virgin” anymore.

Moffatt renders it "There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name Immanuel"

By supporting moffatt’s translations you are literally denying the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ -Matt 1:23, and John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh”

Who is denying the virgin birth? Not JW's.

Who denies that the Word became flesh? Not JW's

You guys are not consistent with each other’s knowledge about your NWT interpretations or should I say corruptions, adulterations, alterations of the very Word of God.

 

[JM2C]

You are basing your interpretation of John 1:14 on a mistranslation of both John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9. Not that any restating of the reasons why these verses are being mistranslated in the ways you are convinced are correct will have any bearing on this debate. And yet, until there is a mutual understanding on these other 2 verses there will be no concord reached.

Tell me who is the subject of John 1:14 and John 1:1 and Colossians 2:9 or the entire New Testament?

 

[JM2C]

A good example would be to look at Judaism and see the same success he has had with Christendom. He sticks to his old familiar tactics because he knows they work. You corrupt God's worship from within. God's true worshippers have never been in the majority. (Matt 7:13, 14)

You think you are just one entity? Antichrist comes in all form of entities or groups of cults like yours.

Mt 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand?

JW's have made no "predictions" about "the end of the world"....we have kept on the watch, as Jesus told us to do and we have "hoped" that certain years may have brought the relief that Jesus promised when his kingdom begins to rule the earth. (Matt 24:42-44) We have never offered a "day or hour"....we have hoped for the blessings of the kingdom.....nothing more. "Hope serves as an anchor for the soul".....we have always been firmly anchored and we have never gone to sleep spiritually. We have kept on preaching as Jesus commanded all his disciples to do. We have never claimed to be prophets. It's not against any law to hope or to express that hope.

Never predicted the end of the world? Are you sure about that?

This is just one of the many links about JW’s failed predictions.

Predictions of the end of the world by Jehovah's Witnesses: 1914 to 1920

 

[Kolibri]

When Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, he quoted Isaiah’s 7:14 from the Septuagint/OG/LXX. It says back then [during Matthew‘s time], and this was before any other translations/interpretations and adulterations and alterations of the words of God by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, where in Isaiah’s 7:14 in the Septuagint/Original Greek/LXX it says: “parthenos/virgin” and not “neanis/young woman” as translated by these renegades.

IOW, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and you and I were not yet present at the time of the Septuagint/OG/LXX where Matthew and the other writers of the New Testament were using the Septuagint/OG/LXX as their reference of OT prophesies about the Lord Jesus Christ.

We simply were not there at that time. Matthew’s 1:23 quotation of Isaiah’s 7:14 was justified until Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion altered the meaning of the word “Parthenos/virgin” into “neanis/young woman” This is after 500 years from the translation of the Ancient Hebrew text to the Septuagint/OG/LXX.

Now, where this “young woman with child” came from?

You said that Moffatt got his translation from the Hebrew and not from the Greek Septuagint.

What Hebrew text are you referring here? Is this the ancient Hebrew text where the Original Septuagint/LXX was based on and where Matthew got his quotes from, or from the Masoretic text?

Again, Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus renegades from Christianity, and Jewish proselytes, their rendering of "alma" in Isaiah 7:14 by "neanis" (young woman) instead of "Parthenos/LXX/Septuagint" (virgin) and from here on to the Masoretic text where Moffatt got his translations not word for word but added “with child” meaning “not a virgin” anymore.

Moffatt renders it "There is a young woman with child, who shall bear a son and call his name Immanuel"

By supporting moffatt’s translations you are literally denying the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ -Matt 1:23, and John 1:14 “and the Word became flesh”





You guys are not consistent with each other’s knowledge about your NWT interpretations or should I say corruptions, adulterations, alterations of the very Word of God.

In regards to Moffat's translation I was focused on the term 'young woman/maiden' verse 'virgin'. And you were focused on 'with child'. The idea that the young maiden in Isaiah day was currently pregnant does not seem likely. But I am only basing this one how the NWT translates that verse. "Look! The young woman will become pregnant." However, there definitely was not a virgin birth back in the initial fulfillment of this prophesy. And the Hebrew word here for 'young woman' is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to designate young women both of the virgin and non-virgin varieties. Thus in Hebrew "young woman" is not out of line, but "young woman with child" (as if already with child) may be. That fact is though, that when this verse was translated into Greek, the Greek word for "virgin" replaced the Hebrew word for "maiden", this is not wrong in that in the final fulfillment, Jesus' mother did not experience sex till after Jesus was born.

As regards John 1:14, the definition is dependant on John 1:1. I am sure you are familiar that some translations do not translate the last theos as God but as "divine", or "a god"

*** w09 4/1 pp. 18-19 Is Jesus God? ***
. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?
The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros′] is the world [Greek, ho ko′smos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.
What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”
Identity of “the Word”?
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

So when John 1:14 says the Word became flesh it does not mean God became flesh, but merely that the Word is Jesus.

Likewise Col 2:9, some translations refer to this by "the fulness of the Godhead" and others as "the fullness of the divine quality". Which is correct? Does "divine quality" fit the context? Well verse 3 says "carefully concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." And in verses 6 and 7 we are urged to "go on walking in union with him, being rooted and built up in him and being stabilized in the faith." These things definitely point to a "divine quality."

What about the Greek in that passage? According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o′tes (the nominative form, from which the·o′te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age.

Also this rendering harmonizes with 2 Peter 1:2-4 where it talks about things we get from Jesus that allow ones to be "sharers in divine nature."

 

[Unification]

And you have not even tried to quote scripture. Is the Bible, in your opinion, or private revelation, all man's thoughts then?

1 Corinthians 2:13-16King James Version (KJV)

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the MIND of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the MIND of Christ.



Isaiah 55:8-9King James Version (KJV)

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[melk]

Every troll has covered intentions.

 

[Unification]

Every troll has covered intentions.

Anyone referring to a human by the name of "troll" has not the Spirit of God.

 

[Unification]

And you have not even tried to quote scripture. Is the Bible, in your opinion, or private revelation, all man's thoughts then?

Your turn, Since things written by the Spirit of God are to be taken literally, earthly, and as a historical lesson, placing God's thoughts as equal with your thoughts......
Since, I am told I disrespect the creation story and show lack of respect for scripture.... Tell me where Cain's wife came from? Saying he slept with Eve, his mother with incest, because no law was yet applied, is not adequate .... This would be disrespecting the "Word of God" written by God's spirit, validating incest. . And creating your own scripture.

 

[Kolibri]

Your turn, Since things written by the Spirit of God are to be taken literally, earthly, and as a historical lesson, placing God's thoughts as equal with your thoughts......
Since, I am told I disrespect the creation story and show lack of respect for scripture.... Tell me where Cain's wife came from? Saying he slept with Eve, his mother with incest, because no law was yet applied, is not adequate .... This would be disrespecting the "Word of God" written by God's spirit, validating incest. . And creating your own scripture.

Thank you for citing scripture finally.

If another does not get to this requested answer I will later today.

 

[Unification]

Thank you for citing scripture finally.

If another does not get to this requested answer I will later today.

You're welcome, and I will continue to. Thank you, friend. Have a blessed day.

 

[Kolibri]

Tell me where Cain's wife came from?

Before going to scripture, let's reason on why incest is medically unhealthy. The closer the relative, the more likely any resultant children will have birth defects. And yet, if we take the genealogy of mankind literal, there was a significant increase in the overall lifespan as we get closer to Adam, especially when we get past Noah. It seems as if Shem, Noah's second son, lived for 502 years after the Deluge. He died 13 years after Sarah did, and may have also been the one known as Melchizedek, though that is by no means certain. Abraham himself is recorded to have lived for 175 years, and his father Terah, of the 8th generation from Shem, lived 205 years. As you may be aware, Sarah was Abraham's half-sister as well as his wife, having the same father in common. (Ge 20:12) Incest became strictly forbidden at the institution of the Law Covenant. Why did God finally make this illegal? Likely because the genetics of mankind had finally broken down to the point where Moses, could pray.

The span of our life is 70 years,
Or 80 if one is especially strong. (or "because of special mightiness.")
But they are filled with trouble and sorrow;
They quickly pass by, and away we fly.
- Psalm 90:10

One could reason that at this point it became too dangerous for the offspring if this practice was to continue. The DNA of humans was becoming too greatly removed from perfection.

And yet we know marriage was sacred in God's eyes. Even before the Law Covenant, Joseph knew it was a sin against God if he was to sleep with his master's wife. And likely he knew that God nearly killed a couple kings because they were about to take Sarah as wife when they did not realize that she was already Abraham's. So it would be totally wrong to say Cain had relations with his own mother, Eve was not Cain's wife, but Adam's. So, where did Cain get his wife? (Ge 4:17)

"After this Adam named his wife Eve, (meaning, "LIving One.") because she was to become the mother of everyone living." - Gen 3:20

"Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth. (Adam's 3rd son (Ge 4:25)) After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. So all the days of Adam's life amounted to 930 years, and then he died." - Ge 5:3-5

From these 2 scriptures we can understand that Cain's wife had to be a sister, or perhaps a niece.

 

[JayJayDee]

Your turn, Since things written by the Spirit of God are to be taken literally, earthly, and as a historical lesson, placing God's thoughts as equal with your thoughts......
Since, I am told I disrespect the creation story and show lack of respect for scripture.... Tell me where Cain's wife came from? Saying he slept with Eve, his mother with incest, because no law was yet applied, is not adequate .... This would be disrespecting the "Word of God" written by God's spirit, validating incest. . And creating your own scripture.

Well, for someone who purports to have "inside" information, you certainly display a complete lack of Bible knowledge, except when something agrees with your own view.

What do you know about incest? What do you know about God's law concerning it? When was it given?

For some reason, people assume that Cain and Abel were the only humans descended from Adam until the birth of Seth. And that Cain couldn't have taken a wife after he was sentenced to banishment because no other humans existed. Human lifespan was extended in those days immediately after the fall. Closer to perfection, humans lived for hundreds of years, but it still only took 9 months to produce a child.

You will notice that in the scriptures, girls are often left unnamed and unmentioned in amongst their brothers. e.g. Noah had three sons, all were named, but his own wife and daughters-in-law were never named.
Women had a complimentary role in Bible times, they were not the heads of the household, but the support system, if you like.

Therefore there is nothing to suggest that daughters were not born to Adam and his wife though they were never spoken of until Adam's history was recounted. Adam was 130 when this 3rd "son" was born, but there is nothing to say that daughters did not come into the world in the meantime. Nor is there a timeframe for Cain's murder of his brother or his banishment. Assumptions can be made when there is no detail.

Gen 5:3-5..." Adam lived for 130 years and then became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and he named him Seth. 4 After becoming father to Seth, Adam lived for 800 years. And he became father to sons and daughters."

It is likely therefore that Cain took either a sister or a niece as a wife.

There was no incest because such a thing did not exist in those days. If God started the human race off with just two individuals, then how do you suppose he was going to populate the earth? He told Adam and his wife to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth".....were they going to do that all by themselves?

The reason why incest is forbidden in later generations, further away from perfection, is because of genetic abnormalities.
It was not uncommon for men to marry their half sisters in a family with many wives. Abraham was married to Sarah, who was his half sister.

Where no law exists, no law can be broken. Did not the spirit teach you this?

 

[JayJayDee]

LOL you beat me to it

 

[Kolibri]

LOL you beat me to it

I would say we both added details the other left out.