• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Jesus literally transmute, into the Abba, after ascencion, or, does Jesus, maintain as Jesus?

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
If it helps, one batch of water that is poured into three containers, but I thought you were going to help me understand your perspective on this stuff?
Look, I realize that no analogy is perfect, so I'm not just trying to be argumentative. If you start with three containers of water and pour them into a single container and then back into their original container, how does the contents of the three original containers end up containing with what it started out as being? I think you're trying to say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost really aren't distinct from one another in any way, and that's where I think the doctrine of the Trinity is flawed.

And I don't know why you thought I was going to help you understand my perspective. I've already tried on multiple occasions to do that and have not had much success. This time around, I was asking you to help me understand your perspective. And what I've gotten out of your analogy is that there is really no difference between any of the three persons in the Trinity. They're all completely fluid (no pun intended) in terms of who they are. They simply combine and separate but absolutely do lose their original identities as soon as they merge for the first time.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Not being Jewish, like me, you are likely unaware that Rambam distinguished Judaism centuries ago by saying our monotheist faith is based on the fact that "Ha Shem made a mistake using echad, plural oneness, for G_d, and not yachid, singularity".

You should research online echad and you should also consider (as I've already written) that God is echad and a married man and a woman are echad. Both testaments contain trinitarian or triune statements of God and in Deut 6:4, it's "Hear, Oh Israel! The Lord our God is a plural oneness!" and Rambam, centuries after the NT, redefined Judaism away from plural oneness of God. As a Jew, these were intense issues for me before and after conversion to Christianity.
If you're basing your belief in the trinity doctrine entirely on "echad" then that's a pretty flimsy reason for doing so.

First of all echad can be used as numerically singular and is used this way in the Bible like in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12. It is not always "plural oneness". That's a debatable interpretation itself. Some trinitarians simply say it means "one in unity" and go with that.

However, assuming for the moment that you are perfectly correct about echad's meaning. Then where do you get the number 3 specifically for God? Why isn't God 2 (2 John 1:9) or even 7 persons (Revelation 4:5)?

Why does the plurality have to indicate the existence of distinct persons within God anyway? It could be telling us many other things about God besides persons.

Even though yachid is never used for God in the old Testament. Yet, "hen" is used for God in Isaiah 37:20. Which is singular.

Your translation of the Shema is lacking. You take off the last mention of the Lord's name.

"Hear, Oh Israel! The Lord our God is a plural oneness!"

It should be this way:

"Hear oh Israel, YHVH our God is [echad] YHVH."
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Look, I realize that no analogy is perfect, so I'm not just trying to be argumentative. If you start with three containers of water and pour them into a single container and then back into their original container, how does the contents of the three original containers end up containing with what it started out as being? I think you're trying to say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost really aren't distinct from one another in any way, and that's where I think the doctrine of the Trinity is flawed.

And I don't know why you thought I was going to help you understand my perspective. I've already tried on multiple occasions to do that and have not had much success. This time around, I was asking you to help me understand your perspective. And what I've gotten out of your analogy is that there is really no difference between any of the three persons in the Trinity. They're all completely fluid (no pun intended) in terms of who they are. They simply combine and separate but absolutely do lose their original identities as soon as they merge for the first time.

I apologize, but I talk to many different religious persons here. I don't remember your perspective. Mine is God is three personalities and persons who are alike in every way except positionallly, with a Father-Son-Spirit hierarchy.

I've heard regarding LDS that they do not believe in trinity, believing that the trinity/tri-unity of God is not in Holy Scripture, but that verses like 2 Nephi 31:21 say otherwise. What is your understanding of 2 Nephi 31?

Thanks.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
If you're basing your belief in the trinity doctrine entirely on "echad" then that's a pretty flimsy reason for doing so.

First of all echad can be used as numerically singular and is used this way in the Bible like in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12. It is not always "plural oneness". That's a debatable interpretation itself. Some trinitarians simply say it means "one in unity" and go with that.

However, assuming for the moment that you are perfectly correct about echad's meaning. Then where do you get the number 3 specifically for God? Why isn't God 2 (2 John 1:9) or even 7 persons (Revelation 4:5)?

Why does the plurality have to indicate the existence of distinct persons within God anyway? It could be telling us many other things about God besides persons.

Even though yachid is never used for God in the old Testament. Yet, "hen" is used for God in Isaiah 37:20. Which is singular.

Your translation of the Shema is lacking. You take off the last mention of the Lord's name.

"Hear, Oh Israel! The Lord our God is a plural oneness!"

It should be this way:

"Hear oh Israel, YHVH our God is [echad] YHVH."

1) I'm not basing my belief solely on "echad".

2) The Shema ends, "Our God is an echad YHVH, a plural YHVH." On Jesus's cross was YHVH in the initial letters of the four Hebrew words meaning, "Y'shua of Natzert and King of the Jews"!

3) You don't know why I believe God is three, Son, Spirit, Father? Why verses including 2 John 1:9 emphasize the Father and Son to those being addressed who already have the Spirit within as a deposit of salvation? You didn't know that Revelations contains 7s for God, judgment, churches, etc., etc. and that God on a throne with 7 lampstands before Him equals 8, not 7 (Rev 4:5, which you mentioned)?

4) You don't know why everyone from Rome and the cults to the evangelicals believes in 3, not 7 or 2? Really?!

5) You didn't recall that I'm a Jew, and so grew up with trinitarian statements in places like the Passover Seder rituals--"He who is above, the Ruach Ha Kodesh, the One who is below..."?
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
2) The Shema ends, "Our God is an echad YHVH, a plural YHVH."
At best it should be a "united" YHVH. That's at best. As I've shown the word echad can be numerically one also.

Can you admit that maybe the Hebrew/Biblical scholars really did it get it right when they translated Deut 6:4 in:
  • the KJV
  • the ESV
  • the YLT
  • etc.
3) You don't know why I believe God is three, Son, Spirit, Father? Why verses including 2 John 1:9 emphasize the Father and Son to those being addressed who already have the Spirit within as a deposit of salvation?
So then you have an explanation. That's just my point.
You didn't know that Revelations contains 7s for God, judgment, churches, etc., etc. and that God on a throne with 7 lampstands before Him equals 8, not 7 (Rev 4:5, which you mentioned)?
So then, there are other explanations for the seeming "plurality" of God besides just saying "God is three persons"!

My point is trinitarians do the same thing.
4) You don't know why everyone from Rome and the cults to the evangelicals believes in 3, not 7 or 2? Really?!
The trinitarians took over in Rome and became the prominent or most powerful political church, but before that there were oneness/modalistic bishops of the church. Unfortunately because of the oppressive ways of the trinitarian Catholic church little of their actual writings remain. Catholics had a tendency to burn everything. People, books etc.

Who is it that persecuted the early church? Who crucified and burned Christians as torches? Rome. So God sent them strong delusion. Then the Roman Catholic church continued the burning ways as their history proves.

No offense to Catholics because I think there are sincere ones, my problem is with the clear history of the RCC. A tree is known by it's fruit.
5) You didn't recall that I'm a Jew, and so grew up with trinitarian statements in places like the Passover Seder rituals--"He who is above, the Ruach Ha Kodesh, the One who is below..."?
Pretty sure I've heard of it. That doesn't prove a trinity. It's probably just something Rabbis came up with. Who knows why.

Besides, if the topic is winning over Jews; the trinity doctrine becomes more of a hindrance than a help in convincing (most) Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
At best it should be a "united" YHVH. That's at best. As I've shown the word echad can be numerically one also.

Can you admit that maybe the Hebrew/Biblical scholars really did it get it right when they translated Deut 6:4 in:
  • the KJV
  • the ESV
  • the YLT
  • etc.

So then you have an explanation. That's just my point.

So then, there are other explanations for the seeming "plurality" of God besides just saying "God is three persons"!

My point is trinitarians do the same thing.

The trinitarians took over in Rome and became the prominent or most powerful political church, but before that there were oneness/modalistic bishops of the church. Unfortunately because of the oppressive ways of the trinitarian Catholic church little of their actual writings remain. Catholics had a tendency to burn everything. People, books etc.

Who is it that persecuted the early church? Who crucified and burned Christians as torches? Rome. So God sent them strong delusion. Then the Roman Catholic church continued the burning ways as their history proves.

No offense to Catholics because I think there are sincere ones, my problem is with the clear history of the RCC. A tree is known by it's fruit.

Pretty sure I've heard of it. That doesn't prove a trinity. It's probably just something Rabbis came up with. Who knows why.

Besides, if the topic is winning over Jews; the trinity doctrine becomes more of a hindrance than a help in convincing (most) Jews that Jesus is the Messiah.

I'm open-minded here, and would change from triunity (I try not to use "trinity") to modalism/monotheism if you convince me, but:

1) You've never addressed how it is that a husband and wife are echad (Genesis 2:24). There is no way I can think of me and my spouse as anything but two persons in a covenant of like-minded oneness. When we join in intimacy, Paul says that is a mystery picture of Christ and the church (two entities that are distinct but are as intimate as any can be). My wife and I become one flesh in intimacy while having two minds/persons, like Siamese twins, if that helps--are Siamese twins two people unified or one person in modalities?

2) Rome got most things wrong, but not the divinity of Christ, for example--Jesus is certainly God in Rome, so why are they automatically wrong when reviewing the trinity? You will not find me complimentary of Rome, ever, because their doctrines are heretical, particularly their gospel and assurance ideas, but I think they almost got the triunity right.

3) I can admit that Hebrew scholars got the English right as "One" without using the awkward, available English phrase, "a plural Oneness". In the same way, I find that almost every scholar created horrible jargon by translation pisteuo as "belief" and "faith"! I almost never, ever, ever witness to people without using the better English word of TRUST. I tell people, "When you see belief or faith in the English Bible, say "trust" instead," and if I had a magic Bible wand... I never use the words faith or belief in witnessing, too confusing!

4) Again, RAMBAM who created the modern (if the Spanish Inquistion is "modern") Jewish articles of faith said, "Ha Shem erred choosing echad instead of yachid for G_d," and his further comments indicate he clearly understood the plural oneness of echad! He said "God used the wrong word (echad) to indicate a singular God (yachid) because he wanted to distinct the Jews from hated Rome. Maimonides is the man who also told Jews to wear kipahs, to show bravery in the face of the Spanish, and yet Paul said "men wearing head coverings is shameful" as per the then-standards. Judaism moved far more tightly toward monotheism under Rambam...

5) Growing up Jewish, the trinity is there in prayers and rituals. There are three matzos at Passover, the middle one is broken for us, striped and pierced, hidden in a white cloth, and found, for joy and gifts received. The middle matzo is the Son, the upper Matzo is Him above, the lower matzo is the Ruach below...

6) Yes, this issue comes into play when witnessing to Jews. I've never found it a stumbling block to suggest the triunity to Jews, who already know God has a Ruach Ha Kodesh (Spirit, the Holy). And as important, Jesus makes statements like "Unless you believe that I AM HE, you will be lost..."

Thanks, brother. Again, I'm open-minded here.
 

TravisW

New Member
I guess I view God as being present in all of the universe (thus God the Father/Mother), not necessarily a being the Sky. Other dimensional may be a good phrase for it.

Since the grandness of who God is transcends what we can comprehend in a 3 dimensional world with limited perspective, God takes our form (sends her Son), and forms himself in a physical way we can understand. Jesus a manifestation of love, so God the Father still present within him, but presented in a way for humans to more easily grasp.

Thus, at the ascension, I’d think it’d be similar to the transfiguration. Jesus returns, or rejoins, with the God. Since I don’t necessarily see God as a physical being, I’d view the verse “sitting at the right hand of God” metaphorically, because since I’d see God as expansive throughout the universe, there would be no throne or temple big enough to seat God.
 
Top