What is the Trinity?

[MJFlores]

That isn't the point. Whether the LORD, Jehovah or Yahweh is inserted, they are still representative (substitutes) of the divine name. Which means that those verses are referring to God himself.

Also, Jehovah is a transliteration. Other names that use the divine name as their basis are pronounced based on that. So when we say Jesus, we are using Jehovah as the basis, not YHWH. In the Greek the Christs name is actually Iesous. So if you have a problem with using Jehovah, then you shouldn't use the latinized names of the people in the New Testament.

It was not only latinized
It was Tetragrammaton
Its like it was ripped out from a scifi comic book
Or some weird cook book

We are not even sure if Jesus is even aware of the word Jehovah
or even his apostles

They way it was defined
Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and one of the seven names of God in Judaism.

It's like its mangled, sideways and thrown to the chip grinder.

 

[Samael_Khan]

John 20:25-29 New International Version (NIV)
So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas was surprised when he saw the risen Christ and inserted his fingers through his wounds.

View attachment 30907

Luke 24:36-43 New King James Version (NKJV)
Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.


As I have shown you previously
God is spirit
Jesus is not a spirit
Jesus has flesh and bones
Jesus even ate in the apostles presence
These proves Jesus is not God

I think your last couple of points hinge on other verse you and I are discussing. I would use Genesis 18 as refuting all of that at the moment.

Also my understanding that Jesus is an Avatar of God, that God dwelled in him, like he does with angels, would not have a problem with those points.

Also, if your view of the Logos leads to the conclusion that I am getting from it, then it seems that Jesus has the mind of God, making him mentally God but physically a man. Then whether he has God's body doesn't refute anything.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It was not only latinized
It was Tetragrammaton
Its like it was ripped out from a scifi comic book
Or some weird cook book

View attachment 30908

We are not even sure if Jesus is even aware of the word Jehovah
or even his apostles

They way it was defined
Jehovah (/dʒɪˈhoʊvə/) is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and one of the seven names of God in Judaism.

It's like its mangled, sideways and thrown to the chip grinder.

But that doesn't deal with Genesis 18 at all. It isn't something to brush aside. That would be ignoring the Bible.

The tetragrammaton is definitely in the Tanakh. It definitely represents God's personal name. Therefore someone being recognised as YHWH is definitely important whether someone can even pronounce it or not.

If Jesus was unaware of the Tetragrammaton, even though it played an integral part in the priestly service, then that would mean that they knew nothing of the old testament, did not worship the same God as Moses and were false followers of God.

 

[MJFlores]

But that doesn't deal with Genesis 18 at all. It isn't something to brush aside. That would be ignoring the Bible.

The tetragrammaton is definitely in the Tanakh. It definitely represents God's personal name. Therefore someone being recognised as YHWH is definitely important whether someone can even pronounce it or not.

If Jesus was unaware of the Tetragrammaton, even though it played an integral part in the priestly service, then that would mean that they knew nothing of the old testament, did not worship the same God as Moses and were false followers of God.

That I have to further research.
What I know is God is God
God is the Father
And when I pray I use God my Father

 

[Samael_Khan]

That I have to further research.
What I know is God is God
God is the Father
And when I pray I use God my Father

Thats cool. I look forward to your commentary on it.

 

[Muffled]

John 20:25-29 New International Version (NIV)
So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Thomas was surprised when he saw the risen Christ and inserted his fingers through his wounds.

View attachment 30907

Luke 24:36-43 New King James Version (NKJV)
Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.


As I have shown you previously
God is spirit
Jesus is not a spirit
Jesus has flesh and bones
Jesus even ate in the apostles presence
These proves Jesus is not God

I believe Jesus is flesh and the Spirit of God. So for essential purposes Jesus is not God but for identification purposes He is.

 

[JJ50]

I believe Jesus is flesh and the Spirit of God. So for essential purposes Jesus is not God but for identification purposes He is.

If it makes you happy to believe that, fair enough.

 

[Clear]

Maybe you should look harder at the evidence, but I'm happy to let you go.

Hi @robocop (actually)

@SA Huguenot and I are going the opposite directions, he away from LDS theology and I am going toward it, but perhaps for different reasons. Like M. Heiser, who was accused of being LDS because his doctoral thesis on the heavenly Counsel simply took him that direction (He's certainly NOT LDS) or like the great Jewish pseudoepigraphologist Charlesworth who found himself adopting historical principles that are parallels to LDS theology, my historical interests are simply "funnelling me" in the LDS direction specifically regarding the afterlife.

I LIKE the early Judeo-Christian beliefs and their models of the afterlife. I do NOT think any of the modern models are more rational or more logical than the earliest Christian interpretations in their literature.

For example, the the early Judeo-Christian base descriptions of varying reward based on the variety of lives lived and choices made and varying levels of knowledge given relieves the theology of the philosophical unfairness of the light-switch reward of heaven or hell based on somewhat arbitrary conditions. That is, one must simply do as well as they can with what they are given. It is fair and not arbitrary or capricious.

I like the re-adoption of the ancient historical model of Hades as a way station for all spirits awaiting resurrection and the cognisance of spirits in this world. I like the parallels of the LDS theology with the worldviews of the early christians described in their literature on this world of spirits. One can almost imagine Joseph Smith as having written the Gospel of Nicodemus or the diary of Perepetua and Felecity texts. I do not like the modern theories that have no discrete mechanism for causing nor fixing the arbitrariness of the distribution of Gospel knowledge (i.e. those theories that damn ancient individuals who have not accepted christ, nevermind the fact that they never heard of Jesus).

I like the parallels of LDS theology to the dead sea scroll era theology of Man having life as a tutoring experience which prepares those who choice moral knowledge to live a heavenly existence in harmony. I do not like the later theories where God places into the individual, a "new" personality that does not have prior faults, in this case it is not the original person being saved, but a different one.

While I grew up as a "sort of" methodist, moved to a more baptist theology in my teens, my interest in history is driving me in the LDS direction partly because it is so much like the early Judeo-Christian worldviews on the subject of the afterlife.

As for the claim that the LDS heaven is better than all others, "bar none", I think this is hyperbole. There are a lot of really good models of heaven. (I'm not claiming they are all correct, merely that some of them have complete joy and harmony and satisfaction - I don't know how one can beat that sort of model).

In any case, I wish you the best of spiritual journeys

Clear
ειφιακφυω

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hi @robocop (actually)

@SA Huguenot and I are going the opposite directions, he away from LDS theology and I am going toward it, but perhaps for different reasons. Like M. Heiser, who was accused of being LDS because his doctoral thesis on the heavenly Counsel simply took him that direction (He's certainly NOT LDS) or like the great Jewish pseudoepigraphologist Charlesworth who found himself adopting historical principles that are parallels to LDS theology, my historical interests are simply "funnelling me" in the LDS direction specifically regarding the afterlife.

I LIKE the early Judeo-Christian beliefs and their models of the afterlife. I do NOT think any of the modern models are more rational or more logical than the earliest Christian interpretations in their literature.

For example, the the early Judeo-Christian base descriptions of varying reward based on the variety of lives lived and choices made and varying levels of knowledge given relieves the theology of the philosophical unfairness of the light-switch reward of heaven or hell based on somewhat arbitrary conditions. That is, one must simply do as well as they can with what they are given. It is fair and not arbitrary or capricious.

I like the re-adoption of the ancient historical model of Hades as a way station for all spirits awaiting resurrection and the cognisance of spirits in this world. I like the parallels of the LDS theology with the worldviews of the early christians described in their literature on this world of spirits. One can almost imagine Joseph Smith as having written the Gospel of Nicodemus or the diary of Perepetua and Felecity texts. I do not like the modern theories that have no discrete mechanism for causing nor fixing the arbitrariness of the distribution of Gospel knowledge (i.e. those theories that damn ancient individuals who have not accepted christ, nevermind the fact that they never heard of Jesus).

I like the parallels of LDS theology to the dead sea scroll era theology of Man having life as a tutoring experience which prepares those who choice moral knowledge to live a heavenly existence in harmony. I do not like the later theories where God places into the individual, a "new" personality that does not have prior faults, in this case it is not the original person being saved, but a different one.

While I grew up as a "sort of" methodist, moved to a more baptist theology in my teens, my interest in history is driving me in the LDS direction partly because it is so much like the early Judeo-Christian worldviews on the subject of the afterlife.

As for the claim that the LDS heaven is better than all others, "bar none", I think this is hyperbole. There are a lot of really good models of heaven. (I'm not claiming they are all correct, merely that some of them have complete joy and harmony and satisfaction - I don't know how one can beat that sort of model).

In any case, I wish you the best of spiritual journeys

Clear
ειφιακφυω

Thanks Clear,

You can search LDS theology yourself; you are further in understanding it than me, at least in most things. I can try to help you if you want me too. If the LDS afterlife isn't the best, I would love to hear what sounds better.

 

[MJFlores]

Isaiah 40:28 New International Version (NIV)
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.

John 4:6 New International Version (NIV)
Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about noon.

Analysis:
The true God WILL NOT grow tired or weary
Jesus got tired
Therefore Jesus is NOT GOD

 

[Clear]

Thanks Clear,

You can search LDS theology yourself; you are further in understanding it than me, at least in most things. I can try to help you if you want me too. If the LDS afterlife isn't the best, I would love to hear what sounds better.

Hi @robocop (actually)

I was probably not as clear as I could have been. I LIKE the restorational movement. Any attempts to return to the earliest and most authentic form of Christianity is, I think, a GOOD thing.

From a HISTORICAL standpoint, I do not care whether we discover and re-adopt the early and most authentic version of christianity through a restoration via revelation (which, historically, the masses were generally unprepared to receive) or through the process of historical discovery (a slow and tedious process compared to revelation). So, whether through revelation or through a process historical discovery, I like the LDS process of attempting to restore and adopt early Christian base salvational principles.

While Revelation is much, much faster and more efficient, and more clear, the historians of early Christian sacred texts are moving in the LDS direction regarding pre-existence of spirits, mortality as a temporary tutoring, and the afterlife with Hades as a way-station of cognisant spirits awaiting resurrection and, as the dead sea scrolls tell us, man being taken from his present state, and, having learned social and moral laws, is ultimately able to be prepared to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy and unity forever. 4Q181 Fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls says "Corresponding to the compassion of God, according to His goodness, and the wonder of his Glory, He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones…"

I was not trying to be negative regarding the comment of "hyperbole" but any model which possesses "eternal happiness" and "harmony" and "unity" is a wonderful prospect and one situation of "absolute unity" does not seem "better" than another "absolute unity".

Regarding the government of heavens : While multiple models place the righteous and wise as directors and rulers of others (this is actually a pretty good model that would solve a lot of the ills of mortality if our leaders here were morally good and wise....), it may not be that the government of others will be the main source of joy, but instead, the social interaction that is characterized by eternal harmony, and joy, and social relationships, without sickness and mortal weaknesses and the expectation that all of these blessings will continue eternally.

I hope your spiritual journey is good in this life. Discovery of the restorational movement has been an absolutely amazing and wonderful discovery for me.
Clear
ειφυειακω

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hi @robocop (actually)

I was probably not as clear as I could have been. I LIKE the restorational movement. Any attempts to return to the earliest and most authentic form of Christianity is, I think, a GOOD thing.

From a HISTORICAL standpoint, I do not care whether we discover and re-adopt the early and most authentic version of christianity through a restoration via revelation (which, historically, the masses were generally unprepared to receive) or through the process of historical discovery (a slow and tedious process compared to revelation). So, whether through revelation or through a process historical discovery, I like the LDS process of attempting to restore and adopt early Christian base salvational principles.

While Revelation is much, much faster and more efficient, and more clear, the historians of early Christian sacred texts are moving in the LDS direction regarding pre-existence of spirits, mortality as a temporary tutoring, and the afterlife with Hades as a way-station of cognisant spirits awaiting resurrection and, as the dead sea scrolls tell us, man being taken from his present state, and, having learned social and moral laws, is ultimately able to be prepared to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy and unity forever. 4Q181 Fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls says "Corresponding to the compassion of God, according to His goodness, and the wonder of his Glory, He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones…"

I was not trying to be negative regarding the comment of "hyperbole" but any model which possesses "eternal happiness" and "harmony" and "unity" is a wonderful prospect and one situation of "absolute unity" does not seem "better" than another "absolute unity".

Regarding the government of heavens : While multiple models place the righteous and wise as directors and rulers of others (this is actually a pretty good model that would solve a lot of the ills of mortality if our leaders here were morally good and wise....), it may not be that the government of others will be the main source of joy, but instead, the social interaction that is characterized by eternal harmony, and joy, and social relationships, without sickness and mortal weaknesses and the expectation that all of these blessings will continue eternally.

I hope your spiritual journey is good in this life. Discovery of the restorational movement has been an absolutely amazing and wonderful discovery for me.
Clear
ειφυειακω

I'm so happy for you. Have you taken any steps like reading the Book of Mormon, talking to missionaries, or attending Church?

 

[Clear]

@robocop (actually)

I have done all of these things. However, these points are separate issues to historical data and historical context of our discussion.

HENOTHEISM AS IT EXISTS IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE SEEMS MOST LOGICAL AND RATIONAL TO ME
I like the LDS base models the best of all Judeo-Christian theological models I am aware of. When I first met the LDS missionaries, I do not think they were educated in the early historical literature and did not realize that their trinity was the early henothieistic model (the model that I think is most rational, logical and historically coherent). Henotheism is characterized as a type of monotheism where there are multiple beings who have the epithet "God" applied to them. However, This is a model where there is only ONE God, over all other beings in heaven or on earth. ONE being who has all authority and who directs all other beings, but none who direct him. ONE being who delegates all tasks but none are delegated to him. ONE being who has the highest honor and highest respect of all other beings. etc.

The basic elements of henotheism allows for a model of a "godhead" or "God" that is made up of a trinity of completely separate beings (thus satisfying the basic model for non-trinitarians) yet explains the echad or "one-ness" of these three to individuals who have similar characteristics to escape the taint of "polytheism" (a model having multiple Gods having equal power). Such a model would also make the seemingly incongruent textual references quoted by trinitiarians and non-trinitarians more congruent and rational. It allows for both the divinity of Jesus as a God, while having a Father who is also a God, yet it retains the heirachy of knowledge, power, and authority that is present in the New Testament Text (i.e. Jesus as a servant of the one who sent him into the world).

I think this model was partly what was so bothersome about the 4Q Dead Sea Scrolls for the Jews. It speaks so regularly of the many "God-like" beings that these texts which initially were "the greatest religious discovery of our time" became relegated to a level of abandonment by the Jews (Zeitlin suggested they were a Christian hoax). I think that, as the increasing data continues to accumulate from the early Judeo-Christian documents, the model can be better elaborated, but it is, I think, the most coherent and rational historical model that best negotiates the various scriptures that indicate a trinity versus those scriptures that indicate the separate nature of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit. As I said, I think the Henotheistic model best explains the early Christian trinity and best fits the early Judeo-Christian literature and their interpretations that they, themselves give us.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good @robocop (actually)

Clear
ειφυδρνεω

 

[robocop (actually)]

@robocop (actually)

I have done all of these things.

In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is good @robocop (actually)

Clear
ειφυδρνεω

Best of luck on your spiritual journey too; I'm sorry I don't know as much about this stuff either. Maybe there is a LDS on here who does.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Thanks Clear,

You can search LDS theology yourself; you are further in understanding it than me, at least in most things. I can try to help you if you want me too. If the LDS afterlife isn't the best, I would love to hear what sounds better.

And whilst you are at it, go and read what J Smith tried to tell everyone on how there came Jews to America, and they had cattle, sheep, horses, wheels, steel, and much more figments of his immagination that was proven totally false.
Then ask yourself, can you believe this gunslinger treasure hunter on his stories?

 

[robocop (actually)]

And whilst you are at it, go and read what J Smith tried to tell everyone on how there came Jews to America, and they had cattle, sheep, horses, wheels, steel, and much more figments of his immagination that was proven totally false.
Then ask yourself, can you believe this gunslinger treasure hunter on his stories?

Ha ha there is so much evidence... I don't have any doubt at all.

 

[JJ50]

Ha ha there is so much evidence... I don't have any doubt at all.

Well produce it then.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Well produce it then.

Don't care to be interrogated for my religion.

 

[JJ50]

Don't care to be interrogated for my religion.

So why post on this forum then?

 

[robocop (actually)]

So why post on this forum then?

Because there are plenty of other things to do on it then be interrogated for my whole Church.