246 replies to this topic

[Vance]

jmordecai, on 23 December 2010 - 04:27 PM, said:

Your presupposition forces you to inject a condition into the text that isn't there.

By your logic, if I stated "I am a father and a son", you find nothing there to require that I am one being.

It is YOUR presupposition that forces YOU to inject a condition into the text that isn't there.  What ever happened to "sola scriptura"?

Are you presupposing that this specific use of "one" also must mean one being"?
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
  22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

So you are presupposing that these verses MUST BE read as,
"That they all may be one BEING; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one BEING in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
  22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one BEING, even as we are one BEING:"

Edited by Vance, 23 December 2010 - 05:49 PM.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 23 December 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Even Joseph Smith addressed Jehovah as Heavenly Father in the dedication as seen in D&C 109.

Although true, that is irrelevant with regard to my statement about the Bible.

[ElfLord]

My understanding of the word/Title YHWH is that it was the Cannanite word equivalent of our English word Lord.  Thus it is translated in our KJV as LORD.

Quote

Yahweh (Hebrew: ?????, YHWH - the unvocalised YHWH is the only form that appeared in Hebrew before 800 CE, and Yahweh is a modern "best guess" scholarly convention), also Yahu, is a god in ancient Semitic religion and notably the god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible.

Modern Biblical scholars, using source criticism, find different treatments of Yahweh in the four distinct, major sources that were redacted into the Torah.[1] For example, in the Jahwist source (which was written c 950 BCE[2]), Yahweh is anthropomorphic, visits people, and use the name Yahweh prior to Exodus 3.[3] In the Elohist source (c 850 BCE[4]), Yahweh is typically referred to as Elohim, and he appears more impersonal (for example, speaking through dreams and angels rather than appearing in person).[5] In the the Deuteronomist source (c 650–651 BCE[4]), Yahweh is particularly concerned with whether Judah’s kings were good or bad and with centralized temple worship.[6] The Priestly source (c 550–400[4]) portrays Yahweh as acting through the Aaronid priesthood and temple-based sacrificial system.[7]

See... what MAK and others have been saying ALL along is true.  4 or 5 different sources where conflated the two into 1 God!

Quote

The history of the emergence of Israelite monotheism and Yahweh worship has been the subject of scholarly study since at least the 19th century and Julius Wellhausen'’s Prolegomena to the History of Israel; in the 20th century the formative work was William F. Albright's Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), which insisted on the essential otherness of Yahweh from the Canaanite gods from the very beginning of Israel's history. However, scholars of the Ancient Near East have since seen Yahweh worship as emerging from a West Semitic and Canaanite background,[8][9] a later, more gradual phenomenon than has been assumed.[10] Worship of Yahweh alone is a central idea of historical Judaism.[11] Much of Christianity views Jesus as the human incarnation of Yahweh[12], for details see Names of God in Christianity. The importance of the divine name and the character of the “one true God” revealed as Yahweh are often contrasted with the significantly different character of rival deities known by different names in the traditional polytheistic religions.[13] Some scholars, including William G. Dever, have asserted that the Asherah was worshipped as a consort of Yahweh, until the 6th century BCE, when strict monolatry of Yahweh became prevalent in the wake of the destruction of the first temple.[14][15] However, the consort hypothesis has been subject to debate with numerous scholars publishing disagreement.[16]

Nephi and his Asherah anybody!!!!!

Quote

One theory is that Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh in the intertestamental period, replacing it with the common noun Elohim, “god”, to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel's God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered, and was replaced in spoken ritual by the word Adonai (“My Lord”), or with haShem (“the Name”) in everyday speech[17], see Names of God in Judaism for details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

Edited by ElfLord, 23 December 2010 - 05:37 PM.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 23 December 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

It appears that the Book of Mormon teaches that Christ is the Only God all and all.


2 Nephi 11:

It also teaches that He is the Mediator.  Neither of which requires God to be one being or God, the Father and His Son Jesus Christ being one being.  "One"ness doesn't require oneness of being.  Unity of wills can be and is "one"ness.  Unity of purpose can be and is "one"ness.

NOTHING presented so far requires "one"ness of being.

Was Jesus teaching "one"ness of being here,

Matt. 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
  33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

How about here,
Matt. 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

or here,
Matt. 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

or here,
Matt. 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
      •  •  •
  19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father.

Is that enough, or do I need to provide more?

What would the average person take from those statements?

Edited by Vance, 23 December 2010 - 05:38 PM.

[TAO]

Hick Preacher, on 23 December 2010 - 04:58 PM, said:

The personal name of Jehovah is mentioned only once in the Book of Mormon, in the Book of Moroni.

No, I need a reference that Jehovah is solely his name.

[TAO]

Hick Preacher, on 23 December 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:

It appears that the Book of Mormon teaches that Christ is the Only God all and all.

This is because Heavenly Father wouldn't be God if he didn't bring to past the immortality and eternal life of man.  He can't do this without a person with the title Christ.

The Book of Mormon doesn't teach that Christ is the only God, you can see this in 3 Nephi 18:27.  Also in this verse, Christ has received commandments of the Father.

Edited by TAO, 23 December 2010 - 05:40 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

ElfLord, on 23 December 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

My understanding of the word/Title YHWH is that it was the Cannanite word equivalent of our English word Lord.  Thus it is translated in our KJV as LORD.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

The name of the thunder God 'Baal' or in other forms  like 'Bel' to very early Israel due to Canaanite/Hebrew syncretism often became confused and used as  the Title for "Lord".

This Lord idea was compounded in turn doubly confused with Elohim YHWH (wind God) due to the roles of Baal (Thunder) and Yahwah (Wind) and others of the Canaanite pantheon. This was partly because the term of  Elohim in those ancient days was associated with the wind, and wind with a Spirit.
https://sites.google...-wind-of-elohim

By around 400 BC  Jehovah was uniquely identified as the personal name of Israel's only God.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO, on 23 December 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

This is because Heavenly Father wouldn't be God if he didn't bring to past the immortality and eternal life of man.  He can't do this without a person with the title Christ.

The Book of Mormon doesn't teach that Christ is the only God, you can see this in 3 Nephi 18:27.  Also in this verse, Christ has received commandments of the Father.

Interesting comment TAO

[jmordecai]

Quote

Vance--

The Bible isn't inerrant. The Bible isn't univocal.

It's evident you are arguing for the sake of arguing, as you apply no consistent methodology. You want to dismiss all of the verses and BoM,JST texts that plainly state there is only one God, and that Christ is both the Father and the Son, by citing verses such as John 17:21 as the controlling entity over all. By doing so violates your position that the Bible isn't univocal, thus no single verse speaks for another. You can't have it both ways.

Quote

Vance--
Are you presupposing that this specific use of "one" also must mean one being"?

I don't presuppose any definition on the nature of God. I accept the text for what is says. Christ emphasized that proper understanding of who God is, is the foremost commandment:

One of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.
Mark 12:28-29, cf. Deut. 6:4

YHWY our Elohim is one YHWY.

That's it. One Jehovah is our Elohim. That One Jehovah manifests Himself to us, whether in the flesh, called the Son, or by the Spirit, called the Holy Spirit doesn't allow me to tinker with the foremost commandment and develop constructs that permit more than one Jehovah/Elohim on the basis of mankind's reasoning that a being (I prefer manifestation) requires separate distinct entities.

Edited by jmordecai, 24 December 2010 - 10:38 AM.

[jmordecai]

Quote

Tao-
Yes, God came down and redeemed his people. Jesus is a God after all.

Jesus is God. That you read into the text that Jesus is a distinct and separate God presumes what you need to prove.

Quote

No, not called the Son. Called the Son of God. Because he was the one to dwell in the flesh. And then the second part of the verse. He subjects the flesh to the will of the Father. Therefore, identifying too [sic] people - the one who is in the flesh subjecting it to the will of the other.

V.2 never identifies two people. You presume that the will of the Father is a separate person, but the end of verse 2 (along with the next three verses) clearly identify that God, who came down and dwelt in the flesh, is both the Father and the Son.

     v.2 ... being the Father and Son
     v.3 ... thus becoming the Father and Son
     v.4 ... they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father
     v.5 ... being one God.

Quote

Correct, verse 5, God is a title. If I did the things a God did, I could be called a God.

Agreed, God is a title of Deity.

I've yet to meet anyone who can do the things God does (outside of the historical records of Christ). So this assertion is erroneous, straying from the topic.

Quote

As said, 'the very Eternal Father' is a title. Please read verse 4. The Father because he was conceived by God. Are you saying God is conceiving himself, that seems rather awkward.

The Spirit conceiving flesh, yes.

Quote

The wills of the Father and Son are different. That speaks of different individuals does it not?

Likewise, the Son is a title, for the flesh. So the flesh is subordinate to the Spirit.

See v.5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father

The text gives the label the Son to the flesh (i.e. God comes down and dwelleth in the flesh). Likewise the text gives the label the Father to the Spirit. And concludes being one God.

One God, manifest in the Spirit is "the Father", manifest in the flesh is "the Son".

Quote

The wills of the Father and Son are different. That speaks of different individuals does it not?

We possess a complexity of wills. Does your heart ever want to do something your mind rejects, or vice-versa? Does your flesh desire that chocolate cake but your mind knows better? How many individuals are you?

[TAO]

jmordecai, on 24 December 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

It's evident you are arguing for the sake of arguing, as you apply no consistent methodology. You want to dismiss all of the verses and BoM,JST texts that plainly state there is only one God, and that Christ is both the Father and the Son, by citing verses such as John 17:21 as the controlling entity over all. By doing so violates your position that the Bible isn't univocal, thus no single verse speaks for another. You can't have it both ways.

Jmordecai, you are ignoring the fact that 'God' may be a title, and perhaps even, a position in the priesthood.

I have shown you in several scriptures where it clearly shows the identity of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father as seperate, furthermore, I could also use the Book of Abraham/Moses to show the same thing.  Neither would be God without the other, and yet, they are not the same substance, nor are they the same being.

Quote

I don't presuppose any definition on the nature of God. I accept the text for what is says. Christ emphasized that proper understanding of who God is, is the foremost commandment:

Matthew 26:39 - And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O  my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless  not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Why would he be asking himself if they were the same being?  Why would he if they were the same individual.  Indeed - he wouldn't.  They are separate spirits, and separate beings, working together, and by working together, co-cooperatively share the title of God.

Quote

One of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.
Mark 12:28-29, cf. Deut. 6:4

Read Moses 7:18 - And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Quote

YHWY our Elohim is one YHWY.

You are confusing what is a title, and what is not.

Quote

That's it. One Jehovah is our Elohim. That One Jehovah manifests Himself to us, whether in the flesh, called the Son, or by the Spirit, called the Holy Spirit doesn't allow me to tinker with the foremost commandment and develop constructs that permit more than one Jehovah/Elohim on the basis of mankind's reasoning that a being (I prefer manifestation) requires separate distinct entities.

Abraham 4:1 - And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Bolding and underlining by me.

So no, you are not correct.

[TAO]

jmordecai, on 24 December 2010 - 11:08 AM, said:

Jesus is God. That you read into the text that Jesus is a distinct and separate God presumes what you need to prove.

Ok, let's take a look at John 17:21 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

If we can be one as HF and Jesus Christ are, and we are separate individuals, that sorta points that they are separate individuals too, does it not?

Quote

V.2 never identifies two people. You presume that the will of the Father is a separate person, but the end of verse 2 (along with the next three verses) clearly identify that God, who came down and dwelt in the flesh, is both the Father and the Son.

v.2 ... being the Father and Son
v.3 ... thus becoming the Father and Son
v.4 ... they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father
v.5 ... being one God.

As I said, you presume that the Father and Son aren't titles.  And since multiple people can have the same title, that point is moot.

Quote

Agreed, God is a title of Deity.

No, God is the title of some form of diety.  There's a difference.

Quote

I've yet to meet anyone who can do the things God does (outside of the historical records of Christ). So this assertion is erroneous, straying from the topic.

Read D&C 132:19+20 - And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.  Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Quote

The Spirit conceiving flesh, yes.

That seems like an awkward way to do things.  I don't believe it was such a way.

Quote

Likewise, the Son is a title, for the flesh. So the flesh is subordinate to the Spirit.

And yet, the wills are different, and so, that means they are separate individuals, separate spirits.  Intelligence is the ability to have a will, and thus, they must have separate intelligences in their spirit bodies.

Quote

See v.5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father

The flesh did, but not the will at that point.  The wills were separate - and you have yet to show me why the will of the Father and the will of the Son were separate; that is, why they thought differently.

Quote

The text gives the label the Son to the flesh (i.e. God comes down and dwelleth in the flesh). Likewise the text gives the label the Father to the Spirit. And concludes being one God.

One God, manifest in the Spirit is "the Father", manifest in the flesh is "the Son".

As said, you have yet to show me why the Father and Son thought differently aka had different wills at that precise moment.  If you cannot show me why, than you cannot conclude they are the same being.  Furthermore, your combined God would have to have two bodies, you know that, right?

Quote

We possess a complexity of wills.

At the same precise moment?  CFR.

Quote

Does your heart ever want to do something your mind rejects, or vice-versa?

Yes, but that isn't a separation of wills.  Only one is will, the other is desire, or temptation.

Quote

Does your flesh desire that chocolate cake but your mind knows better? How many individuals are you?

As said, desire is not a will.  It is not intelligence.

Read Matthew 26:41 - Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

The spirit is what has the will, the flesh is what has temptation.  Temptation is not a will though.

Edited by TAO, 24 December 2010 - 11:45 AM.

[jmordecai]

TAO, on 24 December 2010 - 11:08 AM, said:

Jmordecai, you are ignoring the fact that 'God' may be a title, and perhaps even, a position in the priesthood.

I don't start with LDS preconceptions and work them into the biblical texts, so yes, I am ignoring that perhaps God is a position in the modern LDS priesthood.

Quote

I have shown you in several scriptures where it clearly shows the identity of Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father as seperate.

Yes, but those manifestations cannot violate the Shema. You are applying your own humanistic reasoning that separate wills and manifestations require separate distinct entities. That may be true with humans, but you have no basis to apply it to One Jehovah.

Christ walked on water, rose from the dead after three days, possibly walked through walls, was transfigured, etc... but somehow that Christ, God manifest in the flesh, subordinates his will to God, the Father, is not possible. Because we can't understand it doesn't permit us to violate the Shema.

Quote

I could also use the Book of Abraham/Moses to show the same thing.

Citing these is not helpful to non-Mormons. Especially the Book of Abraham.

Quote

You are confusing what is a title, and what is not.

Please explain here what is the title and what is not.

YHWY our Elohim is one YHWY

Quote

Abraham 4:1 - And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Bolding and underlining by me.

So no, you are not correct.

Again, citing the Book of Abraham is not helpful.

[TAO]

jmordecai, on 24 December 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

I don't start with LDS preconceptions and work them into the biblical texts, so yes, I am ignoring that perhaps God is a position in the modern LDS priesthood.

Well than don't quote the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price then.  If you don't accept all the texts brought forth by modern day revelation, which is where the LDS preconceptions come from, then you shouldn't quote from them.

Quote

Yes, but those manifestations cannot violate the Shema. You are applying your own humanistic reasoning that separate wills and manifestations require separate distinct entities. That may be true with humans, but you have no basis to apply it to One Jehovah.

Christ walked on water, rose from the dead after three days, possibly walked through walls, was transfigured, etc... but somehow that Christ, God manifest in the flesh, subordinates his will to God, the Father, is not possible. Because we can't understand it doesn't permit us to violate the Shema.

Sorry, I have NO clue what Shema is =P.  All I know is that Christ's will, and the Father's will were different at a precise moment, and that temptation cannot be considered a will.

Quote

Citing these is not helpful to non-Mormons. Especially the Book of Abraham.

I assumed you were Mormon because you were citing the Book of Mormon.  If your not, you shouldn't be citing it, because then I WILL bring up the Book of Abraham.

Quote

Please explain here what is the title and what is not.

YHWY our Elohim is one YHWY

They are all titles.  See the D&C 132 verse.

Quote

Again, citing the Book of Abraham is not helpful.

Your not LDS?  If your not, I guess I don't have to worry about those challenging clarifications I would have to make if you were...

Edited by TAO, 24 December 2010 - 11:51 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have a few minutes, and seeing that you refuse to go educate yourself on the topic, I will provide you with a crash course on John 1:1.

• The word theos ("God") in John 1:1c is a predicate nominative noun (i.e., it gives a further identification or description of the subject, in this case ho logos, "the Word"). The word theos in 1:1c is anarthrous, meaning that it does not have the article ("the") in front of it. However, this grammatical fact is semantically of no significance; that is, it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word theos. This is easily demonstrable. The anarthrous theos (in different cases, specifically, theou, genitive; theon, accusative) occurs elsewhere in the immediate context of the Johannine Prologue four other times and always means "God": "sent from God," "children of God," and "from God" (theou, 1:6, 12, 13); "no one has ever seen God" (theon, 1:18). Case also has nothing to do with the semantics of the word. Specifically, John routinely uses the nominative theos to mean "God" (John 3:2, 16, 17, 33, 34; 4:24; etc.). If John 1:1c is an exception, it is the only such exception in John's writings.
• The singular noun theos (in all cases) occurs 80 times in the Gospel of John, and virtually all translations uniformly translate it as "God" in all 80 occurrences. A minority of translations vary from this uniform practice only in John 1:1c (and a few also do in John 10:33, again to avoid Jesus being called God). A theological agenda, not sound exegetical reasoning, is the basis for this departure from the otherwise uniform translation of the singular theos.
• The specific grammatical situation of theos in John 1:1c is that it is an anarthrous predicate nominative noun preceding the linking (or "copula") verb, in this case the verb "was" (Greek, en). There are 21 occurrences of an anarthrous theos (before, after, or without a linking verb) in the NT (Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 1:1c, 18b; 8:54; Rom. 8:33; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; 2 Cor. 1:21; 5:5, 19; 6:16; Gal. 6:7; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:5; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 3:4; 11:16; Rev. 21:7). In all 21 of these occurrences, translators uniformly render theos as "God" with that minority exception for John 1:1c. Three of these are anarthrous predicate nominatives preceding the verb, just as in John 1:1c (Luke 20:38; Phil. 2:13; Heb. 11:16).
• John, the same author who wrote John 1:1, climaxes his Gospel with Thomas's confession of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Here "my God" is articular, not anarthrous (ho theos mou, "the God of me"), proving once again that John does not distinguish semantically between articular and anarthrous uses of theos. John 20:28 proves that we should take theos in 1:1c in its usual, regular sense in Scripture, as denoting God.

Much more could be said, but this is enough to lay to rest your ignorant claim that I have no counterargument to the rendering "a god" in John 1:1s.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 24 December 2010 - 05:19 PM.

[LeSellers]

TAO, on 24 December 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

I have NO clue what Shema is

"Shema" is a passage from the Old Testament.

Deut 6:4 said:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Most people reading it do not understand it, and many use it erroneously to "prove" the apostate doctrine of the Trinity.

It does not say that there is only one God, as we have seen proposed here. It says that Jehovah, who is the God of Israel, is one Jehovah. We might better read it as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone”*, which is a denunciation or a rejection of polytheism, not an evidence of the Trinity.

* This is from Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, not an LDS source.

The word "shema" is Hebrew for "hear", the opening word of Moses' statement. In the days before the modern invention of chapters and verses, Jews and Christians used the first word or phrase of a passage to identify it. Thus, "the Shema" is just a way of telling people what you're talking about when you refer to this passage.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 24 December 2010 - 01:36 PM.

[jmordecai]

Quote

TAO
Well than don't quote the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price then. If you don't accept all the texts brought forth by modern day revelation, which is where the LDS preconceptions come from, then you shouldn't quote from them.

Tao,

I do not consider proprietary LDS scripture to be "modern day revelation", that's an assumption LDS need to prove. I quote the Book of Mormon (1830) and the JST (1830-1833) on matters of deity as they reflect Joseph Smith's Trinitarian/pre-polytheistic thinking. Besides, Joseph Smith tried selling the Book of Mormon copyright, so I have no conflict in quoting it.

As for the Shema, I agree with LeSeller's statement above in which he said, ... [the Shema] is a denunciation or a rejection of polytheism...

It's that simple. When Jesus Christ came along, we don't get to make him another separate distinct god, in violation of the Shema, on the basis of our own humanistic reasoning. Understanding the complexity of God is a mystery:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh...
1 Tim 3:16

[Zakuska]

jmordecai, on 27 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Tao,

I do not consider proprietary LDS scripture to be "modern day revelation", that's an assumption LDS need to prove. I quote the Book of Mormon (1830) and the JST (1830-1833) on matters of deity as they reflect Joseph Smith's Trinitarian/pre-polytheistic thinking. Besides, Joseph Smith tried selling the Book of Mormon copyright, so I have no conflict in quoting it.

As for the Shema, I agree with LeSeller's statement above in which he said, ... [the Shema] is a denunciation or a rejection of polytheism...

It's that simple. When Jesus Christ came along, we don't get to make him another separate distinct god, in violation of the Shema, on the basis of our own humanistic reasoning. Understanding the complexity of God is a mystery:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh...
1 Tim 3:16

jmordecai... are you even reading the same thread I am. The verse you just quoted doesn't say what you think it does. Hick Preacher quoted the verse earlier and it seems you missed the response.  Here it is again for you:

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208956225

Quote

Hick Preacher, on 23 December 2010 - 01:55 PM, said:

Yes, this is consistent with ideas represented by the Trinity. But The Trinity is of a different era attempting to communicate the same idea in different terms to a different audience.


Seeing Hebrew idea of God's Transcendence  and understanding this idea of transcendence of the Highest God is a key clue as to why the Trinity was formulated in the way it was formulated in a later era- to a different civilization and culture.

In the Hebrew representation, a transcendent God in Judges Ch 6, is portrayed as speaking from on High down to Earth as one Person (to Gideon). Yet, at the same time and place being present as the Angel of YHWH speaking horizontally to Gideon and referring to God(YHWH)on High while still being tangible being(YHWH) standing upon Earth.   This is consistent with the most basic and critical ideas about the Oneness of the Father and the Son found in the Catholic Trinity.


No wonder then why Paul wrote- I Tim 3


.

You do realise that 1 Tim 3:16 is a verse that has been altered, but probably not intentionally.

Quote

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: Who was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory

Read more how here.
http://www.bible-res...xandrinus4.html

"Reproduced below is the text of 1 Timothy 3:16–4:3 from Codex A, as presented in the photographic facsimile volume published by the British Museum in 1879. Of particular interest here is the reading in 3:16, where it may be seen that the manuscript reads ?C "God was manifested in the flesh," employing the usual abbreviation ?C for ?EOC, with a stroke over the letters to indicate an abbreviation. However, textual critics believe that the ink in the center of the ? and the stroke above were added by a corrector in modern times. Reasons for this belief are the color of the ink, and the fact that a "dot" has been placed in the ? instead of a line. Tregelles writes, "The ink in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application" (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, London, 1854). Without these marks, the manuscript originally read ?C "He who was manifested in the flesh." In the photograph below the ?C in 3:16 is circled. Further down, in verse 4:3, there is another ?C circled for comparison. Click on the circled areas for a larger view."

So your verse doesn't say anything about the divinity of Jesus.

Edited by Zakuska, 27 December 2010 - 04:28 PM.

[jmordecai]

Zakuska, on 27 December 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

So your verse doesn't say anything about the divinity of Jesus.

It doesn't? Have you read the whole verse?

Who was proclaimed among the Gentiles?

Who was "taken up" in glory?

[mfbukowski]

Vance, on 10 December 2010 - 06:04 PM, said:

Yet are some how capable of doing things worthy if INfinite punishment.  How can that be? Could it be the INJUSTICE of the so called just "orthodox" God?....


Is "reproduction" self-contradictory or nonsense?

No it isn't.  Yet the orthodox so called "omnipotent" God is impotent.

Not too shabby!

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 06:12 PM.