Another EV dichotomy problem.

[Vance]

Are you your wife? Is she you?

Apparently in the trinitarian mind we is. Or is it, I are.

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

[Hick Preacher]

Still waiting for the verse that says that the Father and the Son are one being.

Saying that They are one doesn't do it. I and my wife are one. Paul and Apollos are one (see 1 Cor 3:4-8 ). "We being many are one", (see Rom 12:5, 1 Cor 10:17 & 12:12)

Vance, See my above post-----The New Testament teaches that Jesus' Father was Jehovah, and we all know that Jesus too is Jehovah.

On top it this there are Old Testament teaching where the Angel of the Lord was called YHWH, and said to be YHWH by YHWH's voice from Heaven. Like from Judges 6.

[Hick Preacher]

This is because Christ takes on the responsibilities of the Father. They are still not one being.

Hello TAO, please see my post above concerning Psalm 2:7 and Jesus being Jehovah and Jesus' Father being Jehovah too.

[jmordecai]

This is because Christ takes on the responsibilities of the Father. They are still not one being.

You left out verse 1, which states: God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

Then in context, verse 2, God manifest in the flesh shall be "called" the Son. The son is a label of God as flesh.

In verse 5, the flesh (son) subject to the Spirit (father)... or the son to the Father, being one God.

The passage states that Christ is the very Eternal Father for which the flesh is subjected to the Spirit.

[Vance]

Vance, See my above post-----The New Testament teaches that Jesus' Father was Jehovah, and we all know that Jesus too is Jehovah.

The Biblical use of "Jehovah" is inconsistent. The Bible isn't inerrant. The Bible isn't univocal.

On top it this there are Old Testament teaching where the Angel of the Lord was called YHWH, and said to be YHWH by YHWH's voice from Heaven. Like from Judges 6.

See above.

[TAO]

Hello TAO, please see my post above concerning Psalm 2:7 and Jesus being Jehovah and Jesus' Father being Jehovah too.

Yes, Jehovah is a title - it refers to who has what responsibilities. If I did some of the things Jehovah does, I could be called it too.

[jmordecai]

Ah, yes, in what way is He the Father and in what way is He the Son. Nothing there requires Jesus and God, the Father to be one being.

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.

[jmordecai]

The Biblical use of "Jehovah" is inconsistent. The Bible isn't inerrant. The Bible isn't univocal.

Good thing we have the JST.

[Vance]

Jesus Christ is the Mediator.

mediator

MEDIA'TOR, n. One that interposes between parties at variance for the purpose of reconciling them.

To be the Mediator, Christ MUST be a separate party (being) from God, the Father.

1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

To us, Jesus, although separate from God, the Father, IS God, the Father, because He represents God, the Father, to us.

[TAO]

You left out verse 1, which states: God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

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

Then in context, verse 2, God manifest in the flesh shall be "called" the Son. The son is a label of God as flesh.

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 people - the one who is in the flesh subjecting it to the will of the other.

In verse 5, the flesh (son) subject to the Spirit (father)... or the son to the Father, being one God.

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

The passage states that Christ is the very Eternal Father for which the flesh is subjected to the Spirit.

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.

Please read verse 7 as well.

Yea, even so he shall be led, ^acrucified, and slain, the ^bflesh becoming subject even unto death, the ^cwill of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.

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

Then read verse 8.

And thus God breaketh the ^abands of death, having gained the ^bvictory over death; giving the Son power to make ^cintercession for the children of men

[Hick Preacher]

Yes, Jehovah is a title - it refers to who has what responsibilities. If I did some of the things Jehovah does, I could be called it too.

TAO I like your kitty cat avatar.

The scriptures say that Jehovah is a personal name.

Ps 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Why do you think it is only a title?

[Hick Preacher]

The Biblical use of "Jehovah" is inconsistent. The Bible isn't inerrant. The Bible isn't univocal.

See above.

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

[TAO]

TAO I like your kitty cat avatar.

Thanks =^..^=

The scriptures say that Jehovah is a personal name.

I need a reference in the terms of 'personal'.

Why do you think it is only a title?

The Mosiah verse I pointed out.

[Hick Preacher]

Thanks =^..^=

I need a reference in the terms of 'personal'.

The Mosiah verse I pointed out.

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

[Hick Preacher]

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

2 Nephi 11:

7For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

[Vance]

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:"

[Vance]

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.

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

[Vance]

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.

[TAO]

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]

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.

[Hick Preacher]

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.com/site/yahwehelohiym/the-creation/the-wind-of-elohim

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

[Hick Preacher]

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]

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.

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.

[jmordecai]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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?