Another EV dichotomy problem.

[TAO]

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.

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.

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.

YHWY our Elohim is one YHWY.

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

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]

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?

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.

Agreed, God is a title of Deity.

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

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

[jmordecai]

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[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.

[LeSellers]

I have NO clue what Shema is

"Shema" is a passage from the Old Testament.

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

[jmordecai]

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]

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

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.

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

[jmordecai]

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]

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!

[mfbukowski]

Even the Roman Catholics think so-- the 'Same/One Substance' phrase in more current versions read "one being".

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

Whatever that is supposed to mean. Call it substance or being it is all just jibberish.

In fact it is what Nietzsche correctly pointed out as what he called a "virtus dormitiva" which you can google if you like.

When you can't explain something, you dream up a vague new word for why it works. Why do sleeping pills work? "Because they have the faculty of producing sleep".

Of course, here the word "faculty" explains nothing! It is mumbo-jumbo!

Why is the Trinity one? Because they are one in "being"! They have a "nature" of being one

Same thing! No one can define "being" properly, but it sounds good.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[TAO]

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.

Lol jmordecai, as said, if you are going to accept any of it, you must accept all of it, or else you are drawing an arbitrary line in between where he is right and wrong. Do you accept his revelation, in addition to the changes he made (which were accurate due to the fact he was the one who did the translation in the first place)? Or do you deny it all. You can' t have it one way or another. Are you going to quote the things Joseph Smith translated (and in that case, I will too) or are you not going too (in which case, I'll just use the Bible to show you what I mean).

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.

Call for Proof that it violates the Shema to think that God and Jesus Christ, two separate beings with separate souls, share the title of God together?

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

And yet, it so says in 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.

Great is the mystery of godliness - and yet, as it says here, separate individuals may become one, that they can.

[mfbukowski]

And yet, it so says in 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.

Great is the mystery of godliness - and yet, as it says here, separate individuals may become one, that they can.

Precisely.

They become one in purpose and in love, just as the Godhead is unified as one, and just as we can be unified with them as shown in this verse.

Just as a family can be "one", they are one and we can be with them. This is also evident when Paul teaches that we are to be "one flesh" with our wives, as the Savior is one with the church.

Clearly we are not to be one in "being"- whatever that is, with our wives and the church. And yet we have the admonition to be "one" as Jesus is one with the church.

This is the way the Godhead is one and how we can be unified with them. The family is the perfect example. When we speak of the "Godhead" or "God" we are speaking of a family- it is a collective noun in a sense- just as if we were saying "You Bukowskis are one on this issue", or we could single out a particular "Bukowski" and speak of that one individually.

I think of the term "God" as a family name. Makes a lot more sense than "one being", which says precisely nothing.

And what is the purpose of this family? "Bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

In other words, "raising the kids"! (us)

[TAO]

I think of the term "God" as a family name. Makes a lot more sense than "one being", which says precisely nothing.

Hmmm... I think this might be good to look at in another thread in the future... it'd be interesting to think about what being one as he is will truly be like (I'm not married yet) =).

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm... I think this might be good to look at in another thread in the future... it'd be interesting to think about what being one as he is will truly be like (I'm not married yet) =).

Well I wish I thought this up, but I didn't. It is a trend of theological thought called "Social Trinitarianism" which for my money really expresses the LDS view well- though it is not formulated by LDS- except perhaps Dr. Peterson who I think is headed in that direction.

You might want to google it. Here's another cool word to check out: perichoresis. Excellent ideas for carrying LDS theology forward imo.

Incidentally, these areas are also good ways to express possible areas of unity with Creedal Christians- many Creedals are picking up on these ideas which are quite close to ours!

The Lord is at work in the world!

[mfbukowski]

Here, this is a start on what I am talking about:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/#PerMonSocTri

3.4 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

Stephen T. Davis (1999, 2003, 2006) constructs a social trinitarian theory which in his view bridges or straddles the social-Latin divide. Like Swinburne, he gives a philosophical argument for there being more than one divine person. God must be perfect in love, which requires that he loves another. But it is possible that only God exists. Either social trinitarianism is true, or

[Vance]

I can see why Bowman was reluctant to provide his counter argument. Rather than counter is seems more to affirm.

I will respond to his "points" as I have time.

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.

How wonderful Bowman is to condescend to actually provide a "counter" argument.

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").

Exactly!!!

A predicate nominative noun describes the subject. As in

[Vance]

Not too shabby!

Thank you sir.

And it still hasn't been refuted. Or should I say "refudiated"?

[Vance]

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.

That isn't a counter argument. I don't dismiss those verses at all. I am just explaining to you that they don't mean all that you are trying to impose upon them.

You have yet to show where I am wrong. All you have to do is supply one little teeny tiny verse that clearly and plainly states that God, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are the same being.

I won't hold my breath.

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.

Well, just show me how the "one"ness of John 17:21 doesn't apply to the "one"ness of God. And feel free to ignore any reference to "one"ness outside of John.

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, isin 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

WOW!!!! Talk about missing it.

Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Luke 10:25

[Vance]

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.

And when is the definite article "ho"/"the" (or other similar modifiers) in the context and when is it not?

For example in John 1:1b, and 2 "ho theo"/"the god" is specifically separated from "ho logos"/"the word" by the use of the word "pros"/"toward"

According to Strong's, the word "pros" is used 726 times, of those it is translated, "unto" 340 times, "to" 203 times, "with" 43 times, "for" 25 times, "against" 24 times, "among" 20 times, "at" 11 times, not tr 6, misc 53, vr to 1

Do any of those indicate anything but a distinct separation of entities?

[jmordecai]

TAO

Lol jmordecai, as said, if you are going to accept any of it, you must accept all of it, or else you are drawing an arbitrary line in between where he is right and wrong. Do you accept his revelation, in addition to the changes he made (which were accurate due to the fact he was the one who did the translation in the first place)? Or do you deny it all. You can' t have it one way or another. Are you going to quote the things Joseph Smith translated (and in that case, I will too) or are you not going too (in which case, I'll just use the Bible to show you what I mean).

Reread my statement, I don't regard any proprietary LDS scriptures as authoritative. Your insistence that I accept or deny all of Joseph Smith's statements is illogical. If Joseph Smith said 2+2=4 and I agree with it doesn't mean that I have to accept all he says or else deny that 2+2=4.

Furthermore, what constitutes LDS scripture has evolved over the years. Past prophets considered the Journal of Discourses part of the Standard Works. The Lectures of Faith were LDS canon for 86 years, and removed in from the D&C in 1921. The D&C has suffered numerous edits, additions and omissions.

Call for Proof that it violates the Shema to think that God and Jesus Christ, two separate beings with separate souls, share the title of God together?

The Shema is just that: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah.

I don't have to prove your assumptions. Besides, your question skirts the bigger theological issue pertaining to polytheism

[mfbukowski]

Thank you sir.

And it still hasn't been refuted. Or should I say "refudiated"?

Nobody's touched the eternal punishment for a created creature argument. I agree it's not exactly "fair" to say the least.

"OK- here's the good news! You have eternal life now! Here's the bad- you get to spend it in hell!!"

And all for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ because you were born in China in 3000 BC?

Sounds a tad shaky to me.

[jmordecai]

You have yet to show where I am wrong. All you have to do is supply one little teeny tiny verse that clearly and plainly states that God, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are the same being.

I don't have to refute your red herring.

Since the overwhelming majority who read the biblical scriptures come away with the notion that there is only One God manifest in Three Persons

[jmordecai]

duplicate