Heavenly Mother

[pogi]

No. Jehovah's Witnesses subscribe to the Arian heresy. LDS adhere to a Tritheistic model. Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Orthodox, Coptic, Reformed all believe in a Triune God.

I still hold that none of us agree on a clear definition of who and what God is as you claim is so clearly written in the bible. Even within the LDS faith we cannot all agree on who or what he is. I am sure all faiths have the same dilemmas and discussions.

In fact your concept of the trinity was a matter of much controversy in the early church for good reason - it is not clearly stated in the Bible but is a definition and creed created by man.

[ERayR]

The Bible has clearly defined who and what God is. That is good enough for me.

There is obviously some disagreement as to the interpretation of what the Bible says. I am trying to get you to describe God from your interpretation. The only definition you have given is this one: "For me, God is not created or an exalted being. He has been God from eternity to eternity. Because God is love (1 John), He created humans because without an object to love and be loved by then love would not exist" You first say what God isn't then you come with a platitude. about God being love. This gives one of his attributes but doesn't tell who he is. What do you think the Bible clearly defines? Until we can understand this we will only talk past each other.

[ERayR]

You're conflating the numeric and unity understandings of one.

No it is your interpretation of God that is doing the conflating.

[Darren10]

But when scripture says ONE GOD and reaffirms it, there isn't an allusion to other gods as part of some pantheon. I have to reject such notions because I don't see Biblical evidence for it.

You are so incorrect on that. The following weblink I think you'll like since its intent is to be anti anti-trinitarian. Although the jehovah's Witnesses are singled out, its home page has links to anti-Mormon propaganda so mayby you'll like that as well. I think it's the typical tripe garbage you can find anywhere aganst Mormonism but I digress. Back to the weblink. Initially I was confused when I first stumbled upon searching the meaning of "one" in biblical Hebrew a few years ago. The weblink made so much sense so i did not understand why there was a tone of critique for those who reject trinitarianism. Then after reading its final argument I realized that the reasoning behind its arguments is that the usage of yachid and echad and their equivalent Greek counterparts, monos and hen can only be consolidated within a trinitarian belief structure. I could not disagree more so here goes.

Linking to Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad, we read that the hebrew word yachid means "one". Also the Hebrew word echad means "one". But only yachid means exclusively a numeric one. Counter that with echad which can mean a numeric one but can also mean a oness of unity. When Adam and Eve were to be of one flesh the were echad. Obviously they are two different beings so their being one is that of unity. Same goes for man and woman in marriage today. We can also include ther children as one (echad) family. Sports teams can be one (echad) which fully recognizes each individual as a separate being but that they all have one goal or purpose in mind. In each of these cases it would be incorrect to describe their oness as yachid for that would mean that there is only one being in a marriag, famil, or sports team (assuming said sports team necessitates more than one person).

Its application to scripture is profound as far as trinitarianism is concerned. Before getting into the terms for "one", let's look at each of the scriptures you cited earlier to declare the existence of only one numeric being known as God to worship. This'll come directly from your #164 post.

Deuteronomy 4: 35(-)39:

³⁵ To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord Himself is God; there is none other besides Him. ³⁶ Out of heaven He let you hear His voice, that He might instruct you; on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words out of the midst of the fire. ³⁷ And because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them; and He brought you out of Egypt with His Presence, with His mighty power, ³⁸ driving out from before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land as an inheritance, as it is this day. ³⁹ Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Isaiah 43:10 (I'll add 11):

“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord,

“And My servant whom I have chosen,

That you may know and believe Me,

And understand that I am He.

Before Me there was no God formed,

Nor shall there be after Me.

¹¹ I, even I, am the Lord,

And besides Me there is no savior.

Isaiah 44:6-8:

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,

And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

‘I am the First and I am the Last;

Besides Me there is no God.

⁷ And who can proclaim as I do?

Then let him declare it and set it in order for Me,

Since I appointed the ancient people.

And the things that are coming and shall come,

Let them show these to them.

⁸ Do not fear, nor be afraid;

Have I not told you from that time, and declared it?

You are My witnesses.

Is there a God besides Me?

Indeed there is no other Rock;

I know not one.’”

Psalm 90:2:

Before the mountains were brought forth,

Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,

Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

John 8:58:

⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 1:1 (I'll add 2&3):

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 14-16:

I'm not going to cite all those verses here but I think the main idea you want to share is that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father and that through Jesus Christ, the "helper", ergo; the Holy spirit will be left to guide man.

Let's look at all these citations and think of Jesus Christ. Doing that in and of itself will show clearly that this does not cotradict LDS theology nor its position against trinitarianism and the monotheism which is dictated to man via the trinitarian formulae.

Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world and there is none other. "And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent." (Mosiah 13:17). Therefore Deiteronomy is correct in that besides the Lord (YHWH / Jehovah / Jesus Christ) there is no Savior. Also, there is no other God for Israel to worship for only YHWH, who is pre-mortal Jesus in LDS theology, is the only way to the Father (the old Testament Elohim in LDS theology). Now, the part of Deuteronomy, "that the Lord Himself is God" is properly read as "YHWH is elohim" or rather "Jesus is the Father" and even though considered two distinct beings, that is fully compatible to LDS theology. In Mosiah 15 starting at verse 3 we read, "3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people."

For a few distinct reasons, Jesus can very much be called the Father in LDS theology. Here it is because of the unique manner of His conception. We also see fhow the entire godhead is called "one God" in these verses. And besodes Jesus Christ, there is no other Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ or YHWH or Jehovah is his own distinct being and none else has His role in the eternities.

The LDS also consider Jesus as the alpha and Omega as he himself declared in thew Book of Mormon. Mormons do consider Jesus as being with the Father "in the beginning" and carried out the work of the creation. He will also be there on the final judgement day. Also, all will acknowledge him in the eternities as the Savior and all will be subject to him who is subject to the Father.

This answers Isaiah and Psalms and John 8. let's look into John 1:1. Via Jeff Linsay I learned that the passage and subsequent verses I added can be read along the lines of in the beginning was the word and the word was with the God and the Word was God being with the god in the beginnig. you should notice the inclusion of the article 'the". It's very precise and distinct and makes the passage in greek sound as if there are two different beings being spoken about. One is God but the other is "the God". See for yourself in the Greek.

Now to verse 3. Notice the preposition "through". It is not "by" Jesus Christ that all things were made but "through" Him. What power flowed *through* Him to create all things? In LDS theology it's simple, it was the power of the Father. Now, you may absolutely say that all things were made 'by" Him but the appropriate inclusion of "through" connotes that He was not alone in the creation. In fact, below is Ephisians 3:9:

[And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

John 14-16 is compatible with a nontrinitarian view of the Godhead. The LDS absolutely believe that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. In fact, as shown above, that is one reason why the Son may be called "the Father" despite He being a separate and distinct being from the Father. And the holy Spirit testifies of both of them.

Here come part II of my reply...

[Calm]

That is not the same. Jacob was condemning the belief and worship of other gods (pagan or otherwise) by Israel. There is no reason to suggest that Jacob believed in some eternal lineage. That would be presumptuous.

Do you think that Jacob thought of this gods as creations of man's imagination or actually existed, but were not to be worshipped as God or gods?

[Calm]

And we do not worship other Gods, just acknowledge the possible existence of others...we would need their names to worship them.

And a commandment from God to worship them.

[Sky]

But the Trinity is apprehendable. Scripture proclaims one God and makes clear who and what God is. The creeds reaffirm what scripture says.

How can the Trinity be both "apprehendable" and "incomprehensible" at the same time? Don't those words mean two different things? Or maybe I'm just not grasping what you're saying. Those are rather confusing words to try to help me better understand the Trinity. In my opinion, the LDS interpretation is far superior and easier to understand and compatible with what the Bible says.

Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one person, or three?

[Damien the Leper]

And we do not worship other Gods, just acknowledge the possible existence of others...we would need their names to worship them.

Kinda like how pagans recognized that other pagans God's existed? Interesting.

[Calm]

Kinda like how pagans recognized that other pagans God's existed? Interesting.

Pagans generally recognized other gods actually existing. We are waiting on God to tell us if they do or don't.

[Damien the Leper]

Are you sure that you are not confusing the numeric and unity understandings of one? We are commanded to be one AS they are one.

In fact Paul went as far as to say: "So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another"(Romans 12:5).

Numerically speaking we are one body in Christ. Hmmm... I can see why you guys are so confused!

No. I'm not confused. I can recognize the difference between what I have cited and what you have used to back me into a corner. It won't work.

[Damien the Leper]

There is obviously some disagreement as to the interpretation of what the Bible says. I am trying to get you to describe God from your interpretation. The only definition you have given is this one: "For me, God is not created or an exalted being. He has been God from eternity to eternity. Because God is love (1 John), He created humans because without an object to love and be loved by then love would not exist" You first say what God isn't then you come with a platitude. about God being love. This gives one of his attributes but doesn't tell who he is. What do you think the Bible clearly defines? Until we can understand this we will only talk past each other.

Then perhaps you can show me, Biblically, how you define God.

[Damien the Leper]

No it is your interpretation of God that is doing the conflating.

No. When scripture says ONE God, it obviously means one God. The citation used from Romans, as used earlier, does not male use of the word one in the same way.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Valentinus

[pogi]

No. When scripture says ONE God, it obviously means one God. The citation used from Romans, as used earlier, does not male use of the word one in the same way.

Romans used the numeric sense of the word "one" just like your scripture. How is that different?

Edited January 4, 2013 by pogi

[Darren10]

Let's now look at the usage of "one' n the Bible.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 2:24-26

Look for yourself as here "one" is declared "echad" in Hebrew. There is no obligation to conclude that a man and a woman together make one numeric being. Notice that there are four beings mentioned: father, mother, man, woman and the latter two are to become one. Echad is used for the obvious reason that man and woman do not become one numerically when they wed together; nor when they have children together as father and mother did in order to have man and woman.

Deuteronomy 6:4 says:

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

In order to make sure one understands that this means that the Lord is only one numeric being, than "yachid", or even "bad" should be used. But it is not. It is echad. This leaves the interpretation wide open to conclude that the lord is unified and of course with whome? Christians understand this to being a oness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus' great declaration that He and the Father are one stirred up the wrath of monotheists in John 10. Verse 30 says, "I and my Father are one". Here the monotheists understood Jesus ain what is perhaps the only way they could: that Jesus adeclared that He and the Father are one numeric being. But in the Greek "one" is written as "hen", not "mono". Thus Jesus was saying He is unified with the Father; not one person with the Father of the same being.

There is never an instance which God declares His oness of the godhead using strictly numeric one terminology therefore the only reson so many people read "one" in the Bible strictly meaning numerically one is because of post biblical creed,s not the Bible itself.

[ERayR]

Then perhaps you can show me, Biblically, how you define God.

You have your understanding of the LDS concept. I want to get a working definition from you so that we don't talk past each other.

[Damien the Leper]

Do you think that Jacob thought of this gods as creations of man's imagination or actually existed, but were not to be worshipped as God or gods?

I don't see evidence of Jacob being henotheistic or monolatrous. I equate his situation to that of Moses and the golden calf.

[Damien the Leper]

Pagans generally recognized other gods actually existing. We are waiting on God to tell us if they do or don't.

No disrespect, but enjoy the wait.

[Sky]

No. When scripture says ONE God, it obviously means one God. The citation used from Romans, as used earlier, does not male use of the word one in the same way.

Earlier in the thread, you said that Heavenly Mother is real and that we should pray to her. Now you are reminding us that the Bible says that there is one God. So does that mean I should pray to Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Father? Is Heavenly Mother the One God referred to in the Bible? Where does that leave the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The scriptures say that we must always pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.

[Damien the Leper]

How can the Trinity be both "apprehendable" and "incomprehensible" at the same time? Don't those words mean two different things? Or maybe I'm just not grasping what you're saying. Those are rather confusing words to try to help me better understand the Trinity. In my opinion, the LDS interpretation is far superior and easier to understand and compatible with what the Bible says.

Are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one person, or three?

One God in three persons and not three beings in one God(head).

[Darren10]

Earlier in the thread, you said that Heavenly Mother is real and that we should pray to her. Now you are reminding us that the Bible says that there is one God. So does that mean I should pray to Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Father? Is Heavenly Mother the One God referred to in the Bible? Where does that leave the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The scriptures say that we must always pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.

Now that's simple and brilliant!!!

[Darren10]

One God in three persons and not three beings in one God(head).

Yet the "Godhead" *is* mentioned in the Bible while there is *ZERO* mentioning of "One God in three persons".

[pogi]

Earlier in the thread, you said that Heavenly Mother is real and that we should pray to her. Now you are reminding us that the Bible says that there is one God. So does that mean I should pray to Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Father? Is Heavenly Mother the One God referred to in the Bible? Where does that leave the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The scriptures say that we must always pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.

I think that Valentius has authored a new creed called the quadrinity, being composed of the Father, Mother, Son, and Holy Ghost.

[Damien the Leper]

Romans used the numeric sense of the word "one" just like your scripture. How is that different?

Please read what you have quoted. I said that they DO NOT make use of the word ONE in the same way. How did you not get that from my post?

[ERayR]

One God in three persons and not three beings in one God(head).

This appears to me to be a distinction without a difference.

[Darren10]

Valentinus;

I think at the core of all this is that you are rebelious in nature. You like to rebel against whatever the norm is. (Assuming you were LDS which I think I recall you one time saying you were) Mormonism didn't work out for you so you went to Atheism. Atheism didn't work out for you so you return to Christianity though you can't return to mormonism so you go trinitarian. I don't think you have a firm belief in anything other than to rebel and to cause trouble.

Sky nailed you big time in #243 and I think that stands as strong evidence that you're just causing a roukus, not declaring anything you firmly believe in.