What's Up With The Trinity

[Darren10]

Logan Alexander #51;

Always, always, always the Johannine comma (5:7- . Please let us put that to rest. No one thinks that this verse should be in the bible, and it was definitely not around when the early church was talking about the trinity. Why does everybody think that if they point out the johannine comma then all trinitarian theology falls? Can I also point out that it hasn't been in a protestant bible in the last 30 years? Its funny because LDS quads keep the Johannine comma in there! This is a little odd. Enough with the straw men - please. John 10:30 is not where I am going to go first for trinitarian theology. It is places like 2 Corinthians 3:17, Philippians 2:9-11, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (see Deut 6:4), John 1:1, Romans 9:5, Acts 5:3-5, John 1:18, Matthew 28:19, Isaiah 44:6-8, and many more.

The main issue of citing this verse, as cited by FAIR, is that the bible was tampered with in order to support the post biblical creeds of the Holy Trinity. You yourself admit that it should not be there and that Protestants have removed it. This is no small deal. this reflects the LDS notion that the historic concepts of the Holy Trinity were manufactured and inserted back into biblical teachings.

As for John 1:1 (since you dissected that specific passage) clearly this does support historic Trinitarian beliefs but does it not also fit within the LDS mold of the Godhead?

[Darren10]

Logan Alexander;

In regards to just how baffled you are over the Mormons viewing Jehovah as Jesus and Elohim as the Father when, according to your arguments, the bible is clear that Jehovah is the name, not title, for God, I'd like to ask the following: If your premesis is completely true then why was the name of the Father given to Jesus and only the Apostles were taught it?

From John 17:

 

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

(snip)

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

(snip)

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

(These passages first came to light for my in William Hamblin's essay, "“I Have Revealed Your Name”: The Hidden Temple in John 17" (http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/i-have-revealed-your-name-the-hidden-temple-in-john-17/)

In other words, if all Isreal knew the name of God (YHWH) and we cannot distinguish YHWH being one person and Elohim another person, then why if all Isreal knew the name of God, the Father revealed His name only to Jesus and from Jesus to just 12 others

Edited July 15, 2014 by Darren10

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Logan Alexander post #22;

 

MONOtheism is at issue here. When does the Bible, Old Testament / New testament ever use "mono" to describe the ones of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? You may answer that using the Greek or Hebrew texts. What I am seeking for is when does the Bible ever use the term "one" in a strict numeric sense to describe the ones of the three divine persons?

Follow up question: in what context does the Bible use "one" in an explicit numeric sense to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It is my proposition that Mormonism is biblical monotheism whereas Trinitarian monotheism, as per the Trinitarian creeds, are of the worldly / philosophical understanding of monotheism.

The Jews were not Monotheists. That is  revised construct ans scholarship is very clear that there are multiple Gods that the Jews acknowledged. There is also considerable scholarship that the bible was tampered with to make it appear to be monotheistic.

[Darren10]

The Jews were not Monotheists. That is  revised construct ans scholarship is very clear that there are multiple Gods that the Jews acknowledged. There is also considerable scholarship that the bible was tampered with to make it appear to be monotheistic.

And I agree. I think it's important to point out whem the Bible uses the term one in an explicit numeric sense when preaching the nature of the Godhead. Simply put, it doesn't. Not in Hebrew, nor in the Greek. Since the main focus on thils thread is God's monotheistic nature, then when does the Bible, soecifically in the Greek, use the word "mono" when teaching about God. I purport that boblical monotheism is something wjich declares the supremecy of the Father wilthin the Godhead and thus of all things. Numeric monotheism. Which historic trinitarianism claims, is whay worldly philosophies say believers should be. Truly there are indeed m any gods / divine beings but there is the one true God to worship. That one true God is the Father and we mortals do it with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[Bowtiemenace]

mfbukowski: It does destroy the Kalam argument, which is that there can be no infinite series, since there are infinite series and physics trumps metaphysics (you can prove anything with logic, the data is what matters.) I think we apparently have very differing epidemiological viewpoints. I'm far more an empiricist. If Aquinas relied on faith, that's fine. I'm just giving you two very good arguments for an infinite number of Gods. You can ignore that, or not. There's no evidence that the Universe came from nothing. I think given the immensity of the Universe and the multi-verse it is more rational to believe it goes on infinitely. (Especially since infinities exist.)

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram: Yes, thanks for backing me up on the ancient Judaism things with many Gods. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram: Yes, thanks for backing me up on the ancient Judaism things with many Gods. 

It's not just me. Maklelan, has done quite a bit discussion on this in the OT. I think he make many valid and compelling points. Particularly how there was a push in the past (during certain reforms) to make that OT look monotheistic.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62682-psalm-82-and-the-canaanite-divine-assembly/?hl=maklelan#entry1209338768 Post 9 is his post.

 

 

You can just do a search for his phonetically spelled last name. He has lots of great posts.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Bowtiemenace]

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[Ran]

There's no evidence that the Universe came from nothing.

 

 

None of the cosmological arguments for God that I'm familiar with make the claim that the universe came from nothing.

Atheists like Lawrence Krauss use that language, however.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski: It does destroy the Kalam argument, which is that there can be no infinite series, since there are infinite series and physics trumps metaphysics (you can prove anything with logic, the data is what matters.) I think we apparently have very differing epidemiological viewpoints. I'm far more an empiricist. If Aquinas relied on faith, that's fine. I'm just giving you two very good arguments for an infinite number of Gods. You can ignore that, or not. There's no evidence that the Universe came from nothing. I think given the immensity of the Universe and the multi-verse it is more rational to believe it goes on infinitely. (Especially since infinities exist.)

 

Mola Ram Suda Ram: Yes, thanks for backing me up on the ancient Judaism things with many Gods. 

It seems you do not have a background in philosophy, good for you.

 

If you tell me who's epistemology seems "most right" it might facilitate a discussion.

 

Physics does not trump metaphysics- they typically are not even discussing the same issues, though as I have said, metaphysics gives me hives.

 

Data has nothing to do with religion.

 

 If it helps, my positions are closest to William James, Wittgenstein, and Rorty, with a big dose of Dewey thrown in

[Bowtiemenace]

Yes... Aquinas first cause thing. God caused the Universe from Nothing. Creation ex nihlo. Big in the christian mindset...

 

Wow, we seriously disagree here. Yes, religion does have to do with data. If religion tells one way the Universe was created and science another. They are in conflict. Data has everything to do with it.

 

 

Physics does not trump metaphysics- they typically are not even discussing the same issues, though as I have said, metaphysics gives me hives.

When they are though, it does. Which has been more successful. Science, which is a philosophy for finding truth, or philosophy, which is logic. Who gave you your computer?

 

 

 If it helps, my positions are closest to William James, Wittgenstein, and Rorty, with a big dose of Dewey thrown in

Wow, I hate William James. We have some big differences.

[ksfisher]

 

 

Wow, we seriously disagree here. Yes, religion does have to do with data. If religion tells one way the Universe was created and science another. They are in conflict. Data has everything to do with it.

 

I think that mfbukowski is right here, data has nothing to do with religion.  Religion deals in faith.  If a prophet tells us that God created the universe we have faith that the prophet is correct.  Just as we have faith that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and that he translated the Book of Mormon.  There is now way for us to know these things, we have faith.  We have faith that through the atonement of Christ we can we can be forgiven for our sins and return to the Father, no amount of data can prove that.  While I very much believe in science, science can't prove to me that I'm loved by God, but I have faith that he does.

Edited July 16, 2014 by ksfisher

[Bowtiemenace]

Another thing Bukowski. Big Bang theory is not saying the Universe came from nothing. Its saying that it came from nothingness. There's a different. Atheists say we don't know where it came from. Evangelicals have faith that it came from nothing, caused by God. I'm saying either way it doesn't matter, because there's an infinite regress of Gods according to logic.

[mfbukowski]

Yes... Aquinas first cause thing. God caused the Universe from Nothing. Creation ex nihlo. Big in the christian mindset...

 

Wow, we seriously disagree here. Yes, religion does have to do with data. If religion tells one way the Universe was created and science another. They are in conflict. Data has everything to do with it.

When they are though, it does. Which has been more successful. Science, which is a philosophy for finding truth, or philosophy, which is logic. Who gave you your computer?

Wow, I hate William James. We have some big differences.

If you have something substantive which refutes these points, we have a basis for conversation.  Otherwise, I wish you well on your journey.  So far you haven't given me anything to discuss beyond hating William James.

 

Apologies to all who have had to gaze at Rorty's wonderful countenance again. 

 

Rorty of course was an atheist, so it is telling that he understood there was no conflict between science and religion.  Science can no more prove God than disprove Him, and I think you are in intellectual trouble if you think there is data which proves God's existence, or anything like it.

[mfbukowski]

Another thing Bukowski. Big Bang theory is not saying the Universe came from nothing. Its saying that it came from nothingness. There's a different. Atheists say we don't know where it came from. Evangelicals have faith that it came from nothing, caused by God. I'm saying either way it doesn't matter, because there's an infinite regress of Gods according to logic.

Mr. Spock has nothing to do with this.  He is famous for creating statements out of thin air and saying "logic dictates....." which supposedly makes the argument invincible.

 

"Logic" is nothing but the rules by which our minds create reality, and is more like the rules of grammar than anything else.

 

LOGIC says nothing whatsoever about "infinite regress of Gods"- there are no propositions showing the assumptions of that statement.  Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Start with ambiguous silliness, and you end up with more ambiguous silliness.

 

I cannot even imagine what "nothingness" means since me thinking about it makes it observable and therefore NOT "nothingness".  It includes me looking at nothingness which means it is not nothingness at all, but some idea in my mind.  And one that doesn't make much sense and is of no value whatsoever.  I can imagine all kinds of weird valueless things, but that does not make my life better.

Edited July 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think that mfbukowski is right here, data has nothing to do with religion.  Religion deals in faith.  If a prophet tells us that God created the universe we have faith that the prophet is correct.  Just as we have faith that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and that he translated the Book of Mormon.  There is now way for us to know these things, we have faith.  We have faith that through the atonement of Christ we can we can be forgiven for our sins and return to the Father, no amount of data can prove that.  While I very much believe in science, science can't prove to me that I'm loved by God, but I have faith that he does.

I'd like to see the scientific data to prove that one man, by dying, can take upon himself the sins of the world.

 

Good luck with that one.

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

If you have something substantive which refutes these points, we have a basis for conversation.

You just don't like my video. (Although you won't even critique it.)

 

 

Science can no more prove God than disprove Him

Not true at all. Science can give us huge hints as to how probable the concept is, as I just argued.

 

 

LOGIC says nothing whatsoever about "infinite regress of Gods

Yes it does. I just demonstrated that logically.

 

 

I cannot even imagine what "nothingness" means since me thinking about it makes it observable and therefore NOT "nothingness".  It includes me looking at nothingness which means it is not nothingness at all, but some idea in my mind.  And one that doesn't make much sense and is of no value whatsoever.

Ok. So start reading some stuff in theoretical physics. There's also the thought among atheists that it has come from nothing. But it wasn't God. Either way works really. Solid math behind numerous of those theories.

 

 

I can imagine all kinds of weird valueless things, but that does not make my life better.I'd like to see the scientific data to prove that one man, by dying, can take upon himself the sins of the world.

That's why I hate William James. I'm not a religious pragmatist, I'm a truth seeker.

 

 

I'd like to see the scientific data to prove that one man, by dying, can take upon himself the sins of the world.

I don't have the data, and I never claimed to. I never claimed that science could prove everything about religion, or could prove anything with absolute certainty. 

 

Until you have a more substantive refutation, don't devalue my arguments. I clearly just demonstrated that a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge exists and that there have been an infinite number of those beings, as long as there is an infinite multi-verse.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Bowtiemenace

[mfbukowski]

You just don't like my video. (Although you won't even critique it.)

Not true at all. Science can give us huge hints as to how probable the concept is, as I just argued.

Yes it does. I just demonstrated that logically.

Ok. So start reading some stuff in theoretical physics. There's also the thought among atheists that it has come from nothing. But it wasn't God. Either way works really. Solid math behind numerous of those theories.

That's why I hate William James. I'm not a religious pragmatist, I'm a truth seeker.

I don't have the data, and I never claimed to. I never claimed that science could prove everything about religion, or could prove anything with absolute certainty. 

 

Until you have a more substantive refutation, don't devalue my arguments. I clearly just demonstrated that a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge exists and that there have been an infinite number of those beings, as long as there is an infinite multi-verse.

Ostler quotes James all the time and other process theologians.

 

You are a truth seeker without a definition for truth.  It is not correspondence to alleged "data".

 

My video refutes your video so neener neener.

 

I wish you well.

[mfbukowski]

It's so much fun to run into someone even more arrogant than me!

[mfbukowski]

You just don't like my video. (Although you won't even critique it.)

Not true at all. Science can give us huge hints as to how probable the concept is, as I just argued.

Yes it does. I just demonstrated that logically.

Ok. So start reading some stuff in theoretical physics. There's also the thought among atheists that it has come from nothing. But it wasn't God. Either way works really. Solid math behind numerous of those theories.

That's why I hate William James. I'm not a religious pragmatist, I'm a truth seeker.

I don't have the data, and I never claimed to. I never claimed that science could prove everything about religion, or could prove anything with absolute certainty. 

 

Until you have a more substantive refutation, don't devalue my arguments. I clearly just demonstrated that a being of maximum, all, or infinite knowledge exists and that there have been an infinite number of those beings, as long as there is an infinite multi-verse.

Google mysticism and physics to see how language is inadequate to explain either.

 

If it cannot be spoken, how could it lead to true propositions?

 

Is light a wave or particle?  Yes or no, no equivocation.

 

It depends, doesn't it?  

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-boy-of-physics-extreme-physics-special/

Edited July 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That's why I hate William James. I'm not a religious pragmatist, I'm a truth seeker.

Bowtie- incidentally William James is the basis for process theology and Ostler is a process theologian.

 

Hate James, gotta hate Ostler as well.  Both have the same epistemology.

 

Process Philosophy found its most fertile ground and active development in 20th century North America. American philosophers Samuel Alexander, George Herbert Mead, John Dewey, C.S. Peirce, William James, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Hartshorne, and others continue this tradition.

Peirce’s philosophy is process-oriented in several respects. He defines truth as the unattainable goal of a never-ending process of inquiry. Likewise, Peirce’s semiology indicates that the meaning of signs is always triangulated between an object, its sign, and the infinite series of “interpretants” or subjective impressions made by the sign upon human knowers. Thus, Peirce correlates meaning with an ongoing and indeterminate historical process interpretation. Finally, Peirce was a staunch anti-determinist and advocated tychism, the belief that the operations of the natural world were not fixed and regular, but exhibit considerable spontaneity.

James is considered a process philosopher for several reasons. He stresses that true empiricism requires that we acknowledge the continuous flow of experience (the “blooming buzzing confusion”) as our primary datum rather than individual and discrete physical objects. Also, James was a strong proponent of libertarianism (the belief in genuinely free choice, not the political ideology) and argued that determinism was not a genuine candidate for belief. James also advocated a metaphysics of “pure experience” late in his career, which puts forth the hypothesis that both mind and matter are manifestations of a more primary experiential “stuff.”

Dewey exhibited process themes in his philosophy of education and epistemology. First, Dewey’s philosophy of education criticized the rote memorization of facts, and advocated the development of critical thinking faculties and problem solving abilities, thus shifting the emphasis from the accumulation of static propositions to building capacities for appropriating new insight. Likewise, Dewey’s epistemology of transaction argues that no belief should be considered final, as human knowledge is in a constant state of revision and development. Likewise, the naming of objects is always tentative and human knowing cannot be divorced from its temporal context.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/processp/

See that last sentence?  It means that language is always culturally based, which is highly relevant for "translations" from 3500 years ago

 

Ostler presents three different approaches to theodicy (explanation of why God allows evils) based upon three very different views of God's relation to the natural universe in Mormon thought—a naturalistic theodicy, a process theodicy and a Plan of Atonement theodicy. Ostler has also published a short volume relying on continental philosophers in the existential tradition Martin Buber and Søren Kierkegaard.

Ostler accepts the Book of Mormon as an actual historical account, but as edited and expanded in light of Joseph Smith's vocabulary and capacity for expression within his world view. He argues that it is a modern expansion of an ancient document.^%5B3%5D Because Ostler adopts the Expansion Theory, he affirms that the Book of Mormon was translated through the gift of God and reflects a revelation of the content of an ancient source though we have access only to its modern translation.^%5B4%5D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Ostler Edited July 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

You are a truth seeker without a definition for truth. 

"Once you get a definition of truth let me know".

[mfbukowski]

"Once you get a definition of truth let me know".

If it works for a given purpose, we call it true.

It's true enough to work as a model until some better interpretation or data forces us to change the model.

 

Copernicus vs Ptolemy.

[Bowtiemenace]

 

 

Science can no more prove God than disprove Him, and I think you are in intellectual trouble if you think there is data which proves God's existence, or anything like it.

Science can't prove or disprove anything. The flying spaghetti monster could live on the dark side of the moon, be invisible, undetectable, and kill small children in the night. I don't know. But if science discovers something (lets say huge numbers of alien species,) then God is more plausible. If it can allow us to create Urim and Thummims (Google Glass) the Joseph Smith story is more plausible. Of course there is potentially data, which can come close to proving Gods existence. There also is data. If there wasn't, the concept of God would be as reasonable as the Spaghetti monster I just mentioned. 

 

 

"Logic" is nothing but the rules by which our minds create reality, and is more like the rules of grammar than anything else.

Not really. Logic comes from, through observation and experience, and it is a set of rules that never fails, given that data is correct, logical fallacy is not employed, and the correct modes of logic are employed. Deduction is always right, induction is usually right, etc. Do you know about Lojban?

 

If it works for a given purpose, we call it true.

It's true enough to work as a model until some better interpretation or data forces us to change the model.

My definition of truth is: What happened, is happening, and will happen. We find that through models, which are imperfect, so we cannot hope to know absolutely anything.

 

On your video: Ok? So you're likely to be right that you'll be resurrected, go to heaven, be with your multiple wives (if your a fundamentalist) etc, because you appeal to utility. If religion doesn't have predictive value, then how can you honestly expect it to predict correctly your Resurrection? So you'll naturally reply, well it works for me. It makes me happy. Nice emotions, etc. So what? No reason to trust it. 

 

 

Ostler quotes James all the time and other process theologians.

That's why I like his stuff on spiritual experiences best

 

 

It means that language is always culturally based, which is highly relevant for "translations" from 3500 years ago

Look up Lojban.

 

I still don't see what you're getting at here. Science identifies reality, because it is based on observational and predictive logic. It predicts things and it has a good track record.

 

By the way if you say there is no intrinsic truth, you're saying that its intrinsically true that there is no intrinsic truth and thus nullifying your previous statement.

 

Our senses see things and we use logic to figure out the world. We do that very well now.

 

If God created the Universe and the Universe was created by itself, these are still two contradictory statements, whether you can believe both or not. Belief is different from truth, and is truth, if and only if you believe in believing in truth as I've defined it, in which case you may find some things that are true, never to be overturned.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Bowtiemenace

[ERayR]

Another thing Bukowski. Big Bang theory is not saying the Universe came from nothing. Its saying that it came from nothingness.

 

 

A distinction with out a difference.  Semantics meant to obfuscate.

[Bowtiemenace]

How do we know that our senses pick out reality? We don't, but this is why I like Ostler. Its simply more reasonable to trust our senses. Sure, we could just be dreaming this whole thing up right now. Heck you might not be real! That's what insane people believe though. Do our views of truth change with every generation and culture? Yes, but our ability to predict, create, observe, and interpret observations increases every generation. Its those changes that makes our idea of truth closer to truth. The idea that because reality is filtered through our emotions, we don't find truth is wrong because of this. Its because reality is filtered through our emotions, that we can find truth. Our ability to look at things through different perspectives, squeezes the sponge so to speak and causes us to go through every possibility. So the closer we get to truth, should we not come to a concept of God if God is true? Yes we should.