G-d the Father

[Soninme]

This is how I tend to consider the natures of God the Father, and Jesus Christ; both are Deity undoubtedly, however, due to experience, and eternal progression, the Father has an definitively higher magnitude.

Hello LaughingMan

If this is true then was there at some point in the distant past, if you will, a time when the Son

was not equal to the Father?

It is truth that we can be co-heirs, that we can share in the glory of our Father in Heaven and our Older Brother, however, due to the principle of eternal progression in which we believe, They will continue to grow and progress just as we do, so logically that should entail that we likely will not ever be in a position to be their equal, barring unknown circumstances that are entirely conjectural with our limited mortal knowledge of the Celestial experiences.

If "They will continue to grow and progress just as we do" does this mean that you don't believe the Father or the Son are omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient right now?

What will they learn in the future?

Thanks

[Traveler]

Hello LaughingMan

If this is true then was there at some point in the distant past, if you will, a time when the Son

was not equal to the Father?

If "They will continue to grow and progress just as we do" does this mean that you don't believe the Father or the Son are omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient right now?

What will they learn in the future?

Thanks

Jesus clearly taught that The Father was greater than him even thought they were one. How does that fit with you understanding of the Father and the Son being omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient?

Also are you aware of recent discoveries in the field of artificial intelligence of what scientists are calling the “hive mind”? I give this as an example on the human level of intelligence being a type or shadow of how G-d can “advance” by becoming “one” with lesser intelligences -- ie. man.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

There are many beings that have a human "nature" but there is only one being that has a divine "nature", God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are that one being, they alone have a divine nature. This is their oneness of nature.

Why is there only one? I can only think of two reasons. 1: Because G-d cannot (lacks the power and ability) create any other beings of divine nature. 2: Because G-d will not creat any other beings of divine nature.

To be honest neither of those possibilities make any sense to me so I wondering if you have a reasonable answer???

Before the beginning, before anything was created, there was God. God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These persons have relationships with each other, they are united in their relationships with each other. They have a unity that is perfect. One of Jesus' tasks on earth was sharing with mankind who God really is. He talked of God as a Heavenly Father. Someone that mankind can have an intimate relationship with; not just a creator, but a Father. With Christ as our mediator, we can have a loving relationship with God. We can be united with God as a family.

I do not understand how G-d could always exist as "The Father" if there there ever was a moment when there were no other beings to which he was a Father. Can you expalin?

God's nature, his divinity is his and only his. I don't believe that humans are gods in embryo. I believe that God created us human, and we will be able to participate in God's divine nature but we will never have that nature for ourselves. Love is that attribute that comes from God. God has created us as beings with that ability to give and receive love. We love because he first loved us. Love is something that even humans have the capacity for.

Why is G-d's nature only his? Is his nature undiserable? If it is a good and deseriable nature why would he withhold something wonderful, deseriable and good from all of his creations that are created in his image?

I'm not sure. If you specifically compare divine with human then I would have to say No, they would not be equal.

Sorry I was not clear - My question -- is the divine nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost different? Why did Jesus say the Father is greater than him?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "separation in divine natures". God is a being that cannot be separated into parts. If you're referring to the "persons" of the Godhead having different attributes then I would say No, they would all have the same attributes.

What then is the purpose in scriptures in making the distinction between G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost?

Again, I'm not sure I understand the question but since you have the words "divine" and "mankind" in the same sentence, I will have to say None. I don't believe mankind has any divinity in him at all.

Was Jesus the Christ ever a man - meaning "without any divinity in him at all"?

OK, my questions may not be totally related to this subject but I'm sure I can think of something.

M.

I appreciate you taking time to address my concerns and questions. These issues cause we to wonder concerning the beliefs of others when there seems to be so much contradiction (to me) and lack of rhetorical logic.

The Traveler

[Soninme]

Jesus clearly taught that The Father was greater than him even thought they were one. How does that fit with you understanding of the Father and the Son being omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient?

Hello Traveler

I believe Jesus was referring not to His "nature" as God but to His "rank" as Son.

Just as I, who am a father of five have a higher rank, if you will, than my children yet we have the same nature.

Phil 2 5-8 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Also are you aware of recent discoveries in the field of artificial intelligence of what scientists are calling the “hive mind”? I give this as an example on the human level of intelligence being a type or shadow of how G-d can “advance” by becoming “one” with lesser intelligences -- ie. man.

I have not.

I do though see in that analogy that artificial intelligence only gets what is given to it.

Just as what we receive from God.

[Traveler]

Hello Traveler

I believe Jesus was referring not to His "nature" as God but to His "rank" as Son.

Just as I, who am a father of five have a higher rank, if you will, than my children yet we have the same nature.

Phil 2 5-8 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Your explanation for the context of Jesus’ comments I find to be quite puzzling - you realize that Jesus was speaking to lawyers and scribes, experts in all aspects of the law and doctrine? The “loop holes” as you suggest would have been heavily exploited by such experts in efforts to discredit Jesus - much like a witness being crossed examined in a court. I see the statement by Jesus as indisputable fact - representing the truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I find it interesting that “Christians” find excuse to mitigate the clear teachings of Christ. I would have thought that what Jesus personally taught would be the “authority” above any other source.

I have not.

I do though see in that analogy that artificial intelligence only gets what is given to it.

Just as what we receive from God.

As an engineer and scientist, expert in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence (30 years consulting); I am wondering about why you believe as you do concerning intelligence?

The Traveler

[LaughingMan]

Hello LaughingMan

If this is true then was there at some point in the distant past, if you will, a time when the Son

was not equal to the Father?

What I was saying that I consider both to be Deity, but that the Son, while a God Himself, is not on the same level as our Father in Heaven, who, as the Father, has been working and refining Himself, and growing for a longer period of time.

If "They will continue to grow and progress just as we do" does this mean that you don't believe the Father or the Son are omnipotent, omnipresent and/or omniscient right now?

What will they learn in the future?

Thanks

Speaking on a if/then philosophical level, from a limited mortal understanding such as we are given in our mortal minds and bodies, its a logical fallacy to be attempt to truly understand the full extent of the power, presence, and knowledge of an Exalted Being. We cannot accurately understand such things, because to understand them would put ourselves into a higher echelon of spiritual understanding than we are capable of understanding. It would be similar to a person from the bronze age witnessing technologies that we in modern society have harnessed. Such a person might well consider us to be Gods.

Edited August 17, 2013 by LaughingMan
Misquoted

[Soninme]

I see the statement by Jesus as indisputable fact - representing the truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

As do I.

I find it interesting that “Christians” find excuse to mitigate the clear teachings of Christ. I would have thought that what Jesus personally taught would be the “authority” above any other source.

As a Christian I certainly would strive to follow all the teachings of God and He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. (John 16:3)

Jesus also told us in Matthew 18:4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Also of John the Baptist; Matthew 11:11

“Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Traveler, how do you think John was "greater" than all other men born up to that time?

How are those who humble themselves and become the least "greater" in the kingdom?

Does it have anything to do with thier nature?

[Soninme]

What I was saying that I consider both to be Deity, but that the Son, while a God Himself, is not on the same level as our Father in Heaven, who, as the Father, has been working and refining Himself, and growing for a longer period of time.

The reason I ask is because I see verses in the Bible that teach Jesus is fully or equal to God.

Colossians 2: 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;

Phil. 2 5-6 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

There can only be 1 Almighty.

Thanks

[Maureen]

Why is there only one? I can only think of two reasons. 1: Because G-d cannot (lacks the power and ability) create any other beings of divine nature. 2: Because G-d will not creat any other beings of divine nature.

There is only one divine being, God, because scripture tells us that there is only one: Exodus 8:10, Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah, 45:21, Romans 16:27, 1Tim. 1:17, etc.

I do not understand how G-d could always exist as "The Father" if there there ever was a moment when there were no other beings to which he was a Father. Can you expalin?

Mankind is a being of language and to communicate and realize our understanding of God and things around us we give them names. Jesus, through scripture, has described God as a "Father" figure. Jesus even described himself as the "Son of God", giving himself an equality with the Father, but also a distinction from the Father. Through scripture we come to know about the Holy Spirit and it only makes sense for mankind to understand the distinction between the "3 persons" that each would have a distinct name. In learning about the "first person" of the Godhead through scripture "Father" seemed to be the appropriate name, whether we talk about him before time existed or after time existed.

Why is G-d's nature only his? Is his nature undiserable? If it is a good and deseriable nature why would he withhold something wonderful, deseriable and good from all of his creations that are created in his image?

Because an essential understanding of why God is God is that he is unique, one of a kind. Scripture also tells us that there is only one God, therefore only one divine nature. And we don't need to be divine to be created in God's image; we are after all human and still created in his image.

Sorry I was not clear - My question -- is the divine nature of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost different? Why did Jesus say the Father is greater than him?

No, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same one and only divine nature. I would say that through Jesus' human nature he was subordinate to the Father.

What then is the purpose in scriptures in making the distinction between G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost?

To truly understand who God is, it is important to know that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And I will also add that they are collectively God, but they are also individually God.

Was Jesus the Christ ever a man - meaning "without any divinity in him at all"?

Jesus has two natures, human and divine. He has never been without his divinity.

I appreciate you taking time to address my concerns and questions. These issues cause we to wonder concerning the beliefs of others when there seems to be so much contradiction (to me) and lack of rhetorical logic.

Traveler, I think you are trying to understand a tri-unity God through your Mormon view. You understand the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) differently than how mainstream Christianity does. If you step out of your understanding a little bit, it might make it easier to understand a different view.

M.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Maureen

[Traveler]

There is only one divine being, God, because scripture tells us that there is only one: Exodus 8:10, Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah, 45:21, Romans 16:27, 1Tim. 1:17, etc.

Mankind is a being of language and to communicate and realize our understanding of God and things around us we give them names. Jesus, through scripture, has described God as a "Father" figure. Jesus even described himself as the "Son of God", giving himself an equality with the Father, but also a distinction from the Father. Through scripture we come to know about the Holy Spirit and it only makes sense for mankind to understand the distinction between the "3 persons" that each would have a distinct name. In learning about the "first person" of the Godhead through scripture "Father" seemed to be the appropriate name, whether we talk about him before time existed or after time existed.

Because an essential understanding of why God is God is that he is unique, one of a kind. Scripture also tells us that there is only one God, therefore only one divine nature. And we don't need to be divine to be created in God's image; we are after all human and still created in his image.

No, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same one and only divine nature. I would say that through Jesus' human nature he was subordinate to the Father.

To truly understand who God is, it is important to know that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And I will also add that they are collectively God, but they are also individually God.

Jesus has two natures, human and divine. He has never been without his divinity.

Traveler, I think you are trying to understand a tri-unity God through your Mormon view. You understand the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) differently than how mainstream Christianity does. If you step out of your understanding a little bit, it might make it easier to understand a different view.

M.

From my personal studies - of ancient language - in particular Hebrew. There are two ancient Hebrew words that are translated into the modern English term of one. The word for a unique one of a kind individual is “Yhead”. What I find interesting is that Trinitarians insist this is how we are to understand the oneness of G-d despite the fact that never in any ancient Biblical texts (of which there are thousands) is this term ever used in association with G-d.

The term that is used in ancient scripture is the Hebrew term “Ehad” and there are no exceptions in referring to “one” G-d. Anciently this term had two meanings - one singular and one plural. The plural meaning is well understood and you have referenced it already. It means many (plural) united. Like in marriage when a man and a woman become “one”; meaning united. It is also important to realize that in this use the many (plural) united maintain their individual identity.

The singular term of “Ehad” refers to the counting number one. In essence the singular one. But there are some interesting caveats. For starters there was no ancient understanding of fractions - so the number 1 also represented the smallest unit which could not be divided or differentiated. Also “Ehad” never refers to one of a kind - that is the term, “Yhead”. When use as a singular term the item to which it is being referenced cannot be divided or differentiated. There are no contributing parts and this includes persons. For almost 2,000 years the Jews have been arguing with Trinitarian Christians that to say G-d is singular “Ehad” would create a gross grammatical error to say that there are 3 any things that can be separately distinguished as G-d. To refer to The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost would be a gross grammatical error if “Ehad” is singular.

In addition there is the understanding of ancient Suzerain Law in referencing the supreme King of a kingdom. One of the best examples of this usage of “one” king (which is “Ehad”) is at the trial of Christ when the Jews said that they had no king but Cesar. This is despite the fact that the official title of Herod in the region where the Jews lived was King Herod as appointed by Cesar. Is this a contradiction? Not if we understand the term one King using ehad in the plural sense where Herod become the presentation of the one king Cesar. And that Herod is subordinate and less than Cesar but his (Herod’s word and rule in Judea was in essence “equal” to Cesar or in essence that same as though Cesar had made a law or declaration himself.

I hope you can see that there is a better explanation of the G-dhead that is truly consistent with the ancient Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as the early Apostolic Christian concepts of the New Testament.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

From my personal studies - of ancient language - in particular Hebrew. There are two ancient Hebrew words that are translated into the modern English term of one. The word for a unique one of a kind individual is “Yhead”. What I find interesting is that Trinitarians insist this is how we are to understand the oneness of G-d despite the fact that never in any ancient Biblical texts (of which there are thousands) is this term ever used in association with G-d.

The term that is used in ancient scripture is the Hebrew term “Ehad” and there are no exceptions in referring to “one” G-d. Anciently this term had two meanings - one singular and one plural. The plural meaning is well understood and you have referenced it already. It means many (plural) united. Like in marriage when a man and a woman become “one”; meaning united. It is also important to realize that in this use the many (plural) united maintain their individual identity.

The singular term of “Ehad” refers to the counting number one. In essence the singular one. But there are some interesting caveats. For starters there was no ancient understanding of fractions - so the number 1 also represented the smallest unit which could not be divided or differentiated. Also “Ehad” never refers to one of a kind - that is the term, “Yhead”. When use as a singular term the item to which it is being referenced cannot be divided or differentiated. There are no contributing parts and this includes persons. For almost 2,000 years the Jews have been arguing with Trinitarian Christians that to say G-d is singular “Ehad” would create a gross grammatical error to say that there are 3 any things that can be separately distinguished as G-d. To refer to The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost would be a gross grammatical error if “Ehad” is singular.

In addition there is the understanding of ancient Suzerain Law in referencing the supreme King of a kingdom. One of the best examples of this usage of “one” king (which is “Ehad”) is at the trial of Christ when the Jews said that they had no king but Cesar. This is despite the fact that the official title of Herod in the region where the Jews lived was King Herod as appointed by Cesar. Is this a contradiction? Not if we understand the term one King using ehad in the plural sense where Herod become the presentation of the one king Cesar. And that Herod is subordinate and less than Cesar but his (Herod’s word and rule in Judea was in essence “equal” to Cesar or in essence that same as though Cesar had made a law or declaration himself.

With a little research I found this:

How to Translate the Shema

In light of these sample passages, we must be open to reading the Shema with an open mind about what echad denotes. What are our options? What makes most sense, within the Bible?

The LORD is first.

The LORD is one [God].

The LORD is the same [as whom?]

The LORD alone.

The LORD is a single [being, Deity, Elohim].

The LORD is a unified [being, Deity, Elohim].

The LORD is unique, one and only [God].

Given the theme of YHVH's centrality in Deuteronomy (see below), and given the command aspect of the Shema ("and you shall love YHVH your God"), the sense of uniqueness seems most appropriate in this verse.

Hebrew Streams: Echad in the Shema

The link provides the different meanings of the word "echad" and how to best interrupt it's meaning in Deut. 6:4. The writer concludes that the best meaning is the last one, describing uniqueness. I agree, but personally I would say that the other meanings fit well too, except for "The LORD is the same."

I hope you can see that there is a better explanation of the G-dhead that is truly consistent with the ancient Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as the early Apostolic Christian concepts of the New Testament.

I found a site called Judaism 101 and some basic points regarding Jewish belief in God are:

God is One, God is the Creator of Everything, God is Incorporeal, God is neither male or female, God is omnipresent, etc.

Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

I agree with these beliefs. How do your beliefs in God compare with these beliefs Traveler?

M.

[Dark_Jedi]

Not meaning to be contradictory or demeaning in any way Maureen, but what is taught on one website as Jewish belief cannot be taken as "gospel" if you will. It would be akin to doing the same for Christian belief. This very thread is an example of such - the LDS concept of God is different than that of most other Christian churches, but they don't all agree, either. While some protestant chruches do have an agreement on the subject, many have differing nuances and most have some differences in what they believe are the attributes of God.

Jews are very much the same way. While people outside Judaism like to conveniently categorize Jews into groups like "orthodox," "conservative," and "reform," most only fit into those categories in a very broad sense, and differences in belief among them, even within a category, differs widely. Therefore, you can't answer a question like "Do Jews believe in hell" because some do and some don't, and it doesn't matter if you ask an orthodox or reform Jew the question - some do and some don't. Likewise, they don't all agree on the nature of God.

That said, your point is well taken and your question is fair because it's on topic.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I know there are portions of the discourse that can be interpreted that way. That's why I bolded the portion that speaks of a continued hierarchy. Jesus rises to the level of the Father, but the Father rises to a greater exaltation. Greater than what He had before (which is what Jesus receives) and greater than what Jesus has!

I appreciate the lengths you've gone to in explaining that kingdoms and dominions given to the Father are not lost or taken from the giver. My understanding of it is with the principle of stewardship. I pay my tithing, but the Lord doesn't take it, He returns it back to me in the form of funds for the scouting program and commands me to be a good steward. It's not mine, but then again, it was never really mine to begin with. And yet, where the rubber meets the road, here I am writing checks with the same discretion as though it were indeed my own. Father Adam will one day give his dominion to Christ, but I doubt that we'll ever stop thinking of him outside of that stewardship. Jesus recognizes that the judgment He has comes from the Father.

I wonder if we think about the inheritance in too materialistic terms. Perhaps "all that the Father hath" is really an ascension track. Or perhaps it is God-principles that empower Him to reign. My hypothetical father went to college, got married, bought a house, and started a successful business. From him I can inherit 1) his house, and his business, and whatever increase he's accumulated in his life (if we're being even more literal, I also inherit his children and his relationships) - this is my understanding of the "inherit all" model you're perpetuating, with the exception that all my siblings will also inherit his house, and his business, and whatever he's accumulated in his life (we don't split it, we each get all); 2) college tuition, a trust fund to get me started as a newlywed, the downpayment for a house, and a starter fund for a business - this would be an example of us inheriting the "exaltation ladder", you've climbed the stairs of the skyscraper all the way up to the celestial floor, now we'll take you to the other side of the building where you'll find the stairs to the "worlds without end" floors - all the opportunities for the same experiences but without the literalness; 3) the value of an education, family values, a sense for "homestead", and a work ethic coupled with the entrepreneurial spirit - this would be inheriting all the attributes of godhood without necessarily the same dominions.

In the last two instances, we get the equality of D&C 76 but the gradation of D&C 130 (the principle of intelligence creating "so much the advantage"). For those two models, you have the same glories (based on attributes and access) even though one may have received five talents and the other two.

If you go to college you also inherit the benefit of learning things that were already discovered and put into text books for you. You inherited intelligence. You did not have to recreate language, for example, or mathematics, or how to make paper before you took advantage of those things. It becomes yours without having to go through every little step it took to get to that point by yourself.

I don't think you can separate dominions from godhood. By definition, to be God means to have all. Having all is the same as having all. If I compare person A that has all with person B that has all, then there is no distinguishable features different from A to B even if person A got there first.

It is funny to me how so many people jump on the band wagon of God being timeless but when it comes to this, of course, there is a hierarchy based in time.

The whole discussion, I believe, is based in whether a person believes in vicarious acts or not. If Jesus paid the price for our exaltation then we do not have to pay the same price. Yes, we have to live the gospel principles but we can reap the benefit of the price paid without having to reproduce it exactly like Christ did it. We take the same steps symbolically to receive the vicarious act, such as baptism and taking on His flesh with the sacrament.

Likewise, we do not have to take every step of the so-called ladder exactly like those who did it before us because we believe in vicarious acts. The jump up the ladder is accomplished in the words "faith" and "inheritance". Inheritance is the way to skip over many rungs of the ladder without having to take every step. Just like I didn't have to invent paper by myself before going to college. The knowledge was inherited and received based in faith that the person who did it, did it right. I don't have to prove to myself that the technique of making paper was done right before I use it. This is why faith is so important and this life stratifies people based in levels of faith. Lack of faith means that I would have to walk every rung of the ladder for myself.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Pride, really? To me it sounds like the person doesn't feel worthy enough to be considered equal to God. It sounds the opposite of pride; it sounds like he's being humble.

M.

To arrive at that level requires keeping one's eye single to His glory (as there is only one, not divided) and not a personally owned designation. People less than willing to share 100% and claim the glory as their own alone are those that arrive at a less than equal to God level of glory. If a person did something of good report for their self than, by definition, it is not done with an eye single to the glory of God. If the eye is single to the glory of God then it does not fall away from that, even by one little bit, like setting one's sights slightly lower.

[Traveler]

With a little research I found this:

How to Translate the Shema

In light of these sample passages, we must be open to reading the Shema with an open mind about what echad denotes. What are our options? What makes most sense, within the Bible?

The LORD is first.

The LORD is one [God].

The LORD is the same [as whom?]

The LORD alone.

The LORD is a single [being, Deity, Elohim].

The LORD is a unified [being, Deity, Elohim].

The LORD is unique, one and only [God].

Given the theme of YHVH's centrality in Deuteronomy (see below), and given the command aspect of the Shema ("and you shall love YHVH your God"), the sense of uniqueness seems most appropriate in this verse.

Hebrew Streams: Echad in the Shema

The link provides the different meanings of the word "echad" and how to best interrupt it's meaning in Deut. 6:4. The writer concludes that the best meaning is the last one, describing uniqueness. I agree, but personally I would say that the other meanings fit well too, except for "The LORD is the same."

I found a site called Judaism 101 and some basic points regarding Jewish belief in God are:

God is One, God is the Creator of Everything, God is Incorporeal, God is neither male or female, God is omnipresent, etc.

Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d

I agree with these beliefs. How do your beliefs in God compare with these beliefs Traveler?

M.

I find it interesting that you are quoting from the site Hebrew Streams to define the shema of echad. One thing we must understand about the information that we obtain from scripture is that we do not divide the meaning of G-d based on one verse or even several verses. I would think that the shema we utilize is consistent throughout all scripture. In essence Paul starts to point that out but never concludes the thought in that he fails to address G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost in the context of Christian understanding as to which is "first" or any other of the attributes involved in echad. I do not mind what shema an individual uses from ancient scriptures to define their understanding of G-d - only that they remain consistent throughout all their definitions.

Also - as I pointed out before concerning uniqueness that a unique individual in ancient Hebrew is Yahead. A most important point that Paul (the creator of Hebrew Streams) leaves out of his explanation. The point is that never is G-d spoken of as Yahead - thought many Christians define G-d as so.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

To arrive at that level requires keeping one's eye single to His glory (as there is only one, not divided) and not a personally owned designation. People less than willing to share 100% and claim the glory as their own alone are those that arrive at a less than equal to God level of glory. If a person did something of good report for their self than, by definition, it is not done with an eye single to the glory of God. If the eye is single to the glory of God then it does not fall away from that, even by one little bit, like setting one's sights slightly lower.

It is my opinion that you are making a very important point but have taken the thought of sameness when someone is "one" with G-d, a little too far in saying that it is equal. Thought I agree somewhat concerning that when we become one with G-d we share a sameness but I do not see how that must be equal. To illustrate take the scripture D&C 1:38 :

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

Obviously the totality of a home teacher is not equal to the totality of G-d even if he speaks by the spirit and thus is the same.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is my opinion that you are making a very important point but have taken the thought of sameness when someone is "one" with G-d, a little too far in saying that it is equal. Thought I agree somewhat concerning that when we become one with G-d we share a sameness but I do not see how that must be equal. To illustrate take the scripture D&C 1:38 :

Obviously the totality of a home teacher is not equal to the totality of G-d even if he speaks by the spirit and thus is the same.

The Traveler

I agree, but I was not just talking about being the "same", i.e - one in thought and purpose. The result of being one in thought and purpose is so that we can one day be worthy of what God is offering us, to receive a fullness, to receive all that God has. When we combine the idea of being one in thought in purpose with what happens at the point one receives a fullness, then it becomes equal. We cannot receive a fullness if we are not willing to receive it. Certainly, saying that it cannot be done would, by definition, not be willing to receive all.

And that is the purpose of this life, to separate out what we are willing to receive. The potential is 100% when we are born, then it gets whittled away by our own choice to something smaller than that potential. Luckily we have repentance and a Savior to help us get back to 100%.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Seminarysnoozer

[Traveler]

I agree, but I was not just talking about being the "same", i.e - one in thought and purpose. The result of being one in thought and purpose is so that we can one day be worthy of what God is offering us, to receive a fullness, to receive all that God has. When we combine the idea of being one in thought in purpose with what happens at the point one receives a fullness, then it becomes equal. We cannot receive a fullness if we are not willing to receive it. Certainly, saying that it cannot be done would, by definition, not be willing to receive all.

And that is the purpose of this life, to separate out what we are willing to receive. The potential is 100% when we are born, then it gets whittled away by our own choice to something smaller than that potential. Luckily we have repentance and a Savior to help us get back to 100%.

What I am trying to point out is that your argument is in essence a two edged sword and cuts both ways. In essence are you saying that a person speaking by the spirit really is not the same or in this case equal to G-d? And then saying or recognizing that it is the same because the scripture say so. Then making allowances for other places that the scripture imply sameness but we do not want it to apply with the same caveats this time because it messes up a point we want to make. It is this possible paradox of rhetorical logic that many miss in their putting forth their ideas and it upset them when the error is pointed out.

The point being that we can be the same (in a great many things) as G-d and not be equal (if equal means that we are the same in all possibilities). We can even be “one” and not really equal. All it takes is one un-equal exception. The proof in logic is any exception invalidates. But there are infinite possibilities and by saying all are valid or even all others or valid when all cannot even be validated or one possible example is ignored - our idea may be true but rhetorically it has not been demonstrated and the one point not responded to leaves us venerable (or in other words - wrong). Do you recall the one example that I made in which we are not equal to G-d (ever) and that G-d does not grant to us or give to us - ever?

The Traveler

[Maureen]

I find it interesting that you are quoting from the site Hebrew Streams to define the shema of echad. One thing we must understand about the information that we obtain from scripture is that we do not divide the meaning of G-d based on one verse or even several verses. I would think that the shema we utilize is consistent throughout all scripture. In essence Paul starts to point that out but never concludes the thought in that he fails to address G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost in the context of Christian understanding as to which is "first" or any other of the attributes involved in echad. I do not mind what shema an individual uses from ancient scriptures to define their understanding of G-d - only that they remain consistent throughout all their definitions.

The point of the Hebrew Streams link I provided was to show that the author of the link, says that "Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible..." He provides seven different meanings for the word and uses the shema as an example on which meaning is best used for this verse. In other words, it is best to understand the word echad by the context of the sentence it is used in.

Also - as I pointed out before concerning uniqueness that a unique individual in ancient Hebrew is Yahead. A most important point that Paul (the creator of Hebrew Streams) leaves out of his explanation. The point is that never is G-d spoken of as Yahead - thought many Christians define G-d as so.

The author of Hebrew Streams does mention yachad (yahead) and he says "...the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad."

A common theme of belief between Judaism and mainstream Christianity is that God is one, God is unique, there is no one else like God.

Traveler, I also previously asked a question regarding how would you compare your beliefs about God with that of Judaism.

M.

[Traveler]

The point of the Hebrew Streams link I provided was to show that the author of the link, says that "Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible..." He provides seven different meanings for the word and uses the shema as an example on which meaning is best used for this verse. In other words, it is best to understand the word echad by the context of the sentence it is used in.

The author of Hebrew Streams does mention yachad (yahead) and he says "...the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad."

A common theme of belief between Judaism and mainstream Christianity is that God is one, God is unique, there is no one else like God.

Traveler, I also previously asked a question regarding how would you compare your beliefs about God with that of Judaism.

M.

As we are all well aware the meaning of words evolve - even within a single culture over time. I believe that every aspect of G-d has been revealed through consistent means from the first man Adam down to this present day. That means as established anciently was through prophets. Note that prophets is plural.

I believe that words describing G-d have intentions as well as extensions in meaning. Thus by study one can gain insights into interpretations and meaning. But it is also obvious to me that even with diligent study there is not conciseness of understanding but rather divergences.

Thus I believe that the LDS theological aspects are consistent with many pieces found in ancient scripture (including Jewish culture). Thus I can say that I do not believe that such scriptures disproves with impunity that LDS notions are inconsistent.

Let me illustrate - Because of Genesis and the creation of both man and women in the image and likeness of G-d I can understand that gender is a characteristic of the divine. But I can also believe that the concept of a "Father in Heaven" is indeed gender specific. I can also understand and logically reason that if there is a Father in Heaven and that such a Father has sons and daughters (which are sons and daughters of G-d) that there is by logical deduction also a Mother. Fulfilling the words that man and women are the image and likeness of the divine parents.

This is according to the studies of the person named Paul that created the website from which you drew reference to explain your reasoning. But I will be bold and go out on a limb to give even a greater example. The "Keeper" of the way to G-d and his heaven was assigned to an individual with the title of cherub in Genesis. From every reference that identifies a cherub - I find parallel references to the Messiah or Christ. Not only as the Keeper of the Way but Jesus is the only individual highlighted in scripture that utilizes a sword and fire that man will encounter on their way to salvation. However, must Christians and Jews interpret a Cherub as a type of angel. But the only other title that I can find in scripture that has any reference to that of a Cherub is the title of a G-d. And it is interesting how that plays out in light of your reference to G-ds as defined by ancient Jewish scripture.

So it does appear to me that my understanding of the meaning of the term G-d as used in ancient Jewish (Hebrew) scripture is more in line and consistent (according to your references) than the concepts of the Trinity.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

...So it does appear to me that my understanding of the meaning of the term G-d as used in ancient Jewish (Hebrew) scripture is more in line and consistent (according to your references) than the concepts of the Trinity....

Can you give me some examples of the meaning of God from Jewish scripture that is consistent with your understanding of God?

For example: God is One, God is the Creator of Everything, God is Incorporeal, God is neither male or female, God is omnipresent, is consistent with Jewish belief and the Trinity.

M.

[Leah]

It is always a little perplexing to me that there are people who portray themselves as all-knowledgeable about religions (sometimes multiple religions) which they are neither a member of, nor practice. Maybe it's more common with the advent of the itnernet. Someone read a little something somewhere, so now they "know" it.

[Maureen]

It is always a little perplexing to me that there are people who portray themselves as all-knowledgeable about religions (sometimes multiple religions) which they are neither a member of, nor practice. Maybe it's more common with the advent of the itnernet. Someone read a little something somewhere, so now they "know" it.

Leah, are you referring to posters on this thread or just people in general?

M.

[Traveler]

Can you give me some examples of the meaning of God from Jewish scripture that is consistent with your understanding of God?

For example: God is One, God is the Creator of Everything, God is Incorporeal, God is neither male or female, God is omnipresent, is consistent with Jewish belief and the Trinity.

M.

As we have seen there can be some confusion concerning our understanding in modern times of ancient Jewish concepts. We have talked somewhat about ehad - it is my understand that the meaning of ehad is determined by the context of its use and not that ehad determines the context in which it is used.

I will now preface my remarks by saying that I believe the greatest example of G-d and the means by which we learn the most about G-d is through our understanding and example of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. I hold the opinion of Jesus Christ high - especially in explaining the nature of G-d in a manner we can most clearly have understanding - first because he is the example of G-d and second because he was a Jew.

To understand what is meant by one G-d. My first witness is the words of Jesus as recorded in John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." My second witness is also Jesus Christ again as recorded by John - this time in John 17: 22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:" Thus I conclude that when the scripture use ehad to speak of one G-d that we must understand that to be in unity.

Now to creation - again I reference John this time chapter 1.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Note how this is explained (by a Jew - John) The Word, which we have come to understand was Jesus - was G-d and was with G-d and as I have already explained was one with G-d. Jesus is the G-d that created all things. But there is a caveat. In Jesus there already was light (which he did not create because it is in him not created by him. And this light is the light of men - so now we know that the light of men was not created but also existed. The final point we learn is that there was also darkness that did not comprehend the light - this also we can understand was not created. If you like I can break this down into ancient Jewish poetic form - but if you are unwilling to accept such context of the textual form - I do not see the point.

Now to G-d is Incorporeal: Obviously Jesus Christ proves this understanding to be false. Since I understand Jesus to be our best example of G-d for me this is a no brainier.

Now to "God is neither male or female". For this I will quote from Jesus as recorded by Matthew (note that Matthew and Jesus were ancient Jews by our definition) chapter 6: "9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name." I would point out that the title of Father is indeed very gender specific and is male. Likewise Jesus is also identified at his birth (See Luke 2:7 - note that the term "son" is also gender specific". Therefore we know that G-d the Father and G-d the Son are specifically the male gender. The only way that the female can be G-d is if there is someone else of the female gender that is a G-d".

Finely to the concept that "God is omnipresent". I believe this to be a misunderstanding. There are several scriptures in which the "presents" of G-d are noted specific - such as in Job and the holy of holies of the temple - which would be incorrectly noted and not specifically of divine appointment as such if indeed G-d's presents is the same everywhere.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Do you recall the one example that I made in which we are not equal to G-d (ever) and that G-d does not grant to us or give to us - ever?

The Traveler

I would be surprised if you really have knowledge of "ever" as that is a really long time, most of which is not yet revealed to us. Most of our revelations refer to the present and our present situation. "We" are not the same "we" after exaltation, so it is a tricky statement to use the term "we". I do not disagree that we could not ever be equal to God when we are shy of exaltation. The only possible situation in which there could be equality has to be after exaltation, so "we" in our current state have no potential to be like God. The only way it could be is some "we" changing event, like redemption, sanctification and exaltation. So, no I don't recall the example given of "ever". What is the one thing God denies His children if they so desire it that would for ever make them not equal?