Does the Doctrine of the Trinity define Christianity?

[e v e]

40 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, and in Hebrew the word for stone ('even) is feminine too.   Does that mean rocks are female, or just rocks in Israel?    And in Greek, Spirit is neuter, and in Latin it's masculine.  And,  ruach is masculine in Numbers 11:31 and Isaiah 57:16.

Gendered words are hardly uncommon, and just because you have a gendered noun in another language, doesn't mean that word refers to something that is male or female. 

 

the OT gives the NT her legal right… so the greek or latin are not relevant. 

[e v e]

and yes, many corrupted texts and quite a job to understand what He says from them for a few brave souls who listen to Him. 

[e v e]

On 3/19/2021 at 1:30 AM, Traveler said:

By the definition given us through Jesus Christ and scripture (which cannot be broken) - those to whom the word of G-d is received are g-ds.  So the question is - do you accept the word of G-d?  And if you, in truth do - according to the witness of Christ - are you not to be numbered among "The Children of G-d?"  And if a Child of G-d are you not a g-d?  What does it mean to believe in Christ?  Is not Christ the word?  Has the word of G-d come to you?

 

The Traveler

all his sons and daughters will be deities, having His and His feminine spirits nature. But not in these ape bodies which He did not make. His sons and daughters will have the gorgeous eden body, restored. 

 

 

In disobedience adam made these current substandard ones. 

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, e v e said:

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, and in Hebrew the word for stone ('even) is feminine too.   Does that mean rocks are female, or just rocks in Israel?    And in Greek, Spirit is neuter, and in Latin it's masculine.  And,  ruach is masculine in Numbers 11:31 and Isaiah 57:16.

Gendered words are hardly uncommon, and just because you have a gendered noun in another language, doesn't mean that word refers to something that is male or female. 

 

the OT gives the NT her legal right… so the greek or latin are not relevant. 

Um, ok, so, how about:

Yeah, and in Hebrew the word for stone ('even) is feminine too.   Does that mean rocks are female, or just rocks in Israel?    And in Greek, Spirit is neuter, and in Latin it's masculine.  And,  ruach is masculine in Numbers 11:31 and Isaiah 57:16.

Gendered words are hardly uncommon, and just because you have a gendered noun in another language, doesn't mean that word refers to something that is male or female. 

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Um, ok, so, how about:

Yeah, and in Hebrew the word for stone ('even) is feminine too.   Does that mean rocks are female, or just rocks in Israel?    And in Greek, Spirit is neuter, and in Latin it's masculine.  And,  ruach is masculine in Numbers 11:31 and Isaiah 57:16.

Gendered words are hardly uncommon, and just because you have a gendered noun in another language, doesn't mean that word refers to something that is male or female. 

Methinks e v e is no kind of linguist. Your observation is probably lost on her.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, e v e said:

and yes, many corrupted texts and quite a job to understand what He says from them for a few brave souls who listen to Him. 

Let us move beyond all possibilities of corrupted texts and realize that the only empirical example of G-d that have been presented to mankind is that of Jesus Christ (or Messiah) and no one that I have conversed with (that is Christian) believes that Jesus was born a little infant girl.  It is also obvious to any practical thinker - that the Bible is not conclusive evidence of any singular thinking of any doctrine.  But for the record I do agree with you that one must include (or conclude) that divinity (G-d) cannot be understood without feminine consideration and likewise is not understood without masculine considerations.  And since mankind (men and women) are in the image of G-d; the only logical assumption that I can see could properly applied is that gender among the divine is exactly as we see applied in humanity.  Thus the statement that man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man as a prescription of marriage is also a defining element of G-d.  That is, in essence, an eternal covenant between a man and a woman as the primary core definition of G-d.

This is, for me, but one of the primary reasons that I appreciate the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I know of no other religion that teaches this fundamental importance of a sustainable (eternal) covenant of marriage.  

 

The Traveler

[e v e]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Methinks e v e is no kind of linguist. Your observation is probably lost on her.

the context has to be considered as well. In addition, we have all the feminine archetypes used in scripture to discuss His Spirit.
 

Why would LDS not like that His Spirit is feminine? Do you not believe He has a wife? And that Souls in Eden have a mother?

[e v e]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Let us move beyond all possibilities of corrupted texts and realize that the only empirical example of G-d that have been presented to mankind is that of Jesus Christ (or Messiah) and no one that I have conversed with (that is Christian) believes that Jesus was born a little infant girl.  It is also obvious to any practical thinker - that the Bible is not conclusive evidence of any singular thinking of any doctrine.  But for the record I do agree with you that one must include (or conclude) that divinity (G-d) cannot be understood without feminine consideration and likewise is not understood without masculine considerations.  And since mankind (men and women) are in the image of G-d; the only logical assumption that I can see could properly applied is that gender among the divine is exactly as we see applied in humanity.  Thus the statement that man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man as a prescription of marriage is also a defining element of G-d.  That is, in essence, an eternal covenant between a man and a woman as the primary core definition of G-d.

This is, for me, but one of the primary reasons that I appreciate the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I know of no other religion that teaches this fundamental importance of a sustainable (eternal) covenant of marriage.  

 

The Traveler

Interesting you say that about Christ.

The word indeed is Feminine and is Christ's core...

Just as corporately you can say of your family we are the Smith's.

Christ is the word because He is the head of His household.

 

Female is the inside of male, being his core. Just as male is the outside or Head of that household. That is the concept of male covering female.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, e v e said:

the context has to be considered as well. In addition, we have all the feminine archetypes used in scripture to discuss His Spirit.
 

Why would LDS not like that His Spirit is feminine? Do you not believe He has a wife? And that Souls in Eden have a mother?

e v e, the problem is that you shoot the arrow first, then go draw your target around it. You decide beforehand that "God's spirit is feminine" (whatever that means), then you go looking for anything that might seem to confirm that thesis—in your case, the coincidence that the Hebrew word for "spirit" is linguistically feminine. I realize how exceedingly common this tactic is in the world at large, in religious communities specifically, and even among the Latter-day Saints. It's an efficient way to make your theory sound impressive to the ignorant, but it's a very, very inefficient and fatally flawed method to try to understand actual truth.

[e v e]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

e v e, the problem is that you shoot the arrow first, then go draw your target around it. You decide beforehand that "God's spirit is feminine" (whatever that means), then you go looking for anything that might seem to confirm that thesis—in your case, the coincidence that the Hebrew word for "spirit" is linguistically feminine. I realize how exceedingly common this tactic is in the world at large, in religious communities specifically, and even among the Latter-day Saints. It's an efficient way to make your theory sound impressive to the ignorant, but it's a very, very inefficient and fatally flawed method to try to understand actual truth.

what would have been the correct approach? I feel your response was sincere even though I don't think it fits my case... also

i dont view anyone as ignorant and I have no allusion of convincing anyone.

I feel understand all this because I met Him...

but that answer would not go over right? That I met Him and He showed me and that then, because of this...

and... etc.

I didn't decide She is feminine...but I totally understand that it looks that way.

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by e v e

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, e v e said:

i dont view anyone as ignorant and I have no allusion of convincing anyone.

Well, we could start by accepting that we're ALL ignorant.  That would include YOU.

But unfortunately, no one does that.  We all have our own dogmas that we will not let go of.  The only questions are: What are we basing those dogmas on?  And what if we're wrong?

I'm basing my dogmas on the words of prophets (both living and dead).  I know the prophets are true based on my relationship with my Heavenly Father.  So I then confirm what I hear from them through prayer.

When I am wrong (and I have been told this through prayer many times) I try to reassess my beliefs to align with the Lord.

And if, after all this effort, I find out at the judgement bar of God that, I have been wrong, I can answer with a clear conscience that I always did my best to check in and ask.  I did my best to always be open to reassessing my assumptions.  And as proof of my sincerity, I have changed my mind on many beliefs after learning otherwise.  And I've always done my best to listen to the wisdom of the Lord, rather than the learning of man.

So, in reality, if you truly believe you have met God, then:

1) You're right.  It would not go over so well here.

2) Consider how that will go over when you stand before Him in judgement.  Did you truly open yourself to correction if you were wrong?  Do you listen to Him more than your own wisdom and man-made (or woman-made) assumptions?

Then at the end, He will judge the answers to those questions.

I tend to believe the He will make some allowance for simple Human ignorance.  But some part of it will also be about judging our fundamental being.  Do we have the faith and humility to hear Him above all the noise of our own preconceived notions and worldly deception?  If so, there is hope for us even if we got it wrong from time to time.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

On 5/8/2021 at 6:50 PM, e v e said:

Interesting you say that about Christ.

The word indeed is Feminine and is Christ's core...

Just as corporately you can say of your family we are the Smith's.

Christ is the word because He is the head of His household.

 

Female is the inside of male, being his core. Just as male is the outside or Head of that household. That is the concept of male covering female.

None of this makes sense to me and is entirely without empirical evidence that I can verify.   It is not often I reject (beyond a disagreement) someone's opinion publicly because I believe an individual's opinion sacred - but in the theater of honesty; I find your understandings of what is male and what is female convoluted, contradictory and scientifically un-demonstrable.    I appreciate the discussion and your efforts but I cannot connect or find any reason to even begin to follow you logic.  

If you wish to continue a dialogue we will need to LOGICALLY define a starting point and terms to which we can both agree. (for example - what is male and what is female).

 

The Traveler

[Little Nipper]

From a biblical standpoint, I feel that the doctrine that the FATHER, CHRIST, and the HOLY SPIRIT together are ONE GOD is the key to understanding exactly who CHRIST is, and how HE has the ability to save individuals from their sinful nature.  

[prisonchaplain]

On 6/27/2024 at 11:08 AM, Little Nipper said:

From a biblical standpoint, I feel that the doctrine that the FATHER, CHRIST, and the HOLY SPIRIT together are ONE GOD is the key to understanding exactly who CHRIST is, and how HE has the ability to save individuals from their sinful nature.  

And we never even got into a discussion of "united in purpose" vs. one in essence. 😉

[estradling75]

19 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

And we never even got into a discussion of "united in purpose" vs. one in essence. 😉

Indeed... Because we can totally agree with the statement of the Oneness of God being very important to understanding God and knowing his power to Save.  While still disagreeing on the type of Oneness

[prisonchaplain]

I put "trinity" in the search engine and limited the search to this forum. There were 34 pages of posts. Some of the interesting ones date prior to 2010. So, I was attempting humor when I posted that we hadn't even discussed one in essence vs. one in purpose. We may not have examined it in this string, but we considered the issue at length. IMHO the distinction may appear to some as straining at gnats, but the difference between the two is what keeps LDS from embracing the Trinity doctrine and what keeps most non-LDS from calling you brothers and sisters. 

Edited July 1, 2024 by prisonchaplain