Trinity?

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by srm@Jun 18 2004, 12:38 PM

'setheus' is 'snow' in reformed egyptian

So is Snow and Setheus the same? It would make sense, I suppose.

Come on you guys!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by shanstress70+Jun 18 2004, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (shanstress70 @ Jun 18 2004, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Jun 18 2004, 12:38 PM

'setheus' is 'snow' in reformed egyptian

So is Snow and Setheus the same? It would make sense, I suppose.

Come on you guys!

Yeah...are you serious? Snow and Setheus?

[Traveler]

I’m slowly starting to see how you think Traveler. From your quote I’m guessing you believe in a multitude of Gods. You believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really 3 gods. That’s why you find the Trinity so hard to accept, because the Trinity is emphatic about the existence of only one God (remember ehad).

The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist.

If I am understanding the statement of yours correctly I would say Yes, that is correct. The Trinity sees God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That God would not exist without all 3 persons of this godhead. In fact the Trinity states that God has always existed as these 3 persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are God individually and as a unity. They are not 3 separate Gods, they are one God (ehad).

M.

First I want to say that I am greatly impressed in your effort to understand. You went to a lot of work to learn more about "ehad". Thank you.

If you were to study ancient Hebrew you would learn that in the united form “ehad” is plural. It requires that there are many. You can be happy sometimes and sad other. You can be strong at times and week at other. Your person can be expressed in many different ways. That is because you personality has different expressions. But all these expressions come together in you as a single individual. The expression for this kind of coming together in ancient Hebrew is “yahed”. “Yahed” is the singular expression of many different parts in one soul. This is why I have attempted to express that the Trinity has been putting a round peg in a squar hole for 2000 years and saying that it fits. But the scripture does not tell us G-d is “yahed”. The scriptures say G-d is “ehad” which means many working together. “Yahed” is many parts of something that is a single thing. The bottom line is that the scriptures just do not say what you have been lead to believe. Have you ever tried to convince someone of truth when they want to believe the lie? They will treat every truth that fits with contempt and embrace any deception that justifies the lie.

When you (or anyone) are borne of the of the spirit or borne of G-d then it is said that you are “one” with G-d. Jesus prayed that all that followed him would be “one” in this manner and he further explained that he and the Father are “one” is this very manner.

The next very important notion is that by becoming one with G-d we become like G-d. Usually if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is logical to assume that it is a duck and not a tree. If something is like G-d why would it not be true to say it is a G-d? If G-d created all things and can do anything - why would he not create G-ds? Because G-d is evil? Because if there were many there could not be “ehad” and would fight among themselves? Think! If G-d can create a “ehad” with mankind that has fallen and fights among themselves by nature - could not G-ds be “ehad” that are loving, kind, full of grace and service and willing to lay down their life for the benefit of others be “ehad”.

If there can only be a singular G-d then there cannot be a G-d because G-d by definition can do anything. If there are no other G-ds then either there is a lack of power which means he is not really G-d or he is selfish and will not share, which is not the nature of a loving G-d.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by sanctuaryave+Jun 17 2004, 09:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sanctuaryave @ Jun 17 2004, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Starsky@Jun 17 2004, 10:06 AM

The Terms....Father and God are vastly misunderstood.

Father  is a station/position/state of being. Christ became our Father when He died for us....and He gave us new life...we can become His begotten sons and daughters...

Father meaning :increased self.

God means head of dominion. Christ is our head dominator....because he bought us with a price....His Father, however, provided Him the opportunity to expand, increase, progress into Godhood....from before we were born....

So to paraphrase something I think snow said. Jesus who is the God of the Old testament sent himself to earth and became the God of the new testament. That at least sounds like Jesus and God are the same.

Don't think that Starksy is stating the LDS position. She is not. It is only the Starsky position.

[Snow]

Originally posted by srm+Jun 18 2004, 10:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Jun 18 2004, 10:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--shanstress70@Jun 15 2004, 10:53 AM

Setheus, I'm not trying to cause trouble... but, why do you love Snow so much?  It seems like you idolize him.

I think he's a cool guy, don't get me wrong.  He's not THAT cool!!!

JK, Snow. 

'setheus' is 'snow' in reformed egyptian

I've never gotten the feeling that Setheus cares too much for me one way or the other. He just likes certain topics I post about and my opinions on them.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 18 2004, 05:59 PM

Have you ever tried to convince someone of truth when they want to believe the lie? They will treat every truth that fits with contempt and embrace any deception that justifies the lie.

Yes Traveler, you.

If G-d created all things and can do anything - why would he not create G-ds?  Because G-d is evil?  Because if there were many there could not be “ehad” and would fight among themselves?  Think! If G-d can create a “ehad” with mankind that has fallen and fights among themselves by nature - could not G-ds be “ehad” that are loving, kind, full of grace and service and willing to lay down their life for the benefit of others be “ehad”.

No, because one of the similar things about Judaism and Christianity is that they both share a common belief through scriptures that there is only one God. (ie Deut. 6:4)

If there can only be a singular G-d then there cannot be a G-d because G-d by definition can do anything.  If there are no other G-ds then either there is a lack of power which means he is not really G-d or he is selfish and will not share, which is not the nature of a loving G-d.

Your statement is crazy. You believe its impossible for there to exist only one God? Why? Because if God can't share his godhood, that's just not right? I'm not quite sure where you're coming from Traveler but it's not for me. I understand what I believe, yours makes no sense and is not supported by Judaic or Biblical scripture.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 18 2004, 09:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 18 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 18 2004, 05:59 PM

If there can only be a singular G-d then there cannot be a G-d because G-d by definition can do anything.  If there are no other G-ds then either there is a lack of power which means he is not really G-d or he is selfish and will not share, which is not the nature of a loving G-d.

Your statement is crazy.

Come on really Traveler,

Maureen is right. That is the kind of faulty logic and lazy highschool kid might try to get away with before someone clobbered him with a well reasoned comeback.

Take the first sentence in the above quote. You say that if there can only be one God then God does not exist BECAUSE God, by definition, can do anything.

First, the definition on God is not omnipotence. Omnipotence is one characteristic that some people assign to diety.

Second, even if God COULD do anything, including making more gods, that doesn't mean that God would choose to make more gods.

Think it though man!

[Traveler]

I find this interesting. How can one of something exist. Especially if the one could produce more? I realize that perhaps there are reasons - but none that I find reasonable.

The other problem is that G-d want us to be "one" with him. I submit the more we are "one" with G-d the more like him we become. Is this true or false? If his will becomes our will and his thoughts become our thoughts - why can't we be G-ds?

What is it that definds G-d that G-d hold back. What does he have that we cannot? I do not believe there is any such thing. If either of you believe there is then perhaps you have some idea or example or something that you can relate to me.

Now Maureen and Snow - We have already agreeded that "ehad" is the unitining of many for a common cause. "Ehad" is the oneness of G-d in the scripture. If there is "ehad" G-d and we can be one with that G-d - why are we any less a part than Jesus or any other person that is a part of that oneness? Do not the scriptures testify that as humans in covenant we are already the children of G-d?

The Traveler

[Ray]

The Traveler is correct, it’s just that it’s a bit difficult to understand him at times.

But then again so am I, and so are most of the rest of us.

I’d like to pick up on his point about how a husband and wife become “one”, with “one” derived from the word “ehad”.

Do you understand that when husband and wife become “one” they are still two individual and separate beings?

That it is “two” that become “one”, and considered to be “one”?

If you understand that, then you should have no difficulty understanding that God is “one” in the same way, because the word “ehad” is used to define both states of being.

This does not mean that those of us who become “one” with God will no longer be individual and separate beings, though. It means that those of us who become “one” with God will be one with God as a husband and wife become “one” together.

We will continue to be individual and separate beings, but we will be “one”.

Anyway, I find that it’s easier for me to understand something that somebody else has said when I try to rephrase what I think they said in my own words, and I hope that helped.

[Traveler]

Thank you Ray: The other point that has been overlooked has to do with the word "yahed". "Yahed" has to do with parts coming together to form a single being. "Ehad" in this form is used to describe many beings uniting is a cause - but not becoming parts of a separately defined single being. From what I understand Trinitarians are trying part of the meaning of "ehad" in place of "yahed" to define what they believe in the G-dhead. That there are plural aspects (or persons) but instead of coming together for a cause (not an actual being) but forming one single being ("yahed") that is G-d.

I have attempted to present the understanding of the difference between "ehad" and "yahed" but I have the impression that this understanding is too much of a threat and will not make a difference.

But all discussion aside. I believe above all else that G-d would have us be loving and kind over understanding correct doctrine. I believe Maureen is a loving and kind person. I would trust her (I think Maureen is a her) over an expert in doctrine that lacks love. I apologize to Maureen for any of my word that have seem harsh and thank her for her efforts.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 20 2004, 01:47 PM

Thank you Ray:  The other point that has been overlooked has to do with the word "yahed".  "Yahed" has to do with parts coming together to form a single being.  "Ehad" in this form is used to describe many beings uniting is a cause - but not becoming parts of a separately defined single being.  From what I understand Trinitarians are trying part of the meaning of "ehad" in place of "yahed" to define what  they believe in the G-dhead.  That there are plural aspects (or persons) but instead of coming together for a cause (not an actual being) but forming one single being ("yahed") that is G-d. 

I have attempted to present the understanding of the difference between "ehad" and "yahed" but I have the impression that this understanding is too much of a threat and will not make a difference.

But all discussion aside.  I believe above all else that G-d would have us be loving and kind over understanding correct doctrine.  I believe Maureen is a loving and kind person.  I would trust her (I think Maureen is a her) over an expert in doctrine that lacks love.  I apologize to Maureen for any of my word that have seem harsh and thank her for her efforts.

The Traveler

No need to apologize Traveler, you've been quite polite, a little crazy, but polite. I prefer to agree to disagree. I think no matter how we analyze information we will both come to different conclusions. I think you're attaching more meaning to the word ehad than is appropriate. So no matter how you wish to convince me that your understanding of the trinity and godhead is correct; I will never agree.

M.

PS - Maureen is a girl's name. :)

[Traveler]

Thanks again for your efforts. I do not define friendship as agreement. Rather I think friendship comes from respect when there is disagreement.

I may not agree with your concepts but I think I understand better now that I did. If you ever want to discuss a topic with me - I would be honered - most likely a little crazy but honored.

The Traveler

[Ray]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 21 2004, 09:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 21 2004, 09:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 20 2004, 01:47 PM

Thank you Ray:  The other point that has been overlooked has to do with the word "yahed".  "Yahed" has to do with parts coming together to form a single being.  "Ehad" in this form is used to describe many beings uniting is a cause - but not becoming parts of a separately defined single being.  From what I understand Trinitarians are trying part of the meaning of "ehad" in place of "yahed" to define what  they believe in the G-dhead.  That there are plural aspects (or persons) but instead of coming together for a cause (not an actual being) but forming one single being ("yahed") that is G-d. 

I have attempted to present the understanding of the difference between "ehad" and "yahed" but I have the impression that this understanding is too much of a threat and will not make a difference.

But all discussion aside.  I believe above all else that G-d would have us be loving and kind over understanding correct doctrine.  I believe Maureen is a loving and kind person.  I would trust her (I think Maureen is a her) over an expert in doctrine that lacks love.  I apologize to Maureen for any of my word that have seem harsh and thank her for her efforts.

The Traveler

No need to apologize Traveler, you've been quite polite, a little crazy, but polite. I prefer to agree to disagree. I think no matter how we analyze information we will both come to different conclusions. I think you're attaching more meaning to the word ehad than is appropriate. So no matter how you wish to convince me that your understanding of the trinity and godhead is correct; I will never agree.

M.

PS - Maureen is a girl's name. :)

I think you're attaching more meaning to the word ehad than is appropriate. So no matter how you wish to convince me that your understanding of the trinity and godhead is correct; I will never agree.

You will never agree?

Not even if you discover the true meaning and significance of the word “ehad” for yourself?

How can you say that so soon, after you just started looking into the meaning of that word?

Can you at least say that it logically makes sense that “ehad” could mean to become united with more than one person, as a husband and wife become united?

Don’t you think you should maybe investigate this a little more, instead of saying something like you will never change your mind?

Something like this could change your whole outlook on life, you know. Are you sure you don’t want to think about it a little more? Would you care to explain why not?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ray@Jun 21 2004, 09:07 PM

You will never agree?

Not even if you discover the true meaning and significance of the word “ehad” for yourself?

How can you say that so soon, after you just started looking into the meaning of that word?

Can you at least say that it logically makes sense that “ehad” could mean to become united with more than one person, as a husband and wife become united?

Don’t you think you should maybe investigate this a little more, instead of saying something like you will never change your mind?

Something like this could change your whole outlook on life, you know.  Are you sure you don’t want to think about it a little more?  Would you care to explain why not?

u·ni·ty Pronunciation Key (y n -t )

n. pl. u·ni·ties

1. The state or quality of being one; singleness.

2. The state or quality of being in accord; harmony.

3.

a. The combination or arrangement of parts into a whole; unification.

b. A combination or union thus formed.

4. Singleness or constancy of purpose or action; continuity: “In an army you need unity of purpose” (Emmeline Pankhurst).

5.

a. An ordering of all elements in a work of art or literature so that each contributes to a unified aesthetic effect.

b. The effect thus produced.

6. One of the three principles of dramatic structure derived by French neoclassicists from Aristotle's Poetics, stating that a drama should have but one plot, which should take place in a single day and be confined to a single locale.

7. Mathematics.

a. The number 1.

b. See identity element.

[Middle English unite, from Old French, from Latin (u)nit(a)s, from (u)nus, one. See oi-no- in Indo-European Roots.]

one Pronunciation Key (w n)

adj.

1. Being a single entity, unit, object, or living being.

2. Characterized by unity; undivided: They spoke with one voice.

3.

a. Of the same kind or quality: two animals of one species.

b. Forming a single entity of two or more components: three chemicals combining into one solution.

one

\One\, a. [OE. one, on, an, AS. ["a]n; akin to D. een, OS. ["e]n, OFries. ["e]n, ["a]n, G. ein, Dan. een, Sw. en, Icel. einn, Goth. ains, W. un, Ir. & Gael. aon, L. unus, earlier oinos, oenos, Gr. ? the ace on dice; cf. Skr. ["e]ka. The same word as the indefinite article a, an. [root] 299. Cf. 2d A, 1st An, Alone, Anon, Any, None, Nonce, Only, Onion, Unit.] 1. Being a single unit, or entire being or thing, and no more; not multifold; single; individual.

----------------

Our main discussion Ray was regarding how we understand the Trinity. Personally I don’t believe that Traveler really understands the meaning of the Trinity. However he has that right, I just don’t agree with his meaning. And furthermore he also sees the godhead different than how I do. He’s sees multiple gods, I see one God. Traveler uses the word ehad and gives it the meaning of one and unity but also understands it as meaning plural or multiple. That is what I disagree with. I have found that ehad only means one or unity; and from the dictionary meaning above, those words seem to be synonymous with each other. Nowhere will you see that one or unity means multiple or plural.

So what I will never agree to is Traveler’s extra meaning of ehad and his view of the godhead. He has not convinced me yet and I really doubt he could. I'm set in my ways. :)

M.

[Jason]

"This does not mean that those of us who become “one” with God will no longer be individual and separate beings, though. It means that those of us who become “one” with God will be one with God as a husband and wife become “one” together." (ray)

Sounds like you've just given ammo to the HOMOSEXUAL's!

If that's how we're ONE with God, i'd rather not be......

[Setheus]

only a homophobe would come to that conclusion.

If you do not like the marriage example then instead think of being "one"

as a military unit is "one".

[Jason]

"If his will becomes our will and his thoughts become our thoughts - why can't we be G-ds?" (Traveler)

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55)

That's why.

[Jason]

"Only a homophobe would come to that conclusion." (Sethus)

Takes one to know one!

"If you do not like the marriage example then instead think of being "one"

as a military unit is "one"."

No, you've missed the point. Ray's comparison is flawed. When a Man and Woman are joined together, they become one forever.

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt 19)

[Setheus]

But then Jesus (the Son of God) Commands us to "be ye perfect, as your father in Heaven is perfect."

Now how can we attain this and obey this command if not that our thoughts and our ways become "His" ways and "His" thoughts?....and ultamitely attain god-hood

And He calls us His children...Every other creation on earth that has offspring desires and expects that "child" to grow to be an adult 'whatever'. So it is just a given that a "child of (a) God" would grow and develop into a god. How does that not make sence? Is is like saying all rodent babies will grow to be like their parents..EXCEPT for one certain species of rodent. ???

And in Isaiah the Lord was speaking about His ways/thoughts being higher than ours here in this mortal world. (Duh! Of course they are but we get big heads and forget so He had to point it out.) And when we are in Heaven with Him then we will not dwell "lower" than Him.

[Jason]

"But then Jesus (the Son of God) Commands us to "be ye perfect, as your father in Heaven is perfect."

Now how can we attain this and obey this command if not that our thoughts and our ways become "His" ways and "His" thoughts?....and ultamitely attain god-hood"

Who says that being "perfect" means we become like God?

"And He calls us His children...Every other creation on earth that has offspring desires and expects that "child" to grow to be an adult 'whatever'. So it is just a given that a "child of (a) God" would grow and develop into a god. How does that not make sence? Is is like saying all rodent babies will grow to be like their parents..EXCEPT for one certain species of rodent. ???"

God created Cherbum, Seraphim, and Angels, but they are not gods.

"And in Isaiah the Lord was speaking about His ways/thoughts being higher than ours here in this mortal world. (Duh! Of course they are but we get big heads and forget so He had to point it out.) And when we are in Heaven with Him then we will not dwell "lower" than Him."

That's not what the Bible says.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 22 2004, 03:41 PM

So it is just a given that a "child of (a) God" would grow and develop into a god.

It is, is it? So tell us how many gods do you know that were once just human.

M.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Maureen@ Jun 22 2004, 09:09 AM

Our main discussion Ray was regarding how we understand the Trinity. Personally I don’t believe that Traveler really understands the meaning of the Trinity. However he has that right, I just don’t agree with his meaning. And furthermore he also sees the godhead different than how I do. He’s sees multiple gods, I see one God. Traveler uses the word ehad and gives it the meaning of one and unity but also understands it as meaning plural or multiple. That is what I disagree with. I have found that ehad only means one or unity; and from the dictionary meaning above, those words seem to be synonymous with each other. Nowhere will you see that one or unity means multiple or plural.

Heh, okay, maybe neither The Traveler nor I can convince you that “ehad” might refer to multiple beings united, but I hope you’ll at least think about it for a while.

And to give you a little more food for thought, here’s a link that discusses the meaning of 'ehad' while trying to support trinitarianism, while also giving enough information so that you can support an alternate conclusion.

I hope you find it interesting. :)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin02.html

[Traveler]

Part of our reward in eternity comes from our pursuit of knowledge about G-d. Perhaps I overemphasize certain truths that was taught anciently by prophets that were vessels of great truth. Sometimes I think there are precious truths lost in translations and interpretations and variant readings among various teachers of religion. At best the discussion concerning “ehad” was incomplete. Never-the-less I would introduce another ancient term with its meaning.

This term comes to us from Genesis 1:26 “And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:” The two words I would focus on are “image” and “likeness”. The ancient Hebrew words recorded in scripture for these terms are “pesel” and “temuna”. “Pesel” is translated into image. But the more complete meaning is a physical model of a physical thing - a statue is a good understanding of “pesel”. This is not an abstract concept or theoretical representation but a real physical replica. The term “temmuna” is translated into likeness but would be better understood as a picture that gives a physical looking representation of the original.

I would point out that the creation listed in Genesis is a physical creation and the sacred scriptures tell us that man physical creation is modeled after the physical characteristic of G-d. This point is made even more clear in verse 27: “So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created he them.” To emphasize that G-d has a tangible physical form this verse forces the issue twice making certain we know G-d has a physical body just like the physical body that was created and made for man.

This parallel understanding of the sacred relationship between G-d and man is one of the most important notions in true Christianity. Jesus said that the first and great commandment is to love G-d and the second is like the first - to love your neighbor. Because man is a physical replica of G-d the two commandments are tightly coupled and cannot be separated.

How does this relate to the discussion about “ehad”. First is the clarity of the ancient understanding in the scriptures. And second - however you understand, think or believe of that which is G-d to you, it better include a physical form or you cannot honestly say that the ancient scriptures (from which we all claim is the basis of whatever Bible version we think is correct) agree completely with your notion of what G-d really is.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Since man was created to physically resemble G-d that leaves us with an interesting question concerning the notion of many G-ds or if the G-d that created man ever intended that man become just like him. So the question is - if G-d intended that man not be just like him in what manner or charactortistic (according to the sacred scriptures) are we to avoid becoming like G-d?

The Traveler

[Setheus]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 22 2004, 03:59 PM

Who says that being "perfect" means we become like God?

God created Cherbum, Seraphim, and Angels, but they are not gods.

"And in Isaiah the Lord was speaking about His ways/thoughts being higher than ours here in this mortal world. (Duh! Of course they are but we get big heads and forget so He had to point it out.) And when we are in Heaven with Him then we will not dwell "lower" than Him."

That's not what the Bible says.

Since "perfect" can only be one thing...ie you are either perfect or not perfect...then it stands to reason that only a god can be perfect. Part of being perfect is being complete. If we do not attain the potential for which we were created then we are incomplete and thus not "perfect".

It would make sence that Cherbum, Seraphim, and Angels, are as D&C say are those who did not keep the new and everlasting covenant and did not pass by the angels....but became angels. These are just ranks of angels...or servants of God.

So they are infact His children.