Trinity?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Setheus@Jun 17 2004, 05:28 AM

how to explain this one....well if you had been paying attention you would know that Jesus is the God of the old test. and that Jesus is part of the Godhead and thus "...came down to dwell in a body of clay"...even though the human body doesn't have any clay in it.  So there goes your literal theory.

Oh...the body does not have clay...how would it be if it didn't have clay, but WAS CLAY?

Yeah...have you ever touched a dead body? LOL

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 16 2004, 06:00 PM

Snow, there are many ways of impressing your beliefs on others, and using words is only one way.  If you can't understand how you have impressed your beliefs on me with the way you talk, not just the words, but the things you deny, the things you propound to the exclusion of all else, etc., then we can't talk anymore.  All those things give your beliefs away without you uttering a single word.  (Well, without you uttering a single word stating your beliefs, if you know what I mean.)(If you don't, that means you don't have to say, I believe this about that, etc., for your beliefs to be interpreted from your posts.)

So, hasta la vista, bebe.

Okay, I shouldn't get involved in this unusual battle between Snow and Jenda, but I'm curious. My opinion regarding Snow's posts has been that he is demonstrating how he defines modalism, trinitarianism and the Mormonm godhead. It can be very perturbing regarding trinitarianism because sometimes he gets it right and other times he's way out in left field.

I am not reading (between the lines) that he his trying to promote (ram down our throats) his beliefs on others. He is stating how he understands these doctrines, what he finds confusing about some and therefore why he feels LDS godhead doctrine is acceptable to him.

So therefore I am also at a loss why Jenda believes Snow is "impressing his beliefs on others" and why if he is, she sees that as a bad thing.

M.

PS: :)

per·son (pûrsn)

n.

1. A living human.

2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

3. The living body of a human.

4. Physique and general appearance.

[Guest Starsky]

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....

IOW Christ's Father is not our God, but rather The Father who testified that Christ was our God... "This is my son in whom I am well please....HEAR HIM>>>

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 16 2004, 06:00 PM

Snow, there are many ways of impressing your beliefs on others, and using words is only one way.  If you can't understand how you have impressed your beliefs on me with the way you talk, not just the words, but the things you deny, the things you propound to the exclusion of all else, etc., then we can't talk anymore.  All those things give your beliefs away without you uttering a single word.  (Well, without you uttering a single word stating your beliefs, if you know what I mean.)(If you don't, that means you don't have to say, I believe this about that, etc., for your beliefs to be interpreted from your posts.)

So, hasta la vista, bebe.

Okay, I shouldn't get involved in this unusual battle between Snow and Jenda, but I'm curious. My opinion regarding Snow's posts have been that he is demonstrating how he defines modalism, trinitarianism and the Mormonm godhead. It can be very perturbing regarding trinitarianism because sometimes he gets it right and other times he's way out in left field.

I am not reading (between the lines) that he his trying to promote (ram down our throats) his beliefs on others. He is stating how he understands these doctrines, what he finds confusing about some and therefore why he feels LDS godhead doctrine is acceptable to him.

So therefore I am also at a loss why she believes Snow is "impressing his beliefs on others" and why if he is, she sees that as a bad thing.

M.

PS: :)

per·son (pûrsn)

n.

1. A living human.

2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

3. The living body of a human.

4. Physique and general appearance.

I have to agree....I think Jenda is becoming to close to the trees to see the forest...of free thinking and idea sharing...and opinion discussions..

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jun 16 2004, 06:00 PM

Snow, there are many ways of impressing your beliefs on others, and using words is only one way.  If you can't understand how you have impressed your beliefs on me with the way you talk, not just the words, but the things you deny, the things you propound to the exclusion of all else, etc., then we can't talk anymore.  All those things give your beliefs away without you uttering a single word.  (Well, without you uttering a single word stating your beliefs, if you know what I mean.)(If you don't, that means you don't have to say, I believe this about that, etc., for your beliefs to be interpreted from your posts.)

So, hasta la vista, bebe.

Okay, I shouldn't get involved in this unusual battle between Snow and Jenda, but I'm curious. My opinion regarding Snow's posts have been that he is demonstrating how he defines modalism, trinitarianism and the Mormonm godhead. It can be very perturbing regarding trinitarianism because sometimes he gets it right and other times he's way out in left field.

I am not reading (between the lines) that he his trying to promote (ram down our throats) his beliefs on others. He is stating how he understands these doctrines, what he finds confusing about some and therefore why he feels LDS godhead doctrine is acceptable to him.

So therefore I am also at a loss why she believes Snow is "impressing his beliefs on others" and why if he is, she sees that as a bad thing.

M.

PS: :)

per·son (pûrsn)

n.

1. A living human.

2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

3. The living body of a human.

4. Physique and general appearance.

When I made the statement about Snow impressing his beliefs on someone, it wasn't that I thought he was trying to force his beliefs on me, I was trying to explain that all of what he says and does works together to impress on others what his beliefs are, whether he gives voice to them or not.

He said that I was putting words in his mouth, and technically, he is right, because he didn't come right out and state certain things, but from comments he made, and comments that he didn't make when answering questions, as well as ignoring parts of my post that explained differences in concepts, it told me that there were some things he just did (or didn't) believe about that issue.

Which is fine, he can believe what he wants to believe, I just didn't want other's who didn't know the difference to get the wrong impression.

[Guest Starsky]

I think it dangerous and unwise to decide what other's are...or what they actually embrace or believe.....by what they post here.....

[Jason]

"Easy there big fella, were all rights here, right?" (snow)

Sorry dawg. You know how it is when someone won't answer any of your questions, only to ask new ones. (That and getting divorce papers in the mail tends to irritate one's behind....)

[Guest Chell]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jun 17 2004, 04:24 PM

(That and getting divorce papers in the mail tends to irritate one's behind....)

At least you know it is almost over, and a new beginning is at hand. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[Setheus]

looks to me like chell is throwing signals????

[Guest Chell]

but no.

[Jason]

funny.....

[Arcobaleno Nero]

Starsky, I have touched a dead body. What is your point about clay?

There is nothing in the human body that is like clay or made of clay or that turns into clay.

And if you are going off of the fact that all matter is made from the same original elements then you might as well say the sun is clay and water is clay.

Is that what you were getting at?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 16 2004, 08:40 AM

4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from. In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of ““one”” G-d the Hebrew word ““ehad”” is used. ““Ehad”” has two meanings. The first is the counting meaning of one. If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one. Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect. The second meaning of ““ehad”” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage. If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine. Therefore in all cases for defining ““ehad”” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture.

I looked up the word “ehad”, just to make sure Traveler knew what he was talking about because sometimes I think he’s from another planet.

From what I found (which was difficult), ehad means one as in singular or one as in unity. This statement of Traveler’s is strange:

If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds.

I totally disagree! It does not in any way mean multiple. In fact the word ehad when referring to God validates the Trinity, because Trinity is describing a Tri-unity. The 3 persons of the Godhead are a unity and exist together as one God.

For example, this explanation:

III. Unity of Multiple Entities Viewed as One

The Bible gives us models or examples of heavenly things (cf. Hosea 12:10) to help us in understanding heavenly and divine concepts. It is God’s way of helping us to visualize heavenly concepts. By understanding the earthly example, we can transfer that understanding to the related heavenly concept, and, thus, come away with a better understanding of the heavenly concept.

One example of this biblical modeling can be seen with the use of the Hebrew word “ehad” used in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (NKJ) This Hebrew word, used in this passage to describe the singularity and uniqueness of God, is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (NKJ). Here we have an example of two entities, that is, a man and wife, coming together and forming one entity. Each is a separate person and can function separately, but their union in marriage is to create a oneness. Here we have a model presented to us that can be used to help us understand the concept of the Trinity, that is, three “persons” comprising one divine substance, that of God. Obviously, the union of the husband and wife is not a perfect union into one, but it does give us an insight into the heavenly concept of the Trinity pointing to “one” being a perfect divine union of three.

http://www.foundationsforourfaith.com/trinity.htm

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 17 2004, 09:05 AM

My opinion regarding Snow's posts has been that he is demonstrating how he defines modalism, trinitarianism and the Mormonm godhead. It can be very perturbing regarding trinitarianism because sometimes he gets it right and other times he's way out in left field.

M.

PS: :)

per·son (pûrsn)

n.

2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

Unless we are quoting, we are always giving our own spin on it, however I don't think that I misrepresenting general thinking on the godhead or modalism or the trinity. What I may be doing is jumping to what I think is a logical conclusion without defining all the step before the conclusion. That's the part you think is in left field but I think is a natural extension of the belief.

...and okay, point made about "person", I just don't think it is the most useful term for God, even if it is technically acceptable.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jun 17 2004, 09:12 AM

He said that I was putting words in his mouth, and technically, he is right, because he didn't come right out and state certain things, but from comments he made, and comments that he didn't make when answering questions, as well as ignoring parts of my post that explained differences in concepts, it told me that there were some things he just did (or didn't) believe about that issue.

Which is fine, he can believe what he wants to believe, I just didn't want other's who didn't know the difference to get the wrong impression.

Reading between the lines is alrigth. I make certain assumptions about evangelical LDS-critics based upon questions they ask or a few statements they make. It saves time by not having to wait until they dump their true agenda onto the table There no problem if you read between the line correctly. In your case, you read things that not only in the lines, not only not in between the line, they weren't even part of the potential thrust of my point, or even germane to my argument.

Since my position is what I said, and you position is what you imagined I might have said if I had been thinking like you wanted me to think, you have no leg to stand on. The impression I get is that you can't address the topic reasonably so you twist it.

That won't work with me.

[Ray]

HELLO..........

tap.... tap.... tap....

IS THIS THING WORKING ?

I use the word "being" when referring to God, since "being" is defined as a "life form".

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW???

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 17 2004, 05:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 17 2004, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jun 16 2004, 08:40 AM

4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from. In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of ““one”” G-d the Hebrew word ““ehad”” is used. ““Ehad”” has two meanings. The first is the counting meaning of one. If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one. Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect. The second meaning of ““ehad”” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage. If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine. Therefore in all cases for defining ““ehad”” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture.

I looked up the word “ehad”, just to make sure Traveler knew what he was talking about because sometimes I think he’s from another planet.

From what I found (which was difficult), ehad means one as in singular or one as in unity. This statement of Traveler’s is strange:

If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds.

I totally disagree! It does not in any way mean multiple. In fact the word ehad when referring to God validates the Trinity, because Trinity is describing a Tri-unity. The 3 persons of the Godhead are a unity and exist together as one God.

For example, this explanation:

III. Unity of Multiple Entities Viewed as One

The Bible gives us models or examples of heavenly things (cf. Hosea 12:10) to help us in understanding heavenly and divine concepts. It is God’s way of helping us to visualize heavenly concepts. By understanding the earthly example, we can transfer that understanding to the related heavenly concept, and, thus, come away with a better understanding of the heavenly concept.

One example of this biblical modeling can be seen with the use of the Hebrew word “ehad” used in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (NKJ) This Hebrew word, used in this passage to describe the singularity and uniqueness of God, is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (NKJ). Here we have an example of two entities, that is, a man and wife, coming together and forming one entity. Each is a separate person and can function separately, but their union in marriage is to create a oneness. Here we have a model presented to us that can be used to help us understand the concept of the Trinity, that is, three “persons” comprising one divine substance, that of God. Obviously, the union of the husband and wife is not a perfect union into one, but it does give us an insight into the heavenly concept of the Trinity pointing to “one” being a perfect divine union of three.

http://www.foundationsforourfaith.com/trinity.htm

M.

As I said there are two definitions of "ehad". You are correct in the plural definition. It is a definition of plural unity. This is very much one of the correct definitions. A unity does not imply a single element but a common unity of multiple separate distinctly different units. The concept of difference also implies not equal. Which is exactly what Jesus meant when he said he is less than his Father. But the Trinity implies that they are equal - one not being greater than the other. Also note that on several occasions the scriptures refer to a plurality of G-ds with one acting as leader - with phrases such as "let US make man in OUR image". Also there is not a single reference to “Person” the Father, “Person” the Son and “Person” the Holy Ghost. The reference is G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost.

The stand of LDS is that there us a unity of G-ds. That because of the fall there is only one G-d, G-d the Son, that is the mediator. Meaning there is only one single G-d - G-d the Son that all by himself is the keeper of the way back to the Tree of Life. Without the Son man cannot deal with any other G-d especially the Father. There is nothing of heaven that comes to man except it comes only By the Son. And man will never see the Father except by the Son.

I would also point out that in the unity of the G-d head is okay for the Son to be a G-d and understood as a differentiable distinctively different G-d. Likewise the Father is G-d even without the Son is still G-d. “Ehad” only tells us that they are united in their cause but that each by themself is G-d. The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 17 2004, 05:09 PM

One example of this biblical modeling can be seen with the use of the Hebrew word “ehad” used in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (NKJ) This Hebrew word, used in this passage to describe the singularity and uniqueness of God, is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (NKJ). Here we have an example of two entities, that is, a man and wife, coming together and forming one entity. Each is a separate person and can function separately, but their union in marriage is to create a oneness. Here we have a model presented to us that can be used to help us understand the concept of the Trinity, that is, three “persons” comprising one divine substance, that of God. Obviously, the union of the husband and wife is not a perfect union into one, but it does give us an insight into the heavenly concept of the Trinity pointing to “one” being a perfect divine union of three.

http://www.foundationsforourfaith.com/trinity.htm

M.

Again I would point out that the unity of husband and wife is not one single body. There are two bodies of flesh. In fact they still have their own separate DNA. The color of their eyes does not change nor does the color of their skin. Their "UNITY" is not "yahed" it is "ehad".

And now you have another word to look up - good luck. I think you would have better luck talking to a Rabbi or University professor that teaches ancient Hebrew. Once you understand the meaning of “yahed” you will understand how the doctrine of the Trinity extends the definitions to incorrect meanings taking advantages of translations and differences of language.

The Traveler

[sanctuaryave]

Originally posted by 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....

IOW Christ's Father is not our God, but rather The Father who testified that Christ was our God... "This is my son in whom I am well please....HEAR HIM>>>

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.

If Christ is the head of our domain and Christs father is the head of Christs domain wouldnt Christ father also have Dominion over us?

The only way for Christ to have dominion over us is if he is God as Mosiah 3 says he is.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Arcobaleno Nero@Jun 17 2004, 03:34 PM

Starsky, I have touched a dead body. What is your point about clay?

There is nothing in the human body that is like clay or made of clay or that turns into clay.

And if you are going off of the fact that all matter is made from the same original elements then you might as well say the sun is clay and water is clay.

Is that what you were getting at?

No that isn't what I am getting at. But if it were, I would have to point out that only certain elements are in clay and none of those elements are found in the sun...

What I am getting at is....when someone dies, they turn to 'stone'... and when they decay....they return to the earth in a form that can and will be obsorb...if planted right in the earth without the vult.

We are told that we are not only made from the dust, but are in earthen vessels, made of clay...etc...these are terms to describe our physical bodies which are literally of the elements found in the earth......

Does that make more sense? :)

[Guest Starsky]

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....

IOW Christ's Father is not our God, but rather The Father who testified that Christ was our God... "This is my son in whom I am well please....HEAR HIM>>>

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.

If Christ is the head of our domain and Christs father is the head of Christs domain wouldnt Christ father also have Dominion over us?

The only way for Christ to have dominion over us is if he is God as Mosiah 3 says he is.

Yes....Jesus and God are the same:

2 Ne. 26: 12

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

If you can see these as titles of positions...such as Bishop, President etc...it is easier to understand...

2 Ne. 11: 7

7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

[sanctuaryave]

Originally posted by Starsky+Jun 17 2004, 11:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ Jun 17 2004, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -sanctuaryave@Jun 17 2004, 09:51 PM

<!--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....

IOW Christ's Father is not our God, but rather The Father who testified that Christ was our God... "This is my son in whom I am well please....HEAR HIM>>>

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.

If Christ is the head of our domain and Christs father is the head of Christs domain wouldnt Christ father also have Dominion over us?

The only way for Christ to have dominion over us is if he is God as Mosiah 3 says he is.

Yes....Jesus and God are the same:

2 Ne. 26: 12

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

If you can see these as titles of positions...such as Bishop, President etc...it is easier to understand...

2 Ne. 11: 7

7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

I agree that Jesus and God are the same. I misunderstood...I thought you believed they were not.

[Guest Starsky]

Yes they are the same....glad we cleared that up..

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 17 2004, 08:43 PM

I would also point out that in the unity of the G-d head is okay for the Son to be a G-d and understood as a differentiable distinctively different G-d. Likewise the Father is G-d even without the Son is still G-d. “Ehad” only tells us that they are united in their cause but that each by themself is G-d. The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist.

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.

[srm]

Originally posted by 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