Transfer of Trinity discussion from Judaism Forum

[xcav8tor]

Hello jo,

It has become apparent that you have no intention of meeting my repeated request to explain your understanding of the Trinity, so since I only have your questions and comments to go by, it still appears to me that you do not understand it. Sorry.

I guess we'll have to carry on as best we can.

I have not been reluctant to spell out my take on the trinity theory.

You have said nothing to the effect that I requested in my post to frantalk:
A) This is what the doctrine states.
B) This is the alleged support for it.

In fact, my questions reflect waht I DO understand...

Which, ironically, is why I doubted your understanding of the doctrine in the first place.

I have also presented the fact that there is more than one take on the trinity theory among those who accept it.

What I was looking for jo, was something similar to what I had presented myself on the BB Court (which I assume you read at the time):

There are 3 clear, scriptural, observations which point to God being a Trinity:

ONE - There is ONLY ONE GENUINE GOD in existence. The Bible is IRREVOCABLY AND ABSOLUTELY MONOTHEISTIC. All others are either false gods, idols, or merely called "god" in a figurative or representative capacity. The God of the Bible stands alone as intrinsically God by His divine nature.

TWO - The Bible identifies The Father AS GOD, The Son AS GOD, and The Holy Spirit AS GOD.

THREE - that The Father is a separate MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/PERSON than The Son and The Holy Spirit. EACH is clearly distinguished from the other as DISTINCT "persons."

FOR ALL 3 OF THESE OBSERVATIONS TO BE TRUE, there is only 1 possible conclusion - That God is a TRINITY.

IOW, as one author succinctly put it - God is 1 WHAT and 3 WHOs... Whether the Trinity is the true description of God's nature has nothing to do with whether or not it is comprehensible to us, but merely whether or not the 3 OBSERVATIONS listed above are scripturally sound. IF THEY ARE, then GOD IS A TRINITY - even though as finite and fallible humans who exist merely as single-person beings we could never identify with that kind of existence.

From the above, it would seem that there can't really be more than one "take" on the doctrine of the Trinity. These are the bare bones of what it means.

And btw, would you mind referring to it as the Trinity DOCTRINE instead of THEORY. We are not talking science here. We all know you do not believe or accept it, but it is a matter of history that this IS a doctrine of the orthodox Christian church. Doctrines can be false. Acknowledging it as doctrine is not in any way an affirmation of its content, but it would be appreciated as a gesture of respect for the other POV.

I need no apology from you for the words you have used against me.

Against you? I expressed my doubts about your understanding of the Trinity, and in response to franktalk's comment that you were not attacking me or my beliefs I quoted your own emotional wording which I felt displayed a level of animosity (which the Merriam dictionary defines as "ill will or resentment tending toward active hostility: an antagonistic attitude"). Though my comments were not positive, they were not intended to offend. If anything, I had hoped they would have caused you to reflect on your choice of words. Looking back on what I had quoted, surely you can see that your words were anything but cordial.

You are the one who is hanging to a strange request, which is, for me to present Biblical passages which supports something I don't believe the Bible supports to begin with. Do you realize how strange a request this is???

It's not at all strange. Law school students are routinely challenged to argue the opposite side of their convictions. Being able to explain the opposing POV demonstrates that you know what you are disagreeing with so you don't end up focusing your argument at a "straw man." I have often talked to JWs for example, and can tell from their arguments that they don't have a clue. For example, if we discuss the deity of Christ, they immediately point to verses which emphasis Jesus' humanity. Had they understood the doctrine of the incarnation, they would realize that from my perspective Christ is BOTH God AND Man, and they would not have tried to argue that He was human, mortal, did not know everything, etc. They are tying to prove that because He is man, He cannot be God, but they would not argue IN THIS WAY if they realized that verses demonstrating His humanity are part of the God-Man concept in the first place.

Does my request make more sense to you now?

In fact, you have already explained to Bowman who it is that I am referring to when we speak about either the Father, the Son or the Holy Ghost. So why do you need further clarification to make sure you and I are "on the same page"??

Because I was explaining to Bowman where you were getting mixed up (interpreting every reference to God as "Father" and not being able to differentiate between "person" and "being"). That is one of the reasons I wanted you to state you position so we could sort it out. As I also explained on the BB Court:

Most people make the common (and admittedly reasonable) assumption that a separate "mind" or "person" requires a separate "being" or "essence." In fact, based on our personal experience and observation, this is ALWAYS THE CASE - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - 1 "mind" or "person" per "being." HOW anyone can be any different is beyond my ability to grasp BUT we must be careful not to assign our own limitations to the infinite God. As a human "being" I have a single self-consciousness which resides within my physical body. In contrast, the Trinity teaches that God is a single divine "BEING" but instead of just a single consciousness, He has 3. Most people get so hung up on the difficulty of picturing how such a mode of existence would work, they can't get past it. They are trying to get the cart before the horse instead of looking what is simply staring them in the face (if they have the eyes to see it).

Once you open your mind to the concept that "person" DOES NOT EQUAL "being," the Trinity becomes much easier to understand (Accepting it is another matter, but it should at least make sense). In fact, I think THIS IS THE KEY (or at least one of them). Until you can allow this distinction as possible - at least for the sake of discussion - you will not be able to understand what I am talking about. It would be like trying to explain colour to someone who is colour-blind - your mind would not allow you to see it.

IIRC you said something to the effect that when you read about God speaking from heaven at Jesus' baptism that you "knew they were different Gods." But that is not what the text proves. All it proves is that they are distinct PERSONS. It does not prove they are different BEINGS. This text does not contradict the Trinity, but is part of the 3 lines of evidence which indicates they are different PERSONS. Because you make no distinction between person and being, it appears to you to be evidence against the Trinity, but if you correctly understood the doctrine, you would not try to use this event in your argument - especially with a Trinitarian.

Your refusal and reluctance to answer the questions is an indication that you are actually not able to answer them;

Since I mentioned several times that I would only address your questions after you had presented your take on the Trinity - and that you had not yet done so - it is premature to assume that I am not able to answer them. I am, however, not surprised that you said this. Actually, I was expecting it.

because the trinity does indeed fall apart under those questions, as well as the observations we have made from Tertulian, as well as verbage from the first Council of Nicea, and from statements made by the RCC. Why are you so afraid to go there?

I have explained why I have not addressed your questions earlier. Fear has nothing to do with it. I would not fall apart if I come across a question I do not have the answer to, any more than you would, and while from your POV your questions undermine the Trinity, that is yet to be discussed. I have replied to Frank about Tertullian and I disagree with your assessment of the Council of Nicea.

As for the Catholics and Popes who judge the Protestants as lost, they are wrong. The true church is not made up of the visible church, but all those who have put their trust in the true Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible and belong to His spiritual body (which is the True church - it is not made up of any one denomination).

With regard to the Protestants who judge all Catholics as lost and brand the Pope as Antichrist, they are also mistaken. In my personal opinion, Pope John Paul 1 was a genuine believer and faithful follower of Christ (Pope John Paul 2... not so much). The main problem with Catholicism is their undue focus on works. If they adhere to the essential, defining beliefs of Christianity and are counting on their faith in Christ to save them, I would say they are okay. If they instead are depending on their works to save them in addition to faith, then according to the Apostle Paul they are in trouble. And while I believe a future Pope may turn out to be the False Prophet of Revelation, I do not believe any of them will turn out to be the Antichrist.

Trying to re-establish what I remember about how my Pastor answered my questions over 40 years ago and to point to Biblical passages used to support the trinity is merely a rabbit trail. I recognized this and first refused to go down it. But then, in defference to our friendship, I reconsidered and decided to do it anyway. I went so far as to use the very passages YOU used in support of various aspects about the trinity. And that is still not good enough for you. I thought that you were going to present an honest discussion even if you were in disagreement...

Hardly a rabbit trail. I said you could have also offered your current summary of the Trinity, and I've explained above the value in your being able to accurately state the opposing POV. That opportunity is gone now, as I had to step in and lay it out myself. I don't understand why you suspect me of being "dishonest" and forcing you down a "rabbit hole." Perhaps it is because you have encountered this from others so often you now have trust issues.

This is a brand new thread which is presenting some pretty tough questions for a Trinitarian to answer. It looks like you are not up to the task. In fact, I find it strangely quiet in that only one or two other posters are even willing to address this thread. And none have even approached the actual questions; which, I believe sincerely is because no one knows how to answer them. How odd that those who are convinced that the trinity must be believed in order to be saved are so willing to condemn my soul to an eternity of damnation, while at the same time no one is willing to answer direct questions about the very theory they claim damns me. Who is kidding who here???

An awful lot of unjustified assumptions there jo. And a little more of that animosity too. If someone else had written this paragraph above, what impression do you think you would have of them?

You are getting frustrated because you think I have not responded to your questions; when in reality I just haven't done it in a specific format you want to find it.

Which was deliberate on your part, wasn't it? Does that make you feel that you "won" jo?

You described my comments as filled with animosity. I am sorry you feel that way. Well, I AM unloading a lot of frustration here NOW, in this post. However, I would like to point out that my "animosity" pales in comparison with the condition of my eternally damned soul which Trinitarians point out to me with such great ease and without thought about what they have just done, or how it might appear to me.

I think if you take an objective look, you would agree with my adjective.

I can tell that you are "unloading" in this post too and it is clear to me that your feelings have been hurt, but I would like to remind you that I AM NOT among those Trinitarians who seemingly delight in condemning you. In fact, I would be heartbroken at the thought that ANYONE I have gotten to know going into a lost eternity - and that includes you. I still consider you a friend since the BB Court and regret the tension apparent in our recent exchanges. Perhaps we can both take a deep breath and continue in future in a more congenial manner.

Again, since I have already shared my comments on the very same passages you used to support the trinity, I have already provided much Biblical support to show why I don't believe they support the trinity. Therefore, it should be discernable by my negating those passages, to be able to understand what I think the trinity does try to teach merely by reading my refutations.

To a degree, but that puts in on me to sort out your perspective, and since you aren't "negating" every aspect of the Trinity (and its related teaching of the Incarnation), I still couldn't arrive at the complete picture. Neither would my efforts tell me whether or not you understand that the concept is based on three basic scriptural observations (as in the box above). It seems to me that the biggest conflict between our views is monotheism vs polytheism, and while you have touched on this, you don't seem to have realized its importance.

Additionally, before the Basketball Court thread, you and I had several pm discussions where you were teaching me your concept of the trinity theory. During that time I asked many questions. Do you think you were not able to teach me the trinity during those discussions? Or is it because I still refused to accept it that you are trying to make such a big deal out of my position now?

To be honest, I don't honestly recall any detail about those discussions. My memory is not nearly what it used to be and I don't remember what you said at the time - just that you gave no indication of changing your mind. And I am not trying to give you a hard time because of that. OC and nrajeff didn't change their views either, yet we are getting on fine. I also feel you are all as likely to become Trinitarians as I am likely to become Mormon, so why would I be upset since your conversion would come as a shock to me? As I once told nrajeff, I'm not in the business of "converting" people. That's the Holy Spirit's job. My place is to share the truth as I understand it to the best of my ability with anyone who will listen, and pray for God to open their eyes. That's all.

Because all you are successfully doing at this point is trying to make me look like the bad guy (girl) by making it appear that I don't understand the trinity; which shields you from any necessity to actually address the issues and problems with the trinity which have been presented.

I was not "trying" to make you look bad. How could I know that you wouldn't just respond to my request the first time? It was your continued resistance to my request, if anything, that would have put you in a negative light. My preference was for a direct and timely response all along, and I would have been only to happy to admit I had misjudged you had you demonstrated your grasp of the Trinity.

You just don't want to see that my responses have already addressed these issues; it is just that I have not presented it in the exact manner you wish to see it. So you are being hardnosed about it; which still sounds to me like you are merely avoiding unanswerable questions... Protestants DO adhere to the trinity.

Already addressed above.

It is difficult for anyone to consider that perhaps the beliefs they have held so dearly to for so long are flawed. But rather than trying to hide from this, people should face it head on and make adjustments in their beliefs so that their relationship with Father can grow rather than stagnate in the disappointment of finding out they have been lied to by their religious leaders and teachers.

Of course you realize this works both ways - right?

... I personally don't care what a person thinks Father, Son and Holy Ghost "look" like, because I don't believe you have to be 100% correct - especially inasmuch as this is impossible to begin with.

You seem to be missing the point. Trinitarians are not claiming to know what God "looks like," but rather that if one's concept of God is not based on Biblical revelation, their faith (no matter how sincere) is in a figment of their imagination, and a figment of their imagination cannot save them. There are many ideas as to God's nature set forth by the world's religions, but only one of them has been revealed by God Himself. How can one reject God's own testimony of Who and What He is and still have a valid relationship with Him?

Are you willing to proclaim that Trinitarians - who in your mind have been duped by Satan about God's true nature - who believe in a different Christ and a different God and a different gospel than you do are saved and in a close personal relationship with YOUR God just because they use the name of Jesus? Honestly?

... Nobody can know and understand God while in the flesh. So people need to stop thinking that they do.

But we CAN KNOW what God has told us about Himself in the Bible - and that is A LOT of information (as I showed Frank earlier).

They need to stop judging others as well.

And THAT is the purpose of my posts; to expose the inherrent problems with the very theory which causes Trinitarians to huff and puff their superior knowledge about God by declaring themselves saved and others not saved merely because they will not accept something which man has developed through their personal interpretations of the Bible; rather than allowing Father to guide each of us personally through the power of the Holy Ghost. How preposterous for man to believe he can do the work of the Holy Ghost.

Your criticism is based on the notion that non-Trinitarians are condemned on the basis of rejecting "something which man has developed" instead of as I indicated above, on rejecting the evidence God revealed to us (those 3 scriptural observations which can only all be true if God is a Triune Being). The question revolves around whether or not those 3 observations are valid. If so, and someone rejects them, there are consequences to turning one's back on God's revelation. Right? How could there not be?

For ALL readers, put THAT in your pipe, and smoke it!

Let's hope you have all that out of your system now. Let's try to proceed in a less contentious manner.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[Salty]

Hi Salty,

I moved the topic to this forum because it was my understanding that you WOULD be allowed to participate, as well as LDS members. I've underlined a portion of the rules for clarification:

"This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few."

It seems to me that is was Christianity 201 where you would not be allowed to post. I would suggest posting here and see if a moderator intervenes. If so, you can blame me and then withdraw. Otherwise, perhaps we could take our discussion to private messaging. I'll leave that up to you.

Regards,
xcav8tor

Hey, xcav8tor. Sorry to be so long in replying, last week ended with a bang at work, and my wife kept me busy all weekend.

I think you're right. I will participate as soon as I can catch my breath, hopefully tonight when I get home. Lunch hour is not enough time.

[jo7241974]

The entire discourse addresses mere mortals, not gods.

· They know not
· They understand not
· They walk in darkness
· They are people
· They will die
· They will fall

Jesus quotes this Psalm as He directly addresses the Jews who wish to stone Him.

That is a stretch. Jesus is repeating something He had taught in the OT. When we first read it in Psalms, there is no one desiring to kill Him there. Jesus is REMINDING them about who they really are. I have found that many scholarly types are able to dissect passages enough that they can then rebuild them into meaning anything they want them to say. I see you as one of these individuals.

Most assuredly, neither in the OT or the NT can this be construed as relating to gods – rather it applies to the ignorant Jews.

Your attitude presents itself as being anti-semetic. That's too bad, because Jesus loves the Jews; He has promised that ALL Jews will be saved. He has also taught US to love everyone.

If Jesus had said this before in the Psalms then this would make Him God.

Can you accept this?

Jesus IS God - He is the God of Abraham; He is the Son of the Father. He is NOT the Father; however. He is a separate God being who gives Glory to His Father (our Father), who is His God (our God). Right now He is serving at the right hand of the Father.

Context, sister.

Jesus is addressing the Jews that want to kill Him.

What ‘divinity’ in the Jews would cause them to be murderers of the promised Messiah?

Satan is a fallen angel who is also a god. Here are a few interesting passages concerning Satan:

John 12:31 KJV

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

John 14:30 KJV

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Ephesians 2:1-2 KJV

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Satan is a REAL god; however, he is a FALSE god. He is the father of lies. He also has many of the same powers which Christ has. I would not call him divine, even though he IS a god and came from divinity. Now, regardless of how you and I may differ about what that looks like, the bottom line is that you believe Christ created satan (which means you believe that Jesus is capable of creating evil, btw); and since Christ is Divine, satan was still created by someone Divine. However, since Satan has fallen, I could not call him a divine god; he has discarded whatever qualities of divinity he possessed through his choices and actions.

Likewise, just because Jesus accuses some of the children of God of being murderers, etc., does not change who they are. As sons of God and the children of God, they are still gods. As I have offered before, if they are being righteous and choosing good, then they are being true gods. If they are being unrighteous and choosing evil, then they are being false gods. Either way, they still real gods.

None, sister.

As already seen in the NT, Jesus calls-out the disbelieving Jews as liars, murderers, and belonging to their father, Satan (John 8.44) long before chapter 10. Therefore, if Jesus already confirmed previously, in the very same Gospel account, that Jews belong to the Devil, how is it possible that you want the Jews to belong to God?

The following comes to mind in response to your question:

Matthew 16:17-19 KJV

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Then, only a few verses later, we see this:

Matthew 16:23 KJV

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

With every word we speak, every action we take, every choice we make, we either serve God, or we serve Satan. That is how quickly we vascillate between good and evil. At the same moment we cannot be serving both; it is either/or.

Regards,

jo

[Salty]

I think it's a fairly simple thing to harmonize. Yes, God in his divinity has no physical form. He is purely spirit. However, he can take on something physical in order to facilitate interaction with humans if that's the way He wants to do so.

That would require Him to change, from an infinite, boundless being to a finite, bounded being. Yet He has declared that He does not change. Ever.

And saying he can do whatever He wants is true, but I think He has limits. They may be self-imposed, or they might be limits imposed by His nature, but there are things He cannot do. For example, He cannot lie. He cannot change. He cannot be imperfect. Based on what we know of His creation, I'd say He cannot be irrational or perform irrational acts. And if you, or someone or some text that claims to speak for Him claims otherwise, I cannot believe that claim or that text to be valid.

Think of Him as "wearing" the flesh and its human nature, as if it were a glove. I am not a glove, but I can wear one if I have a reason to do so. It in no way affects my essence -- I become no less human in the process -- nor do the essences of mine and the glove's intermingle.

I see you are a Mormon, but I'm not familiar with your beliefs regarding the trinity, except I thought you guys didn't hold to it. So I'm thoroughly confused, because you just used a typical Trinitarian analogy. But it's one of many similar ones that do not work at all with the actual, "official" definitions. You do not claim that the glove is you or shares your essence, and yet the trinity doctrine claims exactly that for "the glove" (to continue the analogy).

So I fail to see how in taking on human nature and flesh God would compromise His own essence, including His fundamental formlessness.

His own essence is infinite, boundless, perfect, non-dimensional, whereas a man is finite, bounded, imperfect, 3-dimensional. To call that a "compromise" would be an understatement.

[Bowman]

That is a stretch. Jesus is repeating something He had taught in the OT. When we first read it in Psalms, there is no one desiring to kill Him there. Jesus is REMINDING them about who they really are. I have found that many scholarly types are able to dissect passages enough that they can then rebuild them into meaning anything they want them to say. I see you as one of these individuals.

The verses speak for themselves.

Nothing about humans being gods, sister.

Jesus IS God - He is the God of Abraham; He is the Son of the Father. He is NOT the Father; however. He is a separate God being who gives Glory to His Father (our Father), who is His God (our God). Right now He is serving at the right hand of the Father.

According to Joseph Smith in his JST rendering, Jesus is the one God Almighty.

Satan is a fallen angel who is also a god. Here are a few interesting passages concerning Satan:

John 12:31 KJV

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

John 14:30 KJV

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Ephesians 2:1-2 KJV

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Satan is a REAL god; however, he is a FALSE god. He is the father of lies. He also has many of the same powers which Christ has.

Satan has none of the powers that Jesus has.

Remember, Satan is a created entity.

Nothing more.

I would not call him divine, even though he IS a god and came from divinity.

Satan can never be divine, sister. He is a creation.

Only the Triune God is divine.

Now, regardless of how you and I may differ about what that looks like, the bottom line is that you believe Christ created satan (which means you believe that Jesus is capable of creating evil, btw);

The Pslamist claims that God created evil – which is a good attempt at a redd herring, albeit irrelevant to this discussion.

and since Christ is Divine, satan was still created by someone Divine.

Being created by God does not equate that the creation is a god, sister.
You cannot possibly support this LDS theology with scripture.

However, since Satan has fallen, I could not call him a divine god; he has discarded whatever qualities of divinity he possessed through his choices and actions.

Satan, as a created entity, was never divine, sister.

Likewise, just because Jesus accuses some of the children of God of being murderers, etc., does not change who they are. As sons of God and the children of God, they are still gods. As I have offered before, if they are being righteous and choosing good, then they are being true gods. If they are being unrighteous and choosing evil, then they are being false gods. Either way, they still real gods.

No, sister.
They are children of Satan…just like I showed you in John…Just as Jesus said…just like you ignore.

The following comes to mind in response to your question:

Matthew 16:17-19 KJV

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Then, only a few verses later, we see this:

Matthew 16:23 KJV

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

With every word we speak, every action we take, every choice we make, we either serve God, or we serve Satan. That is how quickly we vascillate between good and evil. At the same moment we cannot be serving both; it is either/or.

Regards,

jo

You have just been scripturally owned again, Jo.

No, Jo, we are not all children of God as you want to believe….some are children of Satan…just as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ told us in the very Gospel of John you are using, but cannot bring yourself to comment on…so you ignore it…

[Bowman]

Your interpretation of Revelation is being filtered through your trinity theory. Those who do not hold to the trinity, see that Revelation is teaching something different.

Jesus is NOT sitting on the Throne of the Father.

Oh really, Jo…?

Take a good look at how your prophet Joseph Smith translates Revelation 3.21…

Rev 3.21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

Not that Smith did any work of his own on this verse – as it is verbatim copied from the KJV of his day – however, the fact that he never lifted a finger to change the text shows that he had to have agreed that Jesus occupied the very same throne as the Father….right from the get-go in Revelation.

Let’s face it, Jo, if you can’t even trust your very own prophet, who can you trust?

[Salty]

I think not. Not without contradicting Himself and calling on people to break His own commandment.

Very well put, xcav8tor. That's the same argument I use regarding the human sacrifice of Jesus.

[jo7241974]

Oh really, Jo…?

Take a good look at how your prophet Joseph Smith translates Revelation 3.21…

Not that Smith did any work of his own on this verse – as it is verbatim copied from the KJV of his day – however, the fact that he never lifted a finger to change the text shows that he had to have agreed that Jesus occupied the very same throne as the Father….right from the get-go in Revelation.

Let’s face it, Jo, if you can’t even trust your very own prophet, who can you trust?

Hi Bowman,

I am glad that you brought this verse up. Let's indeed look at what it says. We will be able to ascertain, BTW, that in addition to what is being taught, that Joseph Smith had no need to make any changes.

θρόνος
thronos
thron'-os
From θράω thraō (to sit); a stately seat (“throne”); by implication power or (concretely) a potentate: - seat, throne.

Revelation 3:21 KJV (emphasis added)

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Here we see that eventually there will be two thrones. All of those who overcome, Jesus will grant to sit with Him "IN" His throne. Currently, Jesus (who also overcame) sits with His Father IN His throne. Please note that Jesus is not sitting ON the throne. With the varied uses of the word "throne", it seems obvious that the "throne" is sometimes used as the actual "seat" upon which someone can sit. At other times "throne" is an implication of power rather than the "seat" itself.

Now, if we were to take your interpretation of verse Rev 3:21 as referring only to the "seat", then I would like to see how everyone who overcomes and is allowed by Jesus to sit on it actually looks like. It would be pretty crowded for space, I think. So, I believe that when the word "in" is used preceding the word "throne", that the use and meaning of the word "throne" is referring to the power and not the actual "seat". Let us look at some more verses to see how this works out.

Revelation 4:2 KJV

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Here is an example of the word "on" preceding the word "throne"; which is different from having the word "in" precede the word "throne".

Revelation 4:6 KJV

And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

Here we find that "in" and round about the throne are four beasts. Notice they "in" the midst of the throne. I do not think this verse is telling us that the beasts are "on" the 'seat' of the throne.

Revelation 5:1 KJV

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

Here, the Father is sitting "ON" the throne holding the sealed book in His right hand. IOW, He is sitting on the seat of the throne.

Revelation 5:6-7 KJV (emphasis added)

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Here, it is quite clear that Jesus was NOT sitting ON the throne where His Father is sitting, since Jesus "came" (from the midst of the throne) and took the book our of His Father's right hand. Otherwise, He could have just reached over and taken the book.

Revelation 5:13 KJV

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Here, every creature is saying, "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, AND unto the Lamb". It is easy to understand by now that it is the Father who is sitting upon the throne; and, we can see that both Father and Son are receiving glory and honour. Finally we see that Jesus is receiving glory and honour, as He is the only one able to open the sealed scroll/book. At any rate, this verse points to two separate Gods receiving glory and honor. Father is the one True most High God, and Jesus, who is the Son of the most High is also a God who gets to rule along with His Father IN His Father's throne. Yet it is still His Father who is sitting ON the throne. I would also note that this definitely indicates that Father has Supremacy. IOW, Father and Jesus are not only not the same God, there is also an heirarchy between them.

Revelation 6:16

King James Version (KJV)

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Again, we see that Father is sitting ON the throne, and Jesus is pointed to separately from His Father.

Revelation 7:17 KJV

For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Again, we see that Jesus is in the midst of the throne as opposed to sitting upon the throne.

Revelation 19:5 KJV

And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

It is not exactly stated who is speaking here. However, in light of all of the other verses, my best guess is that it is Jesus' voice. Also, I think it is Jesus' voice because Jesus has previously taught us that His Father is our Father, and that His God is our God. So, it seems that even now, at this point, Jesus is still giving glory to His Father who is His God, just like He has always done.

Revelation 20:11 KJV

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Finally we see where Jesus IS sitting ON a throne. By John's making a distinction that this particular throne is a great white thrown, he is differentiating it from the throne Father sits on. I believe it is while Jesus sits upon this throne that He performs His Judgments, by reading the next few verses. This would make sense since it is Christ who gets to Judge us.

I am sorry to blow your interpretation and comments out of the water. At least it has given me an opportunity to present even more verses which support my own beliefs about the separateness of the Father and the Son. Interestingly, I am wondering where the Holy Ghost is during all of this, as I see no specific mention of Him. It the Trinity were accurate, then why isn't the third member of the Trinity pointed to or involved with this most important event? Have I missed something? I am thinking that He may still be on the earth witnessing to whomever is left who may still decide to believe. But that is just my personal opinion.

Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman,

I am glad that you brought this verse up. Let's indeed look at what it says. We will be able to ascertain, BTW, that in addition to what is being taught, that Joseph Smith had no need to make any changes.

θρόνος
thronos
thron'-os
From θράω thraō (to sit); a stately seat (“throne”); by implication power or (concretely) a potentate: - seat, throne.

Revelation 3:21 KJV (emphasis added)

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Here we see that eventually there will be two thrones. All of those who overcome, Jesus will grant to sit with Him "IN" His throne. Currently, Jesus (who also overcame) sits with His Father IN His throne. Please note that Jesus is not sitting ON the throne. With the varied uses of the word "throne", it seems obvious that the "throne" is sometimes used as the actual "seat" upon which someone can sit. At other times "throne" is an implication of power rather than the "seat" itself.

Now, if we were to take your interpretation of verse Rev 3:21 as referring only to the "seat", then I would like to see how everyone who overcomes and is allowed by Jesus to sit on it actually looks like. It would be pretty crowded for space, I think. So, I believe that when the word "in" is used preceding the word "throne", that the use and meaning of the word "throne" is referring to the power and not the actual "seat". Let us look at some more verses to see how this works out.

Revelation 4:2 KJV

And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Here is an example of the word "on" preceding the word "throne"; which is different from having the word "in" precede the word "throne".

Revelation 4:6 KJV

And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

Here we find that "in" and round about the throne are four beasts. Notice they "in" the midst of the throne. I do not think this verse is telling us that the beasts are "on" the 'seat' of the throne.

Revelation 5:1 KJV

And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

Here, the Father is sitting "ON" the throne holding the sealed book in His right hand. IOW, He is sitting on the seat of the throne.

Revelation 5:6-7 KJV (emphasis added)

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Here, it is quite clear that Jesus was NOT sitting ON the throne where His Father is sitting, since Jesus "came" (from the midst of the throne) and took the book our of His Father's right hand. Otherwise, He could have just reached over and taken the book.

Revelation 5:13 KJV

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Here, every creature is saying, "Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, AND unto the Lamb". It is easy to understand by now that it is the Father who is sitting upon the throne; and, we can see that both Father and Son are receiving glory and honour. Finally we see that Jesus is receiving glory and honour, as He is the only one able to open the sealed scroll/book. At any rate, this verse points to two separate Gods receiving glory and honor. Father is the one True most High God, and Jesus, who is the Son of the most High is also a God who gets to rule along with His Father IN His Father's throne. Yet it is still His Father who is sitting ON the throne. I would also note that this definitely indicates that Father has Supremacy. IOW, Father and Jesus are not only not the same God, there is also an heirarchy between them.

Revelation 6:16

King James Version (KJV)

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Again, we see that Father is sitting ON the throne, and Jesus is pointed to separately from His Father.

Revelation 7:17 KJV

For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Again, we see that Jesus is in the midst of the throne as opposed to sitting upon the throne.

Revelation 19:5 KJV

And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

It is not exactly stated who is speaking here. However, in light of all of the other verses, my best guess is that it is Jesus' voice. Also, I think it is Jesus' voice because Jesus has previously taught us that His Father is our Father, and that His God is our God. So, it seems that even now, at this point, Jesus is still giving glory to His Father who is His God, just like He has always done.

Revelation 20:11 KJV

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Finally we see where Jesus IS sitting ON a throne. By John's making a distinction that this particular throne is a great white thrown, he is differentiating it from the throne Father sits on. I believe it is while Jesus sits upon this throne that He performs His Judgments, by reading the next few verses. This would make sense since it is Christ who gets to Judge us.

I am sorry to blow your interpretation and comments out of the water. At least it has given me an opportunity to present even more verses which support my own beliefs about the separateness of the Father and the Son. Interestingly, I am wondering where the Holy Ghost is during all of this, as I see no specific mention of Him. It the Trinity were accurate, then why isn't the third member of the Trinity pointed to or involved with this most important event? Have I missed something? I am thinking that He may still be on the earth witnessing to whomever is left who may still decide to believe. But that is just my personal opinion.

Regards,

jo

Interesting take on your two-Throne theory, Jo.

However, you conveniently forgot to mention the most important chapter of Revelation which utterly destroys this LDS paradigm.

Again, your prophet comes to the rescue…

And there shall be no more curse; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him; And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. (Rev 22.3 – 4)

Joseph Smith translation (JST)

So…Jo…how is it that a singular throne is mentioned for both God and Jesus?

Further, you already acknowledged previously that the Father and Son occupy the Throne…but, now God also occupies the Throne.

That makes for:

· Father
· Son
· Spirit


So…now we have a singular Throne of deity even though Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned and yet ‘his’ servants (not their servants!) shall serve ‘him” (not shall serve them!)

Further, they shall see ‘his face’ (not their faces!) and his name shall be on their foreheads (not their names!).

Score another for the Trinity.

Even Smith understood this much.

When are you?

[jo7241974]

The verses speak for themselves.

Nothing about humans being gods, sister.

I see you are unwilling to admit that Jesus is talking to men; yet He has told them that they are gods.

According to Joseph Smith in his JST rendering, Jesus is the one God Almighty.

I need to see this in context so that I can identify where I feel your interpretation has gone astray.

Satan has none of the powers that Jesus has.

Remember, Satan is a created entity.

Nothing more.

Then you are choosing to ignore Revelation.

Revelation 13:2-5 KJV (emphasis added)

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

also,

Revelation 13:11-15 KJV

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Satan can never be divine, sister. He is a creation.

Only the Triune God is divine.

Satan is still a REAL god; but he is a false god. As a false god, he can no longer be considered divine (when using the definition of divinity which is generally reserved for the one True and Most High God who is the Father, and for His Son, Jesus Christ, and for the Holy Ghost, or with respect to the Kingdom of Heaven.)

BTW, the simple requirement actually spelled out in the NT "Good News" salvation Gospel message talks about accepting and believing in Christ, the Son of God, as having come in the flesh, being crucified for our sins, being buried, arising from death on the third day, ascendng into Heaven, and being our Judge. I do not recall that believing in the Holy Ghost is part of that requirement (albeit it is the Holy Ghost who witnesses to us that Jesus IS the Christ.....but NOT until AFTER we first believe; IOW, the witness is just something that happens when we believe....but is not a requirement in order receive the witness). So, why has man decided that a belief in a triune God is required? Most of the teaching about the how and what the Holy Ghost does in His guidance for us is being taught by the Apostles to those who already members of the church.

When we read the account of the Gospel message which Paul teaches to the Greeks in Athens, he doesn't even mention the Holy Ghost. He only points to Father and to the Son; indeed the Godhead he describes only contains God (the Father), and the man (Jesus) whom He hath ordained to Judge man. Paul also interestingly teaches how we are God's offspring. At any rate, nothing is even taught about the Holy Ghost even though Paul is teaching the Gospel to these people.

Acts 17:22-33 KJV

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

33 So Paul departed from among them.

Wouldn't an Apostle surely teach that God is triune if this is such a necessary belief to hold to in order to be saved? Also, here is form of the word "offspring" being used here:

genos
ghen'-os
From G1096; “kin” (abstractly or concretely, literally or figuratively, individually or collectively): - born, country (-man), diversity, generation, kind (-red), nation, offspring, stock.

Satan, as a created entity, was never divine, sister.

Then you have forgotten what is taught here:

Ezekiel 28:14-18 KJV (emphasis added)

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

I would think that only something divine would be allowed to be upon the Holy Mountain of God.

I will point out where I think people have misinterpreted scripture; but do not consider this a war of scriputural superior knowledge. I present Biblical support for my beliefs. I do not proclaim to know everything; but whatever I do understand to be true (and those truths will have guided to and confirmed by the Holy Ghost), I WILL present my comments. If it is not something specifically confirmed, then I will say so; IOW, I will say things like, "I think this is what is being taught". Either way, I am sure that the readers are getting an eyeful about things they may never have thought about before. That is my entire point for presenting what I believe the Bible is teaching. For the Truths which we can learn while we are still in the flesh will make our joy in the Father and in our Beloved Savior who is Jesus the Christ, and in the Truth about the Kingdom of God that we are guided to by the Holy Ghost, is made that much more full. IOW, though ANYONE who believes in Jesus Christ is filled joy of this spiritual knowledge, the more Truth they can learn, then the greater their joy becomes.

If I can be a tool to help lead others to seek more guidance from the Holy Ghost through whatever words God inspires me to use, then I will do so. What I will not do is merely puppet what man has taught man UNLESS the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me that what is being taught is an accurate representation of the Truth as Father sees fit to allow the Holy Ghost to do when Father feels I am ready to understand and have it revealed to me. I will not blindly repeat something because it is popular with the masses, or because the majority vote went with a particular interpretation, or just because a certain belief has been held to for a long period of time. No, the Truths that I hold to and believe in are those which have been confirmed to me through the Power of the Holy Ghost. Since we are all at a different point in our journey, most people are not going to therefore be able to agree on the nuances and the layers of understanding to be had. Some are still learning milk, others are learning meat; depending on the circumstances, some are receiving both according to the subject matter.

This concept is even seen among the Apostles such as when Paul rebukes Peter (and Peter is supposed to be in charge of the Apostles...but we see that he is still fallible), and Peter capitulates to what Paul says. So, even each Apostle was at a different point in their journey than the other Apostles were.

Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

I see you are unwilling to admit that Jesus is talking to men; yet He has told them that they are gods.

As men, they can only be rulers, judges, and magistrates per the lexical definition and scriptural context.

I need to see this in context so that I can identify where I feel your interpretation has gone astray.

Revelation 22.3 – 4.

Keep running from it.

Then you are choosing to ignore Revelation.

Revelation 13:2-5 KJV (emphasis added)

2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

also,

Revelation 13:11-15 KJV

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

These are not the same powers as Jesus has, sister.

Where does Satan have the power to create?

The most you can do is to show that Satan was given authority to inject his spirit into men…this is not giving ‘life’…rather, this is giving death.

Satan is still a REAL god; but he is a false god. As a false god, he can no longer be considered divine (when using the definition of divinity which is generally reserved for the one True and Most High God who is the Father, and for His Son, Jesus Christ, and for the Holy Ghost, or with respect to the Kingdom of Heaven.)

Satan was never considered to be divine in the first place, sister.

You are battling a strawman.

Then you have forgotten what is taught here:

Ezekiel 28:14-18 KJV (emphasis added)

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

Absolutely no mention of Satan’s divinity, sister.

I would think that only something divine would be allowed to be upon the Holy Mountain of God.

You don’t sound very confident.

Moreover, you are unable to demonstrate this scripturally.

[jo7241974]

Interesting take on your two-Throne theory, Jo.

However, you conveniently forgot to mention the most important chapter of Revelation which utterly destroys this LDS paradigm.

Again, your prophet comes to the rescue…



So…Jo…how is it that a singular throne is mentioned for both God and Jesus?

Further, you already acknowledged previously that the Father and Son occupy the Throne…but, now God also occupies the Throne.

That makes for:

· Father
· Son
· Spirit


So…now we have a singular Throne of deity even though Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned and yet ‘his’ servants (not their servants!) shall serve ‘him” (not shall serve them!)

Further, they shall see ‘his face’ (not their faces!) and his name shall be on their foreheads (not their names!).

Score another for the Trinity.

Even Smith understood this much.

When are you?

That's interesting. So, what happened to the Father's throne which is in Heaven where John was taken to in his vision? Do you think that the white throne that came down from Heaven to be placed in the New Jerusalem is the very same throne that was being talked about? What happened to the rainbow around the throne, or the other things that were around it? OR, could it be that the white throne was made FOR Jesus - thus the throne technically belongs first to Father, but it has been prepared for His Son, by Jesus and under the direction of Father. This is what we are taught about Christ:

Revelation 19:16-17 KJV

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

Christ is the Bridegroom; Father is NOT. Up until the end times, it is Father who receives all glory - even from Jesus who always gave glory to the Father. Up until the end times, it is Satan who has power and dominion over the earth.

Remember, too, that it is the EARTH's deed which is now Jesus'. It is the sin of man on the earth whom Jesus has Atoned for. The earth is part of Jesus' reward and inheritance. BTW, that's yet another argument against the Trinity; i.e., the fact that Jesus is an Heir. How can Father be His own Heir? An Heir indicates that a son (or daughter) will receive something from their parent in Jewish tradition (as opposed to being Heir through a friendship when a friend dies, for instance). In fact, being an Heir is a BIG deal in Jewish tradition. The entire OT is filled with types. And everything that is on the earth is a type for something in Heaven.

I would have hoped you would not throw away so many passages in order to use just one passage in support of an argument you are presenting. As I have presented in this post, that one passage is easily seen in more than one way. This makes it appear that you do not desire that ALL scripture be consistent within your own belief system. In fact, you have ignored all the reason which was presented in order to foster your agenda driven posts. You seem willing to throw even possible Truth which could otherwise be revealed to you through the guidance of the Holy Ghost right out the window just as long as you can keep your agenda alive. So be it.

Regards,

jo

[Bowman]

That's interesting. So, what happened to the Father's throne which is in Heaven where John was taken to in his vision? Do you think that the white throne that came down from Heaven to be placed in the New Jerusalem is the very same throne that was being talked about? What happened to the rainbow around the throne, or the other things that were around it? OR, could it be that the white throne was made FOR Jesus - thus the throne technically belongs first to Father, but it has been prepared for His Son, by Jesus and under the direction of Father.

Hi Jo,

Do you simply not bother to study the very scriptures that you are basing your theology upon? Nearly the entirety of the Book of Revelation is composed from OT material.

So…now you are concerned about what happened to the Father’s Throne and its rainbow?

Let’s review where this passage from Revelation has its OT genesis.


From Smith…

And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the color of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. (Ezekiel 1.26 – 28)

Joseph Smith Translation (JST)

So…Jo…how exactly is it that your prophet Joseph Smith claims that the Throne of God has a man sitting upon it, complete with loins and all?! Even your rainbow is mentioned – so this must be the Father’s Throne as well, according to you.

How is it that the Father looks like a man and has loins?

So…who is the best fit for this physical description?

The Father?

The Spirit?

Or…the Son?

I would have hoped you would not throw away so many passages in order to use just one passage in support of an argument you are presenting.

If you want to discuss your ‘two-throne theory’ then you have to be willing to look at all the relevant scriptures. As it is, you have been exposed for cherry-picking your verses, and failing to consider what you ignore.

Most assuredly, you want to ignore Revelation 22.3 – 4 as we have repeatedly seen.

As I have presented in this post, that one passage is easily seen in more than one way. This makes it appear that you do not desire that ALL scripture be consistent within your own belief system. In fact, you have ignored all the reason which was presented in order to foster your agenda driven posts. You seem willing to throw even possible Truth which could otherwise be revealed to you through the guidance of the Holy Ghost right out the window just as long as you can keep your agenda alive. So be it.

Regards,

jo

No, sister.

You have not even begun to address Revelation 22.3 – 4, as there simply is no way around the simple facts already revealed to you.

Even in plain English, your position is toast.

If we were to examine the Greek grammar, then it would nail-in-the-coffin time for this LDS theology.

[Salty]

Hi Salty,

Hey, X-man!

Even though you may feel it inappropriate to participate in this forum, I still feel you deserve an answer to the questions you asked me.

Thank you. I don't know about 'deserving' an answer, but I do appreciate your effort.

I did not "overlook" the verses you cite. They were just not relevant to the point I was discussing, which was that WHEN G-D DID decide to take on a temporary visible and physical form (as described several times in the Old Testament), would it still be inappropriate to worship Him?

And my answer, as you quoted below, is yes, it is inappropriate, because He told us not to make and worship an image of anything on earth or in heaven. In a reply to franktalk in this very thread (post #19), when he suggested God would have the inhabitants of each world worship that world's god, you said, "Not without contradicting Himself and calling on people to break His own commandment." That's a valid response here, too.

Because of this, the question of His typical, invisible, omnipresent existence was not at issue.

Okay. I see a big issue, but having been where you are for 40 years, I understand why you don't.

The passages you provided are in perfect agreement with the teaching of the Trinity regarding G-d's omnipresent and immaterial nature:

Actually, they only add more support to my position. Thank you!

(for brevity I snipped--and saved--that most excellent and helpful collection of verses)

These verses DO establish that apart from these exceptional instances, G-d HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN and indeed CANNOT BE SEEN by us in His ESSENTIAL NATURE. In fact, the Glory of His personal presence would kill us.

But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live." (Exod. 33:20 NIV)

I don't see any exceptional instances. No man has ever seen Him. Some have seen His messengers, others have seen visions of something that represented Him as man-like (e.g., "the appearance of the likeness of a man").

You brought up His omnipresence, which I have been thinking about, too. He is everywhere (and beyond), all at once, at all times; boundless. What shape is infinite? How do you squeeze a Being Who is everywhere and boundless into a man-shape? The Trinity doctrine requires Jesus to be 100% man (and yes, I know, 100% god, too). How can The Creator be a created being? Those aren't questions with mysterious answers, they are proof against irrational doctrines.

It's late, so I'll have to post-pone responding to the rest until tomorrow.

[Vivian]

Greetings Friends!

If I might join in on this discussion with a couple of thoughts for consideration.

The word that is translated as God in our Bibles, comes in first in the OT from the Hebrew words Elohim, which actually means Powers - or more specifically, a multiplicity of Powers generated from One Source. In Hebrew, this Source is defined as masculine, the multiplicity of Powers as feminine. In the New Testament, the word translated as God comes from the Greek word Theos which has a variety of meanings, depth of meanings and sources or etymology.

Another point. In Hebrew, the word for Name means reputation, fame and glory, also pointing to attributes and Powers.

Now if we look at what xcav8tor says above with this in mind:

There are 3 clear, scriptural, observations which point to God being a Trinity:

ONE - There is ONLY ONE GENUINE GOD in existence. The Bible is IRREVOCABLY AND ABSOLUTELY MONOTHEISTIC. All others are either false gods, idols, or merely called "god" in a figurative or representative capacity. The God of the Bible stands alone as intrinsically God by His divine nature.

TWO - The Bible identifies The Father AS GOD, The Son AS GOD, and The Holy Spirit AS GOD.

THREE - that The Father is a separate MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/PERSON than The Son and The Holy Spirit. EACH is clearly distinguished from the other as DISTINCT "persons."

FOR ALL 3 OF THESE OBSERVATIONS TO BE TRUE, there is only 1 possible conclusion - That God is a TRINITY.

IOW, as one author succinctly put it - God is 1 WHAT and 3 WHOs... Whether the Trinity is the true description of God's nature has nothing to do with whether or not it is comprehensible to us, but merely whether or not the 3 OBSERVATIONS listed above are scripturally sound. IF THEY ARE, then GOD IS A TRINITY - even though as finite and fallible humans who exist merely as single-person beings we could never identify with that kind of existence.

I offer that there is one source, one El, from which these divine Powers emanate. This Source cannot be seen or known by man, and so this Source reveals itself in forms that can be known, in forms through which his Powers can manifest throughout creation. What is called the Son is a form through which the Powers of this Source emanate and thus are known in creation.

As the author of Hebrews says, the Son is the express image of the Father in creation. Indeed there is a Trinity, but not three Gods or Sources. One God, One Source, known to us through what is called the Trinity. In the New Testament this One Source is referred to as the 'Godhead' - the Godhead being fully embodied and revealed in Yeshua Messiah.

There is a teaching which I very much enjoy. The Father opens his bosom, and his bosom is the Holy Spirit. He reveals his hidden self, which is his Son. The Son is not a person, though the Son can be revealed in and through a person. The Son is the image of the Father within creation - the son is the expression of the Powers of the Source, or Elohim. When a being is in perfect alignment with El, the Source, the Father, allowing the Father to manifest in and through him/her, they then are the Son in creation. All beings that are in alignment with the Father are the Body of Christ, or the Body of the Anointed, and are thus also the Son. The Son is the multiplicity in Elohim, but is also One. One Body.

Ephesians 1

9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

God is light. 1 John

This is how I have come to understand the Trinity.

Shalom!

Viv