DiscussMormonism.com

Isaiah 44:6 tells us, that 'GOD' consists of 'two' figures/persons. John 5:37 tells us, that there is a 'Father' who has never been seen by man nor has any man ever heard His voice, at ANY time. Revelation 1:6 seems to tell us, that God [The Lord God Almighty] has a 'Father'.

The Christian ministry uses Revelation 4:2 ["in the spirit"] to place the 'invisible to man' Father on the throne in Revelation chapter 4, thus allowing this 'Father' to be seen by man (spirits can see/hear spirits].

John 10:35 tells us, that 'the scripture cannot be broken'. This means, that John 5:37 cannot be broken, in order to explain some other scripture. We also have to explain Stephen seeing Christ standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56) and Christ and the disciples hearing the voice from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11) We also have to deal with a great deal of O/T scripture, concerning this topic (many have been spoken to by God, and have seen God (Numbers 12:6, Exodus chapter 33, and so on).

It appears to me, that the 'Trinity' does not include Jesus [The Lord of Hosts] (the first born of all creation). It appears, that the SON of the Trinity, is in fact, The Lord God Almighty.

Does any of the above, make sense to you??????

Very odd readings, Perhaps it would help communication if you state what background you are reading through. ( LDS? JW, Baptist, Arian? gnostic, Catholic?)

huckelberry wrote:Very odd readings, Perhaps it would help communication if you state what background you are reading through. ( LDS? JW, Baptist, Arian? gnostic, Catholic?)

My background, is simply the KJV Bible. I have attended many Protestant churches throughout my life, and even attended an RC church ONE TIME.

I attended church regularly when I was younger, but I'm getting tired in my old age of 65, and usually only get out of bed, after church is over, now. I continue to discuss/debate religion on many Christian forums.

I don't understand why my thread seems to strike you as 'odd readings'. They are all in the scripture. Perhaps you could let me know what exactly you find 'odd' about them. Thank you.

Thorwald wrote:My background, is simply the KJV Bible. I have attended many Protestant churches
I don't understand why my thread seems to strike you as 'odd readings'. They are all in the scripture.

Thanks for the clarification. So why use an inferior out of date translation?

I looked and did manage to dig up a kjv my dad once owned. It however reads much the same on these passages so choice of translation may not mean much here.

I do not see two figures in your Isaiah verse but there are possible ambiguity in the evolution of use of names there.

In John I read a statement that you, the audience, have not seen God. I do not see an absolute requirement to apply that to all situations.

Beyond that I am not wedded to either literal reading or inerrancy so may not by a good partner to your question.(I would not dream of applying that "scripture cannot be broken" pronouncement hither and yon.)

Do you have a point that you really care about for your puzzle? The Bible is hardly univocal in its approach to the persons of God.I suspect there is no resolution of rescrambling scripture fragments for your question. The Bible was written before the trinity became established understanding. On the other hand I think readings Jesus as a created being is corrosive to the doctrine of the atonement. I think that without the view of Jesus atonement I would just as soon let the Bible gather dust.

huckelberry wrote:

Thorwald wrote:My background, is simply the KJV Bible. I have attended many Protestant churches
I don't understand why my thread seems to strike you as 'odd readings'. They are all in the scripture.

Thanks for the clarification. So why use an inferior out of date translation?

I looked and did manage to dig up a kjv my dad once owned. It however reads much the same on these passages so choice of translation may not mean much here.

I do not see two figures in your Isaiah verse but there are possible ambiguity in the evolution of use of names there.

In John I read a statement that you, the audience, have not seen God. I do not see an absolute requirement to apply that to all situations.

Beyond that I am not wedded to either literal reading or inerrancy so may not by a good partner to your question.(I would not dream of applying that "scripture cannot be broken" pronouncement hither and yon.)

Do you have a point that you really care about for your puzzle? The Bible is hardly univocal in its approach to the persons of God.I suspect there is no resolution of rescrambling scripture fragments for your question. The Bible was written before the trinity became established understanding. On the other hand I think readings Jesus as a created being is corrosive to the doctrine of the atonement. I think that without the view of Jesus atonement I would just as soon let the Bible gather dust.

How could you NOT see only two figures making up GOD, in Isaiah 44:6? ..."Thus sayeth the Lord the king of Israel, and His redeemer the Lord of Hosts, I am the first and I am the last, and beside me, there is no God."

The two figures (above), are the same two figures found in Revelation chapters 4 and 5 [The Lord God Almighty and The Lord of Hosts (Jesus)].

The book of Revelation refers to Jesus as having been 'created' before the beginning of the world. It is HOW He was created, that resulted in the word 'BEGOTTEN' being used in the scripture.

It's hard to understand something that was made up and then written about by numerous people. George Lucas can't even keep the concept of the Force consistent even though he wrote all of the movies himself. Imagine if every movie was written by a different person...

Christianity is a very old and long fictional story with many parts, and therefore, as with all long fictional stories divided into parts (prequels, sequels, etc.), it is full of retcon...

You're wasting your time

Thorwald wrote:...(snip)...It appears to me, that the 'Trinity' does not include Jesus [The Lord of Hosts] (the first born of all creation). It appears, that the SON of the Trinity, is in fact, The Lord God Almighty.

Does any of the above, make sense to you??????

Your conclusion is unfounded and therefore 'senseless' to you.
Your first mistake is thinking/believing that there is a Trinity at all.

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:You're wasting your time

And ours.

The doctrine of the trinity has changed so many times, it's like trying to nail jello to a wall. Look at Joseph Smith's evolving doctrine: one Lord (1832 first vision), two personages (Lectures on Faith 1834?), three separate personages (D&C 130 1842?), one of many gods including us as gods in embryo (King Follet discourse 1844). That is just one man, now imagine all the authors of the Bible (and editors/translators) with differing views on the trinity writing the Bible. No wonder it's not consistent and up for debate and discussion.

Q: What's a giraffe?
A: A horse designed by a committee.

Q: What's the Trinity?
A: A god designed by a committee.