Bible Question

Question;
Are you Christian? Are you directly concerned about how to be a proper Christian for your own salvation?

I'm agnostic, trying to find out if the New Testament is true or if it's a Pagan corruption.

If it is, that leads me to believe that the Jews were right all along.

But I think I already know that it's impossible and too confusing to find out the truth of it all, that's why there are so many different sects, each with their own belief.

Yes, it is

This is a good point to start. The best spot to start would be asking God to reveal himself to you every day until you get an answer; go to a church (Orthodox specifically. Call the priest prior; some churches aren’t English speaking) and finding out why these things are so. As the mystery of God cannot be understood, rather we are given slivers of knowledge, some more complete then others. The fullest of wisdom ultimately stems from the line of the apostles, when you look at the “multitude of denominations” you will see they stem from what is known as “reformation thought” (not reformed theology, that’s Calvinism); which manifests itself by schisming over disputes within the church. This is not the case within the apostolic churches (excluding Anglicanism; which is more of a hybrid); that being Eastern, Oriental, and Catholic Churches. They have minor schisms, but nothing to the same extent as Protestantism and there is not the same extent of plurality (variation in thought); IMO you’ll find the reasoning to be extremely thought out on both sides.
As the scripture tells us; All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
But
15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and [a]ground of the truth.
We see that scripture is useful; but the ultimate pillar of truth is the body of Christ (the church) itself.
John 14:25-26
25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the [g]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

What all this means together is that the church is the body of truth and is guided by the Holy Spirit, and scripture is useful for aiding the pillar of truth. However; the church can exist without scripture. We also see Satan quote the scripture when attacking the gospel (Jesus Christ) in Matthew 4. The Bible can at times he straight forward, but at other times it is extremely confusing. When in the hands of heretics; is taken out of context to mean that which it doesn’t. You’ll see this with ant number of historical heretics.
For this I would point you to John 1, and John 8:58 (keep reading, after this, they try to stone himself for saying he was equal to God)

What is everyone's preferred translation of the Bible?

Does "verbum" perfectly translate from "logos?" Does the English word "word" encapsulate both meanings in latin and greek?

Different user, but I am concerned about my salvation. I believe that there is a living God, who sent his Son, Jesus Christ, who died and was resurrected and redeemed Himself for our sins. However, Without getting all into it, I don’t believe in the Trinity. That’s not to say I reject it, but based on my understanding of the Scriptures I just don’t believe it. Part of this might be because I’m dumb. Anyway, I think I’ve come to the realization that we, as beings with finite knowledge, can not truly understand God, an infinite being. What we can do, however, is have faith in Him that he will lead/guide us as He sees fit. I will continue to pray to Him, read the Scriptures, and try and live as Christ did. I will be His instrument on Earth. I have faith that He has put me on the path to Salvation.

>Part of this might be because I’m dumb
No such thing, it is insanely confusing and absolutely reasonable to not understand at first. But, according to Paul we have both soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). This sounds weird at first, for us these 2 words have the same meaning. But they have 2 different meanings in the Greek from my understanding. It also makes sense when we approach humans as being in the image of God, given God is comprised of 3 persons, so is man comprised of 3 functions; making us a microcosm of the Trinity. Given us as humans are divided into nous, word, and spirit.
For your ease, here is something to help. It might be confusing though, since it uses a fair bit of Greek.
orthodoxwiki.org/Nous
(Also reading Gregory can help. But I haven’t read him, I just know he talks about it).
>He has put me on the path to salvation
Good word choice, I like it senpai desu. I would encourage you to look into church history to see the church Jesus Christ and his apostles established, and what they believed (As Christ promised he would send us the comforter who would lead us to all truths and guide us). Then build up from there. Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Clement of Rome are 1st generation after the apostles; then move forward. Their known as the ante-nicene fathers. Given Christ has promised the Gates of Hades will not prevail against his church, we know that the true church exists somewhere; the question is where. I would then encourage you to check out an Orthodox Church or monastery, and listen. If you have an issue with something or question, ask first before coming to a conclusion. If it’s spotty in your opinion, see what else they have to say; as everything sounds weird and foreign to our culturally Protestant ears; as true things do often at times sound weird and clunky when you don’t grow up in it.
Please go get baptized ASAP once you have that answer, Christ has told us we need to be reborn of flesh which is done via baptism (not sure what baptism does to the spirit), and by being baptized we put on Christ as our garment. But Christ says we need to be, to enter the kingdom of Heaven (John 3). If you die as a catechumen (if you become orthodox) you’re fine, as your intent was to be baptized
If you have any questions I’ll do my best to answer

I currently attend a protestant church. I e been to an Easter service at an Orthodox church and it was truly holy. But I do believe I have felt the presence of God in my protestant church. And I know for sure Ive seen the workings of his hands in my life and the life of my family.

I'm considering converting based on that one experience, I was extremely impressed. But I'm not sure. I guess can you tell me more, or recommend a book to understand more.

mormon theology is kinda funny with this
they (we, as i’m mormon) state that god and jesus are not one physically, and that jesus was the god of the old testament, meaning that throughout the old testament it is Jesus, in his pre mortal form, leading his people
in this regard, he is Yahweh, and as such is our God
when born, he is still the only manner by which we can access god, namely though his sacrifice
setting aside all the problems (doctrinally and otherwise) with the mormon church, this is what the propose as a “solution” to this problem
yes and no
at the base level, yes, logos and verbum mean “word” but implications of logos are prettt vast (lots of ink spilled but simply look up under the LSJ for some ideas)

>But I do believe I have felt the presence of God in my protestant church
It’s definitely possible, God doesn’t confine himself to one place; he is everywhere present and fills all things. Though, I might be quoting way out of context.
>I’ve seen God work in my life and those around me
Definitely, God does it for Protestants, Catholics, and even in those whom don’t confess him. All things are working in bringing man closer to God, it’s genuinely a question of if the individual will accept him.
What all would you like to know if? I was baptized January 5th, so I don’t know too much but I can get my way around. I personally found the book “Common Grounds” to be rather persuasive, but it isn’t the cheapest either. There’s also church history, if you want solid proof check into the book “AnteNicene fathers” and start with volume one, it’s all the church fathers prior to the first ecumenical council.

>setting aside all the problems (doctrinally and otherwise) with the mormon church, this is what the propose as a “solution” to this problem
Why are you Mormon if you assert the Mormon church is doctrinally wrong? Either that or I’m misreading and you’re saying “for those who object to Mormonism” in which case I apologize

>logos
The Greek lexicons give 40 meaning for this word due to how old the language is; whereas Latin verbum and English word both seem to mean "smallest semantic encapsulated in sound waves."

Is sign language a language? Is the bathroom symbol a "word?"

>it makes sense
>It's 15 books long
Is there an appropriate response to this cope other than laughter?

Thanks, user. I appreciate your patience. I've been reading a bit of Kierkegaard recently (really just summaries online, as I'm away for work and can't order any of his books). He talks about developing a personal relationship with God through faith, through subjective feeling. If I pray to Him and He, through the Holy Ghost/Comforter, leads me to a Church that doesn't uphold the Trinity, am I wrong? Will I be unable to be saved? When bad things happen, people tend to say "It's all part of God's plan." Could it be part of His plan for me to join a Church that most Christians would call heretical or not even Christian?
>Please go get baptized ASAP once you have that answer
I was baptized. The only issue is that the majority of Christendom does not recognize my baptism as valid, because of the heterodox beliefs of the Church.
>I e been to an Easter service at an Orthodox church and it was truly holy. But I do believe I have felt the presence of God in my protestant church
I went to France a few years ago and visited Notre Dame. Honestly I felt nothing. A few days later, we visited Sacre Coeur. I was honestly moved to tears. I could truly feel the Lord's presence.

Answer the question

>wall of text just to say "god works in mysterious ways"

Castellione used 'sermo' instead of 'verbum'.

>sermo
So to project sound, as opposed to >verbum
To elicit meaning using sound

It seems to me logos can be thought of more like "syntax" as I order to believe God spoke creation into existence there must have been a pre-existing sytax for "let there be light" to have any semantic meaning, which I believe was what John the disciple dictated in John 1:1
>And the word was with God, and the word was God.
>The word was God

Therefore this pre-existing syntax prior to creation must logically be synonymous with the nature of God himself.

>Therefore this pre-existing syntax prior to creation must logically be synonymous with the nature of God himself

This would also provide grounds for God being "the laws of physics" and therefore only God can break the laws of physics.

>rough the Holy Ghost/Comforter, leads me to a Church that doesn't uphold the Trinity, am I wrong
I would argue this wouldn’t be the Holy Spirit as I don’t see why God would lead you to a church that doesn’t confess the Trinity. The argument could be had “it’s a journey by God to bring you to his church” but I don’t see why this would happen if there is an Orthodox Church in the area. My journey to the Orthodox Church started because of COVID and an out of context conversation heard by my dad about how conservative the orthodox were, and he didn’t hear the context of how I was encouraging my friend to go there and hit on women. But to be Frank with you senpai, if you absolutely felt the holy presence of God there beyond any doubt but you have to question the other church, I would advice you to go where God blatantly is. It’s the difference between settling with a sampler bite or having the whole meal, you found where God manifests himself and you want to draw to this.
>Will I be unable to be saved
That is between you and Christ, but Christ does tell us those who do not eat his flesh and drink his blood have no life in him. But, all things should be approached understand God is merciful, and he is working to bring all things to him. So to answer your question; you could be saved. But; Christ has given us his church (built by the apostles) as an arch of salvation into eternal life. To answer your question, I don’t know how encompassing this arch is, but I do know there is definitely an arch and it is at least within the Orthodox Church; and I wouldn’t want to be outside what is 100% the arch when flood waters come. There is the second point, that as one draws closer to Christ the more Christ like he becomes. If you are in a church that doesn’t draw you closer to Christ by following his sacraments, laws, and mercies; you will be hindered by man made objections to Christ in pursuit of him.
>Could it be God’s plan to bring me to a heretical church that some could say isn’t Christian
Well; come to find out the church I go to was right around the corner of the other churches I used to go to for an insanely long time; and I wouldn’t have appreciated the gift had I had it when I was younger in life (or so I’d imagine). So to answer your question; it’s possible you can go down a rough path to bring you to salvation; but there is no point to go down the rough path when you have salvation before your eyes; espesially when every moment is one breath closer to death. So it is possible God could allow you to travel (not send; for God doesn’t temp men to sin. But I do not know to what extent being a member of a heretical church is a sin if that’s the only option; but I’m referencing Catholic or Anglican churches when there isn’t an Orthodox Church and you’ve never heard of the Orthodox Church) the wrong path so you are ready for the right.
Part 1

>you absolutely felt the holy presence of God there
“There” is the Orthodox Church btw
Also
>What most other Christians would call heretical
Not the best measure; at least one person at my former church probably thinks I’m an idol worshipping crypto pagan heretic; and a lot of evangelicals would call orthodoxy heretical. I would use other Christians as the measure; use Jesus Christ’s apostles and their successors as your measure for what is and isn’t heretical.
>because of the heterodox beliefs of the Church.
Which church where you baptized at? Either you talked to someone in ROCOR who is conservative or you where baptized by the Jehovah’s witnesses or oneness Pentecostals or something along that nature lol.

One of the most interesting examples is the destruction of Sodom. God appears to Abraham as a man, with two angels. He then leaves Abraham, and the two angels go to Sodom, and see how sinful it is. Then there’s this verse that goes “then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven”

>God requires me to read some guy
No, God doesn’t require it, YOU require it. Plenty of people understood the trinity before that book was written, and plenty of people understand the trinity after that book was written, despite not reading it.
You clearly have issues understanding it, so you should read that book.

just that there are problems in a structure made of people
this is the apoligist view of the LDS church, i.e. any doctrine that seems to be inaccurate is the influence of men.
you could compare it to the Catholic Church pedophile thing, that it is the men that were the problem, not the church itself (nevermind the structures within the church that hid abusers or whatever)
example can be almost anything brigham young said: he proposed that adam was our god, and the rest of the leadership of the church (notably john taylor) had to tell him he was wrong; brigham young banned black men from receiving priesthood, and this was changed in 1978, with reason being that either that was God’s will, or that Brigham was racist

i have personal qualms with the church, but generally still consider myself a member, and am in good standing.

in greek, logos can include story, teaching, idea, and word; it’s a complex language (lucretius even says as much, wishing that he could write in greek instead of latin).

>example can be almost anything brigham young said: he proposed that adam was our god, and the rest of the leadership of the church (notably john taylor) had to tell him he was wrong; brigham young banned black men from receiving priesthood, and this was changed in 1978, with reason being that either that was God’s will, or that Brigham was racist
I legit thought that was John Smith and greatly appreciate this information. I’ve heard it in apologetics against Mormonism. Not that I’d ever convert to Mormonism, but I do appreciate when people correct my misconceptions. Thank you friend, I genuinely appreciate you aiding me in my understanding of Mormonism. I don’t mean this in a sarcastic way (though I am opposed to mormonism); but I wouldn’t want to speak wrongly about the beliefs of Mormons

no worries
mormonism is a crazy theology and history, with a lot written on it, hundred and hundreds of pages written and published by the church to help establish its history.
it is that very history that tends to make the church look bad
by John Smith, i assume you mean Joseph Smith, the founder; he has plenty of problems in his own right

>I thought the point of Judaism and YHWH was to move away from that idea.

If you're thinking of the ideas in an evolutionary way, here monotheism is an "evolution" to an underlying polytheism, then you're not understanding the ideas on their own terms, and trying to force

The Holy Trinity is one God because they exist in perfect unity in terms of essence, and activity, but not personhood. Triple deities are three separate persons, but they also have their own individual wills, activities, and essences - In their stories, their gods can kill each other and die, even the "Triple Deities". In The Christian understanding, the Holy Trinity can't kill one off person of the Holy Trinity since the divine nature is not capable of death, since death is something only creation can undergo, and they can't fight against each other because they are perfectly united in one will and one essence.

is there anything else in reality that works like the trinity, being different, but still wholly equal, etc

The uncreated nature is fundamentally different to the created nature, and so there is nothing in created nature that has the uncomposed simplicity of the unity of the holy trinity, but all of the triads that exist in nature are pointers to the reality of the Holy Trinity. Past Present Future, Height Width Breadth, Beginning Middle End, Bigger Smaller Equal, etc.

St Maximus the Confessor wrote that all of the created nature works according to three metaphysical categories - essence, person, and energy, with different word choices in this excerpt - and that these three irreducible principles are exemplified by the three persons of the holy trinity respectively, but they apply at the same time for created things.

Attached: st maximus triadic.png (1449x1183, 2.07M)

This may seem like a stupid example and may not be true because of our understanding but the fundamental particle Quarks behave like the trinity since an isolated quark cannot ever exist outside of a multiple quark system ie 2 quarks which is a meson or 3 which is a hadron. Each quark has a "colour" which is spme property whereby the larger particle has to have differing colour quarks, the quarks can switch colours but inside the particle system the colour properties must remain. This colour confinement has never been voolated and has remained since the big bang. Obviously our understanding maybe wholly wrong and colour maybe overturned in the future but the idea of it stands right now based on the evidence and theories we have.

>Joseph Smith, the founder; he has plenty of problems in his own right
I’m not big on using an individuals problems, a lot of prophets made mistakes and I find it to be bad argumentation. Criticize the doctrine, not the person. Unless Mormonism claims Joseph Smith was perfect (but I doubt it does), in which case it’s absolutely reasonable; similar to how you can argue against Islam by criticizing Muhammad since apparently the Quran asserts he was the ideal Muslim (I think). But thanks for listening to my Ted Talk

OP here

I think I finally understand something about the Trinity.

>"The Father" is not YHWH Jehovah. Instead his name is just "The Father".
>The Son is named Jesus.
>The Holy Spirited is named Helper.

It's only when all 3, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are combined, they equal YHWH.

This makes the full God a triple deity, not 3 Gods, but 3 demi-gods as 1, which is extremely troubling and leads me to believe Christianity is Pagan influenced.

Attached: h9199r2c2.jpg (1873x1643, 2.71M)

It sounds like you just independently thought through Arianism

>that means God is a Triple Deity?
No. You're the equivalent of someone who has watched one video on Quantum Physics and then buying in to all sorts of woo woo. Unless you've read at least twenty books on Trinitarian Theology keep your braindead "duuuuur does the Trinity mean there are THREE gods?" shit to yourself.

Nope. Completely wrong.

"A triple deity is a deity which appears in three forms or appearances. Sometimes referred to as threefold, triune or trinity. It is three deities that are worshiped as one. Such deities are common throughout world mythology."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity

How does this not describe the Christian God?

>A triple deity is a deity which appears in three forms or appearances
This is heresy. The Trinity is not One God in three "forms or appearances". That is modalism, which is condemned.

>How does this not describe the Christian God?
It's explicitly a condemned theological position if you say this is how you understand the Trinity you are NOT a Christian.

>Philippians 2
>7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
>NASB

It says here that the Logos took the form of a man.
So Jesus was the form of God-man on earth, and yet somehow not a form or appearance?

>It says here that the Logos took the form of a man.
That's referring to the incarnation, not the Son as hypostasis.

>So Jesus was the form of God-man on earth
Only in the same sense you are in the "form" of a person because you are a person. Jesus is fully man and fully God, divine and human nature perfectly united as a single person.

Does each person of the Trinity have their own consciousness?

Or do they all share one consciousness?

What do you mean by "consciousness"? Like yours? Then no because your "consciousness" is a stream of experience and thought that occurs in time and God exists outside of time so does not "think" moment to moment, but has direct experience of all moments simultaneously in eternity. God does not have a "consciousness" in as far as anything you would recognize since you are temporal and God is not.

>Matthew 24
>36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

The Son has a separate consciousness with separate knowledge.

That is a separate forms of consciousness.

The Trinity is 3 separate forms.

This "god is a mystery" card you pull is cope and isn't going to work.

In their divine nature, they have one mind. Christ shares this mind - and because he has acquired a fully human nature, he also has a human mind. His two minds, the divine mind and the human mind, are in harmony without confusion - and neither the Father nor the Spirit have that human mind.

>The Son has a separate consciousness with separate knowledge.
What do you mean by "consciousness"? God also knows things in a very different way than you know things. God knows things by knowing Himself, that is by direct intuition of Himself the same way you know you're in pain.

Also that verse is not talking about the hypostasis of the Son, but the person of Jesus Christ, specifically his human knowledge. It is a key mistake in Trinitarian theology to try and take any verse that references "the Son" and expand on that to try and force it into saying something about the Son as hypostasis and not Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son.

>This "god is a mystery" card you pull is cope and isn't going to work.
Nobody has pulled this card and the fact you think explanations are mysterianism means you're way out of your depth in this discussion. Can you give me your sources where you're taking your ideas on the Trinity from?

So we're having to further subdivide Jesus into 2 consciousness, his human consciousness and his Logos divine consciousness, to explain these verses?

What do you mean by the word "consciousness" and how does it apply to God? If you mean anything like what you experience the answer is there is no "divine consciousness" so your question is moot. You just keep trying to ram a false premise through over and over again

I'm listening to multiple different scholars debate.

And it seems you have to be a scholar to understand the Trinity and who Jesus was, and even then they can't agree.

>I'm listening to multiple different scholars debate.
Can you cite them please? I'd like to get an idea of where your thoughts on the Trinity are actually coming from because you're so far off the mark you might as well be talking about Mormonism at this point

Subdivide? If he became human, that means he fully acquired a human nature. There's no subdivision here - if he became fully human, without stopping being divine, then he will have retained all of the divine faculties according to the divine nature, while gaining all of the human faculties proper to the human nature.

The more pertinent question for you, rather than quibbling over increasingly technical details, coming from assumptions that aren't Christian, and being confused by heterodox Christian ideas, is whether or not Christ's lineage has survived from his incarnation to today. If you're trying to discern what is the true faith, then figuring out which one has the actual historical lineage of the same claims. That's where the testimony of the Orthodox Church and the mountains of documented evidence of the Saints comes in. Here is just one short example of a first-hand testimony of a man meeting a living Saint, recorded very shortly after meeting him. youtube.com/watch?v=ZRl3THDYN6Q

If you're just quibbling over verses of a book of events that happened 2000 years ago, instead of verifying if the events that happened 2000 years ago of humanity's experience with the eternal God continue to this day, then you've fallen to an implicitly Protestant approach - ahistorical and book-focused, instead of direct-experience-of-God focused.

James White
Michael Brown
Tovia Singer
Richard Carrier
Biblical Unitarian

And many more, but I can't remember them all.

You don't have to be a scholar to understand the trinity and who Jesus was - you just have to receive the tradition from the lineage that Christ laid down. The reason why all of these scholars are confused, is because they're all from different groups that either claim to be the lineage, or claim that you can just jump into the lineage by reading the book, without having a direct mystical contact with the body of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In the actual tradition, if you just go to the church services and pay attention to the hymns, passed down for generations and generations, you learn the theology anyway.