#2 – As to Yahweh being different than Jehovah, as politely as possible, BUNK. Now you demonstrate that you don’t know Hebrew as well as Greek. “Jehovah” is an English transliteration of Yahweh. They are exactly the same. Original Hebrew had no vowels, only consonants and in both instances is always worded: YHWH (whether it is translated into English ‘Yahweh or Jehovah’ its always seen in the original text as YHWH).
#3 – As to your assertions that the church was ‘hellenized’ again BUNK. This is a fallacy of false cause (misrepresents the cause). The Trinity is an utterly unique Christian doctrine. Pagans worshipped and believed in many gods (such as you do within the LDS, proving that the LDS has more in common with pagan culture than historical Christianity does) hence, the references to your so-called parallelisms of the pagans were to THREE separate gods NOT one God in existing in three distinct Persons. Christianity historically has stood apart as being totally unique, not a plurality of Gods, not merely one person monotheism, but ONE GOD, but 3 distinct persons within that Godhead of the very same essence or substance. This is what Scripture itself teaches.
#4 – As to your references to Tertullian or Origen its interesting you never provide source citations. Probably because anti-trinitarians always quote them out of context. This is also an argument from ignorance as they both unequivocally believed in the full deity of Christ. Here’s what Tertullian and Origen and others have said completely:
All quotes are from “Ante-Nicene Fathers” (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; reprint, 10 vols. Published by Peabody; MA: Hendrickson, c1994)
Tertullian is the first person who came up with the word ‘Trinity’. To claim that Tertullian ever believed anything else completely distorts what he meant. “For the very church itself – properly and principally – the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity [trinitas], of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (4:99 A.D 213) “Surely I might venture to claim the very Word also as being of the Creator’s [Father] substance” (3:356). “Now, if He too is God, for according to John, ‘The Word was God,’ then you have two Beings—One who commands that the thing to be made, and the other who creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained: on the ground of personality, NOT OF SUBSTANCE. And in the way of distinction, NOT OF DIVISION. I must everywhere hold only one substance, in three coherent and inseparable [persons](3:607).
As to Origen (c. A.D. 228) – “The Word that was in the beginning with God (who is also very God) may come to us” (4:449). ”The Son is not different from the Father IN SUBSTANCE”(9:336). “Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-Begotten Son (4:252).”
I can go on and on here…this forum is not capable of the bandwidth to start posting statement after statement (pre-Nicene statements at that) of early Church leaders teaching and defending the Deity of Christ and the Doctrine of the Trinity. What the LDS teach along with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and any other group which denies the Triune nature of God is and has always been heresy.
#5 – As to Elohim being separate from Yahweh or Jehovah, again politely BUNK. But thank you for pointing out the LDS belief in polytheism firmly aligning yourself with hellenistic Greeks and other pagans of the time period, not Christianity. Again you demonstrate ignorance of Hebrew, not surprising since you follow a false prophet.
YHWH is referred to as Elohim throughout the Old Testament. Elohim is a noun with the plural ending –im ים – it does not mean ‘gods’ plural. Hebrew distinguishes between a numerical plural and a majestic plural by the verbs, adjectives, and pronouns that accompany the noun. A majestic plural denotes greatness and majesty it does not necessitate plurality of substance. A numerically plural noun gets plural verbs, adjectives and pronouns while a numerically singular noun, even with a plural ending such as Elohim, gets singular verbs, adjectives and pronouns. When Elohim is used as a numerical plural meaning ‘gods’, for example in such passages referring to idolatry and false gods, it is rendered with plural verbs, adjectives, and pronouns in those passages. However, when referring to YHWH, Elohim ALWAYS uses singular verbs, adjectives, and pronouns, making it crystal clear (except for heretics such as the LDS) that Elohim in this instance is a numerical singular! Unfortunately for you and other anti-trinitarians who attack the true nature of God, these passages using Elohim (plural noun + singular verb) is Old Testament PROOF of God’s triunity in nature.
#6 – Once again, you really never studied my links did you? Why? AFRAID TO?
It will be interesting to see a response (if there is one). I missed the part where they tried to claim that Jehovah and Yahweh were two distint Gods. I wonder if they think Adonai is the name of the Holy Spirit.
Nice try but you obviously don’t know your Greek.
It's all reformed Egyptian to them!
Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son . .Tertullian, Against Marcion 2:27, in ANF 3:319.
Where Christians differ is whether they think it was a good or bad thing. Your continued denial of Hellenic influence speaks more about your understanding of history. Tertullian beleived in modalism which has been declared heretical as well by "Orthodox" Christians.
What I find interesting is one of the main things "Orthodox" Christians really seem to agree on is that they all call each other heretics repeatedly.
Again later in your post you continue to quote those who used a philosophical concept such as "homouosis" which is not found in the Bible. (follow the previous link i posted w hile back for a textual comparison of Plato's and others ideas about one subtance compared to later post apostolic Chrisians who.. ahem.. borrowed them almost verbatim. I realize that "homousis" is found in your quotes when someone was trying to interpret what the Bible really means. You continue to claim homousis "one substance" is in the Bible shows how deeply seated Greek philosophy is in your interpetation of the Bible. If Jesus believed in "one substance" then why didn't he say it? If Jesus didn't say it then why are you insisting it is in there?
I think it is interesting that you insist Hellenization didn't happen then go on to provide Hellenic philospohy as evidenced by one substance.
Please give me your un-Hellenized interpretation of this scripture. "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55-56).
What is most evident in our discussion is the web of intricate historicty and philosphy one must understand to make sense of what many Orthodox believe. I prefer the simple Gospel of Jesus that even a child can understand over the intellectual gymastics and debates that the philsophers have engaged in over the last 2 thousand years.
Anyway it's been fun on this thread. I think I have effetively made my point that Joseph Smith did restore what many early Christian Fathers beleived. If you want to call Justin Martyr a heretic for holding some of the same beliefs as Jospeh Smith fine. At least you haven't thrown around the label Satanist in your latest post to me. Which IMO, is a parralel to you violating Godwin's law (just substitute Satan for Nazi in the clause). Maybe I should be happy you have reverted to good old name calling of "heretic" as I am in good company with the early Christian Fathers.
Well its been fun on this thread but I think it's time to bow out. Last post is all yours.