What if Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost?

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I personally love the concept of a Council of Gods – for multiple reasons. It solves a lot of issues for me and is uniquely Mormon within Christianity, while fitting in nicely with other religious traditions, diverging through cultural and evolving modifications throughout history.

I have said before that I like the concept of the trinity because it imagines God himself coming to redeem me from my fallen state instead of sending a representative. However, with the Council of the Gods you also have this advantage. Jesus, being the Creator and also the Father (in multiple ways even if not literal procreation of our spirits), volunteered from among the Council of the Gods to save us. It works for me.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Watcher wrote:

It is interesting that in virtually all ancient cultures and language the references to “G-d” are by title and not specific name and then again there are multiple references. This is including ancient Hebrew as well. The oneness of G-d in Hebrew is the term “ehad” which is a plural term designating multiple individuals bound by covenant. I very much am drawn to this multiple of individuals bound by covenant concept. During the creation epoch in scripture, we are told that man was created in the image of G-d as male and female.

My understanding of “ehad” (or echad – spelling is somewhat fluid with Hebrew because old Hebrew didn’t have vowels) is “one made up of components.” It is almost always translated as one. It was once explained to me that it’s sort of how we describe a car. A car is made of many components but is only a car when all of the components are assembled – but then it is a car. Otherwise, it’s just car parts or pieces of metal and plastic. Deuteronomy 6:4 is an important scripture to Jews, repeated often by practicing Jews and is known as the “shema” or profession of faith. As repeated in Hebrew it is “Shema’ Yisra’el, Adonai ‘Elohenu, Adonai ‘echad” The KJV translates it as such: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” which lines up with other translations as well, although, others such as the NRSV use “the Lord alone” as the last phrase. (I happen to favor the NRSV, but I also believe overall the King James translators did very well at the translation and mostly just suffers from being written in older English.) The point here being that when this is repeated by observant Jews personally/privately and in synagogue it is done so as a profession/testimony that there is one God – the God (Adonai echad). It is a profession of monotheism and is never interpreted by Jews as having a plural meaning or as a Trinity or anything else (just like a car).

Christians use Deut. 6:4 as evidence of the Trinity. I think this a perfect example of the difference in interpretation of the same passage of scripture by Jews and Christians – a singularity vs. a trinity. From their own points of view neither is wrong, but from the other’s point of view they are wrong. A third point of view could be that neither are wrong – not “or” but “and.”

While on the topic, members of the church like to also use Elohim in this sense, saying that the word in Hebrew is plural. That is absolutely correct, the dictionary definition of Elohim is plural. It can be plural in the same way deer or shrimp are plural – one deer or many deer. When Jews use it, it is one God and again observant Jews will clarify that if you ask. Elohim in Jewish scripture is referring to one monotheistic God, not a Trinity or plurality of Gods. (They are mostly unaware that Mormons use it in this sense, but find it a bit amusing and/or mildly offensive. They also don’t use Elohim as God’s name, rather they use it as we use the word God or the God.)

Thank you for responding. First, I must admit that I am not an expert (I am also not excellent spelling in any language), but I have inquired from experts (mostly Rabbis that are well versed in ancient Hebrew). Hopefully this is not two far removed from the intent of the thread. I am told that in ancient Hebrew that conjugation are singular, two and many. This is unlike English where conjugation are singular and plural.

The ancient Hebrew “echad” is plural meaning many (3 or more). Also in ancient scripture there are only 4 basic uses for “echad”. The First is a designation of G-d, second is a use in marriage, third is in religious settings and forth is in political settings. It could be argued that in ancient Hebrew uses that the religious settings and political settings are in essence the same. I inquired directly why “echad” is used in marriage between a husband and wife (which is two) and I was informed that the third is implied to be G-d and that the only marriages recognized were religious marriages under covenant before G-d.

There are also two ancient Hebrew terms that are translated into “one” as we understand in modern terms. The other term is “yhead” (spelling may be incorrect). This term is singular and is used to reference a single individual person, thing or being. It is my understanding that there is debate concerning monotheism or polytheism in the ancient Hebrew society.

I did not intend to go completely into the science of ancient textual criticism but I would reference that vast array of dispute of ancient scripture. But there are some really interesting references in the ancient texts. For example, we are told in Genesis that man was created in the “image and likeness” of G-d – which is also referenced as male and female. It is not uncommon in ancient religions to believe that deity has a definite binary sexual orientation.

The reason I bring this up is because there are several references to the ancient Hebrew G-d that describe that being with several terms that are believed to be synonymous. Here is a short list: Holy, perfect, complete, whole and sacred. One question is that if man (male and female) are created in the image and likeness of G-d – what is the female reference to G-d that would parallel “our Father in Heaven”? I am not sure there is an answer beyond speculation (logic and reason).

In general, it appears to me that there is more speculation and thus the reason for so much debate. However, I would bring up one other idea that we see at the trial of Christ in the New Testament. The Jews cried out, “We have no king but Cesar”. Who then was Herod and why did Cesar give him the title of King of Judea? The answer to this lies in the law of Near eastern “kingdoms” and supreme Suzerain and servant Vassal treaties. Under such law and treaty, a servant vassal often had the same title as the supreme Suzerain and would speak in first person as though they were the supreme Suzerain. To oppose the servant Vassal was considered an act of treason. We see a parallel to this in the Old Testament when prophets would say, “Thus sayeth the L-rd”. This was also the law in ancient Egypt which has led many scholars to think that the Pharaoh presented himself as a g-d while others argue that Pharoah was only presenting himself as the servant Vassal of a g-d.

If there is interest – I believe that the New Testament clearly present the “oneness” of G-d as polytheistic and not monotheistic in more than one place in the Gospel of John – in which Jesus Christ is quoted directly that the “oneness” of G-d is many “oneness” with G-d.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating stuff

[Author]

Posts