PDA

View Full Version : Bible author accepts polytheism



Pages : [1] 2

B&H
03-27-2015, 05:33 PM
Biblical authors tell stories of Israel and others engaging in idolatry, but did you know there are texts in which the bible author himself is the one espousing polytheism?

King Jehoram wants to fight the Moabites, and is told by prophet Elisha that the Lord will give Jehroam victory:


18 'And this is but a slight thing in the sight of the LORD; He shall also give the Moabites into your hand. (2Ki 3:18 NAS)
Jehoram fights against the Moabites, and when Moabite King Mesha sacrifices his son to his pagan god, "great wrath" comes against Israel.
26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too fierce for him, he took with him 700 men who drew swords, to break through to the king of Edom; but they could not.
27 Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land. (2Ki 3:26-27 NAS)

This is a notoriously difficult text for fundamentalist Christians to reconcile with their theory that the biblical authors (during their writing of scripture) espoused only monotheism. If Elisha the prophet says God will give Jehoram victory, then how exactly could pagan King Mesha's sacrifice of his son to a pagan god cause 'great wrath' to come against Israel?

"wrath" in Hebrew is qetseph, and means wrath, indignation, the same Hebrew word signifying the bible-god's wrath in 2nd Kings 22:13.

Why is the biblical author crediting a pagan human sacrifice as the source of the 'great wrath' coming against Israel, if the biblical author believed that the pagan god in question was nothing more than wood and stone?

Can wood and stone cause great wrath to come against Israel?

If you are allowed to read into the text something or other about how disgusted the Israelites were at this pagan sacrifice, or how the Moabites were emboldened to fight harder, do you approve of other people using speculation to help interpret bible verses?

This is such a problem that not even inerrantist scholars can figure out what precisely happened, but this doesn't slow them down from assuring themselves that the correct solution is the one that happens to agree with their own monotheism:


3:26–27 Despite its initial success the victory proves to be temporary. To win the battle Mesha sacrifices his firstborn son, a practice that was common in other places at this time.34 Jones states that this offering “was intended to pacify Chemosh, the Moabite deity, because the disasters that befell Moab were attributed to his anger, ‘for Chemosh was angry with his land’ (Mesha Inscription l.5).”35 After the sacrifice is made, “great fury” forces Israel to withdraw. Grays thinks the “fury” is that of Chemosh, which means the text preserves remnants of polytheistic theology.36 Given the nature of the author’s theology, however, it is much more likely either that the action inspired Moab’s army to fight more fiercely37 or that it caused Israel such indignation and sickness of heart that they lifted the siege.38 Though the exact meaning is unclear, the result is the same: Israel withdraws without further disaster yet also without control of a former vassal.

House, P. R. (2001, c1995). Vol. 8: 1, 2 Kings (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 264). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Of course, the NAC here is simply blindly presuming that there was a single author of 2nd Kings, and even if there was, that this author was consistent in his beliefs, when theological inconsistency is rather popular among sinners in general and the Israelites in particular. The fact that the author leaves "great wrath" unexplained despite its causing Elisha's prediction to fail (3:18) seems to indicate the author knew that the correct explanation, if expressed, would create more questions than answers.

The Word Bible Commentary tries to limit "great wrath" to either the battle suddenly going against Israel, or Israel feeling "disgust" for the pagan king and withdrawing from battle:


27 The sacrifice of the first-born son of Mesha on the walls of Kir Haresheth was the turning point for the campaign. The meaning of the “great wrath” which came upon Israel is uncertain. Either the battle suddenly went against them or they withdrew from the field in disgust. The campaign ends in a similar way as that earlier one undertaken by Ahab and Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22).

Hobbs, T. R. (2002). Vol. 13: Word Biblical Commentary : 2 Kings.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 38). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

The interpretation that the fundamentalists will insist on, is one, any one, that doesn't require them to admit that the bible author believed Chemosh, the pagan god in question, was real.

Does the "great wrath" mean that the Moabites, upon learning that their King sacrificed his own son, started fighting more fiercely solely out of naturalistic outrage?

First, this is unlikely, since Mesha had already discovered that Israel was fighting too fiercely for him (v. 24, 26), and in his first act of desperation, he could not even accomplish the smaller goal of breaking through to the king of Edom (v. 26). If the King's military was already enduring such weakness, it is highly unlikely that news of him sacrificing his son to Chemosh would have infused new strength of unbearable outrage in those already doing their best to defend him, and come against Israel with greater wrath than they were already able to muster previously, such as when they feared losing the battle and tried to access the King of Edom, but couldn't.

Second, there is no more recorded about the battle after the words in v. 27 about Israel withdrawing from battle. That is a problem for fundamentalists who say biblical prophets always correctly predicted the future. Elisha specifically predicted "He shall also give the Moabites into your hand. (2Ki 3:18 NAS)", but in v. 27, the Moabites do not go into the hand of Israel, Israel instead withdraws from the battle. It appears that the great wrath was so great, it ended up preventing fulfillment of Elisha's prophecy that Israel would win. The already-weakened Moabites likely would not have found new vigor in their outrage over the news of their king's sacrificing of his son, so if they did, then the vigor renewal would have to be sourced in the pagan god Chemosh. The bible god is the one who promised Israel victory in a war that carried typically large doses of death and bloodshed, so it is highly unlikely that renewal of Moabite vigor was the work of the bible god in response to the pagan king's human sacrifice to an idol. So if adrenaline and the bible god cannot account for the "great wrath", then it remains that the biblical author genuinely thought increase of battle power was given by Chemosh to the Moabites as a result of the human sacrifice.

Third, one is on dangerous territory to say this polytheism interpretation is ruled out by the uniform monotheism of the rest of the bible, for there are other sections of the bible where an Israelite speaks of Chemosh as a true living god that works wonders for those that worship this idol:


23 'Since now the LORD, the God of Israel, drove out the Amorites from before His people Israel, are you then to possess it?
24 'Do you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? So whatever the LORD our God has driven out before us, we will possess it. (Jdg 11:23-24 NAS)

You may say Jephthah was only appealing to what these pagans already believed, he was not implying he personally believed Chemosh was real.
Unfortunately, for you, inerrantist-commentaries agree with me that the speaker, Jephthah, displays contempt here for his own alleged monotheism:


But in this comment Jephthah also displayed contempt for his own theological traditions. Orthodox Yahwism acknowledges only one God, who is also Israel’s covenant Lord. Yahweh alone determines the boundaries of the nations. More specifically, the same tradition that recalls how the Israelites negotiated their way around Edom and Moab to the promised land also explicitly credits Yahweh with giving the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites the land they now occupy. But, as the next episode indicates, despite Jephthah’s pious reference to “the Lord our God” in v. 24, his theology is fundamentally syncretistic, so ideological compromises like this are not surprising.

Block, D. I. (2001, c1999). Vol. 6: Judges, Ruth (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 362). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

So if you say it is "obvious" that Jephthah was only appealing to what pagans beleived without implying he believed it himself, you are calling the more educated people on your side of the theological camp stupid. If you have enough sense to use a computer, you probably realize how irresponsible it is to insist somebody is stupid, even if they are experts, solely because they don't agree with a non-expert like you.

So don't be too certain that the monotheistic explanation of "great wrath came against Israel" is the only reasonable possibility.

That bastion of conservative scholarship, Keil & Delitzsch, agrees with me that the great wrath is not sourced in Mesha's military being outraged that their king was pushed to commit the ultimate sacrifice:


2 Kings 3:27. But when this attempt failed, in his desperation he took his first-born son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice upon the wall, i.e., in the sight of the besiegers, not to the God of Israel (Joseph. Ephr. Syr., etc.), but to his own god Camos (see at 1 Kings 11:7), to procure help from him by appeasing his wrath; just as the heathen constantly sought to appease the wrath of their gods by human sacrifices on the occasion of great calamities (vid., Euseb. praepar. ev. iv. 16, and E. v. Lasaulx, die Sühnopfer der Griechen und Römer, pp. 8ff.).—“And there was (came) great wrath upon Israel, and they departed from him (the king of Moab) and returned into their land.” As הָיָה קֶצֶף עַל is used of the divine wrath or judgment, which a man brings upon himself by sinning, in every other case in which the phrase occurs, we cannot understand it here as signifying the “human indignation,” or ill-will, which broke out among the besieged (Budd., Schulz, and others).

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (2002). Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Vol. 3, Page 217). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

However, K & D then give the absurd interpretation that it was Israel's fault, in battling against Mesha, that Mesha felt constrained to do something forbidden by OT law: human sacrifice (!?):


The meaning is: this act of abomination, to which the king of the Moabites had been impelled by the extremity of his distress, brought a severe judgment from God upon Israel. The besiegers, that is to say, felt the wrath of God, which they had brought upon themselves by occasioning human sacrifice, which is strictly forbidden in the law (Lev. 18:21; 20:3), either inwardly in their conscience or in some outwardly visible signs, so that they gave up the further prosecution of the siege and the conquest of the city, without having attained the object of the expedition, namely, to renew the subjugation of Moab under the power of Israel. (Ibid)

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the text or context of 2nd Kings 3 to indicate that Israel, after being promised victory in this battle by God himself (2nd Kings 3:18), committed some type of immorality or war-crime that left them to blame for Mesha's idol-sacrifice or for God deciding not to give them victory. Worse, what could it possibly have been? If Israel was promised victory, they would have done the normal thing and either continued slaughtering everybody at full power until Mesha gave up, or just slaughtered everybody wholesale regardless. What war-crime could Israel possibly have done to become responsible for a pagan king committing an idol sacrifice, if it wasn't their justifiable fierceness to win this battle?

For that matter, when is the last time you ever read in the bible that Israel was responsible for causing pagans to to trust in idols? Never. So Keil & Delitzsch insist upon a highly improbable interpretation merely because their conservativism forces them to exclude hypotheses that would question the doctrine of inerrancy.

Fourth and finally, 3:27 says that after great wrath came against Israel, Israel withdrew from the battle. That is exactly what we would expect if the Moabites had received renewed vigor in a supernatural way from Chemosh. When you start losing in battle, you don't just stay in place, it is standard procedure to retreat. Yet once again, naturalistic theories for how these Moabites, twice weakened already in the same battle, could summon such strength from outrage at their king being pushed to the ultimate sacrifice, that they start winning, don't work. The naturalistic possibilities are unlikely, only supernatural sources of strength remain on the table, and having already disposed of Keil & Delitzsch's attempt to credit the bible-god with the supernaturally restored battle strength in the Moabites, the only supernatural explanation left is that the biblical author believed Chemosh to be a living deity.

In summary then, the fundie view that the King of Mesha's sacrifice to Chemosh merely caused naturalistic outrage in his men to fight even harder, does not explain "great wrath" against Israel, since Mesha's military was already weakened and experienced two specific forms of defeat already. The fact that the great wrath motivated the Israelites to withdraw, despite the promise of prophet Elisha that the Lord would give them victory, suggests the wrath was of supernatural source which is the only type that could falsify a prediction of a biblical prophet, and other bible texts show that the Israelites sometimes took the view that a pagan deity was real though different from their own god.

For all these reasons, it seems that the author of 2nd Kings 3 believed that the pagan idol Chemosh was a true living god.

Spartacus
03-27-2015, 06:12 PM
Well, at least this one isn't about sex.

You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept of progressive revelation. Jewish worship of only one deity predated their belief that only one God existed, and that doesn't pose a particular problem for most Christian theologians.

One Bad Pig
03-27-2015, 06:18 PM
I just lost more brain cells from processing your "argument" than from the beer I'm drinking while doing so.

If you have to twist a text so blatantly in order to pose a conundrum, you have already lost. :thumbd:

Christianbookworm
03-27-2015, 06:19 PM
Well, at least this one isn't about sex.

You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept of progressive revelation. Jewish worship of only one deity predated their belief that only one God existed, and that doesn't pose a particular problem for most Christian theologians.

Of course. There's only one Elohim, but there can be plenty of elohim. There's even a video about elohim. :teeth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l1T2CgwopJw
B&H is not allowed to watch it. Because I'm not debating him.

shunyadragon
03-28-2015, 06:07 AM
Of course. There's only one Elohim, but there can be plenty of elohim. There's even a video about elohim. :teeth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l1T2CgwopJw
B&H is not allowed to watch it. Because I'm not debating him.

Dumb cartoon answer of the month!

lilpixieofterror
03-28-2015, 06:08 AM
Dumb cartoon answer of the month!

Can't refute it? I understand; it goes beyond your mental abilities. :lol:

shunyadragon
03-28-2015, 06:16 AM
Well, at least this one isn't about sex.

You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept of progressive revelation. Jewish worship of only one deity predated their belief that only one God existed, and that doesn't pose a particular problem for most Christian theologians.

It is convenient to acknowledge Progressive Revelation to explain the changes in the concept of God, Divine Law through Biblical history, but not acknowledge Progressive throughout history. Ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam may acknowledge Progressive Revelation up to a point of their own scripture, Doctrine and Dogma, but not beyond. Most of traditionally Christianity, particularly the Roman Church, clearly still accepts the concept of polytheism in the Trinity and lesser Gods like Mary, angels and of course the Devil.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 06:25 AM
It is convenient to acknowledge Progressive Revelation to explain the changes in the concept of God, Divine Law through Biblical history, but not acknowledge Progressive throughout history. Ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam may acknowledge Progressive Revelation up to a point of their own scripture, Doctrine and Dogma, but not beyond. Most of traditionally Christianity, particularly the Roman Church, clearly still accepts the concept of polytheism in the Trinity and lesser Gods like Mary, angels and of course the Devil.

:twitch:

Cerebrum123
03-28-2015, 06:28 AM
Dumb cartoon answer of the month!



It is convenient to acknowledge Progressive Revelation to explain the changes in the concept of God, Divine Law through Biblical history, but not acknowledge Progressive throughout history. Ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam may acknowledge Progressive Revelation up to a point of their own scripture, Doctrine and Dogma, but not beyond. Most of traditionally Christianity, particularly the Roman Church, clearly still accepts the concept of polytheism in the Trinity and lesser Gods like Mary, angels and of course the Devil.

You going to bat for a triple screwball award?

lilpixieofterror
03-28-2015, 06:30 AM
You going to bat for a triple screwball award?

When you can't refute what was said; mindlessly ponificate and hope others buy the crap you are selling.

Shuny is just following this advice.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 06:34 AM
Apparently Shuny thinks Mary has abilities and powers beyond those of mortal men.

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 08:22 AM
It is convenient to acknowledge Progressive Revelation to explain the changes in the concept of God, Divine Law through Biblical history, but not acknowledge Progressive throughout history. Ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam may acknowledge Progressive Revelation up to a point of their own scripture, Doctrine and Dogma, but not beyond.

Prior to the Gospel, it's progressive revelation. After the Apostles, it's development of doctrine :tongue:


Most of traditionally Christianity, particularly the Roman Church, clearly still accepts the concept of polytheism in the Trinity and lesser Gods like Mary, angels and of course the Devil.

lol

KingsGambit
03-28-2015, 08:24 AM
Why would one expect Christian revelation to continue indefinitely? The Old Testament sets a trajectory that culminates in Jesus. We're not Mormons who need new prophets to give constant updates.

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 08:28 AM
Why would one expect Christian revelation to continue indefinitely? The Old Testament sets a trajectory that culminates in Jesus. We're not Mormons who need new prophets to give constant updates.

Nah, but a magisterium helps us understand the revelation of God in Jesus. That's why stuff like Nicaea matters.

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 08:33 AM
Apparently Shuny thinks Mary has abilities and powers beyond those of mortal men.

He thinks Catholics think that, and the way you put it (as opposed to his phrasing), it's true. Mary is more closely united to God than any of us are; she is further along in the process of deification (because God wants to show the Church her destiny through Mary), and so God can work through her more efficaciously than through any man now on Earth. Or that's how I understand it, anyway. There are some more traditional articulations of marian devotion, but I've had trouble really buying into that logic.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 08:43 AM
He thinks Catholics think that, and the way you put it (as opposed to his phrasing), it's true. Mary is more closely united to God than any of us are; she is further along in the process of deification (because God wants to show the Church her destiny through Mary), and so God can work through her more efficaciously than through any man now on Earth. Or that's how I understand it, anyway. There are some more traditional articulations of marian devotion, but I've had trouble really buying into that logic.
Though, since all believers will get glorified bodies at the Final Resurrection... does that mean that we'll have "powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men". Of course the phrase itself is not referring to gods. :grin: Here's where it comes from!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Q2l4bz1FT8U He's not a god, but he's certainly very powerful.

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 08:45 AM
Though, since all believers will get glorified bodies at the Final Resurrection... does that mean that we'll have "powers and abilities beyond those of mortal men". Of course the phrase itself is not referring to gods. :grin: Here's where it comes from! He's not a god, but he's certainly very powerful.

Theosis, yo. It's pretty awesome.

Yttrium
03-28-2015, 09:08 AM
I always thought that the Old Testament had a bit of a polytheistic flavor to it. I never felt it was worth bringing up as a Christian contradiction argument, though, since the OT focus was on worship of God, who was depicted as the creator of the universe and the omnipotent supreme being. So any other "deities" would be nothing in comparison, and wouldn't amount to much more than supernatural influences.

Wait, I just agreed with the dopey cartoon, didn't I? Dagnabbit. Well, I think those supernatural influences could be problematic for certain versions of Christianity, but until I see a Christian around here saying things that would deny those supernatural influences, I don't really have a case to make.

Psychic Missile
03-28-2015, 09:39 AM
I always thought that the Old Testament had a bit of a polytheistic flavor to it. I never felt it was worth bringing up as a Christian contradiction argument, though, since the OT focus was on worship of God, who was depicted as the creator of the universe and the omnipotent supreme being. So any other "deities" would be nothing in comparison, and wouldn't amount to much more than supernatural influences.

Wait, I just agreed with the dopey cartoon, didn't I? Dagnabbit. Well, I think those supernatural influences could be problematic for certain versions of Christianity, but until I see a Christian around here saying things that would deny those supernatural influences, I don't really have a case to make.

I don't think it's problematic at all. Here's three words that solve the whole problem: It was Satan.

Yttrium
03-28-2015, 09:42 AM
I don't think it's problematic at all. Here's three words that solve the whole problem: It was Satan.

Yeah, I probably overstated things by saying "certain versions of Christianity". I think any Christians who wouldn't accept those supernatural forces in the OT would be in a tiny minority.

B&H
03-28-2015, 10:49 AM
Well, at least this one isn't about sex.

You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept of progressive revelation. Jewish worship of only one deity predated their belief that only one God existed, and that doesn't pose a particular problem for most Christian theologians.

You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept that I did not post this for most Christian theologians, I posted it to scandalize the fundamentalist Christians here who would rather die than admit a biblical author made a mistake. If you don't hold to such view of bible inerrancy, congratulations.

B&H
03-28-2015, 10:52 AM
I just lost more brain cells from processing your "argument" than from the beer I'm drinking while doing so.

If you have to twist a text so blatantly in order to pose a conundrum, you have already lost. :thumbd:

Well if even conservative Christian scholars admit this text is a problem, or they give solutions that break down under scrutiny, then don't be dogmatic about how obvious the inerrancy of the bible is. Or maybe you cannot help thinking the bible is inerrant due to your lack of brain cells.

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 10:53 AM
You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept that I did not post this for most Christian theologians, I posted it to scandalize the fundamentalist Christians here who would rather die than admit a biblical author made a mistake. If you don't hold to such view of bible inerrancy, congratulations.

Who? Where? Which one? We've got some Christians of questionable intellectual rigor around here (I'd not have much room to object if someone accused me of being one of them), but I don't know of any who are quite that stupid.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 10:53 AM
You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept that I did not post this for most Christian theologians, I posted it to scandalize the fundamentalist Christians here who would rather die than admit a biblical author made a mistake. If you don't hold to such view of bible inerrancy, congratulations.

Looks like you're the one that's the fundy in these threads!

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 10:56 AM
With B&H's "logic" you could make anyone look evil. What about Batman? He seems rather close to Robin. And Superman. Even though it's more of a familial/friendship closeness than anything else.

B&H
03-28-2015, 10:56 AM
Of course. There's only one Elohim, but there can be plenty of elohim. There's even a video about elohim. :teeth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l1T2CgwopJw
B&H is not allowed to watch it. Because I'm not debating him.

If I had your level of education and maturity, I wouldn't be debating too often either. I guess you are smarter than I gave you credit for.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 10:59 AM
If I had your level of education and maturity, I wouldn't be debating too often either. I guess you are smarter than I gave you credit for.

You don't even know my education level or IQ! Not that it's important, but a Master's in Library Science and 145 on the WISC at age 9 isn't bad

B&H
03-28-2015, 11:02 AM
With B&H's "logic" you could make anyone look evil. What about Batman? He seems rather close to Robin. And Superman. Even though it's more of a familial/friendship closeness than anything else.

You don't even ATTEMPT to directly rebut the OP, and now you are already on the subject of Batman?

Yeah, "what about batman" accurately conveys to others the level of ability you have to refute the charge of biblical authors espousing polygamy.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 11:03 AM
You don't even ATTEMPT to directly rebut the OP, and now you are already on the subject of Batman?

Yeah, "what about batman" accurately conveys to others the level of ability you have to refute the charge of biblical authors espousing polygamy.

:twitch: I wasn't talking to you. I was making a goofy example that you can read anything into anything.

Cerealman
03-28-2015, 01:34 PM
You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept that I did not post this for most Christian theologians, I posted it to scandalize the fundamentalist Christians here who would rather die than admit a biblical author made a mistake. If you don't hold to such view of bible inerrancy, congratulations.

So you're trying to find Christians you can B&S?
Talk about being spiteful.

shunyadragon
03-28-2015, 02:40 PM
Apparently Shuny thinks Mary has abilities and powers beyond those of mortal men.

Actually yes, she is not subject to original sin, and intermediary for prayers between mortal humans and God.

The perfection of holiness that Mary enjoys from the first moment of her conception was the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 15 May. The Pope went on to say that the recognition of this perfect holiness "required a long process of doctrinal reflection, which finally led to the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception". Here is a translation of his talk, which was the 20th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

Mary's pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ's Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.

This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary's original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world's Redemption.

In this way the Church's tradition assimilates and makes explicit the authentic meaning of the title "full of grace" given by the angel to the Blessed Virgin. Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence. This grace, according to the Letter to the Ephesians (1:6), is bestowed in Christ on all believers. Mary's original holiness represents the unsurpassable model of the gift and the distribution of Christ's grace in the world.

shunyadragon
03-28-2015, 02:41 PM
You going to bat for a triple screwball award?

Go for it!!?!?!?

No intelligible response. What do I get more dumb cartoons?

shunyadragon
03-28-2015, 02:43 PM
:twitch:

You need to get back on your meds. Not an intelligible. Response. Does this mean more cartoons?

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 02:44 PM
Actually yes, she is not subject to original sin, and intermediary for prayers between mortal humans and God.

The perfection of holiness that Mary enjoys from the first moment of her conception was the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 15 May. The Pope went on to say that the recognition of this perfect holiness "required a long process of doctrinal reflection, which finally led to the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception". Here is a translation of his talk, which was the 20th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

Mary's pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ's Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.

This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary's original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world's Redemption.

In this way the Church's tradition assimilates and makes explicit the authentic meaning of the title "full of grace" given by the angel to the Blessed Virgin. Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence. This grace, according to the Letter to the Ephesians (1:6), is bestowed in Christ on all believers. Mary's original holiness represents the unsurpassable model of the gift and the distribution of Christ's grace in the world.

I'm not a Catholic, so I don't think that. Even so, that would not make her a god anymore than fictional superpowered characters are gods.

shunyadragon
03-28-2015, 02:44 PM
Actually yes, she is not subject to original sin, and intermediary for prayers between mortal humans and God.

The perfection of holiness that Mary enjoys from the first moment of her conception was the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 15 May. The Pope went on to say that the recognition of this perfect holiness "required a long process of doctrinal reflection, which finally led to the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception". Here is a translation of his talk, which was the 20th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

Mary's pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ's Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.

This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary's original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world's Redemption.

In this way the Church's tradition assimilates and makes explicit the authentic meaning of the title "full of grace" given by the angel to the Blessed Virgin. Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence. This grace, according to the Letter to the Ephesians (1:6), is bestowed in Christ on all believers. Mary's original holiness represents the unsurpassable model of the gift and the distribution of Christ's grace in the world.

Still stands, the concept of polytheism remains very much apart of traditional Christian Theology.

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 02:46 PM
You need to get back on your meds. Not an intelligible. Response. Does this mean more cartoons?

JPH hasn't made any cartoons on mariology that I'm aware of. Not that I've ever watched any of his videos in the first place.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure sophisticated mariology is off-topic in this thread.

Christianbookworm
03-28-2015, 02:47 PM
Still stands, the concept of polytheism remains very much apart of traditional Christian Theology.

We don't call said entities gods, nor do we worship them. Angels are no more deities than Superman. That is, they aren't gods. Still not something you'd want to tick off.

Cerebrum123
03-28-2015, 03:02 PM
Go for it!!?!?!?

No intelligible response. What do I get more dumb cartoons?

Maybe if what I was responding to was intelligible it might have deserved a real answer rather than a jab. I've nominated you for 2 screwball awards (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5818-March-2015-Screwballs/page33&p=178892#post178892), I was asking if you were going for a third. Oh, and what's wrong with cartoons?

Here's a hint, the Trinity is not 3 Gods, and Catholics don't believe Mary is God either.

Specifically on the one about Mary. Do you think Jews think Moses was God? No? Why not? Once you've answered the question you can apply your own answer here.

Bill the Cat
03-28-2015, 05:16 PM
Actually yes, she is not subject to original sin, and intermediary for prayers between mortal humans and God.

The perfection of holiness that Mary enjoys from the first moment of her conception was the subject of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 15 May. The Pope went on to say that the recognition of this perfect holiness "required a long process of doctrinal reflection, which finally led to the solemn proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception". Here is a translation of his talk, which was the 20th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.

Mary's pure and immaculate conception is thus seen as the beginning of the new creation. It is a question of a personal privilege granted to the woman chosen to be Christ's Mother, who ushers in the time of abundant grace willed by God for all humanity.

This doctrine, taken up again in the eighth century by St Germanus of Constantinople and St John Damascene, sheds light on the value of Mary's original holiness, presented as the beginning of the world's Redemption.

In this way the Church's tradition assimilates and makes explicit the authentic meaning of the title "full of grace" given by the angel to the Blessed Virgin. Mary is full of sanctifying grace and is so from the first moment of her existence. This grace, according to the Letter to the Ephesians (1:6), is bestowed in Christ on all believers. Mary's original holiness represents the unsurpassable model of the gift and the distribution of Christ's grace in the world.

Third and Fourth Century myths. The hyper-veneration of Mary was not part of the original Church.

Irate Canadian
03-28-2015, 05:44 PM
Still stands, the concept of polytheism remains very much apart of traditional Christian Theology.

Er, where exactly is Mary proclaimed as a "God"?

Adrift
03-28-2015, 05:51 PM
she is further along in the process of deification

:shifty:

Spartacus
03-28-2015, 09:38 PM
:shifty:

Paragraph 60 of Lumen Gentium:

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all".(298) The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.

I suppose it's worth clarifying that by deification, I mean greater union with God and the fuller participation in the divine life to which we are all called, not evolution to becoming an independent deity. This isn't mormonism we're talking about. So, yeah, Shuny's still wrong, but this is also still off-topic.

Chrawnus
03-28-2015, 09:52 PM
Biblical authors tell stories of Israel and others engaging in idolatry, but did you know there are texts in which the bible author himself is the one espousing polytheism?

King Jehoram wants to fight the Moabites, and is told by prophet Elisha that the Lord will give Jehroam victory:



This is a notoriously difficult text for fundamentalist Christians to reconcile with their theory that the biblical authors (during their writing of scripture) espoused only monotheism. If Elisha the prophet says God will give Jehoram victory, then how exactly could pagan King Mesha's sacrifice of his son to a pagan god cause 'great wrath' to come against Israel?

"wrath" in Hebrew is qetseph, and means wrath, indignation, the same Hebrew word signifying the bible-god's wrath in 2nd Kings 22:13.

Why is the biblical author crediting a pagan human sacrifice as the source of the 'great wrath' coming against Israel, if the biblical author believed that the pagan god in question was nothing more than wood and stone?

Can wood and stone cause great wrath to come against Israel?

If you are allowed to read into the text something or other about how disgusted the Israelites were at this pagan sacrifice, or how the Moabites were emboldened to fight harder, do you approve of other people using speculation to help interpret bible verses?

This is such a problem that not even inerrantist scholars can figure out what precisely happened, but this doesn't slow them down from assuring themselves that the correct solution is the one that happens to agree with their own monotheism:



Of course, the NAC here is simply blindly presuming that there was a single author of 2nd Kings, and even if there was, that this author was consistent in his beliefs, when theological inconsistency is rather popular among sinners in general and the Israelites in particular. The fact that the author leaves "great wrath" unexplained despite its causing Elisha's prediction to fail (3:18) seems to indicate the author knew that the correct explanation, if expressed, would create more questions than answers.

The Word Bible Commentary tries to limit "great wrath" to either the battle suddenly going against Israel, or Israel feeling "disgust" for the pagan king and withdrawing from battle:



The interpretation that the fundamentalists will insist on, is one, any one, that doesn't require them to admit that the bible author believed Chemosh, the pagan god in question, was real.

Does the "great wrath" mean that the Moabites, upon learning that their King sacrificed his own son, started fighting more fiercely solely out of naturalistic outrage?

First, this is unlikely, since Mesha had already discovered that Israel was fighting too fiercely for him (v. 24, 26), and in his first act of desperation, he could not even accomplish the smaller goal of breaking through to the king of Edom (v. 26). If the King's military was already enduring such weakness, it is highly unlikely that news of him sacrificing his son to Chemosh would have infused new strength of unbearable outrage in those already doing their best to defend him, and come against Israel with greater wrath than they were already able to muster previously, such as when they feared losing the battle and tried to access the King of Edom, but couldn't.

Second, there is no more recorded about the battle after the words in v. 27 about Israel withdrawing from battle. That is a problem for fundamentalists who say biblical prophets always correctly predicted the future. Elisha specifically predicted "He shall also give the Moabites into your hand. (2Ki 3:18 NAS)", but in v. 27, the Moabites do not go into the hand of Israel, Israel instead withdraws from the battle. It appears that the great wrath was so great, it ended up preventing fulfillment of Elisha's prophecy that Israel would win. The already-weakened Moabites likely would not have found new vigor in their outrage over the news of their king's sacrificing of his son, so if they did, then the vigor renewal would have to be sourced in the pagan god Chemosh. The bible god is the one who promised Israel victory in a war that carried typically large doses of death and bloodshed, so it is highly unlikely that renewal of Moabite vigor was the work of the bible god in response to the pagan king's human sacrifice to an idol. So if adrenaline and the bible god cannot account for the "great wrath", then it remains that the biblical author genuinely thought increase of battle power was given by Chemosh to the Moabites as a result of the human sacrifice.

Third, one is on dangerous territory to say this polytheism interpretation is ruled out by the uniform monotheism of the rest of the bible, for there are other sections of the bible where an Israelite speaks of Chemosh as a true living god that works wonders for those that worship this idol:


You may say Jephthah was only appealing to what these pagans already believed, he was not implying he personally believed Chemosh was real.
Unfortunately, for you, inerrantist-commentaries agree with me that the speaker, Jephthah, displays contempt here for his own alleged monotheism:



So if you say it is "obvious" that Jephthah was only appealing to what pagans beleived without implying he believed it himself, you are calling the more educated people on your side of the theological camp stupid. If you have enough sense to use a computer, you probably realize how irresponsible it is to insist somebody is stupid, even if they are experts, solely because they don't agree with a non-expert like you.

So don't be too certain that the monotheistic explanation of "great wrath came against Israel" is the only reasonable possibility.

That bastion of conservative scholarship, Keil & Delitzsch, agrees with me that the great wrath is not sourced in Mesha's military being outraged that their king was pushed to commit the ultimate sacrifice:



However, K & D then give the absurd interpretation that it was Israel's fault, in battling against Mesha, that Mesha felt constrained to do something forbidden by OT law: human sacrifice (!?):



Unfortunately, there is nothing in the text or context of 2nd Kings 3 to indicate that Israel, after being promised victory in this battle by God himself (2nd Kings 3:18), committed some type of immorality or war-crime that left them to blame for Mesha's idol-sacrifice or for God deciding not to give them victory. Worse, what could it possibly have been? If Israel was promised victory, they would have done the normal thing and either continued slaughtering everybody at full power until Mesha gave up, or just slaughtered everybody wholesale regardless. What war-crime could Israel possibly have done to become responsible for a pagan king committing an idol sacrifice, if it wasn't their justifiable fierceness to win this battle?

For that matter, when is the last time you ever read in the bible that Israel was responsible for causing pagans to to trust in idols? Never. So Keil & Delitzsch insist upon a highly improbable interpretation merely because their conservativism forces them to exclude hypotheses that would question the doctrine of inerrancy.

Fourth and finally, 3:27 says that after great wrath came against Israel, Israel withdrew from the battle. That is exactly what we would expect if the Moabites had received renewed vigor in a supernatural way from Chemosh. When you start losing in battle, you don't just stay in place, it is standard procedure to retreat. Yet once again, naturalistic theories for how these Moabites, twice weakened already in the same battle, could summon such strength from outrage at their king being pushed to the ultimate sacrifice, that they start winning, don't work. The naturalistic possibilities are unlikely, only supernatural sources of strength remain on the table, and having already disposed of Keil & Delitzsch's attempt to credit the bible-god with the supernaturally restored battle strength in the Moabites, the only supernatural explanation left is that the biblical author believed Chemosh to be a living deity.

In summary then, the fundie view that the King of Mesha's sacrifice to Chemosh merely caused naturalistic outrage in his men to fight even harder, does not explain "great wrath" against Israel, since Mesha's military was already weakened and experienced two specific forms of defeat already. The fact that the great wrath motivated the Israelites to withdraw, despite the promise of prophet Elisha that the Lord would give them victory, suggests the wrath was of supernatural source which is the only type that could falsify a prediction of a biblical prophet, and other bible texts show that the Israelites sometimes took the view that a pagan deity was real though different from their own god.

For all these reasons, it seems that the author of 2nd Kings 3 believed that the pagan idol Chemosh was a true living god.


Right, so a case can be made from the Bible that there exists supernatural entities that are in opposition to the one true God.













So what? :ahem:


ETA: I accidentally amen'ed the OP when I was intending to quote it just because I haven't got more than 3 hours of sleep in a period of more than 24 hours.
I demand a refund! :rant:

Paprika
03-29-2015, 12:19 AM
Apparently Shuny thinks Mary has abilities and powers beyond those of mortal men.
I'm not sure why it's particularly controversial that in certain conceptions of Christianity Mary has analogous roles to some deities in other religions, or that (as Spartacus puts it) she is further along the theosis process and is thus in a non-trivial sense more divine. However for obvious reasons she isn't called a 'god'.

shunyadragon
03-29-2015, 04:12 AM
Third and Fourth Century myths. The hyper-veneration of Mary was not part of the original Church.

Neither was the Trinity. Nonetheless this belief of station of Mary as 'Perfect,' without sin, and an intermediary is the Doctrine of the largest church on earth. The concept of polytheism fits for traditional Christianity is similar to the Vedic traditions for the concept of God of Hinduism. In Hinduism what is described as different Gods are only aspects of one and only one supreme God Brahman. In Christianity the three Gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are described as aspects of one God. Throw in other lesser Gods like Mary and the Devil, you have classic polytheism.

shunyadragon
03-29-2015, 04:16 AM
I'm not sure why it's particularly controversial that in certain conceptions of Christianity Mary has analogous roles to some deities in other religions, or that (as Spartacus puts it) she is further along the theosis process and is thus in a non-trivial sense more divine. However for obvious reasons she isn't called a 'god'.

The reasons are clearly obvious, Mary is described as born without sin, 'Perfect,' and intermediary between humanity and the other Gods of the Christian Trinity. This is clearly fits the definition of a God regardless of what you choose to call Mary in fancy theological lingo.

shunyadragon
03-29-2015, 04:21 AM
Er, where exactly is Mary proclaimed as a "God"?

By description and definition as 'Perfect,' without sin, and intermediary between humanity and the other Christian Gods.

Bill the Cat
03-29-2015, 05:25 AM
Neither was the Trinity.

Formally, no. The concepts were all there, but the specifics were not articulated.


Nonetheless this belief of station of Mary as 'Perfect,' without sin, and an intermediary is the Doctrine of the largest church on earth.

So? That does not in any way mean she is deity.


The concept of polytheism fits for traditional Christianity is similar to the Vedic traditions for the concept of God of Hinduism.

No it doesn't. Not even remotely.


In Hinduism what is described as different Gods are only aspects of one and only one supreme God Brahman.

Brahmā, the creator-god, is long-lived but not eternal i.e. Brahmā gets absorbed back into Purusha at the end of an aeon, and is born again at the beginning of a new kalpa.

Sounds just like God in Christianity... :ahem:


In Christianity the three Gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are described as aspects of one God.

By heretics, yes. But not in orthodox Christianity.


Throw in other lesser Gods like Mary and the Devil, you have classic polytheism.

:no:

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 08:18 AM
Neither was the Trinity. Nonetheless this belief of station of Mary as 'Perfect,' without sin, and an intermediary is the Doctrine of the largest church on earth. The concept of polytheism fits for traditional Christianity is similar to the Vedic traditions for the concept of God of Hinduism. In Hinduism what is described as different Gods are only aspects of one and only one supreme God Brahman. In Christianity the three Gods, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are described as aspects of one God. Throw in other lesser Gods like Mary and the Devil, you have classic polytheism.

Please stop embarrassing yourself by pontificating on issues that you have no clue about.

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 09:36 AM
Prior to the Gospel, it's progressive revelation. After the Apostles, it's development of doctrine :tongue: lol

And a thousand years later, it was closing the doors to ijtihad. :wink:


Why would one expect Christian revelation to continue indefinitely?

That's, I dunno quite how to say it, but it's definitely kinda sad.


The Old Testament sets a trajectory that culminates in Jesus. We're not Mormons who need new prophets to give constant updates.

Well, coincidentally and all, that Genesis thing is probably due for a rewrite.




I always thought that the Old Testament had a bit of a polytheistic flavor to it. I never felt it was worth bringing up as a Christian contradiction argument, though, since the OT focus was on worship of God, who was depicted as the creator of the universe and the omnipotent supreme being. So any other "deities" would be nothing in comparison, and wouldn't amount to much more than supernatural influences.

Wait, I just agreed with the dopey cartoon, didn't I? Dagnabbit. Well, I think those supernatural influences could be problematic for certain versions of Christianity, but until I see a Christian around here saying things that would deny those supernatural influences, I don't really have a case to make.

Dopey Cartoon guy is well read, but he's not well schooled, especially in languages, which, along with a conservative bias that gets in the way of his analysis, makes for many moments of high comedy, such as this one. He's also got a weird penchant for abusively poor French. This time it's "canard," usually it's "riposte."

The history of his personal "voldemort" has been spelled out in detail, along with its pronunciation along the way, for what that's worth. If you're interested, there's Mark Smith's The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X).

In a nutshell, though, elohim is plural because it is derived from the Ugaritic 'lm, which referred to the divine council of 'l, the father of the gods. In the process of divergence, and in the best of Canaanite tradition, early Israel's Yahweh usurped his father's attributes along with those of his siblings. In rising from the elohim he retained the earlier sobriquet, making what was once plural, singular.

shunyadragon
03-29-2015, 10:26 AM
Please stop embarrassing yourself by pontificating on issues that you have no clue about.

Airball and no coherent response.

lilpixieofterror
03-29-2015, 10:46 AM
Airball and no coherent response.

And this comes from the same person that didn't answer anything given in the video, but just dismissed it out of hand. :rofl: Irony at it's finest.

shunyadragon
03-29-2015, 10:46 AM
Formally, no. The concepts were all there, but the specifics were not articulated.

Again there is no doctrine of the Trinity apparent in the OT, nor in early Christianity until the Romans defined the doctrine of the Trinity.


So? That does not in any way mean she is deity.

I believe it does describe Mary as 'Perfect' station above all humanity, and many consider her a Goddess based on this nature. See http://www.northernway.org/twm/mary/ Depicting Mary as the Mother of God definitely gives credentials to her for this station of Divine nature.



Not Brahma, but Brahman. Check your spelling and read again. Brahma, would be equivalent the concept of the Messiah, like Christ. Some Hindus consider Christ Brahma.



Brahmā, the creator-god, is long-lived but not eternal i.e. Brahmā gets absorbed back into Purusha at the end of an aeon, and is born again at the beginning of a new kalpa.

Not Brahma, but Brahman. Check your spelling and read again. Note highlighted



Not to be confused with Brahma or brahmin.

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन् brahman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world",[1] which "cannot be exactly defined".[2] It has been described in Sanskrit as Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[3] and as the highest reality.

Brahman is conceived as Atman,[note 3] personal,[note 4] impersonal[note 5] or Para Brahman,[note 6] or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school.


Sounds just like God in Christianity... :ahem:

Yep!! Sounds just like the pantheon of Christian Deities.




By heretics, yes. But not in orthodox Christianity.


Is the Roman Church Heretical?

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 11:05 AM
Airball and no coherent response.

:lolo:

What's incoherent about stating that you have no clue what you're talking about? Bill the Cat already exposed your ignorance in the post which I will link to below, so there was no need for me to elucidate on my response. You are in fact embarrasing yourself when you're speaking on what Christians believe, because most of the time when you do it, you're spreading manifestly false information. The Trinity as Bill the Cat has already explained, is not a polytheistic teaching, and has absolutely no relation the the teaching in Hinduism that the various gods in Hinduism are simply aspects of the god Brahman, which in fact more closely resembles the heretical teaching of modalism, not the Orthodox teaching of the Trinity.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?6217-Bible-author-accepts-polytheism&p=179282&viewfull=1#post179282

Darth Executor
03-29-2015, 11:06 AM
Why would one expect Christian revelation to continue indefinitely? The Old Testament sets a trajectory that culminates in Jesus. We're not Mormons who need new prophets to give constant updates.

People forget that Shuny is (or pretends to be) Bahai. Endless progressive revelation is required to smuggle his false prophet into Abrahamic continuity. Bahai are kinda like the Star Wars prequels in this way.

Bill the Cat
03-29-2015, 02:34 PM
Again there is no doctrine of the Trinity apparent in the OT, nor in early Christianity until the Romans defined the doctrine of the Trinity.

Wisdom theology was present which was the Trinity concept in its infancy without a clear delineation between Father and Spirit. The NT scriptures further clarified it.




I believe it does describe Mary as 'Perfect' station above all humanity, and many consider her a Goddess based on this nature. See http://www.northernway.org/twm/mary/ Depicting Mary as the Mother of God definitely gives credentials to her for this station of Divine nature.

:rofl: "Esoteric Theological Seminary"??? :lmbo:



Not Brahma, but Brahman. Check your spelling and read again.

You cited that "different Gods are only aspects of one and only one supreme God Brahman". That means that Brahma is an aspect of Brahman. I cited the wiki article on Brahma showing that Brahma was TEMPORARY, unlike the Christian Father who is eternal.


Note highlighted



Not to be confused with Brahma or brahmin.

In Hinduism, Brahman (/ˈbrɑːmən/; Sanskrit: ब्रह्मन् brahman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world",[1] which "cannot be exactly defined".[2] It has been described in Sanskrit as Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)[3] and as the highest reality.

Brahman is conceived as Atman,[note 3] personal,[note 4] impersonal[note 5] or Para Brahman,[note 6] or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school.

According to Shri Madha Bhagawata Mahapurana, Brahmā was born through Vishnu's navel, Vishnu is the main source of whatsoever exists in the world; what is created is part of his own body.

According to the Purāṇas, Brahmā is self-born in the lotus flower. Another legend says that Brahmā was born in water, or from a seed that later became the golden egg,


:twitch: And you want to say that this definition sounds like ANY Christian God/person of God?




Yep!! Sounds just like the pantheon of Christian Deities.

So, eternal persons sound like temporary individuals? :huh:




Is the Roman Church Heretical?

No. They did fall into heresy when the Arians took over for a while though.

Manwë Súlimo
03-29-2015, 02:38 PM
People forget that Shuny is (or pretends to be) Bahai. Endless progressive revelation is required to smuggle his false prophet into Abrahamic continuity. Bahai are kinda like the Star Wars prequels in this way.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUI3d8AMLBQ

shunyadragon
03-29-2015, 05:03 PM
Wisdom theology was present which was the Trinity concept in its infancy without a clear delineation between Father and Spirit. The NT scriptures further clarified it.

Remains conjecture with no basis at all in the OT. The Doctrine of the Trinity was not held as doctrine until after the Roman Empire became Christian



You cited that "different Gods are only aspects of one and only one supreme God Brahman". That means that Brahma is an aspect of Brahman. I cited the wiki article on Brahma showing that Brahma was TEMPORARY, unlike the Christian Father who is eternal.

I clearly cited the correct definition of Brahman, and the definition clearly stated that it should not be confused with Brahma or Brahmin. The definition of Brahman is the eternal and the highest reality.

Irate Canadian
03-29-2015, 05:16 PM
I clearly cited the correct definition of Brahman, and the definition clearly stated that it should not be confused with Brahma or Brahmin. The definition of Brahman is the eternal and the highest reality.
Shunya,

As a Indian, I honestly ask you to stop misappropriating and misunderstanding Hinduism. Brahma is a god that represents Brahmin.

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 05:18 PM
You cited that "different Gods are only aspects of one and only one supreme God Brahman". That means that Brahma is an aspect of Brahman. I cited the wiki article on Brahma showing that Brahma was TEMPORARY, unlike the Christian Father who is eternal.

Yes, Brahma is an aspect of Brahman, and so are Vishnu and Shiva, the remainder of the Hindu Creator/Maintainer/Destroyer trinity, along with all of the other gods within the Hindu pantheon.

4999

Brahma is the four-faced figure, and Shiva is armed with a pitchfork.

As aspects, they don't match up with the Christian trinity, but they do match the Christian characterization of a single god composed of distinguishable aspects. It is incorrect to refer to any of these aspects as temporary. This is not a distinguishing feature between the Hindu pantheon and Christianity. They are just as eternal as the Christian god, but their prominence is cyclic, befitting the Hindu's cyclic cosmogony.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 05:28 PM
but they do match the Christian characterization of a single god composed of distinguishable aspects.

Why is it that whenever someone want's to demonstrate the similarity between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Hindu concept of Brahman they always couch the description of the Trinity in terms that make it sound blatantly modalistic?

The teaching of the Trinity is that there are one God in three Persons, not "a single god composed of distinguishable aspects".

Irate Canadian
03-29-2015, 05:30 PM
Yes, Brahma is an aspect of Brahman, and so are Vishnu and Shiva, the remainder of the Hindu Creator/Maintainer/Destroyer trinity, along with all of the other gods within the Hindu pantheon.

4999

Brahma is the four-faced figure, and Shiva is armed with a pitchfork.

As aspects, they don't match up with the Christian trinity, but they do match the Christian characterization of a single god composed of distinguishable aspects. It is incorrect to refer to any of these aspects as temporary. This is not a distinguishing feature between the Hindu pantheon and Christianity. They are just as eternal as the Christian god, but their prominence is cyclic, befitting the Hindu's cyclic cosmogony.
Er, no.

They are completely different. Hinduism is a faith where the multiple aspects of Brahman (One GOD) are reflected by the idols/gods/goddess they create. Christianity is made up of 3 persons, making up one composite entity,

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 05:57 PM
Why is it that whenever someone want's to demonstrate the similarity between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Hindu concept of Brahman they always couch the description of the Trinity in terms that make it sound blatantly modalistic?

The teaching of the Trinity is that there are one God in three Persons, not "a single god composed of distinguishable aspects".

As the Hindu concept of Brahman predates the Christian trinity, it makes more sense to describe the Christian trinity in Hindu terms, as aspects. But there's no bar to the obverse. We could describe the Hindu pantheon as separate persons instead. As persons or aspects, however, there remains a single god identified with multiple images.

Irate Canadian
03-29-2015, 06:00 PM
As the Hindu concept of Brahman predates the Christian trinity, it makes more sense to describe the Christian trinity in Hindu terms, as aspects. But there's no bar to the obverse.

Er,no.

It doesn't make sense to describe the trinity in Hindu terms, because the gods and goddesses in Hinduism don't even really exist (as in they are part of the Hindu concept of Maya). In Christianity, the persons are separate entities.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 06:17 PM
As the Hindu concept of Brahman predates the Christian trinity, it makes more sense to describe the Christian trinity in Hindu terms, as aspects. But there's no bar to the obverse. We could describe the Hindu pantheon as separate persons instead. As persons or aspects, however, there remains a single god identified with multiple images.

I'm not sure what difference the chronological order of the two concepts in question has to do with the issue of properly describing them.

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 06:18 PM
It doesn't make sense to describe the trinity in Hindu terms, because the gods and goddesses in Hinduism don't even really exist ...

Ya do understand you're talking to an atheist, right?

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 06:20 PM
Ya do understand you're talking to an atheist, right?

You're way too intelligent to have missed IC's point, so I'm going to assume this is what passes for non-existent humor.

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 06:28 PM
I'm not sure what difference the chronological order of the two concepts in question has to do with the issue of properly describing them.

Comparison generally leads to questions of influence.

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 06:31 PM
You're way too intelligent to have missed IC's point, so I'm going to assume this is what passes for non-existent humor.

Actually, I suspected IC intended to get a laugh out of me. Granting the benefit of the doubt, oh yeah, it worked!

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 06:36 PM
Comparison generally leads to questions of influence.

I was suspecting that it was something like that. And my answer to that question is that I know of no good evidence to indicate that any influence has occured in either direction.

whag
03-29-2015, 06:42 PM
I'm not sure what difference the chronological order of the two concepts in question has to do with the issue of properly describing them.

Properly describing them is more about trying to avoid distinguishing them as separate but united deities than arriving at any actual useful truth. Distinguishing their aspects and qualities is more useful than defining merely with the purpose to avoid a polytheistic misunderstanding.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether they're three deities or persons, since the concept is mystifying and beyond human ken anyhow.

Juvenal
03-29-2015, 06:45 PM
I was suspecting that it was something like that. And my answer to that question is that I know of no good evidence to indicate that any influence has occured in either direction.

I don't know of any good evidence, either, not that I've studied it, but chronological arguments can certainly cut the above search in half. In any case, we're wandering pretty far afield from the polytheistic roots of the OT term, "elohim."

whag
03-29-2015, 06:47 PM
I was suspecting that it was something like that. And my answer to that question is that I know of no good evidence to indicate that any influence has occured in either direction.

"Either direction" makes zero sense, since Christianity couldn't have possibly influenced Hinduism. Lao tzu never meant to suggest influence in that direction. =)

The influence of polytheistic concepts on monotheism is eminently more supportable, seeing as how the ancient Hebrews were henotheists who evolved into monotheists.

Chrawnus
03-29-2015, 06:55 PM
"Either direction" makes zero sense, since Christianity couldn't have possibly influenced Hinduism.


There is no logical impossibility in the teachings of a later religion influencing an older religion if and when these two religions come into contact with each other, so I'm no really sure what you're having trouble wrapping your head around. :shrug:

whag
03-29-2015, 07:09 PM
There is no logical impossibility in the teachings of a later religion influencing an older religion if and when these two religions come into contact with each other, so I'm no really sure what you're having trouble wrapping your head around. :shrug:

Lao's whole point was that Brahma antedated the Christian trinity, so obviously Trinity could not possibly have influenced Brahma. The only conceivable and relevant direction would be former to latter.

One Bad Pig
03-29-2015, 07:35 PM
Lao's whole point was that Brahma antedated the Christian trinity, so obviously Trinity could not possibly have influenced Brahma. The only conceivable and relevant direction would be former to latter.
That depends on whether or not our detailed knowledge of Brahman beliefs antedates the Christian Trinity. :shrug:

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 04:45 AM
Why is it that whenever someone want's to demonstrate the similarity between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Hindu concept of Brahman they always couch the description of the Trinity in terms that make it sound blatantly modalistic?

The teaching of the Trinity is that there are one God in three Persons, not "a single god composed of distinguishable aspects".

The three persons are described as three Gods; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 04:49 AM
Shunya,

As a Indian, I honestly ask you to stop misappropriating and misunderstanding Hinduism. Brahma is a god that represents Brahmin.

So what?!?!!? The question is Brahman, NOT Brahma, nor Brahmin. Brahma and Brahmin are aspect of the infinite eternal One Brahman. I do not care whether your Indian or Shmimian. Get your terminology straight. I clearly cited the specific definition, concerning Brahman as the ultimate highest unknowable Diety of Vedic religions. I made no reference to Brahma nor Brahmin, except they are not equivalent to Brahman.



The Isha Upanishad says: Auṃ – That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone, still infinite.

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 05:00 AM
Yes, Brahma is an aspect of Brahman, and so are Vishnu and Shiva, the remainder of the Hindu Creator/Maintainer/Destroyer trinity, along with all of the other gods within the Hindu pantheon.

4999

Brahma is the four-faced figure, and Shiva is armed with a pitchfork.

As aspects, they don't match up with the Christian trinity, but they do match the Christian characterization of a single god composed of distinguishable aspects. It is incorrect to refer to any of these aspects as temporary. This is not a distinguishing feature between the Hindu pantheon and Christianity. They are just as eternal as the Christian god, but their prominence is cyclic, befitting the Hindu's cyclic cosmogony.

Correct. The parallel is only that there is a supreme infinite ONE Deity in both Hinduism and Christianity. In Hinduism the Gods are aspects of the One infinite eternal Brahman. In Christianity the three Gods; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, are in some way One God. They are both conceptually polytheistic.

One Bad Pig
03-30-2015, 06:01 AM
The three persons are described as three Gods; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
No, they aren't. :doh:

Yttrium
03-30-2015, 06:16 AM
In Christianity the three Gods; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, are in some way One God.

Shouldn't that be "God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"?

I've never seen them described by Christians as separate gods.

Bill the Cat
03-30-2015, 07:06 AM
The three persons are described as three Gods; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

:no:

Irate Canadian
03-30-2015, 08:31 AM
Brahma and Brahmin are aspect of the infinite eternal One Brahman.[/cite]
Agreed.

I misspelled Brahman as Brahmin.

However, there can't really be a comparison between Brahman and the Christian God, because Brahman is a impersonal "reality", and the God in Christianity has a relationship with every human being.

Irate Canadian
03-30-2015, 08:32 AM
In Christianity the three Gods; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, are in some way One God. They are both conceptually polytheistic.
For the last time, they are not 3 Gods. They are 3 persons making up a composite entity.

Adrift
03-30-2015, 08:44 AM
I misspelled Brahmin as Brahmin.

:huh:

Irate Canadian
03-30-2015, 08:49 AM
:huh:

Fixed, thank you.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 09:02 AM
For the last time, they are not 3 Gods. They are 3 persons making up a composite entity.I don't think this is quite right, as it implies that God is composite-- which is not the position of orthodoxy, as I understand it. They are three persons in a single God, but to claim that God is composite would be considered the heresy of Partialism by most Christians, I think.

Irate Canadian
03-30-2015, 09:06 AM
I don't think this is quite right, as it implies that God is composite-- which is not the position of orthodoxy, as I understand it. They are three persons in a single God, but to claim that God is composite would be considered the heresy of Partialism by most Christians, I think.
Valid point... it's hard to describe the Trinity in human terms.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 09:13 AM
Valid point... it's hard to describe the Trinity in human terms.Impossible, I'd say.

Three parts which combine as one God? Heresy of Partialism.
Three different ways of viewing the same God? Heresy of Modalism.
Three different beings which share the same Divine substance? Heresy of Tritheism.

Et cetera, et cetera.

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 10:01 AM
Shouldn't that be "God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"?

I've never seen them described by Christians as separate gods.

Looks like a list of separate Gods that represent one God.

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 10:03 AM
For the last time, they are not 3 Gods. They are 3 persons making up a composite entity.

For another time not likely the last.

They are described as Gods in scripture and liturgy

God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost

Bill the Cat
03-30-2015, 10:04 AM
Looks like a list of separate Gods that represent one God.

5021

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 10:07 AM
Agreed.

I misspelled Brahman as Brahmin.

You were more confusing then just that.

[1quote] However, there can't really be a comparison between Brahman and the Christian God, because Brahman is a impersonal "reality", and the God in Christianity has a relationship with every human being.[/QUOTE]

Oh yes you can! they are both the ultimate, infinite eternal power, and the source of the nature of existence. Both Hinduism and Christianity as having a relationship with all of existence including humanity.

Yttrium
03-30-2015, 10:22 AM
Perhaps I can consider a possible analogy: shunyadragon the eyes, the ears, and the mouth. Three distinct aspects of shunyadragon, with different roles. But they aren't separate entities. They are all aspects of the one entity, shunyadragon.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 10:34 AM
Perhaps I can consider a possible analogy: shunyadragon the eyes, the ears, and the mouth. Three distinct aspects of shunyadragon, with different roles. But they aren't separate entities. They are all aspects of the one entity, shunyadragon.That would seem to be Partialism. None of those things are wholly Shunyadragon; whereas Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each wholly God.

Yttrium
03-30-2015, 10:40 AM
That would seem to be Partialism. None of those things are wholly Shunyadragon; whereas Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each wholly God.

Ah. Well, never mind then.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 10:42 AM
Ah. Well, never mind then.Yeah, that's the unfortunate problem with the Doctrine of the Trinity. Every analogy to familiar things tends to describe something which has been denounced as heresy rather than the orthodox position.

Cerebrum123
03-30-2015, 10:45 AM
Yeah, that's the unfortunate problem with the Doctrine of the Trinity. Every analogy to familiar things tends to describe something which has been denounced as heresy rather than the orthodox position.

What about this one?


https://youtu.be/98VFsdVkb0A

I know that there isn't a perfect analogy, but I'm thinking there's got to be something that can come close without implying heresy.

ETA: The URL they give doesn't work apparently. I tried removing that period that looks out of place and it won't even take you to the video at all. :sigh:

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 11:01 AM
What about this one?


https://youtu.be/98VFsdVkb0A

I know that there isn't a perfect analogy, but I'm thinking there's got to be something that can come close without implying heresy.That would seem to imply Modalism. Light perceived by our eyes is different than light perceived by tactile sense. Furthermore, the analog of God the Father to the source which produces light would imply the Arian heresy.

Chrawnus
03-30-2015, 11:03 AM
Furthermore, the analog of God the Father to the source which produces light would imply the Arian heresy.

No, not really. It's more akin to the orthodox teaching that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, which the Nicene creed teaches.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 11:11 AM
No, not really. It's more akin to the orthodox teaching that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, which the Nicene creed teaches."Begotten, not made," I believe the Creed teaches. A light source makes light. The light is subordinate to the light source. That's Arianism.

Chrawnus
03-30-2015, 11:23 AM
"Begotten, not made," I believe the Creed teaches. A light source makes light. The light is subordinate to the light source. That's Arianism.


Arianism teaches that the Son was created in time, by a voluntary creative act by the Father.

The doctrine of the Eternal Generation teaches that the Father necessarily begets the Son in eternity. (The Father is a sufficient cause of the existence of the Son)

A light source is is a sufficient cause for the existence of light. If the light source existed eternally, so would it's production of light.

So in these aspects the light source -> light analogy is closer to the doctrine of the Eternal Generation rather than the Arian heresy.


Where the analogy breaks down however, is that the light source and the light are by nature different from each other, while the Son and the Father share the same divine nature and being/substance. In that sense it resembles the Arian heresy, but not in the way I outlined above.

Cerebrum123
03-30-2015, 11:29 AM
"Begotten, not made," I believe the Creed teaches. A light source makes light. The light is subordinate to the light source. That's Arianism.

Pressing any analogy too far will have it's problems. With Semitic Totality a person and his word* were the same( a person "makes" words in that they make the sounds, and write with ink), I'm thinking that they probably thought so about light too. Example, the sun is referred to as the "greater light" in Genesis. I don't think they thought what they felt and what they saw were substantially different. Also, Jesus is certainly described as functionally subordinate to the Father in the Bible.

Hmm, maybe this would be better to split off.

*Are you thinking that Jesus as "The Word" carries heretical connotations? :teeth:

Boxing Pythagoras
03-30-2015, 11:34 AM
Arianism teaches that the Son was created in time, by a voluntary creative act by the Father.

The doctrine of the Eternal Generation teaches that the Father necessarily begets the Son in eternity. (The Father is a sufficient cause of the existence of the Son)

A light source is is a sufficient cause for the existence of light. If the light source existed eternally, so would it's production of light.

So in these aspects the light source -> light analogy is closer to the doctrine of the Eternal Generation rather than the Arian heresy.Interesting. I'll concede this point, then, as I'm not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the doctrine of Eternal Generation.


Where the analogy breaks down however, is that the light source and the light are by nature different from each other, while the Son and the Father share the same divine nature and being/substance. In that sense it resembles the Arian heresy, but not in the way I outlined above.Agree, here, along with my earlier points about the Modalism implied by the different ways of perceiving light.

Abigail
03-30-2015, 01:35 PM
Biblical authors tell stories of Israel and others engaging in idolatry, but did you know there are texts in which the bible author himself is the one espousing polytheism?

King Jehoram wants to fight the Moabites, and is told by prophet Elisha that the Lord will give Jehroam victory:



This is a notoriously difficult text for fundamentalist Christians to reconcile with their theory that the biblical authors (during their writing of scripture) espoused only monotheism. If Elisha the prophet says God will give Jehoram victory, then how exactly could pagan King Mesha's sacrifice of his son to a pagan god cause 'great wrath' to come against Israel?

"wrath" in Hebrew is qetseph, and means wrath, indignation, the same Hebrew word signifying the bible-god's wrath in 2nd Kings 22:13.

Why is the biblical author crediting a pagan human sacrifice as the source of the 'great wrath' coming against Israel, if the biblical author believed that the pagan god in question was nothing more than wood and stone?

Can wood and stone cause great wrath to come against Israel?

If you are allowed to read into the text something or other about how disgusted the Israelites were at this pagan sacrifice, or how the Moabites were emboldened to fight harder, do you approve of other people using speculation to help interpret bible verses?

This is such a problem that not even inerrantist scholars can figure out what precisely happened, but this doesn't slow them down from assuring themselves that the correct solution is the one that happens to agree with their own monotheism:



Of course, the NAC here is simply blindly presuming that there was a single author of 2nd Kings, and even if there was, that this author was consistent in his beliefs, when theological inconsistency is rather popular among sinners in general and the Israelites in particular. The fact that the author leaves "great wrath" unexplained despite its causing Elisha's prediction to fail (3:18) seems to indicate the author knew that the correct explanation, if expressed, would create more questions than answers.

The Word Bible Commentary tries to limit "great wrath" to either the battle suddenly going against Israel, or Israel feeling "disgust" for the pagan king and withdrawing from battle:



The interpretation that the fundamentalists will insist on, is one, any one, that doesn't require them to admit that the bible author believed Chemosh, the pagan god in question, was real.

Does the "great wrath" mean that the Moabites, upon learning that their King sacrificed his own son, started fighting more fiercely solely out of naturalistic outrage?

First, this is unlikely, since Mesha had already discovered that Israel was fighting too fiercely for him (v. 24, 26), and in his first act of desperation, he could not even accomplish the smaller goal of breaking through to the king of Edom (v. 26). If the King's military was already enduring such weakness, it is highly unlikely that news of him sacrificing his son to Chemosh would have infused new strength of unbearable outrage in those already doing their best to defend him, and come against Israel with greater wrath than they were already able to muster previously, such as when they feared losing the battle and tried to access the King of Edom, but couldn't.

Second, there is no more recorded about the battle after the words in v. 27 about Israel withdrawing from battle. That is a problem for fundamentalists who say biblical prophets always correctly predicted the future. Elisha specifically predicted "He shall also give the Moabites into your hand. (2Ki 3:18 NAS)", but in v. 27, the Moabites do not go into the hand of Israel, Israel instead withdraws from the battle. It appears that the great wrath was so great, it ended up preventing fulfillment of Elisha's prophecy that Israel would win. The already-weakened Moabites likely would not have found new vigor in their outrage over the news of their king's sacrificing of his son, so if they did, then the vigor renewal would have to be sourced in the pagan god Chemosh. The bible god is the one who promised Israel victory in a war that carried typically large doses of death and bloodshed, so it is highly unlikely that renewal of Moabite vigor was the work of the bible god in response to the pagan king's human sacrifice to an idol. So if adrenaline and the bible god cannot account for the "great wrath", then it remains that the biblical author genuinely thought increase of battle power was given by Chemosh to the Moabites as a result of the human sacrifice.

Third, one is on dangerous territory to say this polytheism interpretation is ruled out by the uniform monotheism of the rest of the bible, for there are other sections of the bible where an Israelite speaks of Chemosh as a true living god that works wonders for those that worship this idol:


You may say Jephthah was only appealing to what these pagans already believed, he was not implying he personally believed Chemosh was real.
Unfortunately, for you, inerrantist-commentaries agree with me that the speaker, Jephthah, displays contempt here for his own alleged monotheism:



So if you say it is "obvious" that Jephthah was only appealing to what pagans beleived without implying he believed it himself, you are calling the more educated people on your side of the theological camp stupid. If you have enough sense to use a computer, you probably realize how irresponsible it is to insist somebody is stupid, even if they are experts, solely because they don't agree with a non-expert like you.

So don't be too certain that the monotheistic explanation of "great wrath came against Israel" is the only reasonable possibility.

That bastion of conservative scholarship, Keil & Delitzsch, agrees with me that the great wrath is not sourced in Mesha's military being outraged that their king was pushed to commit the ultimate sacrifice:



However, K & D then give the absurd interpretation that it was Israel's fault, in battling against Mesha, that Mesha felt constrained to do something forbidden by OT law: human sacrifice (!?):



Unfortunately, there is nothing in the text or context of 2nd Kings 3 to indicate that Israel, after being promised victory in this battle by God himself (2nd Kings 3:18), committed some type of immorality or war-crime that left them to blame for Mesha's idol-sacrifice or for God deciding not to give them victory. Worse, what could it possibly have been? If Israel was promised victory, they would have done the normal thing and either continued slaughtering everybody at full power until Mesha gave up, or just slaughtered everybody wholesale regardless. What war-crime could Israel possibly have done to become responsible for a pagan king committing an idol sacrifice, if it wasn't their justifiable fierceness to win this battle?

For that matter, when is the last time you ever read in the bible that Israel was responsible for causing pagans to to trust in idols? Never. So Keil & Delitzsch insist upon a highly improbable interpretation merely because their conservativism forces them to exclude hypotheses that would question the doctrine of inerrancy.

Fourth and finally, 3:27 says that after great wrath came against Israel, Israel withdrew from the battle. That is exactly what we would expect if the Moabites had received renewed vigor in a supernatural way from Chemosh. When you start losing in battle, you don't just stay in place, it is standard procedure to retreat. Yet once again, naturalistic theories for how these Moabites, twice weakened already in the same battle, could summon such strength from outrage at their king being pushed to the ultimate sacrifice, that they start winning, don't work. The naturalistic possibilities are unlikely, only supernatural sources of strength remain on the table, and having already disposed of Keil & Delitzsch's attempt to credit the bible-god with the supernaturally restored battle strength in the Moabites, the only supernatural explanation left is that the biblical author believed Chemosh to be a living deity.

In summary then, the fundie view that the King of Mesha's sacrifice to Chemosh merely caused naturalistic outrage in his men to fight even harder, does not explain "great wrath" against Israel, since Mesha's military was already weakened and experienced two specific forms of defeat already. The fact that the great wrath motivated the Israelites to withdraw, despite the promise of prophet Elisha that the Lord would give them victory, suggests the wrath was of supernatural source which is the only type that could falsify a prediction of a biblical prophet, and other bible texts show that the Israelites sometimes took the view that a pagan deity was real though different from their own god.

For all these reasons, it seems that the author of 2nd Kings 3 believed that the pagan idol Chemosh was a true living god.

Henry Morris in his commentary section of II Kings 3: 26-27 (The Defender's Study Bible) notes that it is uncertain if Mesha sacrificed his own son, or, after not being able to break through to the king of Edom, somehow captured and sacrificed the king of Edom's son (if so, could this be being mentioned in Amos 2:1, I am not 100% sure) and that on seeing this Edom for some reason turned on Israel. If you look at II Kings 3:20-23, the God of Israel causes the water to come and the Moabites see the 'water opposite them as red as blood. Then they said "This is blood; the kings have surely fought together and they have slain one another. Now therefore Moab to the spoil" (where is Chemosh? Nowhere of course! He certainly didn't send the water ) . So the God of Israel actually tells what is going to happen by the mouth of the Moabites (who don't understand ). So then there is reason to think the indignation was from Edom towards Israel and that if they had remained united they would have defeated the Moabites.

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 03:41 PM
5021

NO.

shunyadragon
03-30-2015, 03:43 PM
Perhaps I can consider a possible analogy: shunyadragon the eyes, the ears, and the mouth. Three distinct aspects of shunyadragon, with different roles. But they aren't separate entities. They are all aspects of the one entity, shunyadragon.

Fails. The trinity is described as three equal Gods, not eyes, ears and nose.

One Bad Pig
03-30-2015, 03:50 PM
The trinity is described as three equal Gods, not eyes, ears and nose.
Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid by repeating false assertions? Because what you keep stating is false; repeating it won't make it true.

lilpixieofterror
03-30-2015, 05:32 PM
Fails. The trinity is described as three equal Gods, not eyes, ears and nose.

I see shuny needs to brush up on his doctrines of the trinity. :lol:

DesertBerean
03-30-2015, 10:41 PM
Fails. The trinity is described as three equal Gods, not eyes, ears and nose. Shuny, stop.

Defer to the teachings of CHRISTIANS on what is the correct view of the Trinity and what is heretical to that view. Your opinion here is irrelevant...you admit you're not Christian. Don't try to pretend you understand what the orthodox view is, because you don't.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-31-2015, 03:22 AM
Fails. The trinity is described as three equal Gods, not eyes, ears and nose.Nope, this is the Heresy of Tritheism.

Bill the Cat
03-31-2015, 06:23 AM
NO.

Ok. Continue to make a fool of yourself. No skin off of my back.

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 08:23 AM
Ok. Continue to make a fool of yourself. No skin off of my back.

No, you and many are living in the delusion that Christianity is monotheistic. In the Trinity it is clear that what is referred to Persons=Gods. God the Father is clearly a God, but in anthropomorphic theology may be called a Person. The Second Person Jesus Christ is clearly considered God Incarnate conceived by the Holy Spirit in traditional Christianity, therefore God the Son is a distinct separate God begotten as a God and seated on the right hand of God after Resurrection. At no time in scripture nor traditional doctrine and dogma is Jesus Christ NOT considered a distinctly separate God 'Person' from the Father God. Then we have the Person of the Holy Ghost, clearly defined as separate entity when referred by traditional Christianity.

The classic side stepping response is the 'Trinity is a mystery,' but that fails to address the issue that they are described as distinctly separate 'Persons=Gods'

This article is about the Christian view of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy spirit in other religions, see Holy Spirit.



"Holy Ghost" redirects here. For other uses, see Holy Ghost (disambiguation).

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove descending on the Holy Family, with God the Father and angels shown atop, by Murillo, c. 1677.
For the large majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is the third person (hypostasis) of the Trinity: the "Triune God" manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each person itself being God.[1][2][3]

The New Testament includes over 90 references to the Holy Spirit.[4] All three Synoptic Gospels proclaim blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin.[5] The Holy Spirit plays a key role in the Pauline epistles.[6] In the Johannine writings, three separate terms, "Holy Spirit", "Spirit of Truth", and "Paraclete" are used.[7]

The New Testament details a close relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus during his earthly life and ministry.[8] The Gospels of Luke and Matthew and the Nicene Creed state that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary".[9] The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus as a dove during his baptism, and in his Farewell Discourse after the Last Supper Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure.[10][11]

The theology of the Holy Spirit is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is referred to as "the Lord, the Giver of Life" in the Nicene Creed, which summarises several key beliefs held by many Christian denominations. The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is apparent in Jesus' final post-Resurrection instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19): "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".[12] Since the first century, Christians have also called upon God with the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, absolution and benediction.[13][14]

As for the three Gods being equal. That is an open question, and a view held by only some Christians.

This is classic polytheism, as in Hinduism

Irate Canadian
04-02-2015, 08:32 AM
No, you and many are living in the delusion that Christianity is monotheistic. In the Trinity it is clear that what is referred to Persons=Gods. God the Father is clearly a God, but in anthropomorphic theology may be called a Person. The Second Person Jesus Christ is clearly considered God Incarnate conceived by the Holy Spirit in traditional Christianity, therefore God the Son is a distinct separate God begotten by the Father and seated on the right hand of God. At no time in scripture nor traditional doctrine and dogma is Jesus Christ NOT considered a distinctly separate God from the Father God. Then we have the Person of the Holy Ghost, clearly defined as separate entity when referred by traditional Christianity.

The classic side stepping response is the 'Trinity is a mystery,' but that fails to address the issue that they are described as distinctly separate 'Persons=Gods'

This article is about the Christian view of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy spirit in other religions, see Holy Spirit.



"Holy Ghost" redirects here. For other uses, see Holy Ghost (disambiguation).

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove descending on the Holy Family, with God the Father and angels shown atop, by Murillo, c. 1677.
For the large majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is the third person (hypostasis) of the Trinity: the "Triune God" manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each person itself being God.[1][2][3]

The New Testament includes over 90 references to the Holy Spirit.[4] All three Synoptic Gospels proclaim blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin.[5] The Holy Spirit plays a key role in the Pauline epistles.[6] In the Johannine writings, three separate terms, "Holy Spirit", "Spirit of Truth", and "Paraclete" are used.[7]

The New Testament details a close relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus during his earthly life and ministry.[8] The Gospels of Luke and Matthew and the Nicene Creed state that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary".[9] The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus as a dove during his baptism, and in his Farewell Discourse after the Last Supper Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure.[10][11]

The theology of the Holy Spirit is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is referred to as "the Lord, the Giver of Life" in the Nicene Creed, which summarises several key beliefs held by many Christian denominations. The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is apparent in Jesus' final post-Resurrection instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19): "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".[12] Since the first century, Christians have also called upon God with the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, absolution and benediction.[13][14]

This is classic polytheism, as in Hinduism
To quote you:

NO

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 10:09 AM
To quote you:

NO

I will take this as not being able to respond. Not even a good dodge. I guess to you can do is it is a mystery.

Bill the Cat
04-02-2015, 10:49 AM
No, you and many are living in the delusion that Christianity is monotheistic. In the Trinity it is clear that what is referred to Persons=Gods. God the Father is clearly a God, but in anthropomorphic theology may be called a Person. The Second Person Jesus Christ is clearly considered God Incarnate conceived by the Holy Spirit in traditional Christianity, therefore God the Son is a distinct separate God begotten as a God and seated on the right hand of God after Resurrection. At no time in scripture nor traditional doctrine and dogma is Jesus Christ NOT considered a distinctly separate God 'Person' from the Father God. Then we have the Person of the Holy Ghost, clearly defined as separate entity when referred by traditional Christianity.

The classic side stepping response is the 'Trinity is a mystery,' but that fails to address the issue that they are described as distinctly separate 'Persons=Gods'

This article is about the Christian view of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy spirit in other religions, see Holy Spirit.



"Holy Ghost" redirects here. For other uses, see Holy Ghost (disambiguation).

The Holy Spirit depicted as a dove descending on the Holy Family, with God the Father and angels shown atop, by Murillo, c. 1677.
For the large majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is the third person (hypostasis) of the Trinity: the "Triune God" manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each person itself being God.[1][2][3]

The New Testament includes over 90 references to the Holy Spirit.[4] All three Synoptic Gospels proclaim blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin.[5] The Holy Spirit plays a key role in the Pauline epistles.[6] In the Johannine writings, three separate terms, "Holy Spirit", "Spirit of Truth", and "Paraclete" are used.[7]

The New Testament details a close relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus during his earthly life and ministry.[8] The Gospels of Luke and Matthew and the Nicene Creed state that Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary".[9] The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus as a dove during his baptism, and in his Farewell Discourse after the Last Supper Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to his disciples after his departure.[10][11]

The theology of the Holy Spirit is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is referred to as "the Lord, the Giver of Life" in the Nicene Creed, which summarises several key beliefs held by many Christian denominations. The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is apparent in Jesus' final post-Resurrection instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19): "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".[12] Since the first century, Christians have also called upon God with the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, absolution and benediction.[13][14]

As for the three Gods being equal. That is an open question, and a view held by only some Christians.

This is classic polytheism, as in Hinduism

5156

Boxing Pythagoras
04-02-2015, 12:33 PM
No, you and many are living in the delusion that Christianity is monotheistic. In the Trinity it is clear that what is referred to Persons=Gods.Once again, you are quite wrong, here. The classical and orthodox definition of the Trinity explicitly denies that "what is referred to Persons=Gods." Whether the orthodox definition is coherent is another matter, entirely; but you cannot simply pretend that it states precisely the opposite of what it actually states.

hamster
04-02-2015, 12:54 PM
'Persons=Gods'


Why do you assume that "persons = gods"? Why is a single being that has three centers of will and cognition incoherent? What about gods that aren't personal at all?

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 01:31 PM
Once again, you are quite wrong, here. The classical and orthodox definition of the Trinity explicitly denies that "what is referred to Persons=Gods." Whether the orthodox definition is coherent is another matter, entirely; but you cannot simply pretend that it states precisely the opposite of what it actually states.

I do not consider this a clear and coherent response. Just because Traditional Christianity claims to be monotheistic does not make it so.

Claiming three dolphins are on whale does not make it so.

Traditional Christianity clearly claims the doctrine of the Trinity 'Three Persons=Gods as One. This is a concept of polytheism.

Is Hinduism then monotheistic?

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:33 PM
I do not consider this a clear and coherent response. Just because Traditional Christianity claims to be monotheistic does not make it so.

Traditional Christianity clearly claims the doctrine of the Trinity 'Three Persons=Gods as One. This is a concept of polytheism.

Is Hinduism then monotheistic?

Just because DC Comics interprets the word to mean three separate beings, does not mean that Christianity does. Why does DC Comics call its power trio a trinity anyways????

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 01:35 PM
Just because DC Comics interprets the word to mean three separate beings, does not mean that Christianity does. Why does DC Comics call its power trio a trinity anyways????

Silly boy! I have made no reference to DC Comics?!?!?!?

Truly monotheistic religions would be Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

One Bad Pig
04-02-2015, 01:38 PM
Silly boy! I have made no reference to DC Comics?!?!?!?

Truly monotheistic religions would be Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.
CBW is not a boy. And repeating your assertion doesn't make it any more true.

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 01:38 PM
Why do you assume that "persons = gods"? Why is a single being that has three centers of will and cognition incoherent? What about gods that aren't personal at all?

Because, three Persons=Gods are specifically described as having a unique Personal (God) identities. There is no description in the Doctrine of 'One being that has 'three centers?' of will.

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 01:40 PM
CBW is not a boy. And repeating your assertion doesn't make it any more true.

Inform him to get his head out of DC Comics and not behave like a boy!

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:40 PM
Silly boy! I have made no reference to DC Comics?!?!?!?

Truly monotheistic religions would be Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

It's a joke. That only DC Comics(and maybe some Islamic misinterpretations of the doctrine) have trinity mean what you think it means

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:42 PM
Inform him to get his head out of DC Comics and not behave like a boy!

:whack: Last time I checked, I was a girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You dummy, girls can read comics also.

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 01:42 PM
It's a joke. That only DC Comics(and maybe some Islamic misinterpretations of the doctrine) have trinity mean what you think it means

No sensible response,only ridicule and sarcasm.

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:45 PM
No sensible response,only ridicule and sarcasm.

That is what foolish misunderstandings get!

Adrift
04-02-2015, 01:46 PM
Just because DC Comics interprets the word to mean three separate beings, does not mean that Christianity does. Why does DC Comics call its power trio a trinity anyways????

Kinda confused about the constant comic book/superhero references you tend to make, but I imagine that if the doctrine of the Trinity found any correlarry in comics it'd be something like Marvel's Living Tribunal.

5170

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 01:46 PM
:whack: Last time I checked, I was a girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You dummy, girls can read comics also.

OK! Silly girl!

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 01:50 PM
Inform him to get his head out of DC Comics and not behave like a boy!

:twitch:
Reading, either comics or otherwise isn't only for boys. Many comics are targeted to a male audience, but not all. Also, didn't you admit to being a "brony"? You have no right to complain about CBW and comics(oddly enough there are MLP:FiM comic books).


Tough macho crowd. I am the only brony so far.

Basically 'brony' is not one intimidated or draws a line between male-female boundary of personal expression. It does not indicate ones sexual preference nor identity

I suppose you would have no problem with me telling you to "get your head out of MLP:FiM and stop behaving like a girl"?


No sensible response,only ridicule and sarcasm.

Yes, we know you have no sensible responses. Ridicule is all you've got, and you're not good at that, or sarcasm for that matter.

hamster
04-02-2015, 01:51 PM
There is no description in the Doctrine of 'One being that has 'three centers?' of will.

One God (being, substance, etc.) that is three persons (self-conscious rational beings) is pretty much trinitarianism as far as I know. You seem to be equivocating "god" with "person" how do you define person and god here?

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:52 PM
Kinda confused about the constant comic book/superhero references you tend to make, but I imagine that if the doctrine of the Trinity found any correlarry in comics it'd be something like Marvel's Living Tribunal.

5170

I wouldn't trust those writers to get anything right about real world religions.

Adrift
04-02-2015, 01:54 PM
I wouldn't trust those writers to get anything right about real world religions.

Yeah, but my point is that...Marvel is better than DC.

hamster
04-02-2015, 01:55 PM
I love DC comics but mostly Batman

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:57 PM
Yeah, but my point is that...Marvel is better than DC.

:shrug: I'm just more familiar with DC Comics.

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 01:58 PM
Kinda confused about the constant comic book/superhero references you tend to make, but I imagine that if the doctrine of the Trinity found any correlarry in comics it'd be something like Marvel's Living Tribunal.

5170

She seems to be a big comic book fan, and apparently tries to make analogies between them and the conversation at hand.

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 01:58 PM
:twitch:
Reading, either comics or otherwise isn't only for boys. Many comics are targeted to a male audience, but not all. Also, didn't you admit to being a "brony"? You have no right to complain about CBW and comics(oddly enough there are MLP:FiM comic books).

I've watched MLP:FIM! I don't like romcoms though.

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 01:59 PM
Yeah, but my point is that...Marvel is better than DC.

With the exception of Batman I agree. :yes:

I often wish he was in the Marvel universe(s). :yes:

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 02:01 PM
I've watched MLP:FIM! I don't like romcoms though.

I watched it once when I was really, really bored, and a bit sleep deprived. I don't get the hype. Romcoms would be digital comics, right? I like them well enough. I'd like to continue where I left off with Superior Spider-Man. :yes:

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 02:01 PM
She seems to be a big comic book fan, and apparently tries to make analogies between them and the conversation at hand.

I wouldn't say big. I just like to bring up fictional examples when someone says something stupid. DC Comics uses the word "trinity" to refer to three different beings(even though said beings aren't Gods and only two have super powers.). Tritheism is a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Add it up.

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 02:02 PM
I watched it once when I was really, really bored, and a bit sleep deprived. I don't get the hype. Romcoms would be digital comics, right? I like them well enough. I'd like to continue where I left off with Superior Spider-Man. :yes:

romantic comedies! Our discussion needs to be split off. Right?

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 02:06 PM
I wouldn't say big. I just like to bring up fictional examples when someone says something stupid. DC Comics uses the word "trinity" to refer to three different beings(even though said beings aren't Gods and only two have super powers.). Tritheism is a misunderstanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Add it up.

Trinity can mean different things. The orthodox Christian doctrine is one meaning.

Trinity
[trin-i-tee]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun, plural Trinities for 2, 4.
1.
Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being.
2.
a representation of this in art.
3.
Trinity Sunday.
4.
(lowercase) a group of three; triad.
5.
(lowercase) the state of being threefold or triple.

I think a lot of people use the name, or even put it as a title because they think it sounds cool. That seems to be so even when there is nothing to do with the number 3 involved in the character(s). The Matrix's Trinity seems a prime example of this.

hamster
04-02-2015, 02:08 PM
In fiction like comic books when they say "trinity" they usually mean "triad"

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 02:09 PM
In fiction like comic books when they say "trinity" they usually mean "triad"

Trinity sounds cooler though. :wink:

hamster
04-02-2015, 02:10 PM
The DC universe has its own 'feel' that I really like, it seems more like magic/fantasy than science fiction.

Adrift
04-02-2015, 02:11 PM
I love DC comics but mostly Batman

Never really got into Batman comics, but I like most of the films. I could probably get into some of the Elseworlds stuff, but the Marvel characters always seemed more realistic to me.

Cerebrum123
04-02-2015, 02:12 PM
The DC universe has its own 'feel' that I really like, it seems more like magic/fantasy than science fiction.

Probably depends on what you're reading/watching. DC Universe Online has a pretty decent mix of both. That's actually where most of my non-Batman DC info comes from. :teeth:

Adrift
04-02-2015, 02:14 PM
:shrug: I'm just more familiar with DC Comics.

Ah, I was just teasing. But seriously, Marvel is better than DC. :hehe:

Well, they were until they made Thor into a PC wimp and ruined Spider-Man. Haven't really collected comics since the mid-90s, and doesn't look like any reason to check out the mainstream titles anytime soon.

Christianbookworm
04-02-2015, 02:17 PM
Ah, I was just teasing. But seriously, Marvel is better than DC. :hehe:

Well, they were until they made Thor into a PC wimp and ruined Spider-Man. Haven't really collected comics since the mid-90s, and doesn't look like any reason to check out the mainstream titles anytime soon.

Who cares? We're off topic anyways. Though DC Comics and Marvel would count as polytheistic(multiple people involved in creating the stories.) Any fictional universe with more than one human/being making it up would count as polytheistic.

Adrift
04-02-2015, 02:21 PM
The DC universe has its own 'feel' that I really like, it seems more like magic/fantasy than science fiction.

I think that'd be great if it was just a bunch of one-offs and characters from other books didn't share the same universe. I prefer underground and Indie comics a lot more than the mainstream titles because of that, but its really hard for me to get into comics at all anymore. Even a lot of the adult books seem so childish. And they're expensive. And I have so much non-fiction I still need to catch up with that I feel like I'm wasting my time.

Adrift
04-02-2015, 02:25 PM
Who cares? We're off topic anyways.

Its another B&H thread. I wasn't really taking it that seriously to begin with.


Though DC Comics and Marvel would count as polytheistic(multiple people involved in creating the stories.) Any fictional universe with more than one human/being making it up would count as polytheistic.

I seem to recall that there were some Christians in the Marvel Universe, and there's also the omnipotent, supreme being: One-Above-All, who I believe is supposed to be a reference to Jack Kirby, but I think that's left relatively vague.

Boxing Pythagoras
04-02-2015, 02:29 PM
Traditional Christianity clearly claims the doctrine of the Trinity 'Three Persons=Gods as One. This is a concept of polytheism.Once again, you are demonstrably wrong, here. Traditional Christianity explicitly claims that the persons of the Trinity are not distinct Gods. How does "the persons of the Trinity are not three different gods" represent a clear claim that three persons equates to three gods?

Yttrium
04-02-2015, 02:32 PM
I seem to recall that there were some Christians in the Marvel Universe, and there's also the omnipotent, supreme being: One-Above-All, who I believe is supposed to be a reference to Jack Kirby, but I think that's left relatively vague.

Yes, there's the One Above All, who is the supreme being in the Marvel universe. Marvel also has manifestations of concepts such as Eternity and Death, Greek and Norse gods, Satan and similar entities, etc.

DC has God, and the superhero (using the term loosely) called the Spectre is the manifestation of God's vengeance merged with a human. There are some angels running around too. And of course DC has those Greek and Norse gods, as well as the New Gods, etc.

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 05:09 PM
I am not alone many Jews and Muslims also consider Christianity polytheistic.

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 05:15 PM
Once again, you are demonstrably wrong, here. Traditional Christianity explicitly claims that the persons of the Trinity are not distinct Gods. How does "the persons of the Trinity are not three different gods" represent a clear claim that three persons equates to three gods?

No, not demonstrably wrong. Claims, claims, claims, claims!?!?!? So what??? You can claim a cow is a horse repeatedly and it does not make the cow a horse

The three 'Persons' are described as three distinct Gods as referred to by Christians in their interpretation of scripture and doctrine.

You did not answer my question. Is Hinduism polytheistic???

Many Muslims and Jews consider Traditional Christianity polytheistic.

Bill the Cat
04-02-2015, 05:19 PM
Too stupid to continue. Unsubscribing.

Irate Canadian
04-02-2015, 05:23 PM
No, not demonstrably wrong. Claims, claims, claims, claims!?!?!? So what??? You can claim a cow is a horse repeatedly and it does not make the cow a horse
Funny, I could say the exact same to you...


The three 'Persons' are described as three distinct Gods as referred to by Christians in their interpretation of scripture and doctrine.
:doh:


This is tritheism (which is not accepted by orthodox Christians):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism



You did not answer my question. Is Hinduism polytheistic???

It's actually a difficult question to tackle because on one hand you hand you have multiple gods... but then you realize due to the concept of Maya in Hinduism, they are just aspects of Brahma.


Many Muslims and Jews consider Traditional Christianity polytheistic.
Of course, they don't take the Trinity as one god, they take it as three.

One Bad Pig
04-02-2015, 05:25 PM
No, not demonstrably wrong. Claims, claims, claims, claims!?!?!? So what??? You can claim a cow is a horse repeatedly and it does not make the cow a horse
One wonders, then, why you keep repeating that a cow is a horse. :lolo:


The three 'Persons' are described as three distinct Gods as referred to by Christians in their interpretation of scripture and doctrine.
No. They. Are. Not.

Many Muslims and Jews consider Traditional Christianity polytheistic.
They are, of course objective observers with nothing at stake in the label.
Most Muslim counter-apologists make fundy atheist arguments look reasonable in comparison.

Juvenal
04-02-2015, 05:43 PM
[...] they are just aspects of Brahma.

You keep doing that.

lilpixieofterror
04-02-2015, 05:48 PM
I am not alone many Jews and Muslims also consider Christianity polytheistic.

Yeah people who have axes to grind against Christianity claim Christianity is polytheistic. :lolo: Imagine that! Too bad what they imagine and what is true, is two different things.

Juvenal
04-02-2015, 05:59 PM
No. They. Are. Not.

Despite the fact they're explicitly denied by conservative Christianity, many of these trinitarian heresies — if I can use the term to lump them all together — have a distinct advantage, for me at least: They make sense. I can understand a triumvirate acting as one in support of a unifying purpose. I can understand a single god with distinguishable aspects, even if the aspects occasionally act at cross-purposes. What I can't understand is whatever it is that's supposed to be left over when all of these heresies have been eliminated.

I don't know what the trinity actually is. All I know is ...

What. It. Is. Not.

As ever, Jesse

Juvenal
04-02-2015, 06:03 PM
[...] what they imagine and what is true, is two[...]

One plus one is two.

:yes:

The mathematician in me approves what the grammarian in me disavows.

lilpixieofterror
04-02-2015, 06:06 PM
One plus one is two.

:yes:

The mathematician in me approves what the grammarian in me disavows.

I hope your head doesn't end up exploding...

One Bad Pig
04-02-2015, 06:37 PM
Despite the fact they're explicitly denied by conservative Christianity, many of these trinitarian heresies — if I can use the term to lump them all together — have a distinct advantage, for me at least: They make sense. I can understand a triumvirate acting as one in support of a unifying purpose. I can understand a single god with distinguishable aspects, even if the aspects occasionally act at cross-purposes. What I can't understand is whatever it is that's supposed to be left over when all of these heresies have been eliminated.

I don't know what the trinity actually is. All I know is ...

What. It. Is. Not.

As ever, Jesse
Indeed. The various heresies do tend to be easier to wrap one's mind around, but they generally have to ignore (or radically reinterpret) the bits that don't fit their particular system. Apophatic theology for the win! (Just got done reading Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who makes the concept of the Trinity seem simple by comparison :dizzy:).

shunyadragon
04-02-2015, 07:30 PM
Yeah people who have axes to grind against Christianity claim Christianity is polytheistic. :lolo: Imagine that! Too bad what they imagine and what is true, is two different things.

An interesting adversarial combative paranoid approach to other religions. Your collection of axes are shiny and razor sharp on full display.

Irate Canadian
04-02-2015, 07:34 PM
Funny, I could say the exact same to you...


:doh:


This is tritheism (which is not accepted by orthodox Christians):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism




It's actually a difficult question to tackle because on one hand you hand you have multiple gods... but then you realize due to the concept of Maya in Hinduism, they are just aspects of Brahma.


Of course, they don't take the Trinity as one god, they take it as three.

ETA:Brahma -> Brahman

Gah, it's been a while since I've read the Bhavad Gita and the Ramayana...

Juvenal
04-02-2015, 08:30 PM
Gah, it's been a while since I've read the Bhavad Gita [...]

:no:

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 03:28 AM
ETA:Brahma -> Brahman

Gah, it's been a while since I've read the Bhavad Gita and the Ramayana...

Does not make sense.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 03:47 AM
Despite the fact they're explicitly denied by conservative Christianity, many of these trinitarian heresies — if I can use the term to lump them all together — have a distinct advantage, for me at least: They make sense. I can understand a triumvirate acting as one in support of a unifying purpose. I can understand a single god with distinguishable aspects, even if the aspects occasionally act at cross-purposes. What I can't understand is whatever it is that's supposed to be left over when all of these heresies have been eliminated.

I don't know what the trinity actually is. All I know is ...

What. It. Is. Not.

As ever, Jesse

You know?!?!? Enlighten me. What. Is. It. Not.

Boxing Pythagoras
04-03-2015, 04:12 AM
You know?!?!? Enlighten me. What. Is. It. Not.It is not Tritheism, Partialism, or Modalism.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 05:07 AM
It is not Tritheism, Partialism, or Modalism.

First, I would like to here from lao Tzu on what he meant here.

Second, if you review the history of the Trinity the above statement is too simplistic in rejection of what the trinity is not. I agree with lao tzu; If you eliminate all the heresies, what do you have left? In actuality theologians over the centuries have expressed beliefs that fit in a smeared way all or one or the other of the above. The following source goes into this problem bait and switch, and duck, bob and weave, but in the end endorses the Trinity avoids biting the bullet with the vagueness of 'its a mystery.'


As to the mystery of the Most-Holy Trinity … I have always thought it was to be received and adored with the most humble faith and reverence, but by no means to be curiously searched into, or perplexed with the presumptuous questions of the school men. We fell by an arrogant ambition of knowledge; by simple faith we rise again and are reinstated. And this mystery indeed, beyond all others, seems to be a tree of knowledge prohibited to us while we sojourn in these mortal bodies.84

This same humble attitude is expressed by Philip Schaff:

The Nicene Fathers did not pretend to have exhausted the mystery of the Trinity, and very well understood that all human knowledge, especially in this deepest, central dogma, proves itself but fragmentary. All speculation on divine things ends in a mystery … before which the thinking mind must bow in humble adoration.”

You still have not answered the question; Is Hinduism polytheistic?

Boxing Pythagoras
04-03-2015, 05:39 AM
First, I would like to here from lao Tzu on what he meant here.Cool. I'm fairly certain LT will give a similar response to the one I gave, but I don't claim to speak for him. I could be wrong-- perhaps he'll tell us "the Trinity is not a sandwich" or somesuch. Though I don't think this is all too likely, I can understand your desire to see LT's response.


Second, if you review the history of the Trinity the above statement is too simplistic in rejection of what the trinity is not. I agree with lao tzu; If you eliminate all the heresies, what do you have left? In actuality theologians over the centuries have expressed beliefs that fit in a smeared way all or one or the other of the above. The following source goes into this problem bait and switch, and duck, bob and weave, but in the end endorses the Trinity avoids biting the bullet with the vagueness of 'its a mystery.'I agree that the concept of the Trinity is vague and poorly defined, and that the conclusion "it is a mystery" is hardly satisfying. That doesn't mean you can supplant the actual doctrine with its diametric opposite and pretend that you are making an accurate presentation of orthodoxy. That's very clearly a Straw Man argument.


You still have not answered the question; Is Hinduism polytheistic?I'm honestly not familiar enough with Hindu theology to be able to answer.

One Bad Pig
04-03-2015, 05:47 AM
From Vladimir Lossky's Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (which I happen to be reading):

[The Church defends] the mystery of the Holy Trinity against the natural tendencies of the human mind, which strive to suppress it by reducing the Trinity to unity, in making it an essence of the philosophers with three modes of manifestation (the modalism of Sabellius) , or even by dividing it into three distinct beings, as did Arius.

He also cites St. Gregory Nanzianzen:
When I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of light and by three. Three in Properties, or Hypostases, or Persons, if any prefer so to call them, for we will not quarrel about names so long as the syllables amount to the same meaning; but One in respect of the ousia - that is, the Godhead. For they are divided indivisibly, if I may so say; and they are conjoined dividedly. for the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one, in whom the Godhead is, or, to speak more accurately, Who are the Godhead.
and
The very fact of being unbegotten, or begotten, or proceeding, has given the name of Father to the first, of the Son to the second, and to the Third, Him of whom we are speaking, of the Holy Spirit, that the distinction of the Three Hypostases may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance [Arianism].

Cerebrum123
04-03-2015, 05:54 AM
I am not alone many Jews and Muslims also consider Christianity polytheistic.

Argument ad populum is a fallacy.

lilpixieofterror
04-03-2015, 06:13 AM
An interesting adversarial combative paranoid approach to other religions. Your collection of axes are shiny and razor sharp on full display.

Translation: "Crap, you caught on, so let me ignore all my errors so I can pretend I know what I'm talking about!"

The fact you couldn't find a Christian to tell you what you wanted to hear, so you searched elsewhere to find what you wanted to hear should say a lot about how seriously anybody should take you. You sound like Jorge, when talking about evolution. He too ignores people (who know what they are talking about) because he doesn't like what they say and decides to listen to people that tell him things he likes hearing. Congrads shuny, you're Jorge of theological discussions. :thumb:

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 01:23 PM
Translation: "Crap, you caught on, so let me ignore all my errors so I can pretend I know what I'm talking about!"

The fact you couldn't find a Christian to tell you what you wanted to hear, so you searched elsewhere to find what you wanted to hear should say a lot about how seriously anybody should take you. You sound like Jorge, when talking about evolution. He too ignores people (who know what they are talking about) because he doesn't like what they say and decides to listen to people that tell him things he likes hearing. Congrads shuny, you're Jorge of theological discussions. :thumb:

The Christians that would not agree with you would not believe in the Trinity, and you would not consider them Christians, such as the Unification Church.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 01:31 PM
Argument ad populum is a fallacy.

I am NOT basing my argument on this, but indeed there are those that consider traditional Christianity polytheistic. I have based my argument on the factual nature of the statements of doctrine and their interpretation of scripture. Based on this traditional Christianity is indeed polytheistic in the same manner as Hinduism.

Boxing Pythagoras
04-03-2015, 01:36 PM
I am NOT basing my argument on this, but indeed there are those that consider traditional Christianity polytheistic.The fact that others bear the same misconceptions which you bear does not alter the fact that they are misconceptions.


I have based my argument on the factual nature of the statements of doctrine and their interpretation of scripture.No, you haven't. You keep baldly asserting the diametric opposite of the explicit positions in orthodox statements of doctrine on the Trinity.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 01:50 PM
Cool. I'm fairly certain LT will give a similar response to the one I gave, but I don't claim to speak for him. I could be wrong-- perhaps he'll tell us "the Trinity is not a sandwich" or somesuch. Though I don't think this is all too likely, I can understand your desire to see LT's response.

Wait and see.


I agree that the concept of the Trinity is vague and poorly defined, and that the conclusion "it is a mystery" is hardly satisfying. That doesn't mean you can supplant the actual doctrine with its diametric opposite and pretend that you are making an accurate presentation of orthodoxy. That's very clearly a Straw Man argument.

This logic is a bit contorted. you are actually saying that 'actual doctrine' rules the roust and I must make an actual presentation of orthodoxy to have a sound argument. This is truly bizzaro! Not an acceptable argument claiming those that do not believe in 'actual doctrine' do not have an argument.


I'm honestly not familiar enough with Hindu theology to be able to answer.

Well, ah . . . this makes your argument inherently weak, when you lack the knowledge to make an educated comparison between how and why different religions may be considered polytheistic or monotheistic, or possibly henotheistic. Your faced with the facts that Biblically the Bible from beginning to end refers to multiple Gods as competing Deities, and Divine entities of powers greater then human that clearly fit the definition of being gods.

My advice is to come back with a sounder argument when you can give an educated comparison between what is polytheism and what is monotheism in the different religions.

Throwing out the standard of 'actual doctrine' and 'accurate presentation of orthodoxy,' is not a sound argument.

My argument is not a Straw man argument at all. It is a fact that like Hinduism, Christianity describes multiple Deities as be aspects part of or in some way 'mysteriously' One Deity leaving out the fact 'straw man' that their doctrines define distinctly different Deities.

In contrast Contemporary Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith are clearly Monotheistic without the need for 'mysterious' explanations with a high fog index.

Boxing Pythagoras
04-03-2015, 02:09 PM
This logic is a bit contorted. you are actually saying that 'actual doctrine' rules the roust and I must make an actual presentation of orthodoxy to have a sound argument. This is truly bizzaro!You find it bizarre to have to discuss what people actually claim when trying to argue against their claims?


Not an acceptable argument claiming those that do not believe in 'actual doctrine' do not have an argument.No one said you have to believe the doctrine of the Trinity in order to argue against it. I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet I argue against it. However, if you are to argue against a claim in any meaningful way, you need to address that claim. If someone claims X, you have to deal with X. You cannot say X is wrong because what they actually mean to claim is Y.


Well, ah . . . this makes your argument inherently weak, when you lack the knowledge to make an educated comparison between how and why different religions may be considered polytheistic or monotheistic, or possibly henotheistic.I do not "lack the knowledge to make an educated comparison between how and why different religions may be considered polytheistic or monotheistic, or possibly henotheistic." I am very familiar with these terms, and I happen to belong to a religion which is generally polytheistic. The fact that I am unfamiliar with Hindu theology does not imply that I am unqualified to discuss Christian theology.


Your faced with the facts that Biblically the Bible from beginning to end refers to multiple Gods as competing Deities, and Divine entities of powers greater then human that clearly fit the definition of being gods.I would actually agree that much of the Hebrew Scriptures paint a henotheistic viewpoint. That does not imply that orthodox Christianity shares that viewpoint.


My argument is not a Straw man argument at all.When your opponent claims to hold a position, and you instead decide to argue against some other position which they have not claimed to hold, you are indeed engaging in a textbook Straw Man argument.

Cerebrum123
04-03-2015, 02:10 PM
I am NOT basing my argument on this, but indeed there are those that consider traditional Christianity polytheistic.

You did try straw men first, but you've resorted to argument ad populum when that failed.


I have based my argument on the factual nature of the statements of doctrine and their interpretation of scripture.

No, you've based it on misrepresentations of doctrine and Scripture.


Based on this traditional Christianity is indeed polytheistic in the same manner as Hinduism.

No, it's not. You repeatedly making that assertion doesn't make it true.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 02:47 PM
You find it bizarre to have to discuss what people actually claim when trying to argue against their claims?

No I consider your argument bizarre. Your describing 'actual doctrine' as the standard is so tightly circular it bits you in the butt before you typed the response. It clearly neglects the 'actual doctrine' that describes multiple Deities.


No one said you have to believe the doctrine of the Trinity in order to argue against it. I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and yet I argue against it. However, if you are to argue against a claim in any meaningful way, you need to address that claim. If someone claims X, you have to deal with X. You cannot say X is wrong because what they actually mean to claim is Y.

I in fact, do address the claim. In reality I did demonstrate why I consider X wrong, and my claim Y is a better description of the factual description of multiple Deities


I do not "lack the knowledge to make an educated comparison between how and why different religions may be considered polytheistic or monotheistic, or possibly henotheistic." I am very familiar with these terms, and I happen to belong to a religion which is generally polytheistic. The fact that I am unfamiliar with Hindu theology does not imply that I am unqualified to discuss Christian theology.

You expressed a lack of knowledge of a religion Hinduism where this knowledge is simply readily available for comparison, and side stepped an educated response.


I would actually agree that much of the Hebrew Scriptures paint a henotheistic viewpoint. That does not imply that orthodox Christianity shares that viewpoint.

Of course, Orthodox Christianity would not share this view point, nor would it accept that the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity is polytheistic. It is indeed a problem when that argue the Orthodox Christianity view conveniently and selectively leaves out their heritage and factual descriptions of the Trinity that describes distinctly multiple Deities.


When your opponent claims to hold a position, and you instead decide to argue against some other position which they have not claimed to hold, you are indeed engaging in a textbook Straw Man argument.

Not the case, I AM arguing directly against the claim that traditional Christianity worships only one God despite their claims. They indeed describe in their doctrine multiple Deities which then side step with the vague 'it is a mystery.' It is not some other position. The fact is Traditional Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture describes distinctly different Deities.

I have given examples of unambiguous monotheistic religions, and you are conveniently side stepping this comparison

One Bad Pig
04-03-2015, 02:59 PM
No I consider your argument bizarre.
It's nice to know you haven't changed in 10 years, Frank. Your quote in my signature is as relevant as ever.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 03:01 PM
You did try straw men first, but you've resorted to argument ad populum when that failed.

NO. my argument is based soundly on traditional Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture describing multiple distinct Gods.




No, you've based it on misrepresentations of doctrine and Scripture.

No, I have specifically referenced doctrine and interpretation of scripture in traditional Christianity describing multiple Gods. This cannot be side stepped by simply calling it a mystery.




No, it's not. You repeatedly making that assertion doesn't make it true.

Neither does your repeated assertion make it true!

Darth Executor
04-03-2015, 03:28 PM
NO. my argument is based soundly on traditional Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture describing multiple distinct Gods.

Multiple distinct persons. The nature of gods varies from culture to culture. Norse gods were moral (and most of them would die during Ragnarok), whereas Greek gods were viewed as immortal. Indian gods are likewise distinct from both Greek and Norse, etc.

shunyadragon
04-03-2015, 03:31 PM
Multiple distinct persons. The nature of gods varies from culture to culture. Norse gods were moral (and most of them would die during Ragnarok), whereas Greek gods were viewed as immortal. Indian gods are likewise distinct from both Greek and Norse, etc.

The multiple distinct Persons of the Trinity are described as Gods. Yes, there is variation between cultures.

Boxing Pythagoras
04-03-2015, 05:45 PM
No I consider your argument bizarre. Your describing 'actual doctrine' as the standard is so tightly circular it bits you in the butt before you typed the response. So, it is both bizarre and circular to have to discuss the actual doctrine proposed by a religion when arguing against that doctrine?


It clearly neglects the 'actual doctrine' that describes multiple Deities.Name a single ecumenical document from orthodox Christianity which actually describes the Trinity as being composed of multiple deities.


I in fact, do address the claim. In reality I did demonstrate why I consider X wrong, and my claim Y is a better description of the factual description of multiple DeitiesSo far, the only thing I've seen you do is to baldly assert that the doctrine of the Trinity refers to multiple deities. I have not yet seen you address the actual propositions of the doctrine.


You expressed a lack of knowledge of a religion Hinduism where this knowledge is simply readily available for comparison, and side stepped an educated response.Actually, I gave you an educated response to an irrelevant question. Once again, a knowledge of Hindu theology is irrelevant to claims about Christian theology, in exactly the same way that a knowledge of Norse Heathen theology is irrelevant to Hindu theology. The fact that you are ignorant my the theology prevalent in my religion does not preclude you from discussing Hinduism; neither does my ignorance of Hinduism preclude me from discussing Christianity.


Of course, Orthodox Christianity would not share this view point, nor would it accept that the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity is polytheistic. It is indeed a problem when that argue the Orthodox Christianity view conveniently and selectively leaves out their heritage and factual descriptions of the Trinity that describes distinctly multiple Deities.I agreed that the Hebrew Scriptures often present a henotheistic worldview. It is a far cry from that to the claim that Orthodox Christianity "leaves out... factual descriptions of the Trinity that describe distinctly multiple Deities." To which "factual descriptions" are you referring, because I am not aware of any descriptions-- at all-- of the doctrine of the Trinity until around a century after the New Testament documents were written.


The fact is Traditional Christian doctrine and interpretation of scripture describes distinctly different Deities.Once again, provide even a single Traditional Christian document which explicitly describes the Trinity as being composed of distinctly different Deities.


I have given examples of unambiguous monotheistic religions, and you are conveniently side stepping this comparisonBecause they are entirely irrelevant.

MaxVel
04-04-2015, 02:38 AM
Ah, I was just teasing. But seriously, Marvel is better than DC. :hehe:

Well, they were until they made Thor into a PC wimp and ruined Spider-Man. Haven't really collected comics since the mid-90s, and doesn't look like any reason to check out the mainstream titles anytime soon.

Have you read....

'Planetary' series? (Ellis)

Superman 'Red Son' (Millar)

All-Star Superman (Morrison/Quitely)

The New Frontier (Darwyn Cooke)

JLA: Earth 2 (Morrison)

The Immortal Iron Fist (Faction)

Jack Staff (Paul Grist)

Astonishing X-Men (Whedon/Cassaday)

.....?

MaxVel
04-04-2015, 02:50 AM
Personally, Shunyadragon, I find your posts quite useful. The more dogmatically insistent you are on something, the more likely it is that you are just plain wrong. Like in this thread.

You seem to have your mind made up about an issue before you read any sources on it, and so you regularly misread your sources as supporting your position when they don't.

shunyadragon
04-04-2015, 05:33 AM
You find it bizarre to have to discuss what people actually claim when trying to argue against their claims?

It is tightly circular that emphasis one aspect of 'actual doctrine' to justify monotheism side stepping other aspects of traditional doctrine describing multiple Deities. Your implying that my position must agree with one aspect of 'actual doctrine' to be a valid argument.

Question: Is Jesus Christ described as a God incarnate, Begotten by God the Father, and remaining distinct and separate from God seated on the right hand of God in heaven? Both God the Father, and the Son of God are described as distinct and separate 'Persons.' Clearly this aspect of the Trinity describes two distinct and separate Gods=Persons.



240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature"


242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".

Consubstantial is the 'mystery' that even though described as distinctly separate 'Persons,' they represent one God. I find this completely unacceptable. Yes, I am disagreeing with one aspect of 'claimed 'actual doctrine' in favor of the fact that doctrine describes three distinct entities as gods. Also including lesser gods and a goddess Mary in different denominations.

As far as the Holy Sprit, the following in the Roman Church clearly describes it as another distinct and separate Divine Person.



243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth".68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.

The description above the Holy Spirit as a 'Divine Person' is clearly a God also.


I do not "lack the knowledge to make an educated comparison between how and why different religions may be considered polytheistic or monotheistic, or possibly henotheistic." I am very familiar with these terms, and I happen to belong to a religion which is generally polytheistic. The fact that I am unfamiliar with Hindu theology does not imply that I am unqualified to discuss Christian theology.

The concept of polytheism versus monotheism must be understood and uniformly applied in the different religions. As the previous posts indicated the predominant vie of Hinduism is it is polytheistic, but in reality Hinduism is very similar to Christianity as to the relationship of Brahman and other Gods, as the Trinity in traditional Christianity.


I would actually agree that much of the Hebrew Scriptures paint a henotheistic viewpoint. That does not imply that orthodox Christianity shares that viewpoint.

It clearly defines a long tradition of multiple Deities, and does imply polytheism. Traditional Christianity has its foundation in the Old Testament, which clearly indicates the existence of multiple Gods. Christianity interprets many of these references to refer to the Trinity.


When your opponent claims to hold a position, and you instead decide to argue against some other position which they have not claimed to hold, you are indeed engaging in a textbook Straw Man argument.

I am not arguing 'some other position.' I am arguing that traditional Christianity clearly describes multiple Deities in their doctrine and interpretation of scripture. This cannot be resolved and side stepped by calling it a mystery. IF you take the above view the traditional Christians are indeed arguing 'some other position' and dodging the issue of multiple Deities, by mysteriously concluding they are one God.

Chrawnus
04-04-2015, 05:56 AM
Surely I'm not the only one in this thread that has recognized this, but it's quite funny how shuny's claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheistic is nothing more than a massive argument from incredulity. :sigh:

Christianbookworm
04-04-2015, 06:11 AM
Surely I'm not the only one in this thread that has recognized this, but it's quite funny how shuny's claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheistic is nothing more than a massive argument from incredulity. :sigh:

Since we don't have a perfect understanding of quantum mechanics... it must be wrong?

Chrawnus
04-04-2015, 06:30 AM
It is tightly circular that emphasis one aspect of 'actual doctrine' to justify monotheism side stepping other aspects of traditional doctrine describing multiple Deities. Your implying that my position must agree with one aspect of 'actual doctrine' to be a valid argument.

No, he's saying that before you say anything about the doctrine of the Trinity, whether critical or positive, you'd better be able to describe it properly, something which you seem to be utterly incapable of doing.



Question: Is Jesus Christ described as a God incarnate, Begotten by God the Father, and remaining distinct and separate from God seated on the right hand of God in heaven? Both God the Father, and the Son of God are described as distinct and separate 'Persons.' Clearly this aspect of the Trinity describes two distinct and separate Gods=Persons.

There is no reason to conflate the concepts of person and god, which you are doing here.





240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature"


242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".

Consubstantial is the 'mystery' that even though described as distinctly separate 'Persons,' they represent one God. I find this completely unacceptable. Yes, I am disagreeing with one aspect of 'claimed 'actual doctrine' in favor of the fact that doctrine describes three distinct entities as gods. Also including lesser gods and a goddess Mary in different denominations.

Consubstantial is the 'mystery' that they share the same substance, being or essence. IOW, whatever it is that makes the three Persons in the Trinity divine they all share in in such a way that it remains undivided. This is in contrast to the essence of what it is to be human, which is divided between individual humans, and not shared undivided between human persons.

As for the question of veneration of Mary and the saints I have my misgivings, but to maintain that they are seen as lesser gods and as a goddess (as in Mary's case) flies against the witness of the Roman Catholic Church itself. If you want to argue that Mary and the saints are treated as lesser divinities in the RCC you'll have to come up with something stronger than your mere say-so.



As far as the Holy Sprit, the following in the Roman Church clearly describes it as another distinct and separate Divine Person.



243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth".68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.

The description above the Holy Spirit as a 'Divine Person' is clearly a God also.

Remove the word "a", before the word "God", and you'd be describing the viewpoint orthodox Christianity has on the Holy Spirit, although a bit redundantly (there is no reason to say that the Holy Spirit is God when you've already described him as a 'Divine Person'). But as always, your confusion lies in your misconception that three different persons must also equal three different beings, which does not logically follow.




The concept of polytheism versus monotheism must be understood and uniformly applied in the different religions. As the previous posts indicated the predominant vie of Hinduism is it is polytheistic, but in reality Hinduism is very similar to Christianity as to the relationship of Brahman and other Gods, as the Trinity in traditional Christianity.

No. First of all, the concept of monotheism is not so limited in scope that the only legitimate expressions of it are unitarian in nature. I'm not even going to begin to analyze the concept of Brahman, but suffice it to say that in whatever way you understand Brahman (as being personal/impersonal, or perhaps as both, ignoring the contradiction), the relationship between Brahman and the other gods in Hinduism is better compared with the heresy of modalism, rather than the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.



It clearly defines a long tradition of multiple Deities, and does imply polytheism. Traditional Christianity has its foundation in the Old Testament, which clearly indicates the existence of multiple Gods. Christianity interprets many of these references to refer to the Trinity.

What the OT indicates at most, is that there are other supernatural entities apart from God, who enjoy some sort of limited influence over the physical world. What you will not find in the OT however, is any sort of indication that these entities are even close to equal with God, with a few exceptions, i.e the Wisdom of God who is described in Prov 8 to have existed alongside God when He made the world, and the Angel of the Lord, who speaks and acts as if he was YHWH himself. Both of these have in Christianity traditionally been seen as OT witnesses to the pre-existence of the Son.



I am not arguing 'some other position.' I am arguing that traditional Christianity clearly describes multiple Deities in their doctrine and interpretation of scripture. This cannot be resolved and side stepped by calling it a mystery. IF you take the above view the traditional Christians are indeed arguing 'some other position' and dodging the issue of multiple Deities, by mysteriously concluding they are one God.

Your argument that traditional Christianity describes multiple Deities has failed miserably so far, and is, as I mentioned in my previous post, nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

lilpixieofterror
04-04-2015, 06:59 AM
The Christians that would not agree with you would not believe in the Trinity, and you would not consider them Christians, such as the Unification Church.

That's nice and you pick more people that have an axe to grind. Yet, when it comes to those who know what they are talking about (AKA not you), most think you don't know what you're talking about.

Darth Executor
04-04-2015, 09:07 AM
The multiple distinct Persons of the Trinity are described as Gods.

Where?

Chrawnus
04-04-2015, 09:15 AM
Where?

Shuny isn't all that bright. Unless you specify that what you're asking of him is to provide instances of "multiple distinct Persons of the Trinity [being] described as Gods" he's just as likely to think that you're asking him to provide instances of variation between cultures, regardless of the fact that the context requires the first option. :shrug:

Darth Executor
04-04-2015, 09:18 AM
Edited for clarity.

shunyadragon
04-04-2015, 11:42 AM
No, he's saying that before you say anything about the doctrine of the Trinity, whether critical or positive, you'd better be able to describe it properly, something which you seem to be utterly incapable of doing.

There is no reason to conflate the concepts of person and god, which you are doing here.



Consubstantial is the 'mystery' that they share the same substance, being or essence. IOW, whatever it is that makes the three Persons in the Trinity divine they all share in in such a way that it remains undivided. This is in contrast to the essence of what it is to be human, which is divided between individual humans, and not shared undivided between human persons.

As for the question of veneration of Mary and the saints I have my misgivings, but to maintain that they are seen as lesser gods and as a goddess (as in Mary's case) flies against the witness of the Roman Catholic Church itself. If you want to argue that Mary and the saints are treated as lesser divinities in the RCC you'll have to come up with something stronger than your mere say-so.



Remove the word "a", before the word "God", and you'd be describing the viewpoint orthodox Christianity has on the Holy Spirit, although a bit redundantly (there is no reason to say that the Holy Spirit is God when you've already described him as a 'Divine Person'). But as always, your confusion lies in your misconception that three different persons must also equal three different beings, which does not logically follow.




No. First of all, the concept of monotheism is not so limited in scope that the only legitimate expressions of it are unitarian in nature. I'm not even going to begin to analyze the concept of Brahman, but suffice it to say that in whatever way you understand Brahman (as being personal/impersonal, or perhaps as both, ignoring the contradiction), the relationship between Brahman and the other gods in Hinduism is better compared with the heresy of modalism, rather than the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.



What the OT indicates at most, is that there are other supernatural entities apart from God, who enjoy some sort of limited influence over the physical world. What you will not find in the OT however, is any sort of indication that these entities are even close to equal with God, with a few exceptions, i.e the Wisdom of God who is described in Prov 8 to have existed alongside God when He made the world, and the Angel of the Lord, who speaks and acts as if he was YHWH himself. Both of these have in Christianity traditionally been seen as OT witnesses to the pre-existence of the Son.



Your argument that traditional Christianity describes multiple Deities has failed miserably so far, and is, as I mentioned in my previous post, nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

It's a Divine Person, not just a person. God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son of God are considered God in traditional Christianity, not just 'persons.'


God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions

The three 'Divine Persons' of the Trinity fit the definition of god. In the Roman Church Mary also fits the definition. Satan also fits the definition. I never equated Saints as being gods.

Chrawnus
04-04-2015, 12:08 PM
It's a Divine Person, not just a person. God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Son of God are considered God in traditional Christianity, not just 'persons.'

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here.



God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions

The three 'Divine Persons' of the Trinity fit the definition of god. In the Roman Church Mary also fits the definition. Satan also fits the definition. I never equated Saints as being gods.

In discussions about Christianity it's the first definition that is most pertinent, not the second. As the first definition states, God is seen as the one who created and rules the universe, which means that to show that Christians view someone as God, you have to show that they rever that someone as being involved in the creation and rule of the universe. As to equating Saints as being gods I assumed that's what you were referring to when you said: "Also including lesser gods and a goddess Mary in different denominations."

Adrift
04-04-2015, 01:19 PM
Have you read....

'Planetary' series? (Ellis)

Superman 'Red Son' (Millar)

All-Star Superman (Morrison/Quitely)

The New Frontier (Darwyn Cooke)

JLA: Earth 2 (Morrison)

The Immortal Iron Fist (Faction)

Jack Staff (Paul Grist)

Astonishing X-Men (Whedon/Cassaday)

.....?

Aren't a lot of those one-offs?

But no, I haven't read any of those. The last Marvel books I picked up was a couple graphic novels on Thor by J. Michael Straczynski (which I thought was dreadful. It was so heavy-handed with Straczynski's uber-PC worldview that it was a complete turnoff), and Hawkeye by Faction (which I thought was drawn and paneled extremely well, but the narrative and writing wasn't as great as I was hoping).

The last DC book I picked up was volume 1 of Moore's run on Swamp Thing, which I thought was fantastic.

The last thing I picked up outside of the mainstream companies that I really enjoyed was the first few graphic novels of Saga. Great sci-fi fantasy that's well written, looks great, and isn't trying to clobber me over the head with its politics and preachiness.

Honestly, I don't really have much time to read comics a whole lot anymore, and I think I'm just too old for most of the mainstream stuff. It seems to be geared more towards teens and early 20-somethings. If I knew who the latest Robert Crumbs and Art Spiegelmans were I'd probably be more into collecting their work, but I haven't had my ear to the underground Comix scene for many many years. I walked into a comic book shop in Ann Arbor, Michigan (a college town) last summer and my head was swimming with all of the choices on display. Art work has come so far since the early-mid 90s when I stopped collecting seriously, and it all looked good to me. I left without picking up anything.

Out of the books you mentioned, I have been wanting to check out Red Son, and All-Star Superman. Immortal Iron Fist looks pretty good, but like I said, I wasn't too impressed with Hawkeye (at least, the 1st graphic novel I read).

hamster
04-04-2015, 01:36 PM
One God (being, substance, etc.) that is three persons (self-conscious rational beings) is pretty much trinitarianism as far as I know. You seem to be equivocating "god" with "person" how do you define person and god here?

Oh, I screwed up here by copy/pasting the dictionary definition of "person," used the term "beings" rather than minds

In any event, if you consider Mary, Satan, etc. able to fit the definition of "god," when those two people aren't described as maximally great/eternal beings, then you are just working with a different understanding of what it means to be a "god." If you mean a person with super powers then sure there are gods all over the universe. That's just not what Christians mean when they say "God."Your definition doesn't seem to include eternality, moral perfection, omniscience, etc. My definition of "God" is more than just "a divine person."

shunyadragon
04-04-2015, 02:13 PM
Oh, I screwed up here by copy/pasting the dictionary definition of "person," used the term "beings" rather than minds

In any event, if you consider Mary, Satan, etc. able to fit the definition of "god," when those two people aren't described as maximally great/eternal beings, then you are just working with a different understanding of what it means to be a "god." If you mean a person with super powers then sure there are gods all over the universe. That's just not what Christians mean when they say "God."Your definition doesn't seem to include eternality, moral perfection, omniscience, etc. My definition of "God" is more than just "a divine person."

The definitions I gave provided two definition for god. The Divine Being or Person' need not be described a maximally great/eternal beings to be considered a god. Read again.




God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

Cerealman
04-04-2015, 07:42 PM
The definitions I gave provided two definition for god. The Divine Being or Person' need not be described a maximally great/eternal beings to be considered a god. Read again.




God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

So you went with the 2nd definition that has nothing to do with Christianity?

shunyadragon
04-04-2015, 07:47 PM
So you went with the 2nd definition that has nothing to do with Christianity?

The definition is neutral to any particular religion. It is one definition of what may be called a god.

Doug Shaver
04-04-2015, 08:43 PM
You would do well to acquaint yourself with the concept of progressive revelation. Jewish worship of only one deity predated their belief that only one God existed, and that doesn't pose a particular problem for most Christian theologians.
Why did God wait so long to reveal that no other gods existed?

Spartacus
04-04-2015, 08:55 PM
Why did God wait so long to reveal that no other gods existed?

What do you think my answer will be?

shunyadragon
04-04-2015, 08:57 PM
Why did God wait so long to reveal that no other gods existed?

A careful evaluation of the known history of the Old Testament, and the associated archeology supports that monotheism evolved quite late, ~900 BCE to ~500 BCE. The acknowledgement that other Gods existed (henotheism) persisted.



Rabbinical Judaism as it developed in Late Antiquity is emphatically monotheistic, but its predecessor, the various schools of Hellenistic Judaism and Second Temple Judaism, and especially the cult of Yahwe as it was practiced in ancient Israel and Judah during the 8th and 7th centuries BC, have been described as henotheistic.

For example, the Moabites worshipped the god Chemosh, the Edomites, Qaus, both of whom were part of the greater Canaanite pantheon, headed by the chief god, El. The Canaanite pantheon consisted of El and Asherah as the chief deities, with 70 sons who were said to rule over each of the nations of the earth. These sons were each worshiped within a specific region. Kurt Noll states that "the Bible preserves a tradition that Yahweh used to 'live' in the south, in the land of Edom" and that the original god of Israel was El Shaddai.

DesertBerean
04-04-2015, 09:13 PM
The definition is neutral to any particular religion. It is one definition of what may be called a god. That's very dishonest. You cited a source that gave two definitions - one that was SPECIFIC to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and the other that was NOT specific like the first. You tell us Christians the second definition is what we must use for our religion.

Nope. That won't fly.

You ignored even a heathen who very patiently explained what your error was. You just don't want to listen and engage in any exchange of views. So, nobody's taking you seriously.

hamster
04-04-2015, 10:10 PM
The definitions I gave provided two definition for god. The Divine Being or Person' need not be described a maximally great/eternal beings to be considered a god. Read again.




God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

You left out the third definition: : "a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired" which is also religiously neutral. There have been people, celestial objects, animals, geographical features, and statues that have been worshiped as gods. They meet a religiously neutral definition of a "god," they definitely existed, therefore polytheism is historically and scientifically factual. This is just arbitrarily semantic

shunyadragon
04-05-2015, 04:01 AM
That's very dishonest. You cited a source that gave two definitions - one that was SPECIFIC to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and the other that was NOT specific like the first. You tell us Christians the second definition is what we must use for our religion.

Nope. That won't fly.

You ignored even a heathen who very patiently explained what your error was. You just don't want to listen and engage in any exchange of views. So, nobody's taking you seriously.

Where is the reference to a specific religion in the dictionary?

False, both definitions as with the various definitions for god in different dictionaries make no reference to a specific religion. The first definition refers to what would be called God the Father in Christianity, and the second definition would refer to the other Gods of Christianity. In Hinduism the first definition refers to the Brahman, and the second definition refers to the other Gods of Hinduism. In both religions all Gods are one with the supreme God.

Chrawnus
04-05-2015, 04:34 AM
Where is the reference to a specific religion in the dictionary?

False, both definitions as with the various definitions for god in different dictionaries make no reference to a specific religion.

:ahem:


God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

Please read the bolded.



The first definition refers to what would be called God the Father in Christianity,

False, the first definition refers to what would be called God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as one undivided unity, or the Triune God in Christianity.



and the second definition would refer to the other Gods of Christianity. In Hinduism the first definition refers to the Brahman, and the second definition refers to the other Gods of Hinduism. In both religions all Gods are one with the supreme God.

The second definition does not correspond to anything in Christianity, because even though there are supernatural entities other than God described in the Bible, none of them are accorded worship.

lilpixieofterror
04-05-2015, 07:05 AM
:ahem:


God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

Please read the bolded.



False, the first definition refers to what would be called God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as one undivided unity, or the Triune God in Christianity.



The second definition does not correspond to anything in Christianity, because even though there are supernatural entities other than God described in the Bible, none of them are accorded worship.

You're assuming Shuny actually read the definitions instead of just trying to find ways to affirm what he already believes. He is the Jorge of theology, he wants to believe his version of events is true and just ignores anything that prove him wrong.

shunyadragon
04-05-2015, 10:47 AM
You're assuming Shuny actually read the definitions instead of just trying to find ways to affirm what he already believes. He is the Jorge of theology, he wants to believe his version of events is true and just ignores anything that prove him wrong.

Airball monologue. Nothing meaningful here.

shunyadragon
04-05-2015, 10:53 AM
2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions. [/cite]

Please read the bolded.

Yes, only some religions. Some religions like contemporary Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith are purely monotheistic with no other Gods.




False, the first definition refers to what would be called God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as one undivided unity, or the Triune God in Christianity.

Collectively yes, but not individually. Individually the Son ,the Holy Ghost would be gods by the second definition. In the Roman Church so would Mary. Satan would also be a god by the second definition.




The second definition does not correspond to anything in Christianity, because even though there are supernatural entities other than God described in the Bible, none of them are accorded worship.

False, Jesus Christ the Son of God, the holy Spirit, and in the Roman Church Mary would be accorded worship, and considered independent Divine Beings or God's.

shunyadragon
04-05-2015, 10:57 AM
You left out the third definition: : "a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired" which is also religiously neutral. There have been people, celestial objects, animals, geographical features, and statues that have been worshiped as gods. They meet a religiously neutral definition of a "god," they definitely existed, therefore polytheism is historically and scientifically factual. This is just arbitrarily semantic

Yes, the third definition would be gods small 'g,' and would not applicable in the case of the case of polytheism, because they would not be Gods, big 'G.'

shunyadragon
04-05-2015, 11:03 AM
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here.



In discussions about Christianity it's the first definition that is most pertinent, not the second. As the first definition states, God is seen as the one who created and rules the universe, which means that to show that Christians view someone as God, you have to show that they rever that someone as being involved in the creation and rule of the universe. As to equating Saints as being gods I assumed that's what you were referring to when you said: "Also including lesser gods and a goddess Mary in different denominations."

If you consider the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as equal you would endorse Tritheism. which I do not think you do. The Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are not considered equal to the Father in most of traditional Christianity. They would fit the second definition as Divine Beings (Gods)

I have never equated Saints as Gods in this discussion.

hamster
04-05-2015, 11:14 AM
God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe




Collectively yes, but not individually. Individually the Son ,the Holy Ghost would be gods by the second definition.

Again, this is arbitrary semantics and we're just going in circles, but individually each Person of the Trinity meets the first definition.

In Christianity:

The Father:
Created and rules the Universe, Is All-Powerful, is Worshiped

The Son:
Created and rules the Universe, Is All-Powerful, is Worshiped

The Holy Spirit:
Created and rules the Universe, Is All-Powerful, is Worshiped



If you consider the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as equal you would endorse Tritheism.

No he wouldn't, they compose One God.



The Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are not considered equal to the Father

They are ontologically equal with the father, if one serves the other it's a voluntary act

shunyadragon
04-05-2015, 06:11 PM
Again, this is arbitrary semantics and we're just going in circles, but individually each Person of the Trinity meets the first definition.

In Christianity:

The Father:
Created and rules the Universe, Is All-Powerful, is Worshiped

The Son:
Created and rules the Universe, Is All-Powerful, is Worshiped

The Holy Spirit:
Created and rules the Universe, Is All-Powerful, is Worshiped.

Then your endorsing Tritheism, a heresy.



No he wouldn't, they compose One God.

They are described as three individual distinct different 'Divine Beings' that the mysterious compose one God. The same as in Hinduism.



They are ontologically equal with the father, if one serves the other it's a voluntary act

The Tritheism herecy?

Chrawnus
04-05-2015, 07:46 PM
Then your endorsing Tritheism, a heresy.

No he's not.



They are described as three individual distinct different 'Divine Beings' that the mysterious compose one God. The same as in Hinduism.

No, they're described as three Persons in one being.




The Tritheism herecy?

No, not really. Some evangelicals will disagree with what follows (Not that that's really relevant), but Christianity has historically taught that the Son is begotten (i.e derives His divinity and being/substance/essence) in eternity from the Father, while the Holy Spirit proceeds in eternity from the Father (and the RCC and many Protestant churches would add "and the son"), which, whatever else it means, implies just as the word begotten does, that the Holy Spirit derives His divinity and being/substance/essence from the Father (and the Son, if you believe the filioque to be a valid addition to the Nicean Creed). And through this act of being begotten and proceeding from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit both share fully* in the divinity and being/substance/essence of the Father, without this substance being divided to three different beings, instead the essence remains an undivided whole.


*I.e The Father does not confer a third of His divinity and being each to the Son and The Holy Spirit, instead They all share the essence equally. In other words, it is not true that the Father comprises one third of the Trinity, while the Son and the Holy Spirit comprises the remaining 2/3rd of It.


In this way, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are ontologically equal with the Father, since they share His divinity and being.

Doug Shaver
04-06-2015, 12:34 AM
What do you think my answer will be?
I might offer a guess, if I had seen other apologists' attempts to answer the specific question, but I haven't seen that.

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 05:11 AM
No he's not.

If you describe three equal Persons (Gods) in one you are endorsing Tritheism.


No, they're described as three Persons in one being.

The three persons are described as three Gods in one God.

No, not really. Some evangelicals will disagree with what follows (Not that that's really relevant), but Christianity has historically taught that the Son is begotten (i.e derives His divinity and being/substance/essence) in eternity from the Father, while the Holy Spirit proceeds in eternity from the Father (and the RCC and many Protestant churches would add "and the son"), which, whatever else it means, implies just as the word begotten does, that the Holy Spirit derives His divinity and being/substance/essence from the Father (and the Son, if you believe the filioque to be a valid addition to the Nicean Creed). And through this act of being begotten and proceeding from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit both share fully* in the divinity and being/substance/essence of the Father, without this substance being divided to three different beings, instead the essence remains an undivided whole. [/quote]

This is an ok description, but remains that it describes three distinct Divine Persons (Gods or Beings) in One (Person or Being)God, which is a concept of polytheism as in Hinduism.



*I.e The Father does not confer a third of His divinity and being each to the Son and The Holy Spirit, instead They all share the essence equally. In other words, it is not true that the Father comprises one third of the Trinity, while the Son and the Holy Spirit comprises the remaining 2/3rd of It.


In this way, both the Son and the Holy Spirit are ontologically equal with the Father, since they share His divinity and being.

Classic Tritheism. The may share the same essence as in Hinduism, but it remains that they are described as three distinct and different Gods.

Spartacus
04-06-2015, 06:08 AM
I might offer a guess, if I had seen other apologists' attempts to answer the specific question, but I haven't seen that.

It's pretty obvious if you understand the basic idea behind progressive revelation. Actually, my answer pretty much is what I understand to be the basic idea behind progressive revelation. I'm honestly surprised you say you've never seen it before.

If that doesn't make it obvious to you, I'll explain further after work today :tongue:

Boxing Pythagoras
04-06-2015, 06:29 AM
This is an ok description, but remains that it describes three distinct Divine Persons (Gods or Beings) in One (Person or Being)God, which is a concept of polytheism as in Hinduism.No matter how many times you try to shoehorn your understanding into the doctrine using extraneous parentheticals, the fact of the matter is that the classical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity explicitly differentiates between the concepts of Person and Being. You cannot simply pretend that Person is synonymous with "God" or "Being" when this is the precise opposite of the statement of the doctrine.


Classic Tritheism. The may share the same essence as in Hinduism, but it remains that they are described as three distinct and different Gods.He was not describing "classic Tritheism," at all. In classic Tritheism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not ontologically equal, and they do not share the same essence.

Chrawnus
04-06-2015, 06:48 AM
If you describe three equal Persons (Gods) in one you are endorsing Tritheism.

Persons =/= Gods



The three persons are described as three Gods in one God.

No. They're described as three Persons in one being. Nowhere in orthodox Christian thinking will you find anyone describe the three Persons of the Trinity as three separate Gods comprising one single God. Let me stress this again: Person does not equal God.




This is an ok description, but remains that it describes three distinct Divine Persons (Gods or Beings) in One (Person or Being)God, which is a concept of polytheism as in Hinduism.

Repeat this until it sinks into your brain: Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being...





Classic Tritheism. The may share the same essence as in Hinduism, but it remains that they are described as three distinct and different Gods.

The only thing that remains in this discussion is that you're blatantly wrong about what Trinitarianism teaches.

Christianbookworm
04-06-2015, 08:05 AM
It's pretty dumb to assume that a Being that exists outside of space and time would have a human psychology of person=being.

Boxing Pythagoras
04-06-2015, 08:10 AM
It's pretty dumb to assume that a Being that exists outside of space and time would have a human psychology of person=being....I don't think even Shuny's brought God's psychology into consideration.

Christianbookworm
04-06-2015, 08:13 AM
...I don't think even Shuny's brought God's psychology into consideration.

Course not. Psychology is probably not even the right word if it just refers to human psychology.

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 12:53 PM
No matter how many times you try to shoehorn your understanding into the doctrine using extraneous parentheticals, the fact of the matter is that the classical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity explicitly differentiates between the concepts of Person and Being. You cannot simply pretend that Person is synonymous with "God" or "Being" when this is the precise opposite of the statement of the doctrine.

You can repeat it a million times, but the issue is I DO NOT ACCEPT the classical, orthodox doctrine explicitly regardless of the claim. The claim is trying to shoehorn monotheism into a concept that is clearly polytheistic. If you follow my references, at times especially in the Roman Church Catechism. the Holy Ghost is referred to as a Divine Being. I believe by definitions I cited it is clear that God, Being and Person are interchangeable. The description clearly Describes three distinct different Gods by the definitions I provided.

Again, again and again. the clearly monotheistic religions without trying to shoehorn polytheism into monotheism are contemporary Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith,



He was not describing "classic Tritheism," at all. In classic Tritheism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not ontologically equal, and they do not share the same essence.


Tritheism is the belief that cosmic divinity is composed of three equally powerful entities. As generally conceived, three gods are envisioned as having separate domains and spheres of influence that coalesce into an omnipotent whole. In this primary respect, tritheism differs from cosmic dualism, which often posits two divine powers working in theologic or spiritual opposition.

Most Christian denominations do not hold the universe as spiritually tritheistic, although some non-trinitarian denominations stray slightly from pure monotheism and the duality between God and Satan. The term has been sporadically used to spearhead heresy accusations, especially when employed against Christian sects promoting allegedly anathema conceptions of the Trinity.


In tritheism hey are equal and share the same essence, because they coalesce into the an omnipotent whole.

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 01:17 PM
Persons =/= Gods

By the definitions I cited and the descriptions in traditional Christianity Divine Beings=Persons=Gods.




No. They're described as three Persons in one being. Nowhere in orthodox Christian thinking will you find anyone describe the three Persons of the Trinity as three separate Gods comprising one single God. Let me stress this again: Person does not equal God.

Of course, Orthodox Christianity will not describe the three separate persons comprising one single God, because they believe they are monotheistic. It is clear that they do describe the three separate persons as God, and try to shoehorn them into monotheism. This cannot be resolved by the Blue Smoke and Mirrors of calling it a 'Mystery.'





Repeat this until it sinks into your brain: Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being, Person does not equal God or Being...

Repeat this until it sinks into your brain: By definition Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being...

Christianbookworm
04-06-2015, 01:30 PM
:argh: Stop. Trying. To Define. Our. Beliefs. Incorrectly!

Adrift
04-06-2015, 01:36 PM
By the definitions I cited and the descriptions in traditional Christianity Divine Beings=Persons=Gods.





Of course, Orthodox Christianity will not describe the three separate persons comprising one single God, because they believe they are monotheistic. It is clear that they do describe the three separate persons as God, and try to shoehorn them into monotheism. This cannot be resolved by the Blue Smoke and Mirrors of calling it a 'Mystery.'





Repeat this until it sinks into your brain: By definition Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being...

I think your posts are the only ones on this entire website that make me physically cringe when I read them. Why do you have to act so childish? You're a grown man for crying out loud. Act like one.

Adrift
04-06-2015, 01:37 PM
You can repeat it a million times, but the issue is I DO NOT ACCEPT the classical, orthodox doctrine explicitly regardless of the claim. The claim is trying to shoehorn monotheism into a concept that is clearly polytheistic. If you follow my references, at times especially in the Roman Church Catechism. the Holy Ghost is referred to as a Divine Being. I believe by definitions I cited it is clear that God, Being and Person are interchangeable. The description clearly Describes three distinct different Gods by the definitions I provided.

Again, again and again. the clearly monotheistic religions without trying to shoehorn polytheism into monotheism are contemporary Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith,

On your definition of "god" are angels and demons gods?

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 03:23 PM
I think your posts are the only ones on this entire website that make me physically cringe when I read them. Why do you have to act so childish? You're a grown man for crying out loud. Act like one.

Airball! No intelligent answer.

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 03:26 PM
On your definition of "god" are angels and demons gods?



God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

No. By definition Satan may be called a God, and in the Roman Church Mary may be considered a Goddess. The key is great power, strength knowledge, and affect the lives of people.

Cerebrum123
04-06-2015, 03:26 PM
Airball! No intelligent answer.

You've been given plenty of those so far, and none in return. Do you really expect "intelligent answers" when you keep asserting nonsense without backing it up? Maybe when you start responding intelligently yourself you will be taken more seriously.

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 03:28 PM
You've been given plenty of those so far, and none in return. Do you really expect "intelligent answers" when you keep asserting nonsense without backing it up? Maybe when you start responding intelligently yourself you will be taken more seriously.

Airball! Not an answer relevant to the thread.

Adrift
04-06-2015, 03:36 PM
God - 1: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe

2: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions.

No. By definition Satan may be called a God, and in the Roman Church Mary may be considered a Goddess. The key is great power, strength knowledge, and affect the lives of people.

So Satan isn't an angel?

Adrift
04-06-2015, 03:37 PM
Airball! Not an answer relevant to the thread.

What is wrong with you?

Cerebrum123
04-06-2015, 03:38 PM
Airball! Not an answer relevant to the thread.

Your repeated screaming of "airball!" pretty much cements that it's actually a slam dunk. My post was entirely relevant. You've had your nonsense repeatedly corrected, even by a non-Christian poster. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to deal with the facts, and not your twisted assertions. Redefining concepts and doctrines to suit your agenda is easily seen through, and is not a serious answer to what's been posted. You can ignore the answers all you want, but they aren't going away.

KingsGambit
04-06-2015, 03:41 PM
[cite=www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god]

No. By definition Satan may be called a God, and in the Roman Church Mary may be considered a Goddess. The key is great power, strength knowledge, and affect the lives of people.

Have you ever actually consulted a Roman Catholic source on this subject? Do any serious scholars of religion actually hold this position?

Cerebrum123
04-06-2015, 03:44 PM
What is wrong with you?

At this point I'm beginning to think he's going senile. Either that or he literally has to come up with something to hand wave away things he doesn't like. If the latter, well, that implies a more dishonest(or self deceptive) position. He's been getting worse since I joined*, so I'm more inclined to think the former.

*From what I remember he used to only scream "bias!", but now he's got some other peculiar phrases. One was "anal attentive" or something like that. I think there was another, but I can't remember it.

shunyadragon
04-06-2015, 04:57 PM
Have you ever actually consulted a Roman Catholic source on this subject? Do any serious scholars of religion actually hold this position?

I was raised in the Roman Church, they would surely deny that traditional Christianity is polytheist, just like the Protestants. I am not arguing from the perspective of traditional Christianity. I am arguing against it.

Christianbookworm
04-06-2015, 05:06 PM
I was raised in the Roman Church, they would surely deny that traditional Christianity is polytheist, just like the Protestants. I am not arguing from the perspective of traditional Christianity. I am arguing against it.

And doing a horrific job of it too!

Chrawnus
04-06-2015, 08:33 PM
By the definitions I cited and the descriptions in traditional Christianity Divine Beings=Persons=Gods.





Of course, Orthodox Christianity will not describe the three separate persons comprising one single God, because they believe they are monotheistic. It is clear that they do describe the three separate persons as God, and try to shoehorn them into monotheism. This cannot be resolved by the Blue Smoke and Mirrors of calling it a 'Mystery.'





Repeat this until it sinks into your brain: By definition Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being, Person equals God or Being...

You're incorrigible. :sigh:

Spartacus
04-06-2015, 08:49 PM
Isn't this called the fallacy of equivocation?

Doug Shaver
04-06-2015, 10:15 PM
It's pretty obvious if you understand the basic idea behind progressive revelation. Actually, my answer pretty much is what I understand to be the basic idea behind progressive revelation. I'm honestly surprised you say you've never seen it before.
I have seen a few inerrantists explain it in a general way, but never in the context of whether the ancient Israelites had some excuse for thinking there were other gods besides Yahweh. It seems improbable to me that when Yahweh said "Don't worship any other gods," he would not have added, "because they're not real."

Boxing Pythagoras
04-07-2015, 03:21 AM
Isn't this called the fallacy of equivocation?It is, indeed. It is an Equivocation fallacy which he is using to justify his Straw Man. Perhaps, this is one of the tactics he learned when he took "serious college level courses in the Philosophy of Debating (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=135413&viewfull=1#post135413)."

shunyadragon
04-07-2015, 05:05 AM
It is, indeed. It is an Equivocation fallacy which he is using to justify his Straw Man. Perhaps, this is one of the tactics he learned when he took "serious college level courses in the Philosophy of Debating (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=135413&viewfull=1#post135413)."

There is no equivocation here. There are two very legitimate cited definitions for two different types of Gods. Not all Gods are equal. If you believe that then you are advocating Tritheism in terms of the Trinity.

Changing the Subject

The fallacies in this section change the subject by discussing the person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion. While on some occasions it is useful to cite authorities, it is almost never appropriate to discuss the person instead of the argument.

The fallacies described in this section are:
Attacking the Person
Appeal to Authority
Anonymous Authorities
Style Over Substance

shunyadragon
04-07-2015, 05:10 AM
Isn't this called the fallacy of equivocation?

No. I am using two cited definitions two support my case and not coming up with my own definition.