Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Ah the divine mystery of it all. Given the Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God but three co-eternal con-substantial persons, when “Jesus was on earth praying to his father in heaven” he was praying to himself.
    God is not depicted as one God in the Bible. God is one in the sense that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in harmony. One in thought and purpose for example. So 3 God's then can be one in unity.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Esther View Post
      God is not depicted as one God in the Bible. God is one in the sense that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in harmony. One in thought and purpose for example. So 3 God's then can be one in unity.
      That's polytheismm, Esther. Christianity is monotheistic, that is one God, not 3 Gods. That's the problem with the idea of the trinity, it's three, three, three gods in one.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Esther View Post
        God is not depicted as one God in the Bible. God is one in the sense that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in harmony. One in thought and purpose for example. So 3 God's then can be one in unity.
        The Trinity doctrine basically expresses the way Christianity understands the biblical statements about God as One with the recognition of the Deity of Christ and the Spirit. This is part of many confessions of the faith. But not all churches have done well to teach the Trinitarian doctrine. The other conceptions of Christ Jesus fail to reflect the scriptures which show Jesus as Deity and equal with the Father.

        Without the balanced understanding of the Trinity, the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross becomes superficial or ineffective toward our justification. So, the Trinitarian doctrine is essential to the Christian faith. (Or else, someone would really have to have a great argument to find some better expression of the work of Christ.)
        Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-17-2020, 04:53 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          That's polytheismm, Esther. Christianity is monotheistic, that is one God, not 3 Gods. That's the problem with the idea of the trinity, it's three, three, three gods in one.
          Well I see 3. Guess it is better than seeing double ha ha.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            You don't know what you are talking about. No one should ever listen to you.
            Really. Where am I wrong?
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              The Trinity doctrine basically expresses the way Christianity understands the biblical statements about God as One with the recognition of the Deity of Christ and the Spirit. This is part of many confessions of the faith. But not all churches have done well to teach the Trinitarian doctrine. The other conceptions of Christ Jesus fail to reflect the scriptures which show Jesus as Deity and equal with the Father.
              The scriptures do not show Jesus as a deity or equal with the Father. The Synoptic Gospels give a clear impression of a Son who sees his Father as greater than himself, even to the extent of pleading with his Father to be relieved of the agony of the cross.

              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              Without the balanced understanding of the Trinity, the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross becomes superficial or ineffective toward our justification.
              That's interesting. If Jesus was fully part of the Godhead, how did his divinity and common humanity co-exist in one being when he was on earth? Who or what actually suffered the agony of crucifixion, and was that agony in any way diminished or affected by the divine nature of Christ? Did Jesus suffer as much in his mind as he did in his body, or was his suffering alleviated by the knowledge that he was divine?
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                The scriptures do not show Jesus as a deity or equal with the Father. The Synoptic Gospels give a clear impression of a Son who sees his Father as greater than himself, even to the extent of pleading with his Father to be relieved of the agony of the cross.
                I'll just copy paste the response I gave to Tassman when he claimed there was significant evolution in the concept of who Jesus was between the synoptic gospels and John's gospel.

                The conclusion that the synoptics present a high Christological/divine view of Jesus does not require "cherry-picked quotes", but rather looking at those quotes in their proper context. Even the gospel of Mark, which by most scholars is considered to be the earliest of the gospels, has Jesus refer to himself as the Son of Man, seated at the right hand of the Power (i.e God) and coming with the clouds of heaven in both chapter 13 and 14, a clear claim of Jesus to being the divine Son of Man described in one of Daniel's visions and being equal with God. Mark also has Jesus claiming, in chapter 2, to have the authority to forgive sins (something which the Jews knew was a prerogative of God alone) on account of being the Son of Man, infusing the title with additional divine significance. We have Mark reporting Jesus walking on water, which again has pretty clear reference to OT passages such as Job 9:8 speaking about God, or Yahweh walking, or treading, on the waves of the sea. And there's also the account of Jesus calming the sea and the storm in Mark 4, and in the Old Testament having control and dominion of the sea is something of which only God/Yahweh is capable.

                In short, even the earliest gospel of Mark has an incredibly high Christological theology, and the author is heavily implying that Jesus is divine and equal with God, by recounting Jesus claiming divine titles for himself (i.e the Son of Man title) and by recounting Jesus doing acts that in the OT were prerogatives of Yahweh alone.


                But it doesn't stop there. We also have the letters of Paul. In Philippians we have the famous Christological hymn which is believed to have been written before Philippians (or as critical scholarship would have it, the fragments of different letters that were later combined together into what we now know as Philippians) being written down, perhaps as early as 40 AD, which depending on when Jesus was crucified (30 AD or 33 AD) means that the view of Jesus being divine and equal with God could have arosen as early as 10, perhaps even 7 years after his crucifixion. At the very least it puts a hard limit on how long it took for the belief that Jesus was divine to arise at around 30 years (if we're assuming that Philippians should be dated as late as possible, and assuming that the cited Christ Hymn/Poem wasn't composed that much earlier, which is debatable), which is still around 5-15 years earlier than the earliest gospel, if we're going by how critical scholars generally date Mark.

                Lastly there's also Romans (with the consesus view being that the letter was written somewhere between 55-57), where Paul claims in chapter 10, verse 9, that anyone who confesses that Jesus is Lord will be saved, and later in the chapter explains what he means by confessing that Jesus is Lord by citing Joel 2:32, where Lord is used as a stand-in for the divine name YHWH. In other words, Paul is claiming that anyone who believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the death, and who confesses that Jesus is YHWH will be saved.


                To summarize, not only does the gospels present a high view Christological view, with Jesus claiming titles and performing acts that put him on equal footing with Yahweh in the Old Testament, we have Paul in his letters making explicit claims of Jesus being YHWH and citing an early Christian poem (composed probably years before Paul wrote it down in Philippians) which claims that was Jesus was pre-existent in the form of God and being equal with God.

                And that's not even counting all of the allusions to Jesus being the Wisdom of God (i.e Wisdom Christology) present in the synoptic gospels, which if taken into account would bring up the Christology of the synoptic gospels as being on the same level as John's Logos Christology, making any claims of any substantial development on the views on Jesus' divinity between the time of the synoptics and the gospel of John as being simply untenable. The view that John presents a substantially evolved and high/exalted view on Christ's divinity as opposed to the low Christological view of the synoptic gospels lacks any credible support in the texts themselves.


                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post715218

                I bolded the relevant parts.

                And the answer to why Jesus saw Himself as being lesser than the Father can be found in the Christological hymn in Philippians:

                Scripture Verse: Philippians 2:5-11 ESV


                5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Now, I'm not arguing that the view of Jesus presented in the Christological hymn in Philippians is in accordance with the view of Jesus presented in the synoptic gospels. Obviously, being a Christian I believe that to be the case, but that's not what I'm arguing for here. What I am saying is that what is said of Jesus in Philippians explain adequately how Jesus can be said to be fully divine and equal with with the Father, while still submitting to His will and claiming that the Father is greater than Him.
                Last edited by JonathanL; 06-17-2020, 07:46 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  The scriptures do not show Jesus as a deity or equal with the Father. The Synoptic Gospels give a clear impression of a Son who sees his Father as greater than himself, even to the extent of pleading with his Father to be relieved of the agony of the cross.

                  That's interesting. If Jesus was fully part of the Godhead, how did his divinity and common humanity co-exist in one being when he was on earth? Who or what actually suffered the agony of crucifixion, and was that agony in any way diminished or affected by the divine nature of Christ? Did Jesus suffer as much in his mind as he did in his body, or was his suffering alleviated by the knowledge that he was divine?
                  Thank you much Hypatia. My response was for Esther. I was not intending that response as an opportunity for your conspiracy theory.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post

                    Now, I'm not arguing that the view of Jesus presented in the Christological hymn in Philippians is in accordance with the view of Jesus presented in the [decades later] synoptic gospels.
                    Just as well you are not arguing that. Because what is being argued is that the divinity of Jesus as presented in the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. that God is one God but three co-eternal, con-substantial persons) evolved over time - as you implicitly acknowledge. This Christology was devised decades after the death of Jesus, and not formally assembled into the New Testament (as we know it today) until the middle of the third century. So, what we have ended up with is a theological concept of Jesus that ‘evolved’ - the Philippians' Kenosis Hymn notwithstanding.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      That's interesting. If Jesus was fully part of the Godhead, how did his divinity and common humanity co-exist in one being when he was on earth?
                      Obviously, Jesus fathered himself.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Just as well you are not arguing that. Because what is being argued is that the divinity of Jesus as presented in the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. that God is one God but three co-eternal, con-substantial persons) evolved over time - as you implicitly acknowledge. This Christology was devised decades after the death of Jesus, and not formally assembled into the New Testament (as we know it today) until the middle of the third century. So, what we have ended up with is a theological concept of Jesus that ‘evolved’ - the Philippians' Kenosis Hymn notwithstanding.
                        What were the original ideas that eventually are supposed to be improperly perceived later as the Trinity?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                          Because Christianity has spent the better part of two thousand years trying to reconcile an ineffable and invisible deity, as found in Second Temple and first century Judaism, with the Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities. And it has never adequately resolved that issue.

                          Christiantiy started out as a Messianic sect of pious observant Palestinian Jews. Paul was from the Hellenised world, and he disappears from history while still formulating his theology. Furthermore, if you read his authentic letters you will find that that many of his ideas have echoes in contemporary religions within the Hellenistic world. His ideas were picked up by other individuals all steeped in Hellenistic culture who added their own “colour and texture”.

                          The diffusion of these ideas around the eastern empire saw them being changed,re-interpreted, and adapted.

                          Contrary to the views of some present day Christians the entire religion in those first two and a half centuries was entirely fluid. Of course there were some individuals who became well-known figures within their respective communities and indeed beyond, and whose epistles, encyclicals, and even sermons were noted, passed around and/or commented upon but there was no orthodox belief as to what the Son [Jesus] actually was; nor of his precise nature, nor of his relationship to God the Father.

                          Once Constantine had given the religion toleration another feature became evident. The infighting and factionalism among the upper echelons of the Christian prelates now had the addition of power politics. Now there was the chance to gain Imperial favour and with it secular power, along with those other Imperial benefits such as money for churches, grants of land, tax exemptions, and claims for expenses.

                          It should be noted that the political and theological machinations that occurred within the Christian church from the fourth century and the internecine factionalism among ecclesiastical prelates vying for power, patronage, and ascendancy within both the Church and with the secular authorities, is worthy of any half-decent soap opera.

                          Suffice to write that the decision of 325 really changed nothing. Arianism was in the ascendancy in the East for several decades afterwards.

                          Ultimately, the only way to achieve any orthodoxy was by Imperial edict and that is exactly what happened in 381 CE. That effectively stated “You will believe this...or else”.
                          Messianic Jews + Hellenized Jews/Pagans = Christianity.
                          That might explain the later appearance of Gospels?---Messianic Jews would not have required "sacred scripture" as they would already have/follow the Torah. So the primary purpose of the Gospels would have been to explain messianic (?) ideas to Hellenized Jews/Pagans? The use of Greek concept words could have given a more polytheistic bias/flavor than intended? or, perhaps the Hellenized Jews were not monotheistic but were "cultural" Jews?
                          I still see no (theological) benefit for the various Christianities to insist on (Jewish) monotheism...there must be some other factor that necessitates them to attach to Judaism/Jewish monotheism?
                          Maybe a degree of immunity from Roman law given to the Jews might have been an attractive enough consideration (politically) to attach to Judaism? Do you think?

                          https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/jews.html
                          Jews in Rome
                          Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance.

                          There had been upsets: Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Just as well you are not arguing that. Because what is being argued is that the divinity of Jesus as presented in the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. that God is one God but three co-eternal, con-substantial persons) evolved over time - as you implicitly acknowledge. This Christology was devised decades after the death of Jesus, and not formally assembled into the New Testament (as we know it today) until the middle of the third century. So, what we have ended up with is a theological concept of Jesus that ‘evolved’ - the Philippians' Kenosis Hymn notwithstanding.
                            Depends on what you mean by "evolved". The doctrine of Jesus' divinity was further clarified at Nicaea, yes, but in the essentials the Nicaean Creed isn't saying anything that's not already found in the New Testament. Your claim that the Christology of Jesus being divine and one with the Father was devised decades after the death of Jesus is pure conjecture. We have no idea how long these ideas existed before they were written down in the gospels, and at least when it comes to Jesus divinity we know thanks to the hymn in Philippians that the idea arose probably within a decade of Jesus' death.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Because Christianity has spent the better part of two thousand years trying to reconcile an ineffable and invisible deity, as found in Second Temple and first century Judaism, with the Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities. And it has never adequately resolved that issue.
                              This would all be good and well, if it wasn't for the small problem that "Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities" doesn't quite fit the idea that we find when we look at the orthodox idea about Jesus' divinity. There is absolutely nothing analogous between the concept of God taking on human nature and any concept you might find in Hellenistic mythology.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Christiantiy started out as a Messianic sect of pious observant Palestinian Jews. Paul was from the Hellenised world, and he disappears from history while still formulating his theology. Furthermore, if you read his authentic letters you will find that that many of his ideas have echoes in contemporary religions within the Hellenistic world. His ideas were picked up by other individuals all steeped in Hellenistic culture who added their own “colour and texture”.
                              There was no such thing as a "non-hellenistic" Jew during the time of Jesus. Being "steeped in Hellenistic culture" was something that had been common to all Jews for hundreds of years regardless of whether they lived in Palestina/Judaea or scattered across the Hellenistic/Roman empire.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Contrary to the views of some present day Christians the entire religion in those first two and a half centuries was entirely fluid. Of course there were some individuals who became well-known figures within their respective communities and indeed beyond, and whose epistles, encyclicals, and even sermons were noted, passed around and/or commented upon but there was no orthodox belief as to what the Son [Jesus] actually was; nor of his precise nature, nor of his relationship to God the Father.
                              This is a strange statement, because it implicitly assumes what it's trying to prove. The only way to hold that there was no "orthodox beliefs" about Jesus, His nature and His relation to the Father is by assuming from the onset that orthodox Christianity is false. None of the data we have by itself indicates that beliefs that were in accordance with later orthodoxy didn't exist during the "first two and a half centuries". It's also not clear to me how you would determine from history that there was no orthodox belief, given that orthodoxy is defined by adherence to what is true/correct, and that is impossible to determine by historical analysis.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Once Constantine had given the religion toleration another feature became evident. The infighting and factionalism among the upper echelons of the Christian prelates now had the addition of power politics. Now there was the chance to gain Imperial favour and with it secular power, along with those other Imperial benefits such as money for churches, grants of land, tax exemptions, and claims for expenses.

                              It should be noted that the political and theological machinations that occurred within the Christian church from the fourth century and the internecine factionalism among ecclesiastical prelates vying for power, patronage, and ascendancy within both the Church and with the secular authorities, is worthy of any half-decent soap opera.

                              Suffice to write that the decision of 325 really changed nothing. Arianism was in the ascendancy in the East for several decades afterwards.
                              The above is barely relevant fluff.

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Ultimately, the only way to achieve any orthodoxy was by Imperial edict and that is exactly what happened in 381 CE. That effectively stated “You will believe this...or else”.
                              The council of Constantinople did not "create" orthodoxy, it simply affirmed it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by siam View Post
                                Messianic Jews + Hellenized Jews/Pagans = Christianity.
                                That might explain the later appearance of Gospels?---Messianic Jews would not have required "sacred scripture" as they would already have/follow the Torah. So the primary purpose of the Gospels would have been to explain messianic (?) ideas to Hellenized Jews/Pagans? The use of Greek concept words could have given a more polytheistic bias/flavor than intended? or, perhaps the Hellenized Jews were not monotheistic but were "cultural" Jews?
                                I still see no (theological) benefit for the various Christianities to insist on (Jewish) monotheism...there must be some other factor that necessitates them to attach to Judaism/Jewish monotheism?
                                Maybe a degree of immunity from Roman law given to the Jews might have been an attractive enough consideration (politically) to attach to Judaism? Do you think?

                                https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/jews.html
                                Jews in Rome
                                Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance.

                                There had been upsets: Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.
                                Messianic Jews are Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. The first followers of Jesus were Messianic Jews.

                                The Gospel was preached orally for a time.

                                The New Testament includes many early Christian creeds formulated before the books of the New Testament were written down.

                                https://melwild.wordpress.com/2017/0...ns-and-creeds/

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X