Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[37818]

Yes, mythology!

And where in the Bible is this mythology specified as such?

[rogue06]

None! Neither can the OT. Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. The sources behind the Genesis creation narrative and flood etc heavily borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology. As well, mainstream history and archaeology consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative (including the existence of Moses) put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE. There is a lot more that cannot be verified.

Actually the Creation account (particularly Genesis 1) appears to have been a polemic against the beliefs and practices of the cultures surrounding the ancient Hebrews.

[37818]

Hmm, interesting, and here I had always been under the impression that christians believed that Jesus is god.

It is important to understand that God is not a man. And that the man is not God. It is this one person, the Son of God, who is both now the man and God, but He is also not the person of the Father nor the person of the Holy Spirit. And though those three Persons are the one God, God is not three entities but the One God. "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29.

John wrote this of Him, "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." (John 1:10.)

[37818]

They do believe he was God. They also believe he was a man. Which one they say he was depends on what they're trying to prove at that moment.

There are those who deny the three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are and always were indeed distinct persons being the One God.

It was in the incarnation that God through the Son, the Word, the Logos became the man. And the man is not God. Nor is God the man. It is the Son of God in the incarnation who is now both the man and God. And before the incarnation the Word was both "with God" and "was God."

[Doug Shaver]

There are those who deny the three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are and always were indeed distinct persons being the One God.

And why do you think they do that? Do you understand their reasoning, or do you think "They're wrong" is all you need to know about them?

And the man is not God. Nor is God the man.

If that is so, then Jesus could not have been both man and God.

[JimL]

It is important to understand that God is not a man. And that the man is not God. It is this one person, the Son of God, who is both now the man and God, but He is also not the person of the Father nor the person of the Holy Spirit. And though those three Persons are the one God, God is not three entities but the One God. "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29.

John wrote this of Him, "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not." (John 1:10.)

I don't mean to be mean, but seriously, do you ever actually think about what you think? Do you honestly "think" that the above makes any sense at all?

[Tassman]

And where in the Bible is this mythology specified as such?

Are you seriously asking where, in a book of mythology that purports to be true, it specifies that it is merely a book of mythology?

[37818]

I don't mean to be mean, but seriously, do you ever actually think about what you think? Do you honestly "think" that the above makes any sense at all?

Let me state it this way. There are three entities who are one entity And that one entity is not three entities. It is like a one way street.
The trinitarian Van Til taught three persons who are the one God and also taught God to be one person. Van Til is not a modalist. I will state it this way, God the Father. The Son who is God with the Father is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is what God is. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ and His own person.

Tritheism is a denial that there is only one God.
Modalism is a denial that there are three distinct Persons who are equally God.
Arianiam denies the Son of God is true God with the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Trinity is the name of the correct theological understanding that there are three persons who are equally God and that there is only one God.

[carpedm9587]

Let me state it this way. There are three entities who are one entity And that one entity is not three entities. It is like a one way street.
The trinitarian Van Til taught three persons who are the one God and also taught God to be one person. Van Til is not a modalist. I will state it this way, God the Father. The Son who is God with the Father is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is what God is. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ and His own person.

Tritheism is a denial that there is only one God.
Modalism is a denial that there are three distinct Persons who are equally God.
Arianiam denies the Son of God is true God with the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Trinity is the name of the correct theological understanding that there are three persons who are equally God and that there is only one God.

I think what Jim might be saying, 37, is that this language is largely meaningless when it is examined closely. Christianity is rooted in Judaism, which is a clear monotheism. The early church found itself struggling to articulate how it could posit that Jesus of Nazareth was the "son of god" without devolving into a polytheism, and then found itself struggling with defining the relationship between Jesus' humanity and his supposed diety. It led to some amazingly convoluted language: three persons, but one god - two natures, but one person. When someone points out that you cannot have three distinct persons - and still one being (unless perhaps we are talking multiple personality disorder - but that is about a mind/body relationship, which presumably is not a problem a "god" would have). Eventually, a Christian must either head down the path of one of those "heresies," (which basically translates to "I have a different theology"), or we have to go to "it's a mystery" and "how could humanity possibly understand god?"

When we get to the latter two, I find it consummately unsatisfying. When we are ready/willing to abandon reason to accept a belief, where exactly do we draw the line?

[37818]

And why do you think they do that? Do you understand their reasoning, or do you think "They're wrong" is all you need to know about them?

The heresy is the denial that there are three distinct persons who are the one God. Do I got that wrong?

If that is so, then Jesus could not have been both man and God.

Jesus was both the son of man and the Son of God. He was the Son of God from eternity and the son of man by human birth. So in the incarnation He was both the eternal God and the man who was born. God became man through the Son. But God is not a man nor is a man God. Jesus through the incarnation is now both. He is not part man and part God. He is fully man and fully God not mixed.

[Tassman]

Let me state it this way. There are three entities who are one entity And that one entity is not three entities. It is like a one way street.
The trinitarian Van Til taught three persons who are the one God and also taught God to be one person. Van Til is not a modalist. I will state it this way, God the Father. The Son who is God with the Father is the Son of God. The Holy Spirit is what God is. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ and His own person.

Tritheism is a denial that there is only one God.
Modalism is a denial that there are three distinct Persons who are equally God.
Arianiam denies the Son of God is true God with the Father and that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Trinity is the name of the correct theological understanding that there are three persons who are equally God and that there is only one God.

You are correct, this is the theological understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as formulated in the Athanasian Creed, but it's utter nonsense. It makes no sense at all. Each clause contradicts itself. E.g.

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal."

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[37818]

You are correct, this is the theological understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as formulated in the Athanasian Creed, but it's utter nonsense. It makes no sense at all. Each clause contradicts itself. E.g.

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal."

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

The creeds are not apostolic, not being the word of God. The following is an interpretation: God is not a Trinity - but the Trinity happens to be God. And there would be no God without the Trinity which happens to be God. God is the self-Existent One: uncaused Existence. Existence is not causation, but causation cannot be without existence. Existence and cause are two different things. There are the two of three. What makes the existence and cause the same thing is a third thing. The two being the same essence. Essence being the whole of the two and a third thing.
The existence, cause are the one essence, the uncaused existence. The term Trinity is the name of the explanation three Persons being One God.

The uncaused Existence - YHWH - God the Father. (Exodus 3:14-15. Proverb 21:30.)
The uncaused Cause - YHWH - The Logos. The Son of God. (John 1:3, 14, 18 - Exodus 3:14 - John 8:24).
The uncaused Essence - YHWH - The Holy Spirit. (John 4:24, Romans 8:9, 16.)

[37818]

I think what Jim might be saying, 37, is that this language is largely meaningless when it is examined closely. Christianity is rooted in Judaism, which is a clear monotheism. The early church found itself struggling to articulate how it could posit that Jesus of Nazareth was the "son of god" without devolving into a polytheism, and then found itself struggling with defining the relationship between Jesus' humanity and his supposed diety. It led to some amazingly convoluted language: three persons, but one god - two natures, but one person. When someone points out that you cannot have three distinct persons - and still one being (unless perhaps we are talking multiple personality disorder - but that is about a mind/body relationship, which presumably is not a problem a "god" would have). Eventually, a Christian must either head down the path of one of those "heresies," (which basically translates to "I have a different theology"), or we have to go to "it's a mystery" and "how could humanity possibly understand god?"

When we get to the latter two, I find it consummately unsatisfying. When we are ready/willing to abandon reason to accept a belief, where exactly do we draw the line?

It is a problem of language. The different interpretations are matters of understanding the textual evidence. Three Gods, One God different modes, that is, God reveals Himself in some way or the understanding that there is just One God and that there are three distinct persons who are each at some point said to be God.

One of the issues is getting one's understanding from what is actually written as opposed to imposing one's theology on to the text. And then there is the fact that of all the belief systems Christianity has more claimants then the genuine. Even more than other religions. Reminds me of counterfeit money and counterfeit products.

[carpedm9587]

It is a problem of language. The different interpretations are matters of understanding the textual evidence. Three Gods, One God different modes, that is, God reveals Himself in some way or the understanding that there is just One God and that there are three distinct persons who are each at some point said to be God.

Again, 37, I used to say these words too. It's not until I was outside "the faith" that I began to appreciate just how much they are "gobblygook" to someone not "inside." There is no parallel in the human experience. It's as if someone is saying "white is black." Three distinct things are one? It makes no sense.

One of the issues is getting one's understanding from what is actually written as opposed to imposing one's theology on to the text. And then there is the fact that of all the belief systems Christianity has more claimants then the genuine. Even more than other religions. Reminds me of counterfeit money and counterfeit products.

Or, in this case, we may have a nonsensical claim and multiple variations on a theme....?

[37818]

Again, 37, I used to say these words too. It's not until I was outside "the faith" that I began to appreciate just how much they are "gobblygook" to someone not "inside." There is no parallel in the human experience. It's as if someone is saying "white is black." Three distinct things are one? It makes no sense.

The texts in question were written to be understood in the language of the writer's day. Translation then becomes at issue. The texts are plain enough. The "gobblygook" is the religious jargon imposed by many translations of the Bible where plain English would do. Some translators have tried to do so. But are often not free of the "gobblygook," the traditional religious jargon.

Or, in this case, we may have a nonsensical claim and multiple variations on a theme....?

Where those issues are, then they need to be addressed and specified. The explanations may not be liked by all. But will help some.

The Hebrew Bible and Christian NT unlike the myths some suppose them to contain are historical with some verifiable historical events. From the stand point of the resurrection claim for Christ being true, the other difficulties are not that hard to accept as true.