CHRISTIANS ONLY: Trinitarian Christianity - Monotheistic or Polytheistic?

[blü 2]

Just checked about ‘Ghost’ and ‘Spirit’. The consensus was that ‘Ghost’ came about from the KJV mistranslation of the Greek “pneuma”.

Shorter OD, which uses chronological order:
1. The soul or spirit.
2. Breath, a blast (1625)
3. A person (1590)
4. An incorporeal being (1618)
5. Formerly used in the sense of SPIRIT (of God). Now only in HOLY GHOST, the Third Person of the Trinity
(&c)

I’m sure you found places to backup your claim but I would ask what sense it would be to say, say:
1. Man is Ghost and Flesh

It would be an old-fashioned way of saying 'Man is Spirit and Flesh'.

Greek pneuma and Latin spiritus both mean 'breath' ─ as a representation of a notional life force, I guess. The Shorter OD doesn't connect 'ghost' to 'breath' but the idea of spirit is where the two strands meet.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I find it very strange that Christian’s should be having to make a claim that God had no beginning, no origin.
Also, that there was a pre-human Jesus. The scriptures is quite clear that Jesus was created/born by the overshadowing of the Virgin Mary by the spirit of God:

• ‘Therefore the CHILD TO BE BORN shall be HOLY and CALLED the Son of God’ (paraphrased)

How then is there a belief that ‘The Son of God’ was pre-existent?
Was the angel therefore deceiving Mary and therefore Christians by stating that the Son of God is born from the union of God’s spirit with the inert egg of a female (Seed of a woman, as prophesied in Genesis!)

I find there is Nothing strange but clear at Psalms 90:2 that God had No beginning, No start, No origin.
God is from 'everlasting to everlasting' (Psalms 90:2) God always existed and will always exist.
God sent the already existing pre-human-heavenly Son Jesus to Earth for us (Jesus did Not send himself)
Yes, Jesus was called the Son of God (No where is Jesus God the Son, that is a non-biblical teaching )
The already existing heavenly Son of God was the Son that God sent to Earth to be born of Mary.
Please notice who God created first according to John at Revelation 3:14 B _____________
This was before the Universe and Earth were created.

 

[Truth in love]

I am confident in saying that Christians view themselves as monotheistic. Whether they are Unitarian or trinitarian Christians, all Christians see themselves with the belief of one God. Trinitarians, which make up the vast majority of Christianity, see God in three forms: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

If I were a Christian, this is how I would perceive it. The Father created Heaven and the Earth, found his sovereignty with the monotheistic nation of Israel, established his reign of various prophets and his covenant with them. God spoke to certain prophets of his plan to raise a man who would commit no sin and was born of a virgin, this became Jesus. When the Father created Jesus, the Father ceased to exist. Jesus lived his life as man and God, and when he died on the cross and rose from the dead, his essence was raised into Heaven, and dissolved, becoming the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the reason why humanity has thus had a huge incline in modern prophets with the sciences and liberal arts. The Holy Spirit made humans aware of their surroundings.

In this contraption I have made, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit exist separately from each other, but each one of them is distinctly God as we now perceive it.

However, the common trinitarian Christian argument is that all three of these Gods exist at the same time. That The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are all eternal. Even the Jehovah Witnesses believe Christ to first exist as Michael the Archangel.

If The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit all exist separately and at the same time, doesn't this make Christianity a polytheistic religion? Specifically tri-theism? Think about it. Yes, I know, Christians will make the allegory that water can be solid, liquid and gas as we know them, but if the water exists as solid, liquid and gas all at the same time, doesn't that lead the distinction into three Gods rather than one?

I am very confused about all of this. Something isn't adding up. Trinitarianism to me sounds like a fancy way of calling yourself a polytheist whilst still trying to hold yourself a monotheistic way of living.

I would like to try to talk to a standard Christian about this that helps me understand this confusion I have with the religion. It really doesn't make sense to me... Now, I have heard that Unitarian Christians believe that the Father is only God, and Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Son is only God, both of these arguments make more sense to me than the commonly perceived trinitarian monotheism that is popular in Christianity today.

As far as my own beliefs, what I hold to is a pantheistic understanding of trinitarian monotheism. The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy all exist separately from each other, none of which is God without the other two. When all of them line up perfectly with each other, we create a Superverse - which is my conception of God. But The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exist separately and together at the same time, so it doesn't really make sense to call Christianity a monotheistic religion.

Please, I would like a Christian to educate me so I am less confused about this matter.

A few thoughts.

1. Looking at many modern governments we see 3 branches. They are different groups, but each is a part of the government and yet we would not say that there are 3 federal governments in the US.


2. The One God notion is vital vs. a polytheistic bunch of petty warning gods. This does not mean there is only one person.

3. John 17 clearly shows us the God the Father Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 different persons, yet they function in total unity and can be accurately called One God.

 

[Soapy]

I find there is Nothing strange but clear at Psalms 90:2 that God had No beginning, No start, No origin.
God is from 'everlasting to everlasting' (Psalms 90:2) God always existed and will always exist.
God sent the already existing pre-human-heavenly Son Jesus to Earth for us (Jesus did Not send himself)
Yes, Jesus was called the Son of God (No where is Jesus God the Son, that is a non-biblical teaching )
The already existing heavenly Son of God was the Son that God sent to Earth to be born of Mary.
Please notice who God created first according to John at Revelation 3:14 B _____________
This was before the Universe and Earth were created.

What does ‘Son’ represent in ‘Son of God’, to you?

For me, a ‘Son’ is one who does the works of him who gives him a task to perform and does it in exactly the way he was taught to do it by teacher: ‘You are my Son because you do exactly as I taught you to do’ - See Philemon 1 about Paul and Onesimus and witness that Jesus told the Jews that he called himself “God’s Son” because he was doing the works of God!

If Jesus is God’s pre-existent Son then that raises the question of what work did God give Jesus to do?

Please take into account that the Son is taught by the ‘Father’, and Jesus says this exactly: ‘I do only what the Father has taught me to do’ (paraphrased)

I’ve heard some really weird definitions of ‘Son’ from Trinitarians so I’m intrigued to hear yours.

 

[Soapy]

Shorter OD, which uses chronological order:
1. The soul or spirit.
2. Breath, a blast (1625)
3. A person (1590)
4. An incorporeal being (1618)
5. Formerly used in the sense of SPIRIT (of God). Now only in HOLY GHOST, the Third Person of the Trinity
(&c)
It would be an old-fashioned way of saying 'Man is Spirit and Flesh'.

Greek pneuma and Latin spiritus both mean 'breath' ─ as a representation of a notional life force, I guess. The Shorter OD doesn't connect 'ghost' to 'breath' but the idea of spirit is where the two strands meet.

‘Ghost’ to me is an ugly word. The KJV struggled to pin it down as a proper translated word between the old and New Testament since it made no sense in all places where ruach (Hebrew) , pneuma (Greek), Spiritus (Latin) are used. In fact, the KJV appears to make two different entities out of its mistranslations. This is what happens when wrongful attempts are made to create a personal doctrine away from a single true doctrine - though the scriptures itself does not teach a doctrine of the spirit of God but simply states it simplistically in the manner of someone speaking about a body part - No one needs to define what their head is… The scriptures doesn’t define what the spirit of God is since it is innate. Even Jesus just calls the spirit of God, ‘the advocate’: a comforter: a reliable source of reassurance, relief, easement, etc., in the world of sin that the apostles will face.

 

[blü 2]

‘Ghost’ to me is an ugly word. The KJV struggled to pin it down as a proper translated word between the old and New Testament since it made no sense in all places where ruach (Hebrew) , pneuma (Greek), Spiritus (Latin) are used. In fact, the KJV appears to make two different entities out of its mistranslations.

I'm not saying the KJV is free of mistranslations, though it was high scholarship for its time, but what exactly are you referring to? Sure, ruach, pneuma, spiritus all refer to breath and ghost doesn't, but they all mean 'spirit' as in 'immaterial entity'.

 

[Soapy]

I'm not saying the KJV is free of mistranslations, though it was high scholarship for its time, but what exactly are you referring to? Sure, ruach, pneuma, spiritus all refer to breath and ghost doesn't, but they all mean 'spirit' as in 'immaterial entity'.

‘Ghost’ refers to a disembodied visible ‘spirit’ of a PERSON in the material world.

A true human Spirit cannot be seen and human spirits cannot be active in the material world outside of the body that it inhabits.

‘Ghost’ is a term used by medieval church people to dredge up illusions of hauntings by eerie figures in white (blankets!!!) and scary eye slits. It is explained that these are the ‘spirits’ of the dead coming back to reek revenge on some past enemy…. No ‘Ghost’ was ever a ‘good Ghost’!

The only ‘Spirits’ that are ever seen are Angels who put on the appearance of a human being dressed in pure white garments. Notice that no real description of either the angelic ‘person’ nor their garment is ever given and that’s because they were not real physical elements. And angels were always ‘good spirits’ even if they had to put on a fierce and determined facet.

Trinitarians are more likely to use the term ‘Ghost’ as referring to the spirit of God since the vision (pun!) is that of a spirit person - which hardens their view of the third ‘person’ in their trinity God… instead of the reality of what the true word(s) say: The Spirit of God.

Always, the attempt is to try to re-enforce in the minds of its congregation that God is three ‘persons’. ‘Ghost’ breaks the direct link with God’s Spirit but the church then found difficulties in explaining what ‘Holy Ghost of God’ should mean. In such cases it reverts to ‘Holy Spirit of God’ and hopes the congregations does not notice!

I have listened to many sermons and groaned at this aspect. When I speak to members of the church about this they say they hadn’t noticed but it would mean the same to them anyway since the ‘Ghost/Spirit’ is a separate person in God - to them. So the delusion works!!! (iow: They cannot see that ‘Spirit of God’ does not equate to a person)

It’s pointless from the aspect of getting a credible response but if I ask what ‘Of God’ means in the title ‘Spirit of God’ or ‘Son of God’, I am told it exactly proves that the Son and the ‘Ghost’ are in God… or some such!! …..

You know what’s coming next…!

So what of the Father? There is no ‘Father of God’!

Don’t wait for a response of any credibility …. I pose this question in several forums and… yes, you guessed, …. I created a word ‘Squibble’ for the responses. And yet, a valid, cohesive, God righteous ideology should have furnished an equally righteous response. Even saying the Son is obviously from the Father destroys their argument - but there is no trinity answer to how the Spirit is from the Father and yet IS self-same GOD… let alone how there is no ‘Father Of God’ meaning ‘Father in God’ - of course you can also see that there is no equality in the relationship of the trinity ‘three’ either which is why they encorporated the weird ‘Rank order of equality’ into their creed!!??

 

[blü 2]

‘Ghost’ refers to a disembodied visible ‘spirit’ of a PERSON in the material world.

I quoted you the Shorter OD. It still says you're wrong.

 

[Soapy]

I quoted you the Shorter OD. It still says you're wrong.

Sorry, I missed that. Exactly what part of what I said was wrong?

Are you arguing simply about which came first: the Ghost or the Spirit?

Well, Ruach came first… and Ruach does not mean Ghost.

Inventing a new word to restate a current one in order to rationalise a false belief to mislead a congregation does not stack up as genuine under scrutiny.

‘Ghost’ might ultimately mean ‘Spirit’ BUT it primarily pertains to the vision of the spirit of a dead person in the material world.

It is this aspect that I fully disagree with and find repulsive since it causes all manners of wrongful beliefs.

Saul, for instance, saw the ‘Ghost’ of Samuel…. Of course it was not the vision of the spirit of Samuel in the material world but that’s what believing in such things brings into imaginary being.

The internet search I did revealed similar wrongful beliefs in many religions and cultures. Such was used to create fear, anxiety, force worship of false beings, ultimately used as a people control mechanism. Voodoo is a well known ‘Ghost’ system that is still going strong in Haiti despite greater rationally thinking people of our time - imagine 2000 years ago when such rational thinking would be punished!! In fact, the Catholic belief is that non-belief in the Holy Ghost is a sin worthy of spiritual death. How’s that for a claimed rational belief?

 

[blü 2]

‘Ghost’ might ultimately mean ‘Spirit’ BUT it primarily pertains to the vision of the spirit of a dead person in the material world.?

I'm simply arguing the obvious, that for many centuries including at least the 20th, the official and usual name for the Paraclete in Protestant English was the Holy Ghost.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What does ‘Son’ represent in ‘Son of God’, to you?
For me, a ‘Son’ is one who does the works of him who gives him a task to perform and does it in exactly the way he was taught to do it by teacher: ‘You are my Son because you do exactly as I taught you to do’ - See Philemon 1 about Paul and Onesimus and witness that Jesus told the Jews that he called himself “God’s Son” because he was doing the works of God!If Jesus is God’s pre-existent Son then that raises the question of what work did God give Jesus to do?
Please take into account that the Son is taught by the ‘Father’, and Jesus says this exactly: ‘I do only what the Father has taught me to do’ (paraphrased).................

When you said the Son is taught by the Father that made me think when some people say, " my dad is smarter than your dad. "
To me, only Jesus could truly say that his Father is the smartest Father, the strongest Father.
The smart work God gave Jesus to do I find in Jesus' goal found at Luke 4:43 to tell others about: God's kingdom.
God's kingdom is a real government in the hands of Christ Jesus - Daniel 2:44-45 (Jesus is that figurative stone).
That work was so important to Jesus that he wants us to continue spreading the 'good news of God's kingdom' on a grand-international scale as mentioned at Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8.
Jesus is King of God's Kingdom government for a thousand years - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26