• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians: Why Trinitarians are really polytheists

N

nothead

Active Member
disciple said:
I hope it isn't the Judaic pov, because it's incorrect. The father is not always specified in the Jewish Bible, so by your figuring, in these instances, the prophets could be praying to Thor; perhaps Herod created Adam and Eve. Of course this isn't the case, because we know that when 'God' is referred to, it means YHWH. The times where it doesn't mean JHVH, it says or infers as such, ex. ''false gods'. 'So and so's god'. The title is the same, however it sometimes means the father, and sometimes not. In the Judaic tradition, ''God'' means the father, always, unless I say ''the god Thor'', etc. It's the same as if you were talking to your pastor, when you say ''God'', you mean YHVH, not Zeus. Obviously, because that is the religious context in which you are speaking. You don't have to say, YHVH, everytime you mean the Judaic and Christian God. The Hebrew works the same way.
Click to expand...

I concede "Father" was the Jesus' own construction in name, of God. No rabbi in that day called YHWH "Father." Until he came to fore.

The "Father" is really a veiled but indicative lesser name for God, since they no longer SAID even in their minds, "YHWH." STILL knowing this name is the definitive name of God. "The Lord," "the Word," "Hashem" and other names were known to veil the true name of their God, even for Jesus who never called God "YHWH."

I don't know where you are going logically here, but "JESUS" was never a name of God at all. Even the Hebrew version thereof.
 
N

nothead

Active Member
disciple said:
Where I'm going, is that, we don't, or you can't, rather, say that when Jesus is referred to as 'God', it doesn't mean the father; by way of your faulty understanding of how 'Elohim', and therefore 'God' /in the Greek, is used. You don't have to believe that it is literal. But you can't say it for certainty. This would be your own belief here, not something that everyone would/should believe from textual reading.
Click to expand...

Two Persons cannot be the same God, Judaic POV. Always and from the time God revealed himself to the patriarchs originally. Even if God CAME to earth as a man or angel this God would of course have the same single mind, will and self-awareness. This is the BASIS of Shema, which states YHWH is the singular NAME or identity of the One True God, and just in case you think it might refer to MORE than one, is SAID to be "echad" or NUMERICALLY ONE.

...and by the way served IN CONTEXT throughout the OT cohesively and consistently by the words NO OTHER ONE, reiterated by the scribe in Mk 12 NO OTHER BUT HE.
 
Servant_of_the_One1

Servant_of_the_One1

Well-Known Member
nothead said:
My belief is that the belief of the first two pristine generations of faith, is the true belief. For Christians. And if you are right, then what are we debating here? Why do you debate here? To state everyone has a right to believe what they believe?

They already HAD this right before they got online. So what?
Click to expand...

Its not like they will believe u and cease to be catholics :p
 
B

Brandon Brossett

Member
John 10:30 I and my father are one and Isaiah 9:6 says his name shall be called everlasting father I could go on.

God created man for fellowship. God said sin causes death and sin separates us from God and God from his creation b/c he cannot lie. Let me jump straight over Old Testament sacrifices. We could all agree that there has to be a sacrifice but it had to be without spot or blemish/without sin and all have sinned so no one could be the sacrifice but God himself 1tim3:16 "God was matifested in the Flesh". This why the Pharisees would say "who can forgive sins but God" exactly He was God
 
B

Brandon Brossett

Member
One more thing God was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. This is not 3 persons but One God with different roles. God was also in the burning bush but He does not now become a quad god. The Greatest commandment is Hear O Israel The Lord our God is one.
 
N

nothead

Active Member
Brandon Brossett said:
John 10:30 I and my father are one and Isaiah 9:6 says his name shall be called everlasting father I could go on.

God created man for fellowship. God said sin causes death and sin separates us from God and God from his creation b/c he cannot lie. Let me jump straight over Old Testament sacrifices. We could all agree that there has to be a sacrifice but it had to be without spot or blemish/without sin and all have sinned so no one could be the sacrifice but God himself 1tim3:16 "God was matifested in the Flesh". This why the Pharisees would say "who can forgive sins but God" exactly He was God
Click to expand...
Nice thought, but not biblical. Bible never says God is the actual sacrifice for our sins.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
nothead said:
Two Persons cannot be the same God, Judaic POV. Always and from the time God revealed himself to the patriarchs originally. Even if God CAME to earth as a man or angel this God would of course have the same single mind, will and self-awareness. This is the BASIS of Shema, which states YHWH is the singular NAME or identity of the One True God, and just in case you think it might refer to MORE than one, is SAID to be "echad" or NUMERICALLY ONE.

...and by the way served IN CONTEXT throughout the OT cohesively and consistently by the words NO OTHER ONE, reiterated by the scribe in Mk 12 NO OTHER BUT HE.
Click to expand...

''Two persons'' is not how Jesus is viewed in relation to the father. Not in my understanding of the Scripture. Some Trinitarians might think that, and you seem to be intent on that interpretation for a Deific Jesus, however, it isn't matching what I stated earlier, in that I think Jesus is literally one with the father. No two, no three.
 
N

nothead

Active Member
Brandon Brossett said:
One more thing God was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration. This is not 3 persons but One God with different roles. God was also in the burning bush but He does not now become a quad god. The Greatest commandment is Hear O Israel The Lord our God is one.
Click to expand...

You smudge the necessary separation of wills, which Jesus himself alluded to: "Not MY will, but THY will."

The One God does not have plural wills, minds, self-awarenesses. Also being a former OnePent, I know too the locative Right Hand of God is not God Himself. Not merged, not smudged together, not morphed.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
You are equating the man aspect of Jesus as Jesus in totality. That is a non-Deific Jesus interpretation of the Bible, and although you are certainly entitled to that opinion, it isn't Xianity.
 
N

nothead

Active Member
disciple said:
''Two persons'' is not how Jesus is viewed in relation to the father. Not in my understanding of the Scripture. Some Trinitarians might think that, and you seem to be intent on that interpretation for a Deific Jesus, however, it isn't matching what I stated earlier, in that I think Jesus is literally one with the father. No two, no three.
Click to expand...
Well that would be in keeping with a pagan, I mean Panentheist view.
 
N

nothead

Active Member
disciple said:
You are equating the man aspect of Jesus as Jesus in totality. That is a non-Deific Jesus interpretation of the Bible, and although you are certainly entitled to that opinion, it isn't Xianity.
Click to expand...

Man anointed, you mean. FULLY indwelt with the theotekos, theotekiss, theowhatever bodily. That is what "Christ" means sir, and it is totally in keeping with first and second gen faith.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
nothead said:
Man anointed, you mean. FULLY indwelt with the theotekos, theotekiss, theowhatever bodily. That is what "Christ" means sir, and it is totally in keeping with first and second gen faith.
Click to expand...
The question is, what type of ''person'' are you attributing to Jesus? A puppet, mouthpiece, for a deity? Or are you saying Jesus was fully man, a smart prophet, what?
 
N

nothead

Active Member
disciple said:
The question is, what type of ''person'' are you attributing to Jesus? A puppet, mouthpiece, for a deity? Or are you saying Jesus was fully man, a smart prophet, what?
Click to expand...

All prophets are mouthpieces of God, metaphorically. Jesus was prophet of prophets. Remember Jews had no prophet for 400 years or so...they couldn't see one if John the Baptist told them he was, most of them.

Jesus being the LIGHT of this age alludes to his power to propitiate too. This does not make him God, but then again he never said he was, did he? Would God not announce Himself, unless it WASN'T necessary to know he was God?
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
nothead said:
All prophets are mouthpieces of God, metaphorically. Jesus was prophet of prophets. Remember Jews had no prophet for 400 years or so...they couldn't see one if John the Baptist told them he was, most of them.

Jesus being the LIGHT of this age alludes to his power to propitiate too. This does not make him God, but then again he never said he was, did he? Would God not announce Himself, unless it WASN'T necessary to know he was God?
Click to expand...
The problem here, is that this doesn't jive with so much of Scripture. Many things that Jesus said don't make sense in that paradigm. Unless of course you would argue that much of what Jesus said was not only metaphor, but extreme, riddle like metaphor.
It loses it's real meaning that way.
//Adding to that, once you go the extreme metaphor route, it works both ways; good luck presenting verses as absolutes in meaning; the very arguments you are making in these threads, from verses, could be chalked up to metaphor.
 
N

nothead

Active Member
disciple said:
The problem here, is that this doesn't jive with so much of Scripture. Many things that Jesus said don't make sense in that paradigm. Unless of course you would argue that much of what Jesus said was not only metaphor, but extreme, riddle like metaphor.
It loses it's real meaning that way.
//Adding to that, once you go the extreme metaphor route, it works both ways; good luck presenting verses as absolutes in meaning; the very arguments you are making in these threads, from verses, could be chalked up to metaphor.
Click to expand...

The MOUTHPIECE of God would then be His own lips running around, spouting the Word of God, sir. Not hardly...spiritual words have specific meaning, not exactly mystical or gnostic, rather referring to specific things metaphorically. This is the nature of language in general, and more oft used when speaking of the spiritual realm.

I am conservative by nature, but DO know the basic meanings of scripture, usually from the world view they had then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top