God is 1 vs God is 3

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I am a believer in the God Head, I believe that there are three distinct people God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The three of which are considered ONE just as a husband and wife are considered one and as a football team out on the field are considred one, and as the famous Army slogan is "An Army Of One".

This is why we find God speaking in the plural in Genesis 1:26
26 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I do agree with you on many points though, Christ never once said, "pray to me" nor do I believe we should pray to Christ.

 

[Rational_Mind]

I am a believer in the God Head, I believe that there are three distinct people God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The three of which are considered ONE just as a husband and wife are considered one and as a football team out on the field are considred one, and as the famous Army slogan is "An Army Of One".

This is why we find God speaking in the plural in Genesis 1:26
26 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I do agree with you on many points though, Christ never once said, "pray to me" nor do I believe we should pray to Christ.

Do you feel that three in one concept of God can be justified logically over the concept of One God? Meaning without requiring prior "faith" so to speak.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Do you feel that three in one concept of God can be justified logically over the concept of One God? Meaning without requiring prior "faith" so to speak.

Trying to understand what you are asking...
Are you asking is my belief of separate beings standing united is something clear enough to grasp without my Latter-day Saint background?
If this is what you are asking, from my perspective it is really clear, but I do believe without this perspective it is just as unclear as the rest of the Bible.
Have I showed you my 3 BIG issues in translating the Bible that show the need for modern revelation yet?

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...394-can-bible-interpret-itself-bible-all.html

 

[sojourner]

Well as I stated that would cause a variety of rather unpleasant implications for the (whether active or passive) role of Jesus within the OT, such as God's supposed actions within the OT that are not in line with Christian teachings, such as committing and commanding genocide, commandments for and condoning of systemic slavery and rape, punishment by familial cannibalism and so forth - these are not such prominent issues were Jesus not a divine existence capable of cognition and agency at the time of the OT, but if he were then it is an issue.

This is why the teaching of the Trinity (especially a static trinity) can potentially be a great source of ideological misery for Christian denominations which adhere to it.

But that's only true when you impose a knowledge of Jesus and Christian principle upon writers from a different era. the OT writers wrote without any knowledge of either one. How could they write about Jesus if they were not aware of him?

 

[sojourner]

It seems like every pagan religion had a trinity at the time except the Jews. It's interesting that Jesus was a Jew, confirmed the Jewish belief that the Lord is One & never mentioned a trinity. Yet the Romans were very attached to the idea of a trinity. And once they hijacked the true teachings of Jesus, under Emperor Constantine, Christianity suddenly had a trinity, not so new religious holidays in Easter (Ishtar to the pagan Romans) & Christmas (Saturnalia to the pagan Romans).

Yes, Pagans did have a concept of trinity. But the Jews had a concept of unity with God, and the Trinity is the product of those two concepts. Only in Xy does God become human (no the other way round). For example, in Roman mythology, humans could be "ascended" to become demigods. In Xy, God "descended" to become human. I'm certainly not aware of that happening in any other religion in exactly the same way. You're talking as if Xy "ripped off" the concept of trinity in whole from Paganism. But the doctrine is more nuanced than that, and has far more to do with Jewish concept than you're giving it credit for.

There was all sorts of pagan symbolism suddenly attached to Christianity such as the trident, images of the sun everywhere, the "Jesus fish", candles, wreaths, the pine comb, etc. They say the Christians converted the Pagans. But really... Who converted who? I don't understand why so many Christians are obsessed with following the ways of paganism. Why not just follow your scripture?

That's because Xy is communal and adaptive to culture. Christians don't "follow scripture." That's simply not how it works. Why should we not find new meaning for old symbols? Why should we not bring Christian principles to the culture in which we find ourselves? You talk as if that's somehow a bad thing!

 

[sojourner]

So what? Its also used for other triune constructions.

The problem arises when the word is used to describe different things, and then the word, itself, used as some kind of "proof" that, because the describing word is the same, the constructs must also be the same.

And when you not only write it Trinity, but also trinity and "trinity," (posts 39 and 51) why should anyone assume your exclusive meaning of the term?

We need different terms to describe different things. The Trinity (as in Xtian doctrine) is a different construct from "trinity" (as in Pagan pantheons). Hence, the different presentation of the word, to show the difference in theological construct. Trinity is exclusive to the meaning of the doctrine. "Trinity" is exclusive to the meaning of the pantheon. And no amount of insisting that "trinity means trinity" will make the two constructs the same. You're acting as if the word, itself, defines the construct, so since the word is the same in both cases, the constructs must be the same.

Scholastically, what, exactly, is suspect? And what authorities find it suspect?---Having failed to establish any relevant credentials, I don't think anyone here is about to take your word for it. I certainly am not. Sorry. Got some evidence?

In other words, "because I found it on the internet, it must be true." It's a blog post by some unnamed entity. So what? What makes it so authoritative as to be put forth by you as "evidence?" It's just plain, poor scholarship to not cite your sources. (Something that simply says source isn't proper citation.) There's not a reputable church history or theology scholar that would allow the "source," as is, to be used as evidence for a proper argument. My assessment stands, whether you like it or not.

"The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church."

is a far cry from:

the trinity was voted into being at the Council of Nicea in 325 A. D.

The first is what I've been trying to get you to say for the past 55 posts. Your original comment, in post #3, was in support of Pegg's comment in post #2:

Scripture should form the basis of their teachings, but they have preferred to base their teachings on writings outside the bible which is why they have many non biblical teachings and practices.

as if to say:
1) the doctrine was made up out of whole cloth
2) the concept of Trinity hadn't existed within Xtian circles for a long time
3) the vote "created" a triune God.
All of these are false. The doctrine, while not explicit in scripture, is implicit therein, or it never would have been considered. The whole reason the council was called was to try to clear up differences of opinion on matters of the nature of Jesus, meaning that the concept of "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in some way was considered "God." The vote didn't invoke a triune God into being. All it did was settle a squabble. Your first post was misleading. Intentionally.
Thank you for **finally** posting this:

"The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church."

as a corrective to your first blunder.

 

[Skwim]

The problem arises when the word is used to describe different things, and then the word, itself, used as some kind of "proof" that, because the describing word is the same, the constructs must also be the same.

Yes it does. As you have so amply demonstrated

We need different terms to describe different things. The Trinity (as in Xtian doctrine) is a different construct from "trinity" (as in Pagan pantheons). Hence, the different presentation of the word, to show the difference in theological construct. Trinity is exclusive to the meaning of the doctrine. "Trinity" " is exclusive to the meaning of the pantheon.. And no amount of insisting that "trinity means trinity" will make the two constructs the same. You're acting as if the word, itself, defines the construct, so since the word is the same in both cases, the constructs must be the same.

So when you said:

"nothing in either of these posts implies that I "skew[ed] information to make it seem like trinity was a consensus among all Christians from the beginning."
​

in post 39, the trinity here was not referring to the Christian trinity but rather "exclusive to the meaning of the pantheon." Want to stick with that?

In other words, "because I found it on the internet, it must be true." It's a blog post by some unnamed entity. So what? What makes it so authoritative as to be put forth by you as "evidence?" It's just plain, poor scholarship to not cite your sources. (Something that simply says source isn't proper citation.) There's not a reputable church history or theology scholar that would allow the "source," as is, to be used as evidence for a proper argument.

Yeah, as if you're familiar with all the works of "reputable church history or theology scholar." Don't you get it; your broad pronouncements of "fact" such as this beg to be dismissed, which is why they are. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe anyone here regards you as any kind of biblical or theological scholar who deserves to be taken at their word.

And I figured you wouldn't answer the question, which you didn't, but instead mount an attack. Rack up

another one for our side.

The first is what I've been trying to get you to say for the past 55 posts. Your original comment, in post #3, was in support of Pegg's comment in post #2:

Actually, it was in response to Aamer's comment, which Pegg also quoted:

"I've been studying the New Testament and it is becoming clear to me that the trinity is not a biblical concept. It actually resembles a pagan Roman concept. You will not find the word "trinity" anywhere in the Bible, nor is it implied."
​

"The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church."

is a far cry from:

the trinity was voted into being at the Council of Nicea in 325 A. D.

Only because you chose to take it that way rather than ask if your interpretation is what I meant.

as if to say:
1) the doctrine was made up out of whole cloth
2) the concept of Trinity hadn't existed within Xtian circles for a long time
3) the vote "created" a triune God.
All of these are false. The doctrine, while not explicit in scripture, is implicit therein, or it never would have been considered. The whole reason the council was called was to try to clear up differences of opinion on matters of the nature of Jesus, meaning that the concept of "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" in some way was considered "God." The vote didn't invoke a triune God into being. All it did was settle a squabble. Your first post was misleading. Intentionally.

My, my, you do love to read things into what others have written. Just a suggestion, but it might be wiser to ask people what they mean rather than charge ahead with defensive assumptions. Often people don't express themselves the way others do, which only takes a question or two to straighten out.

 

[sojourner]

Yes it does. As you have so amply demonstrated

thank you. That's why I posted it that way.
Don't skew it into something it isn't.

in post 39, the trinity here was not referring to the Christian trinity but rather "exclusive to the meaning of the pantheon." Want to stick with that?

My, my, but we're picayune. it was a frickin' typo -- excuse me for being a fallible human being.

Yeah, as if you're familiar with all the works of "reputable church history or theology scholar."

I've done enough research to be able to tell when something is properly cited or not. you need to cite your sources, if you want them to be considered valid.

Don't you get it; your broad pronouncements of "fact" such as this beg to be dismissed, which is why they are.

Don't you get it; the only "broad fact" I pronounced here is that the source wasn't properly cited, so no reputable scholar would admit it as support of an argument.

And I figured you wouldn't answer the question, which you didn't, but instead mount an attack.

Oh, yes. Let's call the "WAAAAHMBULANCE!" I did answer the question: "What is suspect?" The site is useless as a credible source, when there's no author or site owner listed to check credentials. You failed to provide such when you used it to bolster your argument.

My, my, you do love to read things into what others have written. Just a suggestion, but it might be wiser to ask people what they mean rather than charge ahead with defensive assumptions. Often people don't express themselves the way others do, which only takes a question or two to straighten out.

In all the posts I've read of yours, I've never known you to come out in support of traditional Christian doctrine. Usually, your posts represent a fairly dismissive attitude toward them. Your post in question here was no different in tone from your usual post. I know what you meant, and now you want to try to backpedal your way out of it by making me look impulsive. I don't buy it, Skwim. I just don't buy it.

 

[Joshua Tilghman]

I've been studying the New Testament and it is becoming clear to me that the trinity is not a biblical concept. It actually resembles a pagan Roman concept. You will not find the word "trinity" anywhere in the Bible, nor is it implied. In fact, the New Testament seems to confirm the theme of the old Jewish books. That God is one.

Now, when a scribe asked Jesus what is the FIRST COMMANDMENT, what did Jesus say?

Mark:12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Now let's analyze this situation. This is a SCRIBE! A scribe is a learned man. Scribes were rare and the highly educated ones in those days. So why is a scribe asking Jesus a question that any 8 year old Jewish boy could have answered a thousand years earlier? Because he wanted to make sure Jesus was not claiming to be God and that he was still teaching the most important Jewish teaching of all. That God is ONE!

And what did Jesus say?
That God is indeed ONE.
Jesus said the very first commandment of all is that God is ONE. But if you ask most modern day Christians what THEIR first commandment is. They will tell you God is THREE!

Worshipping anyone other than God (Jesus included) is breaking the most important commandment of all. I have yet to find any evidence that Jesus asked to be worshipped. In fact, he himself worshipped the creator. So anyone who believes in the trinity and worships Jesus, please explain what verses or teachings you are using to justify this belief.

Your question should be looked into by everyone who considers themselves a faithful Christian. This one question probably helped me to grow more than any other. It got me to see past my limited points of view and to understand the infinite better.

The trinity explains how spirit incarnates into physical plane. The expression of the infinite is a trinity - i.e., the manifestation of consciousness through energy and matter. The gospel stories of Jesus show us how to expand our limited conscious views and become more like Christ.

You're right, he didn't ask us to worship him. He showed us how to worship and think of the one true God, which is made up of everything that ever was or will be. It is all a part of God. One spirit, manifested in different forms.

 

[Skwim]

thank you. That's why I posted it that way.
Don't skew it into something it isn't.

My, my, but we're picayune. it was a frickin' typo -- excuse me for being a fallible human being.

Yeah sure.

I've done enough research to be able to tell when something is properly cited or not. you need to cite your sources, if you want them to be considered valid.

And among all your pronouncements of truth here which ones have you cited a source? My source claims require cited evidence whereas your claims do not. :cover:

Don't you get it; the only "broad fact" I pronounced here is that the source wasn't properly cited, so no reputable scholar would admit it as support of an argument.

Yet you make the same kind of pronouncements without citing supporting evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

Oh, yes. Let's call the "WAAAAHMBULANCE!" I did answer the question: "What is suspect?" The site is useless as a credible source, when there's no author or site owner listed to check credentials. You failed to provide such when you used it to bolster your argument.

Which are therefore no different than your own self-serving claims.

In all the posts I've read of yours, I've never known you to come out in support of traditional Christian doctrine. Usually, your posts represent a fairly dismissive attitude toward them.

Quite right, Sherlock.

And with good reason, I might add.

Your post in question here was no different in tone from your usual post. I know what you meant, and now you want to try to backpedal your way out of it by making me look impulsive.

You, funny guy. But go ahead and believe what you wish. This dialog has gotten way too tiresome, so I'm splitting.

Have a good day.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

But that's only true when you impose a knowledge of Jesus and Christian principle upon writers from a different era. the OT writers wrote without any knowledge of either one. How could they write about Jesus if they were not aware of him?

You currently have a knowledge of 'Jesus and Christian principles', it is NOT incumbent on the writeres to incorporate a differentiation of the treatment of God's actions (that is only attempted after Jesus is 'discovered' in the NT) instead it is incumbent on you the reader. You might disagree but before you stop reading to reply - please finish reading this post (many people do not)

If you claim that he was still cognizant and had divine agency during the OT - regardless of whether or not the writers knew he existed, his agency should still exist. So either passively he did not decide to involve himself in human affairs or his father's actions against humanity, or else he lacked the awareness or capacity to do so. If he did have both awareness and capacity, one must, MUST wonder whether he was passively ignoring, accepting, condoning, or indeed actively causing those things (such as punishment by familial cannibalism) we see in the OT that clearly contradict the portrayal of Jesus' teachings in the NT. If you refuse to accept that he was passively ignoring, accepting, condoning, or indeed actively causing these things, yet continue to assert that he was still cognizant (with a personality comparable to that which he is portrayed as having during the NT) and had divine agency during the OT, then concluding that 'it' (whichever you disagree with) is false revelation is the only recourse.

 

[Aamer]

Yes, Pagans did have a concept of trinity. But the Jews had a concept of unity with God, and the Trinity is the product of those two concepts. Only in Xy does God become human (no the other way round). For example, in Roman mythology, humans could be "ascended" to become demigods. In Xy, God "descended" to become human. I'm certainly not aware of that happening in any other religion in exactly the same way. You're talking as if Xy "ripped off" the concept of trinity in whole from Paganism. But the doctrine is more nuanced than that, and has far more to do with Jewish concept than you're giving it credit for.

That's because Xy is communal and adaptive to culture. Christians don't "follow scripture." That's simply not how it works. Why should we not find new meaning for old symbols? Why should we not bring Christian principles to the culture in which we find ourselves? You talk as if that's somehow a bad thing!

It is a bad thing in my opinion. It's like having your wife dress and look like your ex-girlfriend. Even change her birthday to the birthday of your ex-girlfriend. You really honestly believe God is cool with mixing his message with pagan concepts? If you can justify this to yourself, then who am I to judge? I think you're making a big mistake though and will regret it when you meet your creator. Just my opinion. God bless.

 

[sojourner]

You currently have a knowledge of 'Jesus and Christian principles', it is NOT incumbent on the writeres to incorporate a differentiation of the treatment of God's actions (that is only attempted after Jesus is 'discovered' in the NT) instead it is incumbent on you the reader. You might disagree but before you stop reading to reply - please finish reading this post (many people do not)

If you claim that he was still cognizant and had divine agency during the OT - regardless of whether or not the writers knew he existed, his agency should still exist. So either passively he did not decide to involve himself in human affairs or his father's actions against humanity, or else he lacked the awareness or capacity to do so. If he did have both awareness and capacity, one must, MUST wonder whether he was passively ignoring, accepting, condoning, or indeed actively causing those things (such as punishment by familial cannibalism) we see in the OT that clearly contradict the portrayal of Jesus' teachings in the NT. If you refuse to accept that he was passively ignoring, accepting, condoning, or indeed actively causing these things, yet continue to assert that he was still cognizant (with a personality comparable to that which he is portrayed as having during the NT) and had divine agency during the OT, then concluding that 'it' (whichever you disagree with) is false revelation is the only recourse.

No. It's incumbent upon the writer to portray God as the writer perceives God. It's incumbent upon the reader to read carefully, taking into consideration the differing cultural and temporal lenses through which they wrote and we read, and to take into consideration the oral origins of the texts. They told stories about God, as they perceived God. We perceive God differently, so we tend to superimpose our perception onto that of the writers, and so see discontinuity.

 

[sojourner]

You really honestly believe God is cool with mixing his message with pagan concepts?

God's message is universal, yes? It works just as well mixed with Paganism as it does mixed with Judaism.

I think you're making a big mistake though and will regret it when you meet your creator.

Since God chooses (according to the bible) to "withhold God's hand" and to refrain from "punishing as we deserve," I don't think I have anything to worry about, especially given that, because of the Jesus Event, we are reconciled to God, no matter what.

 

[Aamer]

Gods message (according to the scriptures of Abrahamic faiths) is that GOD IS ONE. No, this concept does not mix with paganism. They completely contradict each other. Pagans believe in multiple deities. Most pagan religions include rituals such as worshipping spirits, human sacrifice, virgin rape, etc. This is not compatible with monotheism. God created these evils as a test for mankind. I don't think the point was to mix evil with Gods message. Noodle brother... Noodle. Use it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No. It's incumbent upon the writer to portray God as the writer perceives God. It's incumbent upon the reader to read carefully, taking into consideration the differing cultural and temporal lenses through which they wrote and we read, and to take into consideration the oral origins of the texts. They told stories about God, as they perceived God. We perceive God differently, so we tend to superimpose our perception onto that of the writers, and so see discontinuity.

I am sorry but you cannot dismiss the contradiction IF you maintain (and you may not):
1. At the time of the OT Jesus was cognizant with a personality similar to that portrayed in the NT and had divine agency
2. Things happened in the OT which contradict Jesus' teachings as portrayed in the NT

This is a contradiction that cannot simply be dismissed as the writers not being aware of the nature of Jesus as God, because in order to be Christian the OT must include divine revelation* (see below) thus one must needs examine the events within the OT believing (as any who hold a static trinity must) that Jesus existed was aware and had divine agency. The original writers may not have been aware of Jesus' existence; that does NOT excuse current readers who hold to Jesus' existence ignoring the OT's implications given that Jesus was supposedly present regardless of whether or not the writers were aware of it.

* OT As revelation: because the OT is the source of the supposed authority by which to declare a messianic prophecy (with nothing o suggest divinity btw) and thus Jesus' messianic nature, it is necessary to accept it (or at least those parts you like) as revelation.

 

[TheKnight]

He was the one who was "mad" I didnt say he got anywhere

First you said it wasnt plural. now its "undocumented plurality"

Elohim = El -God im - plural

Elohim isn't used in the Shema, which is the verse that was quoted.

 

[dawny0826]

God is limitless, beyond our mental powers and words. I think, it is our narrowness that tries to decide that God is such or God is not such. I do not see any problem in God taking a form for some purpose.

I think that you're the first person that's ever seemed to "get" where I'm coming from in my interpretation of the Trinity. I appreciate that.

 

[sojourner]

Gods message (according to the scriptures of Abrahamic faiths) is that GOD IS ONE. No, this concept does not mix with paganism.

God's message is that God loves us, will always seek us out, will provide for us, and stands ready for reconciliation with us.

They completely contradict each other.

The theology is different, obviously, but symbols and calendar dates and other cultural expressions aren't theology, per se. Christianity is more than an amalgam of cultural expressions. Because it is a message of radical hospitality, relationship-building, and love, it adapts well to almost any set of cultural expressions.

God created these evils as a test for mankind.

Careful! Your judgmental slip is showing.

Noodle brother... Noodle. Use it.

Ditto.

 

[sojourner]

At the time of the OT Jesus was cognizant with a personality similar to that portrayed in the NT and had divine agency

Well, yes, but I don't see what that has to do with how the ancient Hebrews perceived God.

Things happened in the OT which contradict Jesus' teachings as portrayed in the NT

Naturally, since Jesus' teachings hadn't happened yet at at the time of the OT events.

OT As revelation: because the OT is the source of the supposed authority by which to declare a messianic prophecy

I don't think so. The messianic prophecies were probably around a lot longer than the biblical writings. The writings are simply media for the message -- not the message, itself.

This is a contradiction that cannot simply be dismissed as the writers not being aware of the nature of Jesus as God, because in order to be Christian the OT must include divine revelation* (see below) thus one must needs examine the events within the OT believing (as any who hold a static trinity must) that Jesus existed was aware and had divine agency.

Since there's nothing whatsoever of Jesus in the OT, I don't see how you can make that claim. The OT contains no Christology, and is not "Christian." It is Hebraic. And responsible Christian exegesis of the OT texts does not make an attempt to "read Jesus into the message."

The original writers may not have been aware of Jesus' existence; that does NOT excuse current readers who hold to Jesus' existence ignoring the OT's implications given that Jesus was supposedly present regardless of whether or not the writers were aware of it.

There's no "may" about it. They were unaware of Jesus, because Jesus hadn't been born yet. It doesn't "excuse" readers; it mandates readers to not "Christianize" the texts' messages by trying to superimpose a Jesus who simply is not there.