an anarchist
Your local loco.
If Jesus and the Father are not separate entities, then does that mean that Christians are not separate entities from God?
-
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!
Is Christianity monotheistic or polytheistic?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Christian teaching is that Jesus and the Father are the same essense but different people. Confusing? Absolutely.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Christianity is polytheistic, because it prays to both God the Father and God the Son, but it also uses a variety of Saints and angels, too. In fact, there are quite a few Saints, like Saint Brigid, that are just a syncretic euhemerism of a pagan deity.
I don't think that really violates the commandment to not have any other gods before Jehovah, though, because Jehovah is still viewed as the supreme "king of the gods" archetype. He's still at the core center of the faith to the point that many Christians are practically henotheists who only ever pray to God the Father.
That's not getting into the fact that the traditional Christian worldview asserts the existence of several "false gods" that are actually fallen angels. It's not that they didn't believe that these gods exist and have power, but they believed that these gods were evil or at least disobedient to Jehovah and that they were created by Jehovah. This concept seems to mostly fallen out of favor, with many Christians not really believing in any form of demonic activity or at least viewing it as incredibly rare; in that sense, modern Christians are probably closer to "true" monotheism than historical ones.
Angels are gods, by pretty much every definition of "god" that doesn't intentionally make a special case for angels. Christian angelology has a whole pantheon of angels and Christian demonology elaborates on the fallen angels. So Christianity is usually polytheistic.
There are some mystical and esoteric approaches to Christianity that are truly monotheistic, where all of the "angels" are understood as modes of God's action, being extensions of God rather than separate beings with their own individual wills. The explanations for Satan in such approaches get pretty convoluted, but mostly treat him as a metaphor for man's desire to cling to the illusion of separation from God. In those cases, Christianity is monotheistic, but they are very rare.
I don't think that really violates the commandment to not have any other gods before Jehovah, though, because Jehovah is still viewed as the supreme "king of the gods" archetype. He's still at the core center of the faith to the point that many Christians are practically henotheists who only ever pray to God the Father.
That's not getting into the fact that the traditional Christian worldview asserts the existence of several "false gods" that are actually fallen angels. It's not that they didn't believe that these gods exist and have power, but they believed that these gods were evil or at least disobedient to Jehovah and that they were created by Jehovah. This concept seems to mostly fallen out of favor, with many Christians not really believing in any form of demonic activity or at least viewing it as incredibly rare; in that sense, modern Christians are probably closer to "true" monotheism than historical ones.
Angels are gods, by pretty much every definition of "god" that doesn't intentionally make a special case for angels. Christian angelology has a whole pantheon of angels and Christian demonology elaborates on the fallen angels. So Christianity is usually polytheistic.
There are some mystical and esoteric approaches to Christianity that are truly monotheistic, where all of the "angels" are understood as modes of God's action, being extensions of God rather than separate beings with their own individual wills. The explanations for Satan in such approaches get pretty convoluted, but mostly treat him as a metaphor for man's desire to cling to the illusion of separation from God. In those cases, Christianity is monotheistic, but they are very rare.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Is that like vanilla essence?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
It means a translation from the greek word homoousiosIs that like vanilla essence?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Though most deny it Christianity appears to have had polytheistic roots. Early Judaism was henotheistic, that is the devotion to ne God out of the vast number of available Gods. When Moses was arguing with Pharaoh he went up against his high priest and his god magic was stronger than the god magic of the high priests:
Exodus 7:8–13 ESV - Then the LORD said to Moses… | Biblia
an anarchist
Your local loco.
It is important that according to the biblical account, the Egyptian priests successfully committed magic. My former pastor tried to explain this away by saying the Egyptian priests had hidden snakes up their sleeves (lol) but that's not what the Bible says
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nothing up my sleeves. Hey presto!! A snake!
He could not deal with the more obvious answer that the whole tale is just legend.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Mmm .. of the same nature .. except that Jesus is a man, and "the Father" is not.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
but thats not what they believe. they believe that Jesus was fully man and fully god. Does that make sense to me? not at all. but it is nevertheless what they believe.Mmm .. of the same nature .. except that Jesus is a man, and "the Father" is not.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Trinitarianism solves early disagreements in Christology by saying that all of the competing views were like the blind mind and the elephant. As a church doctrine, it seems to me like it was a political move to change the discourse between conflicting understandings of the nature of Christ towards a simpler "with us or against us" conflict. I think it was very effective, but that's more due to the countless people they burned at the stake for disagreeing with it.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
The emphasis is to remind everyone that these doctrines are not based on truth and Christianity didn't become a Big Five religion because it was favored by God or had a superior narrative.
Every mainstream Christian teaching got there soaked in blood through the "infallibly sanctioned" violence Christians committed against those who disagreed with them. From the burning of heretics to the crusades to the hanging of suspected "witches" to their imperialist (and later colonialist) approach to "helping" the peoples of other nations which continues to this day in the form of Christian missionaries.
We forget that too often when we're discussing Christian doctrine and theology, in my opinion.
ETA: And we forget that many of these things, including executing heretics and witches, continue on in the present day. They aren't merely the window dressing of a bygone dark age.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Unfortunately now you hear about these sorts of abuses coming from the African Muslim religions. Both religions have a record of violence.
No
I don't think so
According the bible God created all humans
Therefore Christians are the product of God's creativity
There is a big distinction between creator and created
IMO
If Christianity is the teachings of Bible, Christianity is monotheistic, for example because:
For though there are things that are called “gods,” whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many “gods” and many “lords;” yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Cor. 8:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5
It is interesting how there seems to be many "Christians" that don't believe what is said in the Bible.
Heyo
Veteran Member
The idea, sometimes called the law, of identity is
If A = B and B = C then A = C.
If you look at the diagram, the Father = God, God = the Son but the Father != the Son.
I.e. the law of identity is violated.
There could be ways to mend that violation, e.g. by clarifying the definition of the word "is".
Assuming God is a set and "is" is "is member of" and making the relation unidirectional towards God, we would have the Father is member of God, the Son is member of God, the Holy Spirit is member of God; Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct and God = {Father, Son, Holy Spirit}. But Christians usually cough at such an explanation. They'd rather stay illogical than try to find a way to a rational Christianity.
So you're talking about identity being transitive?
You're basically saying that if both (for instance) The Son and The Holy Spirit are both "God" then The Son and The Holy Spirit are therefore the same thing? Because they are both God? Is that what you're saying?
Son = God
Holy Spirit = God
Therefore: Son = Holy Spirit
Is that right?
But what if in this instance identity is not transitive?
Not all things that can be transitive are transitive:
I love my wife
My wife loves the postman
Therefore I love the postman
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yes.
That is what I have tried to explain in how to mend the contradiction, redefining "is".
Usually "is" is symmetric (a=b => b=a) (which also makes it transitive (and vice versa)). If "is" is no longer symetric, it also becomes intransitive. I.e. the Son is* God !=> God is* the Son.