The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)

[Coder]

First, I should tell you that I come from a Catholic background and I do view Scripture as authoritative however it must be understood in terms of its context. This context goes beyond context of the sections and other passages in the Bible but also the context of the early preaching (Church) that included teaching many Greek/Romans/pagans.

I propose that the "terminology" used in Scripture itself is "parabolic" (a parable) using "father gods" and "son gods" (e.g. Saturn-Jupiter) terminology (in some places) to relate the reality of the _one_ true God becoming man to pagans who had pervasive concepts of "father gods" and "son gods". In fact, given the environment that the early Church was preaching in, wouldn't one even expect to see language like this? Notice how this language is particularly in John, a later Gospel, perhaps written after some experience had been gained trying to preach to pagans. The Holy Spirit is the term used in Scripture to tie the teaching back to the Jewish roots to indicate that still, we are talking about the one true Judeo-Christian God who does not have parts/persons.

 

[Katzpur]

First, I should tell you that I come from a Catholic background and I do view Scripture as authoritative however it must be understood in terms of its context. This context goes beyond context of the sections and other passages in the Bible but also the context of the early preaching (Church) that included teaching many Greek/Romans/pagans.

I propose that the "terminology" used in Scripture itself is "parabolic" (a parable) using "father gods" and "son gods" (e.g. Saturn-Jupiter) terminology (in some places) to relate the reality of the _one_ true God becoming man to pagans who had pervasive concepts of "father gods" and "son gods". In fact, given the environment that the early Church was preaching in, wouldn't one even expect to see language like this? Notice how this language is particularly in John, a later Gospel, perhaps written after some experience had been gained trying to preach to pagans. The Holy Spirit is the term used in Scripture to tie the teaching back to the Jewish roots to indicate that still, we are talking about the one true Judeo-Christian God who does not have parts/persons.

So are you saying that you don't believe that "the Father" was truly the Father of Jesus or that Jesus was truly His Son? I am a Christian, but do not believe in the Trinity as I believe a true Father-Son relationship would involve two physically distinct beings.

 

[Coder]

Hi Katzpur,

So are you saying that you don't believe that "the Father" was truly the Father of Jesus or that Jesus was truly His Son?

I think that Christians can simply believe that God came to us as a man. Plain and simple. I am proposing that father-son is merely terminology (see OP). Do you know that even Roman emperors were "Son of the Divine One" (Divi Filius), not to mention all the father son "gods" in Greek and Roman religion including those who impregnated human women and became man? Coincidence that this terminology is used in Christianity which was mainly composed of pagan Gentiles not to mention Roman government? (There are several theories about the Roman government's involvement much earlier than Constantine e.g. 75AD which would have even further implications than what I'm saying here but that's a different topic)

In regards to the theology about God becoming man, we all believe that God is infinite and almighty, right. So, although present in human form, He is at the same time, the same infinite almighty God. If one wants to think of the man as "Son" in that sense, then it may be a way to speak about it but only in reference to the human form and not to say that there is another Person (Son) who is God.

...I believe a true Father-Son relationship would involve two physically distinct beings.

I don't think that you mean "physically" like flesh, you are probably just emphasizing the distinctness? Yes, I propose that the term "Trinity" is terminology inherited from paganism so it's a "glossing over" in the doctrine to say that each Person _is_ the _same_ God. That being the case, then what meaning does the doctrine really have? This is also what I have been discussing with Christians to show them that they have a relationship with one personal Being who is God. In practice, I think you'll find that most Christians view their relationship with God as with one personal Being. So this just goes to show that people don't really practice the doctrine. People are searching for a relationship the one true God, what human has been searching for a relationship with three Persons? According to the Trinity, how would one have a personal relationship with God except in/through one or more of the Persons? The Trinity doctrine states that the doctrine does not say three Gods, but if a person has a personal relationship with three Persons at once then from the person's point of view, this introduces distinctions within God (as you point out). I would also propose that to accept the Trinity one (for these reasons) must alter what they really mean by _one_ God. _One_ God has never meant that God has parts/persons and it's understandable if this has kept Jewish people from an interest in Christianity.

 

[Deeje]

I think that Christians can simply believe that God came to us as a man. Plain and simple.

By this, are you suggesting that God came in the form of a man. If he is one entity, then to whom did Jesus pray?
Whose voice was heard at his baptism declaring "This is my son"?

In regards to the theology about God becoming man, we all believe that God is infinite and almighty, right. So, although present in human form, He is at the same time, the same infinite almighty God. If one wants to think of the man as "Son" in that sense, then it may be a way to speak about it but only in reference to the human form and not to say that there is another Person (Son) who is God.

If Jesus was "fully God and fully man" as most trinitarians agree, then why was there no accounts of miracles being performed by Jesus before he received the holy spirit at his baptism? Would he not always have been "Almighty" and able to cure the sick and raise the dead? He was not known as "the miracle worker" but simply as "the carpenter's son" whose family everyone knew. (Matthew 13:53-58) It was the fact that he was NOT special, that stumbled his neighbors.

I don't think that you mean "physically" like flesh, you are probably just emphasizing the distinctness?

No, the LDS believe that God and Christ are physical beings. They do believe in a trinity, only not in the same way as the churches do.

Yes, I propose that the term "Trinity" is terminology inherited from paganism so it's a "glossing over" in the doctrine to say that each Person _is_ the _same_ God. That being the case, then what meaning does the doctrine really have? This is also what I have been discussing with Christians to show them that they have a relationship with one personal Being who is God. In practice, I think you'll find that most Christians view their relationship with God as with one personal Being. So this just goes to show that people don't really practice the doctrine. People are searching for a relationship the one true God, what human has been searching for a relationship with three Persons? According to the Trinity, how would one have a personal relationship with God except in/through one or more of the Persons? The Trinity doctrine states that the doctrine does not say three Gods, but if a person has a personal relationship with three Persons at once then from the person's point of view, this introduces distinctions within God (as you point out). I would also propose that to accept the Trinity one (for these reasons) must alter what they really mean by _one_ God. _One_ God has never meant that God has parts/persons and it's understandable if this has kept Jewish people from an interest in Christianity.

I too believe that the trinity is a pagan concept, because trinities are found in pagan cultures throughout the polytheistic world. But in order to claim monotheism, the churches forced their three gods into one "head". But it still defies the math....1+1+1= 1????

 

[Coder]

By this, are you suggesting that God came in the form of a man. If he is one entity, then to whom did Jesus pray?
Whose voice was heard at his baptism declaring "This is my son"?

See my OP. I don't believe it is literal and I also think that there many pagan influences and possibly Roman government influences. In fact is study today about just how much the Roman government may have been involved.

For example if you are going to refer the Gospel of John, Jesus also said that His words were not His own, but the Father's, so that would mean that Father was praying to Himself? Again, I think people take the Scriptures way too literally and not understanding the style/purpose of the author, then they just explain away the contradictions to suit their belief system IMHO.

 

[Deeje]

See my OP. I don't believe it is literal and I also think that there many pagan influences and possibly Roman government influences. In fact is study today about just how much the Roman government may have been involved.

Coming from a Catholic background, it is good to delve into the role that Constantine played in the development of "the church". He was an astute politician, but never really became a Christian. He wanted to consolidate his divided empire, so bringing all of his subjects under one common umbrella, suited his agenda. He simply fused the two modes of worship into one "universal" religion. The Christians, by that time were so slack that they allowed the change without a whimper. The pagans got to keep their favorite festivals only with a new name...everyone was happy......except God and those few who remained loyal to Christ's teachings.

For example if you are going to refer the Gospel of John, Jesus also said that His words were not His own, but the Father's, so that would mean that Father was praying to Himself?

Jesus' teachings were from his Father, but his prayers were his personal conversation with his God. When he taught us the model prayer...he said "Our Father who art in heaven", giving God a separate location to himself. Jesus never called himself God even once. He directed all worship to his Father. (Luke 4:8)

Again, I think people take the Scriptures way too literally and not understanding the style/purpose of the author, then they just explain away the contradictions to suit their belief system IMHO.

The holy spirit is what allows people to see what is literal and what is not.....how could it be otherwise? God isn't the God of individuals....he is the God of a chosen people, a nation who are singled out from the rest. It was always so from the time of his choosing Israel as Abraham's seed....the family line through which the Messiah would come.

 

[Coder]

"Our Father who art in heaven",

Jupiter was one of the main "gods" in Roman paganism. The name "Ju-piter" means "sky-father." Notice the second part means latin "pater". In latin, the Our Father is "Pater Nostre".

So "Sky Father", Father in the Sky, What is the sky to those people? The heavens?! "Father in the Sky", "Father in Heavens", see what I'm saying?

The Romans may have wanted the Gospel writers to portray Jesus praying to the "Sky Father", they were pretty tough about forcing people to worship their "gods". In fact, the Jews were revolting, because the Romans had been forcing statues of their "gods" into Jewish temples. I give Jewish people tremendous honor for resisting (sometimes unto death) worshipping no false gods. They don't get enough honor for this and in fact Christian belief in the Trinity is also a major problem from the perspective of Jewish theology (and I think for good reason).

 

[Deeje]

Jupiter was one of the main "gods" in Roman paganism. The name "Ju-piter" means "sky-father." Notice the second part means latin "pater". In latin, the Our Father is "Pater Nostre".

So "Sky Father", Father in the Sky, What is the sky to those people? The heavens?! "Father in the Sky", "Father in Heavens", see what I'm saying?

Yes I do, but what you fail to realize is that the pagans borrowed from the events spoken about in the Bible, not the other way around. Moses did not put Genesis into writing until some 2,500 years after the events took place. Those pagan concepts were adopted from Babylon in the post-flood era and taken all over the world when God confused the language of the tower builders. (Genesis 11:1-9) The gods and demi-gods of ancient mythologies were a reflection of those literal pre-flood events. (Genesis 6)

The Romans may have wanted the Gospel writers to portray Jesus praying to the "Sky Father", they were pretty tough about forcing people to worship their "gods". In fact, the Jews were revolting, because the Romans had been forcing statues of their "gods" into Jewish temples. I give Jewish people tremendous honor for resisting (sometimes unto death) worshipping no false gods. They don't get enough honor for this and in fact Christian belief in the Trinity is also a major problem in Jewish theology (and I think for good reason).

No Abrahamic faith accepts a trinity of gods except Christendom.....and from very early in the history of the church. More and more pagan thinking crept into Christian teachings so that what we have today is not even a reasonable facsimile of the original.

As for the Jews, we form our opinion of them as a nation (not as individuals) from Jesus Christ, who said....

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Matthew 23:37-39)

In the last 2,000 years, the Jewish people have continued to reject Jesus as their Messiah. (Though individuals continue to come to Christ's true church)

When he comes for the last time as judge, he will not be kind to any who refuse to know the true God and do not obey his Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; John 17:3)

 

[Coder]

Yes I do, but what you fail to realize is that the pagans borrowed from the events spoken about in the Bible, not the other way around. The gods and demi-gods of ancient mythologies were a reflection of those literal pre-flood events. (Genesis 6)

Source? Either way, Romans could have forced Gospel writers to record Jesus praying a certain way based on their beliefs (not the Jewish understanding of God). Who knows how much of the New Testament is of God? Much of the wisdom (which I agree it does have) is also already found in Hebrew Scriptures. Anyone can write a book and say God wrote it then all of a sudden the book speaks for itself. Even if a book says God wrote it, right in the book itself, anyone could write that. Trusting God is good, I don't trust people who claim they have words from God including in a book. For example, the Ten Commandments give light. If God shows me that something gives light, I'll accept. Once we know about God and His good will, then we evaluate other input from books/people in terms of what is good for all people and what is pleasing to God. St. Paul says that anything not based on faith is a sin. That concept has light.

 

[savagewind]

I don't think that you mean "physically" like flesh,

She does mean it. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

you are probably just emphasizing the distinctness?.

Nope.

 

[savagewind]

Source? Either way, Romans could have forced Gospel writers to record Jesus praying a certain way based on their beliefs (not the Jewish understanding of God).

interesting concept. I think it is possible. When "all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial" was written, the Bible didn't exist. I am certain the writer meant the law was inspired of God.

Who knows how much of the New Testament is of God?

Nobody does, but they sure like to pretend that they know.

Much of the wisdom (which I agree it does have) is also already found in Hebrew Scriptures. Anyone can write a book and say God wrote it then all of a sudden the book speaks for itself. Even if a book says God wrote it, right in the book itself, anyone could write that.

The book actually doesn't say "God wrote" it, but they insist that it is all God's words and ideas down to the last jot and tittle and amazingly so God's work all these years is to protect it from change. That's what God does, according to them. God keeps the words true, all of them. And why do they say God does that? So that they won't be lost without God. Is it funny?

Trusting God is good, I don't trust people who claim they have words from God including in a book. For example, the Ten Commandments give light. If God shows me that something gives light, I'll accept. Once we know about God and His good will, then we evaluate other input from books/people in terms of what is good for all people and what is pleasing to God. St. Paul says that anything not based on faith is a sin. That concept has light.

Me too.

 

[Coder]

The book actually doesn't say "God wrote" it,

"Scripture is inspired of God..." The funny thing is when that was written, it must have been referring mainly to the Hebrew Scriptures because there was no NT yet I don't think. Which would also be somewhat conflicting/ironic because St. Paul says that the Hebrew Scriptures are only a "faint outline". He also said he considered his former religion so much rubbish or something.

Do you have beliefs about the oneness of God (e.g. in regards to the Trinity)?

 

[Coder]

She does mean it. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng.

Respectfully to LDS, I don't have any beliefs like that. I encourage people to think of God as a Spiritual Being. I don't doubt that He can appear to us in any form He wants but I don't subscribe to those views.

 

[savagewind]

"Scripture is inspired of God..." The funny thing is when that was written, it must have been referring mainly to the Hebrew Scriptures because there was no NT yet I don't think. Which would also be somewhat conflicting/ironic because St. Paul says that the Hebrew Scriptures are only a "faint outline". He also said he considered his former religion so much rubbish or something.

Do you have beliefs about the oneness of God (e.g. in regards to the Trinity)?

The Trinity doctrine causes fighting so it can't be good. Psalms 34:14 1 Peter 3:11

 

[Coder]

The book actually doesn't say "God wrote" it, but they insist that it is all God's words and ideas down to the last jot and tittle and amazingly so God's work all these years is to protect it from change. That's what God does, according to them. God keeps the words true, all of them. And why do they say God does that? So that they won't be lost without God.

Well, I do respect that they love God, but yes, I really try to help them have the courage to take a step back and we can all use the intelligence that God gives us. I have a Catholic background and for decades I wouldn't dream of feeling free to "think" as I do now, but I actually think that such freedom is grace from God Himself and I praise and thank Him. And I'm certainly not going to let any "cults" rush in and try to prey on me.

 

[Coder]

The Trinity doctrine causes fighting so it can't be good. Psalms 34:14 1 Peter 3:11

Never quite thought of it from such a high level perspective, interesting.

 

[savagewind]

Well, I do respect that they love God, but yes, I really try to help them have the courage to take a step back and we can all use the intelligence that God gives us. I have a Catholic background and for decades I wouldn't dream of feeling free to "think" as I do now, but I actually think that such freedom is grace from God Himself and I praise and thank Him.

Thank you for changing that LOL Good !
Freedom is grace from God! Yes! There is nothing about God that can't be praised imho. I thank Jesus for a life worth living and I am sure God had something to do with that. I think a lot of people had something to do with that.

 

[Katzpur]

Respectfully to LDS, I don't have any beliefs like that. I encourage people to think of God as a Spiritual Being. I don't doubt that He can appear to us in any form He wants but I don't subscribe to those views.

I have some questions for you, Coder:

1. Do you believe Jesus Christ has a body?
2. If not, where is the body He was seen ascending into Heaven with?
3. Do you believe He had a body while He was on the earth?
4. If so, was He not a spiritual being?
5. If He was not a spiritual being, how could He have been God. (Or maybe you don't believe He is God. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you believe with regards to Him.)

Perhaps the issue at hand isn't so much whether God is spiritual or not, but what it means to be a spiritual being.

 

[Coder]

Hi Katzpur,

Perhaps the issue at hand isn't so much whether God is spiritual or not, but what it means to be a spiritual being.

Yes, I understand and I kind of expected a response like this. I believe that God could appear in a physical form if He chooses, but it would only be an appearance but in fact would be more real than physical is real in a sense. In fact in some ways, maybe the whole physical universe is spiritual in the sense that God keeps it in existence at all times.

5. If He was not a spiritual being, how could He have been God. (Or maybe you don't believe He is God. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you believe with regards to Him.)

I have questions. I am trying to figure out much the Roman Empire may have used Christianity to control people and also have them worship the way they wanted. As I mentioned, it's hard to tell what is more pure or of God and what the Roman leaders forced Gospel writers to add.

2. If not, where is the body He was seen ascending into Heaven with?

How do you know he ascended into heaven? I know it's in the Bible, but as I say, that doesn't prove anything to me for the reasons that I have stated. I don't interpret the Bible literally and I don't know how much of it is fabricated/influenced by pagan or political aspects. I encourage people to step back and look at what they believe about the Bible.

 

[Coder]

Hi, I started this thread in the more general Biblical Debates area for a wider discussion. Suggest go there. Thank you. Coder.

The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)