The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)

[Kenny]

,I think of it as "our life" or "our being" has eternally been in His hands even before he "brought us forth" - perhaps something like that

One of a litany of questions that I will have for Him! Excited to the class Christianity 101 -- The Way It Was Supposed to Be -- where everyone will have to attend!

I don't view it that way. Some Christians believe that after death the "soul" awaits reunion with the body at resurrection. (That teaching actually sounds a bit contrived to me). Whether we can be self-aware in a form other than our body, I don't know. Perhaps the only form that God has us "live" in, is our bodies.

The problem with that position, IMO, is that Jesus still has His body. By the law of first or precedent it is established even as Adam had a physical body.

If we can live in other than our bodies (e.g. what is referred to as spirit/soul), then I would propose that the same person is in a different "form". I don't know what that would be like. However, I still don't see such a distinction between "spiritual form" vs. "bodily form" in that it's all God's creation. "Water" vs. "steam" is probably a very crude analogy but it's all the same water molecules, just a different form. The key to me is "form". Notice St. Paul refers to Jesus as "form of God" and "image of God" (maybe a clue).

I certainly can hold to our spirit/soul still existing... but I do subscribe to having a body due to scriptural reference and the law of firsts.

Ahh, but what is a "material"? (See above.) What are the laws of physics? I believe that these are all conceptions of God that He allows us to exist in and experience. (Fortunately for us, He keeps the laws of physics consistent. ) In this sense, I see "material" as absolutely no different than "spiritual".

But my point is still valid for we KNOW that our body goes to dust and yet we still exist. Thus, at the least, we are a two part being (here on this earth) - with different purposes and a different materiality. And if we can be a two part being (and my position is that indeed there are three) it supports my position of being ONE being but still three parts of the same person.

That is my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[Ben Avraham]

I guess I would first ask a question... what do you believe the makeup of man is? One person? One person manifested in two or three parts? (I hope my question is presented clearly) It might be a leading question but please bear with me

Logically and, according to Physics, the Primal Cause of the universe could not be more than absolutely One.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I don't see how the Trinitarian view necessarily conflicts with the Oneness of God. Three parts of the One is a divine mystery accepted by Catholicism.

And absolute Oneness in the Primal Cause of the universe is accepted by Judaism. Now, you are left with a choice either to believe in HaShem or in the Pope who is the head of Catholicism. Which is more advantageous, to believe in God or to believe in the Pope?

 

[Coder]

But my point is still valid for we KNOW that our body goes to dust and yet we still exist. Thus, at the least, we are a two part being (here on this earth) - with different purposes and a different materiality. And if we can be a two part being (and my position is that indeed there are three) it supports my position of being ONE being but still three parts of the same person.

That is my story and I'm sticking to it!

Well God Bless and thanks for very thought-provoking discussion and please do chime back in if any further thoughts.

 

[George-ananda]

And absolute Oneness in the Primal Cause of the universe is accepted by Judaism. Now, you are left with a choice either to believe in HaShem or in the Pope who is the head of Catholicism. Which is more adventitious, to believe in God or to believe in the Pope?

I was just expressing my opinion on the subject. Me personally? I am not overly impressed by HaShem or the Pope. I believe the eastern/Indian adepts of the non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hindu school have the deepest understanding of the nature of God but it takes some time to really understand and appreciate this view..

 

[Coder]

I believe the eastern/Indian adepts of the non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hindu school have the deepest understanding of the nature of God but it takes some time to really understand and appreciate this view..

Hi, if you read my previous posts you'll find that we may have beliefs somewhat in common. I believe that all creation exists at all times by God's will but I don't see creation as an "extension" of or "part" of God. However, our beliefs may not be that far apart because what you mean by "not-two", I understand in the sense that all creation is in God's hands (so to speak) and this way all that exists is never "disconnected" from God (because otherwise it wouldn't exist at all). At the same time, in Judaism and Christianity we have deeply engrained concepts that God's creation is "apart" from Him. To say His creation is "united" with Him is considered a form of blasphemy (because of His holiness/purity) so we're reluctant to consider creation as "part" of Him (it's been drilled into Jews and Christians from childhood ). However, I do understand what you mean to the extent that creation is at all times somehow "connected" with Hashem (God) because He holds it in existence. These concepts are at the limits of our puny human understanding IMHO.

 

[Kenny]

Logically and, according to Physics, the Primal Cause of the universe could not be more than absolutely One.

logically and in complete agreement.

 

[Kenny]

Well God Bless and thanks for very thought-provoking discussion and please do chime back in if any further thoughts.

I want to make sure that when I said "That is my story and I'm sticking to it! ) you understand it wasn't in anger but just the common loving phrase.

Let's look at it through another aspect and I ask questions not to dominate the direction but rather because I have no idea where you stand.

When Jesus said "You must be born again... that which is Spirit is spirit" - do you understand it as I do that it is talking about a spiritual rebirth?

 

[Ben Avraham]

logically and in complete agreement.

Does it mean you agree with me KenS?

 

[Ben Avraham]

I was just expressing my opinion on the subject. Me personally? I am not overly impressed by HaShem or the Pope. I believe the eastern/Indian adepts of the non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Hindu school have the deepest understanding of the nature of God but it takes some time to really understand and appreciate this view..

I agree with you. It does take some time to understand a religious theme whose basis is on Physics. The general idea is that Science does not go hand-in-hand with religion.

 

[Kenny]

Thus it mean you agree with me KenS?

There is but one God. Adonai Elohim, YHWH!

 

[George-ananda]

I agree with you. It does take some time to understand a religious theme whose basis is on Physics. The general idea is that Science does not go hand-in-hand with religion.

I don't understand your post. Who is talking about 'a religious theme whose basis is on Physics'?

 

[Kenny]

I agree with you. It does take some time to understand a religious theme whose basis is on Physics. The general idea is that Science does not go hand-in-hand with religion.

Additionally, who can validate that science does not go hand-in-hand with the principles that God created (faith)?

 

[Kenny]

I want to make sure that when I said "That is my story and I'm sticking to it! ) you understand it wasn't in anger but just the common loving phrase.

Let's look at it through another aspect and I ask questions not to dominate the direction but rather because I have no idea where you stand.

When Jesus said "You must be born again... that which is Spirit is spirit" - do you understand it as I do that it is talking about a spiritual rebirth?

Let me just go ahead and take it to the next step because IMO, it is impossible to say that the spirit and the body are the same thing. The spirit of man is born again but the body stays the same. Again... two part being, being completely different, with different purposes and of different materiality and yet JUST ONE.

Then you have the soul, (mind, will and emotions). Did that change? Not according to scripture as I view it.

Rom 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.
2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Here it is VERY obvious that the body is different from the mind. (IMV the mind is not the same as the spirit because the spirit is born-again while the mind is renewed--two different operations and therefore MUST be two different parts.)

The mind is renewed and transformed over time.

Thus, we now have three parts (quite clearly IMO). Each with different functions and yet JUST ONE.

So for me, it isn't difficult to understand that if we are made in His image and in His likeness that if we are a three part being each with different functions and, in some cases, different materiality, then God can do the same thing.

Like the Temple of God... one temple but there is the Outer Court (that which deals with the body), the Holy Place (that which deals with the soul), and the Holy of Holies (that which deals with the spirit) YET JUST ONE TEMPLE.

Additional references:

1 Thes 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Is 26:9 My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.

This, of course, is a cursory glance of a deeper study.

 

[Coder]

Hi Ken,

Let me just go ahead and take it to the next step because IMO, it is impossible to say that the spirit and the body are the same thing.

Again, "soul" is from Greek philosophy and Scriptures can use language of the day to convey a point. You may just think this way, because it has been habitual for years. (Didn't St. Paul receive Greek training?) What is the "soul"? Just as creation stays in existence by God's will I also think our souls do. I think our soul is God's conception of us. What else is it? What is a spirit? How can any "spirit" exist if not in God's will?

We are each "one person" anyway. For us, the "person" and the "being" are one in the same, so your analogy is actually working against you.

Think about this: When a person is conceived (in womb), you probably view that the "soul" is united with the body in some particular "instant", right? I don't think like that. Of course, I do believe that unborn human life is sacred. I view it that our "life" (our "soul") is held in God's hands and as we grow, His concept of us begins to be able to be seen in different ways as we go from infant to adult (for example). Is the soul self-aware? What about at conception when the person is not self-aware? Where is the "person" at that time? I believe the "person" at all stages of bodily development is in God's hands. He is the potter, our bodies are the clay. I believe this is why human life is sacred, a human person is one of God's most treasured works. Jesus spoke of how much more important we are than birds, and every hair on our head is counted, and not a bird falls without God allowing it. That, I believe. I think you focus too much on the "spirit/soul" as some kind of "stand-alone" creation - to me, I see all creation including "persons/souls" as concepts that God causes to exist. We only have "life" because the author of life decides that we are "alive". We are His "creations", what are His "creations" but His "conceptions"? You say "spirit/soul", I say "conception" in human "form".

We both have awe and respect for God. Your awe, might make you afraid to consider God as other than Trinity because you were trained to revere the Trinity. Suppose, just suppose, it is true that the Trinity doctrine is simply from Greek/Roman/pagan father-son "god" influences/parables and suppose that God is absolute unity (as Ben Avraham speaks of)? Maybe it's an offense to Him to think of Him as having three persons? (I wouldn't necessarily consider it a sin, because I think God honors the love of all who seek Him sincerely, regardless if they have different understandings.)

(By the way, I also have started to think that the "you must believe all our doctrines" mentality (in some Churches) may be from Roman dominance influences/attitudes perhaps because of their need to have blessings for Empire/victories from God or earlier their false "gods" so perhaps the Emperors insisted that all citizens are "on the same page" in regards to beliefs about God and earlier about the false "gods". Some emperors may have been fanatical/superstitious about this to different degrees - Constantine may have been both fanatical/superstitious about unity in belief but more open to Judeo-Christian beliefs. "In hoc signo vinces". St. Paul may have been trying to help by showing that's it's not just about "conquering": "We are more than conquerors" Romans 8:37)

Just as you are trying to help me, I have more that I think may help you. What we can speak about is the human personal relationship with God. However, I won't rush to move on to that until you feel you have pursued your current line of reasoning to your satisfaction.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Additionally, who can validate that science does not go hand-in-hand with the principles that God created (faith)?

I don't think God created faith. Faith is an emanation developed by those who cannot think metaphorically.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I don't understand your post. Who is talking about 'a religious theme whose basis is on Physics'?

I am the one doing that. The religious theme is the existence of God and, I do not need faith to believe that God exists. I know it by Logic and the help of Physics.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think God created faith. Faith is an emanation developed by those who cannot think metaphorically.

That is a great opinion. I think faith is this power of one's spirit as knowledge is the power of the mind and muscles the power of the body.

I suppose my view is just as valid as yours, however, if we are speaking biblically, then mine would be correct.

 

[Ben Avraham]

That is a great opinion. I think faith is this power of one's spirit as knowledge is the power of the mind and muscles the power of the body.

I suppose my view is just as valid as yours, however, if we are speaking biblically, then mine would be correct.

So do I. Yes, your view is just as valid as mine.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Ken,
Again, "soul" is from Greek philosophy and Scriptures can use language of the day to convey a point. You may just think this way, because it has been habitual for years. (Didn't St. Paul receive Greek training?) What is the "soul"? Just as creation stays in existence by God's will I also think our souls do. I think our soul is God's conception of us. What else is it? What is a spirit? How can any "spirit" exist if not in God's will?

ABSOLUTELY, no spirit can exist without God.

But, soul comes from the Hebrew texts way before Greeks were even invented so I would have to say the Hebrew soul is the egg and the Greek soul is the chicken.

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees, taught by the best, and well extremely zealous for the Law. I'm sure he knew Greek and Latin but would hardly think that he followed Greek gods or Greek understanding.

We are each "one person" anyway. For us, the "person" and the "being" are one in the same, so your analogy is actually working against you.

I don't think so. If we are one in the same our parts wouldn't be battling each other. Gal 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Think about this: When a person is conceived (in womb), you probably view that the "soul" is united with the body in some particular "instant", right? I don't think like that. Of course, I do believe that unborn human life is sacred. I view it that our "life" (our "soul") is held in God's hands and as we grow, His concept of us begins to be able to be seen in different ways as we go from infant to adult (for example). Is the soul self-aware? What about at conception when the person is not self-aware? Where is the "person" at that time? I believe the "person" at all stages of bodily development is in God's hands. He is the potter, our bodies are the clay. I believe this is why human life is sacred, a human person is one of God's most treasured works. Jesus spoke of how much more important we are than birds, and every hair on our head is counted, and not a bird falls without God allowing it. That, I believe. I think you focus too much on the "spirit/soul" as some kind of "stand-alone" creation - to me, I see all creation including "persons/souls" as concepts that God causes to exist. We only have "life" because the author of life decides that we are "alive". We are His "creations", what are His "creations" but His "conceptions"? You say "spirit/soul", I say "conception" in human "form".

Yes... our differences can be traced to what we believe to be true according to what we read and believe is true.

We both have awe and respect for God.

Yes... I believe that is true.

your awe, might make you afraid to consider God as other than Trinity because you were trained to revere the Trinity.

Good position to consider (as you try to establish what exactly it is that I believe), however, no.

I accepted Jesus at the age of 28 and was never taught to "revere" the Trinity. My position is arrived through study and consideration. As a matter of fact, when I gave my life to Jesus one of the thoughts that set the course was "The Bible is either false or true. I'm going to begin with the theory that it is true and then I'm going to test the sucker. I'll find out soon enough which of the two it is." Well... still testing and still holding true.


Suppose, just suppose, it is true that the Trinity doctrine is simply from Greek/Roman/pagan father-son "god" influences/parables and suppose that God is absolute unity (as Ben Avraham speaks of)? Maybe it's an offense to Him to think of Him as having three persons? (I wouldn't necessarily consider it a sin, because I think God honors the love of all who seek Him sincerely, regardless if they have different understandings.)

(By the way, I also have started to think that the "you must believe all our doctrines" mentality (in some Churches) may be from Roman dominance influences/attitudes perhaps because of their need to have blessings for Empire/victories from God or earlier their false "gods" so perhaps the Emperors insisted that all citizens are "on the same page" in regards to beliefs about God and earlier about the false "gods". Some emperors may have been fanatical/superstitious about this to different degrees - Constantine may have been both fanatical/superstitious about unity in belief but more open to Judeo-Christian beliefs. "In hoc signo vinces". St. Paul may have been trying to help by showing that's it's not just about "conquering": "We are more than conquerors" Romans 8:37)

Actually, there is great diversity of beliefs within Churches. Even within the church membership there are divergence of positions and yet still on the foundation of the work of the Cross, the impact of the shed blood of Jesus and the power of the resurrection. In other words, "you must believe all our doctrines" is not really holding out to be true.

Just as you are trying to help me, I have more that I think may help you. What we can speak about is the human personal relationship with God. However, I won't rush to move on to that until you feel you have pursued your current line of reasoning to your satisfaction.

I'm sure that there is enough grace, mercy and love that we can differ and still be brothers.