The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)

[Muffled]

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.

I believe there are no parts but there is the concept of parts.

 

[Muffled]

Can you show me one verse that tells us that Jesus is God?

I believe I always do.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

 

[Coder]

I don't doubt that God can come to us or appear to us in human form. Many Christians (Creed) say "I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty". They don't say "I believe in one God, Jesus Christ." Why not? You start by saying that you believe in one God - but now there's more after that? If Jesus is truly God in human form, then why doesn't the Creed simply say "I believe in one God ... He came to us in human form and conceived Himself in the womb of the virgin Mary..."? As I mentioned before (about the term "Holy Spirit"), if Jesus is the same God then why is the terminology "Son" needed. If praying to Jesus is the same as praying to God then what difference does it make what name you call Him? Don't Christians believe that God is one Personal Being?

Look at it this way, the Roman Emperor was called "Son of God", Zeus was human-god son of Hercules.... Judaism had no counterpart. No "Son of the one true God". Now, at the same period in history, we have a teaching that the one true God (that Jewish people worship) comes to us in human form? Coincidence? I don't know. God can do as He wills, but it may make one wonder. However, beyond that, not only do we have this teaching that God became man, but it's explained that His Son became man. Coincidence? There is also a simultaneous claim of a new revelation about God that He has a co-eternal Son. Coincidence?

It seems that a plausible explanation is that the title "Son of God" for Jesus was a means in the Roman Empire to transfer the title "Son of God" to another in such a way that: a.) the title is not blasphemous (revolting to Jewish people) as it is when referring to the Roman Emperor, and b.) that pagans of the Roman Empire might accept and c.) would be seen as an authority figure in place of the "Roman Emperor" also called "Son of God". Jesus is recorded as speaking of His authority. In the Roman Empire this "authority" probably had other connotations especially for superstitious pagan leaders who wanted blessings for victories and the Empire's dominance/success. "In this sign you shall conquer."! Combine that with "All authority in heaven (sky Jupiter) and earth has been given to me"! and the Roman Empire may have been very interested! Because they love God? No. Because they want in, if there's a "god" who can grant them victories, power, blessings, and success! That was their one "weakness", they believed in and relied on "gods" and were quite superstitious/ritualistic about it. Therefore, presenting Jesus as the "Son of God" seems an effective means to convert the Romans to belief in the one true God, which the Jews had been unable to do previously (but we shouldn't base a doctrine today on such a means). Also, notice how the Roman Soldier is recorded as saying "This man truly was the 'Son of God'". For the Roman emperors - whatever works, right? If this new "god" is powerful and can help them and all the soldiers are willing to go to battle and believe that their blessings come from this new "Son of God", that's fine with them - they'll sit in their palace drinking wine while the soldiers are out shedding blood for the Empire under the blessings of this new "Son of God". To them, getting the soldiers on board is good. "In this sign you shall conquer." and this view perhaps softened by: Romans 8:37

Could you imagine being a Jewish worshipper of God and the emperor of your kingdom must be called "Son of God" and Augustus was declared to be god!?

I don't think that we should have an inaccurate doctrine about God that is based on terminology ("Son of God") that was used to convert/appease the Roman Empire. Also, I propose that once the title "Son of God" was applied to Jesus for Roman Empire/pagan-relation purposes, the term "Holy Spirit" was brought in to the theology to clarify/strengthen the concept that Jesus is not "Son of God" like Hercules or the Roman Emperor (Divi Filius) but He is the Son of the one true God. You see, with existing belief in Jupiter (sky father), and Jesus titled "Son of God" you progress in acceptance by the Romans but are drifting too far from Jewish belief in the one true God. So, how does one emphasize that one is not speaking of Jupiter (father) and some other "son of god"? Well, it would seem that if one refers to the spiritual truth about the one true God as one Spiritual Being, and do this using a term ("Holy Spirit") that is known in Judaism, then you may have a doctrine that is in line with belief in the one true God (notice at mass, "unity" of the Holy Spirit). Yet, Jewish people don't believe it! Yes, many converted early in the movement, but today, with a formalized Trinity doctrine in place for centuries, relatively few Jewish people believe it, and I, like them, believe in the oneness of God and that God is not accurately presented in terms of having parts/persons.

I believe in one God that is one Spiritual Personal Being and that oneness was a very important revelation to the Jewish prophets and people in a time of beliefs in many gods. I believe that a Trinitarian obviously cannot believe that there exists one Spiritual Personal Being who is God that they can have a personal relationship with because any personal relationship must be with one of the three Persons. For a Trinitarian, there is no one "Person" who is God, there is a "Substance" (Nature).

 

[moorea944]

I believe I always do.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Love that verse!! Thank you. Here, Jesus is not saying he is God. Trinitarians say that. Look at all of the other verses in scripture that tell us that Jesus is NOT God. Jesus was like us, he gave God, his father, glory in everything he did. He was subject to his father and always will be. God was the God and father of Jesus, etc, etc.

In this verse, Jesus is saying that he is one with the father. That is true. Jesus is one with his father in many ways, in spirit, mind and purpose. He was in sync with Him in everything. Jesus wanted to do his father's will, not his own. Very simple.

Jesus is not God. Why people would ever want to believe in that is beyond me. God is one, not three.

Plus, don't forget. God gave Jesus everything!! Jesus could do nothing without the father. But, if Jesus was God, he wouldn't have to depend in God. But he did.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

Are you suggesting that Jewish Scripture was written so as to have common ground with paganism?

No, not referring to any such concept (although there may have been Sumerian influences in Jewish Scripture). I'm referring to the New Testament in regards to Scriptures related to Roman Empire and pagan beliefs.

They have never had any interest in bringing gentiles into their faith,

The "conversion" of the Roman Empire has resulted in disrespect/persecution of Jewish people for centuries. Now, you think that Jewish people had no interest in teaching others.

what would be the motive?

There may have been multiple "win-win" motives. The Roman Empire wanted unified beliefs for blessings/victories and they saw Judaism as a problem in this regard. The Jewish people didn't want to be forced to worship false gods and have their false god's statues forced into their temples. They certainly didn't want to have to call the Roman Emperor "Son of God" as was his title (e.g. Octavian). This is blasphemy to Jews (and rightly so). No doubt, the Jewish people wanted to address this problem somehow.

...any evidence of a prior alignment with Rome, particularly as it pertained to religion, would be hard to find.

It doesn't have to be an "alignment". I'm referring to compromises/adaptations that "worked" at the time but resulted in errors in doctrine, when viewed objectively today in regards to the truth about God. If I see evidence of this, is there doubt that many high-level theologians and leaders in the Catholic Church are not aware of this? (I even read of one Catholic priest [with a Doctorate of Theology from St. Thomas Aquinas University in Rome] who believes that Jesus is a mythical figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie) (I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus is a mythical figure, but it's an example to show that some higher-up may have "higher-level" understandings today that the "children" as a whole may not be ready for.) http://gotruthreform.org/holy-deception I don't say "deception" about the Trinity Doctrine because it was inherited and probably many of the one billion Catholics would be upset if the doctrine further "developed" too quickly, but you may see my gist.

Romans 13:1-7

• Obey the Roman Empire
• If you rebel against the Roman Empire, you are rebelling against God.
• Pay taxes
• ...

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers". If St. Paul was working to make peace between Rome and the Jewish people then that's a good thing (but see how Jewish people were subsequently treated). What I'm saying is that we shouldn't today believe that God is Three Persons because of efforts to compromise with the Roman Empire.

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves should obey their masters, and masters should treat their slaves well. It doesn't condemn slavery (an institution in the Roman Empire) but it also promotes good treatment of slaves. Clearly a compromise with the Roman Empire or a forced Roman edit etc., after all, this is certainly not a Christian doctrine today (now, carry that reasoning to the Trinity Doctrine). I'm not saying that compromise was necessarily a bad thing, after all, the choices were limited in the Roman Empire and they were brutal with people who didn't "co-operate".

 

[Coder]

Have you considered that you can study any number of unrelated religions from around the world and find similar elements among them?

Yes, except they're not always so "unrelated".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Triad

 

[Forever_Catholic]

The "conversion" of the Roman Empire has resulted in disrespect/persecution of Jewish people for centuries. Now, you think that Jewish people had no interest in teaching others.

God warned the Israelites what would happen to them if they did not obey his commandments, and they didn't. They've payed a heavy price throughout history. II guess some of it was paid in Rome. You mentioned that Pope Francis apologized to the Jewish nation. I have no problem with that. Did he mention the great efforts that the Catholic Church made during Wold War II to protect Jews from the Nazis?

I don't doubt that God can come to us or appear to us in human form. Many Christians (Creed) say "I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty". They don't say "I believe in one God, Jesus Christ." Why not? You start by saying that you believe in one God - but now there's more after that? If Jesus is truly God in human form, then why doesn't the Creed simply say "I believe in one God ... He came to us in human form and conceived Himself in the womb of the virgin Mary..."? As I mentioned before (about the term "Holy Spirit"), if Jesus is the same God then why is the terminology "Son" needed. If praying to Jesus is the same as praying to God then what difference does it make what name you call Him? Don't Christians believe that God is one Personal Being?

Look at it this way, the Roman Emperor was called "Son of God", Zeus was human-god son of Hercules.... Judaism had no counterpart. No "Son of the one true God". Now, at the same period in history, we have a teaching that the one true God (that Jewish people worship) comes to us in human form? Coincidence? I don't know. God can do as He wills, but it may make one wonder. However, beyond that, not only do we have this teaching that God became man, but it's explained that His Son became man. Coincidence? There is also a simultaneous claim of a new revelation about God that He has a co-eternal Son. Coincidence?

It seems that a plausible explanation is that the title "Son of God" for Jesus was a means in the Roman Empire to transfer the title "Son of God" to another in such a way that: a.) the title is not blasphemous (revolting to Jewish people) as it is when referring to the Roman Emperor, and b.) that pagans of the Roman Empire might accept and c.) would be seen as an authority figure in place of the "Roman Emperor" also called "Son of God". Jesus is recorded as speaking of His authority. In the Roman Empire this "authority" probably had other connotations especially for superstitious pagan leaders who wanted blessings for victories and the Empire's dominance/success. "In this sign you shall conquer."! Combine that with "All authority in heaven (sky Jupiter) and earth has been given to me"! and the Roman Empire may have been very interested! Because they love God? No. Because they want in, if there's a "god" who can grant them victories, power, blessings, and success! That was their one "weakness", they believed in and relied on "gods" and were quite superstitious/ritualistic about it. Therefore, presenting Jesus as the "Son of God" seems an effective means to convert the Romans to belief in the one true God, which the Jews had been unable to do previously (but we shouldn't base a doctrine today on such a means). Also, notice how the Roman Soldier is recorded as saying "This man truly was the 'Son of God'". For the Roman emperors - whatever works, right? If this new "god" is powerful and can help them and all the soldiers are willing to go to battle and believe that their blessings come from this new "Son of God", that's fine with them - they'll sit in their palace drinking wine while the soldiers are out shedding blood for the Empire under the blessings of this new "Son of God". To them, getting the soldiers on board is good. "In this sign you shall conquer." and this view perhaps softened by: Romans 8:37

Could you imagine being a Jewish worshipper of God and the emperor of your kingdom must be called "Son of God" and Augustus was declared to be god!?

I don't think that we should have an inaccurate doctrine about God that is based on terminology ("Son of God") that was used to convert/appease the Roman Empire. Also, I propose that once the title "Son of God" was applied to Jesus for Roman Empire/pagan-relation purposes, the term "Holy Spirit" was brought in to the theology to clarify/strengthen the concept that Jesus is not "Son of God" like Hercules or the Roman Emperor (Divi Filius) but He is the Son of the one true God. You see, with existing belief in Jupiter (sky father), and Jesus titled "Son of God" you progress in acceptance by the Romans but are drifting too far from Jewish belief in the one true God. So, how does one emphasize that one is not speaking of Jupiter (father) and some other "son of god"? Well, it would seem that if one refers to the spiritual truth about the one true God as one Spiritual Being, and do this using a term ("Holy Spirit") that is known in Judaism, then you may have a doctrine that is in line with belief in the one true God (notice at mass, "unity" of the Holy Spirit). Yet, Jewish people don't believe it! Yes, many converted early in the movement, but today, with a formalized Trinity doctrine in place for centuries, relatively few Jewish people believe it, and I, like them, believe in the oneness of God and that God is not accurately presented in terms of having parts/persons.

I believe in one God that is one Spiritual Personal Being and that oneness was a very important revelation to the Jewish prophets and people in a time of beliefs in many gods. I believe that a Trinitarian obviously cannot believe that there exists one Spiritual Personal Being who is God that they can have a personal relationship with because any personal relationship must be with one of the three Persons. For a Trinitarian, there is no one "Person" who is God, there is a "Substance" (Nature).

Christianity, at least from the Christian point of view, fits perfectly with Judaism because it is the fulfillment of Judaism. The Old and New Testaments are practically woven together to form the complete book of salvation history. And whether Jews accept the notion or not, Judaism and Christianity are forever bound together.

But neither one merges with or can be reconciled with ancient Roman paganism. Coming to better know the God of Abraham would be a far less complicated effort if you would forget about Rome for a while and just seek to know God through his own words and in his own Church.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

God warned the Israelites what would happen to them if they did not obey his commandments, and they didn't.

Respectfully disagree. They heroically abstained from worship of false gods in the Roman Empire. Today, in reality, whether one obeys God's commandments has little to do with whether one is Christian or Jewish, but whether one is serious about their faith.

 

[Coder]

Coming to better know the God of Abraham would be a far less complicated effort if you would forget about Rome for a while...

I think that's what I am doing. The best way to forget about Rome is to avoid doctrines formulated under the influence of the Roman Empire and I would propose to the Roman Church to also "forget" about the early Roman Empire and revisit what the movement, initially among Jews and then called "Christianity" actually is. There is some movement in Catholicism in that direction today, it seems:
"...an important goal is the mining of the spiritual treasures concealed in Judaism for Christians..."
"But today religions should not be part of the problem, but part of the solution."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...i_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html
"...in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person..."
"...fact remains that Christian pneumatological terminology is rooted in that of the Jewish religion..."
"Rabbinical thought starts with the Spirit as Spirit of Prophecy..."
"Hebrew philosophy likens the Spirit to the rabbinical Shekinah..."
"The Mysticism of Rhenish Hassidism (12th-13th century) refers again to the ... splendor called Shekinah"
"In this last century Idealism rediscovers the absolute Spirit as the name for the absolute..."
"...underlines the spirit...as something tending to depersonalization, that is to greater transcendence..."

Pope Francis: "Christian doctrine is not a closed system..."
Pope Francis: "...it is a change of an era"
Pope Francis: "Dream of this church, believe in it, innovate it with freedom"

 

[Ben Avraham]

I believe there is no problem with the Trinity doctrine. There is a problem with the use of the term "persons" since the theological understanding of how the word is used and common English usage are two very different things.

So, what terms do you use?

 

[Muffled]

So, what terms do you use?

I use the term members as in members of a set. A member can therefore be anything including a concept. For instance in the set of Science fiction there can be the members of Alternate History, Space Adventures, Future Civilizations , Time Travel and Cataclysmic Events (like an asteroid hitting the earth).

 

[Muffled]

Love that verse!! Thank you. Here, Jesus is not saying he is God. Trinitarians say that. Look at all of the other verses in scripture that tell us that Jesus is NOT God. Jesus was like us, he gave God, his father, glory in everything he did. He was subject to his father and always will be. God was the God and father of Jesus, etc, etc.

In this verse, Jesus is saying that he is one with the father. That is true. Jesus is one with his father in many ways, in spirit, mind and purpose. He was in sync with Him in everything. Jesus wanted to do his father's will, not his own. Very simple.

Jesus is not God. Why people would ever want to believe in that is beyond me. God is one, not three.

Plus, don't forget. God gave Jesus everything!! Jesus could do nothing without the father. But, if Jesus was God, he wouldn't have to depend in God. But he did.

I believe that is an irrational statement.

I believe none of those verses say that Jesus is not God.

I believe this is not as simple as you think. The body of Jesus which is not God has a mind and a will of its own, but that does not exclude the Holy Spirit from being in Jesus and having the will of God which was able to overcome the will of the body.

I believe Jesus is God and saying the opposite is not going to convince me otherwise.

I want to believe that God loves me enough to suffer and die for me. When it comes time for me to suffer I want Him to know firsthand what He is asking me to do.

I believe this is true. The Father, Jesus and the Paraclete are one God not three.

I believe coincidence is not the same thing as dependence and you have misconstrued it as such.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hi Viole,
People have trouble conceiving eternity because they want to see a "beginning". Consider time itself as a concept in our universe - the space-time fabric. So time itself is a creation. God exists. In what we call time, He (She) already knows all past and future in this universe. To Him it's all one "existence". "I am". Exodus 3:14

(By the way, God is not associated with a gender. In English we have no gender-neutral personal pronoun so God is referred to as "He". Also the concept of God as "Father" does not have any gender concept, "Father" refers to God as creator.)

There is no need for an explanation of a cause or a beginning in regards to God because "cause" and "beginning" are merely concepts in space-time fabric. I.e. there is much we don't understand but God knows.

I don't know what text your using, but the same deific /male title, Jesus uses for the father, and Himself./ Jesus is male.

Hence, it's male.

 

[Muffled]

Coder said "I believe in one God that is one Spiritual Personal Being and that oneness was a very important revelation to the Jewish prophets and people in a time of beliefs in many gods. I believe that a Trinitarian obviously cannot believe that there exists one Spiritual Personal Being who is God that they can have a personal relationship with because any personal relationship must be with one of the three Persons. For a Trinitarian, there is no one "Person" who is God, there is a "Substance" (Nature)."

I do believe that so you are wrong in saying that I cannot.

I believe my relationship is with all three members of the Trinity as one God.

I believe you are incorrect.

 

[Muffled]

I don't know what text your using, but the same deific /male title, Jesus uses for the father, and Himself./ Jesus is male.

Hence, it's male.

However I believe the Paraclete can be male or female.

 

[moorea944]

I believe that is an irrational statement.

I believe none of those verses say that Jesus is not God.

I believe this is not as simple as you think. The body of Jesus which is not God has a mind and a will of its own, but that does not exclude the Holy Spirit from being in Jesus and having the will of God which was able to overcome the will of the body.

I believe Jesus is God and saying the opposite is not going to convince me otherwise.

I want to believe that God loves me enough to suffer and die for me. When it comes time for me to suffer I want Him to know firsthand what He is asking me to do.

I believe this is true. The Father, Jesus and the Paraclete are one God not three.

I believe coincidence is not the same thing as dependence and you have misconstrued it as such.

I believe that is an irrational statement.

That's because you believe in something like the trinity.

I believe none of those verses say that Jesus is not God.

That is because it is saying that Jesus is the son of God, not God the son.

The body of Jesus which is not God

I totally agree with you. Jesus is not God.

has a mind and a will of its own,

Yes, I agree with you again. People to have minds and a will of their own.

but that does not exclude the Holy Spirit from being in Jesus and having the will of God which was able to overcome the will of the body.

Yes, God's Spirit was in Jesus and he overcame temptation and sin.

I believe Jesus is God and saying the opposite is not going to convince me otherwise.

Well, you've still yet to show me that Jesus is God.

I want to believe that God loves me enough to suffer and die for me.

You must be thinking of someone else. God does not suffer or die. Are you thinking about Jesus?

I believe coincidence is not the same thing as dependence and you have misconstrued it as such.

That's what you think i've done because you believe in something like the trinity.

 

[MJFlores]

I propose that the "terminology" used in Scripture may itself be "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.

"father gods" and "son gods" ?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 New King James Version (NKJV)

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for 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 through whom we live.

Well, the first century church was apostatized in 325 AD during the time of Constantine when Jesus became god and in 380 AD, the HS became god too - that is the fulfillment of the prophecies in 2 Thessalonians

 

[Ben Avraham]

I use the term members as in members of a set. A member can therefore be anything including a concept. For instance in the set of Science fiction there can be the members of Alternate History, Space Adventures, Future Civilizations , Time Travel and Cataclysmic Events (like an asteroid hitting the earth).

You are referring to concepts as beings with consciousness. Concepts are related to conscious beings, not the other way around.

 

[MJFlores]

I propose that the "terminology" used in Scripture may itself be "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.

Well to me there is one God - the Father