• 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!

Christians are polytheists?

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No. Religion tells you to live like a servant, it tells you, you have to work to get salvation. Islam and Judaism tells you, you need to keep commandments to get to paradise. That's religous.
But Christianity says: You only have to believe. That's not religous, that's faith.
Sorry, but this is not the definition of a religion. What you are describing is simply a couple of the non-Christian religions. It doesn't mean that Christianity isn't a religion, just because it is different. Heck, Buddhism doesn't fit into your definition either.

By the way, the reason I obey God is because he is God and deserving of my obedience. Not to get to heaven. Did you know that the afterlife isn't even mentioned in the Torah? Anyhow, that's just an fyi.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Indeed. While there are various things in certain passages that pose legitimate grounds to question the authenticity of said passages in the Testimonium Flavium, which is what I’m speaking to (not what was written about James), historians have salvaged Josephus’s actual thoughts from it, as I have displayed above. His testimony makes it quite clear — unambiguously at that — that Jesus of Nazareth was, indeed, executed by crucifixion upon the orders of Pontius Pilate. Any attempt at obfuscating this reflects nothing except a foolish and vain attempt at discrediting one of the central convictions of the Christian religion: Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. It’s shameful to say the least of it, and I say this as a Pagan.

Jesus of Nazareth was indexed deemed to have been crucified historically, and that historical probability is not questioned really unless someone is a mythicist with an extreme agenda. I understand. But I dont resort to statements like Pagan or anything of the sort because those are just preaching tactics and is not valid for a historical discussion.

Still, that is not based on independent and direct verifiable sources, it is based on the historical method and though you get agitated over the word "probability", this is how historians work. When discussing a historical event or historicity of something you have to methodologically avoid faith and doctrine.

Cheers.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
I often hear Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses say to Christians, "You are not monotheists, you are polytheists"

Father, son, and holy spirit (one God or several?).

God's voice in the head proves his existence. Several voices in the head proves the existence of several entities.

Rolling on the floor, babbling incoherently, speaking in tongues (God's language), proves that God is real.

Relying on biblical accounts proves that many apostles heard Jesus say similar things.

The bible was written over a hundred years after the last apostle died, but, because the bible was written by ESP, contacting the dead apostles to find out their story, it must be the word of God.
An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God would by definition be as "polytheistic" as we humans are "poly-perceptual".

In the end the debate between poly- and mono-theism is just incidental sophistry, as all the religions ultimately recognize an ultimate singular divine source regardless of how many individual divine manifestations they identify.
This wasn't always the case. Ancient Jews were Polytheists. Christianity is based of the Jewish faith. Apparently, early on, Christians and Jews came to believe that the strongest God would be angry at other Gods, so they abandoned them entirely.
 

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Jesus of Nazareth was indexed deemed to have been crucified historically, and that historical probability is not questioned really unless someone is a mythicist with an extreme agenda. I understand. But I dont resort to statements like Pagan or anything of the sort because those are just preaching tactics and is not valid for a historical discussion.

Still, that is not based on independent and direct verifiable sources, it is based on the historical method and though you get agitated over the word "probability", this is how historians work. When discussing a historical event or historicity of something you have to methodologically avoid faith and doctrine.

Cheers.

To speak to the use of the word “Pagan”, it had no relevance to the subject matter at hand. It was a reference to myself and my own religious leanings.

Regarding the subject matter itself, you and I have been trying to work out (as a B-plot or C-plot, I suppose) whether or not crucifixion can be established independently of the Christian writings. I’m not agitated over the word “probability” or the concept of historical uncertainties. As a huge history enthusiast, I am, however, not fond of using those historical uncertainties to play circus games with clear-cut matters of history The crucifixion is an independently established (i.e. outside of the New Testament) fact in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of what any of us want to believe or disbelieve, not only by Josephus – as I’ve demonstrated – but also by Tacitus. The written material bears it witness even without partiality.

To speak to you personally, I understand that you are a devout Muslim, so I can expect you to be skeptical of something that would disprove what you may understand religiously, but in matters of established history, the truth is the truth, and we must consent to follow it wherever it leads. Food for thought. Be well.

 

firedragon

Veteran Member
To speak to the use of the word “Pagan”, it had no relevance to the subject matter at hand. It was a reference to myself and my own religious leanings.

Im sorry to have misunderstood you.

Regarding the subject matter itself, you and I have been trying to work out (as a B-plot or C-plot, I suppose) whether or not crucifixion can be established independently of the Christian writings. I’m not agitated over the word “probability” or the concept of historical uncertainties. As a huge history enthusiast, I am, however, not fond of using those historical uncertainties to play circus games with clear-cut matters of history The crucifixion is an independently established (i.e. outside of the New Testament) fact in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of what any of us want to believe or disbelieve, not only by Josephus – as I’ve demonstrated – but also by Tacitus. The written material bears it witness even without partiality.

It could be fact. Not necessarily because it is not really established independently. But as he was probably convicted of sedition, as they did to all other christ claimants, he was also probably crucified.

To speak to you personally, I understand that you are a devout Muslim, so I can expect you to be skeptical of something that would disprove what you may understand religiously, but in matters of established history, the truth is the truth, and we must consent to follow it wherever it leads. Food for thought. Be well.

Thats ad hominem. Irrelevant. But thanks for the wishes and I wish you well too.
 

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Im sorry to have misunderstood you.

It’s all right. Perhaps I should be more dispassionate in matters of debate.

It could be fact. Not necessarily because it is not really established independently. But as he was probably convicted of sedition, as they did to all other christ claimants, he was also probably crucified.

This is absolutely true. It’s quite believable that this were so, rather than saying that Jesus died for your sins.


Thats ad hominem. Irrelevant. But thanks for the wishes and I wish you well too.

I see. My sincerest apologies to you, @firedragon. This sort of behavior is immature on my part. It’s inexcusable. I hope you’re willing to forgive me.

Again, best wishes to you. Be well.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It’s all right. Perhaps I should be more dispassionate in matters of debate.



This is absolutely true. It’s quite believable that this were so, rather than saying that Jesus died for your sins.




I see. My sincerest apologies to you, @firedragon. This sort of behavior is immature on my part. It’s inexcusable. I hope you’re willing to forgive me.

Again, best wishes to you. Be well.

All good brother. Cheers.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Each person of the godhead can individually, autonomously and simultaneously, create an entire universe on their own,
I have never heard any Trinitarian claim this. I've never heard anyone before today even say this. In fact, it explicitly states in scriptures that all things that are created, are created through the Logos, which is God itself. One God, creating all things. Logos is that one God creating. Logos is God manifested and manifesting. Not a different deity creating its own creations. No Trinitarian imagines that, that I'm aware of.

providentially care for the maintenance and sustentation of all things pertaining to their universe, and answer all the prayers of the beings created in their image - for all intents and purposes, this is categorically not monotheism!
It is also not Trinitarianism.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
I often hear Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses say to Christians, "You are not monotheists, you are polytheists" And I see how some Christians try to defend the status as monotheists, and I wonder why? For it doesn't matter if you are a monotheist or a polytheist, what matters is which God you believe in. I as a Christian say I believe in 100 Gods, but these 100 Gods do not contradict each other in their divine nature, they are one and harmonize with each other. So I am a polytheist, but I as a Christian can say that as a polytheist I will stand victorious in the end, because I believe that God became man and was crucified and was raised, which is of course my personal belief.


Hi,

Hi,

"Christians...try to defend the status as monotheists, and I wonder why?"

Perhaps it's because the Bible clearly states that there is only one true God whose name is Jehovah.
Further it indicates that exclusive worship should only be given to Jehovah and that all other Gods are false Gods and should be considered as dung.

You are right in finding that the doctrines of Christendom can be confusing, however the Bible's teaching on the matter of monotheism are quite straightforward and incontestable.
 

DNB

Christian
@DNB What do you believe the Christian scriptures teach about Jesus? What is Jesus to you? How do you view the holy spirit?

Thanks.
Hi Rival, I believe that Jesus is both the first-born of creation, and the first-born from the dead. He is, before the beginning of time, ordained by the one and only God, who is the Father, to be the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Messiah and saviour of mankind.
Jesus Christ is 200% human, and had neither consciousness nor pre-existence prior to his birth in 6-4BC.

The Holy Spirit is God's empowerment to humans that allows them to operate, in accordance with God's will, in miraculous and supernatural ways - in order to bring other men to the realization and appreciation of God eg: the early Church spread the word with such expediency due to bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon them.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi Rival, I believe that Jesus is both the first-born of creation, and the first-born from the dead. He is, before the beginning of time, ordained by the one and only God, who is the Father, to be the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Messiah and saviour of mankind.
Jesus Christ is 200% human, and had neither consciousness nor pre-existence prior to his birth in 6-4BC.

The Holy Spirit is God's empowerment to humans that allows them to operate, in accordance with God's will, in miraculous and supernatural ways - in order to bring other men to the realization and appreciation of God eg: the early Church spread the word with such expediency due to bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon them.
Thanks for explaining that.
 

DNB

Christian
I have never heard any Trinitarian claim this. I've never heard anyone before today even say this. In fact, it explicitly states in scriptures that all things that are created, are created through the Logos, which is God itself. One God, creating all things. Logos is that one God creating. Logos is God manifested and manifesting. Not a different deity creating its own creations. No Trinitarian imagines that, that I'm aware of.


It is also not Trinitarianism.
If Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that Jesus is not the father nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit Jesus or the Father, and that the Father is neither of the other two, then what the flippin' heck are they besides autonomous and all-powerful gods, each and every one of them?
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi Rival, I believe that Jesus is both the first-born of creation, and the first-born from the dead. He is, before the beginning of time, ordained by the one and only God, who is the Father, to be the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Messiah and saviour of mankind.
Jesus Christ is 200% human, and had neither consciousness nor pre-existence prior to his birth in 6-4BC.

I still need to reply to your previous responses (which I will get around to, although I have limited time this weekend because I'm presently moving to another city and searching for a new apartment) but your post above to @Rival is interesting.

Based on the combination of a strong denial of the doctrine of Christ's personal pre-existence and nontrinitarianism, I would surmise (please correct me if wrong) that you are likely Christadelphian - or at least Socinian in theology.

Needless to say, I regard your opposition to the idea of Christ's personal pre-existence to be against the New Testament.

A consensus of scholars actually concur that the NT teaches the eternal pre-existence of Jesus i.e. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, where explicitly the “Lord Jesus Christ” is posited as the one “through whom are all things". In the case of NT texts about Jesus, they typically place him as “there” at, and as the divine agent of, the creation of all things. Consider the likes of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Hebrews 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-16 and Philippians 2:6-8.

This scholarship (i.e. Hurtado, Ehrman, Bauckham, Fletcher-Louis) has shed a considerable amount of light upon what first century Christians, the ones who produced the gospels and letters, believed about Jesus's divinity.

Basically, the early Christians held that Jesus had personally pre-existed in spirit prior to his birth, existing with the Father before creation and was the Father's 'agent' of creation, the one through whom the Father created the cosmos:




6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

The above statement is not thought by scholars to have been composed by Paul, rather they believe he was referencing an already well-known creed of the primitive church, which tells us that the earliest Christians had already come to regard Jesus as a pre-existent divine agent of creation co-eternal with God, here incorporating him into the shema.

An established exegetical paradigm can be seen in a number of verses in the New Testament, whereby the sacred author quotes or alludes to something in the Tanakh which originally referred to YHWH, and instead applies it to Jesus.

A great example of this practice is from Hebrews 1:10-12, which quotes Psalm 102:25-27.

The original text is a hymn addressed to YHWH (Adonai Elohim, the Lord God: "But you, O Lord [YHWH] are enthroned forever" [verse 12]) but the New Testament writer transposes it directly onto Jesus, and reads it as being about his eternal role as creator of the universe:


"8 But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
......
10 And,
In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands
;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.”"
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.”"

(Hebrews 1: 8-12)​
In this way, a passage clearly and indisputably about YHWH (the Lord) in the original Hebrew Psalm, has been applied to Jesus, the incarnation of the 'Wisdom/Word' of God, whom the text describes as having pre-existed with the Father before the creation of the World, in the exact same terms as God (as "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" (Hebrews 1:3).

Likewise, throughout the text of the Gospel of John, the en (was God) from the Johannine prologue in the first line of the gospel (i.e. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God), is picked up as ego eimi in the absolute form without predicate and placed in the mouth of Jesus, such as in phrases like, "Before Abraham was, I am (ego eimi)" (John 8:58) which seems intended to mimic how the LXX alludes to the tetragrammaton: “I AM' [ego eimi] who comforts you” (Isa. 51:12 LXX), as God's self-referential of His uniqueness.

An interesting parallel verse to consider, from later in John's gospel, when explicating the opening line of the prologue is I think John 8:58:



(Literally) "Jesus said to them: "Truly, before Abraham came into being (γενέσθαι genesthai), I am (ego eimi)". So they picked up stones to throw at him"​


This verse uses different tenses of the exact same terms genesthai "came into being / came to be" and eimi "am" (en "was") that are used in the prologue.

In most translations - such as the NRSV and KJV - genesthai is in this verse is rendered: "before Abraham was" (in the NIV, "before Abraham was born") because it is in the past tense (referring to a coming into being in time at some point in the past).

But Jesus, on the other hand, is never referred to with any tense of the verb ginomai (except when the prologue says, "the Word became (egeneto) flesh" for when He entered into time in a mortal body/tabernacle).

In the prologue, the Word isn't described as "In the beginning was (genesthai) the Word" (which would mean, the Word came into being in the beginning) but rather "In the beginning was (en) the Word" using the imperfect past continuous tense of eimi (am).

Compare with Abraham in this verse: as a creature, a created being who came into existence at some point in time, he is ginomai/genesthai. The Word incarnate in Jesus, on the other hand, is eimi/en - that is to say, he impliedly just is according to the author, an eternally subsisting and pre-existing 'being' that never came into being within time.

The statement by John here is explicitly designed to imitate and allude to classic affirmations of the unique and eternally abiding being of God from the LXX (Septuagint) versions of the Tanakh:


"Before the mountains came into being [genethenai, the passive form of genesthai] and the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, you are [su ei, the second-person equivalent of ego eimi "I am"]" (Psalm 90:2 [89:2 in the LXX]).​


The Greek sentence above is reflective of the exact same grammatical structure as John 8:58 and relies upon precisely the same verbs in drawing the same contrast between that which was created/came into being in time (thus finite) and that which is uncreated/did not come into being in time but is eternal (the Word, pre-incarnate Jesus).

(continued....)
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
To quote the late Professor Larry Hurtado:


"The ascription of “pre-existence” to Jesus wasn’t a late development, but appears already presupposed in texts as early as the 1 Cor 8:4-6 text cited above, and also, e.g., in the famous passage in Philippians 2:6-11 (esp. vv. 6-8)...As various other scholars as well have observed, the conviction that Jesus had been exalted to heavenly/divine glory seems to have triggered the logical corollary that he must, in some sense, have been “there” from the beginning, and that God’s redemption work is tied closely to God’s creation work."​


From pages 119 - 124 of his now standard treatment of the topic in the book, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity:


"…The overwhelming majority of scholars in the field agree that there are at least a few passages in Paul’s undisputed letters that reflect and presuppose the idea of Jesus’ preexistence…

Most scholars take these verses to reflect a belief in the personal preexistence and incarnation of Christ

Paul’s formulaic statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6 indicates that already at that early point in the Christian movement believers were attributing to Christ not only preexistence or foreordination, but also an active role as divine agent in creation.…This is a suitable point at which to underscore certain key results of this discussion of Jesus’ preexistence…It appeared astonishingly early in the Christian movement. Second, the condensed nature of the references indicates that Paul was not introducing the idea but presumed acquaintance with it already among his converts…Third, these references include reflections of the idea that Christ was actively involved as divine agent in creation…

One final point: in these Pauline statements it is the historic figure Jesus who is referred to as preexistent…These passages directly attribute to Jesus personally a preexistence and a central role in creation…"


Likewise, another scholar Bart Ehrman - himself an atheist - has affirmed the personal pre-existence of Jesus prior to his human birth:


"…Jesus certainly was a human with a human family for Paul. But he became a human after being a divine being with God. See Phil. 2:6-8…According to Phil. 2:6-8 he is equal with God for the time being.

It’s because of the last lines, that every knee shall bow to Christ and every tongue confess — words applied to Yahweh, and him alone, in Isaiah 45…"


Simply put, a dyadic or binatarian cultic devotional pattern centered around the monotheistic worship of these two co-eternal, pre-existent divine figures - God the the Father and the Lord Jesus, with the later subsumed into the worship of the former - had become a central plank of nascent Christian belief when Paul wrote his letters, such that he doesn’t even think to expand upon the idea but just endorses it as self-evident.

The difficulty for Christians then and thereafter concerned reasoning philosophically how Jesus could be a co-eternal divine agent of creation with God the Father, but pared with the fact that there was still only one God in a monotheistic framework. Later ontological theorizing, beginning probably in the second century, provided the best way of doing this and Hurtado regards this development as a “natural” progression to smooth out the difficulties and firmly avoid the unintended spectre of ditheism (i.e. two eternal creator deities, albeit one subordinate to the other). To quote Hurtado:


Over the 400 years following Paul, the early church struggled to develop doctrines adequate to express and justify this binitarian monotheism. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 and the Chalcedonian Creed of AD451 are the classic formulations. But well before these developments – indeed, driving these developments – was the binitarian pattern of early Christian devotion and worship reflected in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. In other words, it is not an exaggeration to say that the 400 years of doctrinal controversy which followed Paul were essentially an attempt to form doctrine adequate to the pattern of religious life which had taken shape within the first 20 years of the Christian movement. (Themelios 19 (1994): 4)

In the Old Testament, there is an incontrovertible statement about YHWH being the sole creator deity (Isaiah 40-55). If then, there is only one eternally pre-existent Creator God (YHWH) as per the Tanakh yet in the New Testament we have a reaffirmation of this unique creator-monotheism but alongside the revelation that a divine “dyad” or “binatarian pair” - Jesus and God the Father - actually created everything and have always existed in relation to one another (i.e. John 17:5 “the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed”)…then it stands to reason that one has to ultimately admit of something close to the eventual doctrine of Nicene Trinitarian hypostases with one ousia.

The Patristics had to reconcile strict creator-monotheism with the cultic practice of a dyadic-monotheism in the New Testament and earliest Christian worship, in which there seem to be two distinct figures - one of them having been a recently existing human person, Jesus of Nazareth - both on the Creator side of the Creator/creature divide, both eternal, and both subsumed within the identity of YHWH, the one creator God.

Once you begin to think about the relationship between the co-eternal, pre-existent Father and Son in the one identity of the single creator-God YHWH prior to the creation of the world using philosophical categories (as second century Christians inevitably had to in defence of the faith before Hellenistic audiences), ontological christology becomes a practically inevitable development, which is unsurprisingly what occurred from the second century CE onwards through to the councils.
 
Last edited:

DNB

Christian
To quote the late Professor Larry Hurtado:
Simply put, a dyadic or binatarian cultic devotional pattern centered around the monotheistic worship of these two co-eternal, pre-existent divine figures - God the the Father and the Lord Jesus, with the later subsumed into the worship of the former - had become a central plank of nascent Christian belief when Paul wrote his letters, such that he doesn’t even think to expand upon the idea but just endorses it as self-evident.​

The difficulty for Christians then and thereafter concerned reasoning philosophically how Jesus could be a co-eternal divine agent of creation with God the Father, but pared with the fact that there was still only one God in a monotheistic framework. Later ontological theorizing, beginning probably in the second century, provided the best way of doing this and Hurtado regards this development as a “natural” progression to smooth out the difficulties and firmly avoid the unintended spectre of ditheism (i.e. two eternal creator deities, albeit one subordinate to the other). To quote Hurtado:

Over the 400 years following Paul, the early church struggled to develop doctrines adequate to express and justify this binitarian monotheism. The Nicene Creed of AD 325 and the Chalcedonian Creed of AD451 are the classic formulations. But well before these developments – indeed, driving these developments – was the binitarian pattern of early Christian devotion and worship reflected in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. In other words, it is not an exaggeration to say that the 400 years of doctrinal controversy which followed Paul were essentially an attempt to form doctrine adequate to the pattern of religious life which had taken shape within the first 20 years of the Christian movement. (Themelios 19 (1994): 4)
In the Old Testament, there is an incontrovertible statement about YHWH being the sole creator deity (Isaiah 40-55). If then, there is only one eternally pre-existent Creator God (YHWH) as per the Tanakh yet in the New Testament we have a reaffirmation of this unique creator-monotheism but alongside the revelation that a divine “dyad” or “binatarian pair” - Jesus and God the Father - actually created everything and have always existed in relation to one another (i.e. John 17:5 “the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed”)…then it stands to reason that one has to ultimately admit of something close to the eventual doctrine of Nicene Trinitarian hypostases with one ousia.

The Patristics had to reconcile strict creator-monotheism with the cultic practice of a dyadic-monotheism in the New Testament and earliest Christian worship, in which there seem to be two distinct figures - one of them having been a recently existing human person, Jesus of Nazareth - both on the Creator side of the Creator/creature divide, both eternal, and both subsumed within the identity of YHWH, the one creator God.

Once you begin to think about the relationship between the co-eternal, pre-existent Father and Son in the one identity of the single creator-God YHWH prior to the creation of the world using philosophical categories (as second century Christians inevitably had to in defence of the faith before Hellenistic audiences), ontological christology becomes a practically inevitable development, which is unsurprisingly what occurred from the second century CE onwards through to the councils.
I am unitarian (not of the universalist kind), monotheist to the pure and precise meaning of the term.
.
Vouthon, I can't express enough about your incredible acumen in study, and your inexhaustible willingness and effort to impart your position. But, again, I find that the requirement of so much rhetoric and esoteric knowledge to validate your point, entirely impugns your thesis - the Bible does not impart doctrine by inference nor erudition, nor are extra-biblical sources considered authoritative.

Excuse what might appear as a deferral to address the Scriptural proof text that you provided - but, on the contrary, for this is the proper and fundamental hermeneutics that one must apply in regard to such a Christology:

1. Nowhere are the creedal nor definitional terms found in the entirety of the Bible: trinity, triune, three-in-one, two-in-one (natures), God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, incarnation, hypostatic union, god-man, etc...
2. From all the major Patriarchs, Prophets or Apostles, within all their prayers, doxologies, and prophecies, and definitive acclamations about God, never do we read a single exaltations that refers to God as more than a singular entity, person or consciousness.
3. Not one conversion that took place in the New Testament, required a trinitarian formula, statement nor allusion, in order to precipitate or procure the salvation of the convert.
4. The utter redundancy that is necessitated when we claim that there are three all-powerful consciousnesses in the godhead, when only one is required to create and maintain the universe, and answer all the prayers of those created in His image.
5. The incontrovertibly absurd and inefficacious soteriology that explicates God, coming down to earth to be abused and humiliated by His own creation, in order to obey His own Law and propitiate His own wrath, in order to exalt Himself to the place that He was already at.
6. Not one of the trinitarian's leading proponents have ever been able to explain or comprehend what they have just concluded - one cannot be convicted of what they cannot understand.

That is, Vouthon, it doesn't even matter now what Biblical passages that you provide in order to substantiate your position, for you have defied every sound hermeneutical and exegetical principle that is required to properly establish a qualified doctrine.

All the same, the undeniable significance and profundity of the tetragrammaton lies in the latter part of the statement, that is, 'I am' is utterly meaningless without the latter clause. This is why the LXX, in contradiction to what you stated, employs 'ho on' and not 'ego eimi' as the divine ascription to His name. 'Ehyeh' in Hebrew is grammatically incomplete and meaningless, but 'ehyeh asher ahyeh' now has significance, ... at a profound level.

All of the 'I am' statements that are ascribed to Jesus should be translated as 'I am he', as they are almost everywhere else throughout the NT, for again 'ho on' is the appellation of Deity.
When the soldiers fell down before Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus clearly stated that '...I am he, let these people go...' (John 18:8) .
In regard to the Jews willing to stone him after he said '...before Abraham was, I am..' (John 8:58) , the context is about the accusation that Jesus thought that he was '...greater than Abraham our Father..' (John 8:53). Therefore, according to Levitical Law, one must never speak ill or show contempt for the leader of their people (Exodus 22:28). For, just as David slew the Amalekite who killed Saul, God's anointed, or Miriam turning leprous and Korah's band being swallowed up by an earthquake for challenging Moses, death was prescribed for those who rose up against God's chosen ones.

As far as Jesus being the creator, you are now giving Jesus autonomy which you denied previously, by asserting that the trinity is not functional, but relational. Not to mention, that if the all-powerful Father is the creator, which is accepted by all, then what does it serve to have another all-powerful person assist in this seemingly unchallenging endeavour (for a transcendent deity)?
The passages that you quoted that appeared to denote Christ's involvement in creation, have been misconstrued. Christ is the reason, not the ability or force behind creation. God's desire to create all things was both inspired by, and intended for, Jesus Christ. That is, all things came into being via (by, through) the notion of Jesus. He was not created for us, but us for him, even though the chronology of history appears otherwise. This is my point, the mystery of Christ is not in his ontology, but in his chronology.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
It’s all right. Perhaps I should be more dispassionate in matters of debate.



This is absolutely true. It’s quite believable that this were so, rather than saying that Jesus died for your sins.




I see. My sincerest apologies to you, @firedragon. This sort of behavior is immature on my part. It’s inexcusable. I hope you’re willing to forgive me.

Again, best wishes to you. Be well.
You might say that this post is "subtracthominem."
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
An omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God would by definition be as "polytheistic" as we humans are "poly-perceptual".

In the end the debate between poly- and mono-theism is just incidental sophistry, as all the religions ultimately recognize an ultimate singular divine source regardless of how many individual divine manifestations they identify.

Incidental Sophistry. Why won't you think that your post above is just sophistry? Saying something is sophistry as an argument itself is sophistry, especially when crude generalisations like that are sometimes baseless. In my opinion your post above is exactly sophistry and nothing else. You made a fact which is most, not all, polytheistic religions ultimately have a source deity, but you generalised it to all religions which is baseless. So you uses a factual matter to generalise to all, which is sophistry. Especially since you made a baseless claim that by definition an "omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God would by definition be as "polytheistic" as we humans are "poly-perceptual". Knowing this is a baseless claim, this is exactly "sophistry". Nothing more, nothing less.

In Egypt there is a God called Ana Thuathi. There are two types of theologies built on these Gods. One is they all are guardian Gods or Ra, the other is they are all equal Gods to Ra with a different role to play. There is no source God. I am just giving examples to show that you just made a baseless generalisation saying all theologies be have a source or one major big daddy God.

In Asia there are some areas where they believe in four different tribes of humans called Pretha, Deva, Raksha, and Yaksha and all of them are four equal divinities that gave birth to four different tribes of humans. No source God. Its like a bush of life, not the tree of life. ;)

Also a God who is monotheistic by principle cannot be by definition polytheistic as you said which is an oxymoron. Its a logical impossibility. Being a rational person, even if you dont believe in any divinities or anything of the sort, when making claims try to stick rationality. Even if you wish to make a hypothetical case. Law of contradiction mate.

Also the debate between polytheism and monotheism takes different shapes based on the theology or theologies you are taking in to account. Some theologies are so monotheistic that even your own ego can be a theos which is idol worship to worship your own ego. That level of monotheism by definition cannot be polytheistic. Its another oxymoron. Its logically impossible.

You can dismiss everything if you like, but I say cheers to you. Cheers.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
" God became man and was crucified and was raised, which is of course my personal belief. "

And it is not correct. Jesus never said it. Please quote from Jesus in first person in this connection, not from the Gospels, which is a third person narrative, please.
Regarding the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, they can be gleaned from the text of the New Testament, but outside of this, they are conjecture. The crucifixion, however, is independently verified through the few available historical sources (see Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus, and a brief reference in Mara bar Serapion’s letter).
In the matters of religion the word of its founder is the core of the religion. The claim and reason must be from the word of the founder.
One agrees with me that Jesus never said it in first person. The rest is just conjecture and of no value, please. Right?

Regards
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Also a God who is monotheistic by principle cannot be by definition polytheistic as you said which is an oxymoron. Its a logical impossibility.

The Jewish religion used to be polytheistic. They likely thought that belief in other Gods would anger the most powerful God (who said that I am the one and only God, and there will be no other). So, ancient Jews picked one God (the most powerful one), and ignored the rest.

The Christian and Muslim religions are spin-offs of the Jewish religion. So, if other Gods used to exist, those other Gods are also a part of the Christian and Muslim faith.

This is precisely why Christians and Muslims should attend Jewish temples to find out more about the roots of their own religion from those who sort of speak Hebrew (actually their language was made extinct...they were not allowed to speak or write it...but they held on to some of it by word of mouth, and revived it to modern Hebrew).

So, Christians and Muslims are also polytheists (because they believe in the Jewish faith somewhat), and they don't even know it.

So, it is entirely possible for a polytheist to almost abandon belief in the minor Gods while choosing the most powerful (making them monotheists...but actually they are polytheists who abandoned all but one God).
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Jewish religion used to be polytheistic. They likely thought that belief in other Gods would anger the most powerful God (who said that I am the one and only God, and there will be no other). So, ancient Jews picked one God (the most powerful one), and ignored the rest.

Sorry but I dont agree. Some of the bible verses may make people like Abrahm polytheistic due to quotes just like what you said. Do not worship other Gods may be thought of polytheistic or monolatry. But it is very well known that it is a model that rejects all kinds of "models of God". that doest not mean other gods exist.

This is precisely why Christians and Muslims should attend Jewish temples to find out more about the roots of their own religion from those who sort of speak Hebrew (actually their language was made extinct...they were not allowed to speak or write it...but they held on to some of it by word of mouth, and revived it to modern Hebrew).

This has been done extensively.
 
Top