The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)

[Coder]

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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I'm not understanding. Scripture is pretty to-the-point in its language and doesn't point to god having parts and non trinitarian view. The terminology is basic and rather than a parable, it's indirect in most cases. English in communication is an indirect language. So, of course there'd be misconceptions on god-parts but if people actually looked at indirect responses since they are part of English too; we could bypass all the fancy terms and, well, just see it as it is.

In other words, I just see people making something so simple complex only because it has to do with god. In many cases, that's not necessary.

 

[Coder]

In other words, I just see people making something so simple complex only because it has to do with god. In many cases, that's not necessary.

Hi, yes if you see the OP, it actually agrees with you in a sense. You see, most Christians believe that God is a Trinity (complex) and I believe more in the oneness of God - that's what I mean by "non-Trinitarian". The Christian Trinity doctrine states that God exists in "three persons". You see, for example, one of the reasons that Jewish people do not see Christianity as valid is because of the Trinity (God in three persons). Jewish people do not believe that God has "parts" or "persons" and I also see God as one.

The following may also help:

At the end of the Gospel of John, it tells us what it's purpose is. Does it say that it's purpose is to form doctrine for those who already believe? No, it says there were "many other things..." but "these were written" that "you" may believe. Who is it saying "that you may believe" to? Is it saying this to apostles and members of the Church who already believe? No, it is saying "that you may believe" to the people of the day (primarily Greek/Roman/pagans). So, of course it would use terminology and parables that they could relate to and the early Church did as well (e.g. in prayers at mass).

Again, notice how it says "but these were written that you may believe". What is the "these" that were written for them? What I am saying is that "these" were the father-son "god" parables written for "them" that "they" may believe. They weren't written for us modern monotheists.

This is one of the Roman "gods". The Greeks/Romans believed in many "gods".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

By the way, "Ju-piter" means "sky father". 'pater" is the Latin word for "father". Notice "sky"/"heavens". Notice how we now have the planet Jupiter in the "sky". Also notice Jupiter "sky-father", and Christian "Father in Heaven".

The Greeks/Romans believed in many "gods", including "gods' who impregnated human women and had human-god children. The coincidence with Christianity seems uncanny.

The Scriptures may not be as "simple" as might appear due to Roman/Greek/pagan influence. The Romans emperors themselves were also called "son of god" ("divi filius" in Latin).

 

[atpollard]

It all sounds great, unless you actually read what the Bible says.
Then these theories seem like nonsense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi, yes if you see the OP, it actually agrees with you in a sense. You see, most Christians believe that God is a Trinity (complex) and I believe more in the oneness of God - that's what I mean by "non-Trinitarian". The Christian Trinity doctrine states that God exists in "three persons". You see, for example, one of the reasons that Jewish people do not see Christianity as valid is because of the Trinity (God in three persons). Jewish people do not believe that God has "parts" or "persons" and I also see God as one.

The following may also help:

At the end of the Gospel of John, it tells us what it's purpose is. Does it say that it's purpose is to form doctrine for those who already believe? No, it says there were "many other things..." but "these were written" that "you" may believe. Who is it saying "that you may believe" to? Is it saying this to apostles and members of the Church who already believe? No, it is saying "that you may believe" to the people of the day (primarily Greek/Roman/pagans). So, of course it would use terminology and parables that they could relate to and the early Church did as well (e.g. in prayers at mass).

Again, notice how it says "but these were written that you may believe". What is the "these" that were written for them? What I am saying is that "these" were the father-son "god" parables written for "them" that "they" may believe. They weren't written for us modern monotheists.

This is one of the Roman "gods". The Greeks/Romans believed in many "gods".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

By the way, "Ju-piter" means "sky father". 'pater" is the Latin word for "father". Notice "sky"/"heavens". Notice how we now have the planet Jupiter in the "sky". Also notice Jupiter "sky-father", and Christian "Father in Heaven".

The Greeks/Romans believed in many "gods", including "gods' who impregnated human women and had human-god children. The coincidence with Christianity seems uncanny.

The Scriptures may not be as "simple" as might appear due to Roman/Greek/pagan influence. The Romans emperors themselves were also called "son of god" ("divi filius" in Latin).

That makes sense logically. What boggles me, but I am not Christian, is that many Christians either cannot see, deny, or do not know that their faith is not Jewish but Jewish influenced but highly Pagan (native Roman beliefs) elements in it. How does one get the actual teachings of Christ without going through his Jewish and Roman apostles? That, and they say that everything in scripture is inspired by god. If the oneness of god is beyond physical plains then not even the apostles and prophets as people, as humans (jesus included) cannot portray god's nature. If they did, they would die on the spot.

To tell you honestly, I don't know if there is such thing as a "Christ-ian" religion because of most Christians are saying their faith is of Jesus only and not also influenced by the Romans (pagans), then they are basically seeing the apostles as spokes people for god.

In my eyes, if I believed in a creator, no one would speak for god. That doesn't make sense given the nature of his personality in the OT. That, an in the OT, god specifically spoke to people. In the NT, Christians get knowledge of god third hand. Through Christ-through the apostles-then to them.

So, it could be somewhat Jewish but I wouldn't compare Roman influenced Jewish beliefs to Judaism. It doesn't sit right.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi, yes if you see the OP, it actually agrees with you in a sense. You see, most Christians believe that God is a Trinity (complex) and I believe more in the oneness of God - that's what I mean by "non-Trinitarian". The Christian Trinity doctrine states that God exists in "three persons". You see, for example, one of the reasons that Jewish people do not see Christianity as valid is because of the Trinity (God in three persons). Jewish people do not believe that God has "parts" or "persons" and I also see God as one.

The following may also help:

At the end of the Gospel of John, it tells us what it's purpose is. Does it say that it's purpose is to form doctrine for those who already believe? No, it says there were "many other things..." but "these were written" that "you" may believe. Who is it saying "that you may believe" to? Is it saying this to apostles and members of the Church who already believe? No, it is saying "that you may believe" to the people of the day (primarily Greek/Roman/pagans). So, of course it would use terminology and parables that they could relate to and the early Church did as well (e.g. in prayers at mass).

Again, notice how it says "but these were written that you may believe". What is the "these" that were written for them? What I am saying is that "these" were the father-son "god" parables written for "them" that "they" may believe. They weren't written for us modern monotheists.

This is one of the Roman "gods". The Greeks/Romans believed in many "gods".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

By the way, "Ju-piter" means "sky father". 'pater" is the Latin word for "father". Notice "sky"/"heavens". Notice how we now have the planet Jupiter in the "sky". Also notice Jupiter "sky-father", and Christian "Father in Heaven".

The Greeks/Romans believed in many "gods", including "gods' who impregnated human women and had human-god children. The coincidence with Christianity seems uncanny.

The Scriptures may not be as "simple" as might appear due to Roman/Greek/pagan influence. The Romans emperors themselves were also called "son of god" ("divi filius" in Latin).

I do have to ask. Why do you call yourself a Christian? I see someone who is Christian following Roman/pagan influenced and bits and pieces of Jewish beliefs. If one is a follower of Christ rather than the Apostles and what they wrote (who the bible was talking to in your post), then maybe there is another word that describes your faith?

In the NT, they usually say disciple or follower. If you didn't go by the Bible, given all you said, how would you define your faith?

 

[Coder]

So, it could be somewhat Jewish but I wouldn't compare Roman influenced Jewish beliefs to Judaism. It doesn't sit right.

You are very insightful. I encourage Christians to read modern Jewish literature because many Jewish scholars are now familiar with the NT and they can help Christians to take their blinders off a bit and see that they (the Jews) have sought to stand true to God's warning not to follow false Gods and they do not believe that God has parts/persons. I also encourage Christians to look into the pagan father-son terminology in regards to the Trinity doctrine.

I also encourage Christians and Protestants in general to look at doctrines such as the Trinity as having been "handed down" as "traditions of men" from the Roman influences. They broke from Roman Catholicism and always speak of "traditions of men" - well folks, take a look at the Trinity doctrine that was handed down to you!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are very insightful. I encourage Christians to read modern Jewish literature because many Jewish scholars are now familiar with the NT and they can help Christians to take their blinders off a bit and see that they (the Jews) have sought to stand true to God's warning not to follow false Gods and they do not believe that God has parts/persons. I also encourage Christians to look into the pagan father-son terminology in regards to the Trinity doctrine.

I also encourage Christians and Protestants in general to look at doctrines such as the Trinity as having been "handed down" as "traditions of men" from the Roman influences. They broke from Roman Catholicism and always speak of "traditions of men" - well folks, take a look at the Trinity doctrine that was handed down to you!

I don't mean to be rude to anyone's faith, but you know what's fickle (no pun) about the idea? Roman Catholicism acknowledges fully that part of their beliefs are Roman (native pagan). They also believe that Roman beliefs are a part of Christianity. I honestly believe Roman Catholicism is Christianity given a lot of things those who protest against the church tried to distance themselves away from.

Whether RC spiritually right or wrong, I can't say. I was confirmed five years ago; and, if I go back it would be Roman Catholic. However, it's interesting that some protestants don't pick that up in their belief systems as Roman Catholics do even if by another name.

I mean, it doesn't mean Christianity is wrong. Jesus is still Jesus. Just they are putting it in the Jewish category where it doesn't belong.

 

[Coder]

I do have to ask. Why do you call yourself a Christian?

Yes, excellent question. I do have questions. Some scholars, including a Catholic priest, think that Jesus may be a mythological character! I haven't gotten to quite that level of concern/skepticism. I currently identify culturally/philosophically in terms of love of God and neighbor with Judaism and Christianity including the teachings of Jesus.

Well, I have a Catholic background and ironically you (and I) might be surprised to know how many doctors of the Catholic Church and/or hierarchy have some of these insights about the Bible. You see, ironically, Catholicism always tries to tell Protestants not to interpret the Bible so literally/seriously and in Catholicism, Church Tradition and infallible teachings are basically at the same level as Scripture. At mass, they select readings from OT and NT that go together. There may be some parts of the NT that are rarely ever read at mass, perhaps a clue that they may know some parts of the Bible are a little "iffy" for lack of a better term.

See, with one billion Catholics, it would hard for them to change a doctrine like the Trinity all at once. Here's an interesting article that might be a clue that they are gradually moving away from strong Trinitarian views:
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html
Note this section: "...in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person..."

The recent new Pope, Pope Francis said that "it's not an era of change" but "a change of an era". Maybe another clue.

I even began contacting the Vatican Theological Commission and shared my thoughts about the Trinity with them including that it is not a useful doctrine in today's world where we are no longer trying to mix with Roman/Greek/pagan "father-son" "god" beliefs.

 

[Coder]

I don't mean to be rude to anyone's faith, but you know what's fickle (no pun) about the idea? Roman Catholicism acknowledges fully that part of their beliefs are Roman (native pagan).

Yes!! See my previous post. I realized, they don't call it "Roman Catholicism" for nothing.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

 

[Coder]

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.

Yes, consider that perhaps it's really a "harmless fib" in that it helps pagans to understand the one true God, but monotheists may not take the doctrine as seriously as even they themselves think. I.e. Do Trinitarian Christians seek a personal relationship with the one true God or do they seek a personal relationship with three Persons? I think we're all seeking to communicate with the one true God (and not three Persons). So, then we say, "well each Person is the same God" - pagans happy, Christians happy. Jews not happy (for good reason IMHO). But what I'm also saying is maybe it's not so "harmless", especially today when monotheism is well understood as a concept (unlike in Roman Empire).

 

[Coder]

However, it's interesting that some protestants don't pick that up in their belief systems as Roman Catholics do even if by another name.

Yes.

 

[Kenny]

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

 

[Coder]

Hi Ken,

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

By the way, if your talking about the "soul", I think that Christian belief in the soul was influenced by and/or originated with traditional Greek philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong).

However, to answer your question.

Let's try to step aside from our preconceived notions. I believe in God. I believe that we are creatures of His creation. (I don't deny evolution per se, except to say that all creation comes from God and is under God.)

I believe that each human is one person (meaning one personal created being).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I encourage Christians to read modern Jewish literature because many Jewish scholars are now familiar with the NT and they can help Christians to take their blinders off a bit and see that they (the Jews) have sought to stand true to God's warning not to follow false Gods and they do not believe that God has parts/persons.

Great idea (other than being non-specific and sophomoric)!

 

[Kenny]

Hi Ken,

By the way, if your talking about the "soul", I think that Christian belief in the soul was influenced by and/or originated with traditional Greek philosophy (correct me if I'm wrong).

However, to answer your question.

Let's try to step aside from our preconceived notions. I believe in God. I believe that we are creatures of His creation. (I don't deny evolution per se, except to say that all creation comes from God and is under God.)

I believe that each human is one person (meaning one personal created being).

Yes... I believe in one created being but maybe I didn't ask the question right. Does the created being have parts in your view? Does it have a spirit/soul?

 

[Coder]

Does the created being have parts in your view? Does it have a spirit/soul?

Hi Ken, That consideration/aspect is not important to me, so for that reason "I'm out". Sorry, just joking. I watch "Shark Tank" too much More seriously, see below.

I don't see such a distinction between physical and spiritual in that all exists because God keeps all in existence. For example, I believe that what we call the physical universe, exists because God holds it in existence.

So therefore, I believe that a created being (person) exists because God holds the person in existence. Can we live/exist apart from our bodies? Well, what you call our spirit/soul, I would say is God's identity that He gives each unique person. I think that a person could exist apart from the body if God decides that (I don't know). You have heard of "life begins at conception"? Maybe the "conception" is eternal. I believe that God knew us before He formed us. Jeremiah 1:5. Notice how, we are "formed". So the "conception" takes a "form". This is what I think, that our bodies may be considered a "form" of our "conception" but that "conception" of who we are is held by God eternally. Perhaps, the "conception" is similar to a "soul". However, as you may see, this means that the body is a "form" or "expression" of the soul, not so much as distinct "part". You see, I see it as all part of the continuum wherein even the physical world is really held by God such that in that sense even the physical world is "spiritual" - i.e. all is a "conception" of God.

 

[Kenny]

I encourage Christians to read modern Jewish literature because many Jewish scholars are now familiar with the NT and they can help Christians to take their blinders off a bit and see that they (the Jews) have sought to stand true to God's warning not to follow false Gods and they do not believe that God has parts/persons. I also encourage Christians to look into the pagan father-son terminology in regards to the Trinity doctrine.

I also encourage Christians and Protestants in general to look at doctrines such as the Trinity as having been "handed down" as "traditions of men" from the Roman influences. They broke from Roman Catholicism and always speak of "traditions of men" - well folks, take a look at the Trinity doctrine that was handed down to you!

Hi Ken, That consideration/aspect is not important to me, so for that reason "I'm out". Sorry, just joking. I watch "Shark Tank" too much More seriously, see below.

I don't see such a distinction between physical and spiritual in that all exists because God keeps all in existence. For example, I believe that what we call the physical universe, exists because God holds it in existence.

So therefore, I believe that a created being (person) exists because God holds the person in existence. Can we live/exist apart from our bodies? Well, what you call our spirit/soul, I would say is God's identity that He gives each unique person. I think that a person could exist apart from the body if God decides that (I don't know). You have heard of "life begins at conception"? Maybe the "conception" is eternal. I believe that God knew us before He formed us. Jeremiah 1:5. Notice how, we are "formed". So the "conception" takes a "form". This is what I think, that our bodies may be considered a "form" of our "conception" but that "conception" of who we are is held by God eternally. Perhaps, the "conception" is similar to a "soul". However, as you may see, this means that the body is a "form" or "expression" of the soul, not so much as distinct "part". You see, I see it as all part of the continuum wherein even the physical world is really held by God such that in that sense even the physical world is "spiritual" - i.e. all is a "conception" of God.

I need to take this step by step....

Whether He knew us before as in previously created or simply He knew us as I knew my son before we conceived him... one can debate that as there are no answers in scripture. Both are possibilities.

That God holds us in existence? Undeniable and I agree wholeheartedly.

But there is a question that both your position and mine begs for an answer. If we existed before, then the body becomes a second me. How can there be two "me"s? Both are me, yet we each of the two parts have a different purpose and a different materiality yet the both become the fulness of who "me" is.

How do you view this conundrum? (LOL - I hope I used that word correctly)

 

[Coder]

,

Whether He knew us before as in previously created or simply He knew us as I knew my son before we conceived him... one can debate that as there are no answers in scripture. Both are possibilities.

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.

If we existed before, then the body becomes a second me.

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. 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).

...different materiality...

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".