Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    The problem remains that humans from many diverse conflicting beliefs make assumptions about what God's purpose is, and it is severely problematic that any one can define God's purpose from the human perspective. Christianity has a sever problem with defining God's purpose in conflict with the Tanakh.

    I also have a problem with the 'sacrifice' from the perspective of the ancient religions including Christianity. I believe the concept of the sacrifice is from the ancient human perspective and not from God's perspective.
    I agree, of course they do. However, from the Christian (or another) perspective, I think one can say, X is Gods's purpose, as best we understand it. As long as they keep in mind that they do not have a lock on the mind of God.

    What does the Tanakh say God's purpose is?

    Sacrifice as in the 'atoning' death of Jesus? If so, I think many reputable theologians would be in agreement with you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      Meaningless self-fulfilling circular statement.

      Editorial a disagreement concerning a subjective belief [misunderstand?] of what a particular group believes is not an effective argument as to what is true. Just because most traditional Christians 'believe' in the Trinity does not make it true.
      But your non-belief makes Christianity invalid????

      Don't think so!!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
        But your non-belief makes Christianity invalid????

        Don't think so!!
        Christianity considers the Jewish belief invalid.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by thormas View Post


          I agree that it was monolatry for a time in the history of Judaism and by the time of Jesus and the early Christians we have full monotheism, as you indicated.
          Yes, by the time of Jesus Judaism was monotheistic. But the Bible also shows, time and again, that this wasn't always the prevailing system of belief among the ancient Israelites. The bible is rife with references to deities other than Yahweh dating from their earlier, extensive monolatrist phase.

          It was not just important, it was natural (as monotheists) for the early Jewish Christians to understand Jesus in the context of their monotheistic Judaist religion. I believe I get your idea of justifying Jesus as messiah but I see it as a sincere reflection of who this guy was to them.
          But a “sincere reflection of who this guy was to them” does not necessarily make it the case. Hebrew scripture was interpreted by the early Christians so as to justify their subjective perception of Jesus as God and Messiah.

          Again I get the earlier material but still not seeing that simply because they mined it, that it was to rationalize Jesus as part of the godhead. It seems to be the case that they were looking at this material through the eyes of 1st C Jewish monotheists and that the early 'need' was to understand their experience of Jesus (as he lived and post their 'resurrection' experience) - so they turned to their scriptures for that purpose. In early Christianity, Jesus is included in the devotion to God but it seems that 'being God' was a later development. I have to double check a few things.
          Jesus “being God” in a monotheistic religion that already had its God was indeed a later development. To the extent that it took over three centuries of acrimonious debate to determine exactly what sort of deity he was within a monotheistic format – culminating in the formulas of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.


          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by thormas View Post

            I agree, of course they do. However, from the Christian (or another) perspective, I think one can say, X is God's purpose, as best we understand it. As long as they keep in mind that they do not have a lock on the mind of God.
            Acknowledging the religious beliefs from the perspective of the faithful, is necessary in considering what would be God's universal relationship of Revelation between humanity and God. It is more the universal perspective that we get an understanding of the nature of this relations not the exclusive beliefs of individual religions.

            What does the Tanakh say God's purpose is?
            As with all ancient religions including Christianity and Islam Judaism is distinctly tribal. The purpose of Judaism is salvation of the Hebrew tribe is in the hereditary lineage of the Kings of Judah. Christianity, gentiles to the West, and Islam, Arab Tribes to the East. claimed the hereditary lineage, for their tribes. The only way to consider this in terms of a universal perspective is to consider the religions the evolution of knowledge in Revelation over time to go from the tribal to a progressively more universal perspective.

            Sacrifice as in the 'atoning' death of Jesus? If so, I think many reputable theologians would be in agreement with you.
            A point of further discussion. One note is all cultures of the evolve away from practices of sacrifice from human to animal to symbolic sacrifice. I consider it a human perspective of the human relationship to God. Also the human relationship with God evolved from natural animism to anthropomorphic Gods to a more universal unknowable 'Source' some call God(s)
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-24-2020, 08:39 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

              Yes, by the time of Jesus Judaism was monotheistic. But the Bible also shows, time and again, that this wasn't always the prevailing system of belief among the ancient Israelites. The bible is rife with references to deities other than Yahweh dating from their earlier, extensive monolatrist phase.



              But a “sincere reflection of who this guy was to them” does not necessarily make it the case. Hebrew scripture was interpreted by the early Christians so as to justify their subjective perception of Jesus as God and Messiah.



              Jesus “being God” in a monotheistic religion that already had its God was indeed a later development. To the extent that it took over three centuries of acrimonious debate to determine exactly what sort of deity he was within a monotheistic format – culminating in the formulas of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.

              I agree,

              You make a good point about just the sincere effort but it seems evident that they had some 'resurrection' experience - what that was, objectively no one knows. Did they make it up? Don't think so but I can understand why others have their doubts. Be that as it may, my take is that these were rather simple men who were both staggered and enthused by their experience and turned to the most likely place for help and insight: their scriptures. All 'perception' of God is subjective but there was their experience of Jesus, there was their 'resurrection experience' and there was their scriptures.

              I agree it is a later development. However while the trinitarian formula was centuries later we already have a 'union' with the Father in the gospels of the 1st C CE and the dyadic devotion in the first Christian communities of the early 30s CE.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                Contrary to what adherents of modern Judaism might claim, similar theology to the Trinity (though not exactly as defined) is found in the earliest forms of Judaism about Yahweh. I suggest reading works by Michael Heiser to get probably the clearest understanding of this subject. Paul, an expert adherent of ancient Judaism, was essentially drawing from this understanding even though Christ gave more clarity to this concept.
                I consider this a severe stretch of early polytheistic Judaism of the early references in the Pentateuch as a Canaanite pastoral tribe. The Trinity involving an incarnate God Messiah is entirely foreign to the Tanakh, Statues of the Canaanite goddess were common in pastoral Hebrew settlements of Judea

                The prophetic Messiah (more than one) involves earthly Kings restoring and preserving the Kingdom of Judea.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  Christianity considers the Jewish belief invalid.
                  You avoided my question which was: But your non-belief makes Christianity invalid????. Care to try again?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                    You avoided my question which was: But your non-belief makes Christianity invalid????. Care to try again?
                    Actually, traditional Christianity reflect an ancient divided and contradictory world view that I do not believe reflects the universal relationship with humanity. The degree of validity of one belief or another is up to God not me.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      The degree of validity of one belief or another is up to God not me.
                      Finally!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                        Finally!
                        Finally what?
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                          I agree,

                          You make a good point about just the sincere effort but it seems evident that they had some 'resurrection' experience - what that was, objectively no one knows. Did they make it up? Don't think so but I can understand why others have their doubts. Be that as it may, my take is that these were rather simple men who were both staggered and enthused by their experience and turned to the most likely place for help and insight: their scriptures. All 'perception' of God is subjective but there was their experience of Jesus, there was their 'resurrection experience' and there was their scriptures.
                          Well we don’t know what the original followers of Jesus experienced because there are no eyewitness accounts of their experiences – only the embellished second and third-hand hearsay accounts as found in the New Testament.

                          I agree it is a later development. However while the trinitarian formula was centuries later we already have a 'union' with the Father in the gospels of the 1st C CE and the dyadic devotion in the first Christian communities of the early 30s CE.
                          There is no actual record of “the dyadic devotion in the first Christian communities of the early 30s CE”. The earliest Pauline letter is commonly agreed by scholars to be 1 Thessalonians, which is generally dated c. 50-60 CE, i.e. 20+ years after the death of Jesus. And the gospels all date from c. 70 CE onwards, i.e. 40 + years after Jesus’ death.


                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                            Finally what?
                            A statement I can agree with you on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                              Well we don’t know what the original followers of Jesus experienced because there are no eyewitness accounts of their experiences – only the embellished second and third-hand hearsay accounts as found in the New Testament.



                              There is no actual record of “the dyadic devotion in the first Christian communities of the early 30s CE”. The earliest Pauline letter is commonly agreed by scholars to be 1 Thessalonians, which is generally dated c. 50-60 CE, i.e. 20+ years after the death of Jesus. And the gospels all date from c. 70 CE onwards, i.e. 40 + years after Jesus’ death.

                              By "it seems evident" I meant their subsequent activity that was attributed to the experience. That there was such activity, a community or communities based on the man Jesus that grew and spread throughout the Empire is simply historical fact - and it is the case that the impetus for the movement was the 'saving death and resurrection' of this one they called Messiah and Lord. I totally agree we have no idea what this experience was..........but it seems there was something. I'm simply referring to some experience by which they came to believe he was dead was alive in and exalted by God.

                              Actually there is. Larry Hurtado and others have discussed this at some length. More later,,,,,,,,,have to run

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                There is no actual record of “the dyadic devotion in the first Christian communities of the early 30s CE”. The earliest Pauline letter is commonly agreed by scholars to be 1 Thessalonians, which is generally dated c. 50-60 CE, i.e. 20+ years after the death of Jesus. And the gospels all date from c. 70 CE onwards, i.e. 40 + years after Jesus’ death. [/COLOR][/FONT][/FONT]

                                So actually there is 'evidence' of such early Christian devotion. Hurtado is an easy, free and very accessible read, I leave it to you to read, depending on your interest, but it is fascinating.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                                28 responses
                                120 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                                330 responses
                                6,602 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                                1,250 responses
                                55,008 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X