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
    [LEFT]
    The following is an interesting source to begin discussion.

    [SIZE=16px][cite=https://elwynshebrewbiblepage.weebly.com/polytheism-was-the-norm.html]
    Thanks. My reading is we're talking about the evolution of religious thought from polytheism to monotheism - which many already acknowledged. One of my favorite novels remains Michener's The Source.

    Perhaps some others would be startled by such information but is seems a normal process and the idea of reading it back into the earlier history is also not unusual. What interests me is did the early Christian communities specifically look for polytheistic images to 'justify' Jesus? We have a better grasp of the scope of history from our vantage point but did 1st C CE Jesus followers even know about the polytheism to monotheism path of their faith?

    A more sympathetic view and perhaps a recognition of how humans work is that they looked to their scriptures for help explaining how this crucified criminal, experienced to be 'risen' and exalted by God, could be the Messiah.

    I never took the stories of the spirit or the word of God as 'other Gods' ( did 1st C Jews?) but as descriptions of the one God at work.

    Still, interesting reading.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

      “Those pieces” were not found in the Hebrew bible throughout the whole of Jewish history until the followers of Jesus wanted him to be considered divine, i.e. God. Only then was Old Testament scripture combed in an attempt to justify this notion and the end results are the logically tortuous doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. So improbable were they that they took several centuries of arcane, often violent, debate to be accepted as the official doctrine of the church.
      I don't know if it is fair to say they wanted Jesus to be considered divine. Scholars have shown that the earliest Jesus devotion had a dyadic element in that Jesus as Lord was 'revered' with God but was not considered God. It seems that, whatever the 'resurrection experience' was, it galvanized this group. They now saw their Jesus in a new light and sought to make sense of their experience by, in part, turning to their scriptures.

      I think it is totally valid to ask if this went too far with its culmination in the trinitarian formula of a later century - but I think the original people were just human beings scrambling to understand.
      Last edited by thormas; 10-22-2020, 07:20 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by thormas View Post

        Thanks. My reading is we're talking about the evolution of religious thought from polytheism to monotheism - which many already acknowledged. One of my favorite novels remains Michener's The Source.

        Perhaps some others would be startled by such information but is seems a normal process and the idea of reading it back into the earlier history is also not unusual. What interests me is did the early Christian communities specifically look for polytheistic images to 'justify' Jesus? We have a better grasp of the scope of history from our vantage point but did 1st C CE Jesus followers even know about the polytheism to monotheism path of their faith?

        A more sympathetic view and perhaps a recognition of how humans work is that they looked to their scriptures for help explaining how this crucified criminal, experienced to be 'risen' and exalted by God, could be the Messiah.

        I never took the stories of the spirit or the word of God as 'other Gods' ( did 1st C Jews?) but as descriptions of the one God at work.

        Still, interesting reading.
        I consider this an example of the evolution of 'information' through Revelation. A broader concept that reflects the evolution of the human mind in both the physical, consciousness, and spiritual evolution.

        We can go into this further.
        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

          I consider this an example of the evolution of 'information' through Revelation. A broader concept that reflects the evolution of the human mind in both the physical, consciousness, and spiritual evolution.

          We can go into this further.
          I can understand that it is an evolution in religious consciousness and I get how one can regard that as revelation: (from my perspective) that the self-revealing God continually calls us to higher consciousness (in our own human timing).

          Still not sure I see revelation as 'involved' in our physical evolution.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by thormas View Post

            I can understand that it is an evolution in religious consciousness and I get how one can regard that as revelation: (from my perspective) that the self-revealing God continually calls us to higher consciousness (in our own human timing).

            Still not sure I see revelation as 'involved' in our physical evolution.
            Creation and Revelation are aspects of the same eternal process reflecting the attributes of God.
            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

              Creation and Revelation are aspects of the same eternal process reflecting the attributes of God.
              I agree in that creation is 'where' revelation (the self-revealing/giving) of God takes place. As since such revelation is redemptive, salvation is also part of that process.

              I think that God always intended to be incarnate and with sin, that act became a healing act (i.e. salvation).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                “Those pieces” were not found in the Hebrew bible throughout the whole of Jewish history until the followers of Jesus wanted him to be considered divine, i.e. God. Only then was Old Testament scripture combed in an attempt to justify this notion and the end results are the logically tortuous doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. So improbable were they that they took several centuries of arcane, often violent, debate to be accepted as the official doctrine of the church.
                So the problem still remains. If you do not have a better explanation of the passages than found with the Trinity doctrine, you don't really have an argument. You could reject Einstein's theory of General Relativity on the same basis -- the tortuous details used to come out with any results. The debate was to weed out bad conclusions and to prevent people from confessing a creed that allowed them to confess the creed while still being a heretic." Any deviation from the true nature of Christ tends to confuse the meaning of the gospel.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post

                  You have every right to [misunderstand] what Christians believe about the Trinity. However your false belief is not what Christians believe. The Trinity is not in any way shape of form polytheistic for a Christian. But you are allowed to go off on a tangent and come up wrong.
                  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.

                  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 mikewhitney View Post

                    So the problem still remains. If you do not have a better explanation of the passages than found with the Trinity doctrine, you don't really have an argument. You could reject Einstein's theory of General Relativity on the same basis -- the tortuous details used to come out with any results. The debate was to weed out bad conclusions and to prevent people from confessing a creed that allowed them to confess the creed while still being a heretic." Any deviation from the true nature of Christ tends to confuse the meaning of the gospel.
                    There is absolutely no reference in the Tanakh that defines the belief in the Trinity.
                    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

                      There is absolutely no reference in the Tanakh that defines the belief in the Trinity.
                      I'm sorry that you missed some of the discussions on this topic. It is hard to keep up with the discussion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                        I agree in that creation is 'where' revelation (the self-revealing/giving) of God takes place. As since such revelation is redemptive, salvation is also part of that process.

                        I think that God always intended to be incarnate and with sin, that act became a healing act (i.e. salvation).
                        This is a circular argument to justify what one believes, and not an effective argument. I do not believe we can be this definitive as to what God intended from the human perspective in other words humans cannot assume God's purpose from the universal perspective based on a very selective understanding of scripture from one place in time from scripture with weak provenance and known authorship.

                        Also, not grounded in the Tanakh for 'God's intention to be incarnate.'. In the Tanakh this is not described as God's intention.

                        I still consider use of 'self=revealing/giving,' may have merit, but it is too narrow a concept to define the nature of God's Revelation and Creation.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-22-2020, 08:53 PM.
                        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

                          This is a circular argument to justify what one believes, and not an effective argument. I do not believe we can be this definitive as to what God intended from the human perspective in other words humans cannot assume God's purpose from the universal perspective based on a very selective understanding of scripture from one place in time from scripture with weak provenance and known authorship.

                          Also, not grounded in the Tanakh for 'God's intention to be incarnate.'. In the Tanakh this is not described as God's intention.

                          I still consider use of 'self=revealing/giving,' may have merit, but it is too narrow a concept to define the nature of God's Revelation and Creation.

                          It's a belief statement. Simple as that.

                          You don't think (you don't believe) one can be so definitive about God's intentions; I think (or believe) one can. And of course humans make assumptions about God and of course it is from the human (the only one we have) perspective: we assume there is a God, we assume he is loving, we assume this, we assume that, and on and on..... We have done this since we became 'man' and will continue till the end.

                          And it is not any more selective that your belief:+} It is important for you to have something grounded in the Tanakh..............it is not for me since the Tanakh is also human assumption/belief.

                          Also, I consider (i.e. believe) the self-revealing of God, i.e. grace, to be the epitome of God's revelation and creation.

                          Last edited by thormas; 10-22-2020, 09:54 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                            First, Thanks for the recommendation, I already found it on Amazon.
                            Good. You will find it interesting.

                            And the early monotheism of Judaism did 'recognize' that there were other gods but not sure what you mean by polytheistic descriptions specifically in Jewish or Christian understandings of God.
                            Indeed. But this recognition of other gods in early Judaism is not monotheism it is Monolatry. Monolatry is the worship of just one god without denial of the existence of other gods - although the Judeans often slipped into polytheism by worshipping these other gods, which they were definitely not supposed to do.

                            Also I do agree that the early communities of Christians did turn to their scriptures to somehow get a handle and better understand their Jesus - however I don't see this as justification (at least in the negative sense). They had known Jesus, they had their experience of the 'resurrection' and, again, it seems that they were trying to understand and explain.............most specifically about his messiahship.
                            It was important for the early Jewish Christians to understand Jesus in the context of their monotheistic Judaist religion. Hence the attempt to make every possible reference matter in their bid to justify Jesus as the predicted messiah.

                            If polytheistic refers to mention of the spirit or word of God, I have never seem them as 'other gods' within Judaism but rather descriptions or stories of their God in relationship to and with them.

                            So until I get the book and until I read the article presented earlier, any explanation of what you see as polytheistic descriptions used by Christians?
                            I used “polytheistic descriptions” but the better term (as per above) is Monolatry which was the position of Judaism for much of its history, given that it was exposed to crosscurrents of foreign religions for centuries. Then it evolved to the point of denying the very existence of the other gods i.e. the true monotheism as it was at the time of Jesus. But much of the earlier stuff can still be found in the OT and this is the material mined by early Christians as they rationalized Jesus as part of the godhead.
                            “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 Tassman View Post

                              Good. You will find it interesting.

                              Indeed. But this recognition of other gods in early Judaism is not monotheism it is Monolatry. Monolatry is the worship of just one god without denial of the existence of other gods - although the Judeans often slipped into polytheism by worshipping these other gods, which they were definitely not supposed to do.


                              It was important for the early Jewish Christians to understand Jesus in the context of their monotheistic Judaist religion. Hence the attempt to make every possible reference matter in their bid to justify Jesus as the predicted messiah.

                              I used “polytheistic descriptions” but the better term (as per above) is Monolatry which was the position of Judaism for much of its history, given that it was exposed to crosscurrents of foreign religions for centuries. Then it evolved to the point of denying the very existence of the other gods i.e. the true monotheism as it was at the time of Jesus. But much of the earlier stuff can still be found in the OT and this is the material mined by early Christians as they rationalized Jesus as part of the godhead.

                              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.

                              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.

                              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.

                              Of course I think it is fair to discuss whether, eventually, Christianity went too far in that direction.


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by thormas View Post


                                It's a belief statement. Simple as that.

                                You don't think (you don't believe) one can be so definitive about God's intentions; I think (or believe) one can. And of course humans make assumptions about God and of course it is from the human (the only one we have) perspective: we assume there is a God, we assume he is loving, we assume this, we assume that, and on and on..... We have done this since we became 'man' and will continue till the end.

                                And it is not any more selective that your belief:+} It is important for you to have something grounded in the Tanakh..............it is not for me since the Tanakh is also human assumption/belief.

                                Also, I consider (i.e. believe) the self-revealing of God, i.e. grace, to be the epitome of God's revelation and creation.
                                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.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X