|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 16, 2009 19:48:49 GMT -5
What's wrong with polytheism?
It seems to me that the whole hang up with the trinitarian vs anti-trinitarian arguments is the idea that if Christ is divine then he must somehow be the same being as his Father. If Christ was divine yet a distinct being from his divine Father, this would somehow reduce Christianity to the "level" of pagan polytheism such as Greek mythology.
That seems like an unnecessary assumption to me. Why can't both the Father and the Son be God (divine) while also being two separate beings distinct from each other. The whole idea of persons and substances I find degrading and unfounded.
Wouldn't a Christian polytheism resolve the differences of trinitarians, oneness theology, Jehovah's Witness theology, and others?
It might sound taboo to some people but it is not like I'm saying that Isis, Molech, Baal, Zeus, Appollo, etc are real Gods. Only that the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father are both God yet not one entity but two, the Father being greater than the Son.
I would normally expect all the oneness passages to be cited in objection to this.
|
|
|
Post by nazerite on Dec 16, 2009 23:46:33 GMT -5
God, in his very being, has always existed as more than one person. In fact, God exists as 3 perons, yet he is one God- Wayne Grudem . Jesus Shares all the attributes of God, that is, his Omnipresents, Omnipotents, eternality, invisbility, immortality and Omnoscience; therfore making him God.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 18, 2009 15:34:04 GMT -5
What's wrong with polytheism? It seems to me that the whole hang up with the trinitarian vs anti-trinitarian arguments is the idea that if Christ is divine then he must somehow be the same being as his Father. If Christ was divine yet a distinct being from his divine Father, this would somehow reduce Christianity to the "level" of pagan polytheism such as Greek mythology. That seems like an unnecessary assumption to me. Why can't both the Father and the Son be God (divine) while also being two separate beings distinct from each other. The whole idea of persons and substances I find degrading and unfounded. Wouldn't a Christian polytheism resolve the differences of trinitarians, oneness theology, Jehovah's Witness theology, and others? It might sound taboo to some people but it is not like I'm saying that Isis, Molech, Baal, Zeus, Appollo, etc are real Gods. Only that the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father are both God yet not one entity but two, the Father being greater than the Son. I would normally expect all the oneness passages to be cited in objection to this. The term "God" is not a singular noun just as Elohim as a singular word.. It is better understood as "Godhead". "Hear oh Israel, the LORD Thy God is one God" Or "Hear oh Israel, the LORD Thy Godhead is a unified God" It is wrong to think that the word "God" as one entity is wrong; they are 3. Gen 1:26 And God said, let Us make man in Our image...If God was just one entity, He wouldn't say "Us" in creating man. However, when talking about God, there is no need to say, "which one", because there is no difference, for they are unified in thought, deed, & purpose. Therefore, when we pray to one, we are actually praying to all. However, when some people thing about the trinity, they figure 1+1+1=1 This is wrong in because it does not add up truthfully. We may add God up as: 1+1+1=3 because there is actually 3. However, we may also multiply them: 1x1x1=1 because they are one (unified)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 19, 2009 21:38:23 GMT -5
God, in his very being, has always existed as more than one person. In fact, God exists as 3 perons, yet he is one God- Wayne Grudem . Jesus Shares all the attributes of God, that is, his Omnipresents, Omnipotents, eternality, invisbility, immortality and Omnoscience; therfore making him God. What is the difference between a divine being and a divine "person"? What is the difference between a divine "person" and a God? Do you think Jesus was always omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, invisible? I think the apostles taught that he was none of those things when here on the earth. Why would sharing the same attributes make them the same being? If my son was just like me that would not make us one human.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 19, 2009 21:53:49 GMT -5
The term "God" is not a singular noun just as Elohim as a singular word.. It is better understood as "Godhead". "Hear oh Israel, the LORD Thy God is one God" Or "Hear oh Israel, the LORD Thy Godhead is a unified God" It is wrong to think that the word "God" as one entity is wrong; they are 3. Gen 1:26 And God said, let Us make man in Our image...If God was just one entity, He wouldn't say "Us" in creating man. However, when talking about God, there is no need to say, "which one", because there is no difference, for they are unified in thought, deed, & purpose. Therefore, when we pray to one, we are actually praying to all. However, when some people thing about the trinity, they figure 1+1+1=1 This is wrong in because it does not add up truthfully. We may add God up as: 1+1+1=3 because there is actually 3. However, we may also multiply them: 1x1x1=1 because they are one (unified) Do you mean the word "God" can be a singular or plural noun without being spelled differently just like the words deer, moose, fish, etc? I thought Godhead meant divinity or divine characteristics. How do you define Godhead and why? Isn't there really a need to distinguish between "which one"? The scripture talks about "which one" when talking about the Father and the Son. I understand a unity of purpose but how can God and Christ be unified in thought and deed when they are distinct? For instance, when Jesus was a baby he probably wasn't having the same thoughts as his Father. Or when Jesus prays to his God and Father, to whom does the Father pray? Did you mean thought and deed in a different sense? Adding "1" repeatedly is the same as counting. That's why when you do it three times you end up with three. But what does multiplying by "1" represent?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 20, 2009 18:23:26 GMT -5
Ben,
It would seem that the major problem with polytheism is that it is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture - Monotheism. I'm sure you're well aware of the many texts that proclaim this. Do you agree that The Scripture teaches that there is only one God?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2009 18:38:47 GMT -5
Ben, It would seem that the major problem with polytheism is that it is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture - Monotheism. I'm sure you're well aware of the many texts that proclaim this. Do you agree that The Scripture teaches that there is only one God? Steve Hi Steve, I'm not sure. I think it depends on whether Jesus is divine or what being divine means. I'm not sure there's any verse that says Jesus and his Father are the same God. Can you think of any?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 20, 2009 19:01:12 GMT -5
I'm specifically speaking of the many passages that say that there's only one God. What do you do with them? For Instance: "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him." - Dt 4:35
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." - Dt 6:4
"Let these words of mine, with which I have pleaded before the Lord, be near to the Lord our God day and night, and may he maintain the cause of his servant and the cause of his people Israel, as each day requires, that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other." - 1 Ki 8:59-60
"I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God;I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other." - Isa 45:5-6
"remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me," - Isa 46:9
"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - Jn 17:3
"For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 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." - 1 Co 8:5-6
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," - 1 Tim 2:5
"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." - Ro 3:29-30
"You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" - Jam 2:19 Based on the abundance of texts in both Testaments clearly laying out monotheism I think we have to say any kind of polytheism is out. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2009 19:50:31 GMT -5
Thank for all the passages Steve. Here are my thoughts so far. I'm specifically speaking of the many passages that say that there's only one God. What do you do with them? For Instance: "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him." - Dt 4:35 I don't know. Do you think he could just be talking about the Father? If so, I wouldn't take this to exclude God's own son. I don't think he would fall into the category of "competition" (as if there could be any) like the false gods and idols of the nations. What do you think, is that possible? That's how I might interpret other passages here as well. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." - Dt 6:4 Same thing maybe? "Let these words of mine, with which I have pleaded before the Lord, be near to the Lord our God day and night, and may he maintain the cause of his servant and the cause of his people Israel, as each day requires, that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other." - 1 Ki 8:59-60 Same type of passage as the first. "I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God;I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other." - Isa 45:5-6 Same. "remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me," - Isa 46:9 Same. As an example of what I'm considering: If there was a great king and he ruled over all the nations of the world and he said "there is no other; I am God [edit: I meant "king"], and there is none like me", I wouldn't take that to mean that his son was not just like him. His son, the prince, could reign over the land according to the will of his father with just as much authority as the king himself. "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - Jn 17:3 This fits in pretty well with my theory. Jesus implies that the only true God is other than himself. This refutes the trinity doctrine as far as I understand it. It doesn't refute the JW's or christadelphians though. "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 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." - 1 Co 8:5-6 So, one God and one Lord. 1 (God) + 1 (Lord) = 2. The Father primarily is called God. "God is the head of Christ". Christ then is primarily called lord "God hath made that same Jesus ... both Lord and Christ." This makes me wonder if there is such subtlety in titles in the OT. "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," - 1 Tim 2:5 However divine Jesus is, it is not in the sense that the Father is here called God. God may imply different things in different contexts I think. Does that seem reasonable to you? Could God sometimes mean divine and other times be used more like a title which primarily belongs to the Father? "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." - Ro 3:29-30 Through faith in God's Son. "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" - Jam 2:19 Same as the others. I guess it depends on whether Jesus is "divine" or "God" as I was always told. What do you think? Is he? I don't think christadelphians are right and I don't think Jesus was the archangel Michael like the Watchtower teaches but I don't think the formal doctrine of the trinity makes sense either. It seems like the root of the whole problem could just be a phobia of "polytheism"; a fear that if God and Christ shared similar attributes before the incarnation then we wouldn't be Judeo-Christians anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 20, 2009 20:52:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 20, 2009 23:15:08 GMT -5
Ben,
I'm interested to hear you elaborate on what you believe. More specifically, what did you mean when you said:
“I'm not sure. I think it depends on whether Jesus is divine or what being divine means.”
I believe the scriptures teach that Jesus has always existed. The he, before he took upon the form of a man, possessed characteristics that one would attribute to divinity (Omnipotence, omnipresence, immortality, etc.”) I believe that at one point, Jesus humbled himself (the incarnation) even to the point of death on the cross. Jesus was God because his existence, will, purpose, and attributes were no different than the Father who also possessed and still possess' these attributes. They are distinct and different. They are a united plurality.
You also made the comment:
"I'm not sure there's any verse that says Jesus and his Father are the same God. Can you think of any? "
It seems to me that in this statement you presuppose that the word “God,” as used in the scriptures, is a numerical singular noun. As logic noted earlier, the word Elohim does not necessarily demand a numerical singular noun. Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated as “One” in Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 6:4 is “Echad” which does not demand the interpretation of such as a numerical singularity. For example: Echad is used in Genesis 2:24 to say that man and woman should be “One” flesh in marriage. This is considered to be a united plurality.
It is true that the scriptures do not teach that the Father and the Son are the exact same person. The scriptures teach that both the Father and the Son occupy the same office or class of being the creator, author, and ruler of all that has ever existed.
I believe that the Biblical view is that “God” is a class of being which three bodies occupy. The difference between this and polytheism is that Jehovah God is united in will, purpose, and attributes whereas polytheism consists of many divine bodies which are all divided in at least one of the following characteristics: will, purpose, and attributes.
So, to answer your original question: "What is so wrong with Polytheism?" I would have to respond by asking how you define polytheism?
Interested in hearing your beliefs.
Take care,
Jonathan
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 21, 2009 19:16:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Johnathan, Ben, I'm interested to hear you elaborate on what you believe. More specifically, what did you mean when you said: “I'm not sure. I think it depends on whether Jesus is divine or what being divine means.” I don't know if I can explain what I do believe as much as what I don't believe. Hopefully that'll help explain somehow. I was raised Roman Catholic and thus Trinitarian. I think the doctrine of the trinity (that God is not only one essence or one substance but also one being, one entity, etc with three centers of consciousness aka "persons") is confusing, weird, and probably false. It makes me think of Cerberus or conjoined triplets. When I read the bible I do not get this impression. It seems more like a theory of interpretation rather than a necessary conclusion. I also read the surviving letters from the Arian controversy about whether Jesus ever had a beginning and looked into the scripture about it and talked with a Jehovah's Witness. I was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether there was ever a time before Jesus was. The closest I found was a verse in Micah (I think) that says "from everlasting" in some translations but it doesn't seem to necessarily mean "from eternity past" in Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew. So if the apostles taught that Christ is similar or identical to God, I don't know what exactly they would mean by that. Would it necessarily mean that Christ had no beginning? I don't know. I think the Christadelphians (or Unitarians also?) are wrong. I'm open to discussing with them and hearing their views but I'm just about convinced otherwise until then. They both seem to believe that Jesus has never been anything other than human. I think he existed in heaven with the Father before and that he created the world with the Father. Does that mean that he had the same attributes as the Father? I don't think it would mean that. But maybe he did. Then there's the Oneness theory. I believe they rightly accuse Trinitarians of polytheism. However, I also believe they effectively "deny the Father and the Son" by saying that Father and Son are different roles of the same being. I actually hate their doctrine. They make the love that the Father has for Jesus into self-love. So where does that leave me... I'm inclined to reject Trinitarianism, Unitarianism/Christadelphianism, and Oneness theology. I don't know what to think about Arianism/JW and also about my polytheism theory. Like I said, I'm neutral here until I see proof one way or the other. I'm not sure what I think about the classical view of deity, that is, the "Omni"s and "Im"s. As for omnipotence, I believe the world was made by Jesus and the Father but I don't know if Christ had the same power as his God. I'm not real big on omnipresence (no pun intended). Immortality? I think the son generally derives life from the father so I don't know how this would work with God and his son. Amen to that. The bread of life which came down from heaven. You mean they are two beings with the same attributes who are in complete agreement? That is interesting. I've considered "the two shall become one" in reference to the concept of unity before but I didn't know it was the same word. Paul seemed to use the same word to describe the authority of God over Christ as he did to describe the authority of man over woman. Also Jesus' prayer in John 17 is that the church would be united in the same sense that he and his father are united. That's one of my favorite passages right now. As far as I know, only the Oneness believers would take issue with that statement. Fascinating. So you would reject the term polytheism for its historical connotations even though it seems to be technically accurate according to what you've said here. I really appreciate this summary of the difference between the two ideas. It will be helpful in explaining myself to others. I was using polytheism in more of a technical sense. I just meant that if Christ is God second only to his Father then that would be more than one God. If that can be called polytheism then I don't really care. I only care about whether it is true or not. I meant polytheism in the most orthodox Christian way possible Poly = "more than one" + Theos = "God" --- If Christ is called God and his Father is HIS God, that's two who are called God. Two who are called God = more than one who are called God = Polytheism. Someone might say Bi-theism or Tri-theism but these would be subsets of poly-theism as I understand the word. I'm not interested in the label so much, it's basically just an icebreaker. Hope that clarifies some.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 21, 2009 20:06:42 GMT -5
Here's something I posted on another forum. "If Christ did something his Father did not do, that means they are not the same being or entity." (Because a single being or entity cannot both DO and NOT DO something simultaneously.) "The son of God did not become man only in his consciousness (aka his person). He became mortal man in his being. The Father never became mortal man. Therefore the Father and Son are not two centers of consciousness in the same being or entity.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 21, 2009 20:54:34 GMT -5
Ben, You might want to keep your eye on this site: www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/the-great-trinity-debate-challenge/comment-page-3/#comment-40695A Christian scholar Robert Bowman is going to debate the Trinity w/ someone next year. He's sent out this challenge and is going to gather the willing participants and we can vote on one for him to debate. So far there are representatives of the JW's, Mormons, Oneness', and Unitarians. Dr. Bowman has co-authored a good book on the Deity of Christ called Putting Jesus in His Place. He's also written a book in response to the JW booklet Should You Believe in the Trinity? called Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. I'm going to vote for him to debate the recently revealed author of the book The Restitution of Jesus Christ - Kermit Zarley. He's basically a Unitarian I think. Steve
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 21, 2009 22:09:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply Johnathan, Ben, I'm interested to hear you elaborate on what you believe. More specifically, what did you mean when you said: “I'm not sure. I think it depends on whether Jesus is divine or what being divine means.” I don't know if I can explain what I do believe as much as what I don't believe. Hopefully that'll help explain somehow. I was raised Roman Catholic and thus Trinitarian. I think the doctrine of the trinity (that God is not only one essence or one substance but also one being, one entity, etc with three centers of consciousness aka "persons") is confusing, weird, and probably false. It makes me think of Cerberus or conjoined triplets. When I read the bible I do not get this impression. It seems more like a theory of interpretation rather than a necessary conclusion. I also read the surviving letters from the Arian controversy about whether Jesus ever had a beginning and looked into the scripture about it and talked with a Jehovah's Witness. I was unable to come to a conclusion as to whether there was ever a time before Jesus was. The closest I found was a verse in Micah (I think) that says "from everlasting" in some translations but it doesn't seem to necessarily mean "from eternity past" in Hebrew. I don't know Hebrew. So if the apostles taught that Christ is similar or identical to God, I don't know what exactly they would mean by that. Would it necessarily mean that Christ had no beginning? I don't know. I think the Christadelphians (or Unitarians also?) are wrong. I'm open to discussing with them and hearing their views but I'm just about convinced otherwise until then. They both seem to believe that Jesus has never been anything other than human. I think he existed in heaven with the Father before and that he created the world with the Father. Does that mean that he had the same attributes as the Father? I don't think it would mean that. But maybe he did. Then there's the Oneness theory. I believe they rightly accuse Trinitarians of polytheism. However, I also believe they effectively "deny the Father and the Son" by saying that Father and Son are different roles of the same being. I actually hate their doctrine. They make the love that the Father has for Jesus into self-love. So where does that leave me... I'm inclined to reject Trinitarianism, Unitarianism/Christadelphianism, and Oneness theology. I don't know what to think about Arianism/JW and also about my polytheism theory. Like I said, I'm neutral here until I see proof one way or the other. I'm not sure what I think about the classical view of deity, that is, the "Omni"s and "Im"s. As for omnipotence, I believe the world was made by Jesus and the Father but I don't know if Christ had the same power as his God. I'm not real big on omnipresence (no pun intended). Immortality? I think the son generally derives life from the father so I don't know how this would work with God and his son. Amen to that. The bread of life which came down from heaven. You mean they are two beings with the same attributes who are in complete agreement? That is interesting. I've considered "the two shall become one" in reference to the concept of unity before but I didn't know it was the same word. Paul seemed to use the same word to describe the authority of God over Christ as he did to describe the authority of man over woman. Also Jesus' prayer in John 17 is that the church would be united in the same sense that he and his father are united. That's one of my favorite passages right now. As far as I know, only the Oneness believers would take issue with that statement. Fascinating. So you would reject the term polytheism for its historical connotations even though it seems to be technically accurate according to what you've said here. I really appreciate this summary of the difference between the two ideas. It will be helpful in explaining myself to others. I was using polytheism in more of a technical sense. I just meant that if Christ is God second only to his Father then that would be more than one God. If that can be called polytheism then I don't really care. I only care about whether it is true or not. I meant polytheism in the most orthodox Christian way possible Poly = "more than one" + Theos = "God" --- If Christ is called God and his Father is HIS God, that's two who are called God. Two who are called God = more than one who are called God = Polytheism. Someone might say Bi-theism or Tri-theism but these would be subsets of poly-theism as I understand the word. I'm not interested in the label so much, it's basically just an icebreaker. Hope that clarifies some. Howdy Ben, I would consider the Catholics to be closest to believing in the true God of the Bible. Here is a chart that explains exactly what they believe and why it is in error. This is an excellent chart which I believe you will completely agree with after you study it. www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-ontology-views.htm From reading your post, I believe we disagree on what God is. I believe that God is technically "Divine Nature" and even more simply, an office which is to be filled by divine individuals. I believe we're using the same words but in different ways. For instance, when you say "Christ is God" I can agree. However, I believe this statement means that "Christ possess divine nature." Whereas, it appears as though you mean that "Christ is the person 'God.'" The God of the Bible is monotheistic in it's most historical sense. There is but one God (Divine Nature, office, class, position) which is possessed by three divine individuals. Polytheism in it's historical sense means that there are many gods (Divine Natures, offices, classes, positions) and of those gods (Divine Natures, offices, classes, positions) division is found in their conflicting wills, purposes, attributes, and even natures. Jehovah's Witnesses are in error because they believe that Jesus was a created being as well as the creator. In Romans 1:25 we read: "Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen." This verse implies that the Creator is not a creature. Moreover, it condemns those who worship the creature. If Jesus is a created creature, why didn't he condemn the man in John 9:38 for worshiping him? Jehovah's witness doctrine contradicts the scriptures in more ways than one, that is why they had to make their own Bible. That chart also explains how Arianism is doctrinally wrong. Tell me what you think about that info after you check it out. Jon
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 21, 2009 22:14:17 GMT -5
Here's something I posted on another forum. "If Christ did something his Father did not do, that means they are not the same being or entity." (Because a single being or entity cannot both DO and NOT DO something simultaneously.) "The son of God did not become man only in his consciousness (aka his person). He became mortal man in his being. The Father never became mortal man. Therefore the Father and Son are not two centers of consciousness in the same being or entity. I believe that to be exactly true. Here's a completely free 8 hour debate on the Biblical teaching of the God head versus Modalism: www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/Debates/ReevesWeatherlyDebate/tabid/98/Default.aspxI know that you understand why Modalism is wrong, however, listen to brother Reeves proposition on the Godhead if you find the chance.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 21, 2009 23:16:38 GMT -5
Here's something I posted on another forum. "If Christ did something his Father did not do, that means they are not the same being or entity." (Because a single being or entity cannot both DO and NOT DO something simultaneously.) "The son of God did not become man only in his consciousness (aka his person). He became mortal man in his being. The Father never became mortal man. Therefore the Father and Son are not two centers of consciousness in the same being or entity. I believe that to be exactly true. Here's a completely free 8 hour debate on the Biblical teaching of the God head versus Modalism: www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/Debates/ReevesWeatherlyDebate/tabid/98/Default.aspxI know that you understand why Modalism is wrong, however, listen to brother Reeves proposition on the Godhead if you find the chance. Jonathan, Thanks for posting this debate. I'm downloading as I type this. I've really taken to study Christology lately and am always interested in debates on the Trinity. Steve
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 22, 2009 6:44:47 GMT -5
Jonathan, Thanks for posting this debate. I'm downloading as I type this. I've really taken to study Christology lately and am always interested in debates on the Trinity. Steve It's excellent. I have it on my mp3 player in my truck. In that debate, brother Reeves also refutes the UPC's position on the phrase "in the name of." I found that to be an embarrassment to the UPC.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2009 20:51:47 GMT -5
Howdy Ben, I would consider the Catholics to be closest to believing in the true God of the Bible. Here is a chart that explains exactly what they believe and why it is in error. This is an excellent chart which I believe you will completely agree with after you study it. www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-ontology-views.htmThanks! I think I agree but if it is used to refer to the Father or the Son specifically (that is, alone) then it almost seems like a name as well. Not that they are then one entity though. I guess the word seems very personal to me. I don't mean that there is only one 'person' or one 'God' if I seem to use it that way. When I ask whether Christ is 'God' or not, I don't mean is he the same entity as the Father. I only mean is he similar enough in attributes to the Father in order to share the same title (and perhaps, name) of God. I agree that God could mean a class of being but I'm not sure about all three having the same nature, office, and position. That's because of the seeming differences in description, roles, and authority (respectively). However, I do believe there are at least some things they have in common as far as nature goes. I'm just not sure what the extent of it would be. I'm not sure I even expect to know anytime in the next bazillion years But I'd like to know of course, if God wants me to. Usually when I say God I mean the Father, almost always. I would specify otherwise. Interesting. I think they would say that the kind of worship we give to Jesus is not the same worship as we should give to the Father. I think Jesus said something that contradicts that. They also could say that this verse is inapplicable to worshiping Christ (if he had a beginning) because we don't worship him "instead" of God (the Father) who is ultimately/primarily the Creator whether all things were made through his son or not. Rather we worship Christ according to the will of God/The Father/The Creator which makes this verse inapplicable because it assumes that the worship described is inconsistent with the will of God. In this case it is not. I find your case compelling though. Very nice. I'll have to study it a little more. It will be easier to comment on it if I memorize the different points of dispute and the various views.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2009 21:14:01 GMT -5
Thanks Steve and Jon for the links. I've listened to a little of each briefly. It seemed like Bruce Ware followed Augustine's formulation of the doctrine of the trinity. I thought the definition he gave was near impossible though! If someone could summarize it into something that didn't define itself by a series of negations then I could formulate an opinion of it. I don't think a definition should be more than one sentence or phrase. The more I listen to debates, the more I think the speakers should be limited to addressing a single syllogism at a time. They could go until they agree or until one person violates the law of non-contradiction and if they can't get to one of these results in 24 hours then at least one of them gets corporal punishment. Wouldn't that be so much more informative for the listeners? I think so. Thanks again for all the info so far.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 23, 2009 15:49:17 GMT -5
John16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. John16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. That seems like a strong refutation of Christadelphianism. I can't imagine there would be a better way to say it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 23, 2009 21:34:42 GMT -5
'nother quote from the CARM forum. What do you folks think of this? I've been thinking.. If you combine Christ and his Father into a single being it would make the Father a man.... unless you divided Christ into two beings.. wait that sounds bad... how about two "natures"... there we go. Jesus was one being with two natures.
Is that what people mean when they talk about two natures? I've been hearing that my whole life. It seems completely absurd and unnecessary. Have people decided to divide Christ (in an "undivided"-two-natures sort of way of course) rather than distinguish between the being of the Father and the Son?
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 26, 2009 17:40:26 GMT -5
'nother quote from the CARM forum. What do you folks think of this? I've been thinking.. If you combine Christ and his Father into a single being it would make the Father a man.... unless you divided Christ into two beings.. wait that sounds bad... how about two "natures"... there we go. Jesus was one being with two natures.
Is that what people mean when they talk about two natures? I've been hearing that my whole life. It seems completely absurd and unnecessary. Have people decided to divide Christ (in an "undivided"-two-natures sort of way of course) rather than distinguish between the being of the Father and the Son? This is a confusing comment you've made. I can affirm that Jesus possessed two natures. This is not to be confused with the two spirits which the UPCI teaches. To affirm that Jesus possessed two natures is to affirm that Jesus: Possessed Divine Nature - Eternal, pre-existed, without beginning etc. Possessed Human Nature - Experienced the physical limitations of human life such as physical pain and limited knowledge. He also experienced temptations and trials. The most of all these is that Jesus Christ actually experienced death.To say that Jesus had two natures is not to say that there were two spirits or persons inside of the body of Jesus Christ but instead that he possessed attributes of both God (Divine Nature) and man (Human Nature).
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 27, 2009 23:08:51 GMT -5
This is a confusing comment you've made. I can affirm that Jesus possessed two natures. This is not to be confused with the two spirits which the UPCI teaches. To affirm that Jesus possessed two natures is to affirm that Jesus: Possessed Divine Nature - Eternal, pre-existed, without beginning etc. Possessed Human Nature - Experienced the physical limitations of human life such as physical pain and limited knowledge. He also experienced temptations and trials. The most of all these is that Jesus Christ actually experienced death.To say that Jesus had two natures is not to say that there were two spirits or persons inside of the body of Jesus Christ but instead that he possessed attributes of both God (Divine Nature) and man (Human Nature). Sorry that was confusing. I don't think someone can simultaneously have two natures. I think by definition one's nature includes all of his attributes. If some of the attributes fall into one class and some into another class they are still included in the single nature of the person or thing. I also distinguish between a person's nature and a person's identity. When the bible says "the word became flesh" I take that to imply a radical change in nature. However, I don't take it to mean a change in identity. As far as I can tell, Jesus' identity never changed but his nature certainly did change. When I say "change in nature" I don't mean the addition of a second nature.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 28, 2009 7:13:14 GMT -5
I don't think someone can simultaneously have two natures. Divine Nature is the state of being God. Human Nature is the state of being man. It is possible for Jesus to possess all of the unchangeable attributes of God and the unchangeable attributes of man at the same time. Jesus can have two natures. I think by definition one's nature includes all of his attributes. If some of the attributes fall into one class and some into another class they are still included in the single nature of the person or thing. According to this logic, one would have to then conclude that Jesus is neither God nor man but instead some other sort of class which only he possesses, and that the Bible never mentions, because Jesus possessed attributes beyond humanity and additional to divinity.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 28, 2009 23:30:08 GMT -5
It is possible for Jesus to possess all of the unchangeable attributes of God and the unchangeable attributes of man at the same time. I agree, as long as you don't mean any mutually exclusive attributes. It also seems possible to me that Jesus' discarded the unchangeable attributes of God in order to take on the attributes of a man. That's my understanding of Christ's incarnation - that he left behind the attributes of God-hood to become a man. He remained God in the sense that his identity did not change though his nature did. I think the phrase "two natures" is an oxymoron. Your nature is the way you are. Whatever attributes you have make up your nature. Your nature, by definition, includes all of your attributes. I think by definition one's nature includes all of his attributes. If some of the attributes fall into one class and some into another class they are still included in the single nature of the person or thing. According to this logic, one would have to then conclude that Jesus is neither God nor man It's not logic as much as it is the definition of the word itself. All I'm doing is pointing out that it doesn't make sense to use a word contrary to its definition. In this case "According to this logic" means "According to the law of non-contradiction." I've believed that Jesus was God in two senses before he was incarnate: 1) His attributes were similar or identical to his God and Father, 2) He is identified as God, being the son of him who is primarily called God. I believe when Jesus left heaven and became a man that he was no longer God in the first sense. I believe he remained identifiable as God in the second sense. However, I don't believe he retained the attributes (or nature) that made him God in the first sense. In the first sense you could say that God became man. In the second sense, that he was still God. So, I believe that Jesus Christ was truly God (the Son of God) in his identity while truly man in his nature. The son of God is WHO he was. A man is WHAT he was. Whatever attributes the Lord possessed, he was a man. The fact that he wasn't always a man certainly makes him unique to say the least. His nature before being a man, his identity as the son of God, how long he had existed before the creation of the world, .. these things certainly are unique to Jesus Christ alone, but they don't change the fact that he became flesh and bone like we are. In other words, 'what he was', 'who he was', and 'how long he had been' do not change 'what he became'. What do you think? Is this compatible with how you understand the bible? The reason I was picking on the two natures idea (besides it being an oxymoron) is that I saw that people could use it to effectively deny the incarnation. It would be a subtle way to smuggle in the idea of 'two persons' in Jesus. If one refused to properly distinguish between the Father and the Son because of Trinitarianism they would have to divide their concept of the Lord in order to accommodate the fact that he became a man. All of the human stuff would be "according to his human nature" only. This seems like a bad way to think because it obscures the single being and identity of the Lord. It would be similar to a man telling his wife that he only thought a dress made her look overweight "as a man" (according to his human nature) while "as her husband" he thought it looked great. It basically allows for mutually exclusive statements to be made about reality. Obviously I don't think you or most people intend any such thing when they say Jesus Christ had two natures. I just thought it would be helpful to point out.
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Dec 30, 2009 8:54:02 GMT -5
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the θεοτητος bodily;” Colossians 2:9
θεοτητος - Divine quality, Godhead, Deity, God's nature.
Friberg Lexicon: an abstract noun for θεός (god); divinity, deity, Godhead, divine nature (CO 2.9)
Louw-Nida Lexicon - the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.' θεότης: εν αυτω κατοικει παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως 'in him dwells all the fullness of divine nature in bodily form' Col 2.9
Liddell and Scott – Divinity, Divine nature, Luc.
Joseph Thayer - deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. 2:9.
BDAG - the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for θεός (Orig., C. Cels. 7, 25, 9): το πληρωμα της θ. the fullness of deity Col 2:9 (s. Nash s.v. θειότης).
These are just a few scholars who were easily accessible through a quick search. There are many more scholars who affirm that Jesus did indeed have a Divine nature. Jesus also had a human nature (Hebrews 4:14,15)
1+1=2 natures. It's a tragedy that many people try to smuggle the idea of Jesus having two spirits and two different characters into this concept. I agree that many people don't understand what it means for Jesus to have two natures but none-the-less, there are certainly two natures.
I can also completely agree that various attributes were given up when Jesus chose to become flesh. i.e. Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc. However, these attributes are not unchangeable. If they were, then Jesus would not have been able to become flesh. These are also classified as the “Divine Essence” and not the “Divine Nature.” The Divine nature consists of the unchangeable attributes of God which are his justice, mercy, pre and eternal existence, making him the creator which is not the creature (Romans 1:25.)
Sorry I don't have enough time to write more. I'll be able to write more tomorrow.
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Dec 30, 2009 15:38:49 GMT -5
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
the one in both verses is the greek word... εἷς heis hice (Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some.
It means simply they are 1.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Dec 30, 2009 16:04:20 GMT -5
I think we need to move away from the Greek philosophical categories of the Church Fathers. These were developed later and have dominated for far too long. Christ came as a Jew in a Jewish culture that was monotheistic. The issue we need to get at is how did the early Christians modify this monotheism so that Jesus was identified with the God of Israel w/o adopting polytheism. Remember, Peter, Paul, John, and many of the writers of the N.T. were Jewish Christians. Polytheism never crossed their minds. In fact, it would have been very easy to move to polytheism because of the surrounding polytheistic culture of the Greco - Roman gods. This they did not do. As I've already said, the N.T. and the O.T. are united in a very clear pronouncement of monotheism.
|
|
|
Post by Jessicker on Dec 30, 2009 18:04:44 GMT -5
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one. 1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. the one in both verses is the greek word... εἷς heis hice (Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. It means simply they are 1. Amen.
|
|