[Big Mac]

That is a nice way to begin to reconcile trinitarian thought as a Christian, but respectfully speaking it is not compatible with Judaism. If you want to parse things like that while doing it consistently, then you'd also have to argue that what HaShem breathed into Adam's nostrils is also a manifestation of Him and that we're all partial gods running around. You'd also have to assert the "Angel of the LORD" is part of the same godhead that you put Him and His Spirit in. To me it's as foreign as you telling me that my right hand is separate and distinct from me with a separate will, when truly it is my hand, part of my single body. I think we agree that we can see different aspects of His creative force within His creation, but anything that distorts the essential unity of the single God is a denial of His eternal word and negation of TaNaKh - IMO.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That is a nice way to begin to reconcile trinitarian thought as a Christian, but respectfully speaking it is not compatible with Judaism.

I would imagine that it is incompatible, it's not my intention to sway you or any other Jew to Christianity. I usually use that small introduction to help explain the construct of the Trinity to Kabbalists (most of whom are Jewish, of course).

If you want to parse things like that while doing it consistently, then you'd also have to argue that what HaShem breathed into Adam's nostrils is also a manifestation of Him and that we're all partial gods running around.

Well, by coincidence St. Athanasius touches on this very point, which dovetails perfectly into the line of thought I illustrated:

"God became man so that man might become a god." - (De Incarnatione 54:3, PG 25:192b

Or as Rabbi David Cooper so eloquently phrased it, "... in as much as we are co-creators with the Divine".

All of Creation, as stated in the Talmud, is divine. As we are the manifestation of God's form and likeness, by our will and deed we reflect or refract the Light and dictate how it shines upon all things.

You'd also have to assert the "Angel of the LORD" is part of the same godhead that you put Him and His Spirit in. To me it's as foreign as you telling me that my right hand is separate and distinct from me with a separate will, when truly it is my hand, part of my single body. I think we agree that we can see different aspects of His creative force within His creation, but anything that distorts the essential unity of the single God is a denial of His eternal word and negation of TaNaKh - IMO.

The way I see it, and mystics over the centuries have stated in kind, all angels and the like are, in essense, impulses and extensions of Him. Tzadkiel (bbh) is no less (or more) a part of divinity than you are.

In my view, the Trinity is the first emanation of Ein Sof upon the initial intake of His breath, the infinite split-second before expansion. He created the In-Dwelling and the vehicle of his breath before the potential for life and light was made manifest.

[Big Mac]

I see what you're driving at, Shaddim. It would be wonderful thing indeed if all of mankind realized that each and every human being is endowed with a Godly soul. But that does not mean there are 6 billion gods on earth. There is One and only One, Blessed Be He, and nothing to compare to Him.

I don't mean to come across as so argumentative. Anyway, I have to get ready for Shabbat.

[nonhuman]

I just gotta say that this has got to be one of the best threads on MacNN ever. I just wish I was better equipped to participate myself. So, thanks.

Shabbat shalom, Big Mac. (What an odd thing to say...)

[Big Mac]

This has been a great thread. Thank you to smacintush and to all who have taken part. And thank you for the Shabbat greeting - you would have fit in well with our group in Israel a few weeks ago: Shabbat Shalom was everyone's favorite refrain (even on weekdays).

[iranfromthezoo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

This has been a great thread. Thank you to smacintush and to all who have taken part. And thank you for the Shabbat greeting - you would have fit in well with our group in Israel a few weeks ago: Shabbat Shalom was everyone's favorite refrain (even on weekdays).

You know this actually reminds me of the "old macnn" where we could actually have a decent thread and disagree about things we all hold so dear and personal and view as a absolute truth and there is no flame throwing or the thread isn't hijacked as an attack on a user. I really think this is a great thread.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I see what you're driving at, Shaddim. It would be wonderful thing indeed if all of mankind realized that each and every human being is endowed with a Godly soul. But that does not mean there are 6 billion gods on earth. There is One and only One, Blessed Be He, and nothing to compare to Him.

I don't mean to come across as so argumentative. Anyway, I have to get ready for Shabbat.

and, at it's most distilled form, it's the same soul. It links us all together.

I suppose I've always seen Adam Kadmon as divinity in flesh, a god. On some level I think we all are, we just can't stay in Da'at every moment of every day.

Shabbat Shalom, we can continue in a couple days.

[smacintush]

Wow, no one has ever accused me of starting a good thread.

Sweet.

I have enjoyed it too.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Christians generally consider themselves as monotheists but the existence of Satan as they believe him to be certainly qualifies as a deity under the definitions humans have used for several millennia. I mean, he is an immortal being with the power to oppose THE ALMIGHTY and to take the souls of those who don't deserve eternal bliss. He is worshipped by some and did I mention that he is the ONLY OPPOSITION to THE ALMIGHTY SUPREME BEING? He is the embodiment of all that goes against God! This follows the exact pattern of opposing gods in many, if not all, old pagan polytheism. If Satan's not a deity we need to seriously look at how we define deity in all previous polytheistic religions as well.

Ooooo, I missed this. "The Devil" or Adversary (also known as Sammael) isn't in opposition with God, at least not in ancient lore. The concept that it is the antithesis of the Creator is rather new. Classically, the Adversary's role is to tempt man, and it's been given great latitude in how it's work is to be carried out (see Job). This is not to be confused with any "fallen" spirits, Sammael has never fallen, it's purpose exists entirely within divine will. This isn't to say that you can cozy up, Sammael isn't, and can never be, your friend.

On a more personal note, the invocation of Sammael is one of the most sobering acts a person can experience. I still get chills thinking about the first time I ever encountered it on that level.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Wow, no one has ever accused me of starting a good thread.

Sweet.

I have enjoyed it too.

The only thing that bothers me about threads like this is the certainty by which people explain concepts of god, deities, and faith. You have peeb essentially saying things like; "this is incorrect" offering no correction of facts then continues on relegating NT Scripture as unreliable historical texts based on the same measurements we'd use for any historical text. You have absolutes ranging from God breathed His Life into Adam's nostrils necessitating a view that we're all gods. You have a Satan (a god so powerful that mankind is given power to bind it up and caste it out) being claimed as a deity with such a degree of certainty that it's as if these concepts are not arguable and by those who've made theology their life's work.

One thing's for sure, there is no shortage of faith around here.

Most Christians (at least the vast range of those with whom I'm affiliated) believe that mankind was created specifically for a relationship with God, but sin separates mankind from God. (Isaiah 59:1-3) Christians believe that God could not look upon sin, but created us to have this fellowship. Thus, a conundrum of a broken relationship between God and man. How to restore it? Sacrifice. From the beginning of Scriptures, shed blood was necessary for covering. God became man. To be born, live, suffer, and die as a man to become the sacrifice of perfection for the sins of all mankind and to restore the relationship between an angry God and sinful man. Jesus is fully God and fully man. My perspective?

- Satan is not a god or deity
- God breathed life into Adam's nostrils. Our body is a tent (2. Cor. 5:1) in that we are little more than ape, The soul dwells within our body as breathed into us by God. From this we can know God with our mind, love God with our heart, and obey God with our will. Just as God has these three attributes, the author of man has endowed man with these attributes.
- The Godhead is nothing more than a triune nature of God including the human form to restore the relationship between God and man. Jesus, the intercessor.

I say these things only with the degree of certainty my faith affords me and the interest of study driven by that faith and the desire of understanding. Those in disbelief will challenge the authenticity, the relationship, and the nature of God too often driven by disbelief, lacking interest, and insisting these things are not to be understood.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only thing that bothers me about threads like this is the certainty by which people explain concepts of god, deities, and faith.

Did you expect any different? Why should this bother you? There is no "correct" interpretation of any of this.

In MY view, the modern view of Satan as viewed by most denominations of Christianity most certainly qualifies as a god by the definitions used throughout history by most non-Christian faiths and cultures. The trinity is more complex and more questionable. I think that it is the Christians that have re-defined what a god is based upon their own beliefs. The same way they re-defined the pagan gods like Pan and Cernunnos as embodiments of The Devil, and redefined the worship of those gods as degenerate, Satanic practices.

I know that it doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm not necessarily wrong either. I just thought it would be a good debate. I like discussing religion. (even when I get pissed off)

One thing's for sure, there is no shortage of faith around here.

Isn't that a good thing?

[Shaddim]

It always grates my nerves to see people claim that Jesus was sacrificed to appease an angry and bloodthirsty God.

My view: Jesus' blood was spilled on the world so that all might be redeemed. The blood itself holds that power, especially in light of how He freely gave Himself to die. Much as the Israelites spread lamb's blood on their door lintels to conceal themselves from the angel of Death, Jesus allowed His to be poured out to reveal a choice for life. The sacrifice was to mankind and a world without salvation, not to Himself.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Those in disbelief will challenge the authenticity, the relationship, and the nature of God too often driven by disbelief, lacking interest, and insisting these things are not to be understood.

You know I was gonna let this go but I can't.

It occurs to me that MOST people who call themselves Christians have never studied their own religion objectively. Their interpretations are given to them by their Catholic schools, their Sunday schools, their preachers, ministers, parents etc. These biases are passed down from generation to generation within a tradition. There is some evolution within any denomination sure, but this is a slow evolution. The Church, most any church, abhors change. The word of God is eternal is it not?

Also, within a denomination there is a deliberate lack of understanding of most other religions. If there is an education about them at all it is in the context of what is WRONG with them. How they are NOT of God.

Yes there are many who like to argue and disagree with Christians out of a bias against it, but the participation in long religious thread is at least SOME indicator of an interest. These people didn't get their knowledge from a lifelong Protestant minister or an Anglican priest. they got their information themselves.

You can certainly argue that these people "don't know" or "don't get it", but I would say that someone has objectivity on its side.

I think that if we were not talking about religion that you, being somewhat pragmatic, would argue in FAVOR of the objective or at least the MORE objective point of view. Why aren't you doing that now?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It always grates my nerves to see people claim that Jesus was sacrificed to appease an angry and bloodthirsty God.

My view: Jesus' blood was spilled on the world so that all might be redeemed. The blood itself holds that power, especially in light of how He freely gave Himself to die. Much as the Israelites spread lamb's blood on their door lintels to conceal themselves from the angel of Death, Jesus allowed His to be poured out to reveal a choice for life. The sacrifice was to mankind and a world without salvation, not to Himself.

Yes, while it's a great metaphor, it doesn't really make any sense, does it?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yes, while it's a great metaphor, it doesn't really make any sense, does it?

That's not what he said.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Did you expect any different? Why should this bother you? There is no "correct" interpretation of any of this.

In MY view, the modern view of Satan as viewed by most denominations of Christianity most certainly qualifies as a god by the definitions used throughout history by most non-Christian faiths and cultures.

Out of curiosity, do you think all angels are gods or just the ones who raise a ruckus?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

That's not what he said.

It's perfectly clear what he said - I quoted it. What's your point?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Did you expect any different? Why should this bother you? There is no "correct" interpretation of any of this.

I would've expected different and provided the difference via; "IMO" and "my perspective". I understand that many believe there is no "correct" interpretation of any of this and that is why I'll usually preface what I say by mentioning my view or perspective as a Christian.

In MY view, the modern view of Satan as viewed by most denominations of Christianity most certainly qualifies as a god by the definitions used throughout history by most non-Christian faiths and cultures.

In your view; most definitely? In MY view, Scripture most definitely states there is only one God. I and many Christians would say that to have a full understanding of Scripture, it is to be read in context of the whole. In other words Scripture reaffirms Scripture. For example, there is no horned satan creature with pitchfork and flames all around. The Satan you read about in Scripture is one who needs permission from God to act, and from man to enter in. For example;

James 4:7; Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Colossians 2:15; And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Only one God;

Mark 12:28-30; “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Mark 12:31-33; "So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He."

Deuteronomy 4:34-36; "To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him."

Isaiah 44:5-7; "Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the LORD Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other."

1 Kings 8:59-61; "that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other."

Deuteronomy 4:38-40; “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘ I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God."

Isaiah 45:4-6; "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God I will gird you, though you have not known Me"

Isaiah 45:13-15; I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.

Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour'"

Isaiah 45:21-23; "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;For I am God, and there is no other."

1 Corinthians 8:3-5; "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one."

The trinity is more complex and more questionable. I think that it is the Christians that have re-defined what a god is based upon their own beliefs. The same way they re-defined the pagan gods like Pan and Cernunnos as embodiments of The Devil, and redefined the worship of those gods as degenerate, Satanic practices.

I guess I'd start by reminding you that the thread is; Is Christianity polytheistic? The subject of the thread seemed to be Christianity. Now, if you'd like to ask Wiccans whether or not Christianity is polytheistic, they may offer a different perspective than Christians and they're certainly welcome to it. IMO, this is not a logical approach to the question. If Islam does not regard Jesus as God and a thread is posted asking; "Is Jesus God to Muslims" I wouldn't interject by stating first; "Well, the bible clearly regards Jesus as God".

In regards to Cernunnos and Pan as embodiments of Satan, I guess this would likely come from the fact that Christians do not believe in worshiping creation, but the Creator. Manifestations of man and beast intertwined and the connections between these deities and nature as they relate to produce and fertility are gods of creation and as such are likened deceptions. Deceptions are likened with the work of Satan. It is simply Christian doctrine. That said, I can tell you that through 8 years of education in Christian doctrine through the Catholic faith, then having left the Catholic faith another 19 years of service in non-denominational outlets and churches, not once was Cernunnos or Pan mentioned. In fact, while many third-party Christian resources will speak on the problems with Islam and other religions, it is most often done by highlighting the differences, not why one is better. You might say that to attain this knowledge through a Christian outlet, the superiority of Christ and/or Christianity is assumed I'd say; "What would YOU expect?" Little to no time is spent even uttering the words of other religions in Christian church. Generally, the Christian churches are interested in Christian doctrine, Christian principles, and Christian living with little or no attention paid to the wealth of other religions and philosophies.

I know that it doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm not necessarily wrong either. I just thought it would be a good debate. I like discussing religion. (even when I get pissed off)

I certainly wouldn't allow the discussion to "piss me off" and I generally welcome a good debate too. What bothers me is that good debates do not often occur from positions founded on such a rigid degree of certainty.

Isn't that a good thing?

Yes and no.

[Big Mac]

Here's a question I'd like to pose (once again please feel free to skip over in favor of Christian sensibilities you may hold):

"Can you offer any direct textual evidence from the Christian Scriptures (the so-called "New Testament") for belief in the trinitarian godhead?"

I don't think such support exists in the Christian Scriptures. Now people will point to John 1:1, but it is my understanding that that statement was enlarged with trinitarian gloss as some point long after the original text was created. Others will refer to the gospel line in which Jesus says that he is one with the Father, but it is my understanding that there he was (at least overtly) referring to the Jewish concept of Jews being one with God when in agreement with Him. Perhaps cited will be the lines in which the gospels have Jesus say he is going to ascend to Heaven to sit next to God (forgive me for not quoting directly), but that to me does not imply any unity with the Creator but rather a belief in an exalted position therewith. Finally, references to Jesus being the son of God do not to me support a trinitarian conception, for the nation of Israel is called God's first born; both David and Solomon are referred to as His sons. Furthermore, are not we all the children of the living God?

In many places in the Christian Scriptures you see references to "God and His Christ." IIRC, that's how Paul and his contemporaries often refer to Jesus, and that does not imply a trinity since Christ only means anointed. There were a great many anointed ones, and if you look at the KJV of the Hebrew Scrijptures it translates Cyrus as a "Christ."

Moreover, as I referenced before, you see a lot of evidence in the gospels that suggest Jesus saw himself in a lower position in comparison to God, and I think it's a stretch textually to assert that Jesus was misleading the public every time the gospels have him say such things. I also find outlandish the apologetics that assert such passages should be understood from some sort of "earthly will versus a heavenly will," while simultaneously claiming that Jesus was nonetheless a fully divine being. If one wishes to believe Jesus was a fully divine incarnation of his Father, then he should have enjoyed omniscience, omnipotence and co-equal status on earth, right? We know the gospels do not suggest such a thing. I just don't think you can find any direct textual support in the Christian Scriptures for the belief that Jesus is a third, co-equal, co-eternal part of a triune deity. Instead, it seems to me that that doctrine circulated among Pauline Christians (even though I don't think Paul's doctrine supports it) until it was formalized by Rome at Nicea.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You know I was gonna let this go but I can't.

It occurs to me that MOST people who call themselves Christians have never studied their own religion objectively.

Maybe, maybe not. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. To claim objectivity by first stating your opinion is fallacious at the core no?

Their interpretations are given to them by their Catholic schools, their Sunday schools, their preachers, ministers, parents etc.

Should one attain their knowledge of biology from a plumber?

These biases are passed down from generation to generation within a tradition. There is some evolution within any denomination sure, but this is a slow evolution. The Church, most any church, abhors change. The word of God is eternal is it not?

Depends on what your ideal of "change" is. Certainly many Catholics may abhor the notion of a female priest or a married priest, but I most definitely do not have a problem with either. Of course, I'm not Catholic. I would not seek to join the Catholic faith and work towards changing it just as I would not become a Muslim with the intent of changing Muslim doctrine to regard Jesus as God. Those that seek to do this are generally considered hostile to that faith. Generally it is understood that if you do not appreciate the tenets of a faith, that particular faith may not be for you.

Also, within a denomination there is a deliberate lack of understanding of most other religions. If there is an education about them at all it is in the context of what is WRONG with them. How they are NOT of God.

I disagree. What Church do you belong to and how long have you been in attendance there? Most of the information I've seen highlights the differences between religions and while the superiority of Christianity is assumed throughout, this simply follows being provided by a Christian outlet.

Yes there are many who like to argue and disagree with Christians out of a bias against it, but the participation in long religious thread is at least SOME indicator of an interest. These people didn't get their knowledge from a lifelong Protestant minister or an Anglican priest. they got their information themselves.

I disagree. In most cases folks just want their .02. It is not founded on an interest in the concepts in question, but simply an opportunity to let others know what you already think. Too often with a degree of rigidity that does not allow for fruitful discourse.

You can certainly argue that these people "don't know" or "don't get it", but I would say that someone has objectivity on its side.

I said "too often". I did not suggest that all "don't get it", but that too often they do not and their views are founded on the premise of a lacking interest.

I think that if we were not talking about religion that you, being somewhat pragmatic, would argue in FAVOR of the objective or at least the MORE objective point of view. Why aren't you doing that now?[

As you can see, there is little that can be considered "objective". I would not say that all non-Christians lack objectivity, but I'd likewise reject the notion that only non-Christians can provide objective viewpoints of Christianity; the subject of this thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Here's a question I'd like to pose (once again please feel free to skip over in favor of Christian sensibilities you may hold):

"Can you offer any direct textual evidence from the Christian Scriptures (the so-called "New Testament") for belief in the trinitarian godhead?"

I'd start by asking what your criteria is for "direct textual evidence from the NT for belief in the trinitarian godhead".

I don't think such support exists in the Christian Scriptures.

I do.

Now people will point to John 1:1, but it is my understanding that that statement was enlarged with trinitarian gloss as some point long after the original text was created. Others will refer to the gospel line in which Jesus says that he is one with the Father, but it is my understanding that there he was (at least overtly) referring to the Jewish concept of Jews being one with God when in agreement with Him. Perhaps cited will be the lines in which the gospels have Jesus say he is going to ascend to Heaven to sit next to God (forgive me for not quoting directly), but that to me does not imply any unity with the Creator but rather a belief in an exalted position therewith. Finally, references to Jesus being the son of God do not to me support a trinitarian conception, for the nation of Israel is called God's first born; both David and Solomon are referred to as His sons. Furthermore, are not we all the children of the living God?

I may point to John 1:1. I may also point to 2 Corinthians 13:14 or Matthew 28:19, Galatians 4:6, 1 Peter 1:1-2, Titus 3:4-6, 1 Corinthians 2:2-5, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 2:18-22, Ephesians 4:4-6, Colossians 1:6-8; 1Thessalonians 1:3-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, etc...

In many places in the Christian Scriptures you see references to "God and His Christ." IIRC, that's how Paul and his contemporaries often refer to Jesus, and that does not imply a trinity since Christ only means anointed. There were a great many anointed ones, and if you look at the KJV of the Hebrew Scrijptures it translates Cyrus as a "Christ."

Christ, "anointed", the Greek translation of the Hebrew word rendered "Messiah" as I understand it. In this context also rendered "deliverer", "redeemer", and "King" etc... covered throughout Scripture such as; Acts 17:3, Matthew; 22:42 and including Isaiah 61:1 and Daniel 9:24-26. He is also believed to be from "the seed of the woman", Genesis 3:15, "seed of Abraham" in Genesis 22:18. From the whole of Scripture (as it relates to Christianity; Old and New Testament) one concludes that Jesus is not only "annointed", but the Messiah of prophets, the Savior sent by God, the King, the deliverer, appointed by God, intercessor, the savior of all men, etc... I mean, Christ is mentioned contextually some 500 plus times in the NT. I guess we'd have to narrow it down a bit.

Moreover, as I referenced before, you see a lot of evidence in the gospels that suggest Jesus saw himself in a lower position in comparison to God, and I think it's a stretch textually to assert that Jesus was misleading the public every time the gospels have him say such things. I also find outlandish the apologetics that assert such passages should be understood from some sort of "earthly will versus a heavenly will," while simultaneously claiming that Jesus was nonetheless a fully divine being. If one wishes to believe Jesus was a fully divine incarnation of his Father, then he should have enjoyed omniscience, omnipotence and co-equal status on earth, right? We know the gospels do not suggest such a thing. I just don't think you can find any direct textual support in the Christian Scriptures for the belief that Jesus is a third, co-equal, co-eternal part of a triune deity. Instead, it seems to me that that doctrine circulated among Pauline Christians (even though I don't think Paul's doctrine supports it) until it was formalized by Rome at Nicea.

Quotes such as "I am", "yes it is as you say", "you are right in saying I am", and "I who speak to you am He" by various authors (like the above; Mark, Matthew, and Luke) and affirmed by doctrine littered throughout the NT including "Good Shepherd" taken in context of Ezekial; Jesus is clearly identifying Himself with God. Who Christ Jesus is according to the NT is unmistakeable.

To conclude; one may say that there is a lot of evidence to suggest Jesus saw Himself in a lower position than God, when taken as a whole there is a lot of evidence that Jesus is God according to the NT. There is only one God and Jesus is God. God is the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. This represents a triune nature of a unified God.

[Big Mac]

Thank you, ebuddy. I'll have to look up those citations. As a follow-up, do you believe what you term as "God the Son" to be co-equal and co-eternal with "God the Father"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you, ebuddy. I'll have to look up those citations. As a follow-up, do you believe what you term as "God the Son" to be co-equal and co-eternal with "God the Father"?

How many books of the Torah could you disregard and remain faithful to the tenets within it? When you ask me if Jesus is equal to God you're asking me to catch 130 pounds of fish without a boat, a net, or a scale. Without Jesus, there is no God for me.

[Big Mac]

And I am thankful for your belief. Please believe me when I write that I don't mean to harm or challenge anyone's beliefs with my posts here in any way, or even to give the appearance of it. I participate in threads like these for the intellectual interplay.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's perfectly clear what he said - I quoted it. What's your point?

I agree, it is perfectly clear what he said. You showed some pretty clear motivation for what you replied with.

My point, that it is completely worthless to discuss anything with you.

Cheers.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I agree, it is perfectly clear what he said. You showed some pretty clear motivation for what you replied with.

My point, that it is completely worthless to discuss anything with you.

Cheers.

Not, perhaps, if you can't keep up. What he posted didn't have any logical consistency. I pointed that you, and you clearly have no response. Please feel free not to discuss this with me if you have nothing to add except abuse.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And I am thankful for your belief. Please believe me when I write that I don't mean to harm or challenge anyone's beliefs with my posts here in any way, or even to give the appearance of it. I participate in threads like these for the intellectual interplay.

No problem at all Big Mac. You're good peepz.

[Apemanblues]

Edit: Nevermind

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Not, perhaps, if you can't keep up. What he posted didn't have any logical consistency. I pointed that you, and you clearly have no response. Please feel free not to discuss this with me if you have nothing to add except abuse.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Another erudite and fascinating railroader response.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Another erudite and fascinating railroader response.

Read your own post and try to understand it. If you do in fact understand it, please try to explain what in the hell you were trying to say in simpler words that a simpleton such as myself would perhaps understand. Because for the lie of me, I can't figure out your point.

And try not to be insulting and condescending as usual.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Read your own post and try to understand it. If you do in fact understand it, please try to explain what in the hell you were trying to say in simpler words that a simpleton such as myself would perhaps understand. Because for the lie of me, I can't figure out your point.

And try not to be insulting and condescending as usual.

He can't grab the concept of Yeshua = Pesach lamb.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

And try not to be insulting and condescending as usual.

See, you and I CAN agree in a religious thread!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Should one attain their knowledge of biology from a plumber?

Ok.

Hypothetical:

I'm a believer in God but I really have NO direction or education on the bible or Christianity at all. Where do I go? The protestants? Episcopals? Seventh Day Adventist? Seventh Day Pentecostal? Methodist? Lutheran? How about the Roman Catholics? Perhaps the Presbyterians? Mennonites? How about Mormons? Southern Baptist? Reformed Baptist? Evangelical Baptist? Fundamentalist Baptist? Old Apostolic? New Apostolic? How about the Amish? Dutch Reformed? Bulgarian Orthodox? Assyrians?

Of the more than 300 branches and 38,000 denominations, who is THE authority on the Bible?

Wait…or do all of these agree on everything?

[Chongo]

Get yourself a bible translated directly from the original hebrew, aramaic, and greek, and not one that's a translation of a translation and decide for yourself

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Read your own post and try to understand it. If you do in fact understand it, please try to explain what in the hell you were trying to say in simpler words that a simpleton such as myself would perhaps understand. Because for the lie of me, I can't figure out your point.

And try not to be insulting and condescending as usual.

I don't know that I can make it much simpler for you - the post I was talking about does not make sense.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I'm getting dizzy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Ok.

Hypothetical:

I'm a believer in God but I really have NO direction or education on the bible or Christianity at all. Where do I go? The protestants? Episcopals? Seventh Day Adventist? Seventh Day Pentecostal? Methodist? Lutheran? How about the Roman Catholics? Perhaps the Presbyterians? Mennonites? How about Mormons? Southern Baptist? Reformed Baptist? Evangelical Baptist? Fundamentalist Baptist? Old Apostolic? New Apostolic? How about the Amish? Dutch Reformed? Bulgarian Orthodox? Assyrians?

Of the more than 300 branches and 38,000 denominations, who is THE authority on the Bible?

Wait…or do all of these agree on everything?

If I had to point to a church or spiritual group for someone who had no inclinations towards religion (a rare person, to be sure), I'd likely direct them towards the Maronite or Syrian Orthodox churches. Other interesting choices would be Eastern Orthodox or Copts. For people who already have certain... interests... I'd say the Copts. Also, I'd check out a local Taoist temple, if for no other reason than to meet some very interesting and remarkable people.

A person with a Coptic Orthodox faith and Taoist philosophy would have an ocean of spiritual depth to draw upon.

Coptic Orthodox Church in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I may point to John 1:1

I'd say the entire book of John is written to claim Jesus is god. John 10:30 "The Father and I are one." Of course, the gospel of John is a second century text, not representative of the early church at all.

2 Corinthians 13:14

You're reading too much into this phrase.

Matthew 28:19

"And baptist them in the name of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I don't think this phrase means as much as you think it does.

Galatians 4:6

I'd say that this means of opposite of Jesus' being god. It actually says: Jesus was God's son, and you too can be God's sons if you imitate Jesus.

1 Peter 1:1-2

Are we reading the same passage? No equivalence is made here.

Titus 3:4-6

Titus is certainly not a letter written by Paul.

1 Corinthians 2:2-5

Nothing of note here.

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

Nothing here either.

Ephesians 2:18-22

Nothing.

Ephesians 4:4-6

Nothing.

Colossians 1:6-8

Nothing here.

1Thessalonians 1:3-5

Nothing.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, etc...

Nothing.

You seem to believe that any statement with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are statements about a triune god. They aren't; they are merely mini Creeds: we worship God, we follow his anointed prophet Jesus, and we are ourselves prophetically inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Explicit statements where Jesus = God are only found in John and Hebrews. The rest of the NT is overtly adoptionist.

[OAW]

Personally I do not think Christianity is polytheistic as a result of its belief in the Trinity. I do, however, find it to be a tad bit hypocritical in its use of that term to disparage other religions. You can't logically and truthfully advocate a Trinity and then turn around and disparage the ancient Egyptian religion for example by labeling it "polytheistic". Especially when many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity (e.g. the Virgin Birth, The Crucified and Resurrected Savior, etc.) were, how shall I put this charitably ... uh "influenced" by older religions. The ancient Egyptians (like a lot of other religions) believed in one Supreme Being (i.e. Neter) who manifested Itself as a multitude of deities (i.e. Ausar (Osiris), Auset (Isis), Heru (Horus ... the archetype of the Christian Messiah), Set (the archetype of the Christian Satan), Sebek, Het-Heru, Tehuti (Thoth), etc.) So why is 3 OK but 30 not? Or 100 or 1000? Why can't a Supreme Being that is infinite, eternal, and omnipotent not being able to express Itself in an infinite number of manifestations?

Some earlier hit the nail on the head. The typical Christian is woefully uneducated in his/her own religion. They are familiar with the core beliefs and the traditions passed down from generation to generation. But most do not study their own religion, let alone any others in any sort of objective manner.

OAW

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

See, you and I CAN agree in a religious thread!

It had to happen sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I'm getting dizzy.

Me too.

Wait a minute... "getting"?

[Railroader]

Someone please explain to me how labeling something "polytheistic" is degrading?

Regarding the thread topic: I do not consider Christianity as polytheistic. One God, three manifestations. As confusing as that is, consider the fact that if you could understand God, that would put you on the same level as God. That is just not possible.

Is this topic actually a stumbling block keeping anyone from committing to a belief in Christianity, or is this just one of those mental jerk-off conversations? There are far greater topics of discussion concerning Jesus Christ than wether or not he is a God separate from the Holy Spirit or God the Father.

Regarding Satan: He is simply an angel. Formerly God's favorite angel. Angels are not gods. They are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. All requirements of being God.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Regarding Satan: He is simply an angel. Formerly God's favorite angel. Angels are not gods. They are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. All requirements of being God.

Requirements of being God, perhaps, but not of being a god. There are plenty of gods in other mythologies who are not omnipotent, omnipresent, nor eternal.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

consider the fact that if you could understand God, that would put you on the same level as God.

I can understand Stephen Hawking's nature, but I still think he's quite a bit smarter than I am.

[Shaddim]

Today I posed the question, "why did God create?". Actually, it started out as a simple "why?" written on the board. We had a very stimulating discussion, even our lone atheist felt compelled to jump in several times.

Why would a complete, self-sufficient, and perfect creator make something like this?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can understand Stephen Hawking's nature, but I still think he's quite a bit smarter than I am.

I think a closer comparison would be a mold spore trying to understand Hawking's nature.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Requirements of being God, perhaps, but not of being a god. There are plenty of gods in other mythologies who are not omnipotent, omnipresent, nor eternal.

But there are plenty of supernatural creatures in other mythologies also fitting this description that are not gods. It seems to me that the only reason you'd look to mythologies where creatures like Satan are considered gods and ignore the others is to stack the deck against Christianity's monotheism.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But there are plenty of supernatural creatures in other mythologies also fitting this description that are not gods. It seems to me that the only reason you'd look to mythologies where creatures like Satan are considered gods and ignore the others is to stack the deck against Christianity's monotheism.

But those creatures aren't worshiped, and I believe that's a good place to start drawing comparisons. Having worshipers seems to be the first defining characteristic of divinity.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can understand Stephen Hawking's nature, but I still think he's quite a bit smarter than I am.

So, you are equating Steven Hawking with God? Seriously? Even if you don't believe in God, that is one of the silliest comparisons I have ever heard.

Shaddim was being VERY generous. It would be more like comparing a quark to all of the greatest geniuses mankind has ever created. And that is still being infinitesimally generous.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'd say the entire book of John is written to claim Jesus is god. John 10:30 "The Father and I are one." Of course, the gospel of John is a second century text, not representative of the early church at all.

Why not?

You're reading too much into this phrase.

How so?

"And baptist them in the name of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I don't think this phrase means as much as you think it does.

I think this phrase means more than you think it does.

I'd say that this means of opposite of Jesus' being god. It actually says: Jesus was God's son, and you too can be God's sons if you imitate Jesus.

You may want to read all of Galatians 4. Galatians 4:7; Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Knowing that the fallen Satan can imitate Jesus and knowing that Jesus' disciples were often times incapable of imitating Jesus, your summary of that verse seems painfully simpleton IMO. If you want a quick summary, it is more to do with not imitating Jesus, but reminding them why their legalism was unnecessary and questioning their desire to remain under it likening it with bondage.

In using Scripture to affirm Scripture while reading the above I'd ask; through who? Why? Who will be formed in them? Why? Etc...

Are we reading the same passage? No equivalence is made here.

Really? Who was Peter's audience? You may want to read all of 1 Peter. 1 Peter 1:19-20; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Titus is certainly not a letter written by Paul.

Titus 1:1; Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness

I could've guessed you don't regard the Bible as accurate, but I would've thought your argument would have a little more substance.

Nothing of note here

.
I disagree

Nothing here either.

I disagree.

Nothing

.
disagree

Nothing.

disagree.

Nothing here.

disagree.

Nothing

.
disagree

Nothing.

disagree.

You seem to believe that any statement with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are statements about a triune god. They aren't; they are merely mini Creeds: we worship God, we follow his anointed prophet Jesus, and we are ourselves prophetically inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You seem to believe that a limited reading of these books renders Jesus nothing more than a prophet and that, based on your own opinions can pluck from the Bible what you wish. You're welcome to do this just as I'm quoting from the Bible in faith, but I'm afraid this is consistent with some of my initial complaints. I appreciate your .02 however.

I suppose I could quote the books in their entirety, but I'd like to first verify that it's an effective use of time.

Explicit statements where Jesus = God are only found in John and Hebrews. The rest of the NT is overtly adoptionist.

I appreciate your conviction. Do you regularly study the Bible?

I'm guessing your view is formed at least in part by the work of Ehrman. Interestingly, his assertions are much less audacious than your own and yet come under considerable critique for failing to acknowledge text in context and without regard for multiple instances of the same themes throughout. The conclusions are not surprising.