It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christianity is NOT a monotheistic religion!

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
OK, I know I'm going to catch Hell (pun intended) for this, but one of the notions about Christianity that kills me is that it's a monotheistic religion. It isn't.


pa-gan
-noun
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.

Dictionary.com

Now there is only one Allah, only one Yahweh, but in Christianity, it's a Trinity, as in more than one Divine Being. Then you add the Idolatry angle. In a Jewish Temple you will not find a statue or picture of a Burning Bush. In Islam, it is forbidden to create any image of Allah or Mohammed. But go into any Christian Church and what do you see? Jesus being executed! And in some denominations, most notably Catholism, you can't take two steps without tripping over some statue or picture of religious significance.

Now Christians will tell you that there is only one True God, but which one is it? The Father? The Son? The Holy Spirit? Or maybe it's something like this:



And what happens when these three don't agree on something? Do they take a vote? Majority rules?

Before the birth of Jesus, was it just the Holy Duality? Now I know some will try to tell me that the Son has also always existed and only took human form 2,000 years ago, but doesn't that make Mary just a Divine Surrogate?

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Paganism. I am considered a Pagan, even though I believe there is only one Divine Being with many faces and aspects. But really folks, let's call it what it is! If you have more than one Divine Being, your a Pagan! It's OK, it's just a word. A label if you will.

Just trying to inspire some thought.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by JaxonRoberts]




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

The diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were later systematized into the idea of a Trinity – one God subsisting in three persons and one substance – in order to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.


Comma Johanneum


In addition to these, 1 John 5:7 states, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, this Comma Johanneum is not considered to be part of the genuine text. It is commonly found in Latin manuscripts, but is absent from the Greek manuscripts, except for a few late examples, where the passage appears to have been back-translated from the Latin. Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, on which the King James Version was based, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with an example containing it, which he rightly suspected was a gloss after the fact. Although the Latin Church Father, Saint Cyprian, is thought to have referred to the passage, it is now considered not to have been part of the original text, and is omitted from modern translations of the Bible, even from the revision of the Vulgate that is now the official Latin text of the Roman Catholic Church.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is just a start. There is no such thing as the Trinity in the Bible.

Elohim in the O.T. is translated as gods. There is no way around it. You will see Christians try to explain or defend the Trinity in the O.T. You will see them trying to explain the Hebrew grammar.

Nothing will change that Elohim is plural.

And don't get me started on the possibility of Elohim as being extraterrestrials



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Interesting.

But in essence, were there to be one true god who has bestowed upon humankind the ability to make their own decisions and as ramifications for those actions / decisions may cause one to incur Hell, were that one true god to bend the rules even once would cause that god to lose credibility. As such, Lucifer, though a fallen angel and technically less than god and capable of being over-ridden by god's will should god so desire... doing such would put god in the odd position of being a liar.
So, how to deal with that? Let's imbue a human figure with the means to try to convince by example that there is but one way (albeit a vague way) to return to heaven and there is also this little voice that speaks to one's self in their mind's eye about what one should do, should one decide to listen.
Odd, I don't see the contradiction there. My mother often employed my father and my brother to try to get me to do the right thing. Though we are all one of family, we all knew who was in charge.

But what do I know? I'm an agnostic pagan.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Ya, the trinity is a hard thing to wrap your mind around..And many Christians only think of it becasue it is what they are taught.

I know none who came to this conclusion on there own...



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The description of God is that He is three and He is one, and there is only one.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:10-11)

www.godandscience.org...
www.equip.org...


First, let's look at a few Trinity examples:

Who raised Jesus from the dead?
The Father (Rom 6:4, Acts 3:26, I Thes 1:10) The Son (John 2:19-21, 10:17-18), The Spirit (Rom 8:11) or God (Heb 13:20,Acts13:30,17:31)

Who is God?
The Father (Eph 4:6) The Son (Tit 2:13, John 1:1, 20:28, 9:35-37) The Spirit (Gen 1:2, Ps 104:30) or God (Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3)

Who saves mankind?
The Father (I Pet 1:3) The Son (John 5:21, 4:14) The Spirit (John 3:6, Tit 3:5) or God (I John 3:9)

Who justifies man?
The Father (Jer 23:6, II Cor 5:19)
The Son (Rom 5:9, 10:4, II Cor 5:19,21) The Spirit (I Cor 6:11, Gal 5:5) or God (Rom 45:6, 9:33)

Who sanctifies man?
The Father (Jude 1), The Son (Tit 2:14), The Spirit (I Pet 1:2) or God (Ex 31:13)

The Trinity is shown clearly. The functions of each person of the godhead are shown in I Cor 8:6 and John 15:26: Of the Father, by the Son, through the Spirit.

Because you cannot understand or comprehend it does not mean it is not true. Same with mathematics.

So, you can see that the three in one God is in the Bible. We call it trinity instead of three in one, means the same. Jesus came so we could put a face on God and understand Him better. He came because God loves us and cares about us enough to personally endure with us, and die for us.


[edit on 30-8-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 




The Trinity is shown clearly. The functions of each person of the godhead are shown in I Cor 8:6 and John 15:26: Of the Father, by the Son, through the Spirit.


Nope. Why would they have to forge a verse to support the Trinity? See Comma Johanneum.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Actually in Christianity God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same thing. This is why St. Patrick is associated with the clover. When he converted Ireland to Christianity he used the clover as an example because it has three leaves but its all the same clover. I'm not saying this is true, but this is why it's considered monotheistic.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 




Actually in Christianity God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same thing. This is why St. Patrick is associated with the clover. When he converted Ireland to Christianity he used the clover as an example because it has three leaves but its all the same clover. I'm not saying this is true, but this is why it's considered monotheistic.


I have heard that story many times before.

Christians cannot escape the fact that they have to either accept three gods (persons) or one god.

They are in actuality worshipping THREE gods, not one god.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
The Christian apologists explain the Trinity as three aspects of the one God. That is, the Trinity doesn't represent three distinct entities or deities or whatever, but only three aspects or views of one single, indivisible God. Not saying I agree with that, but that's how Christians explain the Trinity.

As for "Elohim", it is often a plural word, but not always. In Hebrew, generally words ending with -im are masculine plurals. One cherub, two cherubim. One seraph, two seraphim. And so on.

This can sometimes apply to El, but does not always apply. "Elohim" appears in three separate contexts in Hebrew. In one, "Elohim" refers to powerful ones (not gods necessarily, just powerful beings). In Psalms 8:5, it reads, "For thou hast made him [Man] a little lower than the angels..." Here, "angels" is "elohim". The verse could be translated, "thou hast made him a little lower than the gods", or even "..than God". However, from context, the word "elohim" is understood to refer to angels, beings of power.

Moving right along, we have the Ten Commandments, which forbid people from having any other gods. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3). OK, here 'gods' is also written as 'elohim'; it's a plural word, referring to multiple deities, the gods of the other tribes.

Now we get to the nitty-gritty. The Bible starts out with the words, "In the beginning, God created..." (Genesis 1:1). Here yet again, God is written as "Elohim". So, does this prove that "God" is multiple? No. Not even close.

Yes, it's a plural-ended word. Yes, the same word refers to gods or angels or other powerful entities. But no, in this context, God is single, not plural. It can be determined by the word "created". In the Hebrew, the verb is masculine *singular*, not plural. Unlike English, Hebrew (and many other languages) have verbs that need to agree with the nouns. It's something like how we say "he goes", but "they go". You can tell from the verb "go" whether the noun is plural or singular. Except in Hebrew, this is the rule rather than the exception.

So you could imagine putting the text into the present tense. In the beginning Elohim creates..."; but somewhere else, "the elohim create..." - the second version would be plural, which you can tell from the word "create".

Finally, in Deuteronomy 6:4, just in case there was any doubt, we have "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One". That is a clear and unambiguous statement of monotheism, which is fundamental to Judaism.

To complicate matters, there are two different names for God in the Hebrew. One is "Elohim", and the other is YHVH, often written as "Jehovah", but never pronounced as spelled. In the King James Version, when you see God it refers to "Elohim"; YHVH is translated as "LORD", in the Old Testament.

Much has been made of these two words. Some scholars believe that the names are evidence of two different religious traditions that were merged into the Old Testament. Others suggest that there were the "Elohists" and the "Yahwists", different schools of thought trying to compete, but that finally consolidated.

The Rabbis explain it as simply a reference to the dual nature of God, the Attribute of Justice and the Attribute of Mercy. One without the other would be intolerable. Justice alone, without Mercy, would mean none of us could survive. Mercy without Justice would leave people free to hurt each other without concern for consequences. The Universe and mankind need both Attributes in order to survive. So, while God is clearly One in Judaism, even there He has a dual nature, two ways to approach Him. Oh, and He also has a feminine aspect, the Presence dwelling in the Ark of the Covenant. That was called the Sh'khina, a feminine aspect of God.

So I can kind of see where the Christians could try to say that the Trinity is just a three-fold view of one indifisible God.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Very good post. I gave you a star.

I have always see Elohim in that context as a GROUP of gods. A group is singular of course. A group doing one purpose.

We all say that a company produce things. But we know that a company is made up of many employees. The word "company" is just a term. In the context, elohim in several verses was used as a single group.

Christians cannot escape the fact that 3 does not equal to 1. It's either 3 or 1. Many theologians have struggled with this for centuries. Many has gone as far as to state that those 3 personalities are merely masks of one single god.



Finally, in Deuteronomy 6:4, just in case there was any doubt, we have "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One". That is a clear and unambiguous statement of monotheism, which is fundamental to Judaism.


If my memory serves me correctly, the term in hebrew is JEHOVAH. Yes, "Jehovah is One". The term elohim was not used.



So I can kind of see where the Christians could try to say that the Trinity is just a three-fold view of one indifisible God.


No. Christians see the Trinity as THREE DISTINCT persons and YET ONE GOD. In other words, 3 = 1.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The really confusing thing is that the Bible does not explicitly follow one viewpoint, so for every person you meet who claims to be Christian, you'll have another way of looking at things. Some agree that yes, Jesus is not God (but then they create some other title for him, like Superangel or "Firstborn of Creation" or "Dude who did all the God-type things even though he wasn't God"), then you have the bi-inty people (who don't consider the Holy Spirit part of the god-head), then you have the people who say that Jesus wasn't God, just a really divine fellow.

Personally, I can't understand how someone can read the Bible as a whole and not come to the conclusion that "Jesus" and "The Father" were two completely different entities.

But yeah, the 3-in-1 deal would technically be considered a pantheon or polytheism of some sort, no?



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 




Personally, I can't understand how someone can read the Bible as a whole and not come to the conclusion that "Jesus" and "The Father" were two completely different entities.


Strangely enough, most Christians will tell you that they are two completely different entities and yet the same person.



But yeah, the 3-in-1 deal would technically be considered a pantheon or polytheism of some sort, no?


Exactly, which was the reason why they forged a verse to fend off the accusations. See my first post.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
So you could imagine putting the text into the present tense. In the beginning Elohim creates..."; but somewhere else, "the elohim create..." - the second version would be plural, which you can tell from the word "create".


It's not that simple, even if you are on the right course with the words. Maybe something you missed, as I noticed how you demonstrated with your own syntax that you probably have overlooked: infinitives.

Where it says "In the beginning," it starts with such an infinitive. When people use infinitives, it either makes sense as a future tense, as a infinite tense, or as nonsensical. When it is nonsensical, it usual suggest either a bad translation or a phrase that is not meant to be taken literally as the tense is deliberately illogical. In this phrase however, it does make sense to suggest that Elohim is plural and the verb being "create" as a individual, over and over again, either as the same individual or as a different individual. Anotherwords, the act to create is not singular, as the act 'has been and will be performed' over and over. Instead of one individual that commits the act over and over, the plural sense of Elohim suggest that many take turns to commit the act, individually.

Peave & Love.

Edit: Some translations try to put it in past tense and say "the first god created" rather than "in the beggining", yet notice the ordinal usage.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


And how exactly does this dispute the assumption that Christianity is not a monotheistic religion???



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
No. Christians see the Trinity as THREE DISTINCT persons and YET ONE GOD. In other words, 3 = 1.


Let me see if I can explain how this works (and this goes beyond Christianity) :

Let's say you take a property called FOO. Let's say it is given that X has FOO, Y has FOO, and Z has FOO. When you see them as individually as X, Y, Z, then they appear as 3. When you see them as FOO, then they appear as one. This is singular as in mathematical dimensions. Therefore, there is single dimension the only consists of FOO. It doesn't mean that FOO can not be seen as individuals, it just means there is single dimension that exists.

Is that too complex?

Let's say JIm, Sally, Robin are all alive. There is a single dimension which they are all alive. In such a dimension, they are one, mathematically. The dimension is called "God", or at least for this example.

Enjoy.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Let me follow that logic then. There were 12 Olympian Gods: Ares, Aphrodite, Apollo, Athena, Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hermes, Hephaestus, Dionysus, Poseidon, and Zeus. There was only one Olympus. So 12 and 1. Thus, by your logic, the Greeks were monotheistic. Umm.... NO!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 




Let me see if I can explain how this works (and this goes beyond Christianity) : Let's say you take a property called FOO. Let's say it is given that X has FOO, Y has FOO, and Z has FOO. When you see them as individually as X, Y, Z, then they appear as 3. When you see them as FOO, then they appear as one. This is singular as in mathematical dimensions. Therefore, there is single dimension the only consists of FOO. It doesn't mean that FOO can not be seen as individuals, it just means there is single dimension that exists. Is that too complex? Let's say JIm, Sally, Robin are all alive. There is a single dimension which they are all alive. In such a dimension, they are one, mathematically. The dimension is called "God", or at least for this example. Enjoy.


Okay. I am a computer programmer.

There are three different people named Bill, Bob, and Buck. They are three different men. They are computer programmers, each one of them. They can work together as a unit and call themselves the Computer Programmer. The output of software from them can seem to be from a unit, but really they work together as a group.

What you fail to understand is that Christrian consider that the Trinity is THREE gods that are actually ONE GOD.

Do you know of anyone that is actually three persons and one person at the same time? Not even schizophrenics or those suffer with multiple personalities can do that.

Just ask any Christrian.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by dzonatas
 


There are three different people named Bill, Bob, and Buck. They are three different men. They are computer programmers, each one of them. They can work together as a unit and call themselves the Computer Programmer. The output of software from them can seem to be from a unit, but really they work together as a group.

What you fail to understand is that Christrian consider that the Trinity is THREE gods that are actually ONE GOD.


There is a difference in how God and god is spelled, unless you want to ignore capitalization. Do you use the john, or do you use the John... uhm, don't answer that.


Don't say I failed. I only gave you a possibility, and maybe it wasn't clear enough to you.

The difference we have how we see this: the group (Bill, Bob, Buck) that you called the unit, yet in my example it would look more like (Foo, Foo, Foo) where there is no separate identity to be considered a group. It's just a single infinite dimension of Foo. Call it Fooim, or call it Bar.

Fooim = Bar

Elohim = God

Only 3 are pointed out instead of the infinite, just to make it more simple, and so you have the concept of individualism.

Peace & Love


[edit on 30-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The trinity is indeed one god. One god, yet with three dimensions. Perhaps this analogy can help you to understand the concept: "My hand has five fingers, but all five fingers are parts of one hand."

www.columbia.edu...



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 




Do you use the john, or do you use the John...


Gee, thanks for putting the image in my head.



Don't say I failed. I only gave you a possibility, and maybe it wasn't clear enough to you.


Well, I understand what you are saying.

However, just ask any Christian and they will tell you that their three gods are actually one god. That is like saying Bill, Bob, and Buck is Borat.



The difference we have how we see this the group (Bill, Bob, Buck) that you called the unit, yet in my example it would look more like (Foo, Foo, Foo) where is no separate identity to be considered a group. It's just a single infinite dimension of Foo. Call it Fooim, or call it Bar.


Foo, Bar, Baz


It's either three distinct gods or it's one god. Can't be both.

So says Christians. Ask any Christian and they will tell you that three different beings are actually one being.



Only 3 are pointed out instead of the infinite, just to make it more simple.


What? Are you saying that there are infintie many "masks" god can wear? Or are there infinite number of beings who are actually one being?

But anyway, Christians can not escape the fact they worship three gods. If they say they worship one god, then they are saying that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are actually one and the same.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join