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: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NJE03
 




Perhaps this analogy can help you to understand the concept: "My hand has five fingers, but all five fingers are parts of one hand."


Do two people in one donkey suit make the donkey real or two people into one person?

Is a ventriloquist's dummy a separate being or is the dummy ventriloquist himself?

The hand and fingers are just names for parts of your body. Who is the controller of your hand and fingers? You.

There is no way Christians can get out of this. They are worshipping three distinct gods. This is the reason why a verse is forged in the Bible to avoid this implication.




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NJE03
 


That is a pretty good essay on it, yet I wouldn't go so far to say it is any more correct beyond the concept it provides. The concept is the key part to understand rather if the essay is true or not about the trinity.

reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


One thing I liked about in the essay that NJE03 linked was this part:



One can now construct another analogy to consider the Persons and Nature of God. We can say that the persons are like dimensions, and the Nature is like three-dimensional space. The dimensions are indeed distinct realities, which we may term height, width, and depth, but we cannot call them parts, nor can we remove one dimension from the space in which we live. Three-dimensional space is composed of three inseparable dimensions. This analogy fails at a certain point to describe God as well, because there is really no way to distinguish one spatial dimension as special or different from the others.


I think it misuses the name Nature, yet I won't digress on that.

The concept of "space" here is good. We know of only 1 space, yet there are three dimensions we could point out in this dimension of space.



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.


There are ones that don't understand the difference between a person and an individual.

Notice the word "individual" has the root word "dividual" in it. It's almost like we can replace "dividual" with "God" and put the prefix "in" in front of the word to make: in-God.

Oh, someone might take that too literally...
In-God we trust.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
The concept of "space" here is good. We know of only 1 space, yet there are three dimensions we could point out in this dimension of space.


ALERT, ALERT... SEVERE LOGIC FLAW DETECTED...

The three dimensions are really the same thing. They are all ways of measuring space. The 'Trinity', however, are three distinct individuals. Three separate entities given separate qualities and separate responsibilities.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
ALERT, ALERT... SEVERE LOGIC FLAW DETECTED...


Indeed. It is one that does not need to be fixed. Like a good virus... a very useful one once you know how to use it and why.



The three dimensions are really the same thing. They are all ways of measuring space. The 'Trinity', however, are three distinct individuals. Three separate entities given separate qualities and separate responsibilities.


The logic flaw is right there with the words "distinct individuals," which is an oxymoron. It's poetic, however. And, I like it!

Peace & Love


[edit on 30-8-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Because you cannot understand or comprehend it does not mean it is not true. Same with mathematics.


You will note, if you actually read the OP, that nowhere does it say this is not true. In fact, most of it is in support of the very fact that this is true. It is easy to understand. What is not is how brainwashed sheep can straightfaced say..."It is simple, it is 3 in 1 so it is just 1." That is not a hard concept to get, it is just wrong and illogical and really kind of stupid. The validity of it is not the question, the question is how many gods you really have.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJE03
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."


Uh....nope!

The analogy would be "my hand has 5 fingers but they also make up one finger."

Basically what you are saying is that there are three gods but together they make up some other thing that you have not named. It cannot be a god because a hand is NOT a finger.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by chiron613
 





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.



The text uses both names of God, YHVH and Eloheynu. "Eloheynu" means "Our God", "Our Elohim". So "Jehovah our Elohim, Jehovah is One".

In Hebrew, the noun changes. So Elohi would be "my God"; Eloheynu would be "our God"; and so on. This happens with nouns in general, not just names of God.

Notice also how the quotation (from the King James Version) uses both words, Lord and God. As I noted before, the KJV translates YHVH (Jehovah) as "Lord", and Elohim as "God" when it refers to God (as opposed to angels, etc.).

As for the group idea, it doesn't work grammatically. When it refers to God, "Elohim" is singular, not a collective noun. Of course, if you prefer to think of God as being a group, that's fine. It's just not supported by the Hebrew.

Finally, you're right about the Trinity. I forgot that Christians say that these are three *distinct* persons, as well as one God. That's pretty hard to reconcile.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Yay! Another attack on christianity which is unfounded in the fact that we're trying to use basic human-derived mathematics to understand something much more complex than "3=1".

That's really all I had to say. Flame on!


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

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.



I think you have a mistaken notion of what "infinitive" means. The Bible doesn't begin with an infinitive. It begins with a preopsitional phrase. That phrase modifies *when* God created. That is not an infinitive.

An infinitive is a form of a verb thus: "to go". "To go" is the infinitive form of the verb "go". There is no infinitive in the beginning sentence of Genesis.

What you have is simply the masculine singular past tense of the word "create". In English, that's "created", which doesn't change between singular or plural, or gender. So he created, she created, they created, etc. However, in Hebrew, it is clear that the verb refers to a single masculine entity that created. It has nothing to do with anyone committing acts individually. It is a completed action done by a single masculine entity.

And yes, it pretty much is that simple. Your arguments are based on a single fact, that "Elohim" has a masculine plural ending. This is true. That doesn't make the noun plural. We have an example of this in English. It is possible to have a single species, or several species. If you say the species has a blue color, you know you're talking about a single species. If you say the species have wings, you know you're talking about several species. This is neither complicated nor profound. It doesn't mean that we're "really" talking about several species.

There are many other examples of where the Hebrew grammar shows Elohim to be singular (when it refers to God). "I am the Lord thy God..." (Exodus 20:2) - singular. I, not we. I am that I am (Exodus 3:14). Technically, it says "I shall be that I shall be"; it's in the future tense. But hey, I like the KJV so I usually go along with its translation.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Okay first, this whole trinity thing. I don't wanna bother debating if the trinity is the correct intrepertation or if it really exists. In fact, if you ask me personally you may just be right, but as long as they get all their authority from once place I'm really not bothered. Outside of my own personal beliefs though I'll digress.

If the Trinity is what we're trying to explain then perhaps it would help you to think of God as a shape shifter. You ever see Mystique on the X-men? Doesn't matter what form Mystique takes, it's still Mystique.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just forms that God took. At one point he took the form of a real life human being. This is Jesus. Same guy though, just in a different package.

Also, as far as I know it's only a sin to draw graven images of things in the Heavens above and the seas below.
"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them"

Jesus was actually on the planet though. So, yeah.

In other words, don't draw pictures of a God you never seen and try to "guess" how he might look in his natural form because you won't do him justice. You're supposed to draw things you can actually see with your own eyes.

Jesus in his human form is something someone saw with their own eye. Pictures that people draw today are based on other pictures they saw and so on and so on.

As long as you don't worship the actual picture itself it's not idolatry. If you're looking at the picture, but actually worshiping Jesus or the spirit of Jesus you're okay.

However, if you actually think that it's the picture that is the God and it's the picture or portrait or statue itself that is God then that's idolatry.

The reason this is forbidden is because this is what ancient cultures used to do. Some cultures, when they were worshiping at the alter or the statue of their God, they actually thought the statue itself was a God. They weren't praying to a higher being. They were literally praying and sacrificing to the actual STONE statue.

When God banned that practice he was just trying to do it for their own good. He was just saying no no no. I'm not a picture and I'm not made of stone. I'm up here guys! I'm a real God. Stop worshiping the stupid statue!

However, I think your problem is you have confused the Islam version of idolatry with that of the Christian version. You can't just swap the two around like that. Two diff religions.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
It should be pointed out to the OP, as well as some who have spoken for their own beliefs, that not all Christians accept the idea of the Trinity. So while the OP may have some point (though I believe his point to be based on his own lack of understanding of their belief) when speaking to those Christians who do accept this concept, it does not apply to all Christians.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
If God is infinite and what is called a singularity then no matter what terms we use to describe it will by necessity be limited.

It is equally accurate to speak of God in the singular as well as the plural...or for that matter in the masculine, feminine and gender neutral...

WHY? Because to describe God as any one thing would logically speaking limit it...

So in the Christian concept of the trinity which is by the way roundly rejected by the other monotheism's...can be described as both accurate and wrong.

In one of the Upansiads a pupil asks a teacher how many gods are there and the teacher answers with an astromnomical number then the student asks the question again and the teacher answers with a smaller number and so on until the student asks one last time and the teacher answers one.

Then the student asks then what are all the others and the teacher replies all various aspects of the one.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by grover]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

If the Trinity is what we're trying to explain then perhaps it would help you to think of God as a shape shifter. You ever see Mystique on the X-men? Doesn't matter what form Mystique takes, it's still Mystique.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are just forms that God took. At one point he took the form of a real life human being. This is Jesus. Same guy though, just in a different package.

This is another interpretation, but there are definite problems with this one.

In the Bible, Jesus and "The Father" are described as two distinct personalities, in some cases with opposing desires! At one point (and I'm not talking about the Crucifixion when some excuse it by saying "Jesus had left God's grace), Jesus TALKS to God. So they can't really be the same person except with a different face

PS: About the graven image thing, the verse doesn't say "In the heavens and below the earth" it says "On the earth below". So yeah, Jesus was on the earth below (heck, he was even below the earth at one point, according to some Christian interpretatiions of the Bible).



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Jesus talks to God but for a God this is not a problem. God is everyone at once remember? So, God could easily talk to another form of himself that was located at some other physical place.

Anyway from the KJV, direct quote "or that is in the earth beneath". Also, look up graven. It means engraved. A carved stone statue.

And yes if Jesus was ever below the earth, well that would depend on your own personal intrepertation.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Oh-ho man! You really are poking the bear here, aren't ya?!

I agree though. If you look at many different aspects of Christianity, it's really just disguised paganism. Every single major holiday was a pagan holiday first and still is ripe with idol worship (Crucifix, Santa, Easter bunny), pagan ritual (drinking Jesus' blood, Christmas tree (celebration of winter solstice), hunting for eggs (fertility)), and astrology (Christmas and Easter are astrologically significant).

So I find it really interesting when a Christian has tells me I'm not living my life correctly, and am, therefore, not close to God, because I don't do what the bible tells me to but not only do THEY not do what the bible tells them to do (practice pagan ways), they do things that are made up by ex-pagan worshiping kings and priests, i.e. made up by men.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by nunya13]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Normally I'm not one to post. but I figured id make an exception of my trolling to actually contribute, While I myself am not A christian I did used to follow the faith, if you could define my religion now I assume it could be described as love. I'm more spiritual rather. But in the spirit of debate I'd like to say this topic caught my attention and while I believe we are all apart of an infinite, I would liken the trinity to water. It can be liquid, steam or ice. yet with these three very distinct propertys it is still one in the same. Just a thought



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


yes...yes...Elohim is plural. So in Genesis, it was many Gods creating the heavens. This is also supported by the fact that the bible also says, "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness".



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
The analogy would be "my hand has 5 fingers but they also make up one finger."

Basically what you are saying is that there are three gods but together they make up some other thing that you have not named. It cannot be a god because a hand is NOT a finger.


What you tried to do is say a square is a square so 5 squares don't equal 1 square. What the essay tries to say is a square is a rectangle. Of course, we know 5 squares don't equal 1 rectangle, yet we also know that it is not existentially true to say 1 rectangle equals 1 square.

Squares and rectangles are two dimensional and finger and hands are three dimensional, so as long as we compare n-dimensions to the same number of n-dimensions, then the wrong analogy is used or it is just plainly seen illogical.

What you want to do is compare something that is seen from a single dimensional to that same thing seen from more than one dimension, then you understand the concept. For example, take a look at the 4D as seen in 3D. Can you see the tesseract with you own eyes and count all the faces? Let's rotate a 4D cube in 3D... notice that sometimes it looks just like a single cube:



The point here is that if you take something that is n-dimensional and only see it with less than n-dimensions, then you'll only be able to see so many faces of it at once and you can't see the whole, unless you also see it in the same n-dimensions.

Obviously, Christians don't describe the concept like in the last point.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
I think you have a mistaken notion of what "infinitive" means. The Bible doesn't begin with an infinitive. It begins with a preopsitional phrase. That phrase modifies *when* God created. That is not an infinitive.


People are taught differently about infinitives. The word "beginning" is the infinitive. Some rewrite it as "to begin," yet that does change what it means even if both forms are infinitives.

The "when" is what has been modified to the infinite tense. If "when does it happen" is the question, then the answer is, it happens "an infinite number of times." Elohim (God) is plural to suggest that isn't the same individual that "creates" "an infinite number of times."

Anyways, there is enough evidence to suggest that the monotheistic Christianity is based on polytheist/pantheist foundations.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


yes...yes...Elohim is plural. So in Genesis, it was many Gods creating the heavens. This is also supported by the fact that the bible also says, "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness".


Now you've opened a whole new can of worms! Since prior to the birth of Jesus, 'God' (or 'Gods') was a non-corporeal entity(s), then how could we be 'created' in it's (their) own image? Maybe 'God(s)' were actually a coporeal extra-terrestrial species! Missing Link anyone????




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join