Christianity is a Polytheistic Religion

reply to post by earthdude


Muslims do believe in angels, but angels are not worshipped either. Muslims believe angels lack free will and were created as fully obedient servants of God. Kind of like God's living robot slaves. Muslims don't worship angels or pray to them.

Your OP is about polytheism. I still do not see the polytheistic connection with Islam.

reply to post by earthdude

I think Jesus insisted that he was son of man

I and My Father are one.-John10

her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.-Rev12.5

Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.-Heb9

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.-1John5

"I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! -Matt26

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high-Heb1

He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.-Acts17

Originally posted by earthdude
I think Jesus insisted that he was son of man, not god.

Realize that the "Son of Man" bit is a title, it isn't a biological description, and it is fitting with Christ's role as the Messiah. See chapter seven of the Old Testament book of Daniel.

One does not need to be a theologian to have faith -- theology helps us to understand some of the deeper concepts of religion, but if you're okay without the intellectual speculation or find it dull, give it a miss.

Catholics believe in, and worship only one God. The Father , The son , and the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by earthdude
I think Jesus insisted that he was son of man, not god.

Realize that the "Son of Man" bit is a title, it isn't a biological description, and it is fitting with Christ's role as the Messiah. See chapter seven of the Old Testament book of Daniel.

One does not need to be a theologian to have faith -- theology helps us to understand some of the deeper concepts of religion, but if you're okay without the intellectual speculation or find it dull, give it a miss.

The title "son of Man" means simply man. The son of a fish, is a fish. The son of a goat, is a goat. the son of man ,is a man. Now watch very close... The son of God, is God! Amazing!! See, Jesus possessed two natures. The bible clearly states this.

I recommend reading Rustami's posts where he has the pertinent verses regarding the Son of Man term used by Jesus. It seems that earlier on, he used it in an obscure sort of way, then at the end he made it plain what he meant, that he was in fact the Messiah.
Another verse Rustami quoted was John 10:30 about he and the Father being one. The Greek word used to translate as one is en. That presents a problem I do not see anyone addressing, which is that en also means, as a derivative of another Greek word, in, kind of like it sounds in English. To me it is a bit ambiguous in its meaning, the verse, "I and the Father are one."
I may suggest a possible alternative translation: "Concerning who I am, contained within my true identity is the Father and myself."
That does not help in clarifying anything because it presents an interpretation of Jesus' intention which is equally enigmatic, or greater.

reply to post by nicolee123nd


Christianity is not catholicism, so just because you grew up in a catholic home does not mean you know a lot about christianity, thats like me saying I know a lot about muslims because im a jew.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Yes, "we" and "our"is referring to his self, his son, and his spirit, but they are all one still.

Originally posted by marriah3330
reply to post by JR MacBeth

 

Yes, "we" and "our"is referring to his self, his son, and his spirit, but they are all one still.

Thanks Marriah, mainstream Christians who believe in the Trinity tend to explain things the way you are saying.

Let me ask this: What do you suppose the Jews make of this "odd" pluralism in Genesis? Surely they would have a non-trinitarian way of looking at the same words. Come to think of it, the Muslims too, they would not want that interpretation.

Another explanation is that this verse in the Book of Genesis is a kind of "left-over" evidence that polytheism was once practiced by these people, and they failed to scrub out this bit of the past. In fact, this is the kind of thing one might almost "expect" to see, if beliefs were evolving over time. Of course, this is more or less a "naturalistic" explanation, and a person's beliefs are not going to change just because there might be a more reasonable explanation out there. By the way, this verse is not the only place where the absolute monotheist god seems to display pluralistic tendencies...

The Sh'kinnah (spelled different ways) for example, spoken of in Exodus. A column of fire that the Hebrews would follow. Sure, lots of explanations, perhaps a "manifestation", some may like to say an "angel" (although that wouldn't fit). Christians also noticed this, and have put forth their notion that it had to be the Holy Spirit, although it had to be called something else before Christ came revealing the rest of the details.

By the way, I know this isn't exactly a theologian's thread, people will make all kinds of off-the-wall comments, but someone who has had theological training can easily point out every nuance of "error" in even the most innocent ways we might express these things that we might believe. It may never even occur to us that we actually "believe" something "different" than we're "supposed to" believe! I notice adjensen responding in this thread, he's a pretty solid mainstream Christian, I've seen him straighten out a few sloppy thinkers.

Case in point, you mention God perhaps having a "self", a son, and a spirit. I know what you're trying to say, you just see the Trinity in that verse. However, if you take a class in theology one day, you might learn that you can't get away with putting things quite like that! Of course, it may seem "petty", to worry about the way we express our thought, but my point is that your thoughts may very well deviate considerably from the orthodox norm, even though you certainly would not wish to intentionally. No, I won't pick it apart for you, maybe others will.

Which is why I tend to cut non-scholars a little slack. I see posters jumping all over the OP because of his choice of words. If we grant that he was being sincere (maybe he was), then maybe we should not automatically "judge" his motives, maybe he is just trying to figure out what is in fact confusing for probably most people. The subject matter is so confusing in fact, that even people who imagine that they have it all down pat, express things that show clearly their own confusion.

Someone once said something about the blind, leading the blind. Well, I'm sure I'm just as blind in the sense that was meant, but I think I'm going to continue to cut some slack on this Trinity thing. It is supposed to be a "mystery" after all...

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth
I think the mystery concerning God and His plans was that Jesus would die at the hands of the agents of Satan, as part of our salvation. It would be a mystery or a secret in order for Satan to go on thinking he was winning by destroying Jesus.
On the other hand, there is mystery Babylon, which is the world power system run amok under the false worship of Satan, thinking he was god.
I think the teaching that the trinity is just something too mysterious is a way for people to relegate the responsibility for thinking to paid professional religious people who through history have a record of doing what perpetuates their own pay check. That's like putting your trust in politicians to protect your rights. They are going to do whatever makes them the most campaign contributions, unless the populace are determined to hold their feet to the fire and know the issues better than them. We should know more about religion than the theologians.
Paul says there are many things that make up the body of Christ and first is prophets. (now it seems to be profits) Christian believers are baptized in the Spirit and should be conduits to revelation and have dispelled the feeling that there are things concerning their own personal religious experience which is beyond some sort of useful understanding.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think the teaching that the trinity is just something too mysterious is a way for people to relegate the responsibility for thinking to paid professional religious people who through history have a record of doing what perpetuates their own pay check.

I'm sure there is a whole lot of truth to what you're saying!

It has ever been this way, whether it be theologians, a special priesthood, or some other elite group who "keeps the keys", the common man it seems, isn't supposed to think too deeply on religious matters.

And the problem for this "professional" religious elite has usually been that when the common man begins to think too much, the first thing they do is abandon what the elite had assured them was the "truth"!

Which is probably why there are so many diverging theologies out there. The more anyone thinks, the more one can think of ways why it could be somehow different.

Precision is important, for the scholar. Formulating thoughts, identifying "exactly" what a thing is, etc.

BUT, perhaps more important is a person's "heart". If there is a positive message in Christianity, what good would it be if no one recognized it, because they were too busy figuring it all out?

Some years ago, there was a survey done, and they were trying to find which people in the world were the "happiest". I know, maybe someone will say "happy" has nothing to do with anything! But what they found was perhaps not entirely "expected". After looking at various peoples, in different nations, different cultures, different religions, etc., if I recall correctly, Mexicans came out on top, as the world's "happiest" people!

I suppose that should be a shock to some, but this survey went on to explain somewhat. Even within a particular grouping, there was diversity, so they wanted to narrow even further. As for Mexicans, sure enough the city folk weren't nearly as "happy" as the simple country folk. But as for these simple country people, there was a whole lot of gratitude for the simple things, like family, and God, having "enough" to eat, a place to live, a little work to do.

These people were basically poor, uneducated, many had never ventured more than a few miles from the place they had been born...And yet, they were "happy"!

Somehow I like to consider that a "message" of sorts. Since I am myself a victim of way too much "over thinking", I can see something very attractive in simplicity. Would someone come along and find that some of these ignorant Mexicans somehow imagined Mary to be up on God's level? Maybe. Do some perhaps pray to their saints far more than Catholic theologians would be OK with? Probably. But apparently, none of it makes a bit of difference when it comes to the reality of their lives.

Maybe it would be nice to live life in a humble village! To marry the pretty neighbor girl, that you knew you would marry when you were seven years old. To just believe your priest. To not even know about the angst of city life. To "know" a God (along with all his friends!) who wasn't too "confusing"!

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth

. . .perhaps more important is a person's "heart".

Ok, you got me there, that is a mystery, called the mystery of iniquity. We don't know why some people will just never come around, and some do.
There is a little saying I use some times, "don't try to understand someone who is crazy because if you can rationalize it, he wouldn't be crazy." Satan is like that and you might think you understand what happened to him to become evil but if there was a good reason for it, he would not have been considered to be evil.
Anyway, back to your post, maybe if there was not a big impressive church full of statues and candles, the people in you scenario would not be so inclined to things like worshiping Mary. Maybe if there was not this big church in their town, they would not be so poor. Maybe if they had to be their own church, they might read the Bible and have the Spirit speak to them through the scripture.

reply to post by jmdewey60

maybe if there was not a big impressive church full of statues and candles, the people in you scenario would not be so inclined to things like worshiping Mary. Maybe if there was not this big church in their town, they would not be so poor. Maybe if they had to be their own church, they might read the Bible and have the Spirit speak to them through the scripture.

YES, no doubt quite a few Christians would feel the exact same way!

Don't worry, I'm not Catholic! I didn't introduce the story to push any religious agenda, believe me. I'm actually agnostic, and find that religion is quite often a problem.

I think the moral of the story in the case of these simple Mexican people is that religion, even if it is misunderstood, even if it may almost seem "paganistic", or whatever, they are happy even in spite of it. Maybe some would prefer to argue that their religion helped keep them ignorant, but regardless if that was the case, the most important thing is that they retain a beautiful simplicity, IMO.

That simplicity, without the "materialistic" context that the rest of us are so used to, already goes a long ways when it comes to the truly important things in life. I would also venture to guess that the "stability" they enjoy also plays it's part. They are born in a little village, and they die there. They grow up knowing everyone, and indeed most are probably extended family! They know what is expected of them, they know what not to do, they are OK with who they are. Their culture may not be "better" than another, but they do seem to wear it well.

Last thing, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that people need to be educated to be good people. No, that's not exactly the way you put it, but when we say that it would be good for someone to "read" the Bible, or that maybe the Spirit won't speak to them otherwise, well, doesn't it sort of imply that literacy is paramount? History tells us that this can not be so. For thousands of years, very few people read. Only when the printing press was invented did things begin to change. And they still changed very slowly.

Considering that various forms of Christianity were doing just fine for 15 centuries before this technological break-through, I wouldn't want to put too much weight on literacy. Obviously, without widespread literacy, people might be more vulnerable to deceit, but I would venture to guess that it is that way today, perhaps even more so. Yes, we have the internet, we can read thing for ourselves, but for most, it only amounts to a hundred more layers of confusion!

Anyway, I certainly don't want to come off as antichristian, don't get me wrong. I just think that a bit of latitude isn't such a bad idea. Sure, people may not all be marching in straight lines, but I'll take simple decent folks, over educated ones that aren't so decent, any time.

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth
Your basic premise is correct, that civilization does not make life better, at least not for the people actually living in it. I picked that up from Professor Grupp who I brought up in a couple other threads. He teaches religion and some other stuff and one of his degrees is in anthropology that he got from studying in New Mexico where he studied the old American Indian culture. So he knows what he's talking about and he says that civilization is overrated.
Another example is this guy who went to Somalia and studied their culture and came back and wrote a book about it. He says they do better with no government than they did with one. Also the only wars they have are actually instigated by outsiders who keep trying to meddle with their internal affairs and try to foist onto them a government of course of their own invention, ignoring the fact that they do fine with their tribal form of government.

reply to post by adjensen

There is only one God.

Then why all of these "other Gods" in the very Bible you hold in your hand and believe in? What abut the Gods of the Myah? The Aztecs? Were these "made up Gods," while your god is "the real one"? That in itself makes no sense, since the Roman Catholic Priests burned all texts and writing pertaining to other Gods. In fact, the Church attempted to wipe out any religion and any Deity but the one they made up.

The real God/Goddess I know and love is the one inside my own self, my Spirit, like any one else's, is divine, and a part of the God Head. There is no "out there" God, never was, never will be. We are God. To believe in anything else is blasphemy, in my book. My God/Goddess did not make up any religion, or write any books. They demand no sacrifice, and do not really care if I love them or not.

How about the gods of the book of Hellboy?
I think those movies are a good way to find out about these elemental gods, some for creation and life, and some for destruction and death. Kind of apropo with Hellboy, who is supposed to bring about the death of the world, in Hellboy II killing the forest god.
Gods and gods and gods everywhere, that's how the universe works and I find it rather naive myself to imagine how people fall for this delusion of the "one god'ers" who are really carrying forward the agenda of feudal subjugation. How about the god of war coming to Pandora to crush their elemental gods of the Na'vi and to subjugate the planet to themselves.(I haven't actually seen the movie, Avatar, but I have heard about it)
There is a God who is the God of gods but no one owns Him and can claim a monopoly of Him and His gifts (I mean the men who dress themselves up in the regalia of Isis and call themselves the Vicar of Christ). The Son of Man has become the Son of God to be Lord and God of this earth because the old Lord has become the Devil and in his anxiety for his coming judgement he futilely works to bring the rest of his dominion down with him, hoping to gain leniency. Sorry about that, and Satan is cast down, and in his place is substituted a man picked from the sons of Adam to be the new Adam and in unity with God, as the old Adam was when he walked with God in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening.

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is only one God.

Then why all of these "other Gods" in the very Bible you hold in your hand and believe in?

There are no "other Gods" in the Bible, there are "other gods", with the capitalization being the relevant bit. If one believes in a creator God, which is what the Abrahamic religions teach, there can only be one creator God, both theologically and intellectually.

Beings which may exist that are less than God, but more than man may be defined as spirits, divine essences or "gods", but they are not, cannot be, "God". For example, Baal is spoken of in the Bible as being a god, but one inferior to God, and his essence, whether real being, hollow idol, misplaced belief, fallen angel, or whatever, is never clearly stated, so you can call him whatever you want.

Again, there is only one God, because there CAN only be one creator.

I gather that the definition of a god (or the god) is the one that has created the universe. So then, how can polytheistic religions worship anyone else besides the creator? All other supernatural beings are not gods in a monotheistic religion. The only difference would be that the subordinate supernatural beings are not refered to as gods. It seems just a matter of somantics, rather than several beings having actual power over our lives. I would like to study Judahism to see where Jesus was coming from, since he was a jew. I wonder if in 1000 years Christainity will have several more supernatural beings. Maybe I can invent one.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by earthdude

 

Muslims do believe in angels, but angels are not worshipped either. Muslims believe angels lack free will and were created as fully obedient servants of God. Kind of like God's living robot slaves. Muslims don't worship angels or pray to them.

Your OP is about polytheism. I still do not see the polytheistic connection with Islam.

Yes, I was speculating. It seems Christianity is more polytheistic than Islam. I suppose it all depends on the sect of a religion too. I should have titled this thread, " what makes a god a god?"