Are Christians Idol worshippers/polytheists

[Thomas]

Thomas, when Jesus was unaware of the hour, that was surely his human nature speaking right? At what point does his divine nature appear and is there a verse in the bible that explains this. I'm not saying there isn't just asking

When He forgives sin, performs miracles ...

 

[ThankfulSlave]

When He forgives sin, performs miracles ...

So does he pick and choose when he wants to be divine?

So when he's ignorant of the hour, he's not God because God is all knowing, but when he does miracles it's because of his own divine nature?

Acts 22 explains who allows jesus to do miracles. Jesus makes it clear without the father he cannot do anything.

Many prophets performed miracles. It doesn't make them God.

Thomas, what would be the best verse in the gospels to prove your concept of the trinity?

The three co equal beings of the God head.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but you hold the view that God manifested himself in three parts. Where's the verse that proves this?

 

[ThankfulSlave]

Another question

Where is the holy spirit referred to as being God. Or part of the God head. If we exclude the forge verse of john 1:57

 

[Thomas]

Hi Thankful Slave —

While I'm quite happy to discuss this — Trinitarian theology is a favourite field of mine — I am cautious of simply going round in circles with each trying to unravel what the other offers.

My point being:
There's no argument sufficient to 'undo' the doctrine of the Trinity. That being said, I'm happy to discuss it with those who want to understand, but it should be understood that one is grappling with what is, in Itself, a mystery beyond human comprehension. Having said that, the Doctrine as founded in Scripture and argued by the Tradition is entirely logical and rational in itself, but reason and logic are not in themselves irrefutable, by which I mean there are scientific theories which are entirely reasonable and logical with regard to the available data, but one is not obliged to accept them as fact.

Consider this: What evidence is there that the Prophet (pbuh) was not completely deluded? That there was no message, no angel, it was all the product of a mental aberration?

The answer of course is there is none. What the faith of Islam is founded on, I believe, is the coherence of the Moslem Scriptures and the commentary of the Tradition.

The first text was produced by Ali ibn Abu Talib, but that text was challenged by the community. Another was produced by Abu Bakr, and a final canonical document by Uthman ibn Affan (other extant texts being destroyed).

The point here is that the Tradition exercised its authority in compiling its Scripture. And some could argue that the 'authoritative text' might have been redacted, edited, etc., as part of that process. I'm not suggesting it is, rather I'm pointing out it's in the nature of things that no founder of any religious tradition has handed down he authoritative written text from his own hand.

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is disputed. The Buddha's words were not written down until 400 years after his death. The Hindu texts are so old, they pass back into the veil of antiquity. The very existence of Lao-Tzu is dubious ...

On the other hand, we have clear evidence of the error in assuming that just because someone can read, they understand what it is they are reading.

So the commentary of Tradition is paramount to understanding the Scripture. Without it, you're guessing, or interpreting it as suits oneself, which is regarded as a valid process these days.

Back to the question, as well as the Gospel of John which is redolent with Trinitarian implications, there are the writings of St Paul, which pre-date the Gospels:
The Trinitarian statement in 2 Corinthians 13:13 (and Philippians):
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

As well as the Trinitarian nature of the Christian faith:
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out "Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6 — note the use of Aramaic indicating an ancient practice in the early church)

In the Church God was always worshipped as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Tertullian was the first to coin the term 'Trinity' (2nd century), but he was not inventing a new doctrine, he was referring to the common Christian belief. There were other terms prior to this.

Notable in this is 1 Peter 1:1-2:
"Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: grace and peace be yours in abundance."

That Peter wrote this epistle is disputed, but the scholarly consensus is that it was written towards the end of the 1st century, a long time before Tertullian coined his aphorism, and a long, long time before the disputes regarding the nature of the Trinity began to appear.

More to the point:
Would I have deduced the Holy Trinity from reading Scripture alone? No. There are many mysteries in the text which, in my ignorance, passed me by. Not until I listened to the Tradition did I begin to understand, and only later, when I learned to listen to my heart, did I believe.

 

[Ahanu]

Consider this: What evidence is there that the Prophet (pbuh) was not completely deluded? That there was no message, no angel, it was all the product of a mental aberration?

The answer of course is there is none.

So the first Muslims had no clue whether or not Muhammad was deluded? God sends no evidence?

 

[Thomas]

So the first Muslims had no clue whether or not Muhammad was deluded? God sends no evidence?

Nope. I was voicing a hardcore atheist viewpoint. To his followers, it was beyond doubt. So too with Christ. But it has to be acknowledged that there was there who saw, heard, touched ... and didn't believe a word of it ...

 

[ThankfulSlave]

Hi Thankful Slave —

While I'm quite happy to discuss this — Trinitarian theology is a favourite field of mine — I am cautious of simply going round in circles with each trying to unravel what the other offers.

My point being:
There's no argument sufficient to 'undo' the doctrine of the Trinity. That being said, I'm happy to discuss it with those who want to understand, but it should be understood that one is grappling with what is, in Itself, a mystery beyond human comprehension. Having said that, the Doctrine as founded in Scripture and argued by the Tradition is entirely logical and rational in itself, but reason and logic are not in themselves irrefutable, by which I mean there are scientific theories which are entirely reasonable and logical with regard to the available data, but one is not obliged to accept them as fact.

Consider this: What evidence is there that the Prophet (pbuh) was not completely deluded? That there was no message, no angel, it was all the product of a mental aberration?

The answer of course is there is none. What the faith of Islam is founded on, I believe, is the coherence of the Moslem Scriptures and the commentary of the Tradition.

The first text was produced by Ali ibn Abu Talib, but that text was challenged by the community. Another was produced by Abu Bakr, and a final canonical document by Uthman ibn Affan (other extant texts being destroyed).

The point here is that the Tradition exercised its authority in compiling its Scripture. And some could argue that the 'authoritative text' might have been redacted, edited, etc., as part of that process. I'm not suggesting it is, rather I'm pointing out it's in the nature of things that no founder of any religious tradition has handed down he authoritative written text from his own hand.

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is disputed. The Buddha's words were not written down until 400 years after his death. The Hindu texts are so old, they pass back into the veil of antiquity. The very existence of Lao-Tzu is dubious ...

On the other hand, we have clear evidence of the error in assuming that just because someone can read, they understand what it is they are reading.

So the commentary of Tradition is paramount to understanding the Scripture. Without it, you're guessing, or interpreting it as suits oneself, which is regarded as a valid process these days.

Back to the question, as well as the Gospel of John which is redolent with Trinitarian implications, there are the writings of St Paul, which pre-date the Gospels:
The Trinitarian statement in 2 Corinthians 13:13 (and Philippians):
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

As well as the Trinitarian nature of the Christian faith:
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out "Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6 — note the use of Aramaic indicating an ancient practice in the early church)

In the Church God was always worshipped as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Tertullian was the first to coin the term 'Trinity' (2nd century), but he was not inventing a new doctrine, he was referring to the common Christian belief. There were other terms prior to this.

Notable in this is 1 Peter 1:1-2:
"Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: grace and peace be yours in abundance."

That Peter wrote this epistle is disputed, but the scholarly consensus is that it was written towards the end of the 1st century, a long time before Tertullian coined his aphorism, and a long, long time before the disputes regarding the nature of the Trinity began to appear.

More to the point:
Would I have deduced the Holy Trinity from reading Scripture alone? No. There are many mysteries in the text which, in my ignorance, passed me by. Not until I listened to the Tradition did I begin to understand, and only later, when I learned to listen to my heart, did I believe.

Thanks for the reply Thomas.

If you want to talk about the preservation and transmission of the Qur'an then feel to make a thread and we can discuss that in the islam section.

I looked up the verses and I don't feel that it answered the question.

You will disagree with my statement here and obviously it's only my opinion but I don't believe that the Bible supports the mainstream belief of the trinity.

A God which manifests himself in three forms. All which are co equal in essence is not supported by the biblical doctrine. I don't see anywhere in the bible where the holy spirit is referred to as God. I don't see the father referring to jesus or the spirit as one who is equal with himself. Jesus said him and the father are one, but then follows up by saying as the disciples are also one with the father. So I don't know how that verse can support that jesus is one with God in essence.

I'm not asking for a word by word verse to support the trintarian claim, but I feel the concept itself doesn't even exist

A verse that mentions the father, son and sprit does not support that they are all co equal and part of the God head. Rather when we read the Bible the two thirds of the trinity are subordinate to the Father. And the holy ghost was not believed to be part of the God head for at least a few centuries. At least this is my understanding.

Christians will argue that the word "tawheed" is not mentioned in the Qur'an likewise the word trinity is not in the bible.

As a rebuttal to that claim the concept of tawheed certainly is. And the root word of tawheed is "wahid" which is mentioned many times in the noble Qur'an.

Tawheed roobobiya. Tahweed asma wa sifaat and tawheed ul ebdah are all conceptually described in the Qur'an alone even if we were to ignore the sunnah for a moment.

So yeah I believe the Quran supports the creed beliefs of my religion whereas the Bible does not support the mainstream belief of Christianity in my lowly humble opinion.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I looked up the verses and I don't feel that it answered the question.

Hi ThankfulSlave, I think you missed the point Thomas was making here:

So the commentary of Tradition is paramount to understanding the Scripture. Without it, you're guessing, or interpreting it as suits oneself, which is regarded as a valid process these days.

Would I have deduced the Holy Trinity from reading Scripture alone? No. There are many mysteries in the text which, in my ignorance, passed me by. Not until I listened to the Tradition did I begin to understand, and only later, when I learned to listen to my heart, did I believe.

 

[Thomas]

Hi ThankfulSlave —

You will disagree with my statement here and obviously it's only my opinion but I don't believe that the Bible supports the mainstream belief of the trinity.

Well obviously I do, and so does 2,000 years of the Christian Tradition.

Rather when we read the Bible the two thirds of the trinity are subordinate to the Father.

We call that subordinationism. It was not uncommon in the early era.

And the holy ghost was not believed to be part of the God head for at least a few centuries. At least this is my understanding.

I don't think that's quite right. The Holy Ghost was believed from the beginning, but didn't become a topic of theological dispute until much later.

Christians will argue that the word "tawheed" is not mentioned in the Qur'an likewise the word trinity is not in the bible.

But we never said it was mentioned. In our tradition a word does not have to be spoken. Nevertheless the doctrine is implicit.

So yeah I believe the Quran supports the creed beliefs of my religion whereas the Bible does not support the mainstream belief of Christianity in my lowly humble opinion.

OK.

 

[Ahanu]

Nope. I was voicing a hardcore atheist viewpoint. To his followers, it was beyond doubt. So too with Christ. But it has to be acknowledged that there was there who saw, heard, touched ... and didn't believe a word of it ...

Okay.

Well obviously I do, and so does 2,000 years of the Christian Tradition.

If the first disciples taught the Trinity, why isn't this theological dispute recorded in Acts where their debates largely concern Jews?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

If the first disciples taught the Trinity, why isn't this theological dispute recorded in Acts where their debates largely concern Jews?

I'm not sure the precise nature of the debate is ever properly recorded, nor do I think a precise theology of the Godhead existed at this time either.

The Jews' problem was quite simple. There is but one God, which this new, upstart cult agreed, but then they're worshipping Jesus, and according to all the stories, this Jesus is saying and doing things that only God can do!

And, what the heck are they getting up to, coming to Synagogue on Saturday and then creeping off for their Sunday Sabbaths?

The theology of Soteriology (how Christ saves), Christology (who and what Christ is), the Holy Spirit (what the heck, another one?) was all very inchoate, more faith than fact, and these questions would occupy Christianity for the next few centuries, and be the cause of much dissent.

Over these centuries, the doctrines were worked out when attempts to explain the doctrine led to contradictory viewpoints. The Arian dispute, for example, arose over a very Platonic interpretation Scripture, basically a version of Platonic emanationism. (The various Gnostic disputes also foundered on this point, being an overtly anthropomorphic view of the Godhead, with the various higher 'syzygies' displaying the worst human traits — a critique Plato had levelled against the occupant of Mt Olympus.)

For Arius, Christ was neither God nor man, but some intermediate creation, more than human, less than God, but with all the attributes of God, but yet not quite God, but still someone to be worshipped, even though the Bible says God alone is the sole object of man's worship... His congregation complained ...

For the bishops of Nicea, asked to resolve the matter, the problem was perplexing, because nowhere in the NT does Our Lord actually define and declare the doctrinal statements they are looking for. Not all bishops, then as now, were theologians. Their problems were more pastoral.

So Christian doctrines evolved, from a profound contemplation of the Scriptures, the genius, inspiration and insight of the Apostles and the Fathers ...

For myself, this leads to an interesting situation. On the one hand I get criticised for believing stuff not explicitly stated in Scripture, whilst on the other, faith in the literal word is equally caustically dismissed. We can't win!

My foundation of Trinitarian belief is simple:
The divine is that which we describe as 'absolute', 'infinite', 'perfect', etc. All the transcendental terms. One can't be partly divine, any more than one can be a little bit pregnant, one either is or one ain't.

So where man is composite and contingent, the divine isn't. If the Holy Spirit is divine, it is all that the Divine is. It is not a partial divine or modal divine or subsidiary divine, if you see what I mean?

So where God speaks His word, there God is. A prophet never claims divinity, nor claims his own authority for what He says, other than being the oracle of God, but Christ went way beyond that. No prophet would dare to modify the decalogue without asserting that this comes from on high. No prophet can add his own Covenant onto the Covenant with the Father.

This is why I dispute with those who say man is inherently divine, that his inmost nature is divine. If it were, he would be absolute, etc. and because the absolute is infinite it cannot be limited nor contained. You can't be a contingent absolute, a 'relative absolute', any more than you can have two absolutes ...

I can be said to be a 'panentheist' on the condition that nothing in created nature is inherently divine, but the divine is immanently present in and two all created nature ...

 

[wil]

What...you've joined the panentheists?

My dichotomy in the trinity comes when Jesus is talking to himself... Our Father... Father why have you forsaken me...

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Father why have you forsaken me...

Nothing to do with the Trinity discussion, but if you're talking about what Jesus said as he die on the cross: As in Mathew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, he did not say "Father" as he did when he prayed, nor was he talking to himself. He said in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? From my perspective and the way I was taught, Jesus was not addressing God here, but rather quoting Psalm 22- "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" Written 1000 years prior. In other words, Jesus was declaring that the prophecy had now been fulfilled. Just wanted to clear up that bit.

 

[Thomas]

... but rather quoting Psalm 22- "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" Written 1000 years prior. In other words, Jesus was declaring that the prophecy had now been fulfilled. Just wanted to clear up that bit.

Thank you, Aussie ... Scripture just gets more and more ...

 

[Namaste Jesus]

RE: #33. Dang! Did the hair on the back of anyone else's neck just stand up?

 

[Ahanu]

The Jews' problem was quite simple.

Let's discuss it. I believe it is not so simple. By assuming the Jews' problem was solely about what Jesus said or what Christians did, you miss the true origin of the conflict: Jesus' status as a teacher. Consider Jesus' education, especially from the perspective of the Jewish scribal elite. The text speaks for itself: "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him" (Mark 6.2-3). Matthew slightly tweaks the first question, removing Jesus' trade: “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? And they took offense at him." (Matthew 13.54-58). After this encounter in Matthew and Mark, Jesus doesn't enter the synagogue again. In John, Jesus' audience asks: "'How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?'" (John 7.15) Both Mark and Matthew portray an illiterate Jesus, but this differs from Luke's narrative--which depicts Jesus reading (Luke 4.14-20). The issue of Christian illiteracy continues in the second and third century in the face of pagan criticism from Lucian, Celsus, and others.

There is but one God, which this new, upstart cult agreed, but then they're worshipping Jesus, and according to all the stories, this Jesus is saying and doing things that only God can do!

Here's an example. Christians often say Jesus is putting himself in the place of God by forgiving sins (Mark 2.5-7). Compare Mark 2.5-7 to a hadith in the Islamic tradition: "O son of Adam! So long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you." Imagine how a pagan in a Hellenized atmosphere during the second and third centuries would have read these words. Would they not have concluded Muhammad was claiming divinity for himself? Would they not also have concluded the same about Baha'u'llah . . .who forgave sins just like Jesus? "We have attired his temple with the robe of forgiveness and adorned his head with the crown of pardon . . . Say: Be not despondent. After the revelation of this blessed verse it is as though thou has been born anew from thy mother's womb. Say: Thou art free from sin and error. Truly God hath purged thee with the living waters of His utterance in His Most Great Prison."

 

[Thomas]

Consider Jesus' education, especially from the perspective of the Jewish scribal elite. The text speaks for itself: "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him" (Mark 6.2-3).

Interesting the text does not say 'the son of Joseph' ... but that's by-the-by.

But a rabbi has to have a trade? Paul was a tent-maker, and actually worked as such when he was teaching among the Jews on his missions.

Compare Mark 2.5-7 to a hadith in the Islamic tradition: "O son of Adam! So long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you." Imagine how a pagan in a Hellenized atmosphere during the second and third centuries would have read these words. Would they not have concluded Muhammad was claiming divinity for himself?

I read that as Muhammed was speaking prophetically? Muhammed does not claim to be the source of of his words. If he is saying, "... call upon Me (Muhammed)" then yes, that is a claim to divinity. That's how the Jews saw Jesus speaking, which is why they tried to stone Him more than once. It's blasphemy.

Would they not also have concluded the same about Baha'u'llah . . .

Is not the point the Jews do not accept Jesus, Muhammed or Baha'u'llah, when speaking in his own name, as having the authority to forgive sin?

How we might construe the verse is immaterial, it's how they construed it, and how they reacted.

 

[Ahanu]

Interesting the text does not say 'the son of Joseph' ... but that's by-the-by.

Well, maybe Joseph was dead by that time. Joseph wasn't originally from Nazareth, so locals mentioned Mary. There are many possible reasons they didn't mention "the son of Joseph" here. What do you think?

But a rabbi has to have a trade? Paul was a tent-maker, and actually worked as such when he was teaching among the Jews on his missions.

"I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors" (Acts 22.3). Paul was an educated Jew who could read and write. Carpenters were illiterate. Celsus mocked Jesus' status as a carpenter based on Mark 6.3. How could an authoritative teacher be a carpenter? But Origen's response says: ". . . he [Celsus] did not observe that Jesus himself is not described as a carpenter anywhere in the gospels accepted in the churches." What's going on here? One explanation is Origen's Mark had "son of the carpenter." Notice how these slight variations had a profound effect on responses from Christian apologists. So why does a reading of Matthew differ here? *Cues mysterious music*

If he is saying, "... call upon Me (Muhammed)" then yes, that is a claim to divinity.

Okay. But, even then, this claim to divinity need not be literalized into a full-blown incarnation. "The son does not do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing" (John 5.19). "He who believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me" (John 12.44). "I and the Father are one" (John 10.30). In the light of John's clear Jesus sayings, we shouldn't view to "call upon ME" in isolation. "Me" has been totally effaced to reflect God. That's why "Me" really points to God. In my view, these statements do not differ from the Koran: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine!" (8.17) "In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God" (48.10). It's as if Allah and Muhammad are one. Sufi usage of Koran 8.17 parallel Jesus' expression in John 10.30. Here's a similar saying from a hadith: “I will be his hearing by which he hears, his sight by which he sees, his hands by which he grasps, and his feet by which he walks.” More similar sayings in the Koran include: "Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God" (2.115) and "All things perish, save His Face" (28.88).

That's how the Jews saw Jesus speaking, which is why they tried to stone Him more than once. It's blasphemy.

Well, the Gospels often depict everybody misunderstanding Jesus anyway. "Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews then said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he was speaking about the temple of his body" (John 2.19-21). Who knows what Jews in this particular time period thought claims of divinity meant? Very little is known, at least for me. By the way, the Jewish reaction here (where they try to stone Christ) parallels the response the Báb received, for he also claimed to speak from the point of divinity, which is a higher position than the point of servitude (Muhammad) from my understanding, and was executed by firing squad.

In my opinion, the Church Fathers tried to resolve a problem in the text. It was a real problem. I don't think they intentionally invented the Trinity to deceive people (as some non-Trinitarians suggest). The Trinity was the fruit of their understanding of the text. Ismaili philosophers ran into similar problems encountering scripture, but came to different conclusions about the trinity.

 

[Thomas]

Well, maybe Joseph was dead by that time ... What do you think?

I think the scribes follow the practice of never speaking of Joseph as Christ's father.

Lineage is all important in Scripture.

Paul was an educated Jew who could read and write. Carpenters were illiterate.

Well, we can't say all carpenters were illiterate. We don't know what type of business Joseph had.

As an aside, John was a fishermen, but it's evident he moves freely in the highest social circles. There is a consensus among scholars that Peter and John were the sons of very successful fishermen, who may well have owned fleets of boats, and that although the tradition likes to portray them as rough and ill-educated, that might not be the case. John's Greek evidences a very good education.

But I do take your point that Jesus 'came out of nowhere' as it were ...

Okay. But, even then, this claim to divinity need not be literalized into a full-blown incarnation.

No, that's quite right, it need not, but it was.

In my opinion, the Church Fathers tried to resolve a problem in the text.

OK, but the belief was there before the Father's tried to explain it.

 

[Ahanu]

I think the scribes follow the practice of never speaking of Joseph as Christ's father.

Lineage is all important in Scripture.

Just to be clear . . . you believe it was a slur on Jesus' legitimacy to call him the son of Mary in Mark 6.3, right?

Well, we can't say all carpenters were illiterate. We don't know what type of business Joseph had.

Well, Jesus could have been literate. If so, to what extent I don't know. Maybe he even knew Greek. At the moment, I'm leaning toward illiteracy.

OK, but the belief was there before the Father's tried to explain it.

Okay. But even so . . . their beliefs (whoever they were) are but shadows of the true meaning of Christ's words. When it comes to these obscure passages, only a messenger of God can recognize their true meaning. Muhammad is God's messenger.