Christianity Is Not A Monotheistic Religion

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

I am basing it on the Old and the New Testament.

Thats arguable.

The Bible does not reveal "three Gods" like Mormonism reveals.

False, since we are a race of Gods Mormonisim reveals as many gods as there are particles in the heavens.

The Son of God has a God. That does not mean that there are "three Gods", the Apostle Paul makes this clear in 1Cor 8:4-6).

But it also does not make only One God in all of creation, as the Saducee Interpreted the Script. And is the Leaven Christ warned us against, Which Modern Christianity has swallowed, hook line and sinker.

1Cor.8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Again to US there is one God and also to US there are many other divine beings "called" gods. Not one God in all of creation as the Saducee told us in Mark. Thats in the verse you forgot to quote...

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

There are many other beings who are called gods both in heaven and on earth.

Satan is called "god", Satan is below him (2Cor 4:4) ...

2Cor 4

[4] In whom the god (Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Aren't we all.

Easy enough. Because Jesus said there was only one, true God (Jn. 17:3). Yet, when we look at what he also said about himself, and what the rest of Bible has to say about him and the Holy Spirit, we note that there are at least three persons which comprise the constitution of the one, true God. Hence, there is only one, true God, yet that one, true God is manifest in three persons: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. And as soon as you start understanding that from the Trinitarian/Monotheistic point of view, and not from a Modalist that you're trying to pin on Christians, the easier it will be for you to ask about something else. wink.gif

I'd like to see how you jump to the conclusion that Christ is "part" of the one true God.

[jwhitlock]

They do believe it. You're looking at it as 1+1+1=3 Gods, instead of 1x1x1=1 God

I'm not sure that makes any particular sense - why would anyone want to apply multiplication in this context?

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Thats arguable.

Please provide some Bible scriptures to support your argument.

But it also does not make only One God in all of creation, as the Saducee Interpreted the Script. And is the Leaven Christ warned us against, Which Modern Christianity has swallowed, hook line and sinker.

Mormonism contradicts the Bible. Mormonism reveals many Gods during creation, the Bible reveals one God created and he was alone and by himself.

There are many other beings who are called gods both in heaven and on earth.

I agree there is many things called gods, for example Satan is called god.

I'd like to see how you jump to the conclusion that Christ is "part" of the one true God.

John 1:1 says the Son was God, he is not "part" God.

[jwhitlock]

Easy enough. Because Jesus said there was only one, true God (Jn. 17:3). Yet, when we look at what he also said about himself, and what the rest of Bible has to say about him and the Holy Spirit, we note that there are at least three persons which comprise the constitution of the one, true God. Hence, there is only one, true God, yet that one, true God is manifest in three persons: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. And as soon as you start understanding that from the Trinitarian/Monotheistic point of view, and not from a Modalist that you're trying to pin on Christians, the easier it will be for you to ask about something else.

So, since the Modalist view is not valid, would it be correct to rephrase what you said above as follows:

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three individual persons, working together in the function or office of the Godhead, which Godhead is also often referred to as the one God, or ultimate authority in the universe?

If not, why, specifically, would you disagree.

[Chris Smith]

Modalism: One person who can take on three different manifestations.

Trinity: One God, three persons.

a. Western view of Trinity: One essence expressed in three persons.

b. Eastern view of Trinity: Three persons mutually indwellng and interpenetrating each other.

[emeliza]

Modalism: One person who can take on three different manifestations.

Trinity: One God, three persons.

a. Western view of Trinity: One essence expressed in three persons.

b. Eastern view of Trinity: Three persons mutually indwellng and interpenetrating each other.

Good explanation. However we can't argue which one is really correct.....as there are reasons for and against each viewpoint. Scripture that backs up all three and scriptures that tear down all three....depending on the interpretation.

Edit: We can argue, but I am not sure it can be won fully.

[Uncle Dale]

Good explanation. However we can't argue which one is really correct.....as there are reasons

for and against each viewpoint. Scripture that backs up all three and scriptures that tear down

all three....depending on the interpretation.

Edit: We can argue, but I am not sure it can be won fully.

Of course not. The mere notion that human beings can fathom and articulate the infinite nature of God,

in thoughts and words, is ridiculous.

We do our best -- and perhaps, in making that attempt, we can leave open a little room for others trying

to do their best, as well.

None of which adds up to encounter with The Divine -- but it may at least set us on good pathways.

Your Uncle Dale

.

[ed2276]

My personal thoughts are, that Mormon attempts to portray the religion of John the Baptist, or Jesus,

or the apostles, as being a profession of plurality of gods, are doomed to failure -- and that the LDS

theology of some future day will acknowledge that the apostolic religion was pure monotheism.

UD

I cannot see a time when your personal prediction about reformed LDS theology would ever come about. There may be some question as to what JTB or the apostles (though the "heirs and joint heirs" passage may call into doubt pure apostolic monotheism) believed in regard to monotheism , but there can be none with regard to Jesus' teachings. There are the usual biblical passages quoting Jesus in which a plurality of Gods cannot be credibly denied. The "ye are gods" verses and Jesus' own profession that God the Father was Jesus' own God and Father , as well as ours , coupled with Jesus' God status give no room for a pure monotheism based on Jesus' own "religion". Add to this current LDS scripture and teachings and I don't see such reform as likely anytime in the future.

There also may be no question but that John the Baptist and the apostles believed in a plurality of Gods. I simply don't know the Bible well enough to say what their views were , which is my own failing.

[Uncle Dale]

I cannot see a time when your personal prediction about reformed LDS theology would ever come about. There may be some question as to what JTB or the apostles (though the "heirs and joint heirs" passage may call into doubt pure apostolic monotheism) believed in regard to monotheism , but there can be none with regard to Jesus' teachings. There are the usual biblical passages quoting Jesus in which a plurality of Gods cannot be credibly denied. The "ye are gods" verses and Jesus' own profession that God the Father was Jesus' own God and Father , as well as ours , coupled with Jesus' God status give no room for a pure monotheism based on Jesus' own "religion". Add to this current LDS scripture and teachings and I don't see such reform as likely anytime in the future.

There also may be no question but that John the Baptist and the apostles believed in a plurality of Gods. I simply don't know the Bible well enough to say what their views were , which is my own failing.

All I can say, is that I read the same Scriptures -- apply what I feel to be objective hermeneutics --

and discern a religion there much more like ancient Judaism than today's Mormonism.

LDS scholars are becoming more proficient and respected in their studies and reporting, and in their

doing that, they will inevitably join more and more with the ranks of contemporary religious consensus.

That is not to say that all non-LDS speak with a single voice, of course. Mormons are bound to become

one of the several different religious traditions within the scholarly dialogue. But as they enter into that

wider forum they will undoubtedly gain a greater understanding of (and respect for) the consensus.

Theosis need not entail a multiplicity of separate godlings. Jewish and Christian mystical religion has

always held open a pathway to deification which does not result in such a plurality. With 13,000,000

current members -- and more expected in the future -- the time is not far off when Mormons themselves

will begin to testify of becoming "joint heirs in/with Christ," in ways not currently spoken of within

Mormonism. I have great hopes in this regard -- and wonder if the proto-mystical experiences of Elders Snow

and Woodruff might one day set the example for faithful Mormons.

It is not my place to predict such things -- but I truly believe I see what is coming in this regard.

UD

.

[emeliza]

Of course not. The mere notion that human beings can fathom and articulate the infinite nature of God,

in thoughts and words, is ridiculous.

We do our best -- and perhaps, in making that attempt, we can leave open a little room for others trying

to do their best, as well.

None of which adds up to encounter with The Divine -- but it may at least set us on good pathways.

Your Uncle Dale

.

I have never understood why it was so important to know the true nature of God (meaning which of those views is correct) when it really is impossible. I think instead you have to have the ability to open up to the thought that all could be correct and just pick which on you agree with the most. Or I suppose if it is that big of a deal to you, you could pray about it, get your own revelation and they argue everyone else is completely wrong assuming your revelation will somehow mean something to them.

(Hmm...I am sounding a bit negative here aren't I?)

The Emeliza

[Uncle Dale]

(Hmm...I am sounding a bit negative here aren't I?)

The Emeliza

Welcome to the club ---

I have no problem with people starting out with negative "talking points" regarding doctrines, views, etc.

-- (so long as negativity is not where they finally end up).

Yer Unk

[consiglieri]

Modalism: One person who can take on three different manifestations.

Trinity: One God, three persons.

a. Western view of Trinity: One essence expressed in three persons.

b. Eastern view of Trinity: Three persons mutually indwellng and interpenetrating each other.

I have to take exception to your definition of the "Trinity" as "One God, three persons."

You have presented only an abbreviated version of one-half of the Trinity.

The other half says that each of the three persons is also fully God; with the famous qualifiers that, even though each of the three are "fully God," there are not three Gods but only one God.

It is at precisely this juncture that professors of the Trinity (which was cobbled together in 325 A.D. and which the vast majority of Chrisianity has since adopted) wishes to have its cake and eat it too.

They want to be Christian in the sense of viewing Jesus of Nazareth as divine, or "fully God." On the other hand, they also want his Father in Heaven to whom he prayed to be "fully God." But instead of owning up to the fact that this view of Christianity must necessarily constitute polytheism, they then backtrack and say that there is only one God.

Which brings us back to the point of the original post--What is it about the claim of monotheism that makes it so desirable as to cause orthodox Christianity to adopt an internally inconsistent and mutually contradictory view of God in order to lay claim to it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[USU78]

see a "golden thread" of pure monotheism woven through Israelite/Jewish religious society from Jeremiah down to Jesus. To me, that is normative Judaism, and I think that the vast majority of Jews around today would back me up in that assessment.

The proper way to look at this is how Jeremiah looked at this . . . sez Jeremiah.

USU "Wondering what all that stuff was about Jeremiah being in a pit by the Princes of Judah and all that" 78

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have to take exception to your definition of the "Trinity" as "One God, three persons."

You have presented only an abbreviated version of one-half of the Trinity.

The other half says that each of the three persons is also fully God; with the famous qualifiers that, even though each of the three are "fully God," there are not three Gods but only one God.

It is at precisely this juncture that professors of the Trinity (which was cobbled together in 325 A.D. and which the vast majority of Chrisianity has since adopted) wishes to have its cake and eat it too.

They want to be Christian in the sense of viewing Jesus of Nazareth as divine, or "fully God." On the other hand, they also want his Father in Heaven to whom he prayed to be "fully God." But instead of owning up to the fact that this view of Christianity must necessarily constitute polytheism, they then backtrack and say that there is only one God.

Which brings us back to the point of the original post--What is it about the claim of monotheism that makes it so desirable as to cause orthodox Christianity to adopt an internally inconsistent and mutually contradictory view of God in order to lay claim to it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have never been able to figure this one out. It makes no sense. 3 Gods some how end up as 1. Strange.

[consiglieri]

The proper way to look at this is how Jeremiah looked at this . . . sez Jeremiah.

USU "Wondering what all that stuff was about Jeremiah being in a pit by the Princes of Judah and all that" 78

Ah, yes, the wonderful pit of Malkiyahu ben Hamelech which, once the theophoric suffix has been dropped, may be translated as Mulek, son of the King.

The king at the time was Zedekiah.

Now where have I read that a fellow named Mulek was the son of king Zedekiah? It wasn't the Bible, but it was something like the Bible.

Now, where was that?

All the Best!

--King Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I have never been able to figure this one out. It makes no sense. 3 Gods some how end up as 1. Strange.

Strange, indeed.

And it seems that the only reason for all this strangeness is the unquenchable desire for orthodox Christians to call themselves Monotheists.

I am not sure Monotheism is all it's cracked up to be.

After all,

One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do.

Or so I'm told.

All the Best!

--Three Dog Consiglieri

[structurecop]

Or so I'm told.

All the Best!

--Three Dog Consiglieri

For some reason there's an assumption that monotheism is an inherently morally superior system of belief. Of course, no one has waged more religious wars than the monotheists.

-- Structure "Two Sheds" Cop

[Uncle Dale]

The proper way to look at this is how Jeremiah looked at this . . . sez Jeremiah.

My Bible seems to say that he looked upon the other "gods" of his day as hunks of wood and stone.

If Mormons want to concede that Baal Hadad indeed rides in the cherubim-powered divine chariot,

through the clouds above Canaan, bringing the greater and lesser rains, that is their right I suppose.

It all boils down to the simple matter of infinity.

Uncle "and I think that infinity scares my mountaineer cousins" Dale

[Uncle Dale]

The proper way to look at this is how Jeremiah looked at this . . . sez Jeremiah.

My Bible seems to say that he looked upon the other "gods" of his day as hunks of wood and stone.

If Mormons want to concede that Baal Hadad indeed rides in the cherubim-powered divine chariot,

through the clouds above Canaan, bringing the greater and lesser rains, that is their right I suppose.

It all boils down to the simple matter of infinity.

Uncle "and I think that infinity scares my mountaineer cousins" Dale

[consiglieri]

For some reason there's an assumption that monotheism is an inherently morally superior system of belief. Of course, no one has waged more religious wars than the monotheists.

-- Structure "Two Sheds" Cop

I think that once you have committed yourself to a belief in a supreme being, it doesn't matter much if you add one or two more.

In processions of this type, it is the first step that matters.

Or so I'm told.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncle Dale]

I think that once you have committed yourself to a belief in a supreme being, it doesn't matter much

if you add one or two more.

But, again you have missed the point, friend.

Radical Monotheism does NOT profess a God who is a being, existing in time and space.

What we are referencing here is NOT "a" supreme being --- but rather, Supreme Being itself.

The Mormon view of a limited God, bounded by time and space, not creating existence and universe,

is the view in which "it doesn't matter much if you add one or two more."

I am not sure I've ever been able to communicate this observation to a single LDS, in a lifetime of

trying -- trying to merely get the point across as a matter for serious consideration.

Each time I speak of Infinite God, I get a response of something like: "You mean an ill-defined

blob of spiritual jelley that floats around, among the galaxies, or something?"

Nothing could be more distant from my meaning -- but my exasperation is reaching terminal limits.

UD

.

[consiglieri]

But, again you have missed the point, friend.

Radical Monotheism does NOT profess a God who is a being, existing in time and space.

What we are referencing here is NOT "a" supreme being --- but rather, Supreme Being itself.

The Mormon view of a limited God, bounded by time and space, not creating existence and universe,

is the view in which "it doesn't matter much if you add one or two more."

I am not sure I've ever been able to communicate this observation to a single LDS, in a lifetime of

trying -- trying to merely get the point across as a matter for serious consideration.

Each time I speak of Infinite God, I get a response of something like: "You mean an ill-defined

blob of spiritual jelley that floats around, among the galaxies, or something?"

Nothing could be more distant from my meaning -- but my exasperation is reaching terminal limits.

UD

.

It would not be the first time I missed the point, I assure you.

And so as not to run the risk of pushing you to truly terminal limits, I will not ask you about the "blob of spiritual jelly."

Although we should "beware of the blob."

Or so I'm told.

Of course, I would see a number of difficulties raised by postulating a God who is Supreme Being itself. One of which would be that I, a Mormon, would already be "one" with such a Being, and that cannot be because I am not a Christian.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri Bacharach (Now that is obscure!)

[Uncle Dale]

Of course, I would see a number of difficulties raised by postulating a God who is Supreme Being itself.

Once again --- we are not really talking about "postulating" --- merely considering the professed

reports of many people in many religions, in many times and many different places. Some folks

in South Asia call it the "perennial realization."

There is no postulation required -- only an openness to encounter and reflection.

And, to repeat -- we are not talking about "a" God ---- in the sense that we might speak of a planet

or a continent or a mountain.

One of which would be that I, a Mormon, would already be "one" with such a Being, and that cannot

be because I am not a Christian.

Yes -- we are all "one" with God ----- but not with "a" Being. We experience it as so, because we

cannot generally comprehend infinity and Infinite Being.

Think of Heavenly Father's Grandfather's Grandfather --- if such a mental exercise will get your

perceptions to open up. Or think about the what the Milky Way Galaxy was like before Eloheim

progressed to godhood.

At least those things can be "postulated," and some new possibilies pondered.

Uncle Dale

.

[Paul D]

I'd like to see how you jump to the conclusion that Christ is "part" of the one true God.

Jesus isn't a part. He is the one true God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

[USU78]

It all boils down to the simple matter of infinity.

Uncle "and I think that infinity scares my mountaineer cousins" Dale

You callin' me chicken? Are ya? I double dog dare ya. I triple dog dare ya! Knock this here spud off'n my shoulder. I'll knock you all the way to St. Agony.

USU "There be L--ds many" 78