One or Three Gods?

[Blue Man]

There are two different words being translated as God/gods. one refers to God the supreme being (The Father Son and Spirit.) The other with the lower case "g" (gods) refers to a lord or master. This word can even refer to a person's authority given to them by God. Like a chief priest or rabbi.

In John 30:36 Christ is actually quoting Psalms 82:
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.” 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.

He speaks of the authority given to them by God, but at the same time grounds them be saying even though you have been given the authority of God to govern his people, you yourselves will be Judged by me/God the Son when you die.

So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?

And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.

 

[Bro_Sam]

So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?

For the same reason I just explained to you.

And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.

No, the context doesn't support that. Being "just as good as God" (and you're allowed to capitalize proper nouns, by the way) would not give Him the authority or the ability to create the Universe, to raise Himself from the dead, to judge the quick and the dead, to command angels, or to condemn sinners to Hell.

 

[zaksmummy]

I havent read the whole thread, as Im on my way to bed, but I just wanted to add this.

God is One, to better understand how God functions in the world through Jesus you need to understand him as the "Word of God". The Apostle John as the start of his gospel calls him this

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

The word the John uses is the greek "Logos", the Hebrew equivalent word is "Memra". If you wan to understand the way God works in the world you need to understand Jesus as the Memra - it isnt easy, believe me, I think I get it and then I dont I have to keep going back and studying this.

Look up everything you can on the word Memra and you'll see what I mean - but it will transform you way of looking at Jesus.

 

[drich0150]

So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?

You seem to be missing the distinction between God and gods. God with a capitol G is translated from the word that means Maker of the universe. Christ calling his accusers "gods," places them under His authority. (As the creator of the Universe) The statement you highlighted is not a defense, but a warning that point to prophecy. This for the OT Jews would be a cold hard slap in the face, not a defense or a plea for his life. Christ used scripture and prophecy to get the Pharisees to back down.

And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.

Not if you understand the difference between the words being translated as God and "gods." This is also why your bible puts "gods" in parentheses to make that distinction clear. If you read the scripture as the texts support it. there is no other possible explanation as to the meaning of Christ.

 

[chilehed]

...So my question is, can you be Christian if you don't believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit are God?

In some ways I understand the Trinity if I think of it in a certain way: That the Father, Jesus the Son and Holy Spirit are different expressions or modes or relations to one God. I am unsure whether that counts as the Trinity though....

Modalism is a heresy that arose in the Third Century; it's also called Sabellianism. It's an idea that is completely contrary to authentic Christian thought, as is the idea that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God.

The Council of Nicea specifically rejected these ideas, and through it and a couple of other Councils the Church formulated the correct view as

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages: God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made....And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets.​

Consubstantial with the Father... of the same substance.

The Athanasian Creed says it this way:

And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ.​

This totally eviscerates both Arianism and Sabellianism.

As to whether or not one can have a relationship with Christ while having false ideas about him, I'll just point out that gnosticism is a heresy as well. We're obligated to make sure that our intellect and conscience is well formed, but ultimately the question isn't what knowledge did you have about Christ so much as it is how did you respond to the knowledge God gave you? If our intellect and conscience are malformed because we wanted them to be, that's a problem because it involves a rejection of God.

 

[Blue Man]

No, the context doesn't support that. Being "just as good as God" (and you're allowed to capitalize proper nouns, by the way) would not give Him the authority or the ability to create the Universe, to raise Himself from the dead, to judge the quick and the dead, to command angels, or to condemn sinners to Hell.

I'm not sure when we spoke before.

Also, why not? If they're just as good, they'd be able to do the same thing.

 

[razeontherock]

So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?

These are reasonable questions. It's called being "cagey." He had an appointed time to die, and He couldn't pre-empt what He needed to accomplish beforehand. Sort of like slipping through an angry mob that was trying to kill Him.

And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.

This simply doesn't flush with the whole of Scripture. He clearly indicated He would Judge mankind, returning on "clouds of Glory," a very significant Jewish phrase. Also He rebuked people for calling Him "good," pointing out this was only possible if He was in fact G-d. And then He doesn't correct them

Finally, you have His humility that essentially forbids Him from coming out and simply saying "I Am G-d." It's the job of the Holy Spirit to testify of Him.

 

[Bro_Sam]

I'm not sure when we spoke before.

Also, why not? If they're just as good, they'd be able to do the same thing.

No, they wouldn't. They still would not be God. Now, are we going to go around talking in circles all night?

 

[Blue Man]

These are reasonable questions. It's called being "cagey." He had an appointed time to die, and He couldn't pre-empt what He needed to accomplish beforehand. Sort of like slipping through an angry mob that was trying to kill Him.



This simply doesn't flush with the whole of Scripture. He clearly indicated He would Judge mankind, returning on "clouds of Glory," a very significant Jewish phrase. Also He rebuked people for calling Him "good," pointing out this was only possible if He was in fact G-d. And then He doesn't correct them

Finally, you have His humility that essentially forbids Him from coming out and simply saying "I Am G-d." It's the job of the Holy Spirit to testify of Him.

So... This is all too confusing.

First he says he is "one with god"
Then he's tries to conceal the fact to make sure he dies properly.
But the bible says he's going to judge mankind and return on clouds,
Then he told people he wasn't "good" because that would mean he was god...
And he's got to look out for his humility.

So you have him claiming to be god, but rebuking people who suggest it. He kind of says he's god, but he doesn't want to say it explicitly because that would be dishonorable....

 

[Blue Man]

No, they wouldn't. They still would not be God. Now, are we going to go around talking in circles all night?

No we're not going to talk in circles all night.

 

[razeontherock]

So... This is all too confusing.

Only because His thoughts are higher than ours, and His ways are higher than ours, as much as heaven is higher than the earth.

First he says he is "one with god"
Then he's tries to conceal the fact to make sure he dies properly.

It's called "rightly dividing the Word." What you're missing is context. Who did He say what to? And when? Under what circumstances? You don't live in a vacuum, and neither did He. Answer these questions before you draw any conclusions, and things will start to come together, bit by bit.

But the bible says he's going to judge mankind and return on clouds,
Then he told people he wasn't "good" because that would mean he was god...

You have to get your facts straight. It's not the Bible that said He'll return on clouds to Judge - Jesus said that. Then it was recorded in what became our Bible.

He never said He wasn't good. That's a very important exchange there! (Mt 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)

And he's got to look out for his humility.

That's an awfully strange way of distorting things. He IS humble, as G-d is humble.

So you have him claiming to be god, but rebuking people who suggest it.

No, He never corrected that. Not once. That should be a clue.

 

[Blue Man]

Only because His thoughts are higher than ours, and His ways are higher than ours, as much as heaven is higher than the earth.


It's called "rightly dividing the Word." What you're missing is context. Who did He say what to? And when? Under what circumstances? You don't live in a vacuum, and neither did He. Answer these questions before you draw any conclusions, and things will start to come together, bit by bit.

I guess I can see it. He said he was god, that annoyed the Jews into stoning him. Then he get's "cagey". However, he then calls himself the son of god, and they start to stone him again. The plot abruptly stops there, but the Jews he annoyed would eventually have a hand in his death.

However, that kind of takes away from the answer given. The whole point being that god is or isn't also Jesus. So if Jesus said that to get a rise out of them and provoke them into killing him, then why assume it's true?



You have to get your facts straight. It's not the Bible that said He'll return on clouds to Judge - Jesus said that. Then it was recorded in what became our Bible.

He never said He wasn't good. That's a very important exchange there! (Mt 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)



That's an awfully strange way of distorting things. He IS humble, as G-d is humble.



No, He never corrected that. Not once. That should be a clue.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I guess I misunderstood.

 

[razeontherock]

The whole point being that god is or isn't also Jesus. So if Jesus said that to get a rise out of them and provoke them into killing him, then why assume it's true?

Interesting perspective but again, you need to look at the whole of Scripture. That means reserving judgment on any particular thing until you have done so.

First off, Jesus never said something false. That would've made His entire crucifixion worthless. So nix the "said that just to get a rise out of them." He said plenty for that to happen anyway!

Next, assumption is not necessary, and is never solid ground. Try this instead:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.


Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.


Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.


Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.


Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.


Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.


Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:


Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"

This is where I always recommend people start reading the Bible. Notice it plainly says that Jesus is G-d by virtue of being the Maker of all things. Kind of trippy, eh? Try wrapping your head around that ...

 

[Blue Man]

Interesting perspective but again, you need to look at the whole of Scripture. That means reserving judgment on any particular thing until you have done so.

First off, Jesus never said something false. That would've made His entire crucifixion worthless. So nix the "said that just to get a rise out of them." He said plenty for that to happen anyway!

Next, assumption is not necessary, and is never solid ground. Try this instead:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.


Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.


Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.


Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.


Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.


Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.


Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:


Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"

This is where I always recommend people start reading the Bible. Notice it plainly says that Jesus is G-d by virtue of being the Maker of all things. Kind of trippy, eh? Try wrapping your head around that ...

I guess I'm just going to have to agree. That's explicit. It verifies the other statement.

It is hard to wrap your head round. I even looked it up in another version: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

This has been a rather impressive debate. I've had this discussion before and none of this came up. I suppose that's why you come to a Christian forum.

 

[razeontherock]

I've had this discussion before and none of this came up.

The whole of Scripture. You see, when you're speaking with a Christian, Scripture is not some old dusty book; it's a living force.

It is hard to wrap your head round. I even looked it up in another version: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

This rational / logical element is how I came to the Lord. I was actually looking to excuse myself for not living up to what I knew is what he expected of me, hoping to find some loophole in the Bible, somewhere. Instead I found He is perfect, and fell in Love with Him. No, I'm not gay

But this one point really zeros in on the OP! We don't posit that the man Jesus was present at creation. He was born as a baby, long afterwards. What we wind up with is what has come to be termed as "the pre-incarnate Christ." I think it's important to ignore all the man-made stuff and seek G-d in earnest, for yourself. He'll show you His Truth! After that, you realize people's debates are silly and inconsequential by comparison. And that becomes the "broom" with which we can sweep away our own doubts, moment by moment.

Peace

 

[darknova]

Jesus himself told us that the Father is a spirit. He also warned us in stern language that we were to show utmost respect when speaking of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul wrote that Jesus' reign will end. But he will not be demoted; he will be enfolded. And the Person who will enfold him is the same Person whom Jesus identified as a spirit rather than as a corporeal being. So instead of God the Father's having a seperate entity that we call 'The Holy Spirit', it is in actuality the Holy Spirit that is using the title of 'father' so that we can better comprehend what he is saying and doing.

What are you saying here? That the Holy Spirit is the true God but which calls itself Father or Son sometimes?

God is a title, and not a Name as in God the Father God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All Three aspects of God are indeed equally God.

What is the difference between God being a title rather than name? To say that God is just a title given to three persons seems to say that the 'three-ness' of the Trinity is more real than the 'one-ness' of it. Is it different from there being three people with the title 'king' in a rooms and saying 'there are three people all with the essence of being king'? It sounds alot more like there being three Gods rather than one.

Every object in creation attests to how a trinity makes one object or in this case one God. In that every object has length, width, and Height. All three dimensions need to be present in order for an object to exist. The same can be said to how 3 distinct aspects or personalities of God equal one, not three gods.

But it is possible that the world could have been 2-D and circles and squares could still exist.

Who is God. If one is God in a human body in your estimation how does he cease being God?

It depends how you define God. What is needed for God to be God. I do see how Jesus could be considered God, but I thought it was worth asking the question of why.

Omnipotent, Omnipresent, nor Omniscient are not terms found in scripture. which means no matter how well intentioned, they are simply "religious" terms we have come up with to describe the infinite nature of God.
but here in lies the problem. these words are finite, with finite definitions and parameters that are used to describe an infinite being. Your question well intentioned or not challenges the definition of these words, but in no way addresses the infinite nature of God.

The trinity and incarnation arn't found in the Bible either but you could say they are implied. Are you against using words to talk about God? Im unsure what you mean.

If you noticed when i gave my first response I did not use any of the omni words you are trying to force into my account or definition. My answer may be simple, but it is complete in that what makes God, God is the control He excises over creation. If you put this control in a rock then effectively you have God in rock form. likewise if God places Himself in a man you have God in Man form. You are not worshiping man you are worshiping God.

I suppose you wouldn't consider the water God when Jesus calmed the storm though, even though God had control over it at the time?

 

[darknova]

The Athanasian Creed says it this way

I was going to criticize this because it sounds like they are trying to make 3=1, but after reading it again I think it can be understood in a way which makes sense. Do you think saying the Father, Son and Spirit are different aspects of one God is correct? Its the word person which confuses it for me because persons are very separate things, but you can have 3 aspects of one.

As to whether or not one can have a relationship with Christ while having false ideas about him, I'll just point out that gnosticism is a heresy as well. We're obligated to make sure that our intellect and conscience is well formed, but ultimately the question isn't what knowledge did you have about Christ so much as it is how did you respond to the knowledge God gave you? If our intellect and conscience are malformed because we wanted them to be, that's a problem because it involves a rejection of God.

This makes alot of sense though

 

[chilehed]

I was going to criticize this because it sounds like they are trying to make 3=1, but after reading it again I think it can be understood in a way which makes sense. Do you think saying the Father, Son and Spirit are different aspects of one God is correct? Its the word person which confuses it for me because persons are very separate things, but you can have 3 aspects of one.

I don't think that formulating it as different aspects works, because that's essentially the same as modalism. The Church has gone to a lot of effort to make it clear that there are three distinct persons in the one godhead. But don't think for a minute that I (or anyone else) can really wrap his head around this, because remember that God's nature is so other than ours that we could much more easily wrap our heads around the idea of seven dimensions of space and point our fingers in the up direction of dimension six. Just because we can't really get it doesn't mean that it ain't so... that's why it's called a mystery.

This makes alot of sense though

Catholic theology has a concept called "invincible ignorance", what it means is that we're not to reject the teachings of God but there can be circumstances under which we are not required to make a motion to positively accept them. For example, if you never heard of them. Or if the only person to teach them to you raped all of your women and children and burned down your viliage, that would place serious impediments in your ability to accept the truth and so your culpability would be reduced.

But as might be expected, invincible ignorance doesn't apply if you're ignorant out of obstinance. It's a very subjective thing, which is why we're to leave utimate judgement up to God: He's the only one who can judge the subjective state of our souls. Heck, I've completely proven to myself that I'm often not a competant judge of my own internal state, much less that of anyone else.

 

[Bro_Sam]

Catholic theology has a concept called "invincible ignorance", what it means is that we're not to reject the teachings of God but there can be circumstances under which we are not required to make a motion to positively accept them. For example, if you never heard of them. Or if the only person to teach them to you raped all of your women and children and burned down your viliage, that would place serious impediments in your ability to accept the truth and so your culpability would be reduced.

But as might be expected, invincible ignorance doesn't apply if you're ignorant out of obstinance. It's a very subjective thing, which is why we're to leave utimate judgement up to God: He's the only one who can judge the subjective state of our souls. Heck, I've completely proven to myself that I'm often not a competant judge of my own internal state, much less that of anyone else.

What about those of us who are aware of Catholic doctrines, understand them, and yet, reject them as being Unbiblical? Can we be saved?

 

[chilehed]

What about those of us who are aware of Catholic doctrines, understand them, and yet, reject them as being Unbiblical? Can we be saved?

Consider carefully what I've already said, and tell me what you expect my answer to be based on that. I'll tell you if you guessed correctly.