The Divine Comedy (Conundrum)

Apparently I am being censored on another conservative site – freedom of speech in conservative circles – well not yet – apparently God isn’t into free thinkers that actually can use reason and logic…and here I thought we were supposed to use ‘all our mind’ to worship God – silly me. Oh well, I’ll have to move on to the next conservative circle and start again (14 condemnations and counting).

I have noticed when I blog with conservative Christians that when we approach the doctrine of the ‘trinity’ this is when my case (as well defended as it is) becomes a moot point…no amount of good evidence will ever change the church’s mind on that doctrine…and no amount of biblical evidence will be enough to avoid condemnation from these conservatives. 4 years and counting…the church won’t even accept people that do not accept this doctrine – it’s a matter of ‘you’re in’ and ‘you’re out’. Pretty cut-throat when you think about it.

But I have thought about it – for a long time now – and here is a piece of my case for consideration.

If God is the Trinity – a 3 in 1 spectacular – then I will admit that ‘I was wrong’ before God and every single person I made such a claim to concerning this issue. However, I can admit this is an honest mistake and a claim the evidence was ambigous about. I see the claim ‘God is One’ in the Tanakh and the NT – so for me to not understand the Trinity (since it is never mentioned in scripture) seems reasonable enough a mistake to make. So no real commandment is being broken – still believed in One God – just couldn’t grasp the Trinity because like I said ‘ambigous’.

If God is not a Trinity – but as He said along is ‘One’ – then a commandment is being broken (idolatry). God made it plainly clear to anyone with a basic reading level He is ‘One’…in Deut 6:4 (Jesus repeats this in Mark 12:29) and Exodus 20:3. This idea is a central theme through-out the whole of Torah and Propehts – it never changes. The only time this seemed to change was when Christianity reached into Gentile soil and the idea of co-divinity was based on the literalism of the ‘son of God’ idea. See below for more on the ‘son of God’ idea from the Hebrew scriptures.

Son of God (Wikipedia)

“In the Hebrew Bible, the phrase “son(s) of God” has various meanings: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase “Uioi Tou Theou”, “Sons of God”, to translate it.

  • The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as “sons of God”, is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases “sons of nobles”, “Bnei Ravrevaya” in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
  • It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, “children of the Most High”; in many passages “gods” and “judges” can seem to be equivalent). In a more specialized sense, “son of God” is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7:14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27-28).
  • Israel as a people is called God’s “son”, using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4:22 and Hosea 11:1).
  • Ephraim as a tribe (Jeremiah 31:8)

In Judaism the term “son of God” was used of the expected “Jewish mashiach” figure (Qumran community). Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God’s messiah (anointed king) and God’s son.

In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title “son of God” is given to the anointed person or Mashiach (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where “the sons of God” are identical with “the saints”; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).

It has been speculated that it was because of the frequent use of these books by the Early Christians in polemics with Jews, that the Sanhedrin at Yavneh rejected them around 80 CE.

In the Jewish interpretation of the Gospels, the being of Jesus as “son of God” corresponds to the typical Hasid from Galilee, a “pious” holy man that by divine intervention performs miracles and exorcisms (Geza Vermes quote)”

I am simply going by evidence…and if that makes me insane…guilty as charged.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Divine Comedy (Conundrum)

  1. “In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books), there are passages in which the title “son of God” is given to the anointed person or Mashiach (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9).”

    When they speak of Christians here they must mean Catholicism streams of faith. Any form of Christianity post-Reformation do not accept the aforementioned books (Enoch and Esdras) as God inspired scripture. Oddly enough, there versions of the ‘son of God’ ideology and Revelations are based quite heavily on these works. I don’t know what that says about Post-Reformation Christianity (or even Orthodox Christianty) – except they didn’t accept enough books as inspired?

    Regardless, the Essenes used these scriptures and from what can be garnered from historical works – that community did not see the messiah as God either. So how this term ‘son of God’ becomes a literal term for divinity is quite astounding…no Judaic sect ever accepted such a claim in that era. It leaves only one possibility – Paul’s work amongst Gentile communities (which becomes disconnected from the original disciples over time).

  2. “Are you a little pissed because of the Roughies 13th man” (John)

    Lol – yeah that sucked something serious for this province – heartbreaking letdown is the best way to put it.

    I just like evidence is all when someone debates on scripture – and now that I am censored (again) – I felt I wanted to finish this discussion on proof (which they wouldn’t let me). So I posted it on my site so I could always find it later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s