Who is God? Or maybe the question is WHAT is God? Most would answer that question without ever stopping to give it any thought at all.
Most would say that God is the Creator of the universe, but they would not stop there. Depending on what religion they are, or if they are any religion at all, they would go on to include the characteristics of God. Most religious people would describe the characteristics of God based on what the Bible or other religious book has to say about God. Some would base them on what they have experienced throughout their life. Still others would describe God’s characteristic based on what we know about science. ALL of these sources are right AND wrong. Problem is we just don’t know which parts are right and which parts are wrong.
I think it is arrogance, to some degree, to be able to answer the question “What is God?” without pausing first to think about your answer. To jump right out there with such certainty about the nature of God, when we are but tiny, time/space beings in this vast timeless, and, in some places, spaceless expanse we call the universe, seems to me to be extremely inflated.
Let’s just take a step back for a few minutes and ask ourselves some questions. If God is the God of the Bible, which is what a huge percentage of Americans believe, then why do we refer to God as “He?” Well in order to figure out why, we need to see what the Bible says about God. Ha! That would take forever, right? …Since the whole flippin book is about God! Well, why don’t we just look at a few places then.
Let’s start in the beginning. That seems like a logical place. Genesis 1:1 -“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let’s take a look at that word that is translated “God.” It is the Hebrew word Elohiym. It is the most common Hebrew word translated “God” in the Old Testament. Elohiym is plural. It is PLURAL, meaning it represents more than one (duh).
An example of this is in Genesis 1:26 –“Then God said, ‘Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness…” This scripture is translated correctly because Elohiym is, in fact, PLURAL and so are the verbs that follow the noun.
However, Genesis 1:1 is NOT translated perfectly. “God” in that scripture is also Elohiym, but the verb “created” that follows it is in the singular masculine tense. So if translated correctly, it should actually read, “In the beginning, Gods he created the heavens and the earth.” Now I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. The translators mistranslated it on purpose because it doesn’t seem to make any sense grammatically. And why would the noun be plural but the verb be singular masculine in Genesis 1:1, but both the noun and the verbs be plural 26 verses later? Maybe what this scripture means is that there was more than one God, and they were ALL male. Who knows.
We can obviously infer by the word Elohiym used all over Genesis, that whoever wrote Genesis believed that God was not one entity, but at least two, possibly more. Possibly even several. Genesis does not nail down how many exactly. This can absolutely be known because there is a separate Hebrew word to indicate a SINGULAR God, and that is Eloah.
Eloah is the singular tense of the word Elohiym, which is the plural tense. Just as we have MAN as the singular and MEN as the plural, PERSON as the singular and PEOPLE as the plural in the English language, so is it with Hebrew grammar. So we cannot make any assumptions that there is a double meaning to the word Elohiym. It is PLURAL in every place in the Old Testament across the board. Period.
Some may suggest that this plurality is proof of the trinity, which is the God-head 3 in 1: the Father (Creator), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (force which is unseen). The only problem with that explanation is that the Creation, according to the Bible, was approximately 4000 years before Jesus was born, so how could Jesus be a part of the Godhead before he was even born?
Even if Jesus existed before his birth as just a spirit, would that not then make him part of the Holy Spirit which is its own part of the Godhead? In that case, it would be the binity, not the trinity! And if not, and Jesus WAS a totally separate spirit entity than God the Father and the Holy Spirit even before his birth, then how could this be the ONE true God? Would it not then be 3 SEPARATE Gods? If we are to believe that there is ONE true God, and Jesus is merely the physical manifestation of that one God, then logically, there is no way that Jesus was separate from the “Father” or the “Spirit” part of the trinity while he was not in human form.
On the other hand, if both the Father and the Spirit are invisible entities, both serve the same purpose, and both were the driving force behind creation, destruction, wars, famines, blessings etc. then why exactly are we concluding that they are 2 separate entities of the Godhead? That’s like saying that 2 paintings that were created in the same style and have identical signatures were painted by 2 different people! No one would ever make such a ridiculous conclusion! It wouldn’t make any sense! So why do we do it with God? Why should we not just fill in the gap and conclude that they are the SAME entity, not separate in any way, shape or form?
I think I can answer that question, but we must step outside of the Bible and take a look at history.
Before 325 A.D. there were many different ideas about the nature of God and Jesus. Now we aren’t just talking about disputes between the Gnostics and the Christians. I mean within Christianity itself there was no established creed about the nature of God because no one knew. According to the scriptures back then, it was up in the air. Few scriptures offered evidence that Jesus WAS God. No one was in agreement and there was much fighting among the people.
The Council of Nicaea under Constantine in 325 A.D. is what settled the issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father for all of Christendom. The council consisted of approximately 300 Catholic bishops that decided that Jesus was God by a vote. A VOTE! The intent was to define unity of beliefs in Rome for political purposes. Constantine, who was not a true converted Christian, understood that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he needed to gain control by uniting the masses in their beliefs about Jesus.
It wasn’t until several decades later in 381 A.D. that the Trinitarian Creed was completely established at the Council of Constantinople, once again, by a VOTE. The Council consisted of approximately 150 men and addressed the place of the Holy Spirit in the trinity, as well as rehashed the topic of Arianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism because although the Nicaean Council in 325 A.D. determined the nature of Jesus, Arius’ (A.D. 250-336) teachings were still widespread and highly accepted. Even after The Council of Constantinople, Trinitarianism was not widely accepted, and those that blatantly opposed the new creed were deemed heretics and persecuted by the church.
Trinitarian creed was not something that Old Testament Jews new of or established, nor had New Testament Christians. Trinitarianism is not a Biblical doctrine at all, rather, it is only a church creed established by the leaders of the organized faith 300+ years AFTER Jesus supposedly lived.
So after all this, is it still possible that God is 3 different personalities in 1 called the trinity? Absolutely. Anything is possible. But it would not be based on historical facts, nor could it be based on the Bible. It would simply be a theory.
Most would say that God is the Creator of the universe, but they would not stop there. Depending on what religion they are, or if they are any religion at all, they would go on to include the characteristics of God. Most religious people would describe the characteristics of God based on what the Bible or other religious book has to say about God. Some would base them on what they have experienced throughout their life. Still others would describe God’s characteristic based on what we know about science. ALL of these sources are right AND wrong. Problem is we just don’t know which parts are right and which parts are wrong.
I think it is arrogance, to some degree, to be able to answer the question “What is God?” without pausing first to think about your answer. To jump right out there with such certainty about the nature of God, when we are but tiny, time/space beings in this vast timeless, and, in some places, spaceless expanse we call the universe, seems to me to be extremely inflated.
Let’s just take a step back for a few minutes and ask ourselves some questions. If God is the God of the Bible, which is what a huge percentage of Americans believe, then why do we refer to God as “He?” Well in order to figure out why, we need to see what the Bible says about God. Ha! That would take forever, right? …Since the whole flippin book is about God! Well, why don’t we just look at a few places then.
Let’s start in the beginning. That seems like a logical place. Genesis 1:1 -“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let’s take a look at that word that is translated “God.” It is the Hebrew word Elohiym. It is the most common Hebrew word translated “God” in the Old Testament. Elohiym is plural. It is PLURAL, meaning it represents more than one (duh).
An example of this is in Genesis 1:26 –“Then God said, ‘Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness…” This scripture is translated correctly because Elohiym is, in fact, PLURAL and so are the verbs that follow the noun.
However, Genesis 1:1 is NOT translated perfectly. “God” in that scripture is also Elohiym, but the verb “created” that follows it is in the singular masculine tense. So if translated correctly, it should actually read, “In the beginning, Gods he created the heavens and the earth.” Now I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. The translators mistranslated it on purpose because it doesn’t seem to make any sense grammatically. And why would the noun be plural but the verb be singular masculine in Genesis 1:1, but both the noun and the verbs be plural 26 verses later? Maybe what this scripture means is that there was more than one God, and they were ALL male. Who knows.
We can obviously infer by the word Elohiym used all over Genesis, that whoever wrote Genesis believed that God was not one entity, but at least two, possibly more. Possibly even several. Genesis does not nail down how many exactly. This can absolutely be known because there is a separate Hebrew word to indicate a SINGULAR God, and that is Eloah.
Eloah is the singular tense of the word Elohiym, which is the plural tense. Just as we have MAN as the singular and MEN as the plural, PERSON as the singular and PEOPLE as the plural in the English language, so is it with Hebrew grammar. So we cannot make any assumptions that there is a double meaning to the word Elohiym. It is PLURAL in every place in the Old Testament across the board. Period.
Some may suggest that this plurality is proof of the trinity, which is the God-head 3 in 1: the Father (Creator), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (force which is unseen). The only problem with that explanation is that the Creation, according to the Bible, was approximately 4000 years before Jesus was born, so how could Jesus be a part of the Godhead before he was even born?
Even if Jesus existed before his birth as just a spirit, would that not then make him part of the Holy Spirit which is its own part of the Godhead? In that case, it would be the binity, not the trinity! And if not, and Jesus WAS a totally separate spirit entity than God the Father and the Holy Spirit even before his birth, then how could this be the ONE true God? Would it not then be 3 SEPARATE Gods? If we are to believe that there is ONE true God, and Jesus is merely the physical manifestation of that one God, then logically, there is no way that Jesus was separate from the “Father” or the “Spirit” part of the trinity while he was not in human form.
On the other hand, if both the Father and the Spirit are invisible entities, both serve the same purpose, and both were the driving force behind creation, destruction, wars, famines, blessings etc. then why exactly are we concluding that they are 2 separate entities of the Godhead? That’s like saying that 2 paintings that were created in the same style and have identical signatures were painted by 2 different people! No one would ever make such a ridiculous conclusion! It wouldn’t make any sense! So why do we do it with God? Why should we not just fill in the gap and conclude that they are the SAME entity, not separate in any way, shape or form?
I think I can answer that question, but we must step outside of the Bible and take a look at history.
Before 325 A.D. there were many different ideas about the nature of God and Jesus. Now we aren’t just talking about disputes between the Gnostics and the Christians. I mean within Christianity itself there was no established creed about the nature of God because no one knew. According to the scriptures back then, it was up in the air. Few scriptures offered evidence that Jesus WAS God. No one was in agreement and there was much fighting among the people.
The Council of Nicaea under Constantine in 325 A.D. is what settled the issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father for all of Christendom. The council consisted of approximately 300 Catholic bishops that decided that Jesus was God by a vote. A VOTE! The intent was to define unity of beliefs in Rome for political purposes. Constantine, who was not a true converted Christian, understood that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he needed to gain control by uniting the masses in their beliefs about Jesus.
It wasn’t until several decades later in 381 A.D. that the Trinitarian Creed was completely established at the Council of Constantinople, once again, by a VOTE. The Council consisted of approximately 150 men and addressed the place of the Holy Spirit in the trinity, as well as rehashed the topic of Arianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism because although the Nicaean Council in 325 A.D. determined the nature of Jesus, Arius’ (A.D. 250-336) teachings were still widespread and highly accepted. Even after The Council of Constantinople, Trinitarianism was not widely accepted, and those that blatantly opposed the new creed were deemed heretics and persecuted by the church.
Trinitarian creed was not something that Old Testament Jews new of or established, nor had New Testament Christians. Trinitarianism is not a Biblical doctrine at all, rather, it is only a church creed established by the leaders of the organized faith 300+ years AFTER Jesus supposedly lived.
So after all this, is it still possible that God is 3 different personalities in 1 called the trinity? Absolutely. Anything is possible. But it would not be based on historical facts, nor could it be based on the Bible. It would simply be a theory.
6 comments:
Hello :) I stumbled across this blog and am interested in discussing your theological perspective in greater detail.
Do you disagree, then, that the Gospel of John makes it clear that, Biblically, Jesus was God? This also disassembles your argument that Jesus couldnt have been God because he wasnt around before he was born, but the Bible says that he was in a few places, including John 1.
I notice you say that because Jesus was likely spirit (conjecture?) and the Holy Spirit is spirit, they could not have been separate in the way the Trinity says... But even if Jesus was "spirit", why would that make him the Holy Spirit?
I have a lot more to say, but Im just going to throw this out there and see your thoughts on it.
By the way, my post is more dealing with whether Jesus was God and so on, not so much making a huge distinction between Trinitarianism and, for example, Sabellianism.
Thank you for your comment!
I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are commenting on this post because you are a Christian. Likely, a teacher or minister or some sort? If I am correct on that I would also assume that you have either been to seminary or, like me, have just been studying and being taught under church authority what the Bible means and doesn't mean based on a biased interpretation. YOU won't think it is biased of course because you have been taught it is truth and the Bible is the inherent and infallible "Word of God." I, however, believed the same thing for over 20 years of my life and studied it and history so diligently that I realized it is not infallible, but rather just a book that inspired men wrote, which means it is full of views and opinions and stories that may or may not be true. SO, based on this alone (if my assumptions are correct), debating with you would be pointless. If you have it in your head that the Bible is flawless and has no discrepancies or contradictions, then it would not matter if Jesus himself appeared and told you the Bible was like any other history book, you would not believe it because you already believe you know THE truth. Typically when a contadiction or error is brought to light, Christians explain it away by saying, "God's ways are higher than our ways and we aren't meant to understand everything." And that is fine with me because, unlike the majority of Christians, I do not care what anyone else believes and do not wish to convert people. I believe each should be living in the way that makes their lives the happiest and most fulfilling.
The whole point of my post was to show that there are many different ideas out there just based on the Bible alone, and they are all good THEORIES and INTERPRETATIONS, and no one knows as much as they think they do, so to argue and fight and look down on others for not holding the same beliefs about God, is quite arrogant. You said, “I notice you say that because Jesus was likely spirit (conjecture?) and the Holy Spirit is spirit, they could not have been separate in the way the Trinity says... But even if Jesus was "spirit", why would that make him the Holy Spirit?”
It seems that you only acknowledged the parts of my post that contradict what you believe because this is what I actually said…
”Even if Jesus existed before his birth as just a spirit, would that not then make him part of the Holy Spirit which is its own part of the Godhead? In that case, it would be the binity, not the trinity! And if not, and Jesus WAS a totally separate spirit entity than God the Father and the Holy Spirit even before his birth, then how could this be the ONE true God? Would it not then be 3 SEPARATE Gods? If we are to believe that there is ONE true God, and Jesus is merely the physical manifestation of that one God, then logically, there is no way that Jesus was separate from the “Father” or the “Spirit” part of the trinity while he was not in human form.”
You completely ignored the fact that I never ruled out that Jesus could have been a separate spirit entity than God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I acknowledged that BOTH possibilities could be true. You chose to only acknowledge the one you had a problem with and then went on to assume that my theological belief is that the Trinity doesn’t exist, which wasn’t based on any fact because I said at the end of my post, “So after all this, is it still possible that God is 3 different personalities in 1 called the trinity? Absolutely. Anything is possible.”
I think you may have stereotyped me. You are assuming that because I have given arguments against the mainstream Christian beliefs about the Trinity, that I believe those arguments or that I have a theological perspective at all. What you don’t realize is that I don’t fully believe ANY of what I posted. I truly am bipartisan. I do believe in “God,” but who or what that God is, I don’t exactly know, and neither does anyone else. Do I believe in Jesus of the Bible? I don’t know. The Jesus of the Bible could have existed. But he very well could have been made up as well. I believe that anything is possible and all theories are possibilities, although some are more logical than others and have more evidence to support them. I merely believe we ALL need to question everything before we just accept it as truth.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only eye witness accounts of the life and ministry of this particular Jesus ANYWHERE in history. The Bible wasn’t written in a vacuum. There was a whole world going on out there. There were other historians and writers that lived during that time period and yet we have multiple manuscripts of only four texts (which are NOT the originals by the way) about what this man who is supposed to be God in the flesh did? Surely someone as influential as the Jesus of the Bible would have been recorded (eyes witness accounts) other places in history? But we haven’t found such evidence.
There are many other gospels out there that were not included in the Bible… gospels that have very different beliefs about Jesus (translated accurately would be Joshua)… beliefs that Constantine did not like. You could say in some cases that the Jesus referred to in some of the Gnostic gospels were talking about a totally different Jesus altogether; that is how different the beliefs were (I’m sure you know this already). The whole point of the councils, were to decide the nature of God and Jesus and decide which texts were to be included in the Bible. These decisions were made based on a vote. Many people don’t even realize that the book of Revelation was a toss up. The votes were split evenly accept for one swing vote and that vote ended up going in Revelation’s favor. That is why it is now included in the Bible. It was just as controversial back then as it is today obviously. And yet this is the book that so many base their beliefs about the “end times” on.
So, for me, it is difficult to base my beliefs about God and Jesus on what a small group of Roman Catholic bishops decided on by a vote because even they couldn’t agree what the truth was. They were men with power, and I’m sorry, but I just can’t trust that. We have seen in our own lifetime what the intentions of men with that kind of power can do. I would rather know ALL the facts and views and make a decision for myself instead of being told what truth is by biased authority.
Besides, no one knows for sure who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first place. There is no indication in any of them (unlike the letters from Paul) who wrote them. Anyone can do some research and see that they were written anonymously. Scholars have looked at them from all angles and still can’t agree on them. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels) Just another reason why I can’t base my beliefs on these scriptures.
I believe the Bible is like any other history book… it has some truth and some skewed interpretation in it. I believe some ideas are original idea and some text was added later by the Catholic Church (there is tons of evidence for this). Not all men’s views are going to agree. People experience different things and experience the same things differently. I believe it should be studied for knowledge’s sake, but I also believe that we should not rest our deepest beliefs on it. I don’t believe much of what is in the Bible as fact, but I also don’t NOT believe it either. I am in the middle and undecided currently, and that’s okay with me because I have learned that it doesn’t matter to my purpose and happiness in this life on Earth. I will forever search though. I believe we should go to the source for our truth… that is, the source of our existence. I believe whatever made us is also IN us because we are made up of that energy from which we came. Search yourself and I believe you will find God. Know yourself and I believe you will know God.
Post a Comment