Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

[RickC]

P.S. I want to try to illustrate what I was saying about going all the way back to BEFORE the NT.

Let's suppose we want to learn American History. Where would we start? AFTER the Declaration of Independence was written? Well, I suppose we could. But the interpretation of that document would require us to know a LOT about what went on BEFORE 1776.

Thus, if the NT could be seen as an equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, should we not examine historical data from BEFORE Christ, the Apostles, and when the NT documents were written. Totally Yes, imo.

'Nuf sed, thx!

[Paidion]

9. Jesus *said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

If God, for whom all things are possible, presented Himself, His "face", to man, in the form of the man Jesus and was simultaneously "out there everywhere", would you not have Two of the Trinity?

I just don't go along with the idea of there being only one divine Individual who presented one His faces to man in the form of His Son, while retaining another in heaven, etc.

I believe that it was because the only-begotten Son was another EXACTLY like his Father, that He could say, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
Suppose I have in my pocket two pictures of myself printed from an old-fashioned negative. I draw one of them out of my pocket and say, "This is a picture of me." Then I draw out the second print, and say, "And here's another picture of me." You might respond, "That's not another picture; that's the same picture!"
I reply, "No it's not. There are two pictures; count them: one, two". You might reply, "If you've seen the first picture, you've seen the second!"

Heb 1:3 states:

He [the Son] is the reflected brightness of the glory [of God] and the exact imprint of his essence.

So since the Son is the exact imprint of the Father's essence, if you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father. This does not imply that They are the same Individual.

[Jose]

To respond to Jose's recent post, first off, as some of the Fathers of the Church noticed, God actually does refer to Himself in the plural, eg., early on in Genesis, eg., "Let US make man in OUR image, etc."

Yes, very true. There are a total of four times when God uses plural pronouns when speaking. In contrast, singular personal pronouns are used more than 20,000 times with respect to God. The fact that "us" is used less than .0002% of the time can hardly be considered an essential truth that God wanted to reveal about himself. I think we all generally agree that obscure passages should be interpreted in the light of clear ones, true?

There are at least two other possible ways to understand the 4 "us" texts that should be considered. One of them is that God is speaking to his angels and heavenly court, the other is that God is using a royal or majestic "we."

The following statements are from trinitarian sources that don't think God is speaking to other members of himself when he uses "us" or "we." If the following views are accepted, then singlular personal pronouns are all that remain, which would normally be understood to mean a single person.

Notes for Gen 1:26 on the NET Bible:
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

The NIV Study Bible (1985, Zondervan) says in its note for Gen 1:26, "us ... our. God speaks as the Creator-King announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court." And, in this same work, the footnotes for Job 1:6 and 38:7 say concerning “the sons of God”: "1:6 angels came to present themselves. .... They came as members of the heavenly council who stand in the presence of God." And "38:7 .... When the earth was created, the angels were there to sing the praises of the Creator, but Job was not."

“The plural ‘us,’ ‘our’...probably refers to the divine beings who compose God’s heavenly court (1 Kg. 22:19; Job 1:6).” - Gen. 1:26 footnote in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977).

Trinitarian scholar Dr. William Barclay agrees: “[God’s angels] were thought of as God’s senate; God did nothing without consulting them. For instance, when God said: ‘Let us make man’ (Genesis 1:26), it was to the angel senate that he was speaking.” - p. 17, The Letter to the Hebrews, Revised edition, “The Daily Study Bible Series,” The Westminster Press, 1976.

Dr. Charles Ryrie explains the plurals as plurals of majesty: "Gen. 1:26 us . . . our. Plurals of majesty" (Ryrie Study Bible, NIV, p.6).

"The explanation of the first person plural forms is probably that the Creator speaks as heaven's King accompanied by His heavenly hosts" (The New Bible Commentary, p. 82).

"It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his heavenly court... Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God's being" (New Jerusalem Bible, p. 19)

[Paidion]

We don't know that God is referring to HIMSELF as plural. I think He was speaking to his only begotten Son, when He used the plural "We", for God created all things THROUGH his Son. (John 1:3). And that doesn't imply that God is a compound Being of which his Son is part of that Compound. There is only one God, and that is the Father. Jesus Himself referrred to the Father as "the only true God" (John 17:3)

[morbo3000]

It is an unnatural reading of Genesis 1:26 to try and see monotheism or trinitarianism in it. The text accurately reflects ancient understandings of God that pre-date Israel's monotheism. The natural reading only becomes a source of hand-wringing because it apparently contradicts those later theologies.

This does not mean there are more than one gods. Nor that the trinity is false. Just that we shouldn't try to make texts say something they don't.

[morbo3000]

RickC Wrote:

What I'm getting at is: If we come to the NT in its context, where would that put us? What the NT authors meant? What Jesus Himself was really saying? Yes. However, did they not have the very rich OT tradition as not only their mainstay, as it were, but was this not their EXACT historical context and milieu of their ACTUAL worldview? Absolutely.

'nuf said. Right on the money.

Dude. I'm so happy for you to point out Michael S. Heiser. Lovin' Paleobabble.

[Jose]

It is an unnatural reading of Genesis 1:26 to try and see monotheism or trinitarianism in it. The text accurately reflects ancient understandings of God that pre-date Israel's monotheism. The natural reading only becomes a source of hand-wringing because it apparently contradicts those later theologies.

This does not mean there are more than one gods. Nor that the trinity is false. Just that we shouldn't try to make texts say something they don't.

Hi morbo3000,

You've given your opinion of what we shouldn't try to make it say, do you have an opinion of what the natural reading might be?
Was Jesus affirming something other than monotheism when He said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female" (Matt 19:4). "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27)

Thanks, Jose

[Paidion]

The following verse might be relevant to God's use of "we" and "us" in Genesis:

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (Psalm 82:1 ESV)

Were these "gods" angels? Or something else?

[Jose]

Were these "gods" angels? Or something else?

They are mortal men (vs. 7). Rulers and judges who are acting unjustly by showing partiality to the wicked instead of helping the weak, fatherless and needy (vss. 2-4). In this case, I believe God is speaking to the unrighteous judges of Israel.

"A Psalm of Asaph. God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers." (Literally: gods) Psalms 82:1 (NASB)

[dizerner]

[user account removed]