The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[Soapy]

What I see happening here is that those who support a doctrine of a trinity of persons who are each the same God are attempting to prove it by disingenuous means.

They may well ‘truly believe’ their claim but it is much the same as in the time when the church dictated that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. When it was found that certain planets did not conform to the astronomers calculations of the ‘well ordered system’, the church ordered that ways and means should be found to ‘make them fit’... and, indeed it was so: ‘MADE to fit by nefarious means’.

However, there were mightily bold men who knew the truth and risked their lives to profess the truth that it was the Sun that was the centre of the Solar system.., and indeed, when presented so it was seen that no ‘cludge’ need be applied to make those previously misaligned planets fit precisely into every astronomical calculation.

You can guess that the church was not pleased with them, Copernicus and Galileo, to wit!!

However, as evidence proved them right, the church eventually caved in and also professed the truth... however, I fear that trinity churches will not be so easily persuaded to the truth because of their own agendas or maybe it is not ‘their’ agenda but they don’t see they are being used to achieve the ends of another... did I mention Satan anywhere?

 

[Iymus]

By you and some others, maybe, but not by everyone.
As I understand it, Jews and Samaritans are Hebrews, i.e. descendants of Jacob, Isaac's son and Abraham's grandson. Jews, Samaritans, and Arabs are Semitic, i.e. Semites.

All the children of Eber are said to be Hebrews with Eber the Semite being considered the first Hebrew. A Hebrew is said to be an Eberite.

Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.

Shem the great grandfather of Eber is the Father of all the Eberites or Hebrews.

During tower of babel in the generation of Eber, they crossed over the Jordan and took no part in that confusion.

 

[metis]

However, there were mightily bold men who knew the truth and risked their lives to profess the truth that it was the Sun that was the centre of the Solar system.., and indeed, when presented so it was seen that no ‘cludge’ need be applied to make those previously misaligned planets fit precisely into every astronomical calculation.

You can guess that the church was not pleased with them, Copernicus and Galileo, to wit!!

However, as evidence proved them right, the church eventually caved in and also professed the truth... however, I fear that trinity churches will not be so easily persuaded to the truth because of their own agendas or maybe it is not ‘their’ agenda but they don’t see they are being used to achieve the ends of another...

Not all Trinitarian-based churches are the same. For example, the Catholic church owned up to its mistake with Copernicus and Galileo, accepts the Big Bang Theory, and also accepts the Theory of Evolution. However, this is not the case with many fundamentalist Protestant groups, such as the one I left decades ago.

Both Judaism and Catholicism now believe that if a particular interpretation of a scriptural narrative defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. Thus, science is not our enemy, nor is common sense.

 

[firedragon]

Not all Trinitarian-based churches are the same. For example, the Catholic church owned up to its mistake with Copernicus and Galileo, accepts the Big Bang Theory, and also accepts the Theory of Evolution. However, this is not the case with many fundamentalist Protestant groups, such as the one I left decades ago.

Both Judaism and Catholicism now believe that if a particular interpretation of a scriptural narrative defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. Thus, science is not our enemy, nor is common sense.

Hmm. I agree. And thats the right way to go.

 

[Soapy]

I agree with you. I dont believe in the trinity of course, i am not debating the trinity here. Is it monotheism or is it polytheism? Thats the question. Thank you very much for your thoughts but i would like to hear your thoughts on this too. That is if you have time but no fuss. Thanks again.

Hi FireDragon, the answer to your query is absolutely clear: Trinity (three) therefore Polytheism...
Trinitarians can try (and failingly do) try to devise irrational creeds and forceful ideologies to say that their God (our One God) is three person, while strangely calling God, a Person...

• Three Persons in One Person

When I ask Trinitarians if God is a Person, they go all weird and start on a new line of:

• ‘God is Essence and Nature’

In effect, they never answer. When I ask for definition of how God is Essence and Nature and contains three persons, pointing out that if it were true then that places the three persons WITHIN another entity, they have no answer (and call for the moderators!!)

Yes, their view of the One God is Polytheist.

The truth, however, goes a long way to help destroy the debate. When God said he was ‘One God’, he was talking to the Israelites who were residing in, among, and surrounded by, pagan and heathen tribes and nations who believed in many Gods. The One God of the Israelites told his people that they are to believe in Him alone as their God. He did not say that he was three persons and there is nothing in scriptures that in any way related to such a polytheistic concept. It is more likely that, in attempting to persuade persons and people (proselyse) into the new Christian belief, some apostles fell to adopting multiple authorities as one God to make their version more agreeable to them. I read somewhere a pagan person scoffed at the paucity of the Christian one God, ‘Your religion is so poor you can only afford one God... we have tens/Hundreds...we can lend you a few - we are rich in our Gods!’. Imagine an apostle feeling underwhelmed and defeated by such a proposition.

In Christianity:

• Three Gods, Bad - One only God, Good!

How does God say, ‘I alone, am God... before me was no God formed, and after me there is no other... beside there is no other God!’

True, trinity CLAIMS only one God, but then deny His singleness by imparting multiple persons within Him(self).

Yet trinitarians somehow claim that this one immutable God separates one part of himself which became flesh... even to saying this part didn’t not think being EQUAL to God was worthwhile’ (Misinterpretation of Phil 2). Whats wrong here:

• How can a part of God separate from a single whole?
• God is immutable... the son(?) becoming man requires a change... immutable means ‘Cannot Change’
• If the Son is EQUAL TO God then it denies him BEING GOD... ‘Equal to something’ is not the same as ‘Being Something’ otherwise there is no point in stating an equality.
• The ultimate aim of the Son is to relinquish mankind from the sin of the first man. God required the pure blood of a sinless man. God acting as a man cannot fulfil that requirement - that act would make the whole sacrifice and atonement a great big SHAM that only Satan could devise...!
• The REWARD for the sacrifice resulting in a painful DEATH (which caused the Son to sweat blood due to the strain (scientifically proved!) and fear that GOD (??!!) could not resurrect him (‘If there could be another way..’) was to acquire the throne of a spiritual David. Why would God who owns all things sacrifice himself to acquire what he already owns?
• ‘Not my will but yours, Father!’. This clearly shows TWO WILLS and the will of the Father wins out because the son is dutiful even unto death (and death on the cross... the most hated manner of dying for a Jew - the romans knew this and used it to humiliate the son (and other Jews) even more: ‘Cursed is he who hangs from a tree!!’
• The Son must be schizophrenic if he has Two Wills in him. How is he deciding when he doesn’t know something - like when he is to return, or who is to sit on his left and right hand side. Clearly he is not omnipotent nor omniscient... clearly NOT GOD! His deeds are ‘from the Father, who alone lives in impenetrable light - that no man has seen’.
• Yes, only the Father has not been seen nor experienced directly - and thus we have: “No one has seen GOD AT ANY TIME”. No genius required to say, ‘The Father alone is God’ - and yet EVEN when the Son states it plainly, Trinitarians call him a liar by saying, ‘He just didn’t include himself!’ Ha! But he DID. He said ‘Eternal life depended on belief in ... Jesus Christ, whom [God] sent’. Well, certainly if GOD sent Jesus then Jesus cannot BE GOD (God does not send God!!) and more importantly concerning the verse... ‘Eternal life’ does NOT DEPEND on believing in the Holy Spirit... (see that Jesus only states that HE and the Father, ’ARE ONE’ [in mindset!]. And, ‘He was only going (not BACK!!) to the Father, and Prayer is to the Father, alone... yes, THROUGH the Son but TO the Father
• How is the Son, God, if the Son is the MEDIATOR between man and GOD!???

Sorry, I can write a novel on this ....!

 

[Soapy]

Satan, really?

Why can it just be false without the works of satan?

When we correct someone's math, we just show them the right answer without directing unnecessary blame.

‘Unnecessary blame’? Clearly you misunderstand the source of the error... Jesus himself called [the] Satan, ‘Father of the lie’, yet you dismiss those as bunkum?
Well, if you cannot understand that the source of an error is dynamic falsehood then your claim of resolving the problem in the manner of a math session, is completely deluded.
Trinity, whenever any of it’s falsities are detected, the ideology is modified to maintain the error of it. Thus dynamic ideology methodology is exactly why trinity will persist until Jesus Christ returns to destroy it... yes, trinity WILL persist until that time because it’s ‘Father’ is ever vigilant over his offspring.
Ok, I guess you are one who dismisses Spiritual Forces In High Places which are in control over human activities... try resolving a math problem while dismissing critical and fundamental variables. You will find a pseudo-solution that appears to work in only one situation but when tested otherwise, fails... this ebb and flow of supposed solution to the truth of Christianity is exactly what drives belief in Almighty God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord towards oblivion level (the Spiritual Famine) But hey, the scriptures prophesies that this would occur - so if there weren’t persons with beliefs like yours then scriptures would be proved wrong... proof by contradiction!! I don’t say ‘good on you’ because Jesus says in the scriptures says:

• ‘These things must be before the end comes - but woe unto him through whom these things come!’

You might want to check if you are one of these in the ‘woe’ category!!

 

[Soapy]

In fact, it does not.

Ah, yes, sorry to all who read that. I meant that in the Old Testament there are many many examples of the terms, ‘Sons, and the term, ‘Servant’, that convey the same level of meaning:

• ‘Sons, obey your Father’
• ‘Servants, obey your Master’

The holy angels are Sons of God the most high - and Servants of God the most high. The ‘son’ and the ‘servant’ does exactly what their Father and God directs them to do.

God the Father, God the most high, Yahweh, says of a son in prophecy:

• ‘Behold my Servant... in whom I delight...’ (Isaiah 42:1)

‘In the fullness of time...’, God ‘put flesh’ on his prophecy:

• ‘And a voice came out of heaven, saying, “This is my Son whom I have chosen. Listen to him”’ (Luke 9:35)

The italic and underlined part underlines (sorry!) the fact that Son was a CHOICE of God the most high. The Son was not a pre-existent ‘Gods or ‘part of God’ or ‘a unit part of a tri-nity Godhead’ as falsely expressed as doctrine by trinitarian ideology.

And, in any case, God the most high, or a part of HIM, is neither ‘SON’ nor ‘SERVANT’ to anyone... even to HIMSELF.

[A] God, or part of (?), cannot BECOME a servant to himself nor be in a state of schizophrenia: Both God and Man... being ALL MIGHTY at one time and then LACKING POWER AND AUTHORITY at another.

It is INCONGRUOUS. A confusion. And ’GOD is not a God of Confusion’

Clearly, if trinity claims the son was God in flesh then their ideology is no different to pagan ideology of:

• the ‘Son-God’: Having the power of his Father but also the weakness of his mother (or weakness of the flesh)

Trinity claims their God is monotheistic (One) but defines HIM as three PERSONS... something not expressed anywhere in scriptures.

 

[Timtim]

The trinity is in the belief that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one person. God. Even if it was 10 different entities it is still the one God. Thus, does that mean it's monotheism? Lets not mix this up with idolatry as many Muslims would because this question is not from an Islamic perspective but purely from Aqal or reason where if you take the Quran, have you questioned if it actually makes the trinity polytheism?

Also if one believes that Paul was a believer in the trinity as we perceive now, he also made a distinction in his usage of idolatry. For him idolatry is another sin and depicts an image worship.

Others would argue that its not monotheism because there are several entities. Though it is one God there are actually three different entities thus it becomes polytheism.

What do you perceive?[/QU
It has pagan origins I.e Egyptian Horace isis is

The trinity is in the belief that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one person. God. Even if it was 10 different entities it is still the one God. Thus, does that mean it's monotheism? Lets not mix this up with idolatry as many Muslims would because this question is not from an Islamic perspective but purely from Aqal or reason where if you take the Quran, have you questioned if it actually makes the trinity polytheism?

Also if one believes that Paul was a believer in the trinity as we perceive now, he also made a distinction in his usage of idolatry. For him idolatry is another sin and depicts an image worship.

Others would argue that its not monotheism because there are several entities. Though it is one God there are actually three different entities thus it becomes polytheism.

What do you perceive?

it has pagan origins ie. Egyptian Isis Horace Osiris
I was Hindu before same Trimurti Shiva Vishnu Brahma all 3 in 1!

 

[Timtim]

Hmm. Well, I must agree. That's a sount thought I think. Thanks.

 

[Soapy]

Trinity is built upon shifting sands... pillars of shifting sands which, as any pillar is pulled down (as any of its fallacies is shown to be so) another two are built up elsewhere.

This is a NATURAL FACT, because trinity must exist until Jesus returns... only Jesus can pull down the central pillars (Like Samson did) and destroy all its masters!

If I show that ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ has nothing to do with Jesus saying he is Almighty* God, Trinitarians will devise two ‘work-arounds’ to cover that fallacy.

But we should not lose heart - it’s not for us to do bring down Satan... You know, like the soldier who chopped of king Saul’s head and brought it to David.... thinking he would be rewarded....!!! (Was it Saul? ... change it to whom it was...I’m tired!)

 

[Muffled]

Trinity is built upon shifting sands... pillars of shifting sands which, as any pillar is pulled down (as any of its fallacies is shown to be so) another two are built up elsewhere.

This is a NATURAL FACT, because trinity must exist until Jesus returns... only Jesus can pull down the central pillars (Like Samson did) and destroy all its masters!

If I show that ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ has nothing to do with Jesus saying he is Almighty* God, Trinitarians will devise two ‘work-arounds’ to cover that fallacy.

But we should not lose heart - it’s not for us to do bring down Satan... You know, like the soldier who chopped of king Saul’s head and brought it to David.... thinking he would be rewarded....!!! (Was it Saul? ... change it to whom it was...I’m tired!)

I believe Jesus will confirm the Trinity as He does now.

I believe you can't prove it is a fallacy and a logical view of context is not a work around.

 

[Muffled]

Hmm. I agree. And thats the right way to go.

I believe evolution defies reason.

 

[firedragon]

I believe evolution defies reason.

OK.

 

[firedragon]

I believe evolution defies reason.

Why?

 

[sojourner]

The trinity is in the belief that the father, the son and the holy spirit are one person. God.

False. The Trinity is a doctrine that specifies God as available in three Persons.

Others would argue that its not monotheism because there are several entities.

the Greek terms used in the doctrine just don't translate very well to English. That difficulty makes for muddy logic in arguments. If you're going to unpack the doctrine, best to do it in Greek.

But here's the thing about the Trinity: The doctrine is hard to make sense of, because the concept is hard to make sense of. And the concept is hard to make sense of, because God is hard to make sense of. We cannot fully understand God. It makes sense that language and concepts we use to describe God would reflect that inability.

 

[firedragon]

False. The Trinity is a doctrine that specifies God as available in three Persons.


the Greek terms used in the doctrine just don't translate very well to English. That difficulty makes for muddy logic in arguments. If you're going to unpack the doctrine, best to do it in Greek.

But here's the thing about the Trinity: The doctrine is hard to make sense of, because the concept is hard to make sense of. And the concept is hard to make sense of, because God is hard to make sense of. We cannot fully understand God. It makes sense that language and concepts we use to describe God would reflect that inability.

true. We cannot understand God.

But the words I used for trinity is not false. It’s different. But true. It’s one person represented by and in three. Three persons but one person. So if you are arguing that it’s not monotheism well that’s your point and fine.

nevertheless, since you say the trinity can only be explained in Greek could I hear your explanation in Koine Greek?

 

[Soapy]

This is an interesting thread. What I see is two factions arguing with each other over a fantasy ideology akin to paganism.

The scriptures talks about ‘Satan fighting against Satan’ and that for sure ‘such a house must fall’.

Now please don’t take those words of ANALOGY and say I’m saying you are calling Jesus and God, satanic. I am a staunch believer in what Jesus said concerning the obtaining of Eternal Life:

1. ‘the Father... the one true and only God‘ AND
2. ‘Jesus [the] Christ, whom he sent’

You might notice that Jesus stated that belief in BOTH are required to obtain ETERNAL LIFE.

What DO you notice?

This is what I notice:

1. God is the Father
2. Jesus is the Christ
3. Eternal Life is NOT dependent on a third entity

I find it strange that intelligent persons as yourselves should read something like:

• ‘God gave Jesus the power to rule’

and you say that ‘Jesus IS God’!!!

What I notice is that you don’t state which of your three persons is ‘God’ who gave your Jesus-God the power ... nor what Jesus-God was BEFORE he was given the power to rule.

Please can someone explain this to me with logical definitions.

One (of many) more thing (for now):
At the end of time, Jesus is rewarded BY GOD with the throne of the human king, David. If Jesus is almighty God, what is the point and purpose of this acquisition when, as God, he already rules over creation?

Just to give you context: Jesus is a man born sinless and holy by the power of Almighty God: the Father. And ‘Father’ means:

1. He who creates
2. He who brings into being
   
3. He who gives life to
4. He who is the head

The Father:

1. Created the physical universe
2. He brought a sustainable [planet] world into being
3. He gave life to the first human ‘image‘ of his Spirit self
4. He is the Head of all things (Jesus become head of the creation but God is head of all things including Jesus, creation, and Heaven: Head of all heads)

So, I am not calling Jesus ‘just a man’ as many people try to disingenuously claim of me, but that Jesus is a true ‘Son’ of the almighty God skin to Adam (who finally sinned where Jesus did not sin!)
Luke 3:38 states Adam as ‘Son of God’ and in no way do we claim he was ‘Almighty God in flesh’... why do you say that the LAST ADAM born in the same manner as the FIRST ADAM is somehow a GOD BORN FROM GOD?

 

[sojourner]

true. We cannot understand God.

But the words I used for trinity is not false. It’s different. But true. It’s one person represented by and in three. Three persons but one person. So if you are arguing that it’s not monotheism well that’s your point and fine.

nevertheless, since you say the trinity can only be explained in Greek could I hear your explanation in Koine Greek?

No, God is not a Person. The Father is a Person. The Son is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Person. Together and separately, these three Persons are one God.

The Greek word in the doctrine is hypostasis. It translates as “substance” or “essence,” but carries a subtly different meaning than either of those terms. The translation is a “compromise.”

“God as Trinity is a space where the particularity of the divine Persons is shaped by the interrelatedness of their communion. Trinitarian language frees particularity from the notions of radical separateness or discrete ness. Particularity in Trinitarian terms is radically open to what is other — indeed utterly dependent on what is other.” — Philip Sheldrake, Spaces for the Sacred: Place, Memory, and Identity, p. 68

 

[firedragon]

No, God is not a Person. The Father is a Person. The Son is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Person. Together and separately, these three Persons are one God.

Nice. I think you are looking for an argument of your making. You can go ahead and open a new topic.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

This is an interesting thread. What I see is two factions arguing with each other over a fantasy ideology akin to paganism.

Maybe its like paganism. Maybe its an irrelevant argument.

One day i asked a little fella out of two VGA card options which one is better! He replied "Both are bad".

True. But my question is "Which one is better". If you want to discuss "both are bad" as a topic thats not relevant to this, maybe another new one.

Peace.