Christians: Why Trinitarians are really polytheists

[nothead]

The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.

The creeds teach that while there is one God, He exists in three distinct persons. The bible, on the other hand, reveals that man is made in the 'image of God'. From these two truths, therefore, we can acknowledge that the complete image of God is found in the Triune understanding of Him.

This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity.
There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children.

There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

In Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".


The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.

The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.

And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child).

The Trinity is a mystery, not a math formula. It doesn't relate to polytheism.

Heresy for the polytheist is seeing God as "they" and interacting in a familial relationship...the heresy for the Christian is saying these are equal Persons in ontology and authority.

Your "family" analogy rather proves you see God as "one big happeh famery" as they say in Chinese...and of course you as well as your ECF fathers in the faith have no idea what this Holy Spirit really is. The OUSIA they said in 325 A.D. is really exactly what you related between Father and Son, the Holy Spirit connection in glory. Not "nature" or "essence" or "ontology" or "being" at least exhaustively en whole. As the Father of Spirits sends one or another, so to we are all HEN as believers in this relationship. Jn 10 One with the Father and the Son. And as no one can refute me, on the Right Hand of God thread, so too the Son is subject to his Father, in glory.......in heaven.

 

[nothead]

It doesn't matter what the creed says but what does the bible say.
New
The bible says "God was matifested in the flesh", Jesus said "if you seen me you seen the father", Isaiah 9:6 says "unto a child is born a son is given and his name shall be called .........., The mighty God, The everlasting Father. What is the greatest commandment " Hear O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord" not a Tri god but one God. Jehovah said " I am alpha omega first and last", Jesus says same thing in Revelation. To top it off Jehovah said He would not share glory and Jesus said "All power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth" where does that leave the Father

So then how do you relate all of this hodgepodge to the red flag known Default of the Jews, that 2 Gods in Heaven cannot be true, or accurate, or justifiable, or viable?

 

[nothead]

It doesn't matter what the creed says but what does the bible say.
New
The bible says "God was matifested in the flesh", Jesus said "if you seen me you seen the father", Isaiah 9:6 says "unto a child is born a son is given and his name shall be called .........., The mighty God, The everlasting Father. What is the greatest commandment " Hear O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord" not a Tri god but one God. Jehovah said " I am alpha omega first and last", Jesus says same thing in Revelation. To top it off Jehovah said He would not share glory and Jesus said "All power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth" where does that leave the Father

The first 3 Creeds of our faith in reality reflects the actual POV of the first two gen saints:

Ireneus Rule of Faith 3rd Century

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .


****************************************************************************************************************

Third Century Old Roman Symbol


I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;

and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
(the life everlasting).[7]

*******************************************************************************************************************


Fourth Century Apostolic's Creed
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
Amen.
**************************************************************************************************************************

...and we see a plain juxtaposition between God and the glorified and beloved Son here. Who by the way is NOT called God.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Its their belief. Just leave them to believe what they want. To you your religion, and to us ours.

 

[Desert Snake]

They view God as a "they" and not a "He."

They view the word "God" as a compound three-in-one being of God. God is meant as "being." There are three Persons in that "Being." The BEING can be a "they" although called in Bible a "He." Even though three "he's" this singular HE is of "being" and not number of persons, or individuals.

Unless of course it is seen that one of the "he's" is meant, the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit. In that case the "he" is really a "he," not a "they."

"YHWH" also names the BEING, not the Person. So then Jesus is YHWH too. Guhhh.

But getting right down to it, trins speak of these Persons conniving, brainstorming, deciding together in equal harmony, and acting like a TEAM or Corporate HEAD, or a family of God, instead of a singular God with one mind, will and self-awareness.

THREE of each of these per Person means Gods of Like Kind, or species, or BEING. Thus trins are really polytheists, and what combines these three into one, they cannot say exactly. Which is exactly the problem, since no man CAN understand or deliniate the BEING of God, what it is for your bean, and for mine.

Actually, 'trinitarian' has come to mean a couple different interpretations on the nature of the three representations of the Godhead. Technically there doesn't have to be ''three', first off. That is a descritption that describes three obvious parts of the Godhead, and there is an ''official'' doctrine that separates the personalities of the Godhead. Not all people who will say they believe in the 'trinity', mean it this way. Some mean that there is three different //in appearance//, manifestations of the same Deity. When I say 'Jesus', for instance, I'm not making a distinction between Jesus and the 'father'. They are the same Being. Personally I don't call myself a 'trinitarian', because of this, however some people who share my view might say they are, simply as a descriptive method.

 

[nothead]

Actually, 'trinitarian' has come to mean a couple different interpretations on the nature of the three representations of the Godhead. Technically there doesn't have to be ''three', first off. That is a descritption that describes three obvious parts of the Godhead, and there is an ''official'' doctrine that separates the personalities of the Godhead. Not all people who will say they believe in the 'trinity', mean it this way. Some mean that there is three different //in appearance//, manifestations of the same Deity. When I say 'Jesus', for instance, I'm not making a distinction between Jesus and the 'father'. They are the same Being. Personally I don't call myself a 'trinitarian', because of this, however some people who share my view might say they are, simply as a descriptive method.

Neither do OnePents make a distinction between Jesus and the Father...saying that His latest modality and best modality is now the Son. The Judaic POV however has many kinds of "elohim" in the Heavens, and these Heavens themselves like different worlds too, from the first one even to Paul's third Heaven. 2 Cor 12. Jesus is for them an ELOHIM, even in Hebrews MADE over the angels, yet still under YHWH Elohim, who happens to be HIS God Jn 20:17.

 

[nothead]

Its their belief. Just leave them to believe what they want. To you your religion, and to us ours.

My belief is that the belief of the first two pristine generations of faith, is the true belief. For Christians. And if you are right, then what are we debating here? Why do you debate here? To state everyone has a right to believe what they believe?

They already HAD this right before they got online. So what?

 

[Desert Snake]

Neither do OnePents make a distinction between Jesus and the Father...saying that His latest modality and best modality is now the Son. The Judaic POV however has many kinds of "elohim" in the Heavens, and these Heavens themselves like different worlds too, from the first one even to Paul's third Heaven. 2 Cor 12. Jesus is for them an ELOHIM, even in Hebrews MADE over the angels, yet still under YHWH Elohim, who happens to be HIS God Jn 20:17.

I'm panentheistic, I have no beef with the Oneness Pents. I likewise don't think there was a distinction made between the plural nature of God, in Genesis, for example, and the singular 'God', traditionally worshipped. 'Elohim', regardless of how you interpret it, has to mean the ''us'' signified in the Bible, when Adam and Eve were created. People didn't make some distinction then, no reason to make one now. The angels are separate from God, however it is most likely the ''they'' being referred to.

 

[nothead]

I'm panentheistic, I have no beef with the Oneness Pents. I likewise don't think there was a distinction made between the plural nature of God, in Genesis, for example, and the singular 'God', traditionally worshipped. 'Elohim', regardless of how you interpret it, has to mean the ''us'' signified in the Bible, when Adam and Eve were created. People didn't make some distinction then, no reason to make one now. The angels are separate from God, however it is most likely the ''they'' being referred to.

Of course the rabbinical interpretation of Gen 1:26 was the WE and US of the angels, or other possible "elohim" in heaven. The thing that modern Christians ignore is that only one ontology is afforded the Great God of us, and all other elohim in the heavens are of LESSER ontology. Are angels "gods?" Yes, LOWER CASE. But the better word is "elohim" since this is the actual word Jews used. No one thinks an angel is GOD sir. And that is the problem with our word, since we don't generally USE this word to describe LOWER BEINGS in heaven. When WE say "god" we mean false "gods," or the One True God only. Angels are not FALSE gods, since many are of God's Holy Host. SOME may be in rabbinical literature.

And ye made Jesus the One True God in 325 A.D. Same OUSIA, or homoousia. This was the fork in the road, to heresy.
IGNORING the Judaic view of the Heavens.

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course the rabbinical interpretation of Gen 1:26 was the WE and US of the angels, or other possible "elohim" in heaven. The thing that modern Christians ignore is that only one ontology is afforded the Great God of us, and all other elohim in the heavens are of LESSER ontology. Are angels "gods?" Yes, LOWER CASE. But the better word is "elohim" since this is the actual word Jews used. No one thinks an angel is GOD sir. And that is the problem with our word, since we don't generally USE this word to describe LOWER BEINGS in heaven. When WE say "god" we mean false "gods," or the One True God only. Angels are not FALSE gods, since many are of God's Holy Host. SOME may be in rabbinical literature.

And ye made Jesus the One True God in 325 A.D. Same OUSIA, or homoousia. This was the fork in the road, to heresy.
IGNORING the Judaic view of the Heavens.

This is a simplistic way to look at it. Of course angels aren't ''gods'', however that doesn't mean that the father did not manifest Himself as Jesus the man, which is why Jesus is in the exact likeness of the father, and why Jesus says that He is in the father, and the father in Him. This is clearly not saying He, ie Jesus, is an entirely separate 'prophet' type or mouthpiece for the father; Jesus is 'part man', as to walk among us. Xianity loses it's merit with just a quasi Rabbi for a savior my friend. The only purely human aspect of Jesus is His physical self, otherwise He is the image of God, meaning He is in essence, a manifestation of God.
Where xians get it ''wrong'', imo, is thinking there is some hard separation in the Godhead; Jesus clearly tells us this is not the case. He says we can't even know God except through Him!

 

[Desert Snake]

And ye made Jesus the One True God in 325 A.D. Same OUSIA, or homoousia. This was the fork in the road, to heresy.
IGNORING the Judaic view of the Heavens.

Heresy from what? Xianity always maintained the Divine nature of Jesus, that's one of the things the churches got right. There were people who did not understand the nature of Jesus, who thought He was merely a nifty Rabbi, this isn't Xianity. Never was. A ''church'' did not create the Xian faith.

 

[nothead]

This is a simplistic way to look at it. Of course angels aren't ''gods'', however that doesn't mean that the father did not manifest Himself as Jesus the man, which is why Jesus is in the exact likeness of the father, and why Jesus says that He is in the father, and the father in Him. This is clearly not saying He, ie Jesus, is an entirely separate 'prophet' type or mouthpiece for the father; Jesus is 'part man', as to walk among us. Xianity loses it's merit with just a quasi Rabbi for a savior my friend. The only purely human aspect of Jesus is His physical self, otherwise He is the image of God, meaning He is in essence, a manifestation of God.
Where xians get it ''wrong'', imo, is thinking there is some hard separation in the Godhead; Jesus clearly tells us this is not the case. He says we can't even know God except through Him!

Yes he did say no one comes unto the Father except through him, although HIM never said HIM is God, now did him?

And your HARD SEPARATION is because Jesus always always always separated himself from his own Father. TWO witnesses said twice in Jn. One himself. One his own God. It isn't simplistic as much as simple Jew-view. Two elohims make two beings. The LOCATIVE position of Jesus next to his God cannot mean he is his God. Simple. See my Right Hand of God thread.

 

[nothead]

Heresy from what? Xianity always maintained the Divine nature of Jesus, that's one of the things the churches got right. There were people who did not understand the nature of Jesus, who thought He was merely a nifty Rabbi, this isn't Xianity. Never was. A ''church'' did not create the Xian faith.

Did I say he was a nifty rabbi? I SAID he is elohim under YHWH Elohim, sir. Do you actually know what an elohim is? Michael Heiser, trinitarian scholar, free PDF online, "What is an elohim?" PDF for U, from a PHD.

 

[J0stories]

And who wants to serve a mystery

Who wants to 'serve' anything? That is why my path veered from the polythetic abrahamic religions to a ubuiquitous spiritual path. Your question is an excellent one really. Because most faiths are built upon servitude. Begging the question if 'God' is a god, why would that deity need anything at all? All faiths that claim religiousity are polythetic; the triple godhead of Christianity, the many gods of Hinduism, and so on, ad nauseum. I prefer a more spiritual communion that leaves me at peace, fulfilled and feeling as though I have given back to humanity.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes he did say no one comes unto the Father except through him, although HIM never said HIM is God, now did him?

And your HARD SEPARATION is because Jesus always always always separated himself from his own Father. TWO witnesses said twice in Jn. One himself.

One his own God. It isn't simplistic as much as simple Jew-view.

The problem is that it isn't. You are presenting an argument in a Xian context, and yet redefining 'God' in the Bible, to your own specifications. We don't have to argue about Jesus, no problemo, but your still incorrect. The 'us' in Genesis designates a plural nature to a singular Being, God; and He is thusly worshipped as such, throughout the Bible.

Two elohims make two beings. The LOCATIVE position of Jesus next to his God cannot mean he is his God. Simple. See my Right Hand of God thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

Did I say he was a nifty rabbi? I SAID he is elohim under YHWH Elohim, sir. Do you actually know what an elohim is? Michael Heiser, trinitarian scholar, free PDF online, "What is an elohim?" PDF for U, from a PHD.

No, xians make this mistake constantly. The titles for God always mean the father, unless otherwise specified. I've explained this ad nauseum.

 

[nothead]

The problem is that it isn't. You are presenting an argument in a Xian context, and yet redefining 'God' in the Bible, to your own specifications. We don't have to argue about Jesus, no problemo, but your still incorrect. The 'us' in Genesis designates a plural nature to a singular Being, God; and He is thusly worshipped as such, throughout the Bible.

Not my specs, sir. Judaic POV. And the explanation by the way for the CLOSEST verse which may construe Jesus as God, his claim to be HEN with the Father. Jn 10. Also the CLOSEST anyone else ever came to saying he was God, Thomas Jn 20:28. "My lord and my elohim."

Jn 10 actually has Jesus REFUTING he is the One True God, since he brings up lesser elohim not to say he is YHWH Elohim at all, but rather to say that others were "sons of God" at one time AND elohim. "Ye are gods," is really, "ye are elohim" and since God SAID it, and what He said cannot be broken, this was true. In other words, the PRECEDENT had already been set, proving he was not blaspheming.

And Thomas was saying in CONTEXT the exact thing Jesus required of him, to acknowledge Jesus was resurrected in heaven among the "gods." THIS "elohim" being HIS "elohim." The one who would bring HIM to glory as well.

 

[nothead]

No, xians make this mistake constantly. The titles for God always mean the father, unless otherwise specified. I've explained this ad nauseum.

But Jesus cannot BE the Father. Locatively NEXT to the Father, just as Stephen's vision portrays. NEXT TO GLORY, standing NEXT TO.

 

[nothead]

Who wants to 'serve' anything? That is why my path veered from the polythetic abrahamic religions to a ubuiquitous spiritual path. Your question is an excellent one really. Because most faiths are built upon servitude. Begging the question if 'God' is a god, why would that deity need anything at all? All faiths that claim religiousity are polythetic; the triple godhead of Christianity, the many gods of Hinduism, and so on, ad nauseum. I prefer a more spiritual communion that leaves me at peace, fulfilled and feeling as though I have given back to humanity.

Everyone serves some one. Bob Dylan circa 1980's. Maybe you serve youself. Ever thought of that? Don't need no God for that one do you? Lessen you God, oh man.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not my specs, sir. Judaic POV. And the explanation by the way for the CLOSEST verse which may construe Jesus as God, his claim to be HEN with the Father. Jn 10. Also the CLOSEST anyone else ever came to saying he was God, Thomas Jn 20:28. "My lord and my elohim."

Jn 10 actually has Jesus REFUTING he is the One True God, since he brings up lesser elohim not to say he is YHWH Elohim at all, but rather to say that others were "sons of God" at one time AND elohim. "Ye are gods," is really, "ye are elohim" and since God SAID it, and what He said cannot be broken, this was true. In other words, the PRECEDENT had already been set, proving he was not blaspheming.

And Thomas was saying in CONTEXT the exact thing Jesus required of him, to acknowledge Jesus was resurrected in heaven among the "gods." THIS "elohim" being HIS "elohim." The one who would bring HIM to glory as well.

I hope it isn't the Judaic pov, because it's incorrect. The father is not always specified in the Jewish Bible, so by your figuring, in these instances, the prophets could be praying to Thor; perhaps Herod created Adam and Eve. Of course this isn't the case, because we know that when 'God' is referred to, it means YHWH. The times where it doesn't mean JHVH, it says or infers as such, ex. ''false gods'. 'So and so's god'. The title is the same, however it sometimes means the father, and sometimes not. In the Judaic tradition, ''God'' means the father, always, unless I say ''the god Thor'', etc. It's the same as if you were talking to your pastor, when you say ''God'', you mean YHVH, not Zeus. Obviously, because that is the religious context in which you are speaking. You don't have to say, YHVH, everytime you mean the Judaic and Christian God.