God is 1 vs God is 3

[Aamer]

We're not talking about what Islam or Judaism says. Christians believe that Jesus came to make corrections and that Islam is completely false. You can't based their beliefs on yours.

My point was to say that according to Trinity doctrine, there is no separation, there is no multiple gods. Trinity believers see the trinity as different aspects of the One. That is how they see it. It has nothing to do with how Islam sees it.

Furthermore, the concept of trinity is an interpretation. What you should be asking is, does the Bible say that Jesus is God? Does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit is God? Because if it says that both are God and that the 'Father' is also God, then you can easily conclude that there is a 'trinity'. However, if nothing of the sort is mentioned in the Bible, then you can easily conclude that the trinity is a poor interpretation.

Thank you.

Madhuri,
I'm not expecting Christians to believe what I believe. But they do follow the Jewish books. That is the "Old Testament". My point is that the Trinity breaks the first commandment, which Christians do believe in. Jesus confirms this in the New Testament. My other point is that the Trinity is not a biblical concept. It's not mentioned in the Bible. The trinity was born at the Council of Nicaea and does not have biblical roots as far as I can see. If anyone can present evidence proving otherwise, please do so. Peace!

 

[Aamer]

No, that's not what I said. At all. Nor did I imply it. What I said was that many (if not most) Christians had some concept of Trinity long before Nicea. All Nicea did was to establish a doctrine that all factions could "live with."

I think a more accurate way to put this would be to say there was plenty of debate amongst early Christians as to the divinity of Jesus. Some took him to be the literal son of God while others took it in the Hebrew sense that Son of God means "Servant of God". There are MANY other prophets given this title in the Old Testament. Israel is even referred to as the first born Son of God...

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

These things were titles of respect and figures of speech in Hebrew. They were not taken literally. But yes, there was a debate brewing amongst Christians as to who exactly was Jesus and what was his relationship to the Father & to the holy spirit. The debate was ended by a vote at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD & the trinity became official. Non trinitarian Christians were no longer part of the club and had to worship in secret under Roman rule. This is history. Google it.

 

[Muffled]

I've been studying the New Testament and it is becoming clear to me that the trinity is not a biblical concept. It actually resembles a pagan Roman concept. You will not find the word "trinity" anywhere in the Bible, nor is it implied. In fact, the New Testament seems to confirm the theme of the old Jewish books. That God is one.

Now, when a scribe asked Jesus what is the FIRST COMMANDMENT, what did Jesus say?

Mark:12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Now let's analyze this situation. This is a SCRIBE! A scribe is a learned man. Scribes were rare and the highly educated ones in those days. So why is a scribe asking Jesus a question that any 8 year old Jewish boy could have answered a thousand years earlier? Because he wanted to make sure Jesus was not claiming to be God and that he was still teaching the most important Jewish teaching of all. That God is ONE!

And what did Jesus say?
That God is indeed ONE.
Jesus said the very first commandment of all is that God is ONE. But if you ask most modern day Christians what THEIR first commandment is. They will tell you God is THREE!

Worshipping anyone other than God (Jesus included) is breaking the most important commandment of all. I have yet to find any evidence that Jesus asked to be worshipped. In fact, he himself worshipped the creator. So anyone who believes in the trinity and worships Jesus, please explain what verses or teachings you are using to justify this belief.

Evidently the reading comprehension is lacking because I believe the evidence shows otherwise.

A cow resembles a pig but a cow is not a pig.

So, there aren't three wise men either. There are three things related to the wise men and that makes them a trinity. The same is true for the Trinity.

It is more than an implication. The three wise men are an impication based on the trinity of gifts but the Trinity is a trinity.

The oneness of God is true in the Trinity.

I believe this is pure speculation.

I believe this is untrue. I have never heard any Christian say this.

It isn't necessary for Jesus to ask to be worshipped, as God in the flesh He is worthy of worship.

 

[Muffled]

Muslims have the same problem as they use Hadith to form their laws. Amazing how history continues to repeat itself and humans continue to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. If Muslims just followed the Quran and not man made teachings, we wouldn't have all this oppression of women, violence and extreme and unnatural rules and mindset. And I find reading the other scriptures of Christians and Jews not only interesting but also beneficial to understand the big picture. All three of these religions are from the same God. I read somewhere that less than 1% of Muslims have read the Quran in a language they understand. I'm guessing the statistics are similar for Christians and the Bible.

I believe the Trinity concept comes from the Bible and not outside writings. So it is not the same problem as the perceived unreliability of the Hadith.

The problem is not that the JW's haven't read the Bible but I believe they lack comprehension of it.

 

[Muffled]

The concept of Trinity does not contradict the concept of a single God.

This is the same as in Hinduism. God has different aspects. In Christianity, this means God has both form and formlessness. Jesus seems to be the form version of God's nature.

Multiple gods means there is separation. But the trinity concept holds no separation. The trinity is One. It just means different aspects.

I believe this is not true and logically impossible. I believe God has no form. I believe He inhabits form in Jesus just as our spirits inhabit our bodies.

 

[Madhuri]

I believe this is not true and logically impossible. I believe God has no form. I believe He inhabits form in Jesus just as our spirits inhabit our bodies.

How is it logically impossible?

Does Jesus not sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven? In this situation, is he formless?

 

[sojourner]

The trinity was in fact voted in at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.

Not quite correct. The doctrine, as an official, specific, statement of belief, was voted upon at the Council. But, as I said earlier, there were many Christians who already thought of God in basically those terms, prior to the Council and prior to the adoption of the doctrine.

 

[sojourner]

My point is that the Trinity breaks the first commandment, which Christians do believe in.

Your point is mistaken, since the doctrine clearly states that God is One.

My other point is that the Trinity is not a biblical concept. It's not mentioned in the Bible.

We believe the concept is implicit in the texts, even though the term is not specifically used.

The trinity was born at the Council of Nicaea and does not have biblical roots as far as I can see.

Operative term here: "as far as I can see."
Again, the concept wasn't "born at Nicea." Only the doctrine, itself, was born at Nicea. And it does have biblical roots, or it would never have been formulated into doctrine in the first place.

 

[sojourner]

yes, there was a debate brewing amongst Christians as to who exactly was Jesus and what was his relationship to the Father & to the holy spirit. The debate was ended by a vote at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD & the trinity became official. Non trinitarian Christians were no longer part of the club and had to worship in secret under Roman rule. This is history. Google it.

This is precisely what I've been saying all along. But none of this means that "the Trinity was born at the Council of Nicea in 325."

 

[Aamer]

The concept of a Trinity was not new before Christianity.

Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Roman Paganism: Isis, Horus, Seb
Vikings: Odin, Thor, Frey
Ancient Egypt: Osiris, Isis, Horus
Roman Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno, Minerva
Roman pleibian triad: Ceres, Liber Pater, Libera
Greek counterpart: Demeter, Dionysus, Kore
Olympian Triad: Zues, Poseidon, Hades/Pluto
Arabia: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Mannat
Germanic: Odin, Vili, Ve
Early Hinduism: Mitra, Indra, Varuna
Hindu Tridevi: Shakti, Lakshmi, Saraswati
Mahayana Buddhism: Shakyamuni, Avaloketesvara, Ksitigharba

And that "halo" you always see around Jesus' head in paintings... Google Image search "Roman Sun God" & tell me what you find.

The trinity is a pagan concept. Not biblical. Not monotheistic. Weigh the evidence and use the noodle. Peace!

 

[sojourner]

The concept of a Trinity was not new before Christianity.

Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
Roman Paganism: Isis, Horus, Seb
Vikings: Odin, Thor, Frey
Ancient Egypt: Osiris, Isis, Horus
Roman Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, Juno, Minerva
Roman pleibian triad: Ceres, Liber Pater, Libera
Greek counterpart: Demeter, Dionysus, Kore
Olympian Triad: Zues, Poseidon, Hades/Pluto
Arabia: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, Mannat
Germanic: Odin, Vili, Ve
Early Hinduism: Mitra, Indra, Varuna
Hindu Tridevi: Shakti, Lakshmi, Saraswati
Mahayana Buddhism: Shakyamuni, Avaloketesvara, Ksitigharba

And that "halo" you always see around Jesus' head in paintings... Google Image search "Roman Sun God" & tell me what you find.

The trinity is a pagan concept. Not biblical. Not monotheistic. Weigh the evidence and use the noodle. Peace!

None of the examples you cite here is strictly a "trinity" -- nor are they monotheistic, no matter how much they *appear* to have in common with Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity is unique, in that it asserts that all three Persons, while distinct from each other, share the same Being. None of these other examples make that claim.

The Trinity is not a "Pagan" concept. It is grounded in scripture, and it is monotheistic. Weigh the evidence and use the noodle.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

An Aside: It is somewhat amusing that a group of humans who believe in the absolute authority of a God concept take a collection of reputed articles of faith that were at the time believed by some as revelation (such as those submitted to the Council of Nicea; or as guides to understanding revelation such as those claimed to be Hadith for that matter) and claim they have the authority to distinguish revelation from non revelation (or in the case of Hadith, relevant or non-relevant factors for interpretation of Revelation as opposed to being revelation themselves) - do they claim prophet-hood or what is the origin of their divine mandate in this, or are not simply a bunch of people attempting to apply their understanding of their faith to these matters - i.e. using their powers of reason within the context of their faith.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The trinity is indeed a pagan concept - a henotheistic model only one step shy of true polytheism in that they are aspects rather than separate entities; the idea of divine trinities (even as aspect-trinities from henotheism let alone polytheistic trinities) is not uncommon.

As I understand it the trinity is a concept embraced by some parts of christianity as a way to explain the belief in Jesus' divinity (not mentioned in any prophecy within the Abrahamic faith) whilst maintaining the concept of a single god (ignoring of course modern chirisitianity's increased focus on Henotheistic practices such as saint worship, divine advocates and the ideas prevalent in spiritual warfare such as spirits of light and darkness etc).

It does however bear significant difficulties in implication in terms of determining if or when The Father, Son and Holy Spirit became entities of themselves, the degree of self-identification and agency as well as whether or not this has changed over time. Whether this was always the case (or has been for a long time) why then has the nature of the revelation and interaction between God and humanity changed - clearly it has according to the NT, yet were one to take the view that Jesus had always been divine and present then one could clearly argue about his role in the OT with regard to the dramatic change in role he assumes during the NT, on the other hand were he not present at the time of the OT, one would have significant issues to address as to why and what that means for the divinity of the Son and perhaps for the other members of the trinity. These are some of the difficulties that arise from using a Trinity based model of divinity within christianity; something that is less complex in denominations that refrain from this muddled dogma (I am not saying wrong, simply unclear).

 

[Skwim]

None of the examples you cite here is strictly a "trinity" --

Sure they are. That you are now evidently limiting the term "trinity" to denote only the Christian form of trinity, a No-True-Scotsman defense, is interesting, but transparently desperate.

nor are they monotheistic, no matter how much they *appear* to have in common with Christianity.

Gee, another No-True-Scotsman raises its head. Is there no end to your desperation?

The doctrine of the Trinity is unique, in that it asserts that all three Persons, while distinct from each other, share the same Being. None of these other examples make that claim.

Are you sure? To be candid, I doubt that you've looked at even 10% of them to be certain. In any case, consider:

"Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ. Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the Trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact. Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian Trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a Trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices."
source

​

Weigh the evidence and use the noodle.

 

[sojourner]

The trinity is indeed a pagan concept - a henotheistic model only one step shy of true polytheism in that they are aspects rather than separate entities; the idea of divine trinities (even as aspect-trinities from henotheism let alone polytheistic trinities) is not uncommon.

I disagree. The Trinity is a fundamentally different construct, since it uniquely claims 3 distinct Persons and One God. Paganism claims each of its gods as particular beings in a pantheon. The Persons are not "aspects" of one god. They are not separate "entities." They are distinct Persons, each of which is fully God. There is a subtle, but significant, difference.

It does however bear significant difficulties in implication in terms of determining if or when The Father, Son and Holy Spirit became entities of themselves

They always are, because God always is. Remember, God is I AM.

Whether this was always the case (or has been for a long time) why then has the nature of the revelation and interaction between God and humanity changed - clearly it has according to the NT, yet were one to take the view that Jesus had always been divine and present then one could clearly argue about his role in the OT with regard to the dramatic change in role he assumes during the NT, on the other hand were he not present at the time of the OT, one would have significant issues to address as to why and what that means for the divinity of the Son and perhaps for the other members of the trinity. These are some of the difficulties that arise from using a Trinity based model of divinity within christianity; something that is less complex in denominations that refrain from this muddled dogma (I am not saying wrong, simply unclear).

Jesus is not present in OT writings. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that Jesus is timeless. Remember, all things came into being through Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Sure they are. That you are now evidently limiting the term "trinity" to denote only the Christian form of trinity, a No-True-Scotsman defense, is interesting, but transparently desperate.

No. None of the cited examples treat the personalities in remotely the same way. Trinity is particular to Christianity. Trinity is distinct from "pantheon of gods," which is what the examples show us. In the Trinity, there is no "pantheon of gods." There's assuredly a similarity of the number 3, but the term "Trinity" cannot be applied across the board, because the constructs are different.

Gee, another No-True-Scotsman raises its head. Is there no end to your desperation?

Ah, but who's projecting desperation onto me here? This isn't a "no true Scotsman," because the construct known as Trinity is completely different in its relational and existential parameters from the pantheistic construct shown by the cited examples. Sure, they are "trinities" -- but only because there are three of them. It's the essential difference in the "them" that begs a closer definition of the term "Trinity," because, clearly, they are not the same construction at all, and need different terms to define what they are. I use the term "Trinity" to describe the construct we've been talking about here, because that is the official name of the doctrine. We need to find a different term for the examples cited, so that we can be clear that they are different constructs.

Are you sure? To be candid, I doubt that you've looked at even 10% of them to be certain. In any case, consider:"Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or a god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god. The Greek triad was composed of Zeus, Athena and Apollo. These three were said by the pagans to 'agree in one.' One of the largest pagan temples built by the Romans was constructed at Ballbek (situated in present day Lebanon) to their Trinity of Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. In Babylon the planet Venus was revered as special and was worshipped as a Trinity consisting of Venus, the moon and the sun. This triad became the Babylonian holy Trinity in the fourteenth century before Christ. Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the Trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. That there was no formal, established doctrine of the Trinity until the fourth century is a fully documented historical fact. Clearly, historians of church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian Trinity was not a part of the first century church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how then did a Trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices."
source

The source is scholastically suspect. Sorry.

I used the noodle and weighed the "evidence." Found it wholly lacking.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I disagree. The Trinity is a fundamentally different construct, since it uniquely claims 3 distinct Persons and One God. Paganism claims each of its gods as particular beings in a pantheon. The Persons are not "aspects" of one god. They are not separate "entities." They are distinct Persons, each of which is fully God. There is a subtle, but significant, difference.

You seem to know very little about the plethora of different pagan religious traditions... you would do well to examine some of the ones you have been informed of in this thread before making such generalisations.

They always are, because God always is. Remember, God is I AM.

Jesus is not present in OT writings. But that has nothing to do with the assertion that Jesus is timeless. Remember, all things came into being through Jesus.

Well as I stated that would cause a variety of rather unpleasant implications for the (whether active or passive) role of Jesus within the OT, such as God's supposed actions within the OT that are not in line with Christian teachings, such as committing and commanding genocide, commandments for and condoning of systemic slavery and rape, punishment by familial cannibalism and so forth - these are not such prominent issues were Jesus not a divine existence capable of cognition and agency at the time of the OT, but if he were then it is an issue.

This is why the teaching of the Trinity (especially a static trinity) can potentially be a great source of ideological misery for Christian denominations which adhere to it.

 

[Aamer]

None of the examples you cite here is strictly a "trinity" -- nor are they monotheistic, no matter how much they *appear* to have in common with Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity is unique, in that it asserts that all three Persons, while distinct from each other, share the same Being. None of these other examples make that claim.

The Trinity is not a "Pagan" concept. It is grounded in scripture, and it is monotheistic. Weigh the evidence and use the noodle.

It seems like every pagan religion had a trinity at the time except the Jews. It's interesting that Jesus was a Jew, confirmed the Jewish belief that the Lord is One & never mentioned a trinity. Yet the Romans were very attached to the idea of a trinity. And once they hijacked the true teachings of Jesus, under Emperor Constantine, Christianity suddenly had a trinity, not so new religious holidays in Easter (Ishtar to the pagan Romans) & Christmas (Saturnalia to the pagan Romans). There was all sorts of pagan symbolism suddenly attached to Christianity such as the trident, images of the sun everywhere, the "Jesus fish", candles, wreaths, the pine comb, etc. They say the Christians converted the Pagans. But really... Who converted who? I don't understand why so many Christians are obsessed with following the ways of paganism. Why not just follow your scripture?

 

[Skwim]

No. None of the cited examples treat the personalities in remotely the same way. Trinity is particular to Christianity. Trinity is distinct from "pantheon of gods," which is what the examples show us. In the Trinity, there is no "pantheon of gods." There's assuredly a similarity of the number 3, but the term "Trinity" cannot be applied across the board, because the constructs are different.

Ah, but who's projecting desperation onto me here? This isn't a "no true Scotsman," because the construct known as Trinity is completely different in its relational and existential parameters from the pantheistic construct shown by the cited examples. Sure, they are "trinities" -- but only because there are three of them. It's the essential difference in the "them" that begs a closer definition of the term "Trinity," because, clearly, they are not the same construction at all, and need different terms to define what they are. I use the term "Trinity" to describe the construct we've been talking about here, because that is the official name of the doctrine.

So what? Its also used for other triune constructions.

And when you not only write it Trinity, but also trinity and "trinity," (posts 39 and 51) why should anyone assume your exclusive meaning of the term? Truth is, we have no reason to.

The source is scholastically suspect. Sorry.

Scholastically, what, exactly, is suspect? And what authorities find it suspect?---Having failed to establish any relevant credentials, I don't think anyone here is about to take your word for it. I certainly am not. Sorry. Got some evidence?

But, of course, all this is peanuts compared to the fact that the trinity was voted into being at the Council of Nicea in 325 A. D.. Or, if you can't stand my wording.

"The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church."
​

OR

"Eusebius of Caesarea introduced a creed to the assembly which impressed those present sufficiently, in particular the emperor, that they decided that with a few small changes it could be a suitable expression of orthodox doctrine on the issue of the Trinity, and appropriate changes were suggested. According to Bishop Athanasius, who was present at the council, Hosius was then given the job of composing the final statement and it was brought before the council for a vote."

​

 

[Shermana]

It seems like every pagan religion had a trinity at the time except the Jews. It's interesting that Jesus was a Jew, confirmed the Jewish belief that the Lord is One & never mentioned a trinity. Yet the Romans were very attached to the idea of a trinity. And once they hijacked the true teachings of Jesus, under Emperor Constantine, Christianity suddenly had a trinity, not so new religious holidays in Easter (Ishtar to the pagan Romans) & Christmas (Saturnalia to the pagan Romans). There was all sorts of pagan symbolism suddenly attached to Christianity such as the trident, images of the sun everywhere, the "Jesus fish", candles, wreaths, the pine comb, etc. They say the Christians converted the Pagans. But really... Who converted who? I don't understand why so many Christians are obsessed with following the ways of paganism. Why not just follow your scripture?

At this point, 95% of organized Christianity (and unorganized) is so enmeshed in the Trinity that they really have no choice but to keep at the same apologist methodology of wordplay and rewriting concepts and Semantic games, except they no longer have the power to put questioners and dissenters to the stake. Besides, they have many ways, which are the mainstream and "orthodox" traditional translations and interpretations of supporting their views, though they are laden with grammatical fallacies and inconsistencies (sometimes even resorting to fabricate Grammar rules like Colwell's which is disputed in its use even among Trinitarian Greek scholars like Wallace). Also it would involve having to embrace ancient Jewish theological ideas like how Philo explained the "Logos" and it would also require a discussion on what exactly "a god" means, which may clash with modernist "Monotheist" ideas.

(The Hebrews were in fact Henotheists and called angels "gods", and likely referred to their Messiah as an incarnated angel/god".)

What started as a method to convert pagans eventually became enwrapped into a redefinition of what "monotheism" meant, and the original idea had to be maintained through thick and thin in order to retain the sense of legitimacy of the Church. And all the reformations and factions had to maintain this central linchpin except for a few in order to not isolate themselves too greatly. Some important theological concepts depend on this concept, whether they are scriptural or not.

Basically the Trinity is a linchpin that must be maintained and supported or the entire structure may come crashing down. Imagine if the preachers ahd to start saying "Well, we've not only been wrong for 1800 years, but we've also been hiding the truth about the grammar and Theological concepts".

 

[Aamer]

What started as a method to convert pagans eventually became enwrapped into a redefinition of what "monotheism" meant, and the original idea had to be maintained through thick and thin in order to retain the sense of legitimacy of the Church. And all the reformations and factions had to maintain this central linchpin except for a few in order to not isolate themselves too greatly. Some important theological concepts depend on this concept, whether they are scriptural or not.

Basically the Trinity is a linchpin that must be maintained and supported or the entire structure may come crashing down. Imagine if the preachers ahd to start saying "Well, we've not only been wrong for 1800 years, but we've also been hiding the truth about the grammar and Theological concepts".

That would be so refreshing for preachers to say that. I'm also waiting for the Muslim scholars to say: "Guys. We f**ed up when we added Hadith books to Gods law. You don't need them. In fact, you don't need us! Just read your scripture."

Guess I'll be waiting for a LONG time haha