Jesus adherents only: How is a ''separate' trinity concept, not polytheism?

[Desert Snake]

for Jesus adherents only.

Any Jesus adherent can answer, but the answers should be relevant/and hopefully concise, as considering the thread question.

I am not necessarily going to argue every point made in the thread/if any.

I know that some ''trinitarians'', /the word is not totally specific regarding how it's perceived,,
do not actually think that the Godhood is three 'separate persons'...you can answer as well, if you want

 

[Clear]

Syncretic asked : “How is a ''separate' trinity concept, not polytheism?”

Hi Syncretic;

I think the most common historical context that informs this question lies in definitions and their application by religious historians.

For example, it was the great Egyptologist Budge who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many beings translators called “gods”) was essentially monotheist for most of its’ history since there was a LORD GOD who was over all other beings that were called “gods”. He directed others and had no director himself. This nuance is “henotheism”.

In this historical context :
Strict “monotheism” applies to the belief in only one being qualified to be called a God (regardless of his characteristics).
Strict “polytheism” applies to the belief in multiple Gods who are not under the direction of a common Lord God over them.
Strict “henotheism” applies to the belief in ONE LORD GOD who directs and is more powerful than all other beings that qualify to be called “gods”.

The concensus theory of Judeo-Christian scholars have increasingly described the religious practices of Israel as henotheistic, though Israel practiced polytheistism, henotheistism, and monotheistism at various times and places and to certain amounts during their history.

Heiser pointed out that any term is going to confuse non-historians and non-scholars because they do not have the historical context and background of the historians. Thus, Heiser suggests scholars simply describe pre-exilic belief (i.e. henotheism), but this is an unwieldy, repetitive practice and less efficient than simply naming it "henotheism". I cannot remember if it was Heiser or another scholar who suggested a base definition of a “god” is an inhabitant of the heaven where God dwells.

Thus the model of trinity where God the Father is the LORD GOD, over Jesus and the Holy Ghost who are divine beings but are vested with a degree of authority and direction by the Father is a type of monotheism called henotheism and not strict polytheism.

I hope this makes sense and was concise.

Good luck coming to your own understanding of these issues.

Clear
φυτζω

 

[Aštra’el]

Monotheism- The belief that there is only one god

Polytheism- The belief that there is more than one god

Monolotrism/ Monolatry- The belief that there are many gods, but with the exclusive worship of only one god

Henotheism- The belief in and worship of one god, without excluding the existence or possible existence of other deities

Duotheism/ Bitheism- The belief that there are only two gods

Tritheism- The belief that cosmic divinity is comprised of three powerful deities



Monolotrism/ Monolotry, Duotheism/ Bitheism, and Tritheism are all forms of Polytheism. Henotheism is right in the middle between Monotheism and Polytheism, as henotheists are theistic towards their own god and agnostic towards other gods... whereas monotheists are theistic towards their own God and atheistic towards all other gods, and polytheists are theistic towards more than one god regardless of how many are worshipped.

I may not worship Jesus, but I am accused of such by many who believe Jesus=YHWH, even though I worship YHWH in a manner similar to how @Clear defined "Henotheism" (even though the definition I offered differs from it).

There are many pantheons who acknowledge a supreme god reigning over many gods, even though many other deities in those pantheons are/were also worshipped. An example of this is Marduk of the ancient Babylonian pantheon, who after defeating the deific manifestation of primordial chaos (Tiamat) achieved hyperapotheosis and became supreme god of the pantheon, even though other deities- such as Anu, Enki, Enlil, and Ishtar- were also worshipped. We are also very well aware of Jupiter/ Zeus, who despite reigning as "king of the gods" was worshipped alongside Minerva/ Athena, Mars/ Ares, Juno/ Hera, etc.

Polytheism as @Clear described (which is more like how I defined Monolotrism/ Monolotry) was actually practiced in early Abrahamic culture ("Abrahamic culture" being the collective worship of the God of Abraham by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and others... as well as their collective rites and lore)... when people worshipped YHWH, while acknowledging the existence of other ancient Semetic gods and goddesses. What began as polytheistic, monolotristic Abrahamism became henotheistic, and eventually "monotheistic"... even though Christians, Muslims, and Jews have what some have described as entire "pantheons" of beings inhabiting Heaven and Hell (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Azriel, Samael, Lilith, Asmodeous, Astaroth, Belial, Metatron, etc). However, these beings are often declared to be far from "godlike" in the eyes of most people who worship YHWH... perhaps because Abrahamic culture evolved into worshipping YHWH as the ultimate being of ultimate everything.

______________________________


The concept of a Trinity by Christians has been compared to polytheism by many people, and denounced as heresy by various people who feel it goes against what some perceive to be "true" Abrahamic monotheism (such as certain adherents of Islam). Christians view it as Monotheism, and somehow equate Jesus ("the son") with the Abrahamic God YHWH ("the father")... despite incredible archetypal difference. When I read about Jesus, I recognize an archetype of compassion, humility, kindness, forgiveness, deliverance, redemption, salvation, etc. When I read about YHWH, I recognize an archetype of ultimate Creation, ultimate Destruction, and ultimate Order over ultimate Chaos. I do not worship them as One, I do not even worship Jesus. I worship YHWH (among other beings... but most of all YHWH). Still there are Christians who insist that by worshipping YHWH, I am worshipping their lord Jesus Christ.

Me personally... I approach the Abrahamic religions from a polytheistic perspective. Not because of Jesus, but because of collective Abrahamic belief in demons and angels and the role of these beings in the lore, as well as the impact various ancient Mesopotamian and ancient Semetic influences had on the Abrahamic religions. Even the "Satan" can be described as godlike. Not supreme god-like... but godlike, when we consider the roles gods and goddesses have had in collective human religion.

To the Christians who believe in a Trinity comprising of God/ Jesus/ the Holy Spirit (whether as One or seperate)... I have this to say to you. Regardless if it can more accurately be described as Monotheism or Polytheism... it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. What matters is that you are worshipping the highest and greatest God in all the cosmos, YHWH.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would not be particularly bothered if God Jesus and the holy spirit all turned out to be distinct beings.
I do not worship Monotheism.
However God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit do seem to be intrinsicly related in some way.
I am not sure that the Trinity Dogma is fully understood by many people, or that it is necessarily correct.

I tend to a Unitarian View of God

 

[Thanda]

I do not worship Monotheism.

This is a beautiful answer.

I have also often wondered why people nail their flag to the mast of Monotheism. It has in truth resulted one of the most confusing and contradictory doctrines known to man - The Trinity. A christian, in my view, has no need to be confused about the separateness and distinctness of God the Father and Jesus, his Son. Jesus made it abundantly clear in all his communications that Jesus was not his own Father. The only confusion seems to come in those passages in scripture where Jesus either talks or acts in a manner that seems to indicate he is, or can be considered a God. But this last point should not then confuse the first. For Jesus clearly claimed that, whatever he may be, his Father is greater than him and has authority over him. Therefore the Father retains his place as the Most High God regardless of whatever type of God Jesus or the Holy Spirit may be.

 

[Clear]

I have to say I like the last three posts and their different viewpoints on this subject.

I thought Goddess_Ashtaras’ post was very well done but wanted to make a point regarding the statement : “… henotheists are theistic towards their own god and agnostic towards other gods…” (post #3)

Israels’ henotheism was not always “agnostic towards other gods” and this is the reason they were occasionally chastised by the prophets. In Judges 3:5-6 Israel is living among Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, etc “and they [Israel] served their gods”.

While I think Goddess_Ashtara is correct that henotheism does not require belief in other Gods, in actual practice, it did involve belief in other gods in such cases. I also think Goddess_Ashtaras’ awareness of a “blending” of “theisms” is an astute and insightful observation. This “blending” of one type of “theism” with another type of “theism” is part of the reason Heiser suggested we explain henotheism each time we refer to it rather than simply use the term is because historians use the term differently in varying contexts.

I also like some of the other points Goddess_Ashtara made regarding the evolution of and varying nature of religion in Israel at different times and places. Even different names used for a single god can cause confusion. For example, in certain time periods, it is perfectly correct to refer to Jehovah by the name "Baal" (the base word "Baal" simply means "Lord"). In later time periods, it became incorrect to use this name for Jehovah. “And it shall be at that day saith the Lord [that] they shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me Baali no more.” This change from referencing Jehovah by the name Baali ("my Lord”) is presumed to be motivated by the term Baal becoming contaminated in it’s association with another god referred to by the same term ("Baal" as another, different god).

Like Thanda I think Terrywoodenpics point that “monotheism” is not the center of worship is a good point. Theists tend to honor God according to our best current understanding of that God.

Clear
ειτζειω

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The confusion comes from the fact that the word "God" means something like "family". You can have one family named Jones but that family has several members. There is only one "God" but that "God" has more than one member. There is the "father" and the "son" and some people believe the"holy spirit". These are separate "persons" who make up the one "God".

 

[Desert Snake]

I have to say I like the last three posts and their different viewpoints on this subject.

I thought Goddess_Ashtaras’ post was very well done but wanted to make a point regarding the statement : “… henotheists are theistic towards their own god and agnostic towards other gods…” (post #3)

Israels’ henotheism was not always “agnostic towards other gods” and this is the reason they were occasionally chastised by the prophets. In Judges 3:5-6 Israel is living among Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, etc “and they [Israel] served their gods”.

While I think Goddess_Ashtara is correct that henotheism does not require belief in other Gods, in actual practice, it did involve belief in other gods in such cases. I also think Goddess_Ashtaras’ awareness of a “blending” of “theisms” is an astute and insightful observation. This “blending” of one type of “theism” with another type of “theism” is part of the reason Heiser suggested we explain henotheism each time we refer to it rather than simply use the term is because historians use the term differently in varying contexts.

I also like some of the other points Goddess_Ashtara made regarding the evolution of and varying nature of religion in Israel at different times and places. Even different names used for a single god can cause confusion. For example, in certain time periods, it is perfectly correct to refer to Jehovah by the name "Baal" (the base word "Baal" simply means "Lord"). In later time periods, it became incorrect to use this name for Jehovah. “And it shall be at that day saith the Lord [that] that shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me Baali no more.” This change from referencing Jehovah by the name Baali ("my Lord”) is presumed to be motivated by the term Baal becoming contaminated in it’s association with another god referred to by the same term ("Baal" as another, different god).

Like Thanda I think Terrywoodenpics point that “monotheism” is not the center of worship is a good point. Theists tend to honor God according to our best current understanding of that God.

Clear
ειτζειω

I've never met anyone who worshipped monotheism

You just stated something that although might be true, is really just an arbitrary statement.

 

[james2ko]

The confusion comes from the fact that the word "God" means something like "family". You can have one family named Jones but that family has several members. There is only one "God" but that "God" has more than one member. There is the "father" and the "son" and some people believe the"holy spirit". These are separate "persons" who make up the one "God".

The "God" family (Ephesians 3:14-15). Not a popular concept around here, but IMO definitely biblical.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And yet people seem to miss the idea. If there is a father and son that sure sounds like a family. And the Bible says humans have the ability to become God's adopted children. Still sounds like a family. So there is only one God but made up of several individuals just like one family is made up of several people.

 

[Kenny]

Godhead is the Biblical word IMV. But much the same as I view the human being. One person revealed in three different manifestations, spirit / soul / body. Distinct in purpose and materiality but you need the three to complete the one person.

 

[james2ko]

And yet people seem to miss the idea. If there is a father and son that sure sounds like a family. And the Bible says humans have the ability to become God's adopted children. Still sounds like a family. So there is only one God but made up of several individuals just like one family is made up of several people. You can have one family named Jones but that family has several members

Like your example illustrates, Ephesians 3:14-15 indicates members in God's family are actually named after Him (YHVH). That would include His Son and the angels. There is even evidence in the OT of angels being referred to as "YHVH" in the plural! It's too large of an untraditional pill to swallow for many.

 

[Clear]

1) Terrywoodenpic said : "I would not be particularly bothered if God Jesus and the holy spirit all turned out to be distinct beings. I do not worship Monotheism."

2) Clear Quoted Terrywoodenpic and liked his point.

3) Syncretic said : "I've never met anyone who worshipped monotheism...You just stated something that although might be true, is really just an arbitrary statement."

Hi Syncretic. You may have misunderstood why I was impressed with Terrywoodenpics point. I do not think Terrywoodpic was speaking literally of "worshiping monotheism", and it wasn't arbitrariness that I liked about Terrywoodenpics comment. Rather my take on Terrywoodenpic's point is that whether strict monotheism is correct or whether henotheism is correct, Terrywoodenpics personal theism will not be damaged.

This sort of willingness to consider new concepts and models is different than the philosophy that simply inherits an arbitrary model of belief or creates a religious model and then attempts to hold on to it regardless of new data.

I liked his expression as a willingness to consider new data and the type of faith that can look at additional data and is not fearful of it.

Clear
ειφυδρω

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

1) Terrywoodenpic said : "I would not be particularly bothered if God Jesus and the holy spirit all turned out to be distinct beings. I do not worship Monotheism."

2) Clear Quoted Terrywoodenpic and liked his point.

3) Syncretic said : "I've never met anyone who worshipped monotheism...You just stated something that although might be true, is really just an arbitrary statement."

Hi Syncretic. You may have misunderstood why I was impressed with Terrywoodenpics point. I do not think Terrywoodpic was speaking literally of "worshiping monotheism", and it wasn't arbitrariness that I liked about Terrywoodenpics comment. Rather my take on Terrywoodenpic's point is that whether strict monotheism is correct or whether henotheism is correct, Terrywoodenpics personal theism will not be damaged.

This sort of willingness to consider new concepts and models is different than the philosophy that simply inherits an arbitrary model of belief or creates a religious model and then attempts to hold on to it regardless of new data.

I liked his expression as a willingness to consider new data and the type of faith that can look at additional data and is not fearful of it.

Clear
ειφυδρω

You are quite correct.
I do not concider that it is necessary to understand the relationship between God ,Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
The Trinity doctrine has from the earliest times been contentious.
but the "Church" felt it important not to breach the established view of one God, so devised the trinity concept.
For those early followers of Jesus there was no thought that he was god.This concept developed as the church grew but it was in competition with the views that Jesus was a prophet, or Son of God, adopted Son of God. Or simply a great teacher favoured by God.
The Church needed clarity and certainty and settled on the Trinity dogma. Competing concepts were declared Heretical.

We have come a long way since those times and all those concepts have been revisited many times even Calvin doubted the vergin birth the Trinity and the ascension, and the "magical" aspects of Christianity.

I feel it is important to keep an open mind on contentious issues like these. It is by no means necessary to replace them with equally contentious views.

Our relationship with God does not depend on contentious details, however much they are taught as fundemental.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks....

First - let me state clearly - assure you all most firmly - and say up front that the "religion" that bares His name - does NOT understand His truth, does NOT understand the Father supreme spirit that He ALONE teaches us of - and the main book of that religion, the bible, contains next to no LEGITIMATE teaching of Christ and is in fact a manufactured tool - a twisting of His truth they then used to control the masses - and because of this such things as indeed a Divine Trinity are now very VERY poorly understood by those that follow that faith, for as said, those that TEACH that faith dont actually umderstand Christ or ANY of His metaphysical wisdom...

Indeed - the thread title here just shows the "religious christian" MISCONCEPTION - SEPERATE - according to Christ - simply would not apply at all - I and the Father are ONE - now - BECOME ME He ACTUALLY said

This Divinity we seek resides ALREADY WITHIN YOU HE said clearly - yet the religion indeed teaches and deliberately forces an agenda of SEPERATION from the Divine - we are not Divine at all they insist - complete opposite they say - mankind is corrupt "lost hopeless sinner" they say who cannot ever possibly even comprehend Our Father at all - I state this clearly here to show us all the religion does not understand Christ at all, not even the basics and such truth is with held form us DELIBERATELY - they do this of course, so that we will always need THEM to be middleman, intermediary "gods spokeman" interceding on our behalf if we follow blindly without question and "become worthy"..lol....Complete NONESENSE according to Christ who told us very clearly to follow no other man but seek always this INTERNAL Divine Presence that we ALL ALREADY contain...

So - its just no good looking at the religion for these answers Folks - as they do not understand - have been led astray just as He warned clearly - and now the truth of Christ is all but lost to that path....If we want His ORIGINAL truth - then obviously we need His ORIGINAL gospels - written by those who walked and talked with Him DIRECTLY side by side day by day.....The bible does NOT CONTAIN any "direct testimony" at all - NO first hand witnesses there to give ANY credable testimony - the NEW testamant is written CENTURIES after my mate was murdered and all His disciples likewise dead and buried - none of them had any direct input into that work we call "bible" - it is basically a fraud - CLAIMS to be written by such direct witnesses, but in truth it is not and NOBODY writing in the new testamant EVER met either Christ OR disciple !!!

However - such ORIGINAL truth does exist - direct first hand eye witness testimony of the things He taught DOES EXIST Folks....Lots and lots of it - trouble is - the religion itself - BANNED it all then hunted down and likewise continued its agenda, muirdered any and all who understood Christ and His truth - replace the original with their bogus versions as they manufactured then forced the bible upon us - until today , the "religous christian" has no concept at all of the ORIGINAL truth of Christ - does not understand the basics such as here - a TRINITY that Christ said was legitimate truth, absolutely foundational to ALL creation...

He explained EVERYTHING - the primal spirit - HOW and WHY creation occurs - what happened in what order to bring about the planets and the life within them....The TRINITY He said - is a MIND with THREE distinct personalities - this is how it first recognised its own Self - its own EXISTANCE was realised as three distinct "modes" within the mind....They are PERSONALITY - not flesh and blood beings like you and I - not "seperate" from anything at all - that would be impossible actually - for He said ALL CREATION FLOWS FROM THIS DIVINE MIND - and this first stage is a TRINITY of Self aware personalities that all combine to cause the unfolding Creation to happen....He explained it all in grand wonderous detail - not to be found in the bible though as said - but the ORIGINAL gospels written DIRECTLY by the disciples contain a much more explicit and deep metaphysical truth - literally everything about the nature of Our Father, fully explained, as said..

For any who truly desire His original and legitimate truth - then follow HIS advise first - avoid the religion - ALL religion - He said it will always lead us astray - to know His truth He said, first we must "come to hate the parents" put aside all these errors and deceptions they have forced upon us....His truth is to be found in all those tomes the religion banned and forbad us to know - especially the Disciples own gospels and most especially the ORIGINAL works by the disciple John - and here, this Trinity and all the metaphysical truth to creation, is to be found laid out clearly explained in the ORIGINAL gospel of John - now known as "secret John", banned as herasy by this "religion" even though same man John is also one of their venerated "saints" but still his original works are deemed "herasy" - go figure

This original gospel deemed as evil heretical text simply because it contains Christ truth that tells us clearly WHO the Father is - Who we are - and such truth makes ALL religion to be fully redundant and totally irrelevant...The thing we seek has always been WITHIN us - no middleman, no intermediary - no priest master or guru needed - seek the legitimate Divinity WITHIN the Self, avoid all these external sources as they will ALWAYS lead us astray He warned clearly.. And He was most obviously fully correct there - because just look a the religious confusion and the division now the world over...Things such as this Trinity - very poorly understood, yet an absolute essential and foundational truth to ALL existance He said...Not to be found in the religious ordained texts - they DO NOT WANT US TO KNOW THIS - but He came and spoke clearly -to those with ears to hear

 

[Kenny]

You are quite correct.
I do not concider that it is necessary to understand the relationship between God ,Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, IMO, there will always be a difficulty in understanding an eternal Creator with our finite minds.

The Trinity doctrine has from the earliest times been contentious.

I wouldn't limit it to the Trinity in as much as everything was being challenged and was contentious until illumination was given through study.

but the "Church" felt it important not to breach the established view of one God, so devised the trinity concept.

I would disagree with that point. My view is that, as with circumcision, they came to realize the truth of the Godhead.

For those early followers of Jesus there was no thought that he was god.This concept developed as the church grew but it was in competition with the views that Jesus was a prophet, or Son of God, adopted Son of God. Or simply a great teacher favoured by God.

I would disagree completely for the Gospels present a different position

The Church needed clarity and certainty and settled on the Trinity dogma. Competing concepts were declared Heretical.

Not competing concepts but rather, after study, those that didn't line up with the Old Testament were declared heretical.

We have come a long way since those times and all those concepts have been revisited many times even Calvin doubted the vergin birth the Trinity and the ascension, and the "magical" aspects of Christianity.

Magical? Certainly man has the ability to always revisit positions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ultimately, IMO, there will always be a difficulty in understanding an eternal Creator with our finite minds.

I wouldn't limit it to the Trinity in as much as everything was being challenged and was contentious until illumination was given through study.

I would disagree with that point. My view is that, as with circumcision, they came to realize the truth of the Godhead.

I would disagree completely for the Gospels present a different position


Not competing concepts but rather, after study, those that didn't line up with the Old Testament were declared heretical.


Magical? Certainly man has the ability to always revisit positions.

It does not take much reading to see that all these positions were contentious even after the new Testament was compiled.
It is also quite clear that positions were defended and promoted by quite large factions, with a great deal of political as well as religious argument.
Clearly the winning side always said that they were guided by God, and later also by the Bible.
much of the position taking, took place long before any new testament writings were available, let alone compiled into a single book.

The bishops were locked up in the emperor's hospitality, until they came to an agreement at Nicea, the losers were declared Heretics.... not very Holy in my eyes.
The scriptures were selected for their adherence to their agreed beliefs.Not the other way round. No wonder they support their dogma.

 

[Desert Snake]

Like Thanda I think Terrywoodenpics point that “monotheism” is not the center of worship is a good point. Theists tend to honor God according to our best current understanding of that God.

Clear
ειτζειω

'monotheism is not the center of worship...'

What does that mean? No idea what you mean by that..

Who said that 'monotheism is the center of worship'?

 

[Desert Snake]

You are quite correct.
I do not concider that it is necessary to understand the relationship between God ,Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
The Trinity doctrine has from the earliest times been contentious.

The ''trinity doctrine'' being contentious has hardly /if anything/, to do with the thread premise question. some follow that ''doctrine'', some don't.

but the "Church" felt it important not to breach the established view of one God, so devised the trinity concept.

They didn't devise the trinity concept, they devised the trinity doctrine. There's a difference.

For those early followers of Jesus there was no thought that he was god.

I disagree. The entire religious aspect concerning Jesus is that He is a God. That's the basis of the religion.

This concept developed as the church grew but it was in competition with the views that Jesus was a prophet, or Son of God, adopted Son of God. Or simply a great teacher favoured by God.

These don't work as ''religion'' precepts, /contextually,, especially not for the type of theism or theisms being discussed. This is not a 'non-theistic' religion, we're talking about

The Church needed clarity and certainty and settled on the Trinity dogma. Competing concepts were declared Heretical.

Whuppty do.

We have come a long way since those times and all those concepts have been revisited many times even Calvin doubted the vergin birth the Trinity and the ascension, and the "magical" aspects of Christianity.

it's funny how you just ran in the trinity concept with the other things in Scripture. Yes, it's clear that you don't think much or any of it is real, right? Why not just say that outright?

I feel it is important to keep an open mind on contentious issues like these. It is by no means necessary to replace them with equally contentious views.

That's your prerogative

Our relationship with God does not depend on contentious details, however much they are taught as fundemental.

''details''? like what/who, and how many deities you might or might not worship? I'm not sure those are ''details'', considering that the entire premise is concerning ones theistic position regarding the 'trinity'

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Jesus