The Trinity as Pantheistic

[idav]

The trinity attempts to make three gods into one god. It rings very pantheistic to me. The father as the source, holy ghost as the will or power of god, the son as being simultaneously the created and the creator.

Like it says in john. In the beginning was the word with god and is god. Through him all was made. The word became the flesh.

To me this says the word is not the source, creation is through the word but the word is god and became the world. That's where I see pantheism.

Could be panentheistic if you rreally want to keep them separate but such is not the case according to the trinity creed. The creed argues for one substance and one god which rings of pantheism.

Any objections?

 

[outhouse]

It rings very pantheistic to me.

To me, it WAS desperation for a religion to grasp monotheism while worshipping 3 deity concepts at once.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think the trinity concept in and of itself NECESSARILY indicates pantheism...but, we need other opinions, methinks.

 

[Thana]

Pantheism - Oh this cup is a part of God.
Trinitarianism - Oh this cup is a cup.

So no, Not pantheism.

 

[idav]

Pantheism - Oh this cup is a part of God.
Trinitarianism - Oh this cup is a cup.

So no, Not pantheism.

Yet all one substance, one god which is everything through the son.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Pantheism - Oh this cup is a part of God.
Trinitarianism - Oh this cup is a cup.

So no, Not pantheism.

These are actually in reverse. A Trinitarian divides God into parts, whereas a pantheist just labels everything God.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Many religious concepts can come off as pantheistic at a certain glance; that doesn't mean they are, and I highly doubt any Christian back in the day, contributing to the Bible, especially Paul, intended pantheistic interpretation.

But I can't say I disagree with you as an idea. At least to me, and probably because I am a pantheist, Christian theology in general looks as if it flirts with pantheism.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

These are actually in reverse. A Trinitarian divides God into parts,

Unless God is the sum of the parts, a Godhead-like Trinity where the parts are as useless as a match in the rain but the connection is the holiest of all existence.

whereas a pantheist just labels everything God.

By "labels everything God" did you mean everything as one, or every individual thing? Many don't agree with me, but I think there is a really important difference between the two.

 

[Thana]

These are actually in reverse. A Trinitarian divides God into parts, whereas a pantheist just labels everything God.

I suppose that's true, in a sense.

Yet all one substance, one god which is everything through the son.

Well, no... I don't see materialistic things as god or a part of God. The bible spends a lot of time condemning the world and things of the world.

Example 1 John 2:15-17 "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
17 "The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever."

If God was the world, He wouldn't condemn it (Himself)
But He is not the world or the things in it.

 

[idav]

I suppose that's true, in a sense.



Well, no... I don't see materialistic things as god or a part of God. The bible spends a lot of time condemning the world and things of the world.

Example 1 John 2:15-17 "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
17 "The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever."

If God was the world, He wouldn't condemn it (Himself)
But He is not the world or the things in it.

Trinitarians insist on making the son god, as god becoming the world. The substance is the spirit of god that resides everywhere.

 

[idav]

I don't think the trinity concept in and of itself NECESSARILY indicates pantheism...but, we need other opinions, methinks.

It sounds like that might be what Jesus intended.

John 17
20*“I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.*21*I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.

 

[Desert Snake]

It sounds like that might be what Jesus intended.

John 17
20*“I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.*21*I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.

Mmmm I'm not sure that means pantheism...

 

[Thana]

Trinitarians insist on making the son god, as god becoming the world. The substance is the spirit of god that resides everywhere.

Becoming the world? I've never heard that.

Everywhere, yes, but not everything.
Omnipresence not Immanence.

 

[Quintessence]

Everywhere, yes, but not everything.
Omnipresence not Immanence.

I think some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around that, because it doesn't feel intuitive. I seem to recall there was some way you had of putting it that was pretty brilliant, but I can't remember what it was now...

 

[idav]

Becoming the world? I've never heard that.

Everywhere, yes, but not everything.
Omnipresence not Immanence.

Well it says became flesh which means material. Jesus became a way, a gate to god the father. A way to be born in spirit.

 

[idav]

As a son Jesus was still a creation yet a part of god, because son means like the father.

 

[Ingledsva]

The trinity attempts to make three gods into one god. It rings very pantheistic to me. The father as the source, holy ghost as the will or power of god, the son as being simultaneously the created and the creator.

Like it says in john. In the beginning was the word with god and is god. Through him all was made. The word became the flesh.

To me this says the word is not the source, creation is through the word but the word is god and became the world. That's where I see pantheism.

Could be panentheistic if you rreally want to keep them separate but such is not the case according to the trinity creed. The creed argues for one substance and one god which rings of pantheism.

Any objections?

To me they are Polytheists.


They always claim the three are ONE, but they are never ONE in their writings.


Jesus is supposedly "with" God in the beginning.


Jesus preys to God.


The book says he is now at the "right hand" of the Father, etc.



Never ONE!



*

 

[Desert Snake]

To me they are Polytheists.


They always claim the three are ONE, but they are never ONE in their writings.


Jesus is supposedly "with" God in the beginning.


Jesus preys to God.


The book says he is now at the "right hand" of the Father, etc.



Never ONE!



*

Eh, I think you're stretching it a bit there..

 

[idav]

To me they are Polytheists.


They always claim the three are ONE, but they are never ONE in their writings.


Jesus is supposedly "with" God in the beginning.


Jesus preys to God.


The book says he is now at the "right hand" of the Father, etc.



Never ONE!



*

It does smack of polytheism which is why they invented the trinity theology to reconcile one god. Outhouse has a point about them doing it out of desperation for monotheism. I think in doing so the implication is pantheism, at the least panentheism.

 

[Quintessence]

I might be on board for this if it weren't for the fact that mainstream Christianity puts a pretty clear wedge between the sacred/divine and the profane/mundane. I think you can argue that Christian mystics lean towards pantheism/panentheism - as they tend to deliberately blur that sacred-profane dichotomy, but mainstream Christianity does not.