The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[Soapy]

you are preaching to the choir . nothing new here

Cataway, it’s not quite what you said, though! There have been many debates concerning what ‘Soul’ is and very few agree.

Trinitarians try to define it as a separate part of a human Being so that they can disingenuously claim that mankind is three parts:

• Body
• Spirit
• Soul

You can see that this is desperation on their part in trying to say that ‘Image of God’ means man is:

• Father - Spirit
• Son - Body
• Holy Spirit - Soul

or some such nonsense permutation and combination.

True Christians are not so easily misled! Plus, of course, trinity somehow claims that their three ruler god persons are not ‘parts’ of God... yet clearly, body, spirit, and soul (fir them) are ‘PARTS’ which are combined... and we true Christians do not believe in a UNIFIED GOD... we believe in an ONLY GOD.

A unity comes from an external source combining to make a whole... YHWH, Our God is an all things God who gives OUT as the source: all things come from one, from Him alone... not from Them as a combination!

My take on it is Soul is the person as a whole and not an additional part.

Thus, Matthew 19:28 states Jesus as saying;

• “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

‘The murderers’ can kill the body but because the spirit is still living (though resting with God) the Soul is still ‘alive’.. that is, there is still a REMEMBRANCE of the person!

 

[Soapy]

The obvious answer in Islamic theology though is that God is a Unity of Tanzih and Tashbih - aka, transcendent and close to everything, The Absolute, The All, The Ultimate.
It is a Oneness of ineffability, which is why God overcomes what would be otherwise be a paradox of dualism.

The Trinity itself as commonly understood, is dualism.

If Christians really understood the meaning of ongoing metaphors like:

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."
(1 Corinthians 12:27)​

They would be able to move out of polytheism and really correlate Jesus' words properly.

Trinity is false ideology. Unfortunately the mass majority of Christianity is trinitarian.

However, just like in the Torah, there are remnants of those who preach the truth.

So please do not label all Christians as the same: hear the difference though I would prefer if a different name were to be made for the truth speakers... however, we know the parable if the Tares and the Wheat: they grow together and we only know the difference when they fruit... the rates produce bad fruit and are torn up and burnt in fire while the wheat is harvested and made into life supporting bread!

 

[firedragon]

I think you are the Echad who has no Echad with the truth.

I ask you to say what is wrong with:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH your God is your only God’

What is not right and proper with that...? And you see that even another person says the same and they are well versed in the Jewish language. And, we did not collaborate with the conclusion.

What is it you are trying to hide from.., in any language, every word has more than one meaning... the context defines the understanding.

Take note from the extract:

1. 1. Trinitarians can be confident that the word "echad" used to describe God's oneness, is exactly what we would expect to find. Jews, anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians are nervous about the fact that the most direct and important statements in the Old Testament about God's oneness (Deut 6:4) use the unified one [echad] instead of a words that always mean numeric oneness like "yachid" and "bad".
   2. There isn't a single Jew or anti-Trinitarian today who, given the chance, would not go back in time and tell Moses his choice of ECHAD instead of YACHID in Deut 6:4 will cause them grief in the future.

This is exactly what I’m saying to you. The implied ‘Echad’ one implies a unified (unity of) one - which is absolutely whag opens the doorway to Trinitarians claiming their God is a unit (unified group) of three.. yet why three - why not four, six, twenty, 100, etc? All these would fit ‘unified’/‘unity of’...

But what is your objection to a truth? Yhwh is not ‘one God’ to the Israelites... he is the ‘only God’ to them, and to Christians.

Notice that Muslims, who believe in the exact same God as Jews and Christians, do not claim Him as ‘one God’. In fact this point of argument is never an issue with them... why do we make it an issue.., God is not ‘one God’ ... he is the ‘only God’.

Completely bogus

 

[Soapy]

Completely bogus

I would love to hear what you think is wrong.

Like sojourner, you sling accusations and denials of the truth and yet when I ask for clarification on what you are objecting to, you (both) come back with nothing...

And why? There’s only one reason why someone cannot present evidence of their belief (that I’m wrong, in this case) and that’s because they cannot justify it.

I ask you again, outline to me what you say is wrong...

 

[sojourner]

Monotheism: One Ruler

Polytheism: Many Rulers

Monotheism = 1 God, not "1 ruler."

Trinity claims three rulers who are not even three rulers BUT ONE RULER....

No it doesn't. The doctrine claims three Persons in one God.

Even trinity agrees that the Holy Spirit is an emanation from the Father; the power of the Father.

The Doctrine, at least in the West, states that the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son.

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is your only God’

YHWH did not say he was ‘one God’. He said he was the ‘only God’.

Yeah, that's not what the Hebrew word means, though. It means "one."

The heavenly ruler said unto his favoured nation:

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, your God, is your only God’

YHWH did not say he was ‘one God’. He said he was the ‘only God’.

False.

Trinity changed the word from ‘only’ to ‘one’ to so as to give the illusion of a ‘unity of several’.

No. I have a copy of the Tanakh. It clearly says "one," not "only."

Would it not be clearer just to say, ‘only God’ than the tortuous wording of a united singularity (‘[three in] one’)?

No, not and keep the Hebraic meaning.

‘Only God’ has no implication of a ’unity of many’.

Doesn't matter. That's not what the Hebrew text says.

The don’t-ever-believe-anything-you-read-there website, gotQuestion,

Got Questions Ministries is hardly an authority. This is a straw man argument. You're finding one of the worst examples you can find and then argue as if its a leading authority, which it isn't.

 

[Soapy]

Monotheism = 1 God, not "1 ruler."

No it doesn't. The doctrine claims three Persons in one God.


The Doctrine, at least in the West, states that the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son.


Yeah, that's not what the Hebrew word means, though. It means "one."


False.


No. I have a copy of the Tanakh. It clearly says "one," not "only."


No, not and keep the Hebraic meaning.


Doesn't matter. That's not what the Hebrew text says.


Got Questions Ministries is hardly an authority. This is a straw man argument. You're finding one of the worst examples you can find and then argue as if its a leading authority, which it isn't.

GotQuestion and Calm are the two worst sites that express trinitarian ideology.. but without doubt, every site that expresses trinity values is genuinely disingenuous.

Oh, and God is the only God... he is not many rulers!

Three rulers - one God —> Polytheism

Unless of course, you are saying that there are not three rulers (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the trinity God?

And then you create an even greater conundrum than already exist concerning your belief.

 

[sojourner]

Trinity claims to believe in one God. But expresses three persons as that one God.

This is an oxymoron.... simple as.

Correct. God is expressed in three persons.

And as such, cannot be answered with a ‘yes’, ‘no’, answer.

Since when is any credible theological construct simplistic as that?

The definition of ‘God’... one definition of ‘God’ is:

• Ruler

Perhaps, but that doesn't exclude all the other definitions -- and "ruler" doesn't preclude 3 Persons.

There is no construct in any system that wholly and truly claims more than one thing is one thing.

That's not what the doctrine does, though. The doctrine claims one God.

Yes, it is completely clear that the trinity Holy Spirit as a person, they say, is nowhere near the Father, seeing that:

• It is sent... No God is ever sent!!!! What authority has the power over a co-equal to send another co-equal. Being sent concerns subordination. God, our God, is subordinate to no one - else he is not GOD! But it appears the trinity God has a master God and two subordinate Gods.
• It takes of what belongs to the ‘second’ God... right here is something Trinitarians do not talk about - and for good reason. I don’t need to explain it as it’s plain and obvious and would be an insult to the intelligent
  
• It is poured out... Scriptures describes the Holy Spirit as like ‘Wind’, a light fluttering breeze alighting in Jesus ‘in the manner of a dove’... not ‘as a dove’, like many churches wrongfully preach... thats so terrible to call their God, a Dove! Besides, that was Jesus it came down on in that manner. When it came down on the Apostles it was like a roaring wind along with lightening and fire... So, since Godly people are Apostles, why is the Holy Spirit depicted as a dove (for Jesus) rather than the proper representation of ‘tongues of fire’ (for Pentecost)?
• It ‘teaches’... hmmm.. a bit tenuous!! A book ‘teaches’... but a book isn’t a person!
• It directs... Even a decent computer can make decisions and direct : Sat Nav...
• It give gifts... Each person has skills, talents, abilities... is it incredible that a system could recognise these things and enhance them in that person and persons? Absolutely! The system does not need to be a sentient person - just sentient in some way! An automated watering system can give the gift of water to a plant pot it detects as drying out.

Your definitions, though, (as with your insistence on the misapprehension of "one" vs "only"), aren't authoritative in this case.

It expresses three rulers...

No, it expresses one God.

‘Because the creed says it is’!!!

 

[sojourner]

GotQuestion and Calm are the two worst sites that express trinitarian ideology.. but without doubt, every site that expresses trinity values is genuinely disingenuous.

Then why use it??? It sets up a straw man.

Oh, and God is the only God... he is not many rulers!

The doctrine doesn't make that claim.

Three rulers - one God —> Polytheism

The doctrine doesn't make that claim.

Unless of course, you are saying that there are not three rulers (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the trinity God?

The doctrine doesn't make that claim.

And then you create an even greater conundrum than already exist concerning your belief.

I've suggested to you several times to Read The Doctrine. You're making a bunch of false claims about it, without knowing what it really says. Read The Doctrine.

 

[sojourner]

GotQuestion and Calm are the two worst sites that express trinitarian ideology

Just because Michael Houdman's an idiot doesn't mean the doctrine is bad.

 

[firedragon]

I would love to hear what you think is wrong.

Like sojourner, you sling accusations and denials of the truth and yet when I ask for clarification on what you are objecting to, you (both) come back with nothing...

And why? There’s only one reason why someone cannot present evidence of their belief (that I’m wrong, in this case) and that’s because they cannot justify it.

I ask you again, outline to me what you say is wrong...

Somethings wrong.

 

[Fool]

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 would be better to understand it as the mind, body, spirit complex.


These (Naasseni), then, according to the system9 advanced by them, magnify, (as the originating cause) of all things else, a man and a son of man. And this man is a hermaphrodite, and is denominated among them Adam; and hymns many and various are made to him. The hymns10 however-to be brief-are couched among them in some such form as this: "From thee (comes) father, and through thee (comes) mother, two names immortal, progenitors of Aeons, O denizen of heaven, thou illustrious man." But they divide him as Geryon11 into three parts. For, say they, of this man one part is rational, another psychical, another earthly. And they suppose that the knowledge of him is the originating principle of the capacity for a knowledge of God, expressing themselves thus: "The originating principle of perfection is the knowledge12 of man, while the knowledge of God is absolute perfection." All these qualities, however-rational, and psychical, and earthly-have, (the Naassene) says, retired and descended into one man simultaneously-Jesus,13 who was born of Mary. And these three men (the Naassene) says, are in the habit of speaking (through Jesus) at the same time together, each from their own proper substances to those peculiarly their own. For, according to these, there are three kinds of all existent things-angelic, psychical, earthly; and there are three churches-angelic, psychical, earthly; and the names of these are elect, called, captive.




for further studies and understanding


The Law of One Search Results for ‘mind body spirit’

 

[Muffled]

You mean progression kind or genes?

I mean there is evidence that suggests the brain of man has gotten bigger over a million years. There is no genetic evidence that man genetically changed from apes into humans.

 

[Muffled]

Monotheism = 1 God, not "1 ruler."

No it doesn't. The doctrine claims three Persons in one God.


The Doctrine, at least in the West, states that the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son.


Yeah, that's not what the Hebrew word means, though. It means "one."


False.


No. I have a copy of the Tanakh. It clearly says "one," not "only."


No, not and keep the Hebraic meaning.


Doesn't matter. That's not what the Hebrew text says.


Got Questions Ministries is hardly an authority. This is a straw man argument. You're finding one of the worst examples you can find and then argue as if its a leading authority, which it isn't.

I believe it is neither an emanation nor a proceeding. The verse says it is a sending. So the Holy Spirit is always there but not attached to believers. It has to be sent into the human brain and attached to it. That is the way it works with our spirits also. God sends our spirit into our brand new baby bodies. That is the way it worked with Jesus; the Spirit of God had to be sent into the newly
created body in the womb of Mary.

 

[sojourner]

I believe it is neither an emanation nor a proceeding. The verse says it is a sending. So the Holy Spirit is always there but not attached to believers. It has to be sent into the human brain and attached to it. That is the way it works with our spirits also. God sends our spirit into our brand new baby bodies. That is the way it worked with Jesus; the Spirit of God had to be sent into the newly
created body in the womb of Mary.

“Proceed,” “sent” — it’s the same action. The point is that the Western Church holds that the HS comes from both.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Somethings wrong.

I agree.

• First JW Premise: "The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will." https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-the-holy-spirit/
  
• Second Premise: "God is a Spirit" (John 4:19, New World Translation).
• Third Premise: "'Jehovah' is God's name. Although invisible, he is a person, and he has a name—Jehovah." https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/draw-close/who-is-jehovah-god/
  
• Fourth Premise: "Now Jehovah is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:17, New World Translation).
• Fifth Premise: "... Jehovah is holy to the superlative degree. (Revelation 4:8) Jehovah’s holiness is emphasized throughout the Bible. Hundreds of verses associate his name with the words 'holy' and 'holiness.'" https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/draw-close/holy-god/
• Conclusion: God is an active force that projects itself to any place to accomplish its will.
• Corollary: Jehovah is an active force who projects Himself to any place to accomplish His will.

@sojourner

 

[MonkeyFire]

The trinity is three things in one.

 

[Terry Sampson]

@firedragon
@sojourner

According to JWs:

• "God is a spirit person." (John 4:24)
  • "He is invisible to humans. (John 1:18) Visions of God recorded in the Bible consistently portray him as having a distinct location. He is never depicted as existing everywhere. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/god-omnipresent/
• God's name is Jehovah.
  • "He is not a nameless, distant entity, beyond knowing or understanding. Although invisible, he is a person, and he has a name —Jehovah." https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/draw-close/who-is-jehovah-god/
• "God is able to see everything and to act anywhere he chooses. ... However, the Bible does not teach that God is omnipresent—that is, present everywhere, in all things. Instead, it shows that he is a person and that he resides in a dwelling place." https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/god-omnipresent/
  • "God’s dwelling place: God resides in the spirit realm, which is distinct from physical creation. Within that realm, God has a “dwelling place in the heavens.” (1 Kings 8:30) The Bible mentions an occasion when spirit creatures “entered to take their station before Jehovah,” * showing that in a sense, God resides at a specific location.—Job 1:6."
    
  • "Fact: God dwells neither on the earth nor elsewhere in the physical universe.... However, God does not inhabit his creation any more than an artist lives in his painting. Still, a painting can tell us something about the artist who made it. Similarly, the visible world tells us about the Creator’s “invisible qualities,” such as his power, wisdom, and love."
  • "Fact: God’s holy spirit, or active force, is God’s power in action. Through his holy spirit, God can perceive and do anything, anywhere, at any time, without being present in person. Psalm 139:7"
  • Misconception: Psalm 139:8 teaches that God is omnipresent by saying: “If I were to ascend to heaven, you would be there, and if I were to make my bed in the Grave, look! you would be there.”
    Fact: This scripture is not talking about God’s location. It poetically teaches that no place is too remote for God to act in our behalf."
• "Michael, referred to by some religions as “Saint Michael,” is evidently a name given to Jesus before and after his life on earth." https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/archangel-michael/
  • "Consider why it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the archangel Michael."
    • "Michael is “the archangel.” (Jude 9) The title “archangel,” meaning “chief of the angels,” appears in only two Bible verses. In both cases, the word is singular, suggesting that only one angel bears that title. One of those verses states that the resurrected Lord Jesus “will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16) Jesus has “an archangel’s voice” because he is the archangel, Michael."
    • "Michael commands an angelic army. “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon,” Satan. (Revelation 12:7) Michael has great authority in the spirit realm, for he is called “one of the foremost princes” and “the great prince.” (Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1) These titles designate Michael as “the commander-in-chief of the angelic forces,” as New Testament scholar David E. Aune puts it.
      The Bible mentions only one other name of someone having authority over an army of angels. It describes “the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8; Matthew 16:27) Jesus “went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.” (1 Peter 3:21, 22) It would not make sense for God to set up Jesus and Michael as rival commanders of the holy angels. Rather, it is more reasonable to conclude that both names, Jesus and Michael, refer to the same person."
    • "Michael “will stand up” during an unprecedented “time of distress.” (Daniel 12:1) In the book of Daniel, the expression “stand up” is often used to refer to a king who rises up to take special action. (Daniel 11:2-4, 21) Jesus Christ, identified as “The Word of God,” will take special action as the “King of kings” to strike down all of God’s enemies and protect God’s people. (Revelation 19:11-16) He will do so during a time of “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning.”—Matthew 24:21, 42."
    • "So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11." https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20100401/Is-Jesus-the-Archangel-Michael/
    • "All relevant Scriptural testimony unites to prove that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ, both before he became a man, as at Daniel 10:13, 21 and Jude 9, and after his ascension into heaven, as at Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7." https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1958687
    • "For many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught that Michael is a heavenly name for the only-begotten Son of God, who was named Jesus while on earth. However, most other religions view Michael as one of several archangels, as if there were more than one archangel." https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984927
      • "Some object to identifying Jesus with the angel of Jehovah mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. For Trinitarians, of course, such an identification poses a problem since it shows conclusively that he is not equal to Jehovah God. But even some who do not accept the Trinity doctrine feel that Jesus’ identity with an angel somehow detracts from his dignity."
    • https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200273808
• JW anti-Trinitarian motivation is clear: The Archangel Michael and Jesus can't be the same spirit person if the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity is true.
• Anti-JW Trinitarian motivation is clear: The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity can't be true if the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same spirit person.
• Conclusion: Crucial irreconcilable differences exist between JWs and Christian Trinitarians.

• If "Michael", the Archangel and "Son of God", was a spirit person's name before and after that spirit person became the man, Jesus Christ, on earth,
  • did he cease to be a spirit person when he became a man, and
  • did he become a spirit person again after he ascended?
  • Or did he continue to be a spirit person while he was a man on earth?
• If Jesus Christ continued to be a spirit person while he lived on earth,
  • did the spirit person die on the cross/stake or
  • did the man die on the cross/stake or
  • did neither die on the cross/stake or
  • did both the spirit person and the man die on the cross/stake?
• If Jesus Christ ceased to be a spirit person while he was Jesus on earth, how is it that a spirit person can cease to exist?
• If Jesus Christ continued to be a spirit person while he was called Jesus on earth, what was resurrected after the death of Jesus: the spirit person, the man, both, or neither?
• If Jesus the man died but Jesus the spirit person did not die, then Jesus was not actually resurrected, was he?

 

[Soapy]

Terry Sampson,

Scripturely, the greatest error of JW is to call jesus an Angel:

• ‘To which of the angels did God ever say...’

Jesus returning with an archangels cry does not in any way say Jesus is an archangel. Consider that saying someone ‘He charged forward with a lion’s roar’ does not mean the man was a lion!

The verse says that Jesus will descend from heaven with the shout of an Archangel... If Jesus was an archangel then there would not be a need to say his shout was that of an archangel... do you see this?

Furthermore, at the end of time, Jesus is given to sit asking over creation. Jesus, ruler over the created world... yet scriptures tells us that the world to come will by now means be ruled by angels...Hebrews 2:5:

• “It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.”

As you can tell, I am not a trinitarian nor a JW so please do not accuse me!

There is much more I could say but your list is too long to answer each point you made.

 

[Terry Sampson]

If Jesus was an archangel then there would not be a need to say his shout was that of an archangel... do you see this?

Yes

As you can tell, I am not a trinitarian nor a JW so please do not accuse me!

I'd have to be blind not to see that you're not a trinitarian, and I'll take your word for it that you're not a JW. Good thing that you aren't, since you don't seem to believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ are one and the same person, which is inconsistent with JW beliefs.

 

[Terry Sampson]

There is much more I could say but your list is too long to answer each point you made.

My questions would be relevant in an interrogation of JWs. Since you're not a JW, they aren't questions that you need to feel obliged to answer.

1. If "Michael", the Archangel and "Son of God", was a spirit person's name before and after that spirit person became the man, Jesus Christ, on earth,
   • did he cease to be a spirit person when he became a man, and
   • did he become a spirit person again after he ascended?
   • Or did he continue to be a spirit person while he was a man on earth?
2. If Jesus Christ continued to be a spirit person while he lived on earth,
   • did the spirit person die on the cross/stake or
   • did the man die on the cross/stake or
   • did neither die on the cross/stake or
   • did both the spirit person and the man die on the cross/stake?
3. If Jesus Christ ceased to be a spirit person while he was Jesus on earth, how is it that a spirit person can cease to exist?
4. If Jesus Christ continued to be a spirit person while he was called Jesus on earth, what was resurrected after the death of Jesus: the spirit person, the man, both, or neither?
5. If Jesus the man died but Jesus the spirit person did not die, then Jesus was not actually resurrected, was he?