The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[Sand Dancer]

Monolatry? How do you assess that from the literature?

The people, even Yahweh, acknowledged other gods, but the people only worshiped Yahweh.

 

[Soapy]

Jesus had a mother . she knew who the father was. Read the Bible please

Oh my my... What a silly thing to bring up in a discussion,

Tell me, wasn’t of Mary, Jesus’ mother who tried to tempt him to do miracles ‘before his time had come’?

She was anxious for her ‘little boy’ to show off to the neighbours... and she knew ‘the Father’?

She knew ‘of God’ but did not ‘know God’. Women in those times were not schooled in Torah. They believed what their husbands taught them... or just believed that their husbands knew the ones true God’. A woman was saved by her believing husband even if she herself did not believe! Scriptures tells this... did you know???

That is not to say, just in case cos I can hear you already, that this applies FULLY SO today!!

 

[cataway]

Monolatry? How do you assess that from the literature?

its more likely from what some one ''wants'' to believe

 

[Soapy]

The people, even Yahweh, acknowledged other gods, but the people only worshiped Yahweh.

Yes, this is true.... BECAUSE ‘God’ simply means ‘RULER’, ‘Mighty One’, by context. There is nothing especially special about the word and term.

What does make it special in religious terms is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims acknowledge that there is only one deity as their ruler. Other ‘pagan’ belief systems claim multiple deities as their rulers.

The deity we believe in, the only deity, our ruler, our God, is unique in all the history of ‘Gods’.

‘He is our ONLY GOD’...An unseen Spirit God.

Thus we do not need any other title than ‘God’ for him. And by this we can distinguish him from other uses of the other terms, ‘Ruler’ and ‘Deity’.

‘Deity’ is outdated today... and we, for sure, have ‘MANY RULERS’, many ‘Mighty Ones’. And this, ‘Many God’ that are not ‘Spirit Gods’, but human, and/or material.

Scriptures proves itself... if the reader cares to seek it.

For instance, Jesus tells us that our Deity, himself, told of men of renown. Mighty ones, he, God, called, ‘Gods’, because they were mighty heroes in his sight and in his word, men like Noah, Moses, Joshua, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, the Judges, the prophets, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zachariah, etc.

So, yes, ‘other Gods’ are acknowledged... other ‘Rulers’ and ‘Mighty Ones’ are acknowledged... and for sure, even the angels are called ‘Gods’, which serves to underline that the term is not unique to our deity ... it’s just that our deity ‘God’ is unique in our belief as being the ONLY GOD we worship... and overall, to us, is the ONLY TRUE GOD. A single Spirit Being who created all things as physical manifestations and sought for one from his creation (in his image) to govern the kingdom of his creation.

The problem with the denomination of Christians ideology that claims that this unique God is further uniqued by being three RULERS as one God, is so far removed from any level of credible possibility that it is an abomination to the ONLY TRUE GOD... and the spread of this disease is immortalised as the ‘Whore of Babylon’ in which scriptures urges mankind to:

• “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.“ (Rev 18:4)

The sin of the belief that the greatest man who ever lived was an angel, and that that same greatest man was almighty God, flies in the face of everything that a holy and sinless man lived and died for.

If he was an angel then it claims that the Scriptures lied when he said:

• ‘For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?

And if he was Almighty God then how is it said:

• "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."
  
  
• “14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sonsf of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,17and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (Romans 8:14-17)

This latter verse stresses the humanity that seeks the spirit self, for our God is Spirit and our spirit must reach out to his. It also stresses that to be a ‘Son’ of our God, we must follow HIS SPIRIT, which is exactly what Jesus did... hence it is impossible that Jesus could be God else why would he need to BECOME A SON OF GOD by DOUNG THE WORKS OF GOD... and moreover, cry ‘Abba, Father’... and finally, be an HEIR TO GOD if, as trinity claims, Jesus IS that very God whom he is Heir to!!!

 

[cataway]

Oh my my... What a silly thing to bring up in a discussion,

Tell me, wasn’t of Mary, Jesus’ mother who tried to tempt him to do miracles ‘before his time had come’?

She was anxious for her ‘little boy’ to show off to the neighbours... and she knew ‘the Father’?

She knew ‘of God’ but did not ‘know God’. Women in those times were not schooled in Torah. They believed what their husbands taught them... or just believed that their husbands knew the ones true God’. A woman was saved by her believing husband even if she herself did not believe! Scriptures tells this... did you know???

That is not to say, just in case cos I can hear you already, that this applies FULLY SO today!!

oh i do know of how the women were treated . how ever Jesus did not treat the women that way . you should of known that

 

[Terry Sampson]

Thus we do not need any other title than ‘God’ for him. And by this we can distinguish him from other uses of the other terms, ‘Ruler’ and ‘Deity’.

Nonsense, upon which your fragile house of cards is founded.

 

[firedragon]

its more likely from what some one ''wants'' to believe

You mean you are making a hypothesis?

 

[firedragon]

The people, even Yahweh, acknowledged other gods, but the people only worshiped Yahweh.

Are you basing this on the Biblical text?

I know there are some verses that indicate beliefs in other Gods but that seems like a very superficial theory of some of the scholars in sociology of religion. Yet it is also debatable because one could easily argue that saying "dont worship his God, worship me" doesnt necessarily mean there is another God existing, it just means "He is worshiping another deity/God" that doesnt mean "that God exists".

e.g. If you say "He worships money, he should start worshiping Yahweh instead" that does not mean money is actually God or another God in reality or theology with Godly attributes.

May i ask you which verse or verses you are referring to?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I hope you're not talking to me. I ain't a JW.

I thought I was the only one. I'm not sure who he's talking to, honestly.

 

[cataway]

You mean you are making a hypothesis?

its a choice people make to suit them selves . show people what the bible does say and hear them say they dont want to believe that or that they dont believe that . granted they do have free will ,but even so God has a way he will except . to do otherwise only appeases ones own desires.

the answer you will get is ''
23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness ''

 

[Sand Dancer]

Are you basing this on the Biblical text?

I know there are some verses that indicate beliefs in other Gods but that seems like a very superficial theory of some of the scholars in sociology of religion. Yet it is also debatable because one could easily argue that saying "dont worship his God, worship me" doesnt necessarily mean there is another God existing, it just means "He is worshiping another deity/God" that doesnt mean "that God exists".

May i ask you which verse or verses you are referring to?

Wouldn't it be a little hard to all of a sudden negate the other gods worshiped in that area? There has to be a transition.

Psalm 95:3 "For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Exodus 12:12 "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. "

Psalm 82:1 "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods."

He could have said there were no other gods. That doesn't get said until the middle of Isaiah.

 

[Soapy]

Nonsense, upon which your fragile house of cards is founded.

‘God’ is not a person, per se. It is a TITLE of a person who is the RULING MONARCH of a group or society or system.

• A Judge is ‘God’ in his courtroom
• A Principal is ‘God’ in his School
• A Chess grandmaster is ‘God’ of his game
• A Husband is ‘God’ in his household
• The only Deity of the Jews is the ‘God’ whose name is YHWH
  
• The pagans believed in many Deities who were their ‘Gods’

• A Judge is ‘Ruler’ in his courtroom
• A Principal is ‘Ruler’ in his School
• A Chess Grandmaster is ‘Ruler’ of his game
• A Husband is ‘Ruler’ in his household
• The only Deity of the Jews is the ‘God’ whose name is YHWH
• The pagans believed in many Deities who were their ‘Rulers’

Because the Jews and Christians and Muslims believe in only the one God, the one ruling deity, we do not need to point to him by any other title than ‘God’. It’s simpler than saying ‘our Ruler’.
The only reason the God of the Jews asked for a name for their ruler was because the Jews lived among pagan tribes and nations who believed in many Gods who each were identified by names. The only reason for a name is to identify one entity from another.

And so, why does the Jewish deity need a name... and then the name was made unspeakable because of misuse. So, there’s a need for identity for the deity... ‘God’ fills that need.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Because the Jews and Christians and Muslims believe in only the one God

You're going to have to find a playmate some where else, I ain't playing your game with you. You don't have any toy that I'm interested in or need.

• Jews and Muslims share the same "God-concept" but do not worship the same God.
• Jews' God has a name and many titles. The name of the muslims' God is "Allah", which is arabic for "God".
  
• Yhwh is not shy about calling Jews His children. Show me where Allah calls any human, or angel, for that matter, "son".
• Jews and Christians worship the same God, but do not share the same "God-concept". Jews and Christians know Him to be their Father.
• Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God nor do they share the same "God-concept".

BECAUSE ‘God’ simply means ‘RULER’,

You hang your hat on the premise that "God" simply means "RULER", but you wrote your own dictionary. "God" doesn't mean "Ruler" in my dictionary, ... or in Wikipedia, neither.
God (word) - Wikipedia

• The English word god continues the Old English god (guþ, gudis in Gothic, guð in Old Norse, god in Frisian and Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is derived from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán.
• The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This is similar to Persian word for God, Khudan. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."
  
  Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".
• The word God was used to represent Greek Theos and Latin Deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. For the etymology of deus, see *dyēus.
  
  Greek "θεός " (theos) means god in English. It is often connected with Greek "θέω" (theō), "run", and "θεωρέω" (theoreō), "to look at, to see, to observe",[7][8] Latin feriae "holidays", fanum "temple", and also Armenian di-k` "gods". Alternative suggestions (e.g. by De Saussure) connect *dhu̯es- "smoke, spirit", attested in Baltic and Germanic words for "spook" and ultimately cognate with Latin fumus "smoke." The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek te-o[9] (plural te-o-i[10]), written in Linear B syllabic script.

Because the Jews and Christians and Muslims believe in only the one God, the one ruling deity, we do not need to point to him by any other title than ‘God’. It’s simpler than saying ‘our Ruler’.

"We" who?

The only reason the God of the Jews asked for a name for their ruler was because the Jews lived among pagan tribes and nations who believed in many Gods who each were identified by names. The only reason for a name is to identify one entity from another.
And so, why does the Jewish deity need a name... and then the name was made unspeakable because of misuse. So, there’s a need for identity for the deity... ‘God’ fills that need.

Sez you. On what authority? If you're your own authority, why should I take your word for what you say?

 

[cataway]

You're going to have to find a playmate some where else, I ain't playing your game with you. You don't have any toy that I'm interested in or need.

• Jews and Muslims share the same "God-concept" but do not worship the same God.
• Jews' God has a name and many titles. The name of the muslims' God is "Allah", which is arabic for "God".
  
• Yhwh is not shy about calling Jews His children. Show me where Allah calls any human, or angel, for that matter, "son".
• Jews and Christians worship the same God, but do not share the same "God-concept". Jews and Christians know Him to be their Father.
• Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God nor do they share the same "God-concept".

You hang your hat on the premise that "God" simply means "RULER", but you wrote your own dictionary. "God" doesn't mean "Ruler" in my dictionary, ... or in Wikipedia, neither.
God (word) - Wikipedia

• The English word god continues the Old English god (guþ, gudis in Gothic, guð in Old Norse, god in Frisian and Dutch, and Gott in modern German), which is derived from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán.
• The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This is similar to Persian word for God, Khudan. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."
  
  Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked".
• The word God was used to represent Greek Theos and Latin Deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. For the etymology of deus, see *dyēus.
  
  Greek "θεός " (theos) means god in English. It is often connected with Greek "θέω" (theō), "run", and "θεωρέω" (theoreō), "to look at, to see, to observe",[7][8] Latin feriae "holidays", fanum "temple", and also Armenian di-k` "gods". Alternative suggestions (e.g. by De Saussure) connect *dhu̯es- "smoke, spirit", attested in Baltic and Germanic words for "spook" and ultimately cognate with Latin fumus "smoke." The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek te-o[9] (plural te-o-i[10]), written in Linear B syllabic script.

"We" who?

Sez you. On what authority? If you're your own authority, why should I take your word for what you say?

it does not matter if they do claim to worship the same God . its ''IF'' God excepts their worship . if he does not like you are not going to make him take it

 

[firedragon]

Wouldn't it be a little hard to all of a sudden negate the other gods worshiped in that area? There has to be a transition.

Psalm 95:3 "For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods."

Exodus 12:12 "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. "

Psalm 82:1 "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods."

He could have said there were no other gods. That doesn't get said until the middle of Isaiah.

Are you basing this on the Biblical text?

I know there are some verses that indicate beliefs in other Gods but that seems like a very superficial theory of some of the scholars in sociology of religion. Yet it is also debatable because one could easily argue that saying "dont worship his God, worship me" doesnt necessarily mean there is another God existing, it just means "He is worshiping another deity/God" that doesnt mean "that God exists".

e.g. If you say "He worships money, he should start worshiping Yahweh instead" that does not mean money is actually God or another God in reality or theology with Godly attributes.

May i ask you which verse or verses you are referring to?

 

[Soapy]

it does not matter if they do claim to worship the same God . its ''IF'' God excepts their worship . if he does not like you are not going to make him take it

There is something really weird going on here. The argument with firedragon seems to be to for Firedragon to argue against anything anyone else says...

The Muslim God is the same God as the Christian and the Jews... it’s just that Muslims call him by a different name and worship him in a different way that we christians do not claim approval of. Mohammed did not confess a different God... he confessed (wrongly for us) that Jesus was only another prophet.. not the last prophet.
Now, I don’t want to get into muslumism because it’s not relevant. I only mention it because Firedragon cannot see that the three worshipped God is the one and the same ‘ruler’, seen through different religious eyes. Maybe he thinks that there is more than one God, one for each religious belief system?!

As you say, if any group worships this same God in ways contrary to what this same God desires then he will not hear them... simple!!

 

[Soapy]

Guys... if you replace the title, ‘Gods with its meaning: ‘Ruler’, ‘Mighty One’... then you will see how there absolutely are ‘other Gods’.

The pagans has many ‘Rulers’... those whom they worship and claimed made the laws and commandments that they obeyed. We know for ourselves that these were not Spiritual ‘Gods’ but human pretentious to garner power over the people. But nonetheless these pretentious RULERS were MIGHTY ONES among the pagans else they could not have been their rulers.

YHWH, our God, did not deny great rulers among pagans... he said that even though there were these great ones, He, was GREATER THAN ALL OF THEM ... and proved it many times over.

Please, substitute, ‘Ruler’, ‘Great Ones’, ‘Mighty Ones’, for ‘Gods in your text and see the problem of mis-interpretation disappear!!

 

[firedragon]

Guys... if you replace the title, ‘Gods with its meaning: ‘Ruler’, ‘Mighty One’... then you will see how there absolutely are ‘other Gods’.

The pagans has many ‘Rulers’... those whom they worship and claimed made the laws and commandments that they obeyed. We know for ourselves that these were not Spiritual ‘Gods’ but human pretentious to garner power over the people. But nonetheless these pretentious RULERS were MIGHTY ONES among the pagans else they could not have been their rulers.

YHWH, our God, did not deny great rulers among pagans... he said that even though there were these great ones, He, was GREATER THAN ALL OF THEM ... and proved it many times over.

Please, substitute, ‘Ruler’, ‘Great Ones’, ‘Mighty Ones’, for ‘Gods in your text and see the problem of mis-interpretation disappear!!

Rather than writing extra long exegesis, can you tell me the difference between Small Gods and Big Gods?

Like small master and big master. Adone.

Elohim usage.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

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?

The trinity doctrine is foreign to the Sacred Scriptures. This is what is written in the Kittel Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume III, p 108 "Perhaps the recollection of the many triads [trinities] of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae."

Yahshua the Messiah never considered himself on equal footing with the Father. The trinity doctrine states that the trinity is one supreme being, existing in three persons, all equal in rank and in eternity, having the same substance and yet being three separate persons, but united in one G-dhead. The only scripture that seemingly supports this is 1 John 5:7-8. If you read it in the Pe****ta, it helps us understand this text: "And the Spirit testifies that very Spirit is truth, And there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and blood; and these three are one". The thought that emerges from the Greek text reveals that the Spirit and the water and the blood unite in their witness to the plan of salvation revealed in Yahshua the Messiah our Redeemer.

People would understand the Bible a lot more if they used the Name of Yahweh and the title Elohim rather than G-d and L-rd. The King James translators rendered the word Elohim as G-d, singular. That is a glaring error. The word Elohim is a masculine plural word, not singular. The word Elohim is plural, similar to the English word family, and requires a singular verb just like family does.

It signifies several family members composing one family unit working under one family name.

 

[RabbiO]

People would understand the Bible a lot more if they used the Name of Yahweh and the title Elohim rather than G-d and L-rd. The King James translators rendered the word Elohim as G-d, singular. That is a glaring error. The word Elohim is a masculine plural word, not singular. The word Elohim is plural, similar to the English word family, and requires a singular verb just like family does.

It signifies several family members composing one family unit working under one family name.

Just as the bus rounded the crest of the hill and began its descent on the narrow, winding road, the brakes failed. The bus went flying off the road and plummeted to the rocky ravine three hundred feet below.