The trinity debate - Is it monotheism?

[sojourner]

This is amazing... you do not even realise that you are confessing the fallacy of trinity in that ‘None of them is Trinity Creed’...

There’s an Apostles’ Creed, there’s an Athanasian Creed, there’s a Nicene Creed. There is no such thing as a “Trinity creed.” There’s a doctrine of the Trinity, but it’s not a creed. It’s a doctrine. I’ve begged you to read it; you’d rather argue stuff you make up out of whole cloth.

sojourner, there is only one TRUE common scriptural bible..

Untrue. There are several legitimate canons of scripture.

That’s a strange thing to say seeing you are in a Forum debating religious matters

Name one element about religion that isn’t “man made.”

The quote I gave you is valid... you choose to ignore it. You don’t even mention it and you do know it to be true as to it’s claim... so it is you who is being disingenuous

The quote isn’t from one of the creeds. Therefore, it’s not cogent to your assertion that the creeds condemn people.

There is only one truth that has not changed from the time of Jesus Christ to this day...!

There are many truths.

sojourner, have you not read of ‘Leaven’? Here is an extract that outlines it (I apologise that if is an off-site quote but it states what I would say so much better):

• “1 Corinthians 5:6-8 draws the parallel between hametz (leaven) and sin – particularly the sin of pride.
  
  “Your boasting is no good. Don’t you know that a little hametz leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old hametz, so you may be a new batch, just as you are unleavened—for Messiah, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast not with old hametz, the hametz of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened bread—the matzah of sincerity and truth.”
  
  The idea of being “puffed up” with pride is also mentioned elsewhere by Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:18, 8:1, and Romans 11:11-32. The symbolism is clear – risen bread puffed up with leaven is reminiscent of sinful pride, and unleavened matzo bread is humble, simple, and pure.
  
  Because there is enough leaven just in the air to have an effect on dough, special efforts have to be taken to prevent it from rising. The bread has lines scored across it, and holes pierced through it to help keep it laying low. This reminds us of how Yeshua, humble, pure and sinless, was striped and pierced as he gave his own life for the ultimate Passover sacrifice

This simply isn’t pertinent to the parable to which you alluded in your post.

Your arguments are splattered all over. None of your arguments are terse, focused, or address the points you wish to address.

 

[firedragon]

Umm... what do you mean, ‘Lied’?

I said that ‘Christian’ means, ‘Like Christ’!

Where is the ‘Lie’ in that?

But here is a thing... please quote me a source which states that ‘Christian’ means ‘Little Christ’.

LIttle Christ means a representative of Christ. You can say "Like Christ" if you like. This is how language works. Many languages work this way, its just that one human being has to have a little empathy towards another language rather than thinking from the point of view of a language like English. I can give you dozens and dozens of examples. I was trying to explain that in languages like Greek, there are big bosses and small bosses, big gods and small gods. Small god does not mean he is God, he is a representative of God. This was the case in hebrew as well. That is why Moses was sent as "God" or "Elohim" to pharaoh. When you dont know something, be humble say "maybe".

Nevertheless, read a Christian source. Do you know where the word “Christian” comes from? | Jesus.net
What does the name 'Christian' mean?
Where the "Christian" Name Really Came From | RELEVANT Magazine
What is a Christian?
Christian means little Christ

Cheers.

 

[Soapy]

LIttle Christ means a representative of Christ. You can say "Like Christ" if you like. This is how language works. Many languages work this way, its just that one human being has to have a little empathy towards another language rather than thinking from the point of view of a language like English. I can give you dozens and dozens of examples. I was trying to explain that in languages like Greek, there are big bosses and small bosses, big gods and small gods. Small god does not mean he is God, he is a representative of God. This was the case in hebrew as well. That is why Moses was sent as "God" or "Elohim" to pharaoh. When you dont know something, be humble say "maybe".

Nevertheless, read a Christian source. Do you know where the word “Christian” comes from? | Jesus.net
What does the name 'Christian' mean?
Where the "Christian" Name Really Came From | RELEVANT Magazine
What is a Christian?
Christian means little Christ

Cheers.

Ha! “You can say "Like Christ" if you like.”... who is eating humble-pie now!!

But nonetheless, what you are not understanding is that the word and term, ‘God’ is not what people are led to believe.

The word, ‘God’ JUST MEANS:

• Ruler
• Mighty One / Hero
• The Greatest one in a context
• Law maker / Law Maintainer

What has happened is that the term and word has been personified by mythology such that persons, real or spiritual, are seen in terms beyond the context to which they belong.

Thus, because of the Greek pantheon of ‘Gods’, because of the Norse, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Philistine, the Roman... ‘family’ of gods, it has become common to view the ‘persons’ in human terms as if they are spirit bodies in an unseen world.

The holy angels are called, ‘Gods’ because they are indeed mighty in power and intelligence. They perform heroic activities under the orders of their creator, the almighty Law maker: YHWH.

There is no such thing as a ‘Little God’... except in paganism and mythology... a ‘God’ is a God over his contextual kingdom:

• A Father is God over his household
• A Principal is God over his School
• A Judge is God over his courtroom
• A Chess grand master is God over his game

See the context in all these cases...

There is no ‘minor god’ because anything less than the contextual GOD is not God!!

‘minor Gods’, ‘little Gods’, are only found in mythology and paganistic beliefs. Start talking of ‘Major God’ and ‘Minor God’ and you are straying into dangerous territory!!

Someone mentioned using the NAME of the God in reference rather than the TITLE (God). If you do this you will identify the correct contextual ‘God’ without confusing the issue.

For example, Jesus will become God’ over creation at the end of this time... but he will not be ‘God’ over Heaven in context of ALMIGHTY GOD: YHWH...

This is the reason why Trinitarians and other false beliefs claim that Jesus and Yhwh are the SAME GOD... The title is being abused to make false claims.

And check that Jesus will be RULER... ruler over creation, the lawmaker, the lawgiver over creation... almighty God: YHWH, has given him this rulership.but yet nowhere in scriptures does it say that Jesus will be bowed down to IN WORSHIP... certainly Jesus will be PRAISED, HONORED, AND GLORIFIED... but these thing are NOT WORSHIP. Only YHWH will be WORSHIPPED... ‘him who sits on the throne [of Heaven]’.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Trinitarianism is a lot like schrodinger's cat, isn't it?

 

[firedragon]

Ha! “You can say "Like Christ" if you like.”... who is eating humble-pie now!!

You should. Because you lied, and i think you have a problem in comprehension due to some kind of superiority complex which even makes you create new meanings for words and deny meanings as if you are a master of the language though you are below the level of a kindergarten kid.

Ciao.

 

[cataway]

In Christ means ............what ?

 

[firedragon]

Trinitarianism is a lot like schrodinger's cat, isn't it?

Not at all.

Sorry i dont mean to offend anyone but Scrodinger's cat paradox is an unanswered question, the Trinity is a decided answer to a question never asked before it was answered.

 

[cataway]

Not at all.

Sorry i dont mean to offend anyone but Scrodinger's cat paradox is an unanswered question, the Trinity is a decided answer to a question never asked before it was answered.

but cant be proven. by just believing in it

 

[firedragon]

but cant be proven. by just believing in it

Of course it cant be proven. In my opinion the trinity can never be proven in any manner whatsoever and all the apologetics are absolutely Eisegesis, not Exegesis.

the problem is, i want to understand how people view it, either as monotheism or polytheism. I am not justifying the trinity, or denying it and wish to argue for or against it. It is only now i am responding like this because people have been irrelevant from the get-go.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not at all.

Sorry i dont mean to offend anyone but Scrodinger's cat paradox is an unanswered question, the Trinity is a decided answer to a question never asked before it was answered.

Nobody has formed a coherent definition of what the trinity is as far as I know,
My snarky comment was to point out that trinitarians are claiming two different mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time.

 

[sojourner]

Nobody has formed a coherent definition of what the trinity is as far as I know,
My snarky comment was to point out that trinitarians are claiming two different mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time.

I don’t see how? Why is it that people insist that God be encapsulated into a being that is limited by particularity? Has anyone ever considered that God isn’t “a being?” In what way does one God in three Persons have to be two different, mutually-exclusive things?

 

[Milton Platt]

I don’t see how? Why is it that people insist that God be encapsulated into a being that is limited by particularity? Has anyone ever considered that God isn’t “a being?” In what way does one God in three Persons have to be two different, mutually-exclusive things?

I leave it up to people who believe in such things to define what they believe. I do get the sense that in any given religion, I could gather a thousand believers together and ask them to write out a description of their god, and I would get a thousand different descriptions.
I suppose you could have a god which isn't logically coherent if you wanted......but why?

 

[firedragon]

Nobody has formed a coherent definition of what the trinity is as far as I know,
My snarky comment was to point out that trinitarians are claiming two different mutually exclusive things to be true at the same time.

The trinity always had this variation in people’s definitions.

if you take any religion for that matter, ask people a few questions on the nature of God and people will differ.

 

[Soapy]

You should. Because you lied, and i think you have a problem in comprehension due to some kind of superiority complex which even makes you create new meanings for words and deny meanings as if you are a master of the language though you are below the level of a kindergarten kid.

Ciao.

I’m amazed by everyone of your posts recently.

Why do you accuse and yet refuse to expose the allegation?

What is it that I have said that you oppose and that you are claiming that I am at fault for?

What new meaning to which word have I created?

What does ‘Ciao’ mean?

 

[Soapy]

Of course it cant be proven. In my opinion the trinity can never be proven in any manner whatsoever and all the apologetics are absolutely Eisegesis, not Exegesis.

the problem is, i want to understand how people view it, either as monotheism or polytheism. I am not justifying the trinity, or denying it and wish to argue for or against it. It is only now i am responding like this because people have been irrelevant from the get-go.

Firedragon, you want to understand how people view the trinity?

I think you found your answer long ago in this thread...:

The way people view the trinity is in the same way the whole world views everything...

• Some believe
• Some do not believe
• Some may believe in one moment
• Some never believe in any moment
• ...

And so what else do you want to know about trinity?

You certainly are not asking about what trinity is or else you would have already discovered that it is utter bunkum in respect of comprehensiveness and cohesiveness as a complete belief.

You will have found out that it is a fluid belief that has its foundations on the shifting sands of paganism.

You will have found that it’s supporters are willing to go to any lengths to undermine, modify, and contaminate a well founded belief in order to maintain an increasingly combustible doctrine underwritten by the very enemies of the originator doctrine and belief.

You will have found out that the founding belief of the trinity doctrine is the Holy Roman Catholic Church (don’t take it that just because it has the word, “Holy”, in it makes it valid or credible!!).

You will have found out that the word, ‘GOD’, is a word from the German language, and that it’s original usage - not the word itself, but the meaning which it replaced, is RULER, LAWMAKER, LAWGIVER, MIGHTY ONE, HERO, MAJESTIC, SOVEREIGN, ULTIMATE IN AUTHORITY...

You will have found out that the trinity cannot justify itself in calling itself ‘Monotheistic’ as it refers to MANY RULERS (three, in fact). A belief that has many rulers is classed as ’POLYTHEISTIC’.

You will have discovered that in order to dupe its congregation into believing that three rulers is monotheistic, trinity devised the most incomprehensible ideology known in the mythical world... greater even than Greek mythology!

You will have found out that, though trinity claims that it’s three rulers are exactly and absolute equal in power and authority, it is completely clear that they are not...

You will have found out that only one of the three ‘rulers‘ is actually worshipped. And added to that, two of them are praised, honored, and glorified, but the third is not! I’m sure you would ask how that can be if they are all the one ‘ruler’.

You will find that there are more questions left unanswered by trinity believers than actually answered... and, in fact, if you press for answers you will find the most aggressive determination to not answer - and this from the very ones called ‘Church Leaders’... the foot soldiers will simply run away!

I could go on but the most improbable ideological belief in trinity that I find unanswered is why one of the rulers ‘emptied himself’ and entered into the world that trinity claims he created... and becomes ‘ruler’ over that created kingdom. The problem is that the kingdom he left is an almighty kingdom - Heaven.. and the kingdom he inherits is a physically limited constrained kingdom - earth. Is that not then a DEMOTION OF RULERSHIP?... afterall, the other two trinity ‘rulers’ are still RULERS OF THE GREATER KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I leave it up to people who believe in such things to define what they believe. I do get the sense that in any given religion, I could gather a thousand believers together and ask them to write out a description of their god, and I would get a thousand different descriptions.
I suppose you could have a god which isn't logically coherent if you wanted......but why?

I have studied the Trinity, and I have found that what Christian scholars say (IOW what strict orthodoxy is) and what real life Christians believe are quite often two very different things. The average Christian most often believes things that scholars would say are heresies. But honestly, if you are going to have a doctrine as nonsensical as the Trinity, what else would you expect.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

I dont mean to offend Christians. Thats why i did not discuss the source of this information etc etc.

The book is written by the GCI which was founded by Mr. Armstrong who's incestual affair with his own daughter was an issue at his divorce trial. Jesus was supposed come during his lifetime but later he wasnt so sure.

Anyway, the source and its message that Elohim is a family is trying to superimpose an English rendering into the Bible. For me, trying to understand a hebrew text is done from a hebrew perspective, and the same goes to any other text, Greek or arabic. Thus, this is not acceptable for me.

Sorry. No offense intended to any decent individual. So i apologise in advance.

Hi firedragon. Good afternoon. Yes, you're probably right. I had a great article on the subject but have no idea what I did with it. So I'm just going to comment on this subject from what I remember from hearing about this subject, please correct me if I am wrong. So as I understand, Elohim is a masculine plural noun, but why in the Hebrew Scriptures does it take a singular verb? In English you would say 'Elohim is' singular. It is a collective noun such as 'the flock is feeding' not t'he flock are feeding' or 'the crowd is being unruly'.

As a collective noun it requires a singular verb.

Elohim comprises of the family of the Most High. The Father (Yahweh), the Son (Yahshua) and sometimes angels too. (Note: The Messiah pre-existed with the Father. That's pretty straightforward from scriptures like John 8:58). In the Shema, echad is used in the same way as it is in Genesis 2 about man and wife becoming one flesh. In the Shema the Elohim family becomes one in the family name of Yahweh.

 

[Soapy]

Elohim comprises of the family of the Most High. The Father (Yahweh), the Son (Yahshua) and sometimes angels too. (Note: The Messiah pre-existed with the Father. That's pretty straightforward from scriptures like John 8:58). In the Shema, echad is used in the same way as it is in Genesis 2 about man and wife becoming one flesh. In the Shema the Elohim family becomes one in the family name of Yahweh.

The greatest gift a trinitarian has in his arsenal is that of starting a proof with an unfounded statement.

John 8:58 does not have an ounce of proof that Jesus Christ was claiming to be almighty God.

For a start, ‘I Am’ is NOT the name of Almighty God. The name of Almighty God, is:

• ‘YHWH’

Even if you take the MEANING of the Hebrew word, ‘YHWH’, it only means:

• ‘I am’ as in “I who does not change”

Hence the full expression of almighty God about himself to Moses was:

• ‘I who does not changes has always been and always will be the same”

You can take shorter interpretations as you like but the meaning is clear:

• ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, always was, is, and always will be... the same... immutable God’

Hence in Revelation, almighty God says:

• ‘I am he who was, is, and always will be’

But Jesus says:

• ‘I am he who was dead, but is now alive forevermore’

And guess what, Jesus becomes immortal AFTER he was raised from the dead... and he is given the name above all names: ‘YHWH’.

Please stop!!!!!! Stop and re-read that...

Jesus BECOMES... this certainly is MUTABILITY.

Plus, Jesus is GIVEN the name ‘YHWH’.. which means that Jesus IS NOW an ‘I AM’.

It is obvious that if Jesus WAS ‘I Am’ before any other time then he would not be given that name BY THE PRESIDING YHWH; his Father.

But be careful, there are not TWO YHWH’s, per se. YHWH, the name, is simply stating that the two are presiding IMMORTAL RULERS, each to their own contextual KINGDOM; The Father over Heaven (as was always) and the Son, now and forever after, over CREATION.

And just for information: Jesus ANSWERED the Jews telling them that he was,indeed, GREATER than their forefather, Abraham. The term, ‘BEFORE’ denotes position of authority in Jewish mindset. And THIS IS THE REASON the Jews took up stones to stone him.

You will notice the same dynamic statement by John the Baptist who stated that Jesus was ‘BEFORE’ him, yet we know that John was born six months before Jesus. Of course, John meant that Jesus was indeed greater than him.

Thiss of us with more astute minds will see that the story of John the Baptist is not stated in the scriptures for simple reasons. It is there as validation. Even if John was a forerunner (setting the ash straight for the messiah) it would ordinarily not be required to state that John was older.. it’s there for the very reason given - that the words, ‘Before me’ makes sense!

Just think that it makes no sense for the Jews to be wanting to stone Jesus to death just for saying his name was as God’s name !!! And, of course, that is not what Jesus said... ... Just supposing God’s name was ‘Fred’....:

• ‘Before Abraham was, Fred’...!

 

[cataway]

Now you can under stand the Trinity. Yeah right.
The Trinity explained at last...lol

The Trinity teaches that God asked himself to go to earth to save mankind.Then he agreed with himself and volunteered himself to himself to offer himself. Then God impregnated a women as himself, with himself. God prayed to himself and glorified himself repeatedly. God strengthened himself and talked to himself. Finally God forsook himself and sacrificed himself to prove his loyalty to himself. While dead he resurrected himself so he could exalt himself above himself. Then he sat at his own right hand and waited till he placed his enemies at his foot stool.Finally with Satan's forced defeated, God would turn his kingdom over to himself that all things would become everything to himself.

 

[firedragon]

Hi firedragon. Good afternoon. Yes, you're probably right. I had a great article on the subject but have no idea what I did with it. So I'm just going to comment on this subject from what I remember from hearing about this subject, please correct me if I am wrong. So as I understand, Elohim is a masculine plural noun, but why in the Hebrew Scriptures does it take a singular verb? In English you would say 'Elohim is' singular. It is a collective noun such as 'the flock is feeding' not t'he flock are feeding' or 'the crowd is being unruly'.

As a collective noun it requires a singular verb.

Elohim comprises of the family of the Most High. The Father (Yahweh), the Son (Yahshua) and sometimes angels too. (Note: The Messiah pre-existed with the Father. That's pretty straightforward from scriptures like John 8:58). In the Shema, echad is used in the same way as it is in Genesis 2 about man and wife becoming one flesh. In the Shema the Elohim family becomes one in the family name of Yahweh.

It is pluralis majestatis.

e.g. Song of Songs 5:16 His mouth is most sweet; Yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem’

Altogether lovely there is the hebrew word Muhammadhim, and you should notice the "im" at the end just loke "Elohim". Thats not several or many "altogether lovelies", it is one person, the love, and the plural is a pluralis majestatis.

This is not like a flock or a throw, it is a singular person addressed with a majestic plural. This is very common in many languages and common in hebrew as well.

Anyway its a futile discussion brother. Cheers.