How can there be a triune God Trinity?

[Starcomet]

I'm sure most wouldn't because most aren't educated. People's ignorance doesn't mean it isn't true.

If you would like to respond to the content of the video and point out the errors then I would be all ears. But otherwise, you're not really saying anything meaningful.

You misunderstand, I never said it was not true. I said it is no longer believed by Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

 

[SPF]

You misunderstand, I never said it was not true. I said it is no longer believed by Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

And my point is that your universal, sweeping statement is wrong, and I referenced Dr.Heiser to demonstrate that Christians DO still believe that, even if it is a minority because it’s so “secondary” that it’s rarely taught.

 

[Starcomet]

And my point is that your universal, sweeping statement is wrong, and I referenced Dr.Heiser to demonstrate that Christians DO still believe that, even if it is a minority because it’s so “secondary” that it’s rarely taught.

But the divine council proves nothing of the trinity. All it shows is that the sons of the God are lesser divine beings that advise and perform duties for God. And this would be deemed heresy by the majority of Christian denominations and even Jewish and Islamic sects besides the more esoteric/gnostic variants.

 

[SPF]

But the divine council proves nothing of the trinity. All it shows is that the sons of the God are lesser divine beings that advise and perform duties for God. And this would be deemed heresy by the majority of Christian denominations and even Jewish and Islamic sects besides the more esoteric/gnostic variants.

What precisely is heretical about it?

 

[Starcomet]

I do not believe it is heretical, but I know many would say it reduces God sovereignty by relying on a celestial bureaucracy to do things on his behalf. And some would argued that these "sons" being lesser deities violates the concept of monotheism.

 

[SPF]

I do not believe it is heretical, but I know many would say it reduces God sovereignty by relying on a celestial bureaucracy to do things on his behalf. And some would argued that these "sons" being lesser deities violates the concept of monotheism.

Well as you said it’s not heretical. And unless you can point to a denomination that has actually said it is heretical, once again I’m only seeing you talk out of your rear.

 

[Starcomet]

Well as you said it’s not heretical. And unless you can point to a denomination that has actually said it is heretical, once again I’m only seeing you talk out of your rear.

I said I do not think it is heretical, but I am sure if you explained it to most denominations they would find fault with it. Can you tell me why most Christians, Jews, and Muslims would be fine the idea that there is a heavenly bureaucracy of lesser gods that surround God and advise him and do tasks for him? Most of these "sons" of god were other nations gods that were reduced to servants to God because there was no Elohim like Elohim. He was a Elohim, but he was different from all the rest.

 

[Starcomet]

https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/related-articles/hebrew-henotheism

 

[HTacianas]

This doctrine exists nowhere in the New Testament. Even the mention of a father, son and holy spirit says nothing at all about a triune God. It makes perfect sense for there to be a father God, a holy man who is his "son" and divine inspiration called the Holy Spirit in Matthew, but it says nothing at all about a Triune God.
Besides, the NT Jesus himself repeatedly refers to "my father" and the difference between himself and his father, not to mention calling on his father on the cross. So it is pretty clear that the original Christian paradigm didn't have this concept at all.

I see that you are Jewish, and since Christianity has its origins in Judaism, maybe a discussion of the commonalities between the two might help.

The concept within Judaism of the shekinah, even though Judaism never identifies the shekinah as God, the shekinah is often spoken of as God. That the temple was the "house of God", but that God the Father never entered it, His divine presence, or glory, or Holy Spirit, did. The divine presence of God rested on Mount Sinai as well, that divine presence spoken of as God. So, we have God the Father, as well as something else often spoken of as God, but not God the Father, acting on behalf of God, and acting as God.

I don't think I have said anything so far to insult you, or Judaism for that matter, and I hope I don't. But we are now left with, rather than a Trinity, a "di-vinity" of sorts, God the Father and His Holy Spirit. Within Christianity we not only recognize that "di-vinity", but also the concept of the Logos, or Word, of God, acting much the same as the shekinah of Judaism. As John wrote, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, ...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. According to the Christian tradition I suppose he could have written "...the Word, and the shekinah, and they were God".

So in the end, that idea of a Trinity does appear in the New Testament. It is where the Church Fathers originally got the idea from.

 

[Duvduv]

There is no concroconcroca triune God in Judaism. And the Christian New Testament has no doctrine of it either. On the contrary, Jesus makes it clear that he and his father are different, and appeals to his father while on the cross.