Trinitarian Monotheism?

MKJ said:

Really? Somehow as a classics student, I missed those books.

Click to expand...

It's a pity you missed the books where the words of Socrates are recounted. The common scholarly solution to the Socratic Problem is that Plato's early works capture the tone and substance of what Socrates actually said. If you hadn't missed them, you might have read Socrates' moving discussion of the "swan song of death." Socrates identified with the swan, as fellow servants of Apollo:

Ceridwen said:

It's a pity you missed the books where the words of Socrates are recounted. The common scholarly solution to the Socratic Problem is that Plato's early works capture the tone and substance of what Socrates actually said. If you hadn't missed them, you might have read Socrates' moving discussion of the "swan song of death." Socrates identified with the swan, as fellow servants of Apollo:

"The swans in prophecy sing before too, but when they realize that they must die they sing most and most beautifully, as they rejoice that they are about to depart to join the god whose servants they are. But men, because of their own fear of death, tell lies about the swans and say that they lament their death and sing in sorrow. They do not reflect that no bird sings when it is hungry or cold or suffers in any other way. . . I believe that as they belong to Apollo, they are prophetic, have knowledge of the future, and sing of the blessings of the underworld, sing and rejoice on that day beyond what they did before. As I believe myself to be a fellow servant with the swans and dedicated to the same god, and have received from my master a gift of prophecy not inferior to theirs, I am no more despondent than they on leaving life." Phaedo.​

Click to expand...

If irony goes over your head to that degree, I am not surprised that you missed that speaking in terms of traditional Greek religion while also understanding philosophical ideas about god is possible.

progmonk said:

He got it from me as I quoted St Athanasius, see my previous post for an explanation of what I meant and a defense against his accusations of being like the Mormon deification.

Click to expand...

It was not delivered as an accusation.
I'm sorry it was received as such.

Thank you for attempting to clarify the distinction.
The words you used were "become god."

BTW, It would have been appreciated if you had identified those words as a quotation & attributed them,
Maybe next time?

Rick Otto said:

It was not delivered as an accusation.
I'm sorry it was received as such.

Thank you for attempting to clarify the distinction.The words you used were "become god."

Click to expand...

Was there something unclear in my response? The ascension of a Mormon believer to godhood is fundamentally different to the Christian concept of glorification because the Mormon believes that god had to become god, the Christian doesn't, God has always been and always will be God.

BTW, It would have been appreciated if you had identified those words as a quotation & attributed them,
Maybe next time?

Click to expand...

Eh, force of habit, I don't always specifically delineate who I'm quoting, or when I'm quoting I find without access to placing footnotes it becomes too messy, the post you quoted from isn't a good example, but there have been times when I have created posts from Scripture, the ECFs and other theologians to make high Christological statements where I have given reference this and it's been one word and then brackets with the references and I think it's somewhat silly.

progmonk said:

Was there something unclear in my response?

Click to expand...

Yes sir.
1. That it was/is a quote from St. Athenasius
2. The the words "become god" do not mean we aquire the nature & abilities of deities.
3. The difference between glorification and apotheosis for the aposthetized, not re:God's origin.
Since we're not in an acedemic setting, I feel comfortable with using Wiki...

"Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεοῦν, apotheoun "to deify"; in Latin deificatio "making divine"; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.

In theology, the term apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner."

That God was always God would make exactly what difference in the quality of one's apotheosis (Christian&/or Mormon)?

Rick Otto said:

Yes sir.
1. That it was/is a quote from St. Athenasius

Click to expand...

I have explained why I'm not in the habit of referencing my quotes outside of an academic setting.

2. The the words "become god" do not mean we aquire the nature & abilities of deities.

Click to expand...

I thought this would be clear as it is in Athanasius' writings from the juxtaposition between God's condescension and our glorification.

3. The difference between glorification and apotheosis for the aposthetized, not re:God's origin.

Click to expand...

You were asking how the Orthodox position differs from that of the Mormon and it fundamentally does lie in the origin of god as a being, the infinite pantheon of Mormon deities and implicit henotheism is so far removed from orthodoxy in all its forms that it shouldn't be a question.

Rick Otto said:

That God was always God would make exactly what difference in the quality of one's apotheosis (Christian&/or Mormon)?

Click to expand...

You still have the Chasm between created and uncreated things.

Rick Otto said:

Yes sir.
1. That it was/is a quote from St. Athenasius
2. The the words "become god" do not mean we aquire the nature & abilities of deities.
3. The difference between glorification and apotheosis for the aposthetized, not re:God's origin.
Since we're not in an acedemic setting, I feel comfortable with using Wiki...

"Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεοῦν, apotheoun "to deify"; in Latin deificatio "making divine"; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.

In theology, the term apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner."

That God was always God would make exactly what difference in the quality of one's apotheosis (Christian&/or Mormon)?

Click to expand...

My rough understanding is that in Christian glorification, we don't become gods like God did (as if God at some point in time was not God), but that through union we have a share in what is God's (i.e. His righteousness). To put that another way, if someone finds him or herself to possess anything through "glorification," it proceeded from God (i.e. Grace through faith), whereas the other model suggests otherwise.

progmonk said:

You still have the Chasm between created and uncreated things.

Click to expand...

^^^
This.

It makes all the difference. We can never be God, only, by His grace, be fully human as He created us to be.

Mary

But that sounds like we should expect eternal separation from God. Moreover, it reminds me of the Jews' rejection of Christ because of His claim to be one with the Father.

It's interesting, I think, that as Christians we are so accustomed to concepts like "the Holy Spirit is in us" that we don't pause to think about what that really means, and when we approach the same subject from a different angle, we draw completely different, if not contradictory conclusions (though understandably so, given the magnitude of what's being said). If God lives in you and you in God, just as Jesus Christ was one with the Father (John 17:22), then the conclusions we may draw about what is or is not possible for us, has consequences on what was or was not possible for Jesus Christ.

Nanopants said:

My rough understanding is that in Christian glorification, we don't become gods like God did (as if God at some point in time was not God), but that through union we have a share in what is God's (i.e. His righteousness). To put that another way, if someone finds him or herself to possess anything through "glorification," it proceeded from God (i.e. Grace through faith), whereas the other model suggests otherwise.

Click to expand...

Cool.
Often hard to judge from our limited perspective, which is the motive.

progmonk said:

You still have the Chasm between created and uncreated things.

Click to expand...

I dunno, prog.
I mean, I accept your answer intuitively, but I can't imagine exactly what that means.
I feel like I'm indwelt, so "chasm" doesn't relate.
Unless you are describing a relationship situation as opposed to a physical state.
I'm feelin' terminology drag.
I gotta chill & rack out.
Hey, thanks for mentioning that other Mormon stuff. I was unaware of a pantheon.
Nanopants made me feel better about it, putting in terms of God "sharing" some of His divinity, & I think that corresponds to the "condescencion" model.
Thanks for chimin' in, Mary ofBethany.
G'night, Love y'all!

Rick Otto said:

I dunno, prog.
I mean, I accept your answer intuitively, but I can't imagine exactly what that means.
I feel like I'm indwelt, so "chasm" doesn't relate.
Unless you are describing a relationship situation as opposed to a physical state.

Click to expand...

It is a relationship state, we will continue to have reliance and dependence upon him for our sustenance as we do now, he is the source of all being.

Hey, thanks for mentioning that other Mormon stuff. I was unaware of a pantheon.

Click to expand...

Well they believe God had a god, and that god had a god, and so on ad infinitum, that is what I mean by pantheon even though they are incredibly henotheistic.

Nanopants made me feel better about it, putting in terms of God "sharing" some of His divinity, & I think that corresponds to the "condescencion" model.

Click to expand...

Yes, we will be god only in the sense that we share in him truly and without barrier, whereas to continue with the polemic against the Mormon they believe we will be gods in our own right.

progmonk said:

It is a relationship state, we will continue to have reliance and dependence upon him for our sustenance as we do now, he is the source of all being.


Well they believe God had a god, and that god had a god, and so on ad infinitum, that is what I mean by pantheon even though they are incredibly henotheistic.


Yes, we will be god only in the sense that we share in him truly and without barrier, whereas to continue with the polemic against the Mormon they believe we will be gods in our own right.

Click to expand...

This is where the Orthodox distinction of Energies and Essence, comes in. We can never share in God's Essence (what God Is), but He shares with us His Energies (Grace).

Mary

Ceridwen said:

I think that is saying a lot, actually! I think this is the first opinion shared on this thread that actually answers the question posed. Your opinion is that Christian trinitarianism is more like Islamic monotheism than Pagan polytheism. That opinion is worthwhile.

However, I would like to ask, you say "Multiple Persons Involved" -- why might this be a small thing for you when compare the three forms of theology? Perhaps the interactive and relational nature of the Trinity ought to be more emphasized in our worship if we as Christians find Islam more familiar than paganism.

Click to expand...

I would choose the "Allah" icon because the Shema states that the Lord is One God. Although God can be expressed in his attributes as three Persons, God is One in his essence.

I have learned that when I try to over think the trinity doctrine I just get confused. It can be a very simple doctrine, but very difficult to explain. Don't over think it. It is not that complicated.

Ceridwen said:

Would you say that Christian Trinitarianism is more like Pagan Polytheism (e.g. the Greek Twelve Olympians Pantheon) or more like Islamic Monotheism (Tawheed)? Obviously it is different from both, but which is it more similar to?

Click to expand...

If I may say....

Others may disagree - but I do think that there are multiple ways that Christian Trinitarianism is actually reflected well within the system of Islam and yet not understood due to the issue of language. And when understanding what's actually said in the Quran rather than going with what most Imams do with giving cultural Islamic teaching instead of what's in the text (just as it is with Christian teaching based on culture rather than scripture), it's very clear that Jesus is presented as He is....

Using the Quran to Explain the Incarnation of Jesus to Muslims - YouTube

Geoffrey Parrinder noted it well in his book entitled "Jesus in the Quran"

It's really best to see the Trinity as Radical Monotheism....and The Trinity as radical monotheism has always been a present factor for many Muslims just as it has been for Jews in Judaism when it comes to believing in Christ and yet noting their not being against the concept of the Holy Spirit or Yeshua being the same and yet seperate from the Father. And again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity .

Many Muslims have come to faith in Yeshua due to others presenting the Gospel via the Quran when it comes to examining how the Quran itself already had partial revelation within it showing that Isa was always seen as greater than Muhammad - that He was the Spirit of God, Eternal and the one who was the greatest revelation. Again, according to what many Imans say, they actually don't speak based on what the Quran actually says and thus they have cultural Islam rather than Quranic Islam - in the same way that others have cultural Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity. And it's very effective..

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171).

One can notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45). Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

For Muslim Background Believers, they may go back to Mosque with family and appreciate the services - appreciating the background they came from/the things God showed them in it (even though it was incomplete and partial revelation) and still remembering how Isa is the Messiah. Some who came out of Islam may ask "Why are even appreciating anything you learned from your past? You have Christ now!!!!" - and yet others disagreeing realize that just because certain things were used wrongly doesn't mean you can't appreciate it. .......for many were able to come to trust in the Lord after seeing things in the Quran or their background in various ways the Lord used to help them see how Isa Al Masih was the Messiah - they didn't have to forsake all aspects of who they were in order to serve the Lord.....

Thekla said:

the persons of the Godhead are distinct but relational and one thus "God is love" as John states. This is not the case with the Olympians (or other gods that I know of). Further, in discussing this issue, a list was made of the abilities etc. of the persons of the Holy Trinity in Scripture, and were found to have the same attributes with the exception that the Father originates, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. This is again not the case with the Olympians, etc.

Click to expand...

Very excellent points - and yet within that there's the dynamic of the Trinity having relationship amongst itself just as it is within a Human Family of Father, Mother and Son...and on a side note, to be clear r with the Family Dynamic - as noted elsewhere more in-depth - it is challenging seeing others tackle other possibilities of there being a FEMININE Aspect of the GOD-Head, as it relates to the concept of Family (i.e. Father, Son, Mother, etc), "Lady Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 (and how the Historical Church often viewed the issue)----and understanding the reasons behind why many had issues with it down in later centuries of the Early Church.[/SIZE] [/COLOR][/FONT]. If aware of what is taught in the Syriac Orthodox CHurch on the Holy Spirit and women, it's very surprising to see their thoughts on a Feminine Holy SPirit (Even though others disagree in regards to the reasons why feminine language was used by parts of Ancient Christendom)- more here at The Role of Women in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch*/The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac Literature or The Holy Spirit: Classic and Contemporary Readings - Page 113


And on the issue of the Trinity having a highly SOCIAL aspect to it even as all are unified together - for good review on the issue, one can consider going here:

• social trinity | Eclectic Orthodoxy

That said (and this are my personal thoughts - as I'm not saying at this point I speak for the Church)......It was not always the case that one was automatically assumed to not be a Christian if he or she was Non-Trinitarian since there were many wrestlings with how to interpret the nature of the Lord - specifically with Binitarianism ...specifically [URL="http://youtu.be/T2WvZ0AcXi4"]Binitarian Monotheism and Jewish Binitarianism since that was indeed[/URL] a very prevalent view within the early church (paticularly amongst the Jewish branch of the Church) - and knowing many Messianic Jews who've had to deal with the issue, it's something I think needs to be dealt with in much sensitivity since it is an ever-present issue that is being wrestled with within Messianic Judaism as well as other places today (some of this discussed before - such as here, here and here).

For many (seeing it firsthand growing up with friends and family involved in it - especially when I was in college in Orangeburg, South Carolina where it was big), I have seen where many in Oneness Pentecostalism do not simply give lip service to the Lord - they were devoted to proclaiming the Gospel and living devout/God-fearing lives ...and I don't think it'd be good for us to sum them all up as being the same due to where others did (and still do, unfortunately) a LOT of mess in their name. For Commonality doesn't mean all sides are equal, just as believers in a Prebysterian church who acknowledge Yeshua is a Jew doesn't mean they're the same as a Messianic fellowship saying the same thing and yet living distinctly. Having friends that're Oneness Pentecostals since I grew up with that, there were (and still are a lot of variations) and language issues --- and it seems that it was something many seemed to focus too much on at times. The issue is being discussed more so within the body and there's a lot of mutual dialouge going on as to how often misunderstandings occur even when there's similarity. In example, T.D Jakes (who came from a Oneness Pentecostalism background) actually shared in depth with many notable teachers/preachers who had a Trinitarian background and shared on his reasons for how the Trinity can be misunderstood ( more shared here, here, here, here, here and here ). As James McDonald said, "I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His [Jakes's] website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations."

And with the Trinity itself, for those not adhering to it, part of why I tended to give others grace if they didn't understand it was due to what I was exposed to growing up when seeing the ways Jews and other groups wrestled over the issue.....and yet being noted by others in the Church as followers of the Lord. I'm reminded of something else that was brought up years ago in another thread on similar dynamics in regard to Non-Trinitarian groups such as Muslims / Islam (whom St. John of Damascus noted to be a Christian Heresy rather than another religion...specifically calling it the "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" and also giving the first significant Christian theological and apologetic answer to Islam - also giving The. Fountain of Wisdom, which was a defence of the doctrine of the Trinity penned by John of Damascus ...more here and here). It's from an article written by a priest in the ROCOR that discusses if Islam and Judaism worship the same God as us.

• The Monotheistic Religions; Do We Have the Same God That Non-Christians Have?

It seemed he was arguing, among other things, that the Jews worshiped a Trinitarian God...even though others have noted how it would be pretty hard to convincingly maintain that they did so knowingly, at least in regards to the bulk of the Jews - for if they knowingly worshipped a Trinitarian God, the entire battle with accepting Christ might have been rather less shocking to them. But if they could, without entirely realizing it, worship a Triniarian God, then it is not necessarily impossible that someone else, like modern Jews or Muslims or other Christian groups emphasizing the oneness of God in a desire to honor Him (even though mistaken), could as well - more discussed in places such as Salvation of Muslims and Jews (as well as here, here and here)..

But at the end of the day, we have to always keep God's Mercy in mind when it comes to how He interacts with others.

Personally, although I can see the validity of others not believing in a Trinity and yet still seeing Christ as the Messiah/God and Salvation of all, of course I believe that the Trinity is the Orthodox way to go for completion - in large part due to seeing the constant references of Jesus to the "Father" and to the "Spirit", and the record that all three were present in some way at John's baptism. Arguably during Jesus' ministry, we were actually WATCHING 2 "persons" of the Trinity operating together - i.e. the "Son" indwelled by the "Spirit".

Thekla said:

There was a time when icons showing God the Father as the " Ancient of Days" were produced; according to some historians of iconography, this was due to western influence. There is some question on the canonicity of this mode of representation, but also this use is not found as often.

Click to expand...

Amazing considering the ways that things progressed in regards to what you noted...

Gxg (G²);65417229 said:

If I may say....

Others may disagree - but I do think that there are multiple ways that Christian Trinitarianism is actually reflected well within the system of Islam and yet not understood due to the issue of language. And when understanding what's actually said in the Quran rather than going with what most Imams do with giving cultural Islamic teaching instead of what's in the text (just as it is with Christian teaching based on culture rather than scripture), it's very clear that Jesus is presented as He is....

Using the Quran to Explain the Incarnation of Jesus to Muslims - YouTube

Geoffrey Parrinder noted it well in his book entitled "Jesus in the Quran"

It's really best to see the Trinity as Radical Monotheism....and The Trinity as radical monotheism has always been a present factor for many Muslims just as it has been for Jews in Judaism when it comes to believing in Christ and yet noting their not being against the concept of the Holy Spirit or Yeshua being the same and yet seperate from the Father. And again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity .

Many Muslims have come to faith in Yeshua due to others presenting the Gospel via the Quran when it comes to examining how the Quran itself already had partial revelation within it showing that Isa was always seen as greater than Muhammad - that He was the Spirit of God, Eternal and the one who was the greatest revelation. Again, according to what many Imans say, they actually don't speak based on what the Quran actually says and thus they have cultural Islam rather than Quranic Islam - in the same way that others have cultural Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity. And it's very effective..

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171).

One can notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45). Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

For Muslim Background Believers, they may go back to Mosque with family and appreciate the services - appreciating the background they came from/the things God showed them in it (even though it was incomplete and partial revelation) and still remembering how Isa is the Messiah. Some who came out of Islam may ask "Why are even appreciating anything you learned from your past? You have Christ now!!!!" - and yet others disagreeing realize that just because certain things were used wrongly doesn't mean you can't appreciate it. .......for many were able to come to trust in the Lord after seeing things in the Quran or their background in various ways the Lord used to help them see how Isa Al Masih was the Messiah - they didn't have to forsake all aspects of who they were in order to serve the Lord.....

Click to expand...

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking. The Quran views Jesus as a Prophet and doesn't make a distinction between them in the sense of giving Jesus a higher rank.

But I think we need to emphasize the monotheism of Christianity in the sense that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One. IMHO, I think that God as a relationship of Three Persons is overemphasized while God as One Being is underemphasized. Jesus says, "I and my Father are One."