Trinitarian Monotheism?

[Philothei]

Socrates was a simple polytheist who believed in the Greek olympian pantheon, and therefore can serve as a model of Greek paganism rather than Greek philosophy. Western philosophy may have been sparked by him, but he was no philosopher. His last words were directing a sacrifice to one of the gods. ("Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt.") He denied having any knowledge or wisdom beyond the common person. ("I having no knowledge, don't think I have any." Apology.)

That is such a convoluted and shallow view of Socrates.... Of course Socrates did not view the Pantheon as actual gods...Let us not mix up mythology versus Philosophy and to say he was not a philosopher? This has been refuted before . It is not even a case at all. He sacrificed to gods that does not mean he believed the Pantheon Christ and his family brought pegions to the temple was Christ pagan?
Just because he was humble and he did teach that common sense is intelligence that does not make him a 'common" man and not a philosopher either.

 

[Ceridwen]

That is such a convoluted and shallow view of Socrates.... Of course Socrates did not view the Pantheon as actual gods...Let us not mix up mythology versus Philosophy and to say he was not a philosopher? This has been refuted before . It is not even a case at all. He sacrificed to gods that does not mean he believed the Pantheon Christ and his family brought pegions to the temple was Christ pagan?
Just because he was humble and he did teach that common sense is intelligence that does not make him a 'common" man and not a philosopher either.

Not worth my comment. Read Socrates' own words, then come back.

 

[Nanopants]

You realize that Socrates was supposedly executed because he persistently questioned and shamed his opponents by exposing how little they actually knew, right? It's where we get the "Socratic method," and some of those questions were aimed at the common beliefs of his day, including paganism.

 

[Philothei]

Not worth my comment. Read Socrates' own words, then come back.

Read it twice and once from the original

He talks about a god NOT many and that is the fact. Distorting what he said will not persuade anyone about what is commonly known

Here is the place of sacrifice that Paul so openly talked about; about the unknown God:

except in you want to find resort to yet another conspiracy theory that is the place that Paul talked about.

 

[truefiction1]

Somehow I don't get the idea from my own limited reading of Greek mythology that the Greek gods were revered as mysteries beyond all human ability to comprehend. They seemed more to me like primitive anthropomorphic projections. The Trinity, on the other hand, is understood to be a being that defies all understanding. One of our toe nails would have a better chance of comprehending what we are than we do of comprehending the Trinity.

That being said, our understanding of God seems to me to be more akin to that of the Muslims, Who also hold that God is so much greater than us that we cannot possibly fathom what God is. This is how they typically justify their rejection of the Incarnation, the idea that "God became flesh". God, to them is so great that He could not become a mere creature like us. That, they claim, is absurd.

 

[Thekla]

Not worth my comment. Read Socrates' own words, then come back.

Actually, Socrates didn't leave any writings; we're stuck with Plato ...

from the link given previously:

The Christian God creates the world out of nothing, but Plato's God is less of a creator and more of an architect, fashioning a universe out of existing material. He is finite, in the sense that his action is limited by the possibilities of his material. Good in the world is not an actuality but an achievement. God finds the world bad, or rather indifferent, and introduces good into it. God is in the world fighting for the victory of good and against evil.

"For as we acknowledge the heaven to be full of many goods and also of evils, and of more evils than goods, there is, as we affirm, an immortal conflict going on among us, which requires marvelous watchfulness; and in that conflict the gods and demigods are our allies, and we are their property."1​

Plato's God bears a remarkable similarity to modern conceptions of God, especially that of James; according to James, too, God is finite and wages a battle against the forces of evil in the world. God cares for the least as well as for the greatest of creatures; he not only makes the world but watches over it; he is a Providence. Aristotle's God is aloof, subsisting in Olympian detachment and contemplating only himself; love is of the world to God. But Plato's God is in the world and with man; he seeks out his creatures; love flows from him to the world. Whether it be true that Aristotle is less of a dualist than Plato so far as philosophy of nature is concerned, there can be no doubt that in the sphere of philosophy of religion Plato is much less a dualistic than Aristotle. Aristotle emphasizes the detachment of God from the world, Plato the presence of God in the world. But whereas pantheism interprets the divine presence as an identity of God with the whole, and is therefore led to regard evil as illusory, Plato regards God as present with the world, and evil as a reality to be combated. In sum, the metaphysical situation is analyzable into three ultimate factors: God, the principle of the finite (or the ideas, or the good), and the. principle of the infinite (or matter, or the indeterminate). The actual order is explained by reference to these three factors. An actual entity is a mixture of the finite with the infinite, brought about by God -- an infusion of form into the indeterminate, an organization of material according to the pattern of the ideas. The created world comprises both physical objects and souls. The former are temporal and perishable; souls too are temporal, since they are 'mixtures', i. e., created objects. But they are so created as to endure forever.



Raphael Demos, from introduction to Plato Selections

 

[Philothei]

What Socrates(through Plato) says about the unknown god is the first sign of moving out from paganism and into "monotheism" for civilized world back then. So if one denies that there was a monotheistic notion then we should deny that same concept that ever existed in the Hebrew religion and that is wrong! In the OT God is called he elohim.... why? Cause there is a 'typos" of the Holy Trinity.

And God said "Let us make man"..... Is Judaism polytheistic too?

 

[Rick Otto]

I think Kylissa, hedrick, & Truefiction are right: it's about quality, not quantity.

 

[Albion]

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?

Islam is derived from Judaism and Christianity. It is what Mohammad wove together with the Arab cultural values that he grew up with. But they--the Arabs of his background--were not monotheistic.

Obviously, then, the answer to your question is that Islam is more like "Christian Trinitarianism" than Paganism, even though Muslims make a big point of describing the Christian concept of God as though it amounts to us believing in three separate beings. But that's their doing, not our belief system.

 

[MKJ]

If you really mean poetic Greek depictions, as opposed to Isam, Islam is closer. It is very close structurally to Judaism. And the God of Islam metaphysically speaking plays the same roe as the Jewish God or the Father in Christianity - he is the first cause and ground of all being.

Poetic Greek depictions of the gods though are arguably not really comparable. It is clear that in those stories, the gods are not first causes in the way we mean when we talk about God philosophically. They are not the source of themselves, and they are subject to higher powers.

So we might say that if we look at poetic Greek religion holistically, it has recognizable elements. The thing is, it isn't systematic, it is literary.

Ancient Greek philosophy is very close to Christian ideas of God, even having Trinitarian elements, but arranged horizontally rather than vertically.

All of these systems - philosophic Greek, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, made use of the same philosophic sources and influenced each other. Ancient Alexandria had influential philosophers from the Jewish Greek and Christian religions, and they pretty clearly were all reading each others' books, and probably arguing at dinner parties. Islam of course was not founded until later, but the 12th century Christian explosion of philosophic work came in part through the Arab preservation and commentary on the Greeks.

 

[MKJ]

Not worth my comment. Read Socrates' own words, then come back.

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

Participating in Greek religion and using its language does not mean that Socrates, or Plato, rejected the philosophic understanding or didn't know about it. Many Greeks and Romans did both.

 

[MKJ]

Actually, Socrates didn't leave any writings; we're stuck with Plato ...

from the link given previously:

The Christian God creates the world out of nothing, but Plato's God is less of a creator and more of an architect, fashioning a universe out of existing material. He is finite, in the sense that his action is limited by the possibilities of his material. Good in the world is not an actuality but an achievement. God finds the world bad, or rather indifferent, and introduces good into it. God is in the world fighting for the victory of good and against evil.

"For as we acknowledge the heaven to be full of many goods and also of evils, and of more evils than goods, there is, as we affirm, an immortal conflict going on among us, which requires marvelous watchfulness; and in that conflict the gods and demigods are our allies, and we are their property."1​

Plato's God bears a remarkable similarity to modern conceptions of God, especially that of James; according to James, too, God is finite and wages a battle against the forces of evil in the world. God cares for the least as well as for the greatest of creatures; he not only makes the world but watches over it; he is a Providence. Aristotle's God is aloof, subsisting in Olympian detachment and contemplating only himself; love is of the world to God. But Plato's God is in the world and with man; he seeks out his creatures; love flows from him to the world. Whether it be true that Aristotle is less of a dualist than Plato so far as philosophy of nature is concerned, there can be no doubt that in the sphere of philosophy of religion Plato is much less a dualistic than Aristotle. Aristotle emphasizes the detachment of God from the world, Plato the presence of God in the world. But whereas pantheism interprets the divine presence as an identity of God with the whole, and is therefore led to regard evil as illusory, Plato regards God as present with the world, and evil as a reality to be combated. In sum, the metaphysical situation is analyzable into three ultimate factors: God, the principle of the finite (or the ideas, or the good), and the. principle of the infinite (or matter, or the indeterminate). The actual order is explained by reference to these three factors. An actual entity is a mixture of the finite with the infinite, brought about by God -- an infusion of form into the indeterminate, an organization of material according to the pattern of the ideas. The created world comprises both physical objects and souls. The former are temporal and perishable; souls too are temporal, since they are 'mixtures', i. e., created objects. But they are so created as to endure forever.



Raphael Demos, from introduction to Plato Selections

Interesting - I don't agree with his conception of the difference between Aristotle and Plato though. In fact, I rather violently disagree with it. Plato's concept of God was just as disengaged or more-so than Aristotle's, just as unknowing of its creation. Aristotle, at least, placed the principle for creation, God as his own object, within the godhead itself, unlike Plato who wanted to separate it out to preserve God from contamination with the physical as much as possible. And Plato thought the forms were properly of god while their instantiation in matter lessened them, whereas Aristotle thought that form and matter were in truth unified and matter was not a separate substance or substrate.

 

[Thekla]

Interesting - I don't agree with his conception of the difference between Aristotle and Plato though. In fact, I rather violently disagree with it. Plato's concept of God was just as disengaged or more-so than Aristotle's, just as unknowing of its creation. Aristotle, at least, placed the principle for creation, God as his own object, within the godhead itself, unlike Plato who wanted to separate it out to preserve God from contamination with the physical as much as possible. And Plato thought the forms were properly of god while their instantiation in matter lessened them, whereas Aristotle thought that form and matter were in truth unified and matter was not a separate substance or substrate.

Interesting, thanks

RD is one Greek I won't argue with, though (and he's of memory now).

But, iirc, you can read more of his argument on Plato's thought here:
https://archive.org/details/philosophyofplat001587mbp

 

[Keachian]

The implicit and explicit unitarianism of Islamic monotheism is incompatible with the Christian announcement of the Icon of God in Christ. In response to the Islamic claims of sheer transcendance of the unitarian god, we say Immanuel, God condescended to us, God became man, so that man might become god, his love which is the ebbing and flowing between the persons he chose to extend to us through his creation and reconciliation of us to himself, he has formed us into his community and dwells among us as we are the Temple of his Holy Spirit.

In contrast to the pantheon of gods who came out of creation our God is the source of all being, his purposes stand forever, while theirs are subverted by one another and by humans as well.

 

[Rick Otto]

...so that man might become god,

Sounds like Mormons. Apotheosis?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sounds like Mormons. Apotheosis?

Not necessarily.

I'd say maybe a little too succinct, but it can also be indicative of Orthodox theosis. Possibly some other theologies as well.

I started a thread on it a while back, and found some people's reactions to be very quick without finding out what was really involved, and I was only trying to ask a question.

 

[Keachian]

Sounds like Mormons. Apotheosis?

theosis or glorification as it is known by in the West is far older and far more different to the Mormon concept of the "divine" for the Mormon their becoming god is a result of their striving and obedience to the tenants of Mormonism, for the Christian it is God's final act in the Sanctification of the Believer and his Condescension to us, from Heaven he came and sought her, that she might be his Bride, we are to become one with Him.

 

[Keachian]

Not necessarily. (Not sure where you're getting the quote from.)

I'd say maybe not well stated (a little too succinct) but it can also be indicative of Orthodox theosis. Possibly some other theologies as well.

I started a thread on it a while back, and found some people's reactions to be very quick without finding out what was really involved, and I was only trying to ask a question.

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.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

I figured all that out when I read your post (I'm sorry, I thought I had read everything but I must have gotten distracted.) I edited my post but you beat me to it.

I had a feeling someone was talking about theosis though.

 

[Thekla]

The implicit and explicit unitarianism of Islamic monotheism is incompatible with the Christian announcement of the Icon of God in Christ. In response to the Islamic claims of sheer transcendance of the unitarian god, we say Immanuel, God condescended to us, God became man, so that man might become god, his love which is the ebbing and flowing between the persons he chose to extend to us through his creation and reconciliation of us to himself, he has formed us into his community and dwells among us as we are the Temple of his Holy Spirit.

In contrast to the pantheon of gods who came out of creation our God is the source of all being, his purposes stand forever, while theirs are subverted by one another and by humans as well.