Trinity=Monotheism?

[Simonline]

Can someone please explain how saying that there are three distinct Persons (who are not each other) that are one in being/substance/essence/nature/etc and are one God is just as monotheistic as saying that there is only one Person that is God.

Monotheism is the idea that God is One. Whether that One God exists as Mono-personal (Unitarian) or Tri-Personal (Trinitarian) is a separate issue.

Any religion or faith that believes there is but One God is by definition Monotheistic. Unitarianism and Trinitarianism are simply theological distinctions within Monotheism - the belief in One God.

Only if the Three Persons existed as separate from each other rather than just distinct from each other would it then cease to be Monotheism and become Tritheism (i.e. 3 (separate (and therfore finite)) gods).

According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the One and Only Divine Creator YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal rather than Mono-Personal. It is because YHWH is One God that we address Him (not 'They') as 'He'.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

It's a rather easy going explanation. Three persons in one God. Monotheism is the belief in one God. Even if you disregard the two other persons as God and just one, the other two are the same as the one you would regard as God.

No. Not 'three persons in one God'?! God is not a mathematical set. YHWH is One God Who exists Tri-Personally rather than Mono-Personally like His finite human creatures.

Now, could you explain how three persons as one God is not monotheistic?

Again, you've got it back-to-front. It is One God existing as Three Persons rather than just One Person not Three Persons existing as One God. It is God that is the context for the Persons, not vice versa.

Simonline.

 

[elopez]

No. Not 'three persons in one God'?! God is not a mathematical set. YHWH is One God Who exists Tri-Personally rather than Mono-Personally like His finite human creatures.

So the Trinity is not three persons in one God? I'm not understanding how that is not saying one God who exists. Care to elaborate?

Again, you've got it back-to-front. It is One God existing as Three Persons rather than just One Person not Three Persons existing as One God. It is God that is the context for the Persons, not vice versa.

Well, I've never said anything about one God existing as one person, I've actually argued against that idea in this thread. I've said three persons in one God, which again I virtually see no difference in saying that than rather one God existing as three persons. What is the relevant difference that makes the former incorrect? I just don't think it matters how you put it as it is saying the same exact thing.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I don't think failure to fit an understanding of Christianity into the mold of "monotheism" would be an argument against it. I believe God is One without a second. He is the only true existent. I also think the divine expresses itself to us under a variety of forms, manifestations, images, etc... If that's "monotheistic" then great. If not that's fine with me too. Why would someone need to prove monotheism? Is the word in the Bible maybe?

 

[Ormly]

I don't think failure to fit an understanding of Christianity into the mold of "monotheism" would be an argument against it. I believe God is One without a second. He is the only true existent. I also think the divine expresses itself to us under a variety of forms, manifestations, images, etc... If that's "monotheistic" then great. If not that's fine with me too. Why would someone need to prove monotheism? Is the word in the Bible maybe?

:
What do you mean "expresses itself in a variety of forms when Jesus proclaimed this: "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father".

That tells me, first of all, God is a Father, which really makes more sense when thinking (Who) did the creating as recorded in the Genesis account of things. Secondly, though a Spirit, God has a form that is expressed ONLY in the Word of Himself manifested in what is now, glorified flesh. This same glorified flesh will soon come again to settle these kinds of issues. The bible is pretty clear about this happening in this generation.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

What do you mean "expresses itself in a variety of forms when Jesus proclaimed this: "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father".

The Father expressed himself in the son. Why would that be an argument against what I said? My main point was that there is no need to prove or disprove "monotheism" though. Jesus never used the term did he ?

 

[Ormly]

The Father expressed himself in the son. Why would that be an argument against what I said? My main point was that there is no need to prove or disprove "monotheism" though. Jesus never used the term did he ?

I don't mean for this to be a play on words however, I rather believe, from the record, Jesus expressed the Father.

Monotheism ultimately will be fully expressed in Jesus Christ.... and that soon.

 

[Simonline]

So the Trinity is not three persons in one God? I'm not understanding how that is not saying one God who exists. Care to elaborate?

The Trinity is One God Who simultaneously exists as Three Persons rather than One Persons as is the case with His finite human creatures.

When explaining the Trinity it is important that one starts with the Single Entity that is God and then moves to the way that that One God exists (i.e. as Three Persons rather than One Person). One should not start with the Three Persons and then move to include them in the Single Entity that is God since this infers that the Three Persons initially existed separately but then 'came together' to become 'One God' but this is not the case.

Well, I've never said anything about one God existing as one person, I've actually argued against that idea in this thread.

No-one has said that you have ever argued for Unitarianism but Unitarianism is a form of Monotheism (albeit a heretical one). My reference to the One God existing as Three Persons rather than One Person was not an attack on you as a Trinitarian but on the heresy of Unitarianism itself.

I've said three persons in one God, which again I virtually see no difference in saying that than rather one God existing as three persons. What is the relevant difference that makes the former incorrect? I just don't think it matters how you put it as it is saying the same exact thing.

Except that the Persons don't exist 'inside' God (as if God is a mathematical set or some kind of 'gossamer shell')? They ARE God. The One God exists as Tri-Personal.

Simonline.

 

[Ormly]

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 (KJV)

Note: Jesus (the man) is not in the mix. . . not yet.

 

[Simonline]

I don't think failure to fit an understanding of Christianity into the mold of "monotheism" would be an argument against it.

Excuse me?! What failure? Monotheism is not a 'mold' it is a categorical reference to the existence of God. Since God has revealed Himself to be a single entity then monotheism is a correct categorization of God.

I believe God is One without a second. He is the only true existent.

Then you would be incorrect The existence of the Creation is as true and as real as that of the Creator. The only difference is that the existence of the Creation is contingent upon that of the Creator whilst the existence of the Creator Himself is non-contingent.

I also think the divine expresses itself to us under a variety of forms, manifestations, images, etc...

Also not true.

Firstly, the God of the Bible exists as both Infinite and Personal. Therefore the God of the Bible is not an 'it'. The God of the Bible is a 'He'. It sounds like your understanding of 'God' may be more akin to the Eastern concept of Monistic Pantheism with its insistance that that which is Personal is maya ('illusion') something from which to be escaped through repeated reincarnation until one has eventually realized for oneself that personality and the concept of morality which stems from it is just maya. Only then does one attain Nirvanah?! This entire philosophical world view is actually anathema to Judeo-Christianity.

If that's "monotheistic" then great. If not that's fine with me too. Why would someone need to prove monotheism? Is the word in the Bible maybe?

That of which you speak is definitely monistic (i.e. that all is one) but it is equally definitely NOT theistic (i.e. that God is Personal).

One would need to prove that one's faith is in the Montheisitic God of the Bible if one wished to be accepted as a Christian rather than denounced as a heretic by the rest of orthodox Judeo-Christianity.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

:
What do you mean "expresses itself in a variety of forms when Jesus proclaimed this: "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father".

Good question!

That tells me, first of all, God is a Father, which really makes more sense when thinking (Who) did the creating as recorded in the Genesis account of things.

Actually, according to the Scriptures as a whole (and not just isolated proof-texts) God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Genesis declares that it was God who brought the Creation into existence. However, Colossians.1:15-16 declares that it was the Son who both brought the Creation into existence and sustains it on a moment by moment basis. Therefore it was NOT the Father alone who brought the Creation into existence as you are wrongly trying to assert?!

Secondly, though a Spirit, God has a form that is expressed ONLY in the Word of Himself manifested in what is now, glorified flesh. This same glorified flesh will soon come again to settle these kinds of issues. The bible is pretty clear about this happening in this generation.

Firstly, God is Spirit (Jn.4:24) not 'a' spirit (i.e. 'one amongst many') since He is Infinite and therefore has no equal.

Secondly, God as Spirit is absolutely formless. God has no form. When the Scriptures declare that 'no man has ever seen God' it is for one reason and one reason only - there is no form to see?! The Son as the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator YHWH only has a form because He has now incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. It is as the human creature (not the Divine Creator (Jn.1:1; 4:24)) that the Person of the Son now exists as corporeal (Jn.1:14; 14:28; Heb.2:17).

If the Word is God (Jn.1:1) then by definition the Word is Personal because God does not do Impersonal. This is why God exists as Tri-Personal [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] rather than Mono-Personal [the Father alone].

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

The Father expressed himself in the son. Why would that be an argument against what I said? My main point was that there is no need to prove or disprove "monotheism" though. Jesus never used the term did he ?

The Messiah may not have used the term monotheism but He believed in the Shema (Deut.6:4) with every fibre of His being (both Divine and human) and would have regarded as anathema any challenge or repudiation of the Shema. He would also utterly repudiate the Eastern concept of Monistic Pantheism.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I don't mean for this to be a play on words however, I rather believe, from the record, Jesus expressed the Father.

Monotheism ultimately will be fully expressed in Jesus Christ.... and that soon.

Can't argue with that...however, I would like to ask a question, if the Word is Impersonal (as you seem to believe) then how can the impersonal Word even begin to, let alone fully, express the Infinite-Personal God to personal human creatures made in the likeness of the Personal Divine Creator?!

Simonline.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

would also utterly repudiate the Eastern concept of Monistic Pantheism.

What about a Christian non-dual concept?

The Messiah may not have used the term monotheism but He believed in the Shema

The Shema says that the Lord your God is one. It doesn't say "monotheistic". All you would have to do is prove that you follow that One. Not that your views fall under the modern heading of "monotheist" and everything it entails.

 

[Simonline]

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7 (KJV)

Note: Jesus (the man) is not in the mix. . . not yet.

Not ever! The 'three' refer to the Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator - Father, Son [Word/Logos/Memre] and Holy Spirit.

In other words, the Person of the Son is included but in His Primary existence as Divine rather than His Secondary existence as human.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

What about a Christian non-dual concept?

What do you mean exactly? Please be more specific?

The Shema says that the Lord your God is one. It doesn't say "monotheistic".

Since the term 'monotheism' is not Hebrew then it's not likely to say monotheistic is it?! Please don't insult my intelligence? Judeo-Christianity worships a single God - YHWH

All you would have to do is prove that you follow that One. Not that your views fall under the modern heading of "monotheist" and everything it entails.

I think you're just playing games here? The point is that Trinitarianism is monotheistic and not tritheistic or polytheisitic.

Discussion over.

Simonline.

 

[Ormly]

Firstly, God is Spirit (Jn.4:24) not 'a' spirit (i.e. 'one amongst many') since He is Infinite and therefore has no equal.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26 (KJV)

Got any ideas about that?

 

[Ormly]

Not ever! The 'three' refer to the Three Persons of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator - Father, Son [Word/Logos/Memre] and Holy Spirit.

In other words, the Person of the Son is included but in His Primary existence as Divine rather than His Secondary existence as human.

Simonline.

Not hardly, unless you can speak of the mother of Jesus/Word before He was born of Mary. . . or unless you are speaking the new reality of it and not the actuality waiting to happen.

 

[elopez]

The Trinity is One God Who simultaneously exists as Three Persons rather than One Persons as is the case with His finite human creatures.

I agree, I am just not sure why you are repeating this is all.

When explaining the Trinity it is important that one starts with the Single Entity that is God and then moves to the way that that One God exists (i.e. as Three Persons rather than One Person). One should not start with the Three Persons and then move to include them in the Single Entity that is God since this infers that the Three Persons initially existed separately but then 'came together' to become 'One God' but this is not the case.

My point is that even if you start out showing the three persons existing as one God you still end up with the same conclusion as starting out with showing one God in three persons. Showing the Son is eternal just as the Spirit and the Father, that is, eternal as the one God, I am not sure how this infers that the three initially existed separately. I am not presuming that each person comes together to form one God as each person is fully God.

No-one has said that you have ever argued for Unitarianism but Unitarianism is a form of Monotheism (albeit a heretical one). My reference to the One God existing as Three Persons rather than One Person was not an attack on you as a Trinitarian but on the heresy of Unitarianism itself.

It was a little unclear why you mentioned this heresy to begin with. The way you wrote it came off more confusing than it did calling Unitarianism heresy. That is why I wasn't sure if it was an attack or not.

Except that the Persons don't exist 'inside' God (as if God is a mathematical set or some kind of 'gossamer shell')? They ARE God. The One God exists as Tri-Personal.

Yes, each person is fully God. I do not understand how saying three persons exist as one God takes away from that.

 

[Breckmin]

"I am not presuming that each person comes together to form one God"

Comes together?

I wouldn't think of it as three separate persons. In fact, I would use the English word "distinctions" rather than the English word "persons" to start out in helping you NOT think of three (separate) "persons."

Operating in the English is actually more confusing than operating in the Latin.
Only because the terms have evolved.

Question everything.