Bart Ehrman’s like what else could it mean! 🙂
Mark 12:28-29
One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one”.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, God, Judaism
Blogging Theology 
Folks come to the obvious conclusion when they don’t try to redefine the word one (echad) to accommodate a 4th century church tradition.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There is no contradiction between Monotheism and “God is One” in Mark 12:29, Deut. 6:4. Trinitarianism is also Monotheism.
John 1:1, 20:28; Hebrews 1:3, 6,8, 10-12; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20, John 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:30, are all first century, so the charge that Trinitarianism is a fourth century tradition is wrong.
That Jesus is homo-ousias (same substance) is an expression of what is already there in the texts of the first century.
the other verses on the Deity of the Holy Spirit and the personal relationships between the three persons are also all first century texts.
LikeLike
Trinitarians and hindus invaded the term ‘monotheism’,good thing we still have ‘tawhid’
LikeLiked by 3 people
You muslims and your ‘tawhid’!!
Yes we understand you worship strictly one god. It’s just a shame it’s a false god.
LikeLike
zeltys,
how many persons is 1 person in your god?
LikeLike
I actually bring this argument up briefly in my last post.
http://allanruhl.com/james-white-and-evaluating-arguments/#more-633
LikeLike
First sentence should have been:
There is no contradiction between Monotheism, “God is One” in Mark 12:29, Deut. 6:4, and Trinitarian theology.
Trinitarianism is also Monotheism.
John 1:1, 20:28; Hebrews 1:3, 6,8, 10-12; Philippians 2:5-8; Colossians 1:15-20, John 8:24; 8:56-58; 10:30, are all first century, so the charge that Trinitarianism is a fourth century tradition is wrong.
That Jesus is homo-ousias (same substance) is an expression of what is already there in the texts of the first century.
the other verses on the Deity of the Holy Spirit and the personal relationships between the three persons are also all first century texts.
LikeLike
All those verses and not one of them says anything about the trinity.Just ambiguous verses talking about jesus being somewhat divine.Also,why do christians still insist on quoting john 10:30?your interpretation of it is obviously wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.
Wow,i wonder who jesus is talking to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KT “Trinitarianism is also Monotheism”
lol yes trinitarianism ‘oneness’ is a form of monotheism..
…however trinitarianism monotheism is not found or does not equate to ***Biblical*** monotheism…
trinitarianism monotheism is in direct opposition and contradiction to Mrk 12:29 Deut 6:4
trinitarianism monotheism accordingly to bible is polytheism 🙂
LikeLike
lol KT show one instance where the Pronoun ‘He’ in reference to the One God in the Bible denotes 3 distinct divine persons identified as “He”
😎
LikeLiked by 2 people
Omar
Here you go…..
Three divine persons answering as one. Genesis 18:1-5
Can you show me where in the quran allah says “I am not triune”? Or where does allah say “I am incapable of incarnation? Or where does allah say “my spirit is not divine”?
LikeLike
Kev lol.. sorry no go!… i must of missed it….. show me where the three divine persons answering as one in Genesis 18:1-5 is father son and holy spirit? lol…do you even know who the men are Kev?.. well do ya punk@? lol…
I’ll give you a clue…lol…
Read the remaining verses of chapter 18 and 32 verses of Chapter 19…. lol…
LikeLike
Omar
LOL!!
Classic muslim lapse of logic and failure to track logically.
You moved the goalposts – you asked for an example from the bible where three persons are identified as one. I gave you one.
Instead of trying to fallaciously reason your way out of your own criteria, why don’t you deal with the text.
Gen 18:1-5 has three divien persons, who identify as one.
And why don’t you answer my questions about allah’s statements – where does he explicitly deny the precepts of the trinity? Where does he identify the precepts of the trinity?
I’ll give you a clue – he doesn’t and your objections to a triune god are not quranically supported.
LikeLike
“Instead of trying to fallaciously reason your way out of your own criteria, why don’t you deal with the text.
Gen 18:1-5 has three divien persons, who identify as one.”
i asked show one instance where the Pronoun ‘He’ in reference to the One God in the Bible denotes 3 distinct divine persons identified as “He”
Kev lol… are the three persons in Gen 18:1-5 the three persons of the trinity?… simple question in response to your argument that Gen 18:1-5 is teaching 3 divine persons are collectively one God… if the three persons in Gen 18 are not the persons of the trinity then you are wasting our time here with nonsense..
so again who the 3 men Kev?..lol
again I’ll give you a clue…lol…
Read the remaining verses of chapter 18 and 32 verses of Chapter 19…. lol…
LikeLiked by 1 person
kev,do you understand the term ‘tawhid’?
LikeLike
Hashim Khanzada
“kev,do you understand the term ‘tawhid’?”
More importantly, do you? I’ve never met a msulim who is capable of explaining the islamic concept of god.
So far, what I hear is that allah is too transcendent to become incarnate, but then he can actually be in his creation in “ways we can’t understand”, and that we can’t really know him, although we can know him by his attributes, even though his attributes are not eternal, nor can you actually say allah “IS” anything because that degrades his transcendence, and so on and on and on.
See why we’re all confused?
LikeLike
Omar
So you agree that the three divine persons of Gen 18 are one being?
LikeLike
Kev of course not..lol.. you know why?
Read the remaining verses of chapter 18 and 32 verses of Chapter 19… read it.. wont take long lol… and lets together contexually understand exactly why Gen 18:1-5 is not conceptualizing three divine persons are one being..lol…
😉
LikeLike
Lol,you’re the one confusing yourself.You asked me to show you where Allah says He is not a triune God,which is why i asked you about tawhid.Tawhid means absolute oneness,no room for trinity or anything else.
Regarding Allah being in His creation,by knowledge/power He is everywhere,but not physically.Physically existing in the universe would automatically make you bound by space,which your God apparently is/was.
Regarding attributes,attributes are eternal,though not separable nor another person/being like the trinity.We cannot understand the exact nature of Allah’s names and attributes,but we can understand the concept that any name or attribute refers to.
I could ask you the same questions,but the trinity alone is confusing enough as it is.No need for extra confusion on your part.
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.[Surah 4:171]
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Kev,
How do you know the three men were one Lord? Is it not more straightforward to understand that one of the men was the leader and Abraham singled him out among the three for respect?
Secondly in Daniel 2, Daniel explains Nebuchadnezzar his dream by saying “We will provide the explanation”. Do you think Daniel was also a multi-person being?
LikeLike
“Gen 18:1-5 has three divien persons, who identify as one.”
how?
LikeLike
omar
“Read the remaining verses of chapter 18 and 32 verses of Chapter 19… read it.. wont take long lol… and lets together contexually understand exactly why Gen 18:1-5 is not conceptualizing three divine persons are one being..lol…”
Good luck with that – the text is clear, god shows up as a plural being. But go on, embarrass yourself.
And please answer my questions….
LikeLike
“So far, what I hear is that allah is too transcendent to become incarnate, but then he can actually be in his creation in “ways we can’t understand”, and that we can’t really know him, although we can know him by his attributes, even though his attributes are not eternal, nor can you actually say allah “IS” anything because that degrades his transcendence, and so on and on and on.”
you are a pathetic person, aren’t you ?
does the divine nature mix with ANYTHING finite?
how does a deformed or disabled god who creates himself RELAY anything back to his INFINITE self when the two DON’t MIX?
don’t you see how dumb the christian trinity has made you ?
LikeLike
“Good luck with that – the text is clear, god shows up as a plural being. But go on, embarrass yourself.”
demonstrate how 3 SPEAKERS are 1 SPEAKER
or 3 men = 1 lord.
LikeLike
kev,
so you believe in an invisible god
what in this invisible god BECaME flesh, human feelings, human thoughts etc etc?
how does it BECOMING something in its INVISIBLE nature COnVEY back to its INVISIBLE nature, when the invisible nature and visible nature do not MIX?
LikeLiked by 1 person
hashim
“Regarding Allah being in His creation,by knowledge/power He is everywhere,but not physically.Physically existing in the universe would automatically make you bound by space,which your God apparently is/was.”
LOL!! So allah does enter creation in “ways we can’t understand”. Big mystery. LOL! Thanks for clearing that one up.
And sorry, but the word tawheed does not appear in the quran, try again. And nowhere does allah say that he is incapable of entering his creation through incarnation.
“Regarding attributes,attributes are eternal,though not separable nor another person/being like the trinity.We cannot understand the exact nature of Allah’s names and attributes,but we can understand the concept that any name or attribute refers to.”
Classic. You have no idea who your god is, how then can you say he is not triune? If we following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you can’t possibly say with any certainty that allah’s oneness is the same as the oneness of his created beings. Islam is fundamentally agnostic, or some weird form of deism.
LikeLike
“Regarding Allah being in His creation,by knowledge/power He is everywhere,but not physically.Physically existing in the universe would automatically make you bound by space,which your God apparently is/was.”
LOL!! So allah does enter creation in “ways we can’t understand”. Big mystery. LOL! Thanks for clearing that one up.
//////////////////
kev, why do you make yourself look like a tit?
can i ask you about yhwh and how he is DEPENDANT on a CREATED version of himself to convey his thoughts and feelings ?
how does the CREATED version of yhwh CONVEY back to the invisible version of yhwh, when the TWO don’t MIX????
“And sorry, but the word tawheed does not appear in the quran, try again. And nowhere does allah say that he is incapable of entering his creation through incarnation.”
kev , since a deity has full power, control , and full KNOWLEDGE of everything it CREATES and full power to DESTROY at any moment, then incarnation does not befit one who has CONTROL , power, might , KNOWLEDGE etc etc
but i would like to ask you about yhwh.
since the divine nature does not MIX with human nature, does that mean yhwh is DEPENDANT on human nature to get out his message?
is yhwh dependant on a DISABLED copy of a copy of a copy of himself???
“Regarding attributes,attributes are eternal,though not separable nor another person/being like the trinity.We cannot understand the exact nature of Allah’s names and attributes,but we can understand the concept that any name or attribute refers to.”
LikeLike
kev, remember like a tit, you wrote :
Your thoughts have physical properties which means allah has no access to them.
////
kev, kev kev
how does the invisibleness of your god RECEIVE anything when PHYSICAL properties DON’t MIX with the divine nature?
so god is all knowing = invisible
all hearing = invisible
all seeing = invisible
jesus seeing = visible
jesus hearing = physical and visible
how did the TWO mix and was yhwh DEPENDANT on a CREATED creature, you tit christian ?
LikeLike
tony
“kev, remember like a tit, you wrote :
Your thoughts have physical properties which means allah has no access to them.
////
kev, kev kev
how does the invisibleness of your god RECEIVE anything when PHYSICAL properties DON’t MIX with the divine nature?”
You idiot. It is you guys – the muslims – who insist that allah has no access to physical properties. LOL!
Back to ignoring your incoherent comments.
LikeLike
quote :
You idiot. It is you guys – the muslims – who insist that allah has no access to physical properties. LOL!
Back to ignoring your incoherent comments
end quote
kev, you pathetic tit
lets try again
yhwh = invisible
yhwh = not properties
divine nature doth not MIX with human nature
the one nature CANNOT dilute, mix, seep, BECOME the OTHER
disconnected
SEPARATE
so this MEANS yhwh HAS no ACCESS to the PHYSICAL properties, do you see WHAT a tit you have MADE yourself into ?
the INVISIBLE yhwh ALWAYS remains SEPARATE from physicality
do you know what in the invisible yhwh BECAME visible and CREATED?
LikeLike
“You idiot. It is you guys – the muslims – who insist that allah has no access to physical properties. LOL!”
pathetic tit LOL
the divine nature or invisible PERSON with divine nature = INVISIBLE
does your TIT brain not get this?
nothing in the “invisibleness” of your god BECOMES FINITE , created, meat, feelings etc etc etc
james white says “no mixture”
HOW then , using your TIT logic, does the HUMAN feelings, thoughts etc etc SEEP into the INFINITE nature?
so yhwh the INVISIBLE being has absolutely no ACCESS to physical properties because he himself is not PHYSICAL
this is your tit logic here which i am employing .
LikeLike
Ken,
What you’re doing is mashing a few NT verses together and then reading the 4th century idea into the text.
You don’t get the idea of the Trinity from the text naturally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yahyasnowblog
“What you’re doing is mashing a few NT verses together and then reading the 4th century idea into the text.
You don’t get the idea of the Trinity from the text naturally.”
The concept of one being with a plurality of persons is a jewish concept that jews of 1st century palestine would have been familar with. The text of the OT is loaded with plural conceptualizations of the one god.
Jesus believed in a triune god, unlike the pharisees who were strict oneness folks – that’s why charged jesus with blasphemy and it explains jesus’ hostility to them. The tanach records a plural god, the pharisees preached otherwise.
LikeLike
“Trinitarianism is also Monotheism”
Sorry, no one speak this language except christians, and we know why.
I’ve heard your teacher James asking ( What does Quran mean by one God) ! Oh really!?
What a problem for us!
Still you cannot deny that the father is the (only) true God according to Jesus himself. I’ve no problem with the (oneness) that Jesus defined in that statement. You’re the ones who have problem with it.
LikeLike
There’s a lot being discussed in this thread, but I wanted to briefly comment on the following for now (and comment on other things when I have more time, later):
Hashim Khanzada wrote:
«Trinitarians and hindus invaded the term ‘monotheism’,good thing we still have ‘tawhid’»
To be fair, regarding the term “monotheism,” monos means one, and theos means God (the -ism suffix just refers to belief). If a person believes that there is one God, and that one God comprises multiple persons, that belief would constitute a form of monotheism.
As for tawHīd, that term does not escape this point, as I would say such a doctrine would also constitute a form of tawHīd. I will explain more, below.
Hashim Khanzada
«Tawhid means absolute oneness,no room for trinity or anything else.»
I disagree. Nearly two years ago I made the following graphic to illustrate this point:
So the word tawHīd does not preclude something like the Trinity (one God comprising multiple Persons); rather, that seems to be a restriction certain orthodox Muslims have put upon the word within the context of their own faith (and thus the restriction comes off as artificial outside of that context).
LikeLike
“If a person believes that there is one God, and that one God comprises multiple persons, that belief would constitute a form of monotheism”
This is not true since the core of the matter is not about the terms rather it’s about the reality of things.
If you saw an orange and you kept saying it’s an apple, the whole world would not change their language and their norm understanding for things because of what you invented by your tongue.
In fact, by this kind of playing and tampering, we can make everything is acceptable even if you worshipped idols. Just invented an odd understanding, and new language to describe that absurdity, and you would be fine.
I keep asking christians to give me ONE reason that why we shouldn’t see each person as a being by itself since each person has its identity, mind, and will?!
Your acts and your hearts don’t differ that much with polytheism except by the language that you describe your belief .
I can’t see any difference between christians and someone who worships three gods that they act in harmony.
Tawhid has nothing to do what you try to say whatsoever.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abdullah wrote:
«I keep asking christians to give me ONE reason that why we shouldn’t see each person as a being by itself since each person has its identity, mind, and will?!»
Wouldn’t that depend on how we define “being”? I know some Christians out there wish to insist that the three Persons are not individual beings, but even with them, the question which was just asked can be posed. Could you share how you define the word “being”?
For now, I’ll propose a very simple definition (which others, including Christians, are free to reject): a being is a thing which exists (i.e. here the word “being” is treated almost like an active participle of the verb to be). On such a definition, a cat could be a being, and various parts of that cat (e.g. its bones, its organs) could also be considered beings (though beings of a sort different from the being which comprises them). But even if one did hold to this definition, and concluded that a cat is a single being comprising multiple beings of another sort, that would not mean one cat is actually multiple cats.
Analogously, do you consider yourself a being? Do you consider me a distinct being from you? If so, would that mean you are a polytheist? Or does the existence of multiple beings not automatically equate with the existence of multiple gods?
Abdullah wrote:
«I can’t see any difference between christians and someone who worships three gods that they act in harmony.»
Nonetheless, a literal proponent of polytheism would believe in multiple gods, while a Trinitarian would not (i.e. one affirms the “beings” in question are distinct gods, while the other would not). And that’s what we’re exploring here: belief.
Abdullah wrote:
«Tawhid has nothing to do what you try to say whatsoever.»
You did not address the points raised in my first post. If we have a phrase tawHīd X (where X is some singular noun) and we have a belief that X comprises multiple Ys (where Y is a noun different from X), does the phrase preclude the belief? For example, I only have one wife. Can I use the phrase tawHīd az-zawja to refer to my monogamous status? If so, what if I claim my wife’s body comprises multiple bones? Would that osteological truth constitute polygamy?
LikeLike
“Wouldn’t that depend on how we define “being”? I know some Christians out there wish to insist that the three Persons are not individual beings, but even with them, the question which was just asked can be posed. Could you share how you define the word “being”?
For now, I’ll propose a very simple definition (which others, including Christians, are free to reject): a being is a thing which exists (i.e. here the word “being” is treated almost like an active participle of the verb to be). On such a definition, a cat could be a being, and various parts of that cat (e.g. its bones, its organs) could also be considered beings (though beings of a sort different from the being which comprises them). But even if one did hold to this definition, and concluded that a cat is a single being comprising multiple beings of another sort, that would not mean one cat is actually multiple cats.
Analogously, do you consider yourself a being? Do you consider me a distinct being from you? If so, would that mean you are a polytheist? Or does the existence of multiple beings not automatically equate with the existence of multiple gods?”
????!!!!
I really cannot understand you, and I wouldn’t imagine that a galilean jew in the first century had any thought ever of this absurdity.
I recalled this saying of Jesus
” that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children” !
I’m wondering if any child understands the trinity to be one God!
And I’m telling you if Jesus had taught this concept, we would have a conflict questions and answers about this concept in your bible.
“is a thing which exists”
Would you apply this for each person in the trinity?
You said
“But even if one did hold to this definition, and concluded that a cat is a single being comprising multiple beings of another sort, that would not mean one cat is actually multiple cats.”
Is this your analogy for the trinity? If so, I’m wondering why you don’t say God is a being comprising multiple beings of another sort? Would you?
“Nonetheless, a literal proponent of polytheism would believe in multiple gods, while a Trinitarian would not (i.e. one affirms the “beings” in question are distinct gods, while the other would not). And that’s what we’re exploring here: belief”
Nonetheless that affirmation is just by your tongue. In the reality, there’s no difference, especially that you affirm that each person has its own identity, mind, and will.
“use the phrase tawHīd az-zawja to refer to my monogamous status? If so, what if I claim my wife’s body comprises multiple bones? ? Would that osteological truth constitute polygamy?”
That wouldn’t change that you have just ONE wife since we don’t say or understand that each bone is a wife by itself as you say and “understand” in the trinity that each person is full God, so I cannot see your point in that poster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol Kev “Good luck with that – the text is clear, god shows up as a plural being. But go on, embarrass yourself.”
If the texts are clear then you should easily be able to identify who the 3 persons in Gen 18:1-5 are, right Kev! ? lol… come on dont be embarrassed Kev..identify who are they? .. simple question… 🙂 good luck!
LikeLike
omar
“If the texts are clear then you should easily be able to identify who the 3 persons in Gen 18:1-5 are, right Kev! ? lol… come on dont be embarrassed Kev..identify who are they? .. simple question… 🙂 good luck!”
Still avoiding engaging with my points? You’ve moved the goalposts again – can you even engage without lapsing into fallacious tactics?
You tell me who they are. In Gen 18:1-5 you have three persons who is addressed as one Lord, and who respond as a “they”. Try to stop your head spinning and do what you boasted you were going to do – school me on how I’m wrong.
Good luck with that.
LikeLike
Greetings Abdullah
You seem to come close to rejecting (and perhaps even mocking?) the definition of “being” which I offered, but you did not offer your own definition. Recall that you were the one who asked whether the individual Persons within the Trinity are individual beings. The answer depends on how we define “being”. On the definition I offered, yes, the Persons would constitute individual beings (but not necessarily individual gods). That is to say, under this definition, there is one God, and that one God is a being, and that one God comprises three Persons, and each one of those Persons is a being (i.e. under the definition we have one being comprising three beings of another sort). But, as I just wrote, I get the impression that you find the definition in question absurd. So I ask again, how do you define “being”?
Abdullah wrote:
«Nonetheless that affirmation is just by your tongue. In the reality, there’s no difference, especially that you affirm that each person has its own identity, mind, and will.»
Believing that a Person has identity, mind, will, is not the same as believing that Person is a god. I believe you have identity, mind, will, but I do not believe you are a god.
Turning to the subject of tawHīd az-zawja (which was part of the original subject of my first comment in this thread)…
Abdullah wrote:
«That wouldn’t change that you have just ONE wife since we don’t say or understand that each bone is a wife by itself»
Agreed. Now, it seems you have agreed with me on a key point in my response to Hashim Khanzada, above: if we have that phrase tawHīd X, where X is some singular noun, that phrase does not preclude a belief that X comprises multiple Ys (where Y is some noun other than X).
Abdullah wrote:
«you say and “understand” in the trinity that each person is full God»
I do not believe the Persons in the Trinity constitute distinct gods. I understand the Chalcedonian language as meaning the Persons are truly divine (but I understand that as being by virtue of their union within the one God).
LikeLike
Denis, please don’t take it personally. It’s just that I cannot understand that christians bring all sort of arguments which I see that they’re just absurdity to contradict the norm understanding for a message supposedly was preached for galilean jews in the first century. It hard to imagine that.
We would read many questions and answers in your bible about this point if that had really happened.
” the definition of “being” which I offered”
If you noticed that I went with your definition since my native language which is Arabic could surprise you. However, what you mentioned is found in Arabic as well, so I went with it.
“On the definition I offered, yes, the Persons would constitute individual beings (but not necessarily individual gods)”
But the whole matter is about your trinity. Muslims are asking why? If each person is a being who is full God by himself, then by definition why can’t we say that you worship three gods?
“Believing that a Person has identity, mind, will, is not the same as believing that Person is a god. I believe you have identity, mind, will, but I do not believe you are a god”
???
Although your analogy is not right since I was arguing from christians’ perspective that they worship one being consists of three persons, yet are you saying that (each person) in the trinity is not god or it’s god?
As I know that you say each person is full God, so I’m asking what the real difference between you and polytheists except the terms that you use?!
“Agreed. Now, it seems you have agreed with me on a key point in my response to Hashim Khanzada, above: if we have that phrase tawHīd X, where X is some singular noun, that phrase does not preclude a belief that X comprises multiple Ys (where Y is some noun other than X)”
Would you apply this on the trinity?! As I know X & Y for christians is one thing while that’s not case with the example of the wife and her bones! The bone by itself is not the wife.
“I do not believe the Persons in the Trinity constitute distinct gods. I understand the Chalcedonian language as meaning the Persons are truly divine (but I understand that as being by virtue of their union within the one God)”
To get rid of the difficult terms. Did you believe that the person of Jesus is FULL God or not? If so, then I’m sorry that doesn’t go with your point to Hashim.
LikeLike
“Believing that a Person has identity, mind, will, is not the same as believing that Person is a god. I believe you have identity, mind, will, but I do not believe you are a god”
if i had FULL access to all seeing, all hearing and all knowing, am i not a god?
i would be a god who has full access to these super powers.
if i only had access to 1/3 of all seeing, all hearing and all knowing, i would be a disabled/deformed god.
LikeLike
Brother mr.heathcliff, The point was not about whether I’m god or not by that example. The point was whether each person is god by itself or not in the trinity. If each person is god by itself, christians have no reason to consider themselves monotheistic. You can’t say that you & I are one human being while each one has its own identity, mind, and will.
LikeLike
“. If each person is god by itself, christians have no reason to consider themselves monotheistic. ”
brother, they are saying that each person is god or god like, but if each person/ fully 100 % person has full access to the divine POWERS , then it is a god even if it agrees with the other gods in the same team.
they are worshipping a team /company bro.
LikeLike
Denis,
The word Tawhid absolutely precludes Trinity. Your example misuses the term. Tawhid is a word which is only used in Arabic in reference to KNOWING that Allah is one and BELIEVING in his unique ONENESS/UNITARIAN nature. You cannot apply the word Tawhid to German unity, or the oneness of your wife as such singularities are incomparable to the divine oneness of God. It is more correct to use the term Wahid in reference to Germany and your wife, but Tawhid is ONLY applied to Allah and his oneness. This is the Orthodox Muslim understanding of the word Tawhid, and just because you say that it is artificial outside of that context does not make it so. The concept of the Absolute unique Oneness (Tawhid) of God remains valid with or without Islam. To say God is One and absolute in his unity is a very straightforward statement and belief and can be understood by anyone, anywhere within any context. However, it is the word “Trinity” which comes off as artificial outside of the Trinitarian Christian context, because nowhere in any other context or circumstance does three mean one in the same way that Trinitarians try so hard to explain.
LikeLike
NOTA BENE: This post includes responses to Abdullah, Mr. Heathcliff and Ibn Issam.
[-*-*-*-*-*-]
Abdullah wrote:
«If you noticed that I went with your definition since my native language which is Arabic could surprise you.»
You asked me about the definition of an English word. Whatever the case, if you have an alternative definition which you think is relevant, feel free to share it. Otherwise, if you are siding, for the sake of argument, with the definition I provided, then I think your initial question is answered.
Abdullah asked:
«If each person is a being who is full God by himself, then by definition why can’t we say that you worship three gods?»
You’re interpreting the Chalcedonian terminology differently from how I do. As I stated before, I take the phraseology to mean truly divine (in reference to their union and their sharing a common divine “substance”). I do not believe they constitute individual gods.
Abdullah wrote:
«Would you apply this on the trinity?! As I know X & Y for christians is one thing while that’s not case with the example of the wife and her bones! The bone by itself is not the wife.»
And one can likewise say no single Person within the Trinity is, by Himself, a god. So as per the model “one X comprises multiple Ys,” we could apply that to “one wife comprises multiple bones” or “one God comprises multiple Persons”. The basic structure remains the same (even if the finer details will differ).
Abdullah wrote:
«To get rid of the difficult terms.»
I’m not in favor of getting rid of difficult terms if doing such risks oversimplifying my position to the point of stripping it of its nuances.
[-*-*-*-*-*-]
Mr. Heathcliff wrote:
«if i had FULL access to all seeing, all hearing and all knowing, am i not a god?»
Not necessarily. Just to be clear, do you believe those are the only requirements to make a Person truly God? While I await your answer, I would say that if God possesses a tripersonal ontology, and the common divine substance results in each Person being omniscient and omnipotent, I don’t think such necessarily makes each Person a god (rather they remain Persons within the one God). Moreover, William Lane Craig has proposed that perhaps one requirement for being /a/ god is possessing a tripersonal ontology. 🙂
[-*-*-*-*-*-]
Ibn Issam wrote:
«Tawhid is a word which is only used in Arabic in reference to KNOWING that Allah is one and BELIEVING in his unique ONENESS/UNITARIAN nature. You cannot apply the word Tawhid to German unity, or the oneness of your wife as such singularities are incomparable to the divine oneness of God.»
You seem to be under the impression that I made up the terms in my graphic. I did not. Those are actual terms from the Arabic language. For example, tawHīd az-zawja comes up in Hans Wehr’s dictionary:
You can Google tawHīd Almānyā (توحيد ألمانيا) and get half a million hits:
https://www.google.com/search?q=توحيد+ألمانيا
LikeLike
“Not necessarily. ”
if my person has full access to the divine nature, then it means i will be working through it. this means i would be god.
“Just to be clear, do you believe those are the only requirements to make a Person truly God? ”
no , i don’t. if that were the case, i would be a disabled/deformed god like one of the persons in trinity .
”
… and the common divine substance results in each Person being omniscient and omnipotent, I don’t think such necessarily makes each Person a god ”
any human who has FULL access to the divine powers would automatically become an individual god.
it is no longer one is working through human nature, but THROUGH divine powers which would become IMBUED in the person , which means the person becomes FULLY god.
one (person) would speak god, feel like a god, breath like a god, hear and see like a god.
trinity = polytheistic regardless if the 3 gods agree with each other.
LikeLike
“And one can likewise say no single Person within the Trinity is, by Himself, a god”
Is that your postion? It seems it goes with partialism. I don’t think christians agree with you in this.
If you want to apply the example of the wife which has mutiple bones on the trinity, then I’m asking
Do we say that each bone contains the full substance of the ” wife” ?!
When I see the bone, would I deal with it as if I deal with my wife?!
LikeLike
I am confused about Denis Giron’s comment.
Being refers to literally anything that exists. More so, we have a heirachy of beings. Attributes exist and are therefore “beings” of sort. God’s nature is a being as well. The latter though does not subsist in anything, while the former “being” subsists in the underlying nature. On this account we have a pyramidal scheme that stops at the tip.
Ok, that is one way to define a monotheist. This would include many a Hindu sect, the mushrikeen of Mecca and the Chrisitians. All have a “terminal” being in which other “branching” beings subsist. In fact pantheism and panentheism is a monotheistic creed on this account.
Now that would be slightly odd but, hey, not enough to make it inconsistent, right?
But, here is where the objection lies. This “clarification” along with its analogies cannot conflate the differences between this concept and the Jewish and Muslim God.
These religions claim that personhood is a quality that is “terminal”
In other words, when Allah is saying he is the only God, he is implying that only one person can have this attribute. In other words, we are begging the question.
Furthermore this understanding of “personhood” is the normative understanding of the Catholic Church! I quote
“If to this be added rationalis naturae, we have a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) substantia– this excludes accident; (b) completa– it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or “aptitudinally” does not satisfy the definition; (c) per se subsistens–the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; …”
A person therefore on this definition cannot be a “secondary” being of sorts. This would also be a rather strange reading of the Athansian Creed and subsequent ones which are embellished in Aristotelian terminology regarding this subject.
Is this an argument ? Well…a lot more to say. Let’s just say that this is another way of talking about Social Trinitarianism. Here God(with a capital G) is understood in the primary sense of being whereas “persons”(Gods with a small g) subsist in this “primary” nature. They are “secondary” beings
Leaving aside problems of bad analogies (Craig’s and others do not work), issues relating to divine aseity, deceit, anachronistic readings of the creed, partialism, and odd understandings of personhood(how would you then square it with the incarnation?), let’s get back to the point. In Islam and Judaism there can only be one person that is divine. Talking about a pyramidal structure of existence, a “unity” in marriage and of the German nation (even if peppered with Arabic terms) does not conflate the Jewish and Muslim concept of God with that of the Christians, many Hindus, and the Mushrikeen of Quraysh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…rather, that seems to be a restriction certain orthodox Muslims have put upon the word within the context of their own faith (and thus the restriction comes off as artificial outside of that context).”
I don’t think so. The restriction is on the plain reading of the Old Testament, the plain understanding of the majority of Jewish sects, a good body of Christians over the last 2000 years or so and a significant number modern day trinitarians(they understand personhood as a quality of a “primary being”. Think of variants of “Latin” Trinitarianism)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dennis,
The definition of Tawhid in Hans Wehr dictionary does not change the intent behind the usage of the same word in Islam. The Hans Wehr dictionary is not the designated interpreter of any term within Islam, nor does it explain the depth of meaning of Tawhid as defined within the Islamic understanding. This understanding includes Tawhid Ar-Rububiyah (The Oneness of Gods Lordship) which implies that God is not in need of any partners, associates, or other persons, beings etc. which share divinity in any way with him. The nature of his lordship is Unitarian. Sahih al-Bukhari includes the Kitab At-Tawhid which extensively addresses the subject, and clarify that Tawhid is understood within the context of the Qur’an and Sunnah which both hammer home the idea that God is absolutely ONE, and which clearly precludes the Trinity as it violates Tawhid ar-Rububiyah.
Ignoring the Islamic source texts in an attempt to detach the word Tawhid from its Islamic context and expand the meaning of the word to include the Trinity is not fooling anyone but yourself and other wishful thinking Trinitarians. This is because whatever one wants to call it, the concept of the Absolute unique Oneness (Tawhid) of God remains valid with or without Islam. To say God is One and absolute in his unity is a very straightforward statement and belief and can be understood by anyone, anywhere within any context. However, it is the word “Trinity” which comes off as artificial outside of the Trinitarian Christian context, because nowhere in any other context or circumstance does three mean one in the same way that Trinitarians try so hard to explain.
The comments above by Unitarian help to clarify and answere any question in regard to context.
Definition of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) – Yasir Qadhi | February 2009
LikeLiked by 2 people
Time to get schooled Kev..lol
no no no homeboy.. you tell me who they are?… in response to my original question… you need to explain, in support of the trinity, where ‘He’ in reference to the One God denotes 3 distinct persons i.e – Father, Son & Spirit – contexually comprise the single pronoun “He”..lol.. now you have cited Gen 18:1-5 as ‘evidence’ lol.. now who are “they” Kev that you believe supports the trinitarian notion that “they” are one Lord?…
” In Gen 18:1-5 you have three persons who is addressed as one Lord, and who respond as a “they”
you will receive detention if you fail to answer Kew lol..
LikeLike
Apologies for the delay in response. A thread I am currently participating in reminded me of this thread, and upon returning here, I noticed a number of responses I had missed.
Unitarian wrote:
«I am confused about Denis Giron’s comment.»
I was merely attempting to put forth a simple definition of “being” in the absence of anyone else doing so. I am happy to consider other definitions of the word, and you are free to submit a definition.
Unitarian wrote:
«This would include many a Hindu sect, the mushrikeen of Mecca and the Chrisitians. […] In fact pantheism and panentheism is a monotheistic creed on this account.»
This possibility that there are other kinds of theists with multipersonal conceptions of God who could be classified as monotheists (including Pantheists, Panentheists, and at least some Hindus) does not strike me as troubling in the least.
Unitarian wrote:
«personhood is a quality that is “terminal”»
Forgive me, but I am not sure I understand what this means. I did see what followed the above in your post, including the text from the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry, but I remain unclear. So, just to be clear, by the above you mean a person can never be a part of a larger structure or entity that comprises multiple persons? If so, I would not agree (and yes, I did read through the relevant entry).
Unitarian wrote:
«In other words, when Allah is saying he is the only God, he is implying that only one person can have this attribute.»
The above may represent the orthodox Muslim position, but I do not see a reason why one is necessarily forced to conclude that the being that is God cannot comprise multiple persons.
Unitarian wrote:
«A person therefore on this definition cannot be a “secondary” being of sorts.»
This would still depend on how we define “being”. For example, consider the example of dicephalic parapagus (i.e. conjoined) twins. Whether or not the physical structure (the common shared body) that encompasses the two persons constitutes a “being” depends on how we define “being”. But merely saying that two persons are contained within that physical structure does not seem to me to necessitate a denial of their personhood.
Unitarian wrote:
«In Islam and Judaism there can only be one person that is divine.»
Perhaps in orthodox Islam and certain interpretations of orthodox Judaism. But of course other faiths need not be limited to the views of those sects (it is precisely why we have correspondences to flesh out the plausibility or possibility of various concepts).
Unitarian wrote:
«a “unity” in marriage and of the German nation (even if peppered with Arabic terms) does not conflate the Jewish and Muslim concept of God with that of the Christians, many Hindus, and the Mushrikeen of Quraysh.»
Agreed. Nor was I attempting to conflate Christianity or Hinduism with orthodox Islam or certain kinds of orthodox Judaism. The appeals to Arabic references to monogamy or German unification were meant only to show that the semantic range of tawHīd goes beyond the limitations orthodox Muslims try to place upon it.
I (Denis) wrote:
«that seems to be a restriction certain orthodox Muslims have put upon the word [tawHīd] within the context of their own faith (and thus the restriction comes off as artificial outside of that context).»
Unitarian replied:
«I don’t think so. The restriction is on the plain reading of the Old Testament»
The word tawHīd does not appear in the Old Testament, thus I’m not certain we can employ the Old Testament to set the limitations on the semantic range of that word.
Unitarian continued:
«the majority of Jewish sects, a good body of Christians over the last 2000 years or so and a significant number modern day trinitarians(they understand personhood as a quality of a “primary being”.»
The definition of personhood within various circles seems to be a different subject from the definition of tawHīd. Nonetheless, I will ask: if we speak of German unification, are we referring to an entity that cannot possibly contain multiple persons within it? Or are you conflating the two topics somewhat improperly?
LikeLike
Ibn Issam wrote:
«The definition of Tawhid in Hans Wehr dictionary does not change the intent behind the usage of the same word in Islam.»
Notice the words *in Islām*. I would more specifically say within orthodox interpretations of Islām. Yes, I am well aware that orthodox Muslims can place limitations on the semantic range of tawHīd within the paradigm of their faith, but those limitations do not necessarily exist within the larger paradigm of the `Arabic language as a whole.
Recourse to Hans Wehr’s dictionary, as well as how the word is used in `Arabic, shows that the semantic range of tawHīd is more expansive than certain orthodox Muslims let on.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«The Hans Wehr dictionary is not the designated interpreter of any term within Islam»
Again, *within Islām*. But I do not think the meanings of words have to be limited to how orthodox Muslims employ them. The `Arabic language is capable of encompassing concepts outside the scope of orthodox Islām. I was discussing the meaning of an `Arabic word, not merely how orthodox Muslims employ that word.
Ibn Issam wrote:
«Ignoring the Islamic source texts in an attempt to detach the word Tawhid from its Islamic context and expand the meaning of the word to include the Trinity is not fooling anyone but yourself»
Does the word’s existence begin with those texts? For example, is there an orthodox Muslim text which states they are coining a new word, and providing the intended definition? Or were even the earliest orthodox Muslim texts to exmploy the word employing it as a term that already existed at the time of their writing?
LikeLike
Jesus was not a unitarian – he claimed divinity and was accused an executed for blasphemy, and he apportioned divine attributes to the holy spirit.
And the shema is in no way strictly unitarian – the very idea of asserting unity implies plurality.
LikeLike
Yes he is. His God is the father of Israel, YHWH, alone. The HS is not the God of Jesus.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
Jesus claimed divinity and, thus, was not unitarian.
LikeLike
Jesus God “the Father” only. He is a unitarian, his God is one divine person only. Tough.
LikeLike
Jesus, I AM, Christ. Not unitarian.
LikeLike
Why do you speak about Jesus is past tense? Your “God” still has a God.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin
“I AM” is past tense????
LikeLike
OMG what a waste of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lolol…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“OMG what a waste of time.”
LikeLike
hahah lolol…😅
LikeLiked by 1 person
if jesus was not a unitarian , then he was a pagan, sounds like you are saying that jesus was a bloody pagan.
LikeLike
“Jesus, I AM, Christ. Not unitarian.”
that is outright PAGAN!
LikeLike
Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God”. The disciples worshiped him. Peter says to Jesus after the resurrection “you know all things”. Paul says “all things were created by him and for him”.
Jesus claimed that one day he would judge the whole of humanity. “The father Judges no-one. All judgment has been left to the son”.
Sounds like God to me.
LikeLike
Buzzard and Ehrman are not talking about various understandings of a post-resurrection Christ of faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Burhanuddin
Buzzard is a buffoon who ignores swathes of context to support his preconceived conclusions, and Ehrman’s methodology has been savaged and refuted by William Lane Craig.
LikeLike
John 5:30
I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?”
Does this sound like a God to you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The same william lane craig that said the trinity does not exist in the Old Testament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thomas incident is impossible according to chronology of Luke. Because according to Luke Jesus met all 11 disciples simultaneously in the upper room. While in John, Thomas is not present and keeps denying Jesus is alive for days despite being told about this repeatedly.
The disciples according to NT did proskuneo to Jesus. This word can mean serve, pay homage etc. it is used in the LXX Bible for other human beings.
Jesus is shown in the Bible to not know the Hour. “Only the Father knows”. As for the statement that he knows all things. A similar thing is said about his followers that they will be guided unto all truth.
Paul also according to NT called Jesus “first-born of creation”. Even for Paul, Jesus is in the created realm. He may have been the greatest creature but still “of creation”.
LikeLike
Hashim Khanzada
“John 5:30
I can do nothing by Myself; I judge only as I hear. And My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?”
Does this sound like a God to you?”
Completely consistent with the doctrine of the incarnation. Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and not particularly convincing.
LikeLike
“Completely consistent with the doctrine of the incarnation. Arguments from incredulity are fallacious and not particularly convincing.”
kev, but the incarnation is a CREATED version of your god and it cannot be god BECAUSE the divine nature and the human nature DO NOT mix , they are SEPARATE .
nothing in the flesh feelings, thoughts etc etc can SEEP into the INFINITE being. so what the hell is going on kev?
is yhwh so PATHETIC and weak that he needs to CREATED a version of himself and DEPEND on it to get his message across?
yhwh needs a human , right?
LikeLike
Fawaz, very good point!
LikeLike
Appealing to a Unitarian and bible sceptic to back you up? Hmmm
LikeLike
Ken, Zelyts you sound desperate, anything substantial to add?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Boring, Paul, tell us something we don’t know including Christian scholars
LikeLike
Atheist, agnostic and christian scholars won’t prove islam is true – you need to make your arguments from what allah actually says in the quran. Everything else is irrelevant.
So maybe you could answer my questions about allah – the muslims have no answer….
Can you show me where in the quran allah says “I am not triune”? Or where does allah say “I am incapable of incarnation? Or where does allah say “my spirit is not divine”?
LikeLike
Kev,but it will prove christianity(in it’s current state) is false.
LikeLiked by 3 people
lol kev Allah in the Quran does not say “i am not Octune” either..lol…
LikeLike
The Qur’anic Jesus is Unitarian too
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hashim Khanzada
“Kev,but it will prove christianity(in it’s current state) is false.”
If scholars prove that jesus was not from god, then it disproves the quran. BTW which atheist or agnostic scholars have proven that jesus was not the incranate god?
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“The Qur’anic Jesus is Unitarian too”
The quranic jesus is fictional. WHere are the documents that prove he told allah that he did not tell people to worship him and his mother?
LikeLike
kev,
can you explain what exactly in INVISIBLE yhwh BECAME incarnate
what parts of his invisibleness BECAME visible properties?
LikeLike
kev, since your god was contained and displayed nothing unique, since biblical prophets were doing amazing miracles and not only that yhwh put on such a display at sinai that it left jesus’ “miracles” for dust.
why didn’t god just create a human prophet like the previous prophets and prevent him from going astray? is “original sin” too powerful for god that he can’t CHANGE hearts without KILLIng himself?
LikeLike
The Qur’an agrees with relevant Christian scholarship on a unitarian Jesus. It’s the trinitarian evangelical fundamentalist who is the odd one out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
“The Qur’an agrees with relevant Christian scholarship on a unitarian Jesus. It’s the trinitarian evangelical fundamentalist who is the odd one out.”
Okay. WHich scholars refer to the quran in their studies on the historical jesus?
LikeLike
hey kev,
since yhwh = invisible and divine nature = invisible
and divine nature and human nature do not mix because one is created and the other is uncreated, how was it possible for yhwh to impregnate “mother of god”
did yhwh become physical, kev?
let me remind you again kev
yhwh = invisible
divine powers = invisible
mary = creation and visible being
how did it work kev?
one is infinite
the other is finite and created
how did it work kev? did yhwh do physical overshadowing?
LikeLike
Historical Jesus is unitarian. Qur’anic Jesus is unitarian. Doesn’t matter how long you keep banging your head kicking and screaming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
“Historical Jesus is unitarian. Qur’anic Jesus is unitarian. Doesn’t matter how long you keep banging your head kicking and screaming.”
The quranic jesus is a character of fiction like muad d’ib in the novel “Dune.” So again, which credible NT scholar looks to the quran for information on the historic jesus?
I’ll help you. The answer is “NONE”!!!!!
LikeLike
So what. Keep banging your head against the goalposts. Won’t turn Jesus into a trinitarian. You are a funny guy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhanuddin1
“So what. Keep banging your head against the goalposts. Won’t turn Jesus into a trinitarian. You are a funny guy.”
I’m not banging my head at all – the trinity is the natural and most obvious reading of the text of both the Old and New testaments. Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses all understood yahweh to be plural. Jesus preached the same as the OT prophets – yahweh is plural.
No amount of appropriation of atheist scholarship is going to prove islamic contentions.
LikeLike
“Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses all understood yahweh to be plural.”
OMG.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m not banging my head at all – the trinity is the natural and most obvious reading of the text”
are you saying that the natural reading of ot text is that judaism was polytheistic ?
one person talking to another person and having loving relationship = COMPANY
” of both the Old and New testaments. Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses all understood yahweh to be plural. Jesus preached the same as the OT prophets – yahweh is plural.”
so moses went to a polytheist and said to him, you have 3 gods, we have 3 persons in the one god and each person does things the other can’t do
why wouldn’t moses be a polytheist?
LikeLike
whenever a polythiest talks about his god, he will have to break up his god and talk about the individual persons.
lets imagine moses talking about the “one god” and do “dawa” to a polytheist
moses would have to break up trinity to discuss about one person FROM a group/company of 3
so moses would be a polytheist.
“one god” doesn’t really mean much, when what one is talking about are the INTERNAL persons.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
““Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses all understood yahweh to be plural.”
OMG.”
That’s what the pharisees said when jesus told them the same thing.
LikeLike
“That’s what the pharisees said when jesus told them the same thing.”
see, you are speaking like a TIT again
15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.
LikeLike
I must say the triune being did a hell of a deceptive job hiding himself B.C. when he was “revealing” HIMself/themseves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i think the trinitarians are saying that moses did not break yhwh enough like they are breaking him into persons.
yhwh deceptively was pretending to be 1 speaker, one person with divine powers.
LikeLike
i still want to know how kev knows how did the invisible yhwh (what exactly inside of him or his invisible being) BECAME created and WEAK
once he admits that the invisible yhwh CAN change his INVISIBLE infinity to finite, this would be fun to carry the discussion on .
so kev, how did the invisible yhwh in his infinite powers IMPREGNATE a finite woman ?did he PHYSICALLY overshadow her?
since the divine natures do not mix and remain separate, how did he do it?
did he create himself as finite being?
remember, like a TIT you thought you were very clever and using the words “LOL” and “dumb”
but now you are showing yourself to be the dumb prick that you are.
so how does it work.
LikeLike
Boring, Paul, tell us something we don’t know including Christian scholars 😊
LikeLike
The Broad Scholarly Consensus is that Jesus Christ was a Non-Trinitarian Monotheist and therefore a heretic in the eyes of the Hellenistic-Roman Church, which today is what Christianity is. These facts are controversial in the eyes of Christians because it destroys their faith and demonstrates decisively that they are unrepentant polytheists who reject Reason, Fact and Jesus.
We know Jesus was not a Trinitarian because the Trinity had not been invented when he was preaching.
We know Jesus was not a Trinitarian because if he was he would have preached it. He did not. There is not a single proof-text from the corrupted anonymous Gospels where Jesus identifies the Triune Being and elaborates on the Trinity.
Trinitarian claim that, as Ken Temple claims does, that ”Trinitarianism is also monotheism” is false and deceptive.
The first thing to know is : Was Jesus a Trinitarian? This is key. Not, ”’Trinitarian belief is consistent with monotheism”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“We know Jesus was not a Trinitarian because if he was he would have preached it.”
we know he was not a trinitarian because he thinks the father is his only true god.
this statement would be a lie if jesus’ same person was worshipping his SAME person and ANOTHER person called the “holy spirit”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Avi
“The Broad Scholarly Consensus is that Jesus Christ was a Non-Trinitarian Monotheist and therefore a heretic in the eyes of the Hellenistic-Roman Church, which today is what Christianity is. ”
Scholarship is moving away from the hellenistic influence as an explanation for the trinity. Shcolars like Ben, Sommer, Alan Segal, Michael Heiser to name a few all conclude that trinitarian thinking is not incompatible with 1st century judaism and in the case of Heiser and Sommer, they conclude that the text of the OT demands plurality in yahweh.
Sommer – a devout jew – even admits that judaism has no theological basis to object to the trinity.
Hellenistic explanations for the trinity ignore the growing scholarship that reclaims the jewish roots of the christian faith – as the OT clearly shows time and again, the test demands we a plural monotheistic god.
LikeLike
“test” should be “Text”
LikeLike
“Jesus believed in a triune god, unlike the pharisees who were strict oneness folks – that’s why charged jesus with blasphemy and it explains jesus’ hostility to them. The tanach records a plural god, the pharisees preached otherwise.”
all praise is to God for the pharisees. the true men of God .
they did what yhwh commanded them to do :
15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.
helaluya praise the lord!
LikeLike
hey kev, how did INVISIBLE infinite yhwh BECOME visible and FINITE and WEAK
how did it work kev?
how can yhwh impregnate mary when he himself is INFINITE, invisible and unphysical
???
how did he create the sun ???
did yhwh create a created person who became physical? but but but but
then how did he create the physical when he himself is NOT physical?
do you believe that your god exists infinitely as infinite yhwh + infinite CREATED yhwh????
remember you previous comments kev?
“LOL” and “DUMB”
so how did yhwh do the PHYSICAL kev? does an INFINITE created VERSION of him exist SIDE by side with him???
LikeLike
kev, it is my belief that christians worship infinitely caused and created being which is co- infinite with invisible yhwh
i believe that you worship an infinite CAUSED being . you worship an UNCAUSED and a CAUSED being.
after all, you need a caused being because it EXPERIENCES feelings like human beings
i understand now why yhwh had to split himself.
i understand know why christians are genuine polytheists
your god needs PHYSICALITY which must have been co-eternal with him.
yhwh is a polytheistic pagan god
LikeLike
“You idiot. It is you guys – the muslims – who insist that allah has no access to physical properties”
hey kev, did you just admit that yhwh in his “invisibleness” changed into physical properties?
so kev, was the overshadowing of “mother of god” physical?
kev, how did yhwh have access to physical properties when yhwh is invisible being and never existed as physical being?
kev, do you worship a pagan changing god because it NEEDS to change because in its invisibleness it is POWERLESS to perform any tasks?
LikeLike
Its curious how muslims keep saying the saying the same thing. Ie “Jesus has a God so he cant be God”. O man how trite.
The apostle Paul explains the incarnation. “Even though he existed in the form of God he did not grasp equality with God but emptying himself he became a servant”.
He goes on further there is one mediator between God and man. Jesus because he is both God and man. Its why only Jesus can Judge the whole of humanity. Human justice demands we be judged by a peer but only God could physically judge the whole of humanity.
LikeLike
Trinitarians believe the pre-existent Son already had a Mind before the creation. When he became flesh as a human being what happened to that Mind? Did it become a human mind? Did it change into flesh? If the Divine wasn’t affected and merely adopted ANOTHER mind (human) that would make Two Minds (Nestorianism) resting within one body. The creedal Trinitarians believe Jesus possessed Two Wills (at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 CE) corresponding to the Two Natures or Hypostatic Union (decreed at the Council of Ephesus in 430 CE) but would deny Jesus possessed Two Minds based on the Two Wills and Natures. According to the Monophysites of the Fifth Century they understood Two Natures to mean Two Minds (distinguished persons) and accused the Chalcedonians of dividing Christ into Two Beings (Gnosticism). The Monophysites claimed Jesus only possessed one nature/will (divine) with a physical body. The Chalcedonians claimed Jesus possessed or exercised two natures but maintained he was “one person” and denied preaching two beings. The Monophysites had a good point because Will and Nature is connected to Mind. It is impossible to have Will without having a Mind and vice-versa, we cannot have nature without a corresponding will. Hence, the 680 CE creed of the Third Constantinople Council is problematic, it attaches to Christ Two Wills corresponding to Two Wills, analogous to a four-winged creature. Will and Mind are connected, they were implying Christ had Two Minds. If he only possessed one mind (human) what happened to the Divine Mind (that pre-existed the human body) during the incarnation event? Did the Son relinquish the Mind as well (kenosis) when becoming human? There was another Christian sect called the Miaphysites (Melkites, Jacobites) who claimed Jesus had a quasi-human nature, he was part Man and part God, not completely God and Man as the Chalcedonians claimed. The Byzantine bishop of the Fifth Century Eutyches claimed the two natures MIXED together to produce a third separate nature, he was accused of preaching Monophysitism. Another group called the Monothelites said Jesus had one will and two natures, others said Jesus had one nature and one will, others said Jesus had two natures and two wills. Some said Jesus was one person, others said Jesus consisted of two beings. Some said Jesus had a physical body, others said Jesus had a phantom ghostlike body that only appeared human.
This is what happened when Christians stopped following Jesus’ teachings and transformed him into a dissectible lab experiment, a cosmic creature of the mind. They intellectually, philosophically, and conjecturally obsessed over the WHAT-NESS of Jesus.
LikeLike
Don’t worry. We follow his teachings. And we know exactly who he was talking about when he said beware of false prophets who are ravenous wolves.
LikeLike
Enjoy! http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/is-quran-one-or-many.html#
LikeLike
God never defines himself as a “person” in the OT. If he speaks as such then this could simply be seen as a necessary condescension on his part which does not conclusively tell us anything about his being. Proof for the fact that God is a personal being perhaps but more than that is iffy. As I see it no proof here for the unitarian view.
The closest he gets to this in the book of Hebrews, 1 v 3:
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Can Jesus be the express image of the person of God without being God himself? As a trinitarian I would say no.
LikeLike
If being a person is a necessary attribute of God that speaks in favour of the trinitarian view.
To be a person means to have the need to react to something that another person is doing or to initiate a reaction or response in another person. There has to be subject and object.
Is the unitarian god and Allah eternally and immutably a person before and after creation? Does this make sense?
If Muslims argue against the trinity using the argument that Allah is a singular personal being does this make sense? To me it doesn’t.
LikeLike