Holy Trinity a Fake?

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,236
Caribbean
Depends on how you define God. One definition of God is similar to the definition of dark energy.
I suppose it is possible that one might be able to come up with such a definition. You have not.

Just to get the premises clear, I take Trinity as a reference to the God of the Bible, and was quoting someone who referred exactly to that; and contained in the Bible, are characteristics of God that would limit how one can define Him.
 

Mike McClure

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
6,228
Indiana
I suppose it is possible that one might be able to come up with such a definition. You have not.

Just to get the premises clear, I take Trinity as a reference to the God of the Bible, and was quoting someone who referred exactly to that; and contained in the Bible, are characteristics of God that would limit how one can define Him.
The Bible never really defines what God is.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,916
Yotebory Sveriya
The Bible never really defines what God is.
The John author does to an extent with this interpretation of Genesis in the Gospel of John. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.

The Word is the active element of God in the physical world, while the father is the unknowable and unchangeable element beyond the physical. This theology was passed into Christian thought by the early third century as it is directly from the brand of Hellenistic Judaism described by Philo of Alexandria in the early 1st century. According to Philo, the Word communicated to humanity via the divine inspiration of the Prophets. The step further taken with the John Gospel is that the Word became flesh (Logos incarnate) in the form of Jesus and was able to directly communicate the message and the purpose of the Law.

So with the Gospel of John we know that God has an unknowable element, but one which followers can deduce via knowing Jesus. Or at least, that’s what i read out of it. Knowing is a big part of the John author’s message.

The first epistle of John 4:20 states: “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”


Anyway, this is some of the knowledge on the nature of God in the Bible via John. John also talks about the Holy Spirit, but as I have said in other threads (and probably this one) it’s something I have trouble wrapping my head around. It’s a Roman Catholic interpretation, but it wasn’t a unified one in early Christianity. But there are at least TWO elements of God according to John: Father and Son // Unknowable element and Word. This is not an invention of Christianity, but adopted from Hellenistic era Judaism.

To add a little bit more. The concept of the Word is not a Jewish one, but adopted from Greek philosophy. The Word is the materialistic reason of the universe. In other words, the Word is the physical element of God, or that which is active in the physical universe: in the realm of science this would be all of the physical laws and laws of nature, the totality of matter and energy, time and space, physical dimensions, etc... The Stoics believed the Word pervaded everything physical. Humanity is part of the divine Word, including our logical reasoning which comes from the very essence of God: so the Stoics believed logical analysis was objective and therefore a part of God’s plan. This philosophy was adopted into Hellenistic Judaism, and its origins can be traced to Plato (or Socrates).

Anyway, in short, this logic of the universe is objective. In John, the Word incarnate is that divine logic. Essentially, the word of the Word (Jesus) are objectively true in the physical, since the Word is IS the logic of the physical universe. The words of the prophets are tied to their culture, and the implication is that they’re outdated and misused/misinterpreted in the time of Jesus: this is THE major theme of all 4 Gospels.


Lastly, Holy Spirit. In Greek philosophy the holy spirit is the plurality of the universal pneuma: the actions of water, fire, earth, wind, etc... It is the breath of life in humanity. WHY this is a form of God and not a feature of God’s creation is where I get confused. It makes me wonder if there is some legitimacy to the Roman cultural triad being the reason Christianity went for a trinity of God, and just took the next most powerful thing in the theology to join the Father and Son at the Godhead. I don’t think a trinity is supported by the bible but a dual-God, where father and son (Knowable Word, and unknowable element) are both parts of the Godhead, certainly is.

(my apologies for typos, I wrote this all on my phone during travel).
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,236
Caribbean
The Bible never really defines what God is.
And what is your point? I don't see how your statement and mine "contained in the Bible, are characteristics of God that would limit how one can define Him" are in any way mutually exclusive.
 

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,480
Malaysia
I don't know why Christianity insisted on monotheism.

Monotheism certainly complicated things to the point that only the Trinity could make sense of it all.
Uh uh. That is really fudging it up, in my view. Big time.

What Christianity has really been 'insisting on', what it has been really trying to 'impose', is really polytheism disguised as 'monotheism'.

Quite on the contrary, it is really this disguised polytheism, this so called trinitarianism, that has been complicating things up, something which really only absolute, full blown, unambiguous monotheism can resolve.

Just my two cents worth.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,447
Dispargum
What Christianity has really been 'insisting on', what it has been really trying to 'impose', is really polytheism disguised as 'monotheism'.
I agree with this.

Quite on the contrary, it is really this disguised polytheism, this so called trinitarianism, that has been complicating things up, something which really only absolute, full blown, unambiguous monotheism can resolve.
And my question was, 'Why not simply acknowledge that Christianity was a polytheistic religion? Why invent complicated devices like the Trinity in order to appear monotheistic?' But this is looking at it from the point of view of the fourth century. Looking at it from today, when most Christians don't really question the Trinity, I have to acknowledge that the Trinity works - it explains things in a way that most Christians accept without challenge. It's only we religious skeptics who find logical flaws in the Trinity.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,541
Republika Srpska
I don't think Trinitarianism is polytheistic. It quite clearly says that there is only one God with three persons. As a comparison, Cerberus is a three-headed dog, it's not three dogs.
 

Todd Feinman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
6,496
Planet Nine, Oregon
I don't think Trinitarianism is polytheistic. It quite clearly says that there is only one God with three persons. As a comparison, Cerberus is a three-headed dog, it's not three dogs.
Then you have the problem of the heads not communicating with each other;
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
And: the warlike, jealous and arguably sadistic god of the OT; and the cheek-turning Jesus of the NT..
 

Mike McClure

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
6,228
Indiana
I don't think Trinitarianism is polytheistic. It quite clearly says that there is only one God with three persons. As a comparison, Cerberus is a three-headed dog, it's not three dogs.
So we are now comparing God to a three-headed dog. God is not really three persons and you can't find that anywhere in the Bible. In the Bible the Son is identified as God's wisdom (the Word) and the Holy Spirit as God,s power or life force.