I don’t see how that’s relevant; there are plenty of beliefs we label as ‘polytheist’ involving divine beings such that one created the other or two created the third.
Well, that whole let not my will, but thy will, be done bit kinda goes both ways.
I’d say that Mary, the Archangel Michael, etc. are different than Jesus Christ (= God the Son) because they are created beings. God the Son is ‘begotten’, not created.
The analogy is that when a person begets a child, they are producing something of the same nature (= human) as themselves. When we create something (say, a work of art or a chemical compound or a house) we are producing something of a different nature than ourselves.
Small-o ‘orthodox’ Christianity (I’m not all that orthodox myself, but here I am talking descriptively rather than normatively) has never held that Jesus is ever not God though there are certainly times at which his subordination to the Father, especially while on earth, is emphasized, and times at which the equality of the persons is emphasized. The Athanasian Creed says this, though:
Why don’t you have a look-see at this list of non-Trinitarian Christian groups and tell us which ones aren’t really Christian.
Mary, wife of Joseph, was of an entirely different nature than God the father. Jesus cannot be of both natures. The analogy fails – or requires a lot of ad hoc interpretation.
(We’ve been all through it before, of course, with Zeus and Herakles…)
Revelation, to start with, probably has something to do with some ergot-tainted rye bread or funny mushrooms.
TRINITY, n. In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their claims to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.
– Ambrose Bierce
Trinopus: Jesus had two natures, a human and a divine, said the council of Chalcedon.
But that goes against your argument that “nature” derives from origin. If things can have “natures” that are different from the natures of their progenitors, then what you said earlier is contradicted.
His divine nature derived from God (or that should be ‘derives’, I guess: Trinitarian Christians see the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit* as things that happen outside of time). His human nature derives from Mary.
As Chalcedon puts it:
“Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us…co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.”
*Let’s not get into whether ‘beget’ means something different from ‘proceeds’, that’s another big can of worms, in this case between the Orthodox East and the Catholic/Protestant West.
Shrug. “It’s a miracle.” That can be used to explain anything…but ultimately explains nothing.
See post #86.
Anything to say about the link I provided in post #83 concerning non-Trinitarian Christians?
Judaism and Islam are against trinity.
Christians fell down the same hole the pagans fell down.
Isis Osirus Horus
trinity is old paganism the Christians copied same as Christmas day etc
Paganism isn’t an actual religion. It’s just a term used by Christians to denote ALL other religions that aren’t Abrahamic.
So it would be clearer to speak of ancient Egyptians than ‘pagans’.
Besides that I am unaware that Isis, Osiris and Horus formed an actual trinity.
Cite please.
Trinopus what sort of explanation are you looking for? I don’t think it can be explained, but I can offer analogies. For example, a clonal plant which has three stems and a common root system (I study plants). You could, and people do, choose to look at that as one individual or as three, depending on what properties you choose to focus on.
Czarcasm They’re wrong? I’m not orthodox enough in my belief to feel comfortable myself calling anyone a heretical Christian, but that is the term a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would use for any of those groups (and to a lesser extent for any Protestant church, including my own). If someone believes that Jesus Christ was the fullest revelation of God, and that he lived and died to redeem us, I’ll call them a Christian of sorts. I will say that they’re wrong about the nature of God, same as I would say for different reasons that, say, Calvinists are wrong to believe in predestination, once-saved-always-saved, etc.
Marmite Lover Yes, I know. Muslims consider Christians polytheists. I think they’re incorrect. If I thought they were right, I’d be a Muslim.
John of Damascus has some pithy remarks refuting Islamic criticisms of the Trinity, I think it’s called “Against the Ishmaelites”.
As far as metaphors go, I’m fond of the triple point of water, where liquid water, steam, and ice all co-exist.
However…ultimately, I have to reject Trinitarian thinking. It’s too ad hoc. It makes nonsense of individuality. It violates too many tenets of rational thinking. It leads in the direction of the mystical wing of the church, and steals legitimacy from the rationalist wing. Christianity has a problem already with its mystics: the Bible Code believers and other numerologists, and others who would turn the faith into an oracular cult. To my mind, Trinitarian thinking goes too far in those directions.
That said, I did admire Dante’s vision of the Trinity at the end of the Divine Comedy.
Ummm, no. You would just be someone who thinks that Christians are polytheists. Since I think that most (but certainly not all) Christians are polytheists, does that make me a Muslim?
The whole Trinity concept tends to make me imagine a three headed god that talks like the Borg.
“WE ARE THE LORD. YOU WILL BE CONVERTED. LOWER YOUR SKEPTICISM AND PREPARE TO BE PROSELYTIZED. RESISTANCE IS SINFUL.”
Alexander Hislop warmed over.