Robert Ingersoll explained the Trinity in his usual light-hearted humorous way. If you let some clergyman explain exactly like that in a Sunday setting, but just taking out his last sentence, would anyone even blink an eye?
Whether one accepts the Trinity or not, that cite shows the dilemma Christians face.
The Trinity doctrine is necessary to resolve what would otherwise be contradictions in the Bible as a whole (of course, lots of people resolve those contradictions by declaring the whole thing false and walking away - and I’m not going to argue with that). For example:
So the this is talking about Jesus (I don’t think anyone disputes that), and it’s saying he was involved in making everything.
But when we look in Genesis 1:1, we get:
and in verse 24:
And in Isaiah 44:24, we have:
So on the one hand, it’s teamwork, on the other hand, God did it alone - singular, but also oddly plural. There are many other examples like this (not all about plurality) - and the Trinity doctrine is one way to resolve them.
What it is, is the best the early church could come up with to explain the fact that sometimes in Scripture the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit seem to be different entities; yet all seem to be God and God is One. It’s essentially a big copout; the church fathers said “God is three, yet God is one. We don’t really understand it either.”
In fact there is a famous story about St. Augustine walking along the beach deep in thought, trying to understand the how God can be Three in One. He comes upon a young boy carrying a pail of water from the sea to a hole he has dug in the sand. Augustine watches the boy go back and forth a few times and finally asks him what he is doing. “I’m putting the sea in this hole in the sand,” says the boy.
Augustine protests: “The sea is much to large to fit! It’s impossible!” to which the boy replies, “So, too, is it impossible for your mind to hold the mystery of the Trinity!.”
So even back then, theologians were kind of throwing up their hands.
After you provide a Scriptural cite for “God is One”, I’ll point out that perhaps the Biblical author meant “God is one type of Supernatural entity, and all three of this type are essential identical”.
I get the impression you’re doing this to demonstrate a point, but I don’t get what that point could be.
I don’t think anyone could be criticised for saying that the Bible seems sufficiently nebulous as to be amenable to many different and conflicting interpretations, but that’s not the same as saying any interpretation fits, including those interpretations that are crafted with the express intent of being contrary to any kind of plain reading of the text.
Also, in the above example, you’re applying a rule of English semantic convention - do you even know when you write “X is one type of Y” in Hebrew, if it looks remotely similar to when you write “X is one(singular/unique)” - I suspect it might not.
Why don’t you provide a cite that supports your suspicion? I can’t read Hebrew, but if God guides the hands of the writers of the Scriptures (and presumably the translators as well), then the English translations should contain sufficient accuracy to grasp the meaning of the authors. The meaning I grasp is that there are at least three Gods, or “Three of God”, if you will.
You’re the one making the positive assertion that the phrase ‘God is one’ has additional meaning about class, rather than entity. The onus is upon you to support that.
No, you’re mistaken. My cite is: any approved English translation of the Bible. I maintain the gist of the Scriptures is accurately conveyed by said translations, and I suspect that’s the position of most any Christian religious authority. If you challenge the accuracy of the various English translations, you’re the one with the responsibility to support that view.
It was written, called the word of God, and inspired by God by other human beings. so, I would guess there is no proof that Scriptures are any more from God than the Koran or any other writings.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not challenging the accuracy of the English translations, I’m challenging your further English interpretation of them, in particular:
You’re extending the meaning beyond a plain reading the words - and I can’t see any particular reason to do that, or if so, to pull out that particular extended meaning, as opposed to many other possibilities.
The onus is upon you to demonstrate that it is reasonable to extend the statement “God is one” to “God is one type of Supernatural entity, and all three of this type are essential identical”.
If God created al things and is all knowing and loving, he doesn’t act like that according to the Scriptures He should have known Satan would rebel and humans would disobey, so the flaw of both must have been part of the nature God gave them. Too much written about God doesn’t ring true. Because some one wrote things and said they were from God is not necessarily true.
So, right there in Commandment 1., The Lord God clearly alludes to the existence of other Gods. Can you be more specific regarding Deut. 13? It’s a largely violence filled threat-fest, but I don’t see how it ties in to the existence of the Holy Ghost (the quiet, dangerous one) or Jesus, the Messiah.
I propose that the Father (the jealous God) is the Old Testament spokesperson for the Triumvirate (a term I prefer to “Trinity”), that the Holy Ghost is the Black-Ops guy, and that Jesus is the media friendly “pretty face” who wants to change the brand from “Fire and Brimstone” to “Feed, Heal and Forgive”.
If someone shows up and says “Hey, speaking of God the Father – the jealous God – he’s awesome, he’s terrific, yay, but, oh, by the way, there’s also this other person named Jesus who is also a God; let’s go and follow and worship him”, then we (a) totally shouldn’t listen to that guy, and (b) are commanded by God the Father to execute the occasional rabble-rouser, regardless of whether the blasphemer happens to work wonders or foretell the future or excel at carpentry.
In truth, no. Maybe in some fringe traditions; but even most of the conservative/fundamentalist churches that subscribe to biblical inerrancy only claim the text to be inerrant in the original language, and allow for errors in translation. (Not all of them of course). As you move to more moderate and liberal churches, they all agree that the original text is, well, the original, and is authoritative over any translation. Although they differ on inerrancy, authority, etc.
I feel like you’re trying to set up a trap; but yes God is Holy - all three persons are Holy.
It sounds like you are setting up a pantheon rather than a unified God. A triumvirate is made of three different individuals; that is not orthodox Christianity.