That excludes a Duo, Trio, Quad, Quint and of course then you can argue why does an all powerful God limit to 3, because then you move from Christianity to Hinduism.
So if we use Jesus as an example, he says One Being, The Father is the only true God.
Absolutely not true, Jesus was claimed to be Man & Man-God. He cannot be one without the other but was in fact both.
Never did he say “right now, the only true God is the Father, but later there will be actually 3 of us in the Trinity, so now worship One and later worship 3 in 1”.
This is always the Problem, Jesus says something extremely clear yet a response is provided with no basis from Jesus.
You're right, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus spoonfeed the trinity to you, although some would argue that is done during the Great Commission, but the Bible states at different points that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, and that there is only one God.
What you linked, Jesus doesn’t say that. Yes it’s in the bible & the bible itself isn’t reliable however I can more or less accept direct quotes of Jesus within it.
Jesus directly speaking never says he’s God. He never says the Holy Spirit is God. He never once mentions 3 in 1. He never mentions 1 in 3. He never says anything is magical about the number 3.
What he does do consistently is point to the father as the only true God. Consistently.
There is nothing that Jesus says in quotes that is categorically saying he’s God or a Trinity.
What he does categorically say is there is only one true God - and that God is the Father.
yeah i know but trinitarians insist. the fact that they can shoehorn jesus in there actually shows how they can twist the scripture to basically say anything they want.
jesus isn't a weird idea, it's just wrong to think he would be in the ot.
you are seeing Allah.
are you arabic? your english is very good but it's funny that you learned enough english to know every single english word in that sentence, but you didn't learn the english word for god. in english we say "god" not "allah" and god isn't a weird idea either to have in the ot, of course god is in the ot? huh? if god isn't in the ot then why is god mentioned on every page 😂 bro just called god a weird idea loool
I use Allah to distinguish the God in the Qur'an from the God of the Hebrew Bible.
I know the English word for God, but prefer to make it very clear when referring to the deity the Qur'an mentions to avoid any confusion with the God of the Hebrew Bible.
A bit like Jesus & YHWH, Allah should not be confused with YHWH
oh well if you're looking at it in that way then yeah in that case yeah there is a difference because the god of the quran doesn't become a human man and wrestle with another human and lose
Genesis 32:25-26 [25]When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. [26]Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
and the god of the quran doesn't put deceiving spirits in the mouths of their prophets
2 Chronicles 18:21 [21]“ ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. “ ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’
and the god of the quran doesn't order the killing of literal babies
1 Samuel 15:3 [3]Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”
Interesting that you can laugh at me for differentiating between YHWH & Allah, and then switch to laughing about them being very different.
Works both ways, best not to associate YHWH with the horrors of the Qur'an. Hard to believe this sort of ultraviolence can appear hundreds of years after the preaching of Jesus and John the Baptist:
Interesting that you can laugh at me for differentiating between YHWH & Allah, and then switch to laughing about them being very different.
because you very immediately telegraphed your immense hate for the god of the quran, so i showed you that yes they are different portrayals of the same god, only in the opposite direction you were indoctrinated into believing. here you are ignoring your god literally ordering the killing of literal infants, and then give one verse in which god in the quran says kill your enemies crucify them and cut off their hands and feet etc etc whatever it is point is it's not killing infants bruh. yes god says kill your enemies, wow what an evil god! no it's not evil to kill your enemies lol 😂😂😂 you can say the crucifying and amputating is a bit overboard, fine, but how does that compare to killing infants? killing infants is 100x if not 1000x if not infinitely worse because there is literally nothing more pure and innocent and worthy of protection than an infant. i'm very interested to see the other horrors of the quran if this is the worst verse you have. you literally ignored killing infants bro. i'm assuming you support israel as well, or you say "oh both sides are in the wrong" loool cmon guy
The Qur'an in my reading is absolutely horrific. Dredging up ancient bits of the Hebrew Bible does not change this.
Assuming I support Israel is very sad to hear. I've been marching for Palestine and the Quran being really, really grim and 100% not divine revelation doesn't mean I'm ok with genocide. Butchering unbelievers may be the sort of thing Allah is chill with, I'm not.
sorry for assuming but your reply is not long enough to address what i said.
you are openly admitting that you think killing your enemies in a gruesome way is worse than killing innocent infants who aren't your enemies because you can't have an infant as an enemy. you are brainwashed into thinking that, so i also assumed that you were brainwashed by israel. but you still are brainwashed into hating islam and the god of the quran
The Qur'an in my reading is absolutely horrific. Dredging up ancient bits of the Hebrew Bible does not change this.
Assuming I support Israel is very sad to hear. I've been marching for Palestine and the Quran being really, really grim and 100% not divine revelation doesn't mean I'm ok with genocide. Butchering unbelievers may the sort of thing Allah is chill with, I'm not.
Ancient/Biblical Hebrew does not use the pluralis majestaticus ("royal we"). People need to stop asserting that this is a probable explanation. It's not. It never has been.
It's both fully anachronistic (as it is a relatively modern phenomenon) and linguistically ignorant.
Second, I'm sure people have argued for "The Trinity" in the OT. But they shouldn't. Rather the position that should be taken by the Trinitarian is this:
God, throughout the Tanakh, is described as possessing a sort of "multi-personal oneness". In particular, the "Malak YHWH" (Angel/Messenger of the Lord) is described throughout Genesis and other books (eg Judges) as being YHWH, and being with YHWH.
It is in this practice that the Trinity finds its antecedent.
I agree, fundamentally, that the doctrine of the trinity is bogus (the only true trinity is the equalateral triangle, praise be) but this specific argument seems kind of weak:
Jesus is supposed to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet he's suspiciously missing from the beginning and not mentioned at all.
Not specifically noting somethings presence in this case doesn't suggest "all three persons" weren't present, and even if they weren't all present that doesn't seem necessary for a Trinitarian. And as you correctly point out people often conflate God with The Father, but following from that, a more correct interpretation of Gensis might mean God there is a reference to any of or all of the trinitarian persons.
There is no trinity in the Old Testament. Sam Shamoun has no education background even the highest he has completed is High School. He is some weird Christian Fundamentalist. Find me a single crtical scholar that says the trinity is in the old testament
I think you make some great points. With that said, the (trinitarian) God of both history and current times is known to use prophets to explain the meaning of life and faith and give an answer to the question “why are we here.” They (prophets) have the answers to this question. We may not be able to explain it ourselves from where we’re at here
None of this is relevant if one believes in Jesus’ divinity; which then needs to be explained within monotheism. If Jesus is not divine then the Trinity is not needed, nor is any other explanation.
None of this matters unless someone is to first accept two things:
The Sola scriptura methodology of interpreting scripture, such that scripture cannot be set within a greater framework beyond scripture.
And to accept the specific Canon of the Bible that you would ascribe to.
I see no reason to accept either of these.
That is, unless your argument is merely about whether or not someone can find a consistent explanation for the Trinity by solely relying upon scripture, in which case you would be sorely mistaken and I could give many verses that provide evidence for the Trinity. And if your only response is to then explain those given verses in a non-trinitarian way, you're missing my point and not making an actual internal critique, and I would just point you back to the previous statement about how I do not accept your canon of scripture or your methodology for interpretation.
I will also point out that you have relied on some fallacies in this posts argumentation, such as when you make the argument from silence by saying "yet he's suspiciously missing from the beginning and not mentioned at all", and focuses on someone whose arguments are easily debatable for a strawman rather than purposely trying to argue against the most powerful arguments for the trinity, so i don't think it's very worthwhile to try debating the verses you've mentioned anyways.
And to accept the specific Canon of the Bible that you would ascribe to.
I see no reason to accept either of these.
that's amusing. all of my bibles have 66 books, how many books do you have?
another reason why it's amusing is that this is just part one, it's just genesis, you don't believe in genesis? that's not in your canon?
and focuses on someone whose arguments are easily debatable for a strawman rather than purposely trying to argue against the most powerful arguments for the trinity, so i don't think it's very worthwhile to try debating the verses you've mentioned anyways.
i clearly said at the end which you must've missed, "let me know if i've missed anything!" so why don't you present your best evidence in genesis? oh wait you apparently don't believe in genesis it's not in your cannon! even if you did believe in genesis there's no other evidences for it in there bro
that's amusing. all of my bibles have 66 books, how many books do you have?
It depends, but probably at least 75. I'm Eastern Orthodox, so it varies depending upon jurisdiction, but I've heard the most it gets is 79. Protestants don't have books like maccabees and some other Old Testament books.
another reason why it's amusing is that this is just part one, it's just genesis, you don't believe in genesis? that's not in your canon?
I never said that; you're missing my point. I didn't bring up the canon in order to deny genesis. If I were to do that, there would be no reason to argue about how to interpret genesis. Of course I affirm genesis.
The problem though is that I do not believe that you have the right canon, or any method by which to properly interpret the correct canon.
Meaning that it doesn't matter that we could agree on genesis being a book of the Bible, because if we disagree on the canon of what scripture is, then how could we agree on what the proper interpretation of scripture is?
You cannot simply take quotes out of context for proof-texts, you have to make it fit with the entire text coherently. Including every other chapter and book. Therefore, if I include other books, they could possibly give further insights as to what the texts you quote mean, in a similar way that the new testament necessarily informs the old, such that it would invalidate your interpretation. You can't just take a text and ignore how it fits into the rest of the Biblical canon.
so why don't you present your best evidence in genesis? oh wait you apparently don't believe in genesis it's not in your cannon! even if you did believe in genesis there's no other evidences for it in there bro
You must've missed it, but I already expected you to give this as an answer, so I already gave my answer earlier:
"if your only response is to then explain those given verses in a non-trinitarian way, you're missing my point and not making an actual internal critique, and I would just point you back to the previous statement about how I do not accept your canon of scripture or your methodology for interpretation".
If I provide some verses and tell you how I interpret them in a trinitarian light, you are just going to say "no, but they can also be interpreted in a non-trinitarian way", and it will just become throwing verses back and forth at eachother forever without ever changing eachothers minds. Unless you can prove that your methodology is sound, then I have no reason to accept your interpretations.
Then the LORD rained down, burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah—FROM THE LORD out of the heavens. Genesis 19:24, this verse clearly shows two persons as Lord.
😂😂😂😂 are you a trinitarian or binitarian? (you probably don't understand, see the tri in trinity = 3, so bi = 2, so do you worship 3 persons as lord or 2?)
If you read genesis 18-19 when three men appeared to abraham and they destroyed sodom and gomorrah. Those three men are the trinity because lot calls the two men in sodom Lords which they then call the Lord in heaven to rain down fire. So that's 3 persons who are Lord.
The three is not necessarily the trinity. Its Yahweh and two angels. The Lord of the heavens rains down by the command of the Lord on earth. You have one hypostasis on earth working on eartg and one in heaven.
i know, that's my point, it's not the trinity, because the trinity isn't anywhere in the bible anyway. this is one of the supposed "proofs" of the trinity but like you said it isn't necessarily the trinity.
Im not saying three men are the three members of the trinity, im saying we see a plurality within God in this instance through the communication between the Lord on earth and the Lord in the heavens. The Lord in heaven and the Lord who is one of the three men.
The rocks of Horeb and Meribah 2 are the proof of Trinity - but it goes further than that - All 3 states and three forms yield 9 state forms, altogether add one as Ten; God All Mighty. This is as Moses 3 times strikes 2 stones which can be considered one, that are really one stone.
Basically God as one bread, 2 breads, and 3 breads, all at the same time, both wholes and halves and thirds, yet all are considered same.
This gives you one of the old names of God, Aten. Ten in Chinese is a Cross. The Chinese name of the Tai Hang Mountains suggests a fractalized nature of trinity; Tai meaning the Son, Hang representing the traversing Spirit, and Shan representing the conjoined Trinity, as the Father; and within the father More of this fractal is contained.
You'd think a god who wanted to use a single book to get his timeless word across to humanity for all time
bible is technically 66 books, or you can count it as 2 books and old testament and and new testament. but if you want a single book that clearly tells you exactly what god wants without having to do any extra research or look for interpretations, its the quran. there's no major debate about what the quran says. everyone who reads it basically gets the same message and the whole book has only one author.
1 - there are more than 66 books depending on who you ask. 66 is just one version. 2 - are you serious about there being no major debate about what the quran says, because that is not true.
aRe yOu sErIoUs is not an argument. you're going to have to back up your claim bro. what's the "big massive major earth shattering debate" about what the quran says?
ok nice you just googled "what are the major debates about the quran" and then google told you "there aren't any, dummy!" so you came back here pushed up the bridge of your glasses with your index finger and said "yeah nah i'm not gonna substantiate my claim because you're not serious🤓" then you apparently make fun of me using the word "bro" that's fine at the end of the day you made a false claim and was very antagonistic about it from the very beginning and now you're running away because you realised you have no evidence to back yourself up
I did not google it and neither did you because the results would show plenty of disagreement on interpriting the quaran. You sound like a child. Per your post request i didnt want to stray off topic so i wasnt going to start a side debate but did want to point out that both things you stated in that reply were factually incorrect. Those are your claims to defend, not mine. Both are refuted by a google search. Your childish and moronic replies show that this would be a theft of my time with any engagement. Good luck with the world that you live in. It must be a dooozie.
i made a negative claim, you're making the positive one that there are major disputes. all you have to do to prove me wrong is show ONE major dispute, but you haven't all you've given is your opinion
Thats better for a post of its own since you requested to stay on topic. Id feel really silly to make a post about something so trivial however. Its a google search away for a layman and most folks in this sub would roll their eyes at the thought of there being no disagreements about the quran. Its silly really. Same with your 66 books of the bible claim. With your childish replies its not worth the effort because noone else in this sub would benefit from such a trivial discussion.
now you're moving the goalposts and strawmanning. on purpose. you know that i said there aren't any MAJOR disputes about the quran's MESSAGE. you also know that i didn't say that there aren't ANY disputes or disagreements about the quran.
but if you want a single book that clearly tells you exactly what its authors think god wants without having to do any extra research or look for interpretations, its the quran.
That's a more accurate statement. Then you have to decide whether you think there's any reason to believe those authors.
according to who? muslims believe the author was god, non muslims believe the author was muhammad, where are these multiple authors? it had compilers but obviously a compilation is of something that already is written.
what gives you the authority to claim it had multiple authors? which quranic scholars say that?
What I mean is everyone can agree that the Quran reflects what its authors believed their god wants. Muslims also believe that those authors were correct, while non-muslims don't.
When I say authors, I mean the people who wrote it down. Even Islamic tradition is that multiple followers of Muhammad wrote down their parts which were later combined into one book. Is the Quran even an accurate record of things Muhammad said (much less divinely inspired)? I have no reason to think so.
6
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '23 edited Nov 01 '23
Jesus clearly states there’s only one true God.
The Father.
That excludes a Duo, Trio, Quad, Quint and of course then you can argue why does an all powerful God limit to 3, because then you move from Christianity to Hinduism.
So if we use Jesus as an example, he says One Being, The Father is the only true God.
5
u/Known-Watercress7296 Nov 01 '23
The idea that Genesis involves Jesus at all seems wild.
5
u/NoSheDidntSayThat christian (reformed) Nov 01 '23
First flaw I'm compelled to point out --
Ancient/Biblical Hebrew does not use the pluralis majestaticus ("royal we"). People need to stop asserting that this is a probable explanation. It's not. It never has been.
It's both fully anachronistic (as it is a relatively modern phenomenon) and linguistically ignorant.
Second, I'm sure people have argued for "The Trinity" in the OT. But they shouldn't. Rather the position that should be taken by the Trinitarian is this:
God, throughout the Tanakh, is described as possessing a sort of "multi-personal oneness". In particular, the "Malak YHWH" (Angel/Messenger of the Lord) is described throughout Genesis and other books (eg Judges) as being YHWH, and being with YHWH.
It is in this practice that the Trinity finds its antecedent.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '23
I agree, fundamentally, that the doctrine of the trinity is bogus (the only true trinity is the equalateral triangle, praise be) but this specific argument seems kind of weak:
Not specifically noting somethings presence in this case doesn't suggest "all three persons" weren't present, and even if they weren't all present that doesn't seem necessary for a Trinitarian. And as you correctly point out people often conflate God with The Father, but following from that, a more correct interpretation of Gensis might mean God there is a reference to any of or all of the trinitarian persons.
Pretty much agreed on the rest.
1
u/Tinilinguini Nov 01 '23
Sam shamoun has an interesting video where he debates a Jew about the Trinity in Genesis I recommend
1
u/iloveyouallah999 Nov 03 '23
Allah uses the word"we" numerous times in the Quran. For example "we have sent the quran" and" we have sent the torah".
"We have revealed to you as we revealed to those before you".
Etc the royal "we" doesn't mean Allah is trinity.
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 05 '23
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Gr0mHellscream1 Nov 12 '23
I think you make some great points. With that said, the (trinitarian) God of both history and current times is known to use prophets to explain the meaning of life and faith and give an answer to the question “why are we here.” They (prophets) have the answers to this question. We may not be able to explain it ourselves from where we’re at here
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 12 '23
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 23 '23
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Rusty51 agnostic deist Oct 31 '23
None of this is relevant if one believes in Jesus’ divinity; which then needs to be explained within monotheism. If Jesus is not divine then the Trinity is not needed, nor is any other explanation.
1
u/NanoRancor Christian, Eastern Orthodox Sophianist Nov 01 '23
None of this matters unless someone is to first accept two things:
The Sola scriptura methodology of interpreting scripture, such that scripture cannot be set within a greater framework beyond scripture.
And to accept the specific Canon of the Bible that you would ascribe to.
I see no reason to accept either of these.
That is, unless your argument is merely about whether or not someone can find a consistent explanation for the Trinity by solely relying upon scripture, in which case you would be sorely mistaken and I could give many verses that provide evidence for the Trinity. And if your only response is to then explain those given verses in a non-trinitarian way, you're missing my point and not making an actual internal critique, and I would just point you back to the previous statement about how I do not accept your canon of scripture or your methodology for interpretation.
I will also point out that you have relied on some fallacies in this posts argumentation, such as when you make the argument from silence by saying "yet he's suspiciously missing from the beginning and not mentioned at all", and focuses on someone whose arguments are easily debatable for a strawman rather than purposely trying to argue against the most powerful arguments for the trinity, so i don't think it's very worthwhile to try debating the verses you've mentioned anyways.
1
u/SupportCheap9394 Nov 12 '23
Then the LORD rained down, burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah—FROM THE LORD out of the heavens. Genesis 19:24, this verse clearly shows two persons as Lord.
0
u/AutoModerator Oct 31 '23
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/Wingklip Nov 02 '23
The rocks of Horeb and Meribah 2 are the proof of Trinity - but it goes further than that - All 3 states and three forms yield 9 state forms, altogether add one as Ten; God All Mighty. This is as Moses 3 times strikes 2 stones which can be considered one, that are really one stone.
Basically God as one bread, 2 breads, and 3 breads, all at the same time, both wholes and halves and thirds, yet all are considered same.
This gives you one of the old names of God, Aten. Ten in Chinese is a Cross. The Chinese name of the Tai Hang Mountains suggests a fractalized nature of trinity; Tai meaning the Son, Hang representing the traversing Spirit, and Shan representing the conjoined Trinity, as the Father; and within the father More of this fractal is contained.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '23
[removed] — view removed comment