Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[shunyadragon]

I have been accused of misrepresenting Christianity by proposing the interpretation that the Trinity is the heresy of polytheism (Tritheism). To have a different interpretation for scripture and belief systems is not necessarily misrepresenting another religious belief. Comparison with other religions finds many similarities to the Trinitarian view of God. I am not alone in this interpretation.

Source: http://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Polytheism.pdf

[email protected]

footnote 26; And I think that there are: see Brower and Rea (2005).

footnote 27; I would like to thank Michael Bergmann, JeV Brower, Marian David, and
Daniel Howard-Snyder, Shieva Kleinschmidt, and James vanderKam for helpful
comments on an earlier draft. An earlier version of this essay was read at the
2003 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion. I am grateful to my
commentator, Stephen Davis, and also to Carl Mosser for valuable discussion
during that session and for helpful correspondence on the issues discussed in this
essay.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

My view is that Christianity was mainly corrupted by Paul into a Hellenist/Roman religion with the dogma of Tritheism, and many philosophers and believers agree.

[seanD]

Contrary to what adherents of modern Judaism might claim, similar theology to the Trinity (though not exactly as defined) is found in the earliest forms of Judaism about Yahweh. I suggest reading works by Michael Heiser to get probably the clearest understanding of this subject. Paul, an expert adherent of ancient Judaism, was essentially drawing from this understanding even though Christ gave more clarity to this concept.

[shunyadragon]

Contrary to what adherents of modern Judaism might claim, similar theology to the Trinity (though not exactly as defined) is found in the earliest forms of Judaism about Yahweh. I suggest reading works by Michael Heiser to get probably the clearest understanding of this subject. Paul, an expert adherent of ancient Judaism, was essentially drawing from this understanding even though Christ gave it more clarity to his understanding.

The earliest forms of Judaism were mixed with Ugarite and Sumarian polytheism including extracts from their cuniform texts and names for gods, and should not be understood as references to the Trinity, because there is no clear relationship.

[seanD]

The earliest forms of Judaism were mixed with Ugarite and Sumarian polytheism including extracts from their cuniform texts and names for gods, and should not be understood as references to the Trinity, because there is no clear relationship.

I wasn't talking about connections to ancient Judaism and other ancient cultures centuries prior to Paul. I was talking about Paul of the first century and his connection to Judaism around that time. I meant "ancient" Judaism relative to today.

[DesertBerean]

Why do I see only one theologian in that list of quotes, Shuny?

[shunyadragon]

Why do I see only one theologian in that list of quotes, Shuny?

They are not devoted to justifying their religion.

[DesertBerean]

They are not devoted to justifying their religion.

Neither are novelists known to be entirely impartial.

[Jedidiah]

I have been accused of misrepresenting Christianity by proposing the interpretation that the Trinity is the heresy of polytheism (Tritheism). To have a different interpretation for scripture and belief systems is not necessarily misrepresenting another religious belief. Comparison with other religions finds many similarities to the Trinitarian view of God. I am not alone in this interpretation.

You have every right to misunderstand what Christians believe about the Trinity. However your false belief is not what Christians believe. The Trinity is not in any way shape of form polytheistic for a Christian. But you are allowed to go off on a tangent and come up wrong.

[shunyadragon]

Neither are novelists known to be entirely impartial.

Obviously true, but I gave a diversity sources of academics.

[shunyadragon]

I wasn't talking about connections to ancient Judaism and other ancient cultures centuries prior to Paul. I was talking about Paul of the first century and his connection to Judaism around that time. I meant "ancient" Judaism relative to today.

You may not have been referring to the connections to ancient Judaism, but this is a very real issue how Christians interpret the Pentateuch concerning the plurality of the nature of God in the Trinity.

By the first century when Jesus lived Hellenism dominated Roman establishment Judaism in a Roman world since the conquest by Alexander the Great. Peter was an upper class Hellenist Jew, a Roman citizen, and a strong supporter of Roman authority, and this would not consider him an authority on ancient Judaism, and the Jews and priesthood of the Palestine region, and historical ancient Judaism.

Yes, through out Jewish history there are mystical writings that describe metaphysical spiritual plurality of the nature of God, but these beliefs do not remotely support nor are they comparable to the dogma and doctrine of the Trinity. There is no writings prior to Paul that describe the nature of God as Trinitarian.

The process of the conversion of Jewish Christianity to Roman Christianity from the conversion of Constantine to Theodosius I firmly established a Hellenist/Roman Christianity, and the exclusion of Jewish Christians, who were not represented in the councils that determined the doctrine and dogma. Theodosius I sealed the exclusion of Jews and separation from Christianity.

Described by the historian Sharif as the progressive

Source: Sharf, Andrew. Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade. New York, New York: Shocken Books, Inc., 1971.

"unambiguous expressions of hatred and contempt for Judaism"

© Copyright Original Source

An important characteristic of Roman Christianity is the wide spread us of statuary and imagery of of figures considered God, or Divine figures classically and legitimately prohibited in Judaism based on OT scripture, and the mystical unknown apophatic nature of God.

[MaxVel]

Odd how you like to bang on about other religions (i.e. not Ba'hai) being wrong because they haven't 'evolved', yet when one does, like the concept of the Trinity, you're using that to try and show how wrong they got it.

Looks like you just want to bash Christianity, and any stick will do. If Christians had a God-concept more similar to Judaism, I suspect you'd say that that shows how wrong Christianity is, since it hasn't 'evolved'. Here you're saying that it's wrong because it has 'evolved', in line with a new revelation from God.

Poor ol' Jesus just can't do anything that pleases you, can He?

[shunyadragon]

Odd how you like to bang on about other religions (i.e. not Ba'hai) being wrong because they haven't 'evolved', yet when one does, like the concept of the Trinity, you're using that to try and show how wrong they got it.

Looks like you just want to bash Christianity, and any stick will do. If Christians had a God-concept more similar to Judaism, I suspect you'd say that that shows how wrong Christianity is, since it hasn't 'evolved'. Here you're saying that it's wrong because it has 'evolved', in line with a new revelation from God.

There are two types of the evolution of Religions over time described clearly in Baha'i. The progressive positive Revelation including the restoration of uncorrupted absolute unknowable nature of the Oneness of God, and the corruption of religion by human influence like the Hellenization and Romanization of Christianity specifically the false dogma and doctrines related to the Trinity.

The OT is a clear example of progressive Revelation, and the rejection of 'outside polytheistic influences' and the restoration of pure unadulterated monotheistic beliefs.

Poor ol' Jesus just can't do anything that pleases you, can He?

[Bill the Cat]

Shuny is at it again, huh??

[Adrift]

I have been accused of misrepresenting Christianity by proposing the interpretation that the Trinity is the heresy of polytheism (Tritheism). To have a different interpretation for scripture and belief systems is not necessarily misrepresenting another religious belief. Comparison with other religions finds many similarities to the Trinitarian view of God. I am not alone in this interpretation.

Source: http://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Polytheism.pdf

[email protected]

footnote 26; And I think that there are: see Brower and Rea (2005).

footnote 27; I would like to thank Michael Bergmann, JeV Brower, Marian David, and
Daniel Howard-Snyder, Shieva Kleinschmidt, and James vanderKam for helpful
comments on an earlier draft. An earlier version of this essay was read at the
2003 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion. I am grateful to my
commentator, Stephen Davis, and also to Carl Mosser for valuable discussion
during that session and for helpful correspondence on the issues discussed in this
essay.

© Copyright Original Source

I think you misunderstand robrecht's "accusation" (and to be clear, this thread is mostly a reply to robrecht). He's mostly against the polemical tone you take towards those who self-identify as Monotheists. But I'm sure he'll be more than happy to correct you (not that you'll listen, of course).

Concerning Michael C. Rea's paper, I'm thinking most "Social-Trinitarians" would take major issue with what he hand waves away as "superficial differences" between Amun-Re theology and ST-Christianity on page 141. That said, Rea is a Christian philosopher, and he does not reject the Trinity altogether. Far from it as your own citation points out,

"If, however, there are interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity which (while avoiding the heresy of modalism) are consistent with monotheism, [And I think that there are: see Brower and Rea (2005).] . . ."

Rea's issue is with various common defenses of the Trinity, particularly those that he refers to as "Social Trinitarianism", and most version of "Relative-Identity Trinitarianism", he (along with Jeffrey E. Brower) offers instead a different defense of the orthodox understanding of the Trinity that he believes to be far more robust that he refers to as the "Aristotelian Solution" which you can read about here.

Rea's issues with Social Trinitarianism have almost nothing in common with your own complaints about the Trinity. He believes that the Trinity can be understood correctly both intuitively and dogmatically, but I'm certain you picked up on this paper after much "research", which amounted to whatever you could hit upon by desperately googling the keywords "Trinity" and "polytheism".