Christians

[Zenith]

I thought I was clear enough... I didn't ask the question "what is a god?" but "how do you define the word "god"" (as a concept, not whether such a thing exists or not).

Creator. First Cause.

Again, it seems I wasn't clear enough. The question was "what is a god?", not "what is a God?". Do you make a difference between the two?
The difference between "god" and "God" is that God must be a Creator (or, First Cause), while "god" doesn't need to be a creator.

ok, I'll bring some definitions:

( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some forceRelated: divine

any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god

a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god)

The reason I brought the concept "god" here was because we seem to also talk about polytheism (i.e. Trinity seen as "three gods").

OK, I would add now some things that I guess that miss regarding "god", in the context of polytheism.
An interesting thing that I found:

The deities of polytheistic religions are agents in mythology, where they are portrayed as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and histories. These gods are often seen as similar to humans (anthropomorphic) in their personality traits, but with additional individual powers, abilities, knowledge or perceptions. Polytheism cannot be cleanly separated from the animist beliefs prevalent in most folk religions. The gods of polytheism are in many cases the highest order of a continuum of supernatural beings or spirits, which may include ancestors, demons, wights and others. In some cases these spirits are divided into celestial or chthonic classes, and belief in the existence of all these beings does not imply that all are worshipped.

So, a 'supernatural being' (which is, a superior being), in order to be a god [for somebody], it must be: worshiped (worship = people to give reverence/honor to, where ceremonies for that being can be included), people should ask (i.e. pray to) or simply expect things from that being (that's why they worship it, after all), the being must have some power/dominion. In polytheism, it appears, because each god had his own power/dominion and independence (with own personality, wishes, etc.) they could have not stand united, but fought one with other, and people, by worshiping one god more than the other, made the god worshiped less to envy the other god(s), and that could have been a good reason to start a fight with the other gods or punish the people.

We must also take into consideration that not all 'supernatural beings' in a culture were regarded as "gods" (i.e. they were not worshiped, etc. the things above)

OK, that was a bit of 'introduction' about gods & polytheism. I hope it had any use.

I think it's a separate issue from the idea of the Trinity. Christians seem to think that they copyrighted the word "God", and the term MUST refer to the Trinitarian concept, just as Muslims seem to think they own the idea of monotheism, and any non-Trinitarians must be Muslims.

That's why I asked the question "what is a god?".

Muslims here have a rather complex definition of a "God": there are the 99 names (or, descriptions) of Allah by which they understand the word God and whether a 'claimant' is indeed a God or not (funny, they base themselves on the qur'an to see which claimant is a true God). Some of the names/attributes are all-powerful and all-knowing. The christians seem to define their God as omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, good (as forced by His nature), etc.

I'm not actually interested in Islamic expectations of a god/God nor of a christian definition of it. Therefore, according to my definition of "god" (worshiped, people asking things from it, etc.) the saints and angels are gods and the "Virgin Mary" is a goddess (after all, what could the "Mother of God" be?) for catholic & orthodox people - I don't know if there are also protestants that give reverence to "saints" and to "angels". If they are, for those people "saints" and "angels" are "gods" to them, only that they have different names.

The idea of the Trinity is one god in three separate persons. The debate on this topic is over WTF does that even mean?

Again, that was why I asked the question "what is a god?". You can't explain nor contradict that statement if the term "god" is not defined and understood properly.

Anyway, as a note: It is important to know that you do not find "Holy Trinity" or "trinity" in the Bible. "Trinity" is not in the bible, it is an invented term, quite misleading (it can make people see things differently than they are presented in the bible) and erroneous (if you consider what is written in the bible). As I understand, the "Holy Trinity" is defined (by christains) as a "union" of 3 divine persons: all equal, all with inherent omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, with different personalities one from the other, yet the same, which are united (in what they want to do, etc.), and all existing since eternity. This isn't a polytheism (I mean, as defined above, and as "god" is defined above), but neither "strict monotheism". It's like a combination between the two.

A little note regarding existence since eternity (i.e. in general terms, btw this is irrelevant to our topic): I can't imagine how that is, but the fact is that, existence (any existing thing) cannot be born out of nothingness: there is either nothingness (which I cannot imagine either) since eternity, unto eternity, or an existence (i.e. a world in 3 dimensions or more, space, perhaps with things in it) since eternity, unto eternity - possibilities that cannot be comprehended by my imagination, but given the fact that we exist and the universe exists, there must have always (since eternity) existed something. And yet, I cannot imagine something to exist without a beginning (or, otherwise said, something existing since eternity), but this is how it must be, because we exist and the universe exists.

---

ok, now my interpretation of the "God" of the Bible (I will use "God" and not "Trinity" because "Trinity" is not in the bible, besides of the fact that "Trinity" is a wrong term).

WARNING: These are heretical views - which means that most to all xtians may disagree with me. (damn, I love the words related to "heresy"!)
I will also use references of verses in the Bible without quoting the verse - I expect you guys to read them from a bible.

ok, here it goes:
In the New Testament we observe that the word "God" mostly refers to the "Father" (e.g. 1 Corinthians 8.6 "for us there is but one God, the Father...and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ...", but there are many other verses). You can find throughout the New Testament that both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are in obedience/subordination to the Father, and also that the Holy Spirit is in obedience to the Son (e.g. Jesus: John 4.34, John 8.29, John 5.30, John 6.38, Hebrews 5.8-10; The Holy Spirit: John 14.26, John 16.7, Luke 11.13, John 16.13). So in this sense, the "Father" is the 'true' God (because He reigns over all).

Regarding Jesus Christ:
He is called "Son" of God (the only son, etc. - here, the "only son of God" or "only begotten son of God" means something like "the one, single, true son of God" (and with true rights of sonship, etc.)). By the very fact that He is called the "Son of God" and that - also by definition - He is under the authority of his Father, it is implied that Jesus was created (and it appears that Jesus had been created as a 'clone' of his Father, see Hebrews 1.3). Otherwise, I can't imagine how there could have been a relationship "son - father" if the son is not made by the father. It would be like saying about two 60 years old men, X and Y, who were both born in the same day, in the same hour, that one is the son of the other, and to see X calling Y as "father" while Y calling X "son" - which is very odd (now don't imagine the title "father" given to priests - in their case, a 25 years old lad can call an 80 years old guy "son", and the old guy to call the lad "father" - which is also very odd).

OK, so taking into consideration that Jesus Christ and the Father are two distinct persons, if both had inherent omnipotence and omniscience (in the limits of logic), then they could have not been "united" as to act "as one". They would have rather sought to have their own dominion - at least according to my logic. BUT, in the New Testament, it is written that Jesus Christ was and is obedient to His Father, and that He received power & authority (Mat 28.18, Luke 11.20).

Now, the question: then how can Jesus be God?
It is obvious that Jesus could never be His Father and could have never been His Father. And now some may think about the verse John 10.30 ("I and the Father are one."): That oneness does not mean a "merging" or something, just as christians being one (John 17.21) does not mean that they merge into one human being. This oneness rather implies a likely-mindness, same interests, same objectives, same feelings and attitudes, i.e. the things that can make 2 act or be like "one" (also see Hebrews 1.3)

ok, so Jesus is not the Father (now perhaps that's obvious). Then the next step would be to explain the word "God" as I see it from the Bible. So here it goes:
We know that the Old Testament claims monotheism (i.e. one God). The interesting thing with this is that the word "God" in hebrew (the main language of the Old Testament) literally means "gods" (plural form) - and when used as "God", the hebrew word is placed in the phrase as if it was a proper noun, i.e. without the article and treated in the sentence as if it was a 3rd person singular noun. When the hebrew word for "God" is used as plural (i.e. gods), it has a rather... vague meaning, i.e. it usually means "gods", but can also mean "kings" or "judges" or "angels" (depending on the context... and it is also interesting to note that there are specific hebrew words for king(s), judge(s) and angel(s) - though the latter literally means "messenger(s)" in hebrew). So we also have Psalm 45, which talks about the king (who should have been David there), calling the king a "God" (here, not "god"). And a king's duty was to rule over and judge the people. So there appears to be a connection between "god/God" and "king" and "judge", namely the fact that the god/God "rules/reigns" (i.e. has a dominion/kingdom where he rules, and power) and "judges". So, in that context, in the Bible there is one "God", even though John 10.35 & Psalm 82.6 calls [certain] people "gods" (which, by the way, did not mean that they were worshiped or regarded as superior by the other people). So, given the fact that a man (or more) can be called god(s), then it appears that the word "God/god" can have the flavor of a "role", and does not only mean something inherent (i.e. to be in one's nature to be so).

So, in the Bible, according to how I see things, there is one God because there is one 'kingdom' (e.g. kingdom/dominion of God), with a single 'throne' (seat of judgment & sovereign authority). The situation with the Father and His Son seems to be similar to an ancient kingdom/empire (and even in the middle ages): There was one ruler - the king/emperor. But the king/emperor could have entrusted his son (i.e. the prince) the ruling of the entire kingdom/empire, e.g. when the king went to a battle or was simply interested in doing something else. So, in such a situation, asking a thing from the prince was the same as asking that thing from the king himself (considering that the prince was capable, trustworthy, etc. so that his father had confidence in entrusting him the whole kingdom in his hands). Yet, it was considered that the kingdom/empire was ruled by a single king/emperor, not by two (as the prince was always subject to his father, and his power was given by his father/king/emperor, and that power could have been returned to him anytime). So, in this same way, in the bible Jesus Christ is a God (a king/sovereign over the whole universe, a judge over all), having this authority & power & responsibility given by His Father, who entrusted Him the whole universe, while His Father never having lost anything. And Jesus and His Father are very united and alike (they are "one").

As about the "Holy Spirit" (the interesting thing is that, when talking against the "Holy Trinity", everybody seems to ignore the "Holy Spirit", as if the "Holy Trinity" was "the Father" and "the Son" only).

ok, here it goes:
Unlike Jesus Christ and unlike the Father, the Holy Spirit is a spirit. Namely, it's the Spirit of God.
Now I don't know how much you guys understand of the word "spirit", so I'll have to explain. The word "spirit" seems to mean literally, both in hebrew and greek, a movement of air (i.e. "wind" or "breath"). This way it seems to be suggested that a "spirit" doesn't have a shape (a distinguished appearance), or specific margins. It should be something like the modern "energy" that can 'move'. As described in the Bible, a spirit can "fill" people (a specific person, many persons at once, etc.), influencing them in a certain way (see 1 Kings 22.21-23, also 2 Kings 19.7). There are also spirits of fear (2 Timothy 1.7, which, by definition, fill a person, or more, with fear), etc. And, the Holy Spirit seems to be a spirit of... see Isaiah 11.2.

And, the Spirit of God (or, "the Holy Spirit") seems to be something owned by God, as part of Him: in 1 Corinthians 2.11 there is shown as similarity between "the Spirit of God - God" and "the spirit of man - man". I think "spirit of man" refers to the "soul". So either saying "God did X" or "the Holy Spirit did X" would be something like a man saying "I did X" versus "my hand did X" or vs "my body did X". And, the Holy Spirit, being a spirit, must be a person (as I see 1 Kings 22.21-23). Also, Psalm 139.7-9 appears (at least to me) that God is omnipresent by His Spirit (i.e. His Spirit is omnipresent = everywhere, i.e. it is the way God fills the Universe - Jeremiah 23.24). The Spirit of God seems therefore... a bit harder to understand, i.e. a spirit (person) dependent and belonging to God, as the hands belong to a man.

So, that's quite my understanding of the 'Trinity' in the Bible.
Feel free to give feedback, if you wish. As for the christians: I will read the replies concerning this only from tackattack & Ryft.

---

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

So apparently those persons who are part of "one god being" don't share the same spirit.

If you meant the "Holy Spirit", I don't think it refers to that. It rather seems to talk about Jesus' "soul" (i.e. the spirit that is His intrinsic existence).

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

So apparently those persons who are part of "one god being" don't share the same will or make the same plans.

From the bigger context, it appears they did: Jesus had agreed since a long time before to do that. Only that now, he felt fear and stuff like that, knowing what was just about to happen, and that had a big influence upon Him (it's a kind of really fearing to do something you have to do).

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, neither the son, but my Father only.

So apparently those persons who are part of "one god being" don't share the same information or have the same knowledge.

Except the fact that I disagree with "persons who are part of "one god being"", you're right, because what Jesus knows, knows from His Father, see John 8.28 & John 12.49.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So apparently, those persons who are part of "one god being" can feel abandoned by or cut off from one another.

That's a bit of... interpretable. It appears that the jews had (and still have) the habit of naming books by the first words (or first sentence) of that book, e.g. "Genesis" in hebrew is "In the Beginning" - the first words of the book, also the same seems to be with the psalms, so the psalm 21 should be called (or, should have been called) "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". So it is quite possible that Jesus had meant (i.e. drawn attention to) that psalm, rather than speaking something that Himself was feeling.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So apparently members of this "one god being" can act as intercessors for one another.

Do the xtians really understand the Father and the Son as two persons merged into one body?

A sentiment echoed in Paul's letters:

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

So the separate persons are also in separate locations and can intercede for each other.

Know that "at the right hand of God" does not mean (at least as I see it) that Jesus' position is always in the right side of His Father. It rather seems to have something to do with the saying that "X is the Y's right hand" Also in the Bible, I don't think that only in hebrew, "hand" also has the meaning of "power"/"authority", as the saying "you are under my hand!", which does not have anything to do with your actual location relative to my hand.

I can cite chapter and verse all day but suffice to say if you read the earliest (synoptic) Gospels in isolation of John, the clear message is that Jesus is separate from and subordinate to God. Even the Gospel of John has a mixed message on this point.

I didn't see in the gospel of John that Jesus = the Father (like merged, or something).