-The Holy Spirit for us is simply our own soul. It is our "lifeforce" if you will. Without it we would be dead. Sort of like removing a battery from a toy, it won't work.
I know it sounds simplistic, but look at all the references to the Holy Spirit in the Bible. Genesis 1:2 speaks of the Holy Spirit hovering over the waters. I understand the word hovering to be translated as the same word used for a hen brooding her eggs. She is providing energy/poering their growth. In other references Jesus was doing miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. At penticost the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and afterward were able to do miracle as well.

Nice! I was just about to post something I read yesterday about Herbert Spencer, about his ideas on evolution and its relation to energy: Activism involves “belie[f] in the possibility of progressive perfection. One of the corollaries of the activistic creed is the concept of progress,” i.e. Herbert Spencer, who “postulated the basic idea of force or energy, which is, in his view, the true source of evolutionary process and development. Energy, for Spencer, is the ultimate principle in the cosmic design, and out of this inexhaustible energy springs the endless progress of humanity” (Vasant A. Shahane, Rudyard Kipling: Activist and Artist, 1973, 23). Who’s the real force or energy in this world? God! By His Spirit! Genesis 1:2 = "The Spirit moved"! "Power" in Acts 1:8 = dunamis! It means "force or miraculous power." Isn't this where we get "dynamite"? It is God moving, not us, and God’s power, not ours! This truth is staring them in the face and they refuse to acknowledge it!

PG: nice description of the Holy Spirit! It reminds me of Romans 8 "9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

Check out these sermon notes on the Trinity. Pastor Falwell explains a few popular theories on the concept. And click here for the video of that sermon.

Now, throughout the years, there have been a million attempts to describe the teaching on the trinity – of how God is “one in nature” but has “three distinct persons within himself.”

Here are a couple of my favorites:

BUT DON’T FORGET - ALL OF THESE fall apart at some point, so they’re not perfect. These are written from a human perspective trying to describe a supernatural truth; so, they will fall apart the more you think about them.

E.G. “WATER” can be liquid in form, frozen in form, or in the form of steam.

E.G. Dr. Towns articulates it this way, “Equal in nature, Separate in person, Submissive in duties.”

What's in the video but not in the notes is Pastor Falwell comparing the Trinity to a book. It has length, width, and depth. If you take away any of these elements, it ceases to be a book, does it not?

I was reading Scofield's notes on Genesis 1 yesterday. And I came across the following:
-On Genesis 1 “’Creature’ (Heb. nephesh) is usually translated ‘soul,’ as in 2:7. In itself nephesh or soul implies conscious life, as distinguished from plants which have unconscious life. In the sense of conscious life an animal also has a soul.”
* Compare with this: Ecclesiastes 3 “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”

-On Gen 1 “Man was created, not evolved. This is expressly declared, and the declaration is confirmed by Christ (Matt 19:4, Mark 10:6); it is also confirmed by the unbridgeable chasm between man and beast; the highest beast has no God-consciousness (religious nature).”
* What's the point? Animals don’t have souls, not in the way we think. They are dual in nature. Man, however, is a tripartite being: body, soul, and spirit. This is the unbridgeable chasm. No animal has ever become human, never in world history. If they did, how did they develop a soul? Where along the so-called path of evolution did they get one? Truth: God breathed a soul into us when He created us from dust! We have nothing in common with animals—nothing. Animal begets animal. Man begets man. Period. This is what “after its/their kind” means [Gen 1]. “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth” [Gen 5]. This is the way it was in the beginning and the way it’s been ever since.

Check out this story. It's called "Did Darwin Kill God? A recent television charade promotes theistic evolution."

That's why we have the Church to help us sort through those types of issues. The Bible was never meant to be a place to go to get the answer to every question we have.

Someone gave me an analogy that the Bible is like an instruction manual for a car. It has very useful information in it that is very important for the operation of your vehicle. However, if you have car trouble, you take the car into the specialists to help you fix the problem because sometimes the manual just doesn't give you enough information to solve it.

The Bible has the answer for everything! Church leaders are calling on the church to "Embrace Christianity as Total World and Life View." How? Through complete reliance on the Bible, God's Word!

The time is now for the church to return to the sufficiency of Scripture, said a ministry head. ... "What is at stake here is the question of the sufficiency of God," he wrote in his blog, recalling his address to thousands of conference attendees. "God did not breathe into the Scripture; He breathed the Scripture."

To embrace the sufficiency of Scripture is to embrace the sufficiency of God Himself, Brown asserted.

The conference at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center was organized out of concerns that the church has abandoned the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, consequently affecting families and the whole of the nation.

The doctrine teaches that Scripture is fully adequate in both content and clarity for "everything pertaining to life (salvation) and godliness (sanctification)," according to the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. The center believes that the recovery of Sola Scriptura is vital to the reformation of the Church.

Brown on Thursday listed five widely held assumptions in the modern church that have supported the abandonment of the sufficiency of Scripture to the creativity of man. They are: the red letters are the most important part; if it is not mentioned in the Bible, it is automatically lawful; if there is no command, it is not required; if it is not condemned in Scripture, it is authorized; and the Old Testament is automatically void unless repeated in the New Testament.

He lamented that the church today has become a mirror of the world rather than a mirror of God.

Also lamenting several practices in the church today, Doug Phillips, founder and director of Vision Forum, noted that churches often question whether God speaks to everything and seem to look everywhere else but the Bible for answers.

By definition, Phillips underscored, a true understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture requires that we embrace Christianity as a total world and life view and the Bible as the comprehensive source book on that world and life view.

Speakers at the Dec. 10-12 conference aim to call Christians back to their foundation in affirming that Scripture alone is sufficient to direct their lives and the life of their families, churches and the country.

Brown appealed to churches to repent of their "faithless creativity" and inventions and urged them to cast themselves on every single word of Scripture.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that God is the "Universe". God is to the Universe as the Author is to the Book He's Writing. We can see clear indications around us, evidence for lack of a better word, of His involvement. But my problem with the idea as you've presented it is that God has no tolerance for sin, and the second that Creation went off its kilter He wouldn't have tolerated it were it a part of His physical form, anymore than the human body is able to tolerate a cancerous tumor. The spiritual mechanics just don't seem to work in that case. God existed before the Universe did (this is clear from a straight reading of Genesis 1), and thus while we see elements of God within the world around us it is not God Himself we see, anymore than someone sees Lee Iacoca manifesting physically in their 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang, even though he designed the thing.

Amen! There is a firm division between Creator and creation. And that's what makes the incarnation, Christ becoming man, so amazing!

So for me, I see it as "Miraculous" that anything even exists at all, either Material or Transcendent.

Agreed with Shadowlander: good point, GB!

It's Christmas, everybody! Check out this song. It's called "Immanuel" [3200]. It's based on Romans 8:35-39 and it's amazing! Here's the refrain.

"No power in heaven or earth can take us away from Your love
No trial or suffering, O God, can take us away from Your love
You're still Immanuel, God with us
You're still Immanuel, God with us"

GB,

I have been doing some study of the trinity both for a doctrine class and for my own edification. There is a distinction that was made in the early centuries of Christianity that is helpful here: the distinction between ousia and hypostasis. Ousia means "nature" or "substance" and describes the very core and nature of a being. Hypostasis means "individual reality", "extension", or "person." Thus, Christian theology maintains, for example, that Jesus Christ has two natures (ousia) in one person (hypostasis).

The Orthodox formulation of the trinity is that God is one ousia in three hypostases. Each hypostasis manifests itself in a prosopon (person). Thus we say that we believe in one God in three persons.

TBG

I have been doing some study of the trinity both for a doctrine class and for my own edification. There is a distinction that was made in the early centuries of Christianity that is helpful here: the distinction between ousia and hypostasis. Ousia means "nature" or "substance" and describes the very core and nature of a being. Hypostasis means "individual reality", "extension", or "person." Thus, Christian theology maintains, for example, that Jesus Christ has two natures (ousia) in one person (hypostasis).

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and I openly admit this, but if I read this correctly then this would indicate (at least to me) that the Holy Ghost has a regular physical, for lack of a better word, appearance. We know, because the Bible specifically says so, that both God the Father and Christ the Son have physical forms. Moses, for instance, saw the back of God (to see His face would kill us in our current form). Christ became a human being to live the perfect sin-free life. I know that the Holy Ghost can assume a physical form, such as the Dove (would the Pillar of Fire which guided Moses and the Israelites be another manifestation of the Holy Ghost?), but when we see Him (the Holy Ghost) in person for the first time, will He appear to us possibly in a recognizable human-like form like Christ? I have to admit I've never given that possibility much thought, but since you mentioned something quasi-related along those lines I had to ask...I don't really know if I'm out of line to even ask. The Holy Ghost doesn't forgive, which scares the daylights out of me, so I have a little trepidation about even asking.

GB, I'm not up on my terminology, so if you could please explain this Monism concept which you've mentioned. And in layman's terms if at all possible.

220, I like the Water explanation of the Trinity you highlighted, how while it can be in 3 separate forms it remains in fact Water.

Wagga, I've been using something along the lines of the Shamrock concept for several years now. It is a good system and streamlines the concept a bit to make it more digestable for pea-wits like me. The problem I run into is that Christ and God the Father, while being the Same Person (as clearly spelled out in John 1) are at the same time two Separate Individuals. At least that's how I'm reading it. And I begin to wonder if this is something we'll simply have to wait to find out about.

if I read this correctly then this would indicate (at least to me) that the Holy Ghost has a regular physical, for lack of a better word, appearance. We know, because the Bible specifically says so, that both God the Father and Christ the Son have physical forms.

What Moses saw was a theophany--that is, a physical manifestation of the invisible God. God does not have a body except insofar as Jesus Christ is God made flesh. In Christ, the second person of the trinity was incarnated, that is to say, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." How can the Word have become flesh if He already had a permanent physical form? Hypostasis does not necessarily indicate physical form, just as ousia does not. "Substance" here is a metaphysical term, which roughly means "stuff." Spirit is "stuff" just as matter is "stuff."

So no, I don't believe that the Father has a physical form, though He is certainly capable of manifesting himself in that fashion.

TBG

Hello everyone,
This is a whole new thing, but I was directed here by another mod., instead of a previous topic I put it in, since it stretches into the realm of politics, so I will proceed from here:

Recently I have come across a Christian legal defense website. As many of you know, in the modern world, our beliefs and freedoms in religion are becoming limited. We may soon not be allowed to, even in our homes or churches, say that homosexuality, abortion, and etc. Well, on this website, they have written a declaration called The Manhattan Declaration. http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/ explains in full what we are signing, but I can brief it here.

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
- http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/

"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s." - The Declaration.

I would encourage you to read and sign this declaration here: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration
and here: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/sig ... eclaration. If you don't sign it, please at least read it, and if you don't read it, please at least read the summary here: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/ima ... ummary.pdf. If you still don't sign it, but agree with it, please pray for it. It is a good cause, seeing as we, in order to have freedom of religion, must be allowed speak against the violation of these truths; not violently, whether in actions or speech, especially when in public, but passionately, especially when in the church or in the home. I pray that you will at least read and consider this. Thankyou.

In Christ,
The Servant

I heard about that on Wretched. Todd Friel wasn't too keen on it, because it had little if any Biblical references. The Declaration of Independence has 27 listed Biblical violations, of which taxation without representation was just #17 on that list. (That's the one the schools focus on.) I have to agree with Todd Friel on this. If the churches are going to unite over an issue like this, their statement better have Biblical reasoning for it and state it as such. If you are going to object to something immoral, stating that these things are immoral, list the source of authority that declares it to be immoral. I love the idea, but if we want to go back to the way our nation was before we threw God out, we should go back to the way things were done: with Scripture, prayer, and focus on the Lord first and foremost. That's my take on it.

Monism is actually a relatively simple concept Shadow. It is a Philosophical concept that has Theological applications and implications. There are two very basic ways of describing it:

1) Many in One, and One in Many
2) All of the Same Substance

A Polytheism that resolves into a Unity, or One Godhead, is a Monism. Ousia and Hypostasis have a complicated terminological History that I will leave aside for the time being. But TBG's description of the accepted doctrine essentially fulfills both of the Tenets of Monism as described above.

There really is no escaping it, for all intents and purposes Christianity with a concept of the Trinity as "Three Distinct Persons" in One is a Monism. That is why orthodox Jews and Muslims do not recognize Christianity as Monotheism.

As long as the Church Fathers continue to twist Logic into Pretzels to maintain this definition of the Trinity, their claim to Monotheism rings hollow.

However, I think the "Three Persons in One" concept is a corruption of language. The Tripartate concept of the Individual is Ancient and Pre-Abrahamic, but when properly understood it can Rationally explain the Trinity and maintain the integrity of Monotheism.

Mind (Soul), Body (Word), Spirit (Breath/Energy): Now, in a sense this can still be seen as a Monism, but in this case it can apply to One Individual or One God, so one can posit a Monotheistic God as long as one maintains the original (pre-monotheist) concept of the Trinity, or Tripartate Individual.

Part of the trouble lies in the vagrancies of language. In Latin Persona had a broader meaning than the English word person, which could have applied to each of the tripartate aspects. But I think there was some deliberate fudging of the terminology from the time of the Trinity's codification at the Council of Nicea, in large part to distinguish it from the Pagan conception of the Tripartate Individual. But in doing so, it seems to have Reinforced, rather than distinguished itself from, the Pagan concept, by giving rise to a notion that God was Three Individuals in One. Thus it was ultimately a Self-Defeating attempt.

This deliberate attempt (if this is indeed the case) to alter the usage of language was thus passed on as the word "Person" entered the Germanic language sub-group, and thus affected our very world-views and still causing us difficulties today.

But in the end, when one looks at the Mystery Schools of the World's religions Pagan and Monotheist Alike, they all ultimately point in the same direction when one gets past the "corruption" of language. Some put more emphasis on "The One" and others on "The Many", but stripped of the Semantic Distinctions (which ultimately just cause more confusion), they are ALL about defining the relationship of The One and The Many.

In this case, Philosophical Monism solves the problem of Theological Dualism (strict Monotheism, i.e. a complete separation of Spirit and Mind from Matter/Nature).

Wow! Looking back at my post, I realize that my attempt to simplify got rather complex .

Oh well, if you can follow the logic I think it makes sense. At least more-so than simply saying "God is Three Separate People but we're still Monotheists" .

Monistically Poly-Monotheistically Yours

Gandalf's Beard

First Puddleglum, that is entirely Shadowlander's quote .

Second, though you are very close to describing what Shadow and I both described, the word Soul is more aptly applied to the Mind/Personality/Consciousness/Sentience--i.e. God the Father.

The Holy Spirit is the Life-Force/Energy/Breath, but it is not the Soul.

Otherwise I would say you are right on the money .

And again, this solution maintains Strict Monotheism without resorting to the tortured logic of the orthodox position which is trying to say that they are "Three Separate Persons who are also One Person, but we still want to call it Monotheism" .

GB

Wrong quote, and will probibly get told not to double post again.

Looks loke we found something to disagree on again.

Call it what we will, the Three in one model is what best fits what we see in scripture.
Gotta go, check in later.

Part of the trouble lies in the vagrancies of language. In Latin Persona had a broader meaning than the English word person, which could have applied to each of the tripartate aspects. But I think there was some deliberate fudging of the terminology from the time of the Trinity's codification at the Council of Nicea, in large part to distinguish it from the Pagan conception of the Tripartate Individual.

Actually, the orthodox definition which I just gave predates Nicaea by fifty years at least. The terminology of ousia and hypostasis was used by Origen. The word "prosopon" (mask, or "person") was considered and rejected because it was not as precise as hypostasis.

As long as the Church Fathers continue to twist Logic into Pretzels to maintain this definition of the Trinity, their claim to Monotheism rings hollow.

How so? We claim that the Lord is one.

Oh well, if you can follow the logic I think it makes sense. At least more-so than simply saying "God is Three Separate People but we're still Monotheists" .

Persons, not people--there is a distinction.

I think you know quite well that few of us are going to buy your attempt to solve metaphysical dualism with metaphysical monism. Why? Because there's this doctrine called the holiness of God where we maintain that God is other--He is wholly other (not in the Barthian sense, though).

In addition, there's the problem of evil: GB, would you say that evil is part of God?

TBG

TBG:
Actually, the orthodox definition which I just gave predates Nicaea by fifty years at least. The terminology of ousia and hypostasis was used by Origen. The word "prosopon" (mask, or "person") was considered and rejected because it was not as precise as hypostasis

Very True, but Ousia and Hypostasis had essentially the same meaning prior to their adoption by Christians, and some of the Greek philosophers in attempting to distinguish the terms even had reversed the definitions. And though "prosopon" was rejected at the time of Nicea, "person" eventually became the linguistic term that the Church rested it's definition of the Trinity upon. Under the circumstances, the definition of "Hypostasis" is as Fuzzy as "Person(a)". Thus I think attempting to revive the usage of those terms just muddies the concepts even further.

And by the way, "people" has been considered a plural of "person" in English at least since Chaucer's time, though the words have different roots. In any case, "Persons" is a plural of Person, so whether one says God is Three Persons or Three People, one is still necessarily describing God as a Plurality (Polytheism).

And when one describes a Plurality as One or "All of One Substance", one is necessarily describing a Monism. And YOU are the one describing God as such, so you can't pin it on me by then attempting to bait and switch the discussion to one of the Dualism that separates God from Nature .

As I already told Shadowlander, it's not necessary for Christians to "buy" the Monism resolving Dualism argument (even though it does). But it is necessary for Christians to resolve the Trinity problem if they ever want other people (persons ) to buy that they're not (Monist) Polytheists.

In a nutshell, all I am really saying is: if Christians simply returned to the Tripartate Individual definition (mind, body, spirit) of the Trinity instead of mucking up the waters with "Persons", you would have a much easier time of maintaining your status as Monotheists.

-----------------------

I didn't want to muddle things further by bringing in other arguments, but since you mentioned the Problem of Evil, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is NOT of God. By your own definition, God created ALL, and if you believe Free Will is an illusion as Doc Ransom and other "Calvinists" (necessarily) posit, then there is no "wiggle room". YOU are saying that Evil is "of God".

Live Long and Prosper

Gandalf's Beard

P.S. An interesting link for those interested in "persons" vs "people":

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm

Some various links regarding "Hypostasis" and The Trinity for those who want to go deeper down the Rabbit Hole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy)

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/arianism.htm
By the way, the above link has a neat section on how "orthodox" Christians bizarrely claimed the followers of Arius (Strict Monotheists) "reintroduced" Polytheism into Christianity (which just goes to show how ubiquitous it was [is] to label opposing views within Christianity as Pagan ).

The following link describes the view of the Trinity from a Strict Monotheist perspective .
http://islamicweb.com/begin/trinity.htm

Shadowlander: edited post, I see. I agree with TBG on the theophany bit. Theophany and incarnation are not the same.

When I read Scripture I get the distinct impression that God the Father has
a physical form. He resides in a place, Heaven. He sits on a Throne, which
would be kind of pointless for a disembodied being. He walked in Eden,
indicating that He does have appendages which would necessitate being able
to move about.

Yes, God sits on a throne. This is a frequent phrase in the Bible. But the physical form part is a bit mysterious. What does it really mean for us to be made in the image of God? Check out Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, and Revelation 4-5. In these chapters, the authors say they see God the Father sitting on a throne. What do they see?

This also gets into the question of idolatry, a focus or desire for images, when we must walk by faith not by sight [2 Cor 5]. In the wilderness [Exodus-Deut], God revealed Himself in word, not image.

12And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. ... 15Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 19And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Your posts made me think of the phrase "right hand of God." That is where Jesus sits, yes? The most quoted one is Psalm 110 "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." [See also verse 5 and Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42, Acts 2:34, Hebrew 1:13.] The phrase or idea also occurs in Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 7:55-56 [Stephen!], Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2; and 1 Peter 3:22. So what does this really mean?

By your own definition, God created ALL, and if you believe Free Will is an illusion as Doc Ransom and other "Calvinists" (necessarily) posit, then there is no "wiggle room".

Agreed. Evil is a corruption of good. But God created all things, did He not? God allowed evil to enter the universe. He made creatures capable of falling and sinning--both angels and humans.

I've always loved history. While there is speculation it deals in fact, dates, and definite actions which brought other actions about as a result. I find it to be my favorite subject by far, so when, in my formative and teen angst-ridden years, the talk turned philosophical I would politely exit the room. I'm regretting this now. When Greek and Latin words start getting fired in broadsides I admit to being very much out of my element, as I am here. *sigh* What did I get myself into here?

What Moses saw was a theophany--that is, a physical manifestation of the invisible God. God does not have a body except insofar as Jesus Christ is God made flesh. In Christ, the second person of the trinity was incarnated, that is to say, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." How can the Word have become flesh if He already had a permanent physical form?

When I read Scripture I get the distinct impression that God the Father has a physical form. He resides in a place, Heaven. He sits on a Throne, a physical object, which would be kind of pointless for a disembodied being. He walked in Eden, indicating that He does have appendages which would necessitate being able to move about. Now I don't discount the possiblity that He assumed a temporary physical form just so that He could walk in Eden with Adam and Eve, but given all the rest that we've seen throughout Scripture (one of the OT prophets described a vision he had of God the Father's appearance) one at least has to draw the distinct possiblity that God the Father has a physical form, although I would heartily agree He is not human. That is the form taken by Christ the Son, as you've said.

There really is no escaping it, for all intents and purposes Christianity with a concept of the Trinity as "Three Distinct Persons" in One is a Monism. That is why orthodox Jews and Muslims do not recognize Christianity as Monotheism.

The logic capacitors in my brain fizzled out long ago, but I do have a slightly working system . The OT is loaded with prophecies concerning the Messiah which the Jewish people (people! get me! *rimshot*) used to know the signs of the Son's coming and identity. Given this how can the Jews claim to not see us as Monotheistic ring true when they at the very least have (present tense, as they believe the Messiah has yet to come), by default, two Deities just by believing this? I perhaps haven't articulated this well but I'm not sure how I could word it any better.

Wow! Looking back at my post, I realize that my attempt to simplify got rather complex.

You're telling me? That wasn't an explanation, my friend. That was the opening of a thesis paper one would give at a lecture to a group of crusty old philosophical students at the Monism Institute.

Monistically Poly-Monotheistically Yours

I didn't want to muddle things further by bringing in other arguments, but since you mentioned the Problem of Evil, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is NOT of God. By your own definition, God created ALL, and if you believe Free Will is an illusion as Doc Ransom and other "Calvinists" (necessarily) posit, then there is no "wiggle room". YOU are saying that Evil is "of God".

God is incapable of evil. Now I know this is not enough of an explanation for you even though it is held as true to Christianity everywhere, so I've been trying to think of an explanation which would satisfy your question while demonstrating that God is innocent of the charge of "creating" the evil you mention.

Let's say you're driving your car along the highway. The speed limit, set by the state government, is listed as 55 mph. You (like so many other drivers, myself included at times) determine that the state government are a bunch of idiots for making the road 55 mph when it should clearly be 65 mph. You hit the accelerator and rocket up to 80 mph because, after all, the road is straight with few curves, and besides, there's no one around. When the police officer hiding behind the Taco Bell billboard catches you speeding and pulls you over are you really going to use the argument that by default the local government is itself responsible for making you speed? If you do then please let me know your court dates because that is one hearing I very much want to see in person.

I hate to do this but I need some mental assistance here.

*snaps on the Bat-signal*

Doc Ransom, where are ya' brother? Gotham City needs you to explain the Trinity!

Shadowlander: don't forget that many biblical descriptions of God use anthropomorphic language. It's to give us finite humans some concept of infinite God. The language does break down at some point.

God and evil...
1 John 1 "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all."
Isaiah 45 "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil [calamity]. I the Lord do all these things."
Amos 3 "Shall there be evil [calamity] in a city and the Lord hath not done it?"

The question is, how do we define evil? I said earlier, it's a corruption of good. But I don't consider natural disasters or "accidents" [and there are no accidents] as "evil." Evil means sin, corruption, disobedience, and lawlessness. God is good. He cannot sin. He cannot commit evil. No evil resides in Him. But, God can use evil for good.

In brief (because I must depart till this evening) the Jewish conception of the Messiah is wholly different than that of the Trinity. The Messiah (or Mashiach) is not considered to be a Divine Personage.

Don't take my word for it , ask a Jew:

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

GB

The Jewish conception of the Messiah is wholly different than that of the Trinity. The Messiah (or Mashiach) is not considered to be a Divine Personage.

Agreed... The Jews didn't get it! And the Pharisees?

Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.

What was the Jews' charge against Jesus? Why did they wrongly convict Him in their illegal night sessions? Blasphemy! John 19 "The Jews answered him, We have a law and by our law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God." The Jews blindly read the Old Testament not understanding that Christ, the promised Messiah, is divine, coming in the flesh. They didn't realize that Messiah = God. No one but God alone could fulfill Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah! 2 Corinthians 3: there's a veil over the Jews' faces [spiritually] when they read the law of Moses, but in Christ the veil is taken away.

EDIT: Shadowlander, please check out my posts on this page regarding the image and representation of God.