It seems like you are giving an argument similar to the one below:

1. If Christianity is a monotheistic religion, then it should only have one god.
2. Christianity does not have one god but rather three, namely Jesus, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost.
3. Therefore, Christianity is not a monotheistic religion.

I would disagree with premise two of this argument which claims that the Trinity, i.e. Jesus, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost, do not constitute as one god in Christianity but rather as more than one.

It seems to me that that the doctrine of the Trinity is not something given just to circumvent incoherencies in Scripture, but rather a way to describe the main parts of who God is. This means that it is not that case that Jesus, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost are all different entities, but rather that they are just parts of one being manifested in different ways so as to perform different essential functions.

To give an example, think about it in terms of a normal human body. It would seem absurd to claim that because we have two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head that we are not one person but many. Each respective body part plays a different role and performs a different function, but is still ultimately a part of only one human body. In the same way, it seems that the one God of Christianity manifests Himself in different ways so as to perform different functions, which are seen in the three parts of the Trinity.

In conclusion, it seems that under this view, in contradiction to the one given by you and expressed in my argument above, the doctrine of the Trinity can be coherent with Christianity being a monotheistic.

(Additionally, if you are looking for material for where the Holy Ghost is mentioned in the Bible, the book of Acts in chapter 2 is a great place to start.)

I like the way St. Patrick explain the trinity. A shamrock has 3 leaves each separate from the other but together they make one. — hachit

This is an application of the equivocation fallacy. If each leaf of the three is a separate leaf, then the three together is not "a leaf" but a conglomeration of leaves. If the three parts form one leaf, the the three parts are not individually leaves each but parts of a leaf.

There is a concept-mangling in the St. Patrick explanation of the H. T.

It seems to me that that the doctrine of the Trinity is not something given just to circumvent incoherencies in Scripture, but rather a way to describe the main parts of who God is. This means that it is not that case that Jesus, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost are all different entities, but rather that they are just parts of one being manifested in different ways so as to perform different essential functions. — CFR73

This would stand, if and only if God, Jesus and the HOLY SPIRIT appeared or existed while the other two did not exist. But all three can and do exist concurrently according to Christian tenets. Therefore your claim of these beings a manifest of the one god in different ways, fails. However, if you insist that they are manifests of one god, then there is no trinity; and you are a heretic. In fact, if you insist that there is a one-ness, and it was the accepted norm of looking at the faith, then the word trinity never would have been coined.

OK. Taking the analogy of body parts with various functions. What are the demarcation lines between the three entities? Does the Holy Spirit deal with different matters than those dealt with by Jehova or Jesus?

the three entities — Jacob-B

‘God’, Divine Human, and Spirit, to boot,
All structured on wishes—what a hoot!
Angels added, too, and Devils haunting.
All as supposed, so, their doings are moot.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What, exactly, is meant - do you mean - by "the truth of Christianity"? Whoever said that any test of Christianity was dependent on "truth"? — tim wood

By "the truth of Christianity", I am referring to key doctrines of Trinitarian Christianity being true. In particular, that Jesus actually existed, was executed (died), and was resurrected (he lived again, walking the earth), and that Jesus is God (of the same substance as "God the father", and the "Holy Spirit". This does not apply to non-Trinitarians, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Holy Spirit — Relativist

Bless your soul with tongues of fire; Holy Spirit burn;
Leave no trace of man’s desire; Holy Spirit turn.
Oh, man, why detest thy constitution;
Doth thou think Nature has a lot to learn?

So Nature got it wrong, the pious say,
In man’s constitution, erring its essay,
Granting so many ways to go astray.
Well, then, Who, do they say, penned this world’s play?

For any proposition p:

(I believe p) = (I believe p is true).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I recommend you read this article.

This is an application of the equivocation fallacy. If each leaf of the three is a separate leaf, then the three together is not "a leaf" but a conglomeration of leaves. If the three parts form one leaf, the the three parts are not individually leaves each but parts of a leaf.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that the 3 leaves made up the one shamrock. Because that is what he meant.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that the 3 leaves made up the one shamrock. — hachit

A shamrock has 3 leaves each separate from the other but together they make one. — hachit

... one LEAF? one SHAMROCK?

If the three leaves make up one shamrock, then the analogy to the holy trinity completely fails, as the holy trinity consists of three manifestations of the one and same god, and the shamrock is not three manifestation of the one and same shamrock, but it is of three leaves.

Let me put it this way. Each member in the holy trinity is god. But each member of the three leaves is not a shamrock. Each leaf is a leaf, not a shamrock. But in the trinity each constituent of the three is god. And the three constituents make one god.

So your analogy, as re-written by your correcting my reading of the first instance of the wise saying, is not applicable to the holy trinity.

And? So? Please make your point in something that requires fewer than several thousand words, 123 author citations, with about 175 papers cited. It's clear, in any case, that the topic, belief, can be understood in various and not necessarily compatible ways. Equally clear is that each of these ways is criteria based. That is, from differing starting points, one arrives at differing understandings of what belief is.

Your proposition P ≡ ((I believe X) = (I believe X is true)), then, may be true under some criteria, but I deny that it is universally true. Let's try this: do you affirm or deny that P is universally true? — tim wood

You only need to read the first sentence of
this article. It defines the term "belief", as the word is commonly used among english speaking philosphers. Yes, under this definition, it is universally true. It seems you use a nonstandard definition. Please provide it, and give me an example of something you believe, but do not believe to be true.

very will and I won't bother defending someone else's idea so.
Let me start from the bottom.

God is one entity with 3 parts but each one of it parts is not the other. Father, Son, Holy spirit.
They are of one substance, three minds, and three bodys.

Whatever the substance is, that is what makes them God and it is shared between them.

God is one entity with 3 parts but each one of it parts is not the other. Father, Son, Holy spirit.
They are of one substance, three minds, and three bodys.

Whatever the substance is, that is what makes them God and it is shared between them. — hachit

Thanks for the explanation, hachit.

Where does one body start, and the other end, when you say god is omnipresent? I can see that Jesus is of a typical human's physical body, so his limits of extent in the physical world are given. But what about the Father and the Holy Spirit? God is omnipresent; is either one of the two omnipresent, or both of them?

They have three minds. This presupposes that they have different thoughts, different memories, different knowledge. Which of the three is omniscient? Which has more memory, and which is the one that is all
good? And the other two have how much knowledge memory, and goodness? Maybe some of the three are not all good? If all the three are all good, and all knowing and have all memory, then their minds are not separate.

That is to say that it is the substance that the three share that has omniscience, omnsophia and omnimemory. If yes, then they don't have different minds. So the three share among them one body limited in size, two infinitely large bodies, and one mind. Which is not what you claimed they have among the three of them.

As far as the phenomenal description of the Trinity, don't get too hung-up on the incoherence part, as you say. Remember, our own conscious existence (and the nature thereof) is not coherent.

That's one reason why Christianity (Jesus) is more relatable to us humans.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

well let start by saying that there all God. Therefor any think one of the part have then has God has also. Goodness is one part of the substance.

As far as wich ones are omnipresent, that is something I do not know all I know is that it wasn't always that way. Not that God could not have been he just wasn't.

As for the all knowing, that is the the father for Jesus openly emitted that only he know when the world will end.

And the holy spirit is the divine power of God.

well let start by saying that there all God. — hachit

So we are back to the start. They are all god. And together they make one god. This means that they are all singularly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. So three make one -- much like my criticism precisely said, three of one something can't make one SAME something. There is more if there are three, yet you say the three are each the same as the sum of the three.

In effect, therefore, you say "1 + 1 + 1 = 1". At least this is how I read your first claim. If I misread it, or you wanted to say something different, then I apologize, and I humbly ask you to please clarify it for me.

In the rest of your post here in the last reply you make it clear, and you also admit, that you are oblivious to the characteristics of each god.

Your closing says

And the holy spirit is the divine power of God. — hachit

But the holy spirit is the god. (According to your first claim.) So the divine power is the divine power of the divine power? a bit of a recursive finite regress, with a meaning I can't comprehend. Also, you seem to sugget that Jesus and the Father are not the divine powers of god. That makes them less than god. So are they god, or not god? You have to make up your mind sometime sooner or later. If they are god, then they also are the divine power of god. If they are not god, then why the Holy Spirit having only this power?

God is omnipotent, all-powerful; therefore Jesus is all power ful, and so is the Father, since they are gods. But you say only the Holy Spirit is the divine power.

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

You said in your very first reply that this is very simple. Yet I am somehow confused; I am not so simple as to understand your concepts as you have penned them, @hachit.

Remember, our own conscious existence (and the nature thereof) is not coherent. — 3017amen

No, I can't remember that. If I am incoherent, I don't have a memory, do I? So if I don't remember that, I am incoherent, but I can't remember that I am incoherent, so I must be coherent. If I am coherent, as you say, then I must remember, but I don't remember, since I am incoherent, as you say.

Can you get me out of this infinite flip-flop switch, @3017amen? You put me in there, so you must rescue me too.

Ha, indeed, indeed!

Let me try to get you out of this pickle; this pickle of self-consciousness (self-reference):

Socrates: "What Plato is about to say is false."
Plato: "Socrates has just spoken truly."


Which statement is true?

ok. Many of you clames are true which is good.

(Also I misrepresented the Holy Spirit by giving you his definition and expecting you to know what that meant)

The best way, I think, is to describe the concept is in sets and subset. You have the set of God, within this set are other sets called subsets. Jesus, God the Father, and The Holy spirit. None of the subsets overlap.

Sorry if I'm hard to understand sometimes. I'm better when I'm speaking.

Wherein in that sentence does it say anything at all about anything's being true? — tim wood

I never said anything about it BEING true. What I said was:

(I believe p) = (I believe p is true).

... which is consistent with the article. Bizarrely, you took issue with this, and now you're conflating (I believe p is true) with (p is true).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

There are Christian apologists who absolutely insist Jesus was actually resurrected, and that this can be"proven". I've debated Christians on this for years. They would argue that Christianity is a fraud if Jesus was not actually resurrected. You seem to have a different view; it seems almost that you think it fine to pretend the Jesus stories are true, because this serves the purpose.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The best way, I think, is to describe the concept is in sets and subset. You have the set of God, within this set are other sets called subsets. Jesus, God the Father, and The Holy spirit. None of the subsets overlap. — hachit

I still don't get this. You say Jesus is god. Yet it is less than god. Because God has three subsets, which don't overlap. So Jesus does not overlap with Father does not overlap with Holy Spirit. So... if they are not overlapping, they are different. They are gods; yet they are different from each other... and yet there is one god. A ONE god can't be DIFFERENT from itself. If you insist on one god, then Jesus, Father, and the Holy Spirit must be overlapping. If they are gods (which you say they are) and are not overlapping, then the three form three different gods, with the fourth god being formed by their entire set.
Incongruent with logic. Your application of the set theory somehow was inadequate.

How can you believe in one god and three gods at the same time? I think you have to make up your mind, and design a totally different system of gods in your view.

What you say is not what you say, and what you not say is what you say. This is your belief.

You, and other Christians have to ask yourself: can I believe in something that all logic says is not possible to exist? If I can believe it, am I completely gone, or am I just denying the fact to myself that my belief makes no possible sense? If my god is not possible to be, who is the real god whom I have been falsely avoiding to worship because I have been too much wrapped up in NOT thinking my faith through?