### Introduction Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". The Hebrew bible book of Deuteronomy makes a few statements about the oneness of God: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, **the Lord is one**." > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; **there is no other besides Him**." These statements do not make distinctions between *being* and *personhood* and seem to point to a divine simplicity. ### "Gods you did not know" Deuteronomy later contains a stark warning for the Israelites about false gods and prophets, saying: > **Deuteronomy 13:1-3** - If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and show you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, **‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them,’** you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you... The key injunction being against *other gods whom you [the Israelites] did not know*. ### Question - Do Trinitarian Christians believe the audience of Deuteronomy 13 (Israelites) knew of a triune god? - If Israelites did not know a triune god, why do Trinitarians believe Deuteronomy 13 doesn't prohibit following after a trinity? *This question is not suggesting that the trinity added new gods, but potentially that a triune god is different ontologically from a unitary god such that they cannot have the same identity (example: Trinitarians likely believe that the Mormon god is not the same god as the trinitarian god because the Mormon god is a created man who was exalted to godhood, therefore the Mormon god's fundamental nature is different from the trinitarian god)*

Monotheism is the fundamental belief shared by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. However, the concept of monotheism raises the question of what it entails to have just one God. There appears to be a distinction between the following two statements: * I believe there is just one God * I have just one God (Edit: Better phrasing - what does it mean to actually belong to him, not just to believe him) The first statement, „I believe there is just one God,“ is less demanding. It implies a belief in the existence of a single deity without any specific implications. An individual can hold this belief without acknowledging or engaging with the deity, thereby maintaining the validity of the statement. While such an approach may not be very intelligent (not doing what he says while believing that he exists), it does not contradict the assertion that „I believe there is just one God.“ Conversely, the second statement, „I have just one God,“ carries greater significance and implies practical implications for an individual’s life. Consequently, the question arises: What does this statement actually mean in practical terms? ---------------- Edit: I deleted the Judaism flag. But since, in Dtn. God, asks us not to follow any prophet that leads Israel to other Gods, even if he does perform miracles, a correct christian answer that answers this question should be - at least in my opinion, also be a correct Jewish one. The distinction stems from a point Fr. Mike Schmitz makes in his "The Bible in a year" podcast. He said that it is important for God not merely to believe in him, but actually to belong to him. The latter is what I described using the unfortunate wording "I have only one God". (Context: I am a german native, and "Ich habe nur einen Gott" would mean "I have only one God", but can also mean "I belong to just one God". Nobody here says "Ich gehöre nur einem Gott", thats where the misunderstanding comes from, sorry about that)

(Related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/78085/48290) Most know Sir Isaac Newton as the person who discovered gravity when he observed the fall of an apple or his discovery of light being a particle, but few are aware of his religious views. For one, he held much disdain for Catholics and the Anglican church. He was an Antitrinitarian monotheist, declaring the trinity idolatry. Some would call him a heretic. Many did, but he has never been ostracized. He was not public about his views and his study of alchemy. Today, is he still branded as a heretic?

John said the Word was with God and was God (John 1:1), and the Word became flesh (John 1:14)—Jesus. Jesus said "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58)—Jesus' claim to be YHVH. Jesus acknowledged the Father to be God. However YHVH says there are no other gods beside Him (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7; Deuteronomy 4:35; Deuteronomy 4:39). Trinitarianism is a solution to this. How do non-trinitarians resolve the clear indications that both the Father and Jesus are God?

How can Christianity be considered monotheistic when they pray to entities other than God, like Jesus, Mary, and saints? The trinity is three, not one. Aren't Christians just finding excuses for idol worship?

There are infinitely many combinations of possible polytheisms (2 gods, 3 gods, 4 gods, etc). There are also polytheisms where gods perform different and often complementary functions. What makes Christian theism more likely to be true than all of the polytheistic alternatives? What specific characteristics show its superiority?

I am a theistic skeptic, but if I have a theistic virtue I do not demand God's grace (whatever it is I expect or need from Him). Is this a virtue? Or Is this a vice?

> Polytheism is the belief in, and often worship of, multiple deities or spirits, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religious sects and rituals. Polytheism is a type of theism. Within theism, it contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God who is, in most cases, transcendent. In religions that accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses may be representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles; they can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator deity or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies). Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally; they can be in monolatrists or kathenotheists, specializing in the worship of one particular deity only or at certain times (respectively). The recognition of the existence of multiple gods and goddesses, however, does not necessarily equate to the worship of all the deities of one or more pantheons, as the believer can either worship them as a whole, or concentrate only on a specific group of deities, determined by various conditions such as the believer's occupation, tastes, personal experience, family tradition, etc. It is also possible to worship a single deity, considered supreme, without ruling out the existence of other gods. This religious position has been called henotheism, but some prefer to call it monolatry. Although the term "henotheism" is controversial, it is recognized by scholars that the worship of a single God accompanied by belief in other deities maintains the principle of polytheism. - Wikipedia In the following article, quoted in part, the claim that the LDS Church is polytheistic is denied: > Latter-day Saints are not polytheists in any reasonable sense of the term that does not also exclude most other Christians who deny the Modalist heresy - fairlatterdaysaints.org A distinction was attempted by Apostle Orson Pratt that, although there have been, are, and will be an unknown number of Gods as the process of begetting and deification continues there is only one God (principle of truth, light, and knowledge) and this God, often personified but who is no actual being, inhabits or may inhabit an unknown number of "temples" which are also referred to as Gods. The God of the Bible, the Heavenly Father, then, is one of these "temples" as is the Son now and someday so shall all who achieve or inherit Christ-likeness. Additionally, Heavenly Father once was a man such as Jesus was and became God the being (the temple housing God the principle) at some past point just as Jesus did. This opinion was opposed and ultimately excluded from official LDS teaching, primarily on the grounds that Pratt's conception of God/(s) having reached a condition of complete knowledge (omniscience proper) conflicted with then President Young's insistence that God/(s) knowledge eternally increases. Neither ever wavered from the doctrine that an unknowable number of Gods exist. The definitions appear widely variant however with Pratt's Gods having arrived at perfect knowledge and Young's Gods forever perfecting knowledge. One of the denials of polytheism appears to hinge upon acknowledging the existence of multiple Gods while at the same time only worshiping one of them. This seems to fall within the category of henotheism which, according to the Wikipedia article quoted above, does not fall outside the lines of polytheism. Monotheism claims that there is only one God anywhere (multiple universes or not); it speaks of ontological being rather than unity between beings. It allows for the existence of other beings who may claim to be God but does not allow for them to be true. The LDS claim to monotheism seems to appeal to the oneness of the various Gods while maintaining the insistence that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings. Of the unknowable number of Gods which exist (unknowable because they are outside of our universe and no revelation of them is given) there are at least 3 distinct beings who are each God. To Latter-day Saints, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 3 distinct beings, and these members of the Godhead have perfect unity in purpose and plan. Our worship goes in one and only one direction. What do LDS adherents worship, the unity between the Gods or the distinct God's themselves? If it is 1 of 3 distinct God's who are but some of many, how then are they not polytheist? If it is the unity between the Gods, how then are they not pantheists (Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god, anthropomorphic or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.)? ___________________________________________________________________________ Note - A significant edit has been made to this question on the basis of comments and further research. I have endeavored to remove a quotation that appeared to be official LDS teaching but was not without obliterating the heart of the question itself. Apologies if some answers are invalidated by this action.

The LDS Church believes in more than one God. This is brought out in my first two statements below. Yet the Book of Mormon contradicts these statements (see quotes below). From an official LDS page titled [Do Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Believe in the Trinity?](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/do-latter-day-saints-believe-in-the-trinity) > **Three distinct beings** > > The Church’s first Article of Faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” We believe They are three distinct personages, not one singular being. We call Them the Godhead. By definition this would be considered "Polytheism." They further go on to say: > Like many Christians, we believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. However, we don't believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity. We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings who are one in purpose. This statement, as well, is, by definition, "Polytheism." **How do Mormons reconcile the above 2 statements from the following quotes from the Book of Mormon?** [Alma 11:26-35](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/11?lang=eng) : >26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? > >27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. > >28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? > >29 And he answered, No. > >30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? > >31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me. > >32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? > >33 And he said unto him, Yea. > >34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people ain their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. > >35 Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. And [Alma 11:38-39](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/11?lang=eng) : > 38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? > > 39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; Then there is [Ether 3:14](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/3?lang=eng) : > 14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. So how is it that the BoM teaches that Jesus Christ is actually God the Father, and at the same time the Son? This in view of the opening statements? Also, how is it that Amulek says Jesus will not save people from their sins when the Bible clearly teaches Jesus Christ is our Savior? All of this contradicts the Bible big time! Are these examples of why Smith declared that the BoM is another testament of the Bible and the Bible needed restoring?

There has been recent discussion on the site regarding monotheism, henotheism, and polytheism. A recent question sought to clarify who or what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worship. However, the question was1 focused on a definition of Deity that is not accepted by the church, limiting the scope & utility of the discussion. I'd like to parallel that question with the opposite question, and focus on the broader matter at hand that many site members expressed a desire to discuss on the twin question: how do Latter-day Saints respond to the claim that Latter-day Saints are *not* monotheists? *** *** Related: - Is the LDS's view of Trinity/Godhead considered monotheistic or polytheistic? - Do Latter Day Saints / Mormons consider themselves to be henotheists? - How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods? 1 - The post in question has since been edited to acknowledge that a quotation provided in the original question is not an accepted position of the church. This commitment to transparency & sincere inquiry is gratefully acknowledged.

Lately I've read some discussions that says the word "echad" ("one" in English) in the Shema refers to a unity more than an absolute singularity. (Here's one example of those explanations) and would then compare it to husbands and wifes becoming one flesh, among other things. Some even would use the terms "absolute unity" in comparison to "compound unity" These are done, based on my understanding, to support the Trinity via the Old Testament. >Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is **one LORD**: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. [Deuteronomy 6: 4 and 5 KJV] However, in light of what we know of Divine Simplicity, this doesn't quite make much sense to me, and would seem contradicting: God is not a union of separate individuals (like the husband or wife is, or a nation, etc), nor can He be said to be "compound" because He is not composed of parts. With these in mind, I wonder how the concepts of Divine Simplicity and Echad as "compound unity" relate to each other - can they be reconciled at all? Or should Deut 6:4 be even used to support the Trinity in the first place? What do I miss?

We read in Exodus 15 how Moses and the Israelites sing a song praising the Lord who defeated the Egyptians. In verse 11 we see the words “Who among the gods is like you?” Of course, the Israelites had been aware of the worship of pagan gods that the Egyptians were doing. However, did they acknowledge the actual existence of such pagan gods? Note that the Ten Commandments had not yet been given in writing to Israel at the time of the song. Is it possible that some Israelites worshipped lesser gods apart from the True God Yahweh? My question therefore is: Does Exodus 15:11 hint at the possibility of the existence of lesser gods? Inputs from scholars of any denominations (please specify) are welcome.

According to the concept of the Trinity, where does this logic fail? === 1. There is One True God, YHWH 2. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH. 3. Jesus declares the 1 God to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 4. Jesus declares the 1 God to be his Father. 5. Therefore the Father is the One True God YHWH. 6. Jesus cannot be the One True God YHWH. ***YHWH says He is rational and able to be understood.*** Jer 9 > 23 Thus says **YHWH**: “Let not the wise glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty glory in his might, Nor let the rich glory in his riches; 24 But let him who glories glory in this, That he ***understands and knows Me***, That I am **YHWH**, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says **YHWH**. __________ *Jesus answered him, “The **first** of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, **YHWH is 1**. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Luke 4:18 (Jesus reads from a **scroll** in the synagogue.) >"The Spirit of the **YHWH** is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised," Psalm 84:2 >My soul longs, yes, even faints For the courts of **YHWH**; My heart and my flesh cry out for ***the living God***. Matthew 16:16 >Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the ***Son of the living God***.” Acts 3:13 >**The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob**, the God of our fathers, glorified **His Servant Jesus**, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. Matthew 22 >43 He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying: > >44 **‘YHWH said to my Lord**, > >“Sit at My right hand, > >Till I make Your enemies Your footstool” ’? Mark 12:25-27(Jesus speaking to the pharisees, quoting scripture) >**‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’**? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.” John 17:3 (Jesus speaking to his God and Father) > And this is eternal life, that they may know **You, the only true God**, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. John 20:17 > Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, **‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’** ”

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Mark 12:28-34 contains a back-and-forth between Jesus and a scribe. > 28 Now one of the scribes had come up and heard their debate. Noticing > how well Jesus had answered them, he asked Him, “Which commandment is > the most important of all?” > > 29 Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord > our God, the Lord is One. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart > and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your > strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ > No other commandment is greater than these.” > > 32 “Right, Teacher,” the scribe replied. “You have stated correctly > that God is One and there is no other but Him, 33 and to love Him with > all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your > strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, which is more > important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” > > 34 When Jesus saw that the man had answered wisely, He said, “You are > not far from the kingdom of God.” > > And no one dared to question Him any further. When the scribe responds to Jesus, he recapitulates Jesus' answer by saying "God is one and there is no other but **Him**, and to love **Him**". According to Trinitarians, was the scribe correct in using a singular pronoun here to describe God? If not, why didn't Jesus use the opportunity to correct the scribe, but instead thought the scribe had answered wisely?

If both Judaism and Trinitariansm are monotheistic, Jesus being a jew, do both faiths have the same God? If the word mono means one, single how can it be explained logically that 3 is 1 and 1 is 3? Is God the source of fuzzy logic and numbers?

In the Trinity, the one divine being is three persons whereas one human being is only one person (source: [Is The Trinity a philosophical contradiction?](https://carm.org/trinity-philosophical-contradiction-question)) . >A "being" is an independently existing thing. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three "beings". For instance, Adam is a human being, Eve is a human being and Seth is a human being. You have three human beings because you have three independently existing things. But the persons of the Trinity are not independently existing things, so we cannot say that there are three divine beings. But rather the Trinity is one being existing as three divine persons. The point is that they are not three separate things in the way Adam and Eve are three separate beings precisely *because* they cannot exist apart from each other. The three do not exist independently. They cannot exist apart from each other. They are one being (literally, one independent thing) and thus, they are one God. **What is the Biblical basis that Trinity is "one being in three persons"?** Did the Scripture say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three separate beings? Usually, the Trinity is defined as of one substance, nature, essence and being. This question specifically asked what exactly does "one being" mean in regards to the Trinity because *being* is different from *nature* and *person.* 'To be' means to exist. 'Being' means existing.

Up until now, I saw Christianity as a whole to be monotheistic (there is only one god that created the world, is all-powerful and intervenes in the world). Whilst looking at monotheism and henotheism (belief in a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities and any other deities are viewed to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence), Wikipedia's article on henotheism states that >Some scholars have written that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) can be characterized as henotheistic, but others have rejected this stance. > Eugene England, a professor at Brigham Young University, asserted that LDS Presidents Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith along with LDS scholar B. H. Roberts used the LDS interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 as "a brief explanation of how it is possible to be both a Christian polytheist (technically a henotheist) and a monotheist". 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 reads (NIV ) >**5** For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), **6** yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. What does the LDS church say about it? Are Latter Day Saints monotheistic or henotheistic?

A seeker's question to followers of Christianity: In all the religions that originated from India, there is a concept of oneness with God. My question is: **What is the equivalent of this in other religions, like Christianity?** **Explanation:** (1) There is but one God ==> Monotheism (2) There is but one, God ==> Advaitic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc.) Please understand the difference in the two. The first (1) statement, is more like a moral science lesson, which says there is one God, God is one. There should not be a fight between my God and your God, because God is one. There is no your God and my God ... etc. The second statement means, There is only God in the universe and we are all part of Him. Oneness with God. It also implies, the entire universe is not separate from God. The entire universe is filled with divine consciousness. We all are one with each other, and one with God. There is no individual identity - what we call EGO. Advaitic philosophy says, that EGO is a illusion, because there is no individual separate existence. It is like God is a big ocean (param aatma / super consciousness), we are drops(aatma/consciousness) in that ocean. And Upanishads go even further to tell us, even if you take out that drop(aatma) from the ocean(param-aatma), even then that drop(aatma) is not separate from the ocean(param-aatma). In short, we are one with God. This is celebrated as Shivoham => I am Shiva / God (one with God & universe) Soham => I am that (whomever you believe as God ) etc. What is the equivalent OR alternative of this in Christianity?

Men may be called "gods" (equivalent to Hebrew אֱלֹהִים (*elohim*) or Greek θεός (*theos*)) according to office, because they assume God's authority on earth. For example, in Exo. 21:6 , it is written, >Then his master shall bring him to the judges... The English word "judges" is translated from the Hebrew word הָאֱלֹהִים (*ha-elohim*), the word most often translated into English as "God " in the KJV. But, are there any others besides YHVH who are "G/god/ אֱלֹהִים/ θεός" according to nature, rather than office? If so, how does one reconcile that acknowledgment with scripture that state there is "one God" (cp. Isa. 45:5 ; Mark 12:32 ; 1 Cor. 8:6 )? If not, how does one reconcile that belief with scriptures such as 2 Cor. 4:4 ?