Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    As I said, if you're going to demonstrate that there is a logical contradiction you have to show that there is a logical contradiction in the actual teaching of the Trinity, and not in your misrepresentation of it. The Trinity does not teach that "1 being+1 being+1 being=1 being". The word "person" when talking about the Trinity does not constitute a being. The Trinity teaches that there are three persons in one Being.
    Chrawnus is one person in one being. If Chrawnus was three persons in one being that would be a logical contradiction. Same with gods.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Chrawnus is one person in one being. If Chrawnus was three persons in one being that would be a logical contradiction. Same with gods.
      Person =/= being.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.

        The fourth century Cappadocian Fathers [Basil the Great, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, and a close friend, Gregory of Nazianzus] were all trained in Greek philosophy and had no qualms about turning to it to define their ideas.

        The Neoplatonist, Plotinus, had posited three divine entities,"the One", an all-pervading "Intellect", which conveys the Platonic Forms to the material world, and a "‘World-Soul". These shared a common substance, yet each had a distinct role, and here Plotinus used the word hypostasis.

        He therefore provided a non Christian framework that could be adapted and incorporated to provide one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

        However, given the rifts and divisions among the prelates and ecclesiastical Christian community concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father and the Nature of the Son, the only way in which any one formula could be declared as supreme above the others was by imposition. That came from the Emperor and Imperial Edict.

        So the devout belief in the Trinity among most Christians today [there are still Christian groups that do not accept it], was devised by men, imposed by men, and is derived from a non-Christian philosophical system.

        To use an Americanism " Go figure"!
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.
          Maybe you are confused by the word "persons".

          There is only one Being who is God. They are not three people, like Tom, Dick and Harry.

          “Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.

          The concept of the tri-unity of God is biblical, based on Scriptures.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            Maybe you are confused by the word "persons".

            There is only one Being who is God. They are not three people, like Tom, Dick and Harry.

            “Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.
            The problem comes with translating the Greek into Latin and thence into English. Remember the Greek is ousia This is translated as essence or substance.

            The Latin term that was used was persona [English person]. However, Latin does not have such a wide vocabulary as Greek, whereby terms may have subtle shades of nuance. You also need to remember that all these concepts were discussed and argued over in Greek.

            In the fourth century the Latin -speaking west showed more sympathy towards a formula akin to Nicaea, and one that talked of the equal majesty of Father and Son but the west was still isolated and Christianity was less popular there than it was in the Greek-speaking world.

            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
            concept of the tri-unity of God is biblical, based on Scriptures.
            No it is not based on scripture. That is merely what you have been taught to believe.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
              The concept of the tri-unity of God is biblical, based on Scriptures.
              Absolutely!! No doubt about it!! Throughout the Scripture!!!!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                The problem comes with translating the Greek into Latin and thence into English. Remember the Greek is ousia This is translated as essence or substance.

                The Latin term that was used was persona [English person]. However, Latin does not have such a wide vocabulary as Greek, whereby terms may have subtle shades of nuance. You also need to remember that all these concepts were discussed and argued over in Greek.

                In the fourth century the Latin -speaking west showed more sympathy towards a formula akin to Nicaea, and one that talked of the equal majesty of Father and Son but the west was still isolated and Christianity was less popular there than it was in the Greek-speaking world.



                No it is not based on scripture. That is merely what you have been taught to believe.
                You are wrong as usual.

                https://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity

                https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...ty/trinity.cfm

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Chrawnus is one person in one being. If Chrawnus was three persons in one being that would be a logical contradiction. Same with gods.
                  Look at it this way: God is ONE Being but God has three personalities—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. And all these three personalities have different functions to perform but they are the same one God just as we have Soul, Mind and Body—three different components but together making one person. Father gives instruction. Son carries out the instructions. Holy Spirit conveys the message. So this amounts to reciprocal dealings between Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is very similar to our body communicating to mind and mind giving instruction to body.

                  Comment


                  • Yes. That nonetheless, all three Synoptic Gospels also show that Jesus Christ counted numerous of such Roman tax collectors and tribute collectors among his friends, and one was even his disciple – Matthew or Levi the Jew - Matthew 9:9-10. Because these Jewish tax-collectors exacted exorbitant tax revenues and tributes on behalf of the pagan, Roman colonial power, the Jews despised and even hated these fellow-Jews, frequently mocking them derisively as “sinners and publicans” (Matthew 9:11, 11:19, Luke 5:30 etc) as traitors and sell-outs to their own nationality.

                    By His associations and continued friendship with many publicans like these, can it be assumed Jesus was sympathising with the colonisers – the Romans? Many religious leaders of Judaism – like the Pharisees & scribes, apparently thought so (Luke 5:30, 15:2).

                    However, it was also apparent that Jesus wasn’t too taken up by the Roman powers-that-be and the kingdom they ran – by the Caesars. He too has a kingdom for himself, saying: “My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world,” John 18:36 ESV. This resonates tellingly with Matthew 13, under another set of circumstances “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father v.41, 43.

                    Christ did not need to raise a call to physical warfare and fighting, his kingdom was not a religious-political one found in worldly cultures.



                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    In point of fact the reference occurs in all three Synoptic gospels [see also Mark 12.17 and Luke 20.25].

                    That depends on how that verse is interpreted. In view of the apologetical concerns of each of the four canonical gospel writers that vary in their individual motives, it is unsurprising that no mention is made by any of them of any anti-Roman comments that may have been made by the flesh and blood figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

                    However it is legitimate to ask if behind the earliest apologetical use of the Tribute money, i.e. in Mark 12.17, whether there may, or may not have been, a traditional saying of Jesus concerning the issue which originally had quite a different meaning from that which it is intended to have in its Markan setting.

                    It may be suggested that Jesus could not have exercised his public ministry of preparing Israel for the coming of God's kingdom without having to make clear his attitude to the payment of the Roman tribute. Moreover, it is can also be surmised that it would be absolutely necessary to conclude that he would never have been popularly regarded as the Messiah, if he had ruled that the Jews had rightly to pay tribute to Rome.

                    Consequently, it may be argued there is good reason to see in those words “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” an authentic pronouncement made by Jesus on this fundamental issue of Jewish religious and political life.

                    Furthermore such a saying would have met with the approval of any Zealot because for the Zealot there was no doubt that God owned the land of Israel, not Caesar.

                    Comment


                    • Agreed, with the both of you.

                      Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                      Absolutely!! No doubt about it!! Throughout the Scripture!!!!

                      Comment


                      • Not really Jim, what's a 'cop-out' is using mathematics & arithmetic to prove something about an invisible God.

                        If you use 1+1+1, then others can equally use 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, showing that it is still one, indivisible God. It is just simplistic to use arithmetic to 'prove God', the same as using mathematics to define the Being Who created the mind and who logically cannot be defined by His creation.



                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Well that's a cop out if I ever saw one. 1 being+1 being+1 being=3 beings, not 1 indivisable being.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                          Not really Jim, what's a 'cop-out' is using mathematics & arithmetic to prove something about an invisible God.

                          If you use 1+1+1, then others can equally use 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, showing that it is still one, indivisible God. It is just simplistic to use arithmetic to 'prove God', the same as using mathematics to define the Being Who created the mind and who logically cannot be defined by His creation.
                          Except that you are not multiplying the numrical symbol of a thing i.e. 1x1x1, you are multiplying the things symbolized, and it makes no sense to multiply 1 son x 1 father x 1 holy spirit. The being Jesus, the son, existed of himself here on earth, he wasn't a combined union with the father and the holy spirit, he was just the son, therefore he was a distinct being not a union of 3 beings.

                          Comment


                          • You are merely using later Christian apololgetics to "prove" later Christian apologetics. There are various verses in the gospels that are put into the mouth of Jesus that clearly indicate that he did not see himself equal with the Father.

                            The god of Judaism is not a triune deity. I recommend you find your nearest Jewish rabbi [not a Jews for Jesus rabbi or some such] and ask her or him.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              You are merely using later Christian apololgetics to "prove" later Christian apologetics. There are various verses in the gospels that are put into the mouth of Jesus that clearly indicate that he did not see himself equal with the Father.

                              The god of Judaism is not a triune deity. I recommend you find your nearest Jewish rabbi [not a Jews for Jesus rabbi or some such] and ask her or him.
                              Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.

                              Jesus said He existed before the world was created, making Jesus eternal.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                                Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.
                                Oh dear that sounds vaguely heretical.

                                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                                Jesus said He existed before the world was created, making Jesus eternal.
                                No he didn't. That is your interpretation of the periphrastic language employed by the writer of John's gospel.
                                Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-07-2020, 12:35 PM. Reason: punctuation
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                207 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X