Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

I have not contradicted myself.

The Father is the highest in authority, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in essence.

The President is higher in authority than I, but not in essence because we are both human.

But you are not both president with presidential authority, which is where your analogy fails. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, complete, coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Dan Zebiri]

But, he was not claiming to BE the president in the first place. The president has the authority, obviously. That's where your perception & comprehension of the analogy has failed you, unfortunately.

But you are not both president with presidential authority, which is where your analogy fails. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, complete, coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Trucker]

Your resorting to thinly veiled ad hominems has brought nothing to this exchange.

Not if read in context, ma'am. Your question to which my above quoted question was addressed was:

Originally Posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
What is all that is supposed to mean?

When read in the context of your question my answer is correctly understood as an offer to clarify for you.

Look a little further – I recommend a Hebrew text with a literal interlinear translation. Might I suggest The Jewish Study bible?

Only at a later period was it considered too sacred to be pronounced.

However, purely as an example in 589/588 BCE Lachish Ostracon VIII recounts the following “May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of good this very day! [....] The Lord hath humbled me before thee. Nedabiah hath fled to the mountains [...].Truly I lie not – let my lord spend thither.”.

These ostraca give us an insight into the situation prevailing during the siege of Lachish by Sennacharib. The name Yahweh is also found many times in the biblical texts.

Ma'am, there are passages the Jews evidently don't want to understand. Note:

Rom 11:25 So that you will not be conceited, brothers, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery: A partial hardening has come to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will come from Zion; He will turn away godlessness from Jacob.
Rom 11:27 And this will be My covenant with them when I take away their sins.
Rom 11:28 Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of the patriarchs,
Rom 11:29 since God's gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable.
Rom 11:30 As you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy through their disobedience,
Rom 11:31 so they too have now disobeyed, resulting in mercy to you, so that they also now may receive mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience, so that He may have mercy on all.
Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways!
Rom 11:34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?
Rom 11:35 Or who has ever first given to Him, and has to be repaid?
Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. [HCSB]

I would suggest Matthews 22:41-45 along Psalms 110:1 and supporting passages would be a great example!! Which then would quite logically and Scripturally explain why the Pharisees refused to answer Jesus and simply walked off!

Well there is nothing like stating the blindingly obvious.

Yeah ... for a great example:

When these gospels were being written there was no NT. However, for the writers of these works the Septuagint was their scripture.Well there is nothing like stating the blindingly obvious.

When these gospels were being written there was no NT. However, for the writers of these works the Septuagint was their scripture.

Strange how the "blindly obvious" does manage to blind some! Like this passage: [

Mat 22:43 He asked them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls Him 'Lord':
Mat 22:44 The Lord declared to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet'?
Mat 22:45 "If David calls Him 'Lord,' how then can the Messiah be his Son?"
[HCSB]

David, inspired by the "SPIRIT" SAYS " The κύριος said to my κύριος ....

Three separate Beings, ALL DISPLAYING DIVINE ATTRIBUTES! A TRIUNITY, MY DEAR! Whether or not you can or will allow yourself to see it, it's there in plain sight!!!!

Most folks have had the experience of looking and looking and looking for a small item in a well stocked pharmacy. Then, after awhile, looking up a store employee and asking where the looked for item may be found! When the store employee then takes the exasperated looker to the item the fact is, the item was in plain sight all along and had simply been overlooked!

But I'm sure you never had that experience! [sarcasm intended]!

The fact is that the Septuagint substitutes κυριος for Yahweh, the God of Israel and the God Jesus of Nazareth worshipped.

]

The fact is the Trinity is a Scriptural teaching, ma'am. Whether you can see it, or are determined NOT To see it, is there right where you overlook it multiple times!

He did not worship himself.

Blindingly obvious, eh what! So good that you did not overlook it!

No it is not “plainly stated”. That is an assumption premised upon an anachronistic misconstruing of the text. The word “τριας” is not found in either the New Testament or the Septuagint.[/QUOTE]

It seems all positions contradicting your obvious presuppositions , regardless of how well documented, are automatically and arbitrarily ruled "assumptions". ! Take the quotes I posted showing Paul's agreement with Jesus' teachings for one great example! HUNDREDS OF QUOTES ... ALL MERE UNDOCUMENTED ASSUMPTIONS OR OF SOME SUCH.

For another, your dismissal of Doctor Daniel Wallace's commentary on a passage!! One of the most acclaimed teachers of Koine Greek and so recognized by his peers ... but simple hand waved off by you! Excuse me. but I willl take Dr. Wallace's pronouncements over yours anything and anywhere!! No insult intended! Just facts, Ma'am.

[shunyadragon]

Slavery simply cannot be justified by any proper exegesis of the New Testament

Opposition to slavery as immoral and illegal cannot be justified by exegesis of the the Old Testament and the New Testament.

This thread has wandered into the woods OFF TOPIC again and again.

[Tassman]

But, he was not claiming to BE the president in the first place. The president has the authority, obviously.

This is Christian3's failed analogy of the Trinity: i.e. we are all human but some humans (like the president) have more authority than other humans, resulting in the other humans having less authority. Thus, according to the analogy, the Son is subordinate to the Father just as US citizens are subordinate to the president. And this is heresy.

The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, complete, coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with none subordinate to the others in any sense.

[Christian3]

This is Christian3's failed analogy of the Trinity: i.e. we are all human but some humans (like the president) have more authority than other humans, resulting in the other humans having less authority. Thus, according to the analogy, the Son is subordinate to the Father just as US citizens are subordinate to the president. And this is heresy.

The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, complete, coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with none subordinate to the others in any sense.

There is an ordering or a chain of command within the Trinity. All comes from the Father. It is Father who sends the son; the son never sends the Father; however the son can send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit says what He hears from the Father. God sends His Holy Spirit and tells Him what to do and speak. That is why Peter said if you have lied to the Holy Spirit you have lied to God.

God’s Word is the second person of the Trinity. It is God’s Word who incarnated Jesus of Nazarath, making Him one person with two natures.

That is why Jesus as the incarnate Word of God could say that the Father is greater than He is. Greater in office, but not in essence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is why Jesus as the incarnate Word of God could say that the Father is greater than He is. Greater in office, but not in essence.

[my emphasis] On what textual evidence are you making that assumption?

[Christian3]

[my emphasis] On what textual evidence are you making that assumption?

By reading Bible Scriptures.

[Dan Zebiri]

Point taken and is sufficiently valid for what you are stating, there's nothing illogical or wrong with that. With the relevant supporting scriptural quote as well.

The president and I are both human; that was my point, HA.

How about the Father is greater in office. What is why Jesus said "The Father is greater than I."

[Dan Zebiri]

Siam, as an avowed muslim you already know the Koran's aversion to familial language to divinity. Eg. Sura 6/101: "How can God have a Son when he doesn't have a wife.." etc, and 5/116: Allah asks Jesus Christ about the Godhead consisting of "Allah, his wife the Virgin Mary and their Son Jesus".

All of the above koranic rhetoric are answered in the negative, naturally.

Suddenly, in sura 13/39, sura 85/21-22, etc familial language are introduced like the ummul kitab or "mother of the book". If there is a "mother of the book", then WHO is the FATHER of the book?

Orthodox islamic theology and doctrine of the ahl sunna wa'al jamaah teach this "mother of the book" was ghairul makhluk that is, uncreated and eternal just like your Allah is. Even sitting next or under the throne of God.

This demolishes the doctrine of Tauhid or so-called purest islamic monotheism - two entities that are eternal and uncreated cannot coexist simultaneously and still be authentically monotheistic as sura 112 admonishes. So there really isn't pure or true monotheism in orthodox islam, is there?

This is incorrect Christian Theology!!?!!

Anytime a Christian explains the Trinity without the words "its a mystery" --- they fall into heresy!?
According to explanations given to me here---The 3 "personalities" are not components of God---but 100% God....?....

Therefore, if father, son, spirit are each 100% God---that makes it Tri-theism.

So, now, if a Christian wants to argue for Schizophrenia---a mental disorder that creates distinct "personalities" in one person---this would still be heresy/incorrect theology because the son is also 100% NOT GOD. (Distinct from God).

There is no honest way to explain the Trinity except to say "its a mystery".
(Trinity = tri-theistic monotheism = polytheistic monotheism = oxymoron)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

By reading Bible Scriptures.

One cannot use translated texts to prove those translated texts

That is merely a circular argument.

[Christian3]

One cannot use translated texts to prove those translated texts

That is merely a circular argument.

I answered your question.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I answered your question.

Firstly there is no mention any Trinity in the biblical texts, and secondly to attempt to justify an argument in the manner you have employed is fallacious.

[DesertBerean]

Firstly there is no mention any Trinity in the biblical texts, and secondly to attempt to justify an argument in the manner you have employed is fallacious.

Prove your claim.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Prove your claim.

What claim? I have cited a fact. The Greek word “τριας” is not found in either the New Testament or the Septuagint.