Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But of course that wouldn't apply to any of your stated beliefs, huh!!

Recognising the existence of historically attested facts, as well as the actual textual evidence from original sources, are not generally regarded as "beliefs".

Likewise recognising that the earth orbits the sun is not usually considered a "belief" either.

[mikewhitney]

It is not a matter of caring or not. Your belief is a later Christian construct. I would also point out that merely because someone believes something that does not necessarily make it true.

I have a jocular theory about how many of those whom I encounter on the evangelical/fundamentalist wing have come to find the Lord.

I call it the Five"D"s as it is so often one, or a combination of, any of the following: Drugs, Drink, Dames, Dudes, or Depression.

This is called "recognizing you are a sinner who needs reconciliation with our Creator."

The other approach is to say it doesn't matter if God wants us to repent. We just think, despite the contradiction of our thoughts, that the Christian message is good even though there is no resurrection or God. The people that think this way just have turned their brains off.

You are staking your soul on your belief on the conspiracy theory that scriptures were secretly rewritten to say Christ is Deity. I was asking whether you treated the message as serious and accurate -- if perhaps God does sustain his message to us. It is too bad to just look at his message as some contrived, edited deception to the world. This idea reverses where the deception lies. But it is easy for you to become confident in your "scholarly" spin and lose the context of scripture.

Anyhow, I can only make suggestions here. You are powered by your own will.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This is called "recognizing you are a sinner who needs reconciliation with our Creator."

That is merely a theological concept. Ethics is another issue.

The other approach is to say it doesn't matter if God wants us to repent. We just think, despite the contradiction of our thoughts, that the Christian message is good even though there is no resurrection or God. The people that think this way just have turned their brains off.

You are staking your soul on your belief on the conspiracy theory that scriptures were secretly rewritten to say Christ is Deity.
Anyhow, I can only make suggestions here. You are powered by your own will.

The known history of the early Christian church from the fourth century, various historically attested sources, as well as historical evidence are not conspiracy theories.

[mikewhitney]

That is merely a theological concept. Ethics is another issue.

The known history of the early Christian church from the fourth century, various historically attested sources, as well as historical evidence are not conspiracy theories.

I know. It would be great (for your thoughts) if the history supported your conspiracy theory.

Anyhow, you have the choice to follow your own will. I was just making a suggestion about reading the scriptures from an inquiring mind instead of from your context derived from biased scholarly writings. Jesus died and was resurrected so that you too could be reconciled with God. This also applies to Muslims, if they will accept the grace through King Jesus.

This offering of the gospel is also, in light of your failure to establish your argument about the conspiracy.

[Tassman]

I know. It would be great (for your thoughts) if the history supported your conspiracy theory.

There is no “conspiracy theory”, just history. There was no concept of the Holy Trinity during the first three Christian centuries. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many, often violent controversies. It was not until The Council of Constantinople in 381 that the Trinitarian doctrine, as we have it today, was finally ratified.

[mikewhitney]

There is no “conspiracy theory”, just history. There was no concept of the Holy Trinity during the first three Christian centuries. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many, often violent controversies. It was not until The Council of Constantinople in 381 that the Trinitarian doctrine, as we have it today, was finally ratified.

You have just contradicted yourself too. You said the doctrine developed over several centuries and then say there was no concept of the Trinity for the first three centuries. Which option are you going with?

Can you make a convincing argument for this theory? Hypatia claimed that scriptures were altered in order to show Jesus as God incarnate. That is pure speculation.

Hypatia already pointed to the early recognition of the Trinity. The refinements of doctrine were done in order to distinguish from the inadequate understanding of the Godhead -- not to create a new concept.

To support your theory, you basically have to agree with Hypatia that there was a conspiracy to alter scripture in the fourth century in order to support the deity of Christ. Or do you wish to clarify how the Trinity could not be known in the first century?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I know. It would be great (for your thoughts) if the history supported your conspiracy theory.

That remark, written by someone who rejects the known history of the origins of Christianity and some of its basic tenets, strikes me as an unintended irony on your part.

[mikewhitney]

That remark, written by someone who rejects the known history of the origins of Christianity and some of its basic tenets, strikes me as an unintended irony on your part.

Sure. How have I rejected the known history?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sure. How have I rejected the known history?

You consider it all to be a "conspiracy theory" as you have repeatedly stated to me.

[mikewhitney]

You consider it all to be a "conspiracy theory" as you have repeatedly stated to me.

No. I called your idea of scriptures being rewritten as your conspiracy theory. If I misunderstood your take on scriptures, I can stop referring to that conspiracy theory.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No. I called your idea of scriptures being rewritten as your conspiracy theory. If I misunderstood your take on scriptures, I can stop referring to that conspiracy theory.

Where have I categorically alleged that "the scriptures were rewritten"?

[mikewhitney]

Where have I categorically alleged that "the scriptures were rewritten"?

You seemed to be saying that in your earlier posts on this site, soon after you started posting here. Sorry if I have not correctly restated what you seemed to be saying.

As I remember things, you said that the scriptures were rewritten to support the claims of the deity of Christ in order to support the Trinitarian doctrines.

[DesertBerean]

You seemed to be saying that in your earlier posts on this site, soon after you started posting here. Sorry if I have not correctly restated what you seemed to be saying.

As I remember things, you said that the scriptures were rewritten to support the claims of the deity of Christ in order to support the Trinitarian doctrines.

That is what I recall also.

[mikewhitney]

That is what I recall also.

However, it is also important to be able to restate another person's theory so that he or she would agree that it was accurate.

If people hide their story or carefully change it, that would be a problem. There may just have have been a miscommunication going on here.

[Tassman]

You have just contradicted yourself too. You said the doctrine developed over several centuries and then say there was no concept of the Trinity for the first three centuries. Which option are you going with?

There’s no contradiction. Jesus’ followers believed Jesus was God from very early on. The problem arose in Judaism being a monotheistic religion with an already existing deity. This was ultimately resolved with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. But this doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many, often violent controversies. It was not until The Council of Constantinople in 381 that the Trinitarian doctrine, as we have it today, was finally ratified.