Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Christian3]

You’ve moved on from the Modalism heresy to Arianism. This is the heretical belief that Jesus is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time, a being distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to him. Whereas 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.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

Nope.

https://www.gotquestions.org/subordination-Trinity.html

[Dan Zebiri]

Likewise, you yourself exhibit an irrational and a driven rancour against scholars from the "evangelical wing" of Christianity, just because they are evangelicals.

You apparently also look with obvious condescension, disdain and a bloated, pretentious conceit on such Christian scholars merely due to their evangelical and Biblical position.

That itself is obviously unbecoming of anyone claiming to be an academic or even scholastic, forwarding instead with prejudiced bias and intellectual intolerance over factual, objectivity. Just because you want to disagree with them.

Wallace is merely offering his opinions like every other scholar in this field. His conclusions are no more definitive [i.e.”true” or “correct”] than are those of anyone else.

However, like others from the evangelical wing he appears unable to set aside his own theological position on this topic. Tom [N.T.]Wright has the same issues. He is an accredited New Testament scholar but he is unable to view the subject matter except through the lens of his own Christian faith.

The same comment may equally apply to yourself and others here. You dismiss the academic work of anyone in this field whose views do not correspond with, or endorse, your own theological beliefs.

One might conclude that your complaints are merely theologically based rancour at having your preconceived beliefs questioned and challenged.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Likewise, you yourself exhibit an irrational and a driven rancour against scholars from the "evangelical wing" of Christianity, just because they are evangelicals.

I take the interpretations, opinions, and conclusions of such individuals with the necessary caveat.

You apparently also look with obvious condescension, disdain and a bloated, pretentious conceit on such Christian scholars merely due to their evangelical and Biblical position.

That is nothing but your own completely unsubstantiated [and somewhat preposterous] opinion, premised I suspect on a degree of chagrin.

That itself is obviously unbecoming of anyone claiming to be an academic or even scholastic, forwarding instead with prejudiced bias and intellectual intolerance over factual, objectivity. Just because you want to disagree with them.

At post #704 I wrote requesting that you support the comments you had previously made with some attested historical sources. You have completely ignored that request, apparently preferring instead to engage in this little tirade.

[37818]

How do you know there are [genuine Christians] and how do you tell the difference?

One way is by asking the other how one would explain as to how one becomes a Christian.

Genuine Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Believe that one's salvation is a free gift which cannot be obtained by good works. That they would know God through faith in God's Christ.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One way is by asking the other how one would explain as to how one becomes a Christian.

Unless the individual is brought up in the faith and never questions it, I assume that coming to a religion is usually quite a personal [and private] experience that might not want to be shared.

Genuine Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Believe that one's salvation is a free gift which cannot be obtained by good works. That they would know God through faith in God's Christ.

That is your interpretation. Others may disagree [re faith without works etc.] Which leads to the question, which of you is the "genuine" Christian?

[37818]

Unless the individual is brought up in the faith and never questions it, I assume that coming to a religion is usually quite a personal [and private] experience that might not want to be shared.

That would be that presons liberty not to do so. Though contrary to Jesus' instructions. I might just leave it at that.

That is your interpretation. Others may disagree [re faith without works etc.] Which leads to the question, which of you is the "genuine" Christian?

There are a spectrum of claims to Christianity. More counterfiets than genuine. Jesus taught to have eternal life is to know the only true God. And salvation as a gift and so without prior works to recerve salvation as a free gift is unique to genuine Christianity.

Of course, good works are the goal, Ephesians 2:10.

[Tassman]

Nope.

Yep.

There was no concept of the Holy Trinity during the first three Christian centuries. The doctrine evolved in an attempt to give Jesus the status of God in a monotheistic religion that already had its god - it’s a tad awkward when there are two claimants for the position of one creator of the universe.

“The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since”.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trinity-Christianity

[mikewhitney]

Unless the individual is brought up in the faith and never questions it, I assume that coming to a religion is usually quite a personal [and private] experience that might not want to be shared.

Genuine Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Believe that one's salvation is a free gift which cannot be obtained by good works. That they would know God through faith in God's Christ.

That is your interpretation. Others may disagree [re faith without works etc.] Which leads to the question, which of you is the "genuine" Christian?

we get back to the math book analogy. if you read the math book and don't accept what it says, why even make a claim to have building knowledge from that math book? If people don't accept the claim of the resurrection of Christ and the justification by his death and resurrection, why should they even claim to be a Christian?

Christianity is about the gift of reconciliation with the God who was identified among the people of Israel. This is the central element of Christianity. The individual's task of interpretation operates within the structure of that grace given by God.

You can read the math book as a conspiracy by people in power to control the minorities or you can read the math book as instruction about calculations that help us built working machines. You can read the scriptures with your own interpretation to see it as some conspiracy to fool people or you can read it and come to trust in God Almighty so as to enjoy reconciliation with him.

[Dan Zebiri]

Why would I entertain you with more answers when you yourself failed to provide the others here with answers to any satisfaction? Ludicrous!

And many here also take your interpretations, opinions, and conclusions with the necessary caveat and the proverbial less than half a pinch of salt, biased and prejudiced as they all are.

I take the interpretations, opinions, and conclusions of such individuals with the necessary caveat.

That is nothing but your own completely unsubstantiated [and somewhat preposterous] opinion, premised I suspect on a degree of chagrin.

At post #704 I wrote requesting that you support the comments you had previously made with some attested historical sources. You have completely ignored that request, apparently preferring instead to engage in this little tirade.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

we get back to the math book analogy.

And as has been pointed out previously, that is a completely inept comparison.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why would I entertain you with more answers when you yourself failed to provide the others here with answers to any satisfaction? Ludicrous!

That reads as little more than bluster intended to extricate yourself from the embarrassment of having to acknowledge that there is no evidence to justify your erroneous comment that "there is a historic Christian narrative from the very beginning of the first century A.D. elicitable to verifiable facts from both Christian sources and even non-Christian ones."

And many here also take your interpretations, opinions, and conclusions with the necessary caveat and the proverbial less than half a pinch of salt, biased and prejudiced as they all are.

The freedom exists for an individual to believe whatever s/he likes. If person A wishes to believe s/he has a herd of green and blue unicorns that dances on the night of every full moon in his/her garden, s/he is entitled to hold that belief. However, s/he does not have the right to insist that everyone else believes in his/her nocturnal visitors.

Likewise the baseless insistence, despite the lack of any textual evidence, that texts categorically stating X Y Z exist, is rightly justified in being shown [by going back to those texts in their original languages] to be incorrect.

[Christian3]

Yep.

There was no concept of the Holy Trinity during the first three Christian centuries. The doctrine evolved in an attempt to give Jesus the status of God in a monotheistic religion that already had its god - it’s a tad awkward when there are two claimants for the position of one creator of the universe.

“The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since”.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trinity-Christianity

You have changed the subject.

Clip from the site you cited: "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity."

The concept of the Trinity is Biblical.

[mikewhitney]

And as has been pointed out previously, that is a completely inept comparison.

I don't think I brought up any postmodern philosophic ideas about the math book in past posts. This analogy was different from my earlier analogy. But I don't require you to understand analogies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't think I brought up any postmodern philosophic ideas about the math book in past posts. This analogy was different from my earlier analogy. But I don't require you to understand analogies.

You have used the comparison to a math book in another thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=math at post #217

Both your comparisons are weak. Maths is an exact science - theology is neither a science nor exact.

[mikewhitney]

You have used the comparison to a math book in another thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=math at post #217

Both your comparisons are weak. Maths is an exact science - theology is neither a science nor exact.

You missed my analogy then. There are probably some books that can describe to you how an analogy works.

There are simple things like Jesus was appeared to the disciples after they saw the tomb was empty. There is also the point made by Paul about the resurrection being central to the Christian message. So, a rejection of this means a rejection of Christianity. I think that I have brought this to a level of logic that you can understand.

What really gets funny is when modern scholars think Paul interpreted the New Testament context incorrectly. How are modern scholars to know more about the situation than the sources where they obtain that information?