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 mikewhitney View Post
    You should spend more time in the primary text.

    You have to show systemic error that would change our understanding of and basis for the Trinity. You would have to show how the original text was different.

    It is a difficult conspiracy theory to prove.

    There are lots of odd theories that you are attracted to.

    You have to explain how the Trinity doctrine misconstrues the text, not just that there are transcription errors that have been identified.
    Does Jesus, anywhere in the Gospels, proclaim himself to be god?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      Does Jesus, anywhere in the Gospels, proclaim himself to be god?
      That is the homework assignment for you. Look up the word "blasphemy" and find it in the gospels.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        That is the homework assignment for you. Look up the word "blasphemy" and find it in the gospels.
        You don't know the answer?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          You don't know the answer?
          I gave you the direction for your studies. Go for it, kiddo.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            I gave you the direction for your studies. Go for it, kiddo.
            And who are you to issue instructions?
            “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 mikewhitney View Post
              Tassman,

              This is an argument made by reason based on scriptures. So you are wrong in saying this was not based on reason.
              No. What I said was: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has always been seen as a mystery. It is a theological argument to be accepted by faith – not reason”. It cannot be accepted by “reason” because it is a theological solution and inherently unreasonable as a logical doctrine. .

              We have the God-given scriptures which describe a single God in three persons. This carries forth concepts of multiple persons found in the sole God within the Old Testament.

              We can narrow the details down to coherence but we do not have anything among humans that is like the Trinitarian nature of God.
              We have scriptures which YOU regard as God-given and nowhere within them are explicit descriptions of anything resembling a Trinitarian deity. This explains why so many Christological heresies arose over the course of more than 300 years in the tortuous attempts to explain how and why Jesus could be fully God whilst simultaneously being fully Man.

              This means we just have to work with the best description that we can -- which was best laid out in the later creeds.
              Indeed. Christians have no other option than to make do with what they’ve got if they insist on a divine Jesus in a monotheistic religion.

              the Trinitarian doctrine, in credal form, has sustained itself across 1700 years -- so it has been scrutinized by many people, not just people in a few church councils.

              You have to explain how your logical reasoning capacity exceeds so many great scholars over all these years.
              The fact that it took these “great scholars” 350 years of “reasoning” disputation about several differing “credal forms” to get there speaks for itself.
              “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
                No. What I said was: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has always been seen as a mystery. It is a theological argument to be accepted by faith – not reason”. It cannot be accepted by “reason” because it is a theological solution and inherently unreasonable as a logical doctrine. .

                We have scriptures which YOU regard as God-given and nowhere within them are explicit descriptions of anything resembling a Trinitarian deity. This explains why so many Christological heresies arose over the course of more than 300 years in the tortuous attempts to explain how and why Jesus could be fully God whilst simultaneously being fully Man.

                Indeed. Christians have no other option than to make do with what they’ve got if they insist on a divine Jesus in a monotheistic religion.

                The fact that it took these “great scholars” 350 years of “reasoning” disputation about several differing “credal forms” to get there speaks for itself.
                You are incoherent here. The Trinitarian doctrine arises out of scriptures and is confirmed by reason. You are not making a very good appeal to logic in the fashion of your argument. It seems you are just lacking context to understand the Trinity which leads you to mock it. Maybe you can take a better approach to what you hope to say.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  And who are you to issue instructions?
                  It was his question. It is better to teach him to fish rather than just give him a fish wish is gone in one day.

                  Comment


                  • I suppose that you reject General Relativity because it took so long to get there from Newtonian Physics.

                    Just because something complicated takes years to clarify does not make it invalid. You have some unreasonable preference that God somehow will fit with your most simplistic concept. This can be expected of children but is not so readily defensible for adults. It is not the minimal concept of the Trinity that is hard to understand or that took a long time to comprehend. It is the fullest details that had to be clarified so that heresies could be weeded out.

                    I was still awaiting your answer to an earlier question whether you knew some doctrines that are understandable only in light of the awareness of the Trinitarian aspects of the Godhead.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                      You should spend more time in the primary text

                      You have to show systemic error that would change our understanding of and basis for the Trinity. You would have to show how the original text was different.
                      You have quite clearly not even bothered to read what I wrote.
                      If you are unable or unwilling to actually read what I have addressed I wonder why you make these replies
                      "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
                        And who are you to issue instructions?
                        They do like to give their orders, don't they?
                        "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 mikewhitney View Post
                          You are incoherent here. The Trinitarian doctrine arises out of scriptures
                          Not quite. Although that depends on what the individual considers to be "scriptures".


                          Just for information. The following is adapted from a section of chapter 3 from Bart D Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

                          The main manuscript that Erasmus used for the Gospels when he was undertaking his Greek New Testament contained both the pericope of the woman taken in adultery in John, and the last twelve verses of Mark. Both of which are additions to the original two Gospels.

                          In other words those verses in John and Mark were added at a later date.

                          At this juncture I am sure that I do not have to inform a biblical scholar such as yourself that the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible was translated by Jerome following his receipt of a commission from the Bishop of Rome [Pope Damasus I] in 382 CE. Nor do I need to point out to you the significance of this translation for the Western Church for the ensuing one thousand years or thereabouts.

                          In that Latin Vulgate version there is a key passage that that did not occur in Erasmus’ source MSS and that was the account found at 1 John 5.7-8.

                          Academics have called this the Johannine Comma. This passage is the only one in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it is also a later interpolation. In other words like the Johannine pericope and the additional verses in Mark it likewise does not appear in the early copies.

                          This passage in the Vulgate reads:” There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”

                          Erasmus' Greek manuscripts, simply read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one."

                          The phrase "Father, the Word, and the Spirit" is therefore evidently an interpolation to comply with later Christian theology. The date of the commencement of Jerome’s translation may have some bearing on this, given that the Nicene creed had only recently been officially proclaimed as the orthodox Christian belief.

                          Erasmus therefore did not include this phrase in his first edition of the Greek text. On its publication he was roundly criticised by his contemporary theologians who accused him of tampering with the text to eliminate the doctrine of the Trinity and to undermine its resulting consequence, which was the later doctrine of the full divinity of Christ.

                          The story goes that Erasmus agreed that he would reinstate the phrase if a Greek manuscript could be produced that included it.

                          This was achieved by a sixteenth century copy being produced purely for the occasion [we might call it a fake]. However, Erasmus kept his word, despite his misgivings, and included the text in his subsequent editions.
                          Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-20-2020, 10:07 AM.
                          "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
                            Not quite. Although that depends on what the individual considers to be "scriptures".


                            Just for information. The following is adapted from a section of chapter 3 from Bart D Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

                            The main manuscript that Erasmus used for the Gospels when he was undertaking his Greek New Testament contained both the pericope of the woman taken in adultery in John, and the last twelve verses of Mark. Both of which are additions to the original two Gospels.
                            The Trinity Doctrine does not rely on the Comma Johanneum, the Textus Receptus, or the Agnostic Bart Ehrman. What a surprise that you would reference Ehrman [sarcasm intended]! But since you did you may also be interested in this short [two minutes twenty on seconds] video and a statement he [Ehrman] makes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0z0hCvQWak

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                              The Trinity Doctrine does not rely on the Comma Johanneum, the Textus Receptus, or the Agnostic Bart Ehrman. What a surprise that you would reference Ehrman [sarcasm intended]! But since you did you may also be interested in this short [two minutes twenty on seconds] video and a statement he [Ehrman] makes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0z0hCvQWak
                              And? As I wrote, the Greek text provided to Erasumus was fake - created for the purpose - whoever wrote it took the Vulgate Latin verse and translated it into Greek.

                              Regardless of what you think or of what Ehrman said in that clip the word "Trias/τριας" does not occur anywhere in the New Testament.

                              You can look all you like.
                              Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-20-2020, 05:25 PM.
                              "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 mikewhitney View Post
                                That is the homework assignment for you. Look up the word "blasphemy" and find it in the gospels.
                                That old canard?

                                Within the known historical contemporary context Jesus never committed blasphemy.. Even had he actually claimed to be God, [which he never did], the offence would have been classified as idolatry [not blasphemy] and punished with a beating and strict admonition to desist from making such outrageous remarks. He may even have been considered mad. We find a hint of this reaction by his fellow Jews in Mark 3.21.

                                Nor is the allegation found in the synoptics that he had spoken against the Temple, evidence of serious wrongdoing, as the case of Jesus son of Hananiah, recounted by Josephus in War 6, 300-9 makes quite clear.

                                However, to claim, or be suspected of claiming, messianic status was by definition a political matter in the estimation of the authorities.

                                This was the only charge with which the Roman administration would have been concerned.

                                The canonical gospels writers invented the blasphemy charge in order to deflect from, and deny, the real reason why Jesus was executed; which was for sedition by claiming [or being suspected of claiming] messianic status.

                                This was a political and not a religious offence.

                                The Roman authorities took little or no direct interest in alleged transgressions of Jewish religious laws. These were not matters for which a Roman provincial magistrate was cognisant to adjudicate upon.
                                "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, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X