Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Trucker]

No he didn't. That is your interpretation of the periphrastic language employed by the writer of John's gospel.

Here's a passage where Christ [the Messiah] was involved in a conversation with the Pharisees:

Whose Son Is the Christ?
Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were together, Jesus questioned them,
Mat 22:4 "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son is He?""David's," they told Him.
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?"
Mat 22:46 No one was able to answer Him at all, and from that day no one dared to question Him anymore.

HCSB]

I'm sure some of us here would be interested in hearing your explanation of that passage for us.

[Christian3]

Oh dear that sounds vaguely heretical.

No he didn't. That is your interpretation of the periphrastic language employed by the writer of John's gospel.

I had the verse verified with someone who teaches Greek at the graduate level -- not a Christian.

You have proven over and over again that you do not know how to interpret Christian Scriptures.

[Trucker]

You have proven over and over again that you do not know how to interpret Christian Scriptures.

Or simply determined to not correctly interpret Christian Scripture correctly!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Or simply determined to not correctly interpret Christian Scripture correctly!

There is no "correct interpretation" or incorrect interpretation of "Christian scripture ". That fact is made abundantly clear from the history of the early church from the fourth century. The disagreements and arguments between various Christian commentators and their numerous beliefs and interpretations [primarily because of the confused nature of the sources] is what led to Constantine convening Nicaea in 325 CE to bring about some orthodoxy to the religion, and thereby some political stability to the empire.

However, even after Nicaea prelates and ecclesiastics did not agree on a "correct interpretationcorrect interpretationcorrect interpretationnot translation] of these texts, everything is merely a matter of personal opinion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Here's a passage where Christ [the Messiah] was involved in a conversation with the Pharisees:


I'm sure some of us here would be interested in hearing your explanation of that passage for us.

The original Hebrew text of Psalm 110 [which is being referenced in Matthew 22.44] refers to Yahweh as the God of Israel and is misconstrued by the writer of Matthew because the Septuagint, which he employs, substitutes κυριος [kurios/kyrios] for the Hebrew divine name.

The Hebrew passage should be translated as:

"Yahweh

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I had the verse verified with someone who teaches Greek at the graduate level -- not a Christian.

What do you mean by "verified"? No one can verify the meaning of a text they can only offer their interpretation of it. A translation may be verified but that is a completely different matter.

You have proven over and over again that you do not know how to interpret Christian Scriptures.

My opinions are as valid as your own. That I arrive at different conclusions appears to be somewhat irksome to you

[Tassman]

That's Modalism. Namely the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead. In the good ol' days you would have been burnt at the stake as a heretic.

[DesertBerean]

That's Modalism. Namely the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead. In the good ol' days you would have been burnt at the stake as a heretic.

No. It is not modalism.

[siam]

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.

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)

[Tassman]

No. It is not modalism.

[DesertBerean]

Modalism is where God presents Himself in three different forms separately. From the online Merriot-Webster:

Definition of modalism
: the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself


In other words, first the Father showed himself, then became the Son, and then became the Holy Spirit.

EDITED TO ADD: You're telling Christian3 that he's describing modalism, and he's not.

[Tassman]

Modalism is where God presents Himself in three different forms separately. From the online Merriot-Webster:

Definition of modalism
: the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself.

In other words, first the Father showed himself, then became the Son, and then became the Holy Spirit.

EDITED TO ADD: You're telling Christian3 that he's describing modalism, and he's not.

Well yes, he is. See above.

[Christian3]

Or simply determined to not correctly interpret Christian Scripture correctly!

I think that is a big part of it.

[Christian3]

What do you mean by "verified"? No one can verify the meaning of a text they can only offer their interpretation of it. A translation may be verified but that is a completely different matter.

My opinions are as valid as your own. That I arrive at different conclusions appears to be somewhat irksome to you

δόξαν εἶχεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Jesus had glory alongside God before the world began.

[Christian3]

That's Modalism. Namely the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead. In the good ol' days you would have been burnt at the stake as a heretic.

It is not Modalism; perhaps you need to put all my posts to you together?!