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 Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
        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!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
          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 interpretation"and the controversies continued for the rest of the century as evinced by the dominance of the Homoiousian doctrine in the East. The Nicene creed was finally determined [by Imperial Edict] in 381 CE and even then the disagreements among the ecclesiastics continued until Chalcedon in 451 CE.

          Even later the Protestant reformers disagreed with the Catholic Church and then later still the Protestant reformers began to disagree with one another concerning “correct interpretation” and so it has continued.

          In the late 1800s in Britain there were serious controversies over the Revised Version of the Bible.

          At the end of the day there is no “correct interpretation” [N.B.not translation] of these texts, everything is merely a matter of personal opinion.
          "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 Trucker View Post
            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" says to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” [My Lord being the king]. Making one’s enemies a footstool is a common metaphor found throughout the ancient near east.

            It should be noted that Psalms 110 and 132 testify to the king’s role in worship. Psalm 110, [as do Psalms 2 and 68] present God as Israel’s divine warrior. Psalm 110 also seems to be a very early, albeit composite psalm, and has several puzzling archaisms. If the entire Psalm is read in context one can construe some parallels with the ancient Canaanite deities described in the Ugaritic texts [smashing skulls and leaving piles of corpses]. This Psalm also contains verses that have been notoriously difficult to translate.

            Modern scholarship is sceptical about two aspects of the traditional titles: authorship [hence dating] and setting. There is no hard evidence for Davidic authorship for any of the Psalms. David’s reputation as a musician [1 Sam. 16.23; and Amos 6.5] makes it reasonable to associate him with the Psalms, but it is not possible to prove authorship.

            Matthew 22.41-46 is based on Mark 12.35-37a and is paralleled in Luke 20.41-44. Matthew re-writes and provides a setting for the pericope. In Matthew 22.45 Lord [not Yahweh] equals the Messiah. Matthew’s use of πῶς [how] is more correct than Mark’s πόθεν [whence], which appears to suggest a theological answer. This would have been appropriate in later centuries, but is impossible in the present narrative. For the author of Matthew, the main point is that the Messiah is not to be conceived as an earthly monarch, but as a divine being; a transcendental concept that appears to supersede the political one and hence the Messiah cannot be thought of in terms of David and an earthly kingdom.

            In other words this is the author of Matthew attempting to read into the original his own contemporary theological agenda.
            Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 07-07-2020, 06:54 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 Christian3 View Post
              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.

              Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
              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
              "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 Christian3 View Post
                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.
                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.
                “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
                  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.
                  Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                    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)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                      No. It is not modalism.
                      Well yes, it is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not, as Christian3 says, “three personalities which have different functions to perform”.
                      “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
                        Well yes, it is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not, as Christian3 says, “three personalities which have different functions to perform”.
                        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.
                        Last edited by DesertBerean; 07-08-2020, 01:14 AM.
                        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                          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.
                          You’ve misunderstood the definition. Modalism is not God revealing himself in a sequence as per above. Rather, as Christian3 indicated, ’modalism’ is the one God exercising three differing “functions” (Christian3’s word). A common analogy is that of one man who is simultaneously a husband, a father, and a brother i.e. one person with three different functions - three in one – like the Holy Trinity. The problem with this and similar analogies is that they do not illustrate the correct theological doctrine of the Trinity at all. Rather, they illustrate the heresy of modalism. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal, complete, coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and 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.
                          “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 Trucker View Post
                            Or simply determined to not correctly interpret Christian Scripture correctly!
                            I think that is a big part of it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                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?!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                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
                                80 responses
                                426 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