Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

As I said, if you're going to demonstrate that there is a logical contradiction you have to show that there is a logical contradiction in the actual teaching of the Trinity, and not in your misrepresentation of it. The Trinity does not teach that "1 being+1 being+1 being=1 being". The word "person" when talking about the Trinity does not constitute a being. The Trinity teaches that there are three persons in one Being.

Chrawnus is one person in one being. If Chrawnus was three persons in one being that would be a logical contradiction. Same with gods.

[JonathanL]

Chrawnus is one person in one being. If Chrawnus was three persons in one being that would be a logical contradiction. Same with gods.

Person =/= being.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.

hypostasis.

He therefore provided a non Christian framework that could be adapted and incorporated to provide one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

However, given the rifts and divisions among the prelates and ecclesiastical Christian community concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father and the Nature of the Son, the only way in which any one formula could be declared as supreme above the others was by imposition. That came from the Emperor and Imperial Edict.

So the devout belief in the Trinity among most Christians today [there are still Christian groups that do not accept it], was devised by men, imposed by men, and is derived from a non-Christian philosophical system.

To use an Americanism " Go figure"!

[Christian3]

Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The problem comes with translating the Greek into Latin and thence into English. Remember the Greek is ousia This is translated as essence or substance.

The Latin term that was used was persona [English person]. However, Latin does not have such a wide vocabulary as Greek, whereby terms may have subtle shades of nuance. You also need to remember that all these concepts were discussed and argued over in Greek.

In the fourth century the Latin -speaking west showed more sympathy towards a formula akin to Nicaea, and one that talked of the equal majesty of Father and Son but the west was still isolated and Christianity was less popular there than it was in the Greek-speaking world.

concept of the tri-unity of God is biblical, based on Scriptures.

No it is not based on scripture. That is merely what you have been taught to believe.

[Trucker]

The concept of the tri-unity of God is biblical, based on Scriptures.

Absolutely!! No doubt about it!! Throughout the Scripture!!!!

[Christian3]

The problem comes with translating the Greek into Latin and thence into English. Remember the Greek is ousia This is translated as essence or substance.

The Latin term that was used was persona [English person]. However, Latin does not have such a wide vocabulary as Greek, whereby terms may have subtle shades of nuance. You also need to remember that all these concepts were discussed and argued over in Greek.

In the fourth century the Latin -speaking west showed more sympathy towards a formula akin to Nicaea, and one that talked of the equal majesty of Father and Son but the west was still isolated and Christianity was less popular there than it was in the Greek-speaking world.



No it is not based on scripture. That is merely what you have been taught to believe.

You are wrong as usual.

https://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity

https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...ty/trinity.cfm

[Christian3]

Chrawnus is one person in one being. If Chrawnus was three persons in one being that would be a logical contradiction. Same with gods.

[Dan Zebiri]

My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world,his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father v.41, 43.

Christ did not need to raise a call to physical warfare and fighting, his kingdom was not a religious-political one found in worldly cultures.

God owned the land of Israel, not Caesar.

[Dan Zebiri]

Agreed, with the both of you.

Absolutely!! No doubt about it!! Throughout the Scripture!!!!

[Dan Zebiri]

Not really Jim, what's a 'cop-out' is using mathematics & arithmetic to prove something about an invisible God.

If you use 1+1+1, then others can equally use 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, showing that it is still one, indivisible God. It is just simplistic to use arithmetic to 'prove God', the same as using mathematics to define the Being Who created the mind and who logically cannot be defined by His creation.

Well that's a cop out if I ever saw one. 1 being+1 being+1 being=3 beings, not 1 indivisable being.

[JimL]

Not really Jim, what's a 'cop-out' is using mathematics & arithmetic to prove something about an invisible God.

If you use 1+1+1, then others can equally use 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, showing that it is still one, indivisible God. It is just simplistic to use arithmetic to 'prove God', the same as using mathematics to define the Being Who created the mind and who logically cannot be defined by His creation.

Except that you are not multiplying the numrical symbol of a thing i.e. 1x1x1, you are multiplying the things symbolized, and it makes no sense to multiply 1 son x 1 father x 1 holy spirit. The being Jesus, the son, existed of himself here on earth, he wasn't a combined union with the father and the holy spirit, he was just the son, therefore he was a distinct being not a union of 3 beings.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are wrong as usual.

https://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity

https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...ty/trinity.cfm

You are merely using later Christian apololgetics to "prove" later Christian apologetics. There are various verses in the gospels that are put into the mouth of Jesus that clearly indicate that he did not see himself equal with the Father.

The god of Judaism is not a triune deity. I recommend you find your nearest Jewish rabbi [not a Jews for Jesus rabbi or some such] and ask her or him.

[Christian3]

You are merely using later Christian apololgetics to "prove" later Christian apologetics. There are various verses in the gospels that are put into the mouth of Jesus that clearly indicate that he did not see himself equal with the Father.

The god of Judaism is not a triune deity. I recommend you find your nearest Jewish rabbi [not a Jews for Jesus rabbi or some such] and ask her or him.

Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.

Jesus said He existed before the world was created, making Jesus eternal.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.

Oh dear that sounds vaguely heretical.

Jesus said He existed before the world was created, making Jesus eternal.

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