Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

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

It was obviously a tortuous process to arrive at this conclusion in that (from the same link) “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies”. “It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons”.

The concept of the Trinity is Biblical.

Well they got there in the end. But it took nearly four centuries to reach this conclusion, which doesn’t exactly speak to the clarity of the Trinitarian concept in the bible.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You missed my analogy then.

I repeat that you comparisons with a maths text book are very weak.

There are simple things like Jesus was appeared to the disciples after they saw the tomb was empty.

Paul [our earliest Christian writer] makes no mention of any tomb whether empty or not.

There is also the point made by Paul about the resurrection being central to the Christian message.

That it was central to Paul's soteriology and one of the tenets of his new cult/religion, is not precisely the same.

So, a rejection of this means a rejection of Christianity.

I suspect you may find many Christians who do not believe in a literal resurrection but consider it to have been a spiritual experience that Paul and those others underwent. Not all Christians regard these texts to be both literal and inerrant.

The word ώϕθη [was seen] may also, as in English, have a variety of interpretations.

What really gets funny is when modern scholars think Paul interpreted the New Testament context incorrectly.

When Paul was writing there was no New Testament to be misinterpreted.

The earliest record for that canon as we now have it is in Athanasius’ Festal Letter dated 367 CE.

[mikewhitney]

I repeat that you comparisons with a maths text book are very weak.

Paul [our earliest Christian writer] makes no mention of any tomb whether empty or not.

That it was central to Paul's soteriology and one of the tenets of his new cult/religion, is not precisely the same.

I suspect you may find many Christians who do not believe in a literal resurrection but consider it to have been a spiritual experience that Paul and those others underwent. Not all Christians regard these texts to be both literal and inerrant.

The word ώϕθη [was seen] may also, as in English, have a variety of interpretations.

When Paul was writing there was no New Testament to be misinterpreted.

The earliest record for that canon as we now have it is in Athanasius’ Festal Letter dated 367 CE.

There was a New Testament. It was the covenant Jesus made with the people. I should have worded that sentence differently to convey that people think Paul misunderstood stuff but somehow these modern scholars think they understand the situation better than Paul. It is so easy for people to misunderstand Paul on some issue and then claim that Paul was therefore a bad theologian.

[Dan Zebiri]

You just keep on fantasizing and dream on, HA.

Your wishful thinking of my so-called "embarrassment" is just your pipe dream.

Others here have already shown and exposed your wild baseless theories about the NT and early Gospels.

So far your posts have not refuted them by even a long shot!

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."


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.

[Dan Zebiri]

Siam & Hakeem, here's a YouTube Newsflash!

YouTube has restored Dr. David Wood's video on "Secrets of the Quran", and rightly so.

Islamic scholar Dr. Yasir Qadhi failed in his bid to ban David's expose on Qadhi's public admission on the imperfect preservation of the Koran - as there was nothing wrong with it factually, nor was it in any way "hate speech".

Now Siam and Hakeem, what was an imperfect Koran, shown by Dr Wood and Yasir Qadhi as far from perfectly "preserved", doing, co-existing eternally with God / Allah on eternal tablets of the "mother of the book"? What about islamic "tauhid" eternal monotheism?

Yasir Qadhi tried to remove this "Secrets of the Quran" video done by David Wood on YouTube but failed. Many muslims will back down about promoting a "perfectly preserved Quran" propoganda now because their OWN Muslim scholar has exposed its imperfections:

https://youtu.be/gAzAEDuMMzM

And here -

https://youtu.be/nFiOigU8SPk

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)

[mikewhitney]

I repeat that you comparisons with a maths text book are very weak.

Paul [our earliest Christian writer] makes no mention of any tomb whether empty or not.
. . .
The earliest record for that canon as we now have it is in Athanasius’ Festal Letter dated 367 CE.

Hypatia, have you ever read the scriptures bot the Hebrew and the New Testament with the possibility that God has revealed himself through the scriptures?

Have you ever read with this prayer? "God if this is really who you are, helping me to know you"

I was watching a video by an atheist, Bill Zuersher who just came out with speculations on the use of plural language by God in Genesis and the so-called renaming of God in Exodus. He simply read it as a skeptic without balancing other reasons why the text read as it does. Of course, he turned out to be a weaker opponent of scripture. You, on the other hand, have more developed theories along your line of thought. Anyhow, his approach just made me think whether he ever tried to read through the scripture to see if God might actually exist. (I know there are atheists who have done this. It is not as if everyone who reads the scriptures openly ... that they will come to God.) Anyhow, I thought i would ask.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You just keep on fantasizing and dream on, HA.

Your wishful thinking of my so-called "embarrassment" is just your pipe dream.

This merely more bluster.

You have contended 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." No such evidence exists for your allegation and you are fully aware of that fact.

However, admitting an error seems to be a step too far.

Others here have already shown and exposed your wild baseless theories about the NT and early Gospels.

Others here have put forward their opinions premised on various translations which by definition are interpretations, as well as their personal preconceived beliefs in an inerrant and infallible bible.

None of which is supported by the objective, dispassionate, and critical examination of the texts and the known history of Christianity in its first 250 years.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia, have you ever read the scriptures bot the Hebrew and the New Testament with the possibility that God has revealed himself through the scriptures?

That is a later theological construct.

These texts are merely another collection of ancient source material and should be treated as any other ancient source evidence would be.

[Trucker]

Yasir Qadhi tried to remove this "Secrets of the Quran" video done by David Wood on YouTube but failed. Many muslims will back down about promoting a "perfectly preserved Quran" propoganda now because their OWN Muslim scholar has exposed its imperfections:

https://youtu.be/gAzAEDuMMzM

And here -

https://youtu.be/nFiOigU8SPk

Unfortunately it appears the video is UNavailable on youtube.

[shunyadragon]

There is an ordering or a chain of command within the Trinity. All comes from the Father. It is Father who sends the son; the son never sends the Father; however the son can send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit says what He hears from the Father. God sends His Holy Spirit and tells Him what to do and speak. That is why Peter said if you have lied to the Holy Spirit you have lied to God.

God’s Word is the second person of the Trinity. It is God’s Word who incarnated Jesus of Nazarath, making Him one person with two natures.

That is why Jesus as the incarnate Word of God could say that the Father is greater than He is. Greater in office, but not in essence.

A lot of Gods running around here.

[mikewhitney]

That is a later theological construct.

These texts are merely another collection of ancient source material and should be treated as any other ancient source evidence would be.

You could have stated simply that you don't care to know if God has made himself known through Jesus.

Some people have come to know God when they were honestly seeking if the scriptures were of God.

I have tended to find religious writings boring except those of the Bible which revealed the heavenly Father and Christ Jesus. It seems worse just to be interested in them just from an academic viewpoint.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You could have stated simply that you don't care to know if God has made himself known through Jesus.

It is not a matter of caring or not. Your belief is a later Christian construct. I would also point out that merely because someone believes something that does not necessarily make it true.

Some people have come to know God when they were honestly seeking if the scriptures were of God.

I have a jocular theory about how many of those whom I encounter on the evangelical/fundamentalist wing have come to find the Lord.

I call it the Five"D"s as it is so often one, or a combination of, any of the following: Drugs, Drink, Dames, Dudes, or Depression.

[Christian3]

A lot of Gods running around here.

There is only one God.

[Trucker]

I would also point out that merely because someone believes something that does not necessarily make it true.

But of course that wouldn't apply to any of your stated beliefs, huh!!

[JimL]

There is only one God.

Comprised of 3 distinct persons. But why is Jesus called the son of god, if he is god?