Originally posted by mikewhitney
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostTassman,
This is an argument made by reason based on scriptures. So you are wrong in saying this was not based on reason.
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.
This means we just have to work with the best description that we can -- which was best laid out in the later creeds.
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.“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 PostNo. 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.
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 PostYou 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.
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 PostAnd who are you to issue instructions?"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 PostYou are incoherent here. The Trinitarian doctrine arises out of 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 PostNot 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trucker View PostThe 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
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 PostThat is the homework assignment for you. Look up the word "blasphemy" and find it in the gospels.
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, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
56 responses
290 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,522 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment