Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Christian3]

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)

See my previous post to Tassman: Maybe you are confused by the word "persons".

There is only one Being who is God. They are not three people, like Tom, Dick and Harry.

“Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.

This is monotheism, not Tri-theism.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

See my previous post to Tassman: Maybe you are confused by the word "persons".

There is only one Being who is God. They are not three people, like Tom, Dick and Harry.

“Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.

This is monotheism, not Tri-theism.

You have just contradicted your earlier statement, ” Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.”

How does one aspect of this Godhead have less authority than another aspect of that same Godhead?

[Dan Zebiri]

The koran claims that the Mother of the Book - Ummul Kitab, co-existed alongside Allah / God from eternity. and orthodox islamic (sunnah) theology and dictums confirm that this ummul kitab / "mother of the Book/s" was eternal and uncreated.

Surah 13/39 - "Allah cancels what he wishes and confirms what he wishes for with him is the Mother of the book (Ummul kitab"

surah 85/21-22 - "this is also the truth that it is a glorious Koran, inscribed on a well-guarded Tablet."

Anything that is eternal and uncreated according to islam, the koran and the sunnah is divine, just like Allah himself is supposed to be divine, since he is purportedly eternal and uncreated too, obviously - "Ghairul makhluq".

So, there is no real "monotheism" in islamic dictums and koranic teachings - which itself is supposed to be the "eternal speech and words of God". The doctrine of "tauhid" or 'pure islamic monotheism' is really koranically and theologically not pure monotheism after all.

Allah co-exists with something else that is as eternal AND uncreated as himself - the Mother of the Books!

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)

[Christian3]

You have just contradicted your earlier statement, ” Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.”

How does one aspect of this Godhead have less authority than another aspect of that same Godhead?

I have not contradicted myself.

The Father is the highest in authority, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in essence.

The President is higher in authority than I, but not in essence because we are both human.

[Dan Zebiri]

Yes, that is an apt and correct allusion, Christian3.

I have not contradicted myself.

The Father is the highest in authority, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in essence.

The President is higher in authority than I, but not in essence because we are both human.

[Trucker]

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.

So short of it is that you are so much more knowledgeable concerning what Psalms, Mathew, Mark, and Luke, as well as Jesus and the Jews He was confronting should have said than were the inspired writers of Scripture??

With that in mind many of your comments make senses!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So short of it is that you are so much more knowledgeable concerning what Psalms, Mathew, Mark, and Luke, as well as Jesus and the Jews He was confronting should have said than were the inspired writers of Scripture??

With that in mind many of your comments make senses!

What is all that is supposed to mean? I am not offering my opinion. it is a textual fact. The Septuagint substitutes κυριος for the name of Yahweh.

Nor do any of the anonymous writers of the four canonical gospels categorically state that they are writing inspired scripture. For the writer of Matthew “inspired scripture ” would have been the Septuagint.

You also need to remember when Matthew’s gospel is approximately dated. Given the events of 70-74 CE it would have been exceedingly unwise for a clandestine sect with known Jewish antecedents to write about Jesus as an earthly king with an earthly dominion.

Hence the writer, as I mentioned in my previous reply to you, makes the kingdom spiritual and not worldly .

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have not contradicted myself.

The Father is the highest in authority, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same in essence.

That is illogical. If all the hypostases [persons] in this Godhead are co-equal then one cannot have more authority than any other. If so they fail to be co-equal hypostases and you are in danger of the heresy of Sabellianism

The President is higher in authority than I, but not in essence because we are both human.

That is exceedingly inept. The president is the president because he is an elected human official who holds the post for a fixed term.

You and the President do not share the same ousios [often regarded as substance or consubstantiality], nor are you both hypostases of the same theological construct. You are not part of a Presidential godhead.. You only share in your common humanity.

[Christian3]

That is illogical. If all the hypostases [persons] in this Godhead are co-equal then one cannot have more authority than any other. If so they fail to be co-equal hypostases and you are in danger of the heresy of Sabellianism



That is exceedingly inept. The president is the president because he is an elected human official who holds the post for a fixed term.

You and the President do not share the same ousios [often regarded as substance or consubstantiality], nor are you both hypostases of the same theological construct. You are not part of a Presidential godhead.. You only share in your common humanity.

The president and I are both human; that was my point, HA.

How about the Father is greater in office. What is why Jesus said "The Father is greater than I."

[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

You are entitled to your opinion, but some opinions are more accurate than others.

This is what Daniel B. Wallace said about John 17:5: 5 And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.

tn Or “in your presence”; Grk “with yourself.” The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton theon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ.

[Trucker]

What is all that is supposed to mean?

Specifically what is you don't understand in my statement ....

Originally Posted by Trucker View Post
So short of it is that you are so much more knowledgeable concerning what Psalms, Mathew, Mark, and Luke, as well as Jesus and the Jews He was confronting should have said than were the inspired writers of Scripture??

?????

I am not offering my opinion. it is a textual fact. .

Strange since not one English translation of which I am aware [I have several modern and a few not so modern] and can access many more] seems to agree with the "textual fact" as you seem to be presenting it.

The Septuagint substitutes κυριος for the name of Yahweh.

Yeah ... the Jews thought the LORD's proper name too sacred to be uttered aloud. But the NT is not from the LXX!

The fact is you are simply denying what the Scriptuers in Mathew, Mark, Luke and Psalms plainly state. And, just BTW ... THE TRINITY IS ALSO PLAINLY STATED IN THESE THREE SHORT VERSES!

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?"

[HCSB]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are entitled to your opinion, but some opinions are more accurate than others.

No opinion can be more”accurate” than any other. Informed opinions must be premised on an understanding of the topic.

This is what Daniel B. Wallace said about John 17:5: 5 And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.

tn Or “in your presence”; Grk “with yourself.” The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton theon). Whatever else may be said, the statement in 17:5 strongly asserts the preexistence of Jesus Christ.

This remains Dr Wallace’s theological opinion. Nothing more. I would also note that he appears unable to distance himself from his own theological presupposition.

The point at issue is whether the work known as the Gospel of John is to regarded as a contemporary factual account describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth or is it, in fact, a late 1st century theological composition, specifically a sophisticated Hellenistic Christian aretalogy?

Close critical reading of this work shows it to be consistently and virulently anti-Jewish, and it depicts an enigmatic and hostile Jesus who vociferously criticizes the ‘Jews’ for not recognizing that their own scriptures have the function of testifying to him. (5.39) The ‘Jews’ are also blamed elsewhere for refusing to recognize Jesus despite the signs (σημεια) and wonders (τερατα) testifying to his abilities and status. (12.37, 15.24) Such preternatural goetic motifs are consistent and typical features within aretalogical writings.

It should also be remembered that the term Logos/Word plays an essential part in Greek philosophy and mysticism, with both of which the writer of John appears to have been conversant. It is a pivotal concept in the theology of Philo and in Hermetism, attributed to the god Hermes Trismegistus. Both of which are likely to have influenced Hellenistic Christianity. For John, as with Philo, the Logos was God’s tool in creation, a mediator figure between god and mankind. Not a divinity in its own right. In Hermetic mysticism, the Logos is called the ‘son of God’.

In marked contrast to the Jesus, of the synoptics, the Jesus of John delivers lengthy, artificial, mystical speeches, about himself and the relationship between him and his [often uncomprehending] followers, and their relationship with God and with each other in their mutual faith.

The gospel is obviously the result of the reflections and beliefs of John and his community, rather than any deliberate attempt to improve or enhance the historical record. Unfortunately It has the effect of leading to a presentation of a self-obsessed Jesus instead of the man who inspired people to love and follow him.

[mikewhitney]

No opinion can be more”accurate” than any other. Informed opinions must be premised on an understanding of the topic.

This remains Dr Wallace’s theological opinion. Nothing more. I would also note that he appears unable to distance himself from his own theological presupposition.

The point at issue is whether the work known as the Gospel of John is to regarded as a contemporary factual account describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth or is it, in fact, a late 1st century theological composition, specifically a sophisticated Hellenistic Christian aretalogy?

Close critical reading of this work shows it to be consistently and virulently anti-Jewish, and it depicts an enigmatic and hostile Jesus who vociferously criticizes the ‘Jews’ for not recognizing that their own scriptures have the function of testifying to him. (5.39) The ‘Jews’ are also blamed elsewhere for refusing to recognize Jesus despite the signs (σημεια) and wonders (τερατα) testifying to his abilities and status. (12.37, 15.24) Such preternatural goetic motifs are consistent and typical features within aretalogical writings.

It should also be remembered that the term Logos/Word plays an essential part in Greek philosophy and mysticism, with both of which the writer of John appears to have been conversant. It is a pivotal concept in the theology of Philo and in Hermetism, attributed to the god Hermes Trismegistus. Both of which are likely to have influenced Hellenistic Christianity. For John, as with Philo, the Logos was God’s tool in creation, a mediator figure between god and mankind. Not a divinity in its own right. In Hermetic mysticism, the Logos is called the ‘son of God’.

In marked contrast to the Jesus, of the synoptics, the Jesus of John delivers lengthy, artificial, mystical speeches, about himself and the relationship between him and his [often uncomprehending] followers, and their relationship with God and with each other in their mutual faith.

The gospel is obviously the result of the reflections and beliefs of John and his community, rather than any deliberate attempt to improve or enhance the historical record. Unfortunately It has the effect of leading to a presentation of a self-obsessed Jesus instead of the man who inspired people to love and follow him.

obviously. this is what everyone who has read it has concluded.
everything is a superfluous opinion other than yours.
you are helping everyone understand our Lord and God.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Specifically what is you don't understand in my statement

Your resorting to thinly veiled ad hominems has brought nothing to this exchange.

Strange since not one English translation of which I am aware [I have several modern and a few not so modern] and can access many more] seems to agree with the "textual fact" as you seem to be presenting it.

Look a little further – I recommend a Hebrew text with a literal interlinear translation. Might I suggest The Jewish Study bible?

Yeah ... the Jews thought the LORD's proper name too sacred to be uttered aloud.

Only at a later period was it considered too sacred to be pronounced.

However, purely as an example in 589/588 BCE Lachish Ostracon VIII recounts the following “May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of good this very day! [....] The Lord hath humbled me before thee. Nedabiah hath fled to the mountains [...].Truly I lie not – let my lord spend thither.”.

These ostraca give us an insight into the situation prevailing during the siege of Lachish by Sennacharib. The name Yahweh is also found many times in the biblical texts.

But the NT is not from the LXX!

Well there is nothing like stating the blindingly obvious.

When these gospels were being written there was no NT. However, for the writers of these works the Septuagint was their scripture.

The fact is you are simply denying what the Scriptuers in Mathew, Mark, Luke and Psalms plainly state.

The fact is that the Septuagint substitutes κυριος for Yahweh, the God of Israel and the God Jesus of Nazareth worshipped.

He did not worship himself.

And, just BTW ... THE TRINITY IS ALSO PLAINLY STATED IN THESE THREE SHORT VERSES! [/COLOR]

No it is not “plainly stated”. That is an assumption premised upon an anachronistic misconstruing of the text. The word “τριας” is not found in either the New Testament or the Septuagint.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

obviously. this is what everyone who has read it has concluded.

That is a sweeping generalisation. It is manifestly self-evident that the vast academic corpus in New Testament studies clearly indicates that not everyone has arrived at the same conclusions as yourself.