Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[mikewhitney]

I'm still unclear how you resolve the conflict of your statements.

Monotheism existed in Christianity from the beginning because there was no separation of groups. The Gentiles joined the Messiah-following branch of Judaism while giving up worship of city gods. They knew they were going from a polytheist city worship into the worship of a single Godhead. It is not as if they made Jesus to be a separate god and then had to fix things later. Is this what your theory is?

There were stages of refinement of creeds to represent most accurately what was revealed in scriptures in the first century. This was to promote the most accurate representation of the Trinity, not to create some new concept. The effort was to prevent ways to weed out those holding to heresies. I don't remember how much of this I have had to repeat to people in these discussions -- sorry if it is repetitious.

Have you studied the relevance of the Trinitarian doctrine on various aspects of the gospel? Do you know what becomes less coherent if people have the wrong concept of the Trinity? Or are you just trying to pull out one brick and see if the building collapses?

[Christian3]

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

He is the son of God by relationship to the Father.

He is the incarnate Word of the one True God.

To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God.

[JimL]

He is the son of God by relationship to the Father.

So, he is the son of god by his relationship to god?

He is the incarnate Word of the one True God.

What does that even mean? He's gods voice, or what?

To be the Son of God is to be of the same nature as God.

So what, you're the same nature as your father, does that make you one with your father?

You're just repeating words, concepts you've been taught, not making sense of them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sorry to interject, but on what evidence? The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity. Even Paul does not directly equate Jesus with God.

[Christian3]

So, he is the son of god by his relationship to god?

What does that even mean? He's gods voice, or what?

So what, you're the same nature as your father, does that make you one with your father?

You're just repeating words, concepts you've been taught, not making sense of them.

[Christian3]

Even Paul does not directly equate Jesus with God.

I disagree.

[JimL]

The Word of God, "Son" is God's agent used to create. God uses His Word to create.

So, what exactly does that mean? Is Jesus the word of god, or the son of god? Who spoke the world into existence the father or the son and how does that work. Did the father tell the son to go and speak the world into existence?

You and your father are both human. The Father and Son are both of the same nature, divine.

Yep, that's what I said, same nature, same substance, doesn't necessarily equate to same being.

Perhaps you are confused by the word "persons"?

Well, one of us is.

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

Okay, so by personal distinction you don't mean to say they are actuall distinct persons? So jesus was not just the son of god on earth, he was god, the father, son, and holy ghost?

I use Scriptures; the Scriptures teach me.

I gathered. But I hope you're thinking as much as you are being taught.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I disagree.

On what authentic Pauline textual evidence?

I do not include the the texts generally known as Deutero-Pauline.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You seemed to be saying that in your earlier posts on this site, soon after you started posting here. Sorry if I have not correctly restated what you seemed to be saying.

As I remember things, you said that the scriptures were rewritten to support the claims of the deity of Christ in order to support the Trinitarian doctrines.

I have pointed out that we do not have original MSS for any of these texts. We have copies of copies of copies with all the attendant risks of scribal error. Consider the conditions in which the copying was undertaken, including dictation, and, if transcribing from another copy, consider also the original format of the texts [i.e. scriptio continua].

Nor can we rule out the possibility of poor eyesight with particular scribes finding it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another, particularly if they were copying a text made by someone whose handwriting was not particularly well delineated [i.e. rather sloppy or untidy].

We can therefore not entirely rule out accidental [or deliberate] omissions and/or interpolations. Metzger, Cresswell, and Ehrman are just three academics who deal with these various issues.

The other point to address is if that if God had indeed inspired these texts why did those early Christian communities not take better care of the originals and indeed the earliest copies? Why do we find fragments dumped in rubbish pits?

[Tassman]

Sorry to interject, but on what evidence? The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity. Even Paul does not directly equate Jesus with God.

No, the Jewish messiah was not a divinity. But it is evident that from the earliest days Jesus followers had an inchoate notion of Jesus as divine, which evolved over time into Jesus as God and a person of the Trinity.

[Tassman]

I'm still unclear how you resolve the conflict of your statements.

There is no conflict in my statements.

Monotheism existed in Christianity from the beginning because there was no separation of groups. The Gentiles joined the Messiah-following branch of Judaism while giving up worship of city gods. They knew they were going from a polytheist city worship into the worship of a single Godhead. It is not as if they made Jesus to be a separate god and then had to fix things later.

There were stages of refinement of creeds to represent most accurately what was revealed in scriptures in the first century. This was to promote the most accurate representation of the Trinity, not to create some new concept. The effort was to prevent ways to weed out those holding to heresies.

Have you studied the relevance of the Trinitarian doctrine on various aspects of the gospel? Do you know what becomes less coherent if people have the wrong concept of the Trinity?

The Trinity doctrine is an incoherent, contradictory doctrine. It was adopted because it was the only way those who viewed Jesus as God could make sense of One God in the monotheistic context of Judaism.

[mikewhitney]

Tassman,

You sound partly informed and partly ignorant.

This is an argument made by reason based on scriptures. So you are wrong in saying this was not based on reason.

You are partly right in saying this is a mystery. 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.

You did not answer the critical challenge: " Do you know what becomes less coherent if people have the wrong concept of the Trinity? "

The Trinitarian doctrine is not some isolated doctrine. The Trinitarian understanding is quite central. Do you know why (i.e, beyond just the nature of our Creator)? If you cannot answer this question, it is foolish challenging the Trinity itself. Plus, 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.

[mikewhitney]

I have pointed out that we do not have original MSS for any of these texts. We have copies of copies of copies with all the attendant risks of scribal error. Consider the conditions in which the copying was undertaken, including dictation, and, if transcribing from another copy, consider also the original format of the texts [i.e. scriptio continua].

Nor can we rule out the possibility of poor eyesight with particular scribes finding it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another, particularly if they were copying a text made by someone whose handwriting was not particularly well delineated [i.e. rather sloppy or untidy].

We can therefore not entirely rule out accidental [or deliberate] omissions and/or interpolations. Metzger, Cresswell, and Ehrman are just three academics who deal with these various issues.

The other point to address is if that if God had indeed inspired these texts why did those early Christian communities not take better care of the originals and indeed the earliest copies? Why do we find fragments dumped in rubbish pits?

You don't sound educated on manuscripts when you say "we do not have the original MSS for any of these texts." It is best for one's reputation not to make an amateurish statement like that.

Somehow you are claiming to know better what scripture should say rather than what it says. You are assuming some sort of changes that propagated into multiple translations across multiple nations. This is back to conspiracy theory. All those translations would have had to have the same mistakes and interpolations. Hundreds of scribes would have to make the same copying mistakes that alter the meaning of key passages. However, the findings among scholars are that no major doctrines are changed by the types of scribal errors found in the texts.

There are other people better able to address the details of the continuity of the writings. The Nestle-Aland is the result of the analyses and is the best Greek text to work from.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You don't sound educated on manuscripts when you say "we do not have the original MSS for any of these texts."

That is a fact. We have very old copies but we do not have any original documents for any of these texts. Why you appear unable to recognise a basic fact remains a mystery for me.

Somehow you are claiming to know better what scripture should say rather than what it says.

Where have I written anything to that effect?

You are assuming some sort of changes that propagated into multiple translations across multiple nations.

There are a great many differences to be found in the various extant MSS. That too is a fact.

This is back to conspiracy theory.

That is simply your own rather facile response to known facts. I am not a palaeographer or a papyrologist but I have read works by experts in both those disciplines.

Do you understand what I mean by scriptio continuapossible to suggest that the exemplar was not perfect and may itself, have had unrecognised errors, as well as marginal notes and corrections of its own that had to be incorporated.

Another example is provided in II Corinthians. This as we now have it appears to be a combination of two or more Pauline letters, each written at a different time, for a different occasion, and that were only later combined into the one letter as it has come down to us. The verses at 6.14-17 do not appear to have been part of the original letter(s) at all but to have been interpolated into those texts at a later time and by a later hand.

This leaves the question, which form of II Corininthians is the original?

All those translations would have had to have the same mistakes and interpolations. Hundreds of scribes would have to make the same copying mistakes that alter the meaning of key passages.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why; Mezger, B.M. & Ehrman, B.D The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration; Cresswell, P. The Invention of Jesus: How the Church Rewrote the New Testament; and Bagnall, R.S. Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East

[mikewhitney]

You 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.

It is a difficult conspiracy theory to prove.

There are lots of odd theories that you are attracted to.

You have to explain how the Trinity doctrine misconstrues the text, not just that there are transcription errors that have been identified.