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
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

    I should have said anthropocentric or some other term to emphasize man's limitations of understanding the infinite God. Of course, many aspects are in terms of mankind but we cannot limit to our own humanity. Sorry for the confusion.
    I acknowledge the human limitations of understanding the infinite God as the ultimately unknowable Source of all of existence. This part of the reason I reject the Trinity as defining God in terms of a Trinity.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      I acknowledge the human limitations of understanding the infinite God as the ultimately unknowable Source of all of existence. This part of the reason I reject the Trinity as defining God in terms of a Trinity.
      But we are working with the material that reveals what we know. The Trinity doctrine incorporates that description in the best summary we have so far. If there is an improved conception, then someone needs to step up and make a really good argument for that. The non-trinitarian proposals tend to undo the work of Christ and corrupt the nature of justification by God.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

        But we are working with the material that reveals what we know. The Trinity doctrine incorporates that description in the best summary we have so far. If there is an improved conception, then someone needs to step up and make a really good argument for that. The non-trinitarian proposals tend to undo the work of Christ and corrupt the nature of justification by God.
        You are proposing that if Trinity is true or false we have to rationalize whether it is true or not or to come up with an improved conception, which is not a valid way to justify a religious belief
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

          You are proposing that if Trinity is true or false we have to rationalize whether it is true or not or to come up with an improved conception, which is not a valid way to justify a religious belief
          Can you word that differently? The analogy in science is like following Newtonian science until Relativity came about.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            [ATTACH=CONFIG]42033[/ATTACH]
            The Captain cannot help you when you cannot submit a coherent post.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              This is where all the confusion arose. The Neoplatonist ideas that underpinned the later construct of a Triune deity had all been developed in non-Christian contexts [and even in those their meanings were not indisputably defined]. The real problem came with making use of Greek philosophy, the only language sophisticated enough for such debates and key terms such ousia, homoousios, hypostasis and logos could not be easily be reformulated to deal with specific Christian issues such as the precise nature of Jesus and his relationship with God the Father.

              Furthermore, formulating these concepts in two languages, Latin and Greek, when there was no strict equivalence between them further complicated the situation. Latin theologians translated the Greek ousia as substantia, but the Greeks translatedsubstantia as hypostasis,
              personality.”

              So when the Latins talked of una substantia, in the sense of one divine substance [within which might be found the distinct personalities of the Trinity], it appeared in Greek as if they were affirming that there was only one hypostasis for the three persons of the Trinity, in effect preaching what would later be considered as heresy.
              Well said.


              Macquarrie notes that the one is Being (not a being but Being) and in the One are 3 movements (Gregory Baum calls them eternal modes)..............persons.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                Can you word that differently? The analogy in science is like following Newtonian science until Relativity came about.
                I was responding to the wording and the way you propose to resolve the validity of the concept of the Trinity.

                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  I was responding to the wording and the way you propose to resolve the validity of the concept of the Trinity.
                  But your point could not be understood. I didn't say this was a way to validate what we already know. I said if someone presents a better model, they would have to make a good argument for it. Some people complain about one verse or another but have not addressed all the concepts that lead us to the formation of the Trinitarian understanding.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                    But we are working with the material that reveals what we know. The Trinity doctrine incorporates that description in the best summary we have so far. If there is an improved conception, then someone needs to step up and make a really good argument for that. The non-trinitarian proposals tend to undo the work of Christ and corrupt the nature of justification by God.
                    I differ with you (if I understand you correctly) in that the 'best summary' makes little sense for most 21st C people. I think theologians, some previously mentioned, are onto a better summery or 'description' with the idea of movement or modes (ways) that the One Being acts in creation.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                      I acknowledge the human limitations of understanding the infinite God as the ultimately unknowable Source of all of existence. This part of the reason I reject the Trinity as defining God in terms of a Trinity.
                      If we talk of the Trinity not as 'the understanding' of God in himSelf but as our, as the Christian community's, description of how they believe they encounter God in their lives - does that make a difference? It seems that the community had to 'expand' their God language so they could encompass their experience of Christ.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                        If we talk of the Trinity not as 'the understanding' of God in himSelf but as our, as the Christian community's, description of how they believe they encounter God in their lives - does that make a difference? It seems that the community had to 'expand' their God language so they could encompass their experience of Christ.
                        I have to go with the belief of the religious community itself how it identifies with that belief, and how it identities with other beliefs in God which is to reject alternate beliefs, because they do not conform to their beliefs.. Their belief in the Trinity is truly the nature of God, and not just a 'description of how they believe they encounter God in their lives.' Though from my perspective, yes, all the different religions do 'describe what they believe in their encounter God in their lives.'
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-15-2020, 06:47 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                          I differ with you (if I understand you correctly) in that the 'best summary' makes little sense for most 21st C people. I think theologians, some previously mentioned, are onto a better summery or 'description' with the idea of movement or modes (ways) that the One Being acts in creation.
                          What evidence do you have of 21st century people finding modalism (or whatever) more logical to the testimony of scripture?

                          It is not sufficient in itself to move from the Trinitarian understanding to something else simply because it fits the 21st century mindset. There are a lot of cultural elements which are at odds with God and Christianity.
                          Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-15-2020, 07:22 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                            What evidence do you have of 21st century people finding modalism (or whatever) more logical to the testimony of scripture?
                            The argument for Modalism and ah . . . other conclusions of different churches concerning is many centuries old is based on the same information we have had throughout history and nothing to do what we have in the 21st century. All the different diverse and conflicting believe there belief is the 'logical to the testimony of scripture.'.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                              The argument for Modalism and ah . . . other conclusions of different churches concerning is many centuries old is based on the same information we have had throughout history and nothing to do what we have in the 21st century. All the different diverse and conflicting believe there belief is the 'logical to the testimony of scripture.'.
                              I was responding to Thormas' comment about the 21st century mindset. The key element is that there would have to be a better model than the Trinitarian understanding.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                                I was responding to Thormas' comment about the 21st century mindset. The key element is that there would have to be a better model than the Trinitarian understanding.
                                It is a similar argument you posted to me. My answer is the same.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                36 responses
                                121 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                422 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X