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)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.

[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]

Jesus is equal in essence, but not in authority.

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

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

[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

[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.

accurate

[mikewhitney]

accurate

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.

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

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]

plainly statedτριας

[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.