Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

I suppose that you reject General Relativity because it took so long to get there from Newtonian Physics.

General Relativity, unlike the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, does not claim to be revealed by "God-given scriptures" and "confirmed by reason".

[Tassman]

The Trinitarian doctrine arises out of scriptures and is confirmed by reason.

[mikewhitney]

You are asking for scriptures to be written to a first-grade level of reading. Solomon described the need to dig deep to find wisdom. You are seeking it as something you bump into. You are placing an artificial self-defined restriction on how God should make things known about himself. If you can justify that God must work at this simplistic level, go ahead and make your arguments.

Also, you have not explained what you understand about the relationship of the Trinitarian doctrine with other key doctrines that would be affected if the Trinitarian doctrine were not true. This shows that you are not ready to discuss this topic at all.

[mikewhitney]

We can forgive you for not understanding analogies. Many atheists suffer from this inability.

[mikewhitney]

That old canard?

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.

I wish you knew scriptures a bit better. It would make the discussion easier.

[Trucker]

And? As I wrote, the Greek text provided to Erasumus was fake - created for the purpose - whoever wrote it took the Vulgate Latin verse and translated it into Greek.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.

I think "fake" would be improper. Incomplete, yes. My understanding is that it was Erasmus himself who back translated from the Latin into the Greek. As a result there appears in his work some Greek words that do not appear in any Greek manuscript known to ever have existed. Incomplete texts were not the only cause of Erasmus's errors. For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry. Not at all conducive to accuracy!! .

Regardless of what you choose to think the Trinity is definitely taught throughout the Scriptures. the fact that you either cannot or will not see what is there does not change the fact that it is there. The Trinity Doctrine does not depend on the Comma Johanneum, the Textus Receptus, the King James translation, or the Agnostic Bart Ehrman.

[Tassman]

You are placing an artificial self-defined restriction on how God should make things known about himself. If you can justify that God must work at this simplistic level,

God was obviously NOT working at a simplistic level. It took 350 years of the (your phrase), to arrive at an acceptable formula of the Trinity, which you argue "arises out of scriptures and is confirmed by reason".

Also, you have not explained what you understand about the relationship of the Trinitarian doctrine with other key doctrines that would be affected if the Trinitarian doctrine were not true.

Oh, you mean the effect on the equally nonsensical doctrine of the Hypostatic Union whereby Jesus is simultaneously 100% God and 100% Man at one and the same time.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I think "fake" would be improper. Incomplete, yes.

It was created for the occasion.

My understanding is that it was Erasmus himself who back translated from the Latin into the Greek.

Yes he translated the Vulgate - which was originally translated from the Greek into Latin by Jerome in the late fourth century. That version remained the standard "Bible" throughout Western Christianity until the early sixteenth century. However, if you had actually read what I wrote, which judging from these remarks you clearly did not, you will find that I mentioned that the particular verse found in the Vulgate [i.e. the Latin translation of Jerome] is not found in the early Greek MSS. Thereby indicating that that verse was inserted [either by Jerome or by a later hand].

As a result there appears in his work some Greek words that do not appear in any Greek manuscript known to ever have existed.

Some examples would be useful.

Incomplete texts were not the only cause of Erasmus's errors. For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry.

Primary source citation would be likewise be useful.

Regardless of what you choose to think the Trinity is definitely taught throughout the Scriptures

It is taught but it has no scriptural basis. The word Trias/τριας" does not occur anywhere in the New Testament, no matter how hard you may look.

The Trinity Doctrine does not depend on the Comma Johanneum, the Textus Receptus, the King James translation, or the Agnostic Bart Ehrman.

The Doctrine could only be imposed by Imperial edict. As to why Theodosius opted for the Nicene creed that conceived a Trinity of equal majesty rather than a subordinationist alternative, much of that can be understood if we consider the context of the time and the various crises that were affecting the Empire.

Despite the divisions among fourth century Christians as to which version of the faith to accept [Nicene or Homoian] there were deeper ideological reasons why the emperor, and indeed many of the upper echelons of society, were so sympathetic to a Godhead in which Jesus was elevated into the divinity. The problem for anyone from those upper social strata [including the emperor] all of whom depended upon the hierarchical structure of the empire to keep them in power was the reality of the gospels.

In these Jesus was a rebel who was executed by a Roman provincial governor. The Jesus of the Synoptics is a poor, itinerant holy man who preached of the immediate coming of the kingdom in which the poor would inherit the earth.

Such sentiments were hardly conducive to political stability and were certainly not something the elite wished to hear at a time of intense danger from external threats to the empire. It can therefore be deduced that the imposition of the Nicene creed was motivated as much by politics as theology. It was imposed through imperial law, and given the requirements of the empire at that moment it was the most fitting theological formula to maintain the existing hierarchical order under the auspices of God.

[Trucker]

It was created for the occasion.

How so?

Yes he translated the Vulgate - which was originally translated from the Greek into Latin by Jerome in the late fourth century. That version remained the standard "Bible" throughout Western Christianity until the early sixteenth century. However, if you had actually read what I wrote, which judging from these remarks you clearly did not, you will find that I mentioned that the particular verse found in the Vulgate [i.e. the Latin translation of Jerome] is not found in the early Greek MSS. Thereby indicating that that verse was inserted [either by Jerome or by a later hand].

All of which I was well aware and does not negate the fact that the Trinity is taught throughout the Scriptures. . So your assumed point is?????

It is taught but it has no scriptural basis. The word Trias/τριας" does not occur anywhere in the New Testament, no matter how hard you may look.

Totally irrelevant!! I have never said the words Holy Trinity, or it's Greek equivalent appears in the New Testament, ma'am. What I did say is that the concept of a Triune God is taught throughout the Scriptures. Your inability or determination not to see it does not preclude the fact if it's presence.

Doctrine could only be imposed by Imperial edict. As to why Theodosius opted for the Nicene creed that conceived a Trinity of equal majesty rather than a subordinationist alternative, much of that can be understood if we consider the context of the time and the various crises that were affecting the Empire.

Despite the divisions among fourth century Christians as to which version of the faith to accept [Nicene or Homoian] there were deeper ideological reasons why the emperor, and indeed many of the upper echelons of society, were so sympathetic to a Godhead in which Jesus was elevated into the divinity. The problem for anyone from those upper social strata [including the emperor] all of whom depended upon the hierarchical structure of the empire to keep them in power was the reality of the gospels.

In these Jesus was a rebel who was executed by a Roman provincial governor. The Jesus of the Synoptics is a poor, itinerant holy man who preached of the immediate coming of the kingdom in which the poor would inherit the earth.

Such sentiments were hardly conducive to political stability and were certainly not something the elite wished to hear at a time of intense danger from external threats to the empire. It can therefore be deduced that the imposition of the Nicene creed was motivated as much by politics as theology. It was imposed through imperial law, and given the requirements of the empire at that moment it was the most fitting theological formula to maintain the existing hierarchical order under the auspices of God.

More irrelevant chatter to cloud up and derail! You seem terribly confused, ma'am. The recognition of a Doctrine and the imposition [political or otherwise] of a Doctrine are two completely different issues entirely. The Trinity Doctrine is present, The Imposition [political or otherwise] of the Doctrine is not.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How so? ]

Because no early Greek MSS contained the verse. Did you actually read what I wrote?

All of which I was well aware and does not negate the fact that the Trinity is taught throughout the Scriptures.

No it is not "taught throughout the Scriptures".

What I did say is that the concept of a Triune God is taught throughout the Scriptures.

No it isn't.

The Trinity Doctrine is present, The Imposition [political or otherwise] of the Doctrine is not.

I recommend that you read up on the history of your religion from the fourth century. Your comments appear to hold that the Nicene solution simply floated down from heaven and was then recognised by the bishops as the only possible formula to describe the three members of the Trinity.

Now where is your textual source evidence to support these earlier comments?

For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry."

[Trucker]

Because no early Greek MSS contained the verse.

What verse are you referring to?

Did you actually read what I wrote?

Yes I read it ...diversions and all!

No it is not "taught throughout the Scriptures".

No it isn't.

That's your story and you're stuck with it. As I stated previously, the obvious fact either you can't or you won't see it does not negate the fact that is is there. Just for kicks and giggles ... how many people are in a family? Can you tell me? And no, I'm not trying to divert or derail.

I recommend that you read up on the history of your religion from the fourth century. Your comments appear to hold that the Nicene solution simply floated down from heaven and was then recognised by the bishops as the only possible formula to describe the three members of the Trinity.

The "solution" was merely the acknowledgement of what was already there to see.

Now where is your textual source evidence to support these earlier comments?
For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry."

You mean to say you don't know Erasmus was being pressured by the desire to be the first to publish??? My my my!! Here I thought you knew everything.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I wish you knew scriptures a bit better. It would make the discussion easier.

Those are the known historical facts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What verse are you referring to?

Yes I read it ...diversions and all!

If you have read it then you know to verse I am referring.

How you have managed to post at least two replies while not knowing precisely what verse you are discussing is something of a mystery.

That's your story and you're stuck with it.

It is not a story, it is textual fact. There is nothing to be found in the NT texts that directly refers to a Triune deity and the word Trias/τριας does not occur.

You mean to say you don't know Erasmus was being pressured by the desire to be the first to publish

In other words you cannot substantiate your allegation. I suspected as much

[mikewhitney]

Those are the known historical facts.

Indeed the scriptures are known historical facts. That is why I said I wish you knew them better.

[mikewhitney]

God was obviously NOT working at a simplistic level. It took 350 years of the (your phrase), to arrive at an acceptable formula of the Trinity, which you argue "arises out of scriptures and is confirmed by reason".



Oh, you mean the effect on the equally nonsensical doctrine of the Hypostatic Union whereby Jesus is simultaneously 100% God and 100% Man at one and the same time.

I wonder how you know God better than the scriptures reveal. At the same time, you state you are an atheist, which means you say you cannot know God.

How can God be limited by your ability to comprehend what he does with his creation? You sound like the Creator cannot do what he wishes. You seem to say that God cannot interact with creation, as if God only operates in some detached mode from what he created. What is your basis for this claim?