Originally posted by mikewhitney
View Post
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
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
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThat 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostAnd? 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostYou 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,
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.Last edited by Tassman; 07-22-2020, 12:11 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trucker View PostI think "fake" would be improper. Incomplete, yes.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostMy understanding is that it was Erasmus himself who back translated from the Latin into the Greek.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostAs a result there appears in his work some Greek words that do not appear in any Greek manuscript known to ever have existed.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostIncomplete texts were not the only cause of Erasmus's errors. For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostRegardless of what you choose to think the Trinity is definitely taught throughout the Scriptures
Originally posted by Trucker View PostThe Trinity Doctrine does not depend on the Comma Johanneum, the Textus Receptus, the King James translation, or the Agnostic Bart Ehrman.
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."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIt was created for the occasion.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostYes 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].
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostIt 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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostDoctrine 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.Last edited by Trucker; 07-22-2020, 07:29 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trucker View PostHow so? ]
Originally posted by Trucker View PostAll of which I was well aware and does not negate the fact that the Trinity is taught throughout the Scriptures.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostWhat I did say is that the concept of a Triune God is taught throughout the Scriptures.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostThe Trinity Doctrine is present, The Imposition [political or otherwise] of the Doctrine is not.
Now where is your textual source evidence to support these earlier comments?
For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry.""It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostBecause no early Greek MSS contained the verse.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostDid you actually read what I wrote?
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostNo it is not "taught throughout the Scriptures".
No it isn't.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostI 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.
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostNow where is your textual source evidence to support these earlier comments?
For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry."
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostI wish you knew scriptures a bit better. It would make the discussion easier."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trucker View PostWhat verse are you referring to?
Yes I read it ...diversions and all!
How you have managed to post at least two replies while not knowing precisely what verse you are discussing is something of a mystery.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostThat's your story and you're stuck with it.
Originally posted by Trucker View PostYou mean to say you don't know Erasmus was being pressured by the desire to be the first to publish"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostGod 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.
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?Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-22-2020, 11:55 AM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
21 responses
93 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 12:34 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
81 responses
458 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 12:48 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
139 responses
582 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:01 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM |
Comment