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 Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    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.
    I take it that you are not interested in a serious discussion. I read your comments, ma'am, but I have other things to do and don't have the time to go back and find the specific passage your comments referred to. If you wish not to discuss, that's up to you. But I'll ask you again .. . specifically what verse or versed or text are you referring to??

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    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.
    Irrelevant!! I know of no one who has said that specific term appears in the Greek or the Hebrew, ma'am.

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    In other words you cannot substantiate your allegation. I suspected as much
    I have no doubt you suspect as much. But you err ... as you so often do. You're trying to divert, ma'am. You refuse to accept plain Scripture as saying what it plainly does say. You're playing games, ma'am and I'm not interested in games.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      If you have read it then you know to verse I am referring.
      Verse? Or Text??? Which? and please be specific IF YOU HAVE ANY INTENT TO SERIOUSLY DISCUSS.

      I took the time [which i really didn't have!] to follow our discussion back the this statement from you:
      Originally Posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      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.
      So what CREDIBLE proof do you have for your above quoted claim ???

      And, as I honestly asked of you ... Verse or Text .... Specifically??? Erasmus had access to more than one Greek manuscript which he was working from... IF YOU WISH FOR A SERIOUS DISCUSSION!! ?????

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        Indeed the scriptures are known historical facts. That is why I said I wish you knew them better.
        The four canonical gospels are not precise records of historical facts [as we understand that term today]. They do not inquire which is the Greek root of the English word "history". They bear witness.

        They contain references to real historical figures, real places, and to known historical events. However, their narrative details performed an entirely different purpose which was to disseminate the teachings of the Christian community for which they written and to inculcate faith.
        "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 Post
          I take it that you are not interested in a serious discussion. I read your comments, ma'am
          If, as you have stated, you have read my comments then you know exactly which text I am referencing.

          If you do not know what text I am referencing why are you bothering with these exchanges?

          Originally posted by Trucker View Post
          but I have other things to do
          Then I suggest you desist in replying to me and continue with those other activities.
          "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 Post
            The four canonical gospels are not precise records of historical facts [as we understand that term today]. They do not inquire which is the Greek root of the English word "history". They bear witness.

            They contain references to real historical figures, real places, and to known historical events. However, their narrative details performed an entirely different purpose which was to disseminate the teachings of the Christian community for which they written and to inculcate faith.
            Or, as I've come to see it, the bible is a myth woven into the history.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
              The four canonical gospels are not precise records of historical facts [as we understand that term today]. They do not inquire which is the Greek root of the English word "history". They bear witness.

              They contain references to real historical figures, real places, and to known historical events. However, their narrative details performed an entirely different purpose which was to disseminate the teachings of the Christian community for which they written and to inculcate faith.
              Perfect. A snapshot of what was happening in Judaism at that time.

              One problem with what you are doing is that you have not taken the passages that point to the deity of Christ and provided a different model of understanding that is coherent. We see that with many people who try to pose another framework for understanding the writings. They may be able to poke at a verse here or there. However, they fail to come up with a comprehensive examination of, for example, a specific NT letter to show their framework works out better.
              Last edited by mikewhitney; 07-22-2020, 06:09 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                If, as you have stated, you have read my comments then you know exactly which text I am referencing.

                If you do not know what text I am referencing why are you bothering with these exchanges?

                Then I suggest you desist in replying to me and continue with those other activities.
                Why do you tag your post to a post of mine that you do not address??? In the post you tagged this to i replied to what appear to be your post which I went back and dug out!1

                You don't know what you're trying to talk about!!!
                .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                  I wonder how you know God better than the scriptures reveal.
                  What the scriptures allegedly reveal about the nature of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union took 350 years of contentious debate by scores of the top theologians of the day to arrive at an acceptable formula. Clearly, what “the scriptures reveal” is far from immediately apparent.

                  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.
                  God cannot do that which defies his very nature by being both fully divine (i.e. omniscient, omnipotent and eternal) while at the same time being fully human (i.e. ignorant, limited and mortal). It defies the laws of non-contradiction for the same entity (God) to possess two contradictory natures at one and the same time.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    Perfect. A snapshot of what was happening in Judaism at that time.
                    The gospels do not entirely reflect "what was happening in Judaism at that time". There was a strong belief among many Jews that the End Times were near and the Messianic Kingdom was at hand. In the Synoptics [and most notably Mark] we get shadowy glimpses of the real Jewish holy man, travelling around the countryside [it was within rural communities that various Jewish Messianic movements originated] telling his fellow Jews to prepare for this and repent.


                    However, Jewish messianism did not include an anthropomorphic deity. The Jewish Messiah is not a divine/semi-divine being. He is just a man, who has been chosen by the Almighty.

                    It is this simple fact that many Christians, including yourself, do not appear to be able to comprehend and it continues to remain the insoluble problem of Christianity; namely the impossible attempt to reconcile the ineffable and immanent deity of Judaism with Hellenistic concepts of anthropomorphic deities. Hence the various theological concepts, dogmas, and constructs that we find developing within later Christianity as it attempts [and often fails] to reconcile these two irreconcilable notions of divinity.
                    "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 Post
                      You don't know what you're trying to talk about!!!
                      Judging from your comments it is manifest that you do not know what you are writing about.

                      You make two replies to me in response to a comment I have written and in which I give a brief explanation about a particular verse and its appearance within an NT text, and then in further replies you ask me which verse I am referencing.
                      "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 Post
                        You make two replies to me in response to a comment I have written and in which I give a brief explanation about a particular verse and its appearance within an NT text, and then in further replies you ask me which verse I am referencing.
                        So let's see your "particular verse, "explanation", and proofs! Simple request that you keep dancing around! Why the dance instead of just posting the requested information and tagging it to this post????

                        Let's see it!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                          So let's see your "particular verse, "explanation", and proofs! Simple request that you keep dancing around! Why the dance instead of just posting the requested information and tagging it to this post????

                          Let's see it!!
                          I refer you back to the comment I made [#777] and to which you responded with alacrity at post #778 [less than two hours after I had posted it].

                          At to who is "dancing around", you wrote this at post #786:

                          "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!! "

                          At post #788 I requested source evidence for those comments.

                          You have not produced a scintilla of any such evidence. You danced around the request with the following asinine remark at post #790 that included an implied ad hominem "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."
                          "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


                          • Well, it appears we may be getting to the bottom of all the confusion now .... FINALLY!! Let us proceed.

                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            I refer you back to the comment I made [#777] and to which you responded with alacrity at post #778 [less than two hours after I had posted it].

                            At to who is "dancing around", you wrote this at post #786:

                            "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!! "

                            I have not a clue where you come up with "#786 #777, and #778!! Not a clue! Not saying your numbers are wrong ... just that I had to track down using the hard way what appears to me to be the posts you refer to. So is either this:
                            Or this .... the posts to which you refer???

                            If so, please note the numbers that appear in the URLs and the numbers that appear in the posts themselves!!! I LINK YOU AND THE READERS DIRECTLY TO THE POSTS CONTAINING THE COMMENTS i HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED YOU FOR!! So simple .... but you danced! WHY???

                            So if I simply click on the first link we see:
                            Quote Originally Posted by Trucker View Post
                            The Trinity Doctrine does not rely on the Comma Johanneum, the Textus Receptus, or the Agnostic Bart Ehrman. What a surprise that you would reference Ehrman [sarcasm intended]! But since you did you may also be interested in this short [two minutes twenty on seconds] video and a statement he [Ehrman] makes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0z0hCvQWak
                            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.

                            You can look all you like.
                            Please not that I specifically told you that the Trinity Doctrine does not rely on the Comma Johanneum, ..... ! So you come back with: "And? As I wrote, the Greek text provided to Erasumus was fake - created for the purpose" Specifically WHICH TEXT DO YOU REFER TO SINCE ERASMUS WAS USING MORE THAN ONE TEXT?????

                            You laid down an irrelevant rabbit trail and have never once even tried to answer my very relevant, appropriate, and proper question ..... WHICH TEXT?????


                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                            At post #788 I requested source evidence for those comments.

                            You have not produced a scintilla of any such evidence. You danced around the request with the following asinine remark at post #790 that included an implied ad hominem "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."
                            So where is YOUR EVIDENCE??? WHAT TEXT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU REFERRING TO???

                            if you want others to show proof then you show your proof instead of mere opinionated statements when asked!



                            1

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                              Well, it appears we may be getting to the bottom of all the confusion now .... FINALLY!! Let us proceed.



                              I have not a clue where you come up with "#786 #777, and #778!! Not a clue! Not saying your numbers are wrong ... just that I had to track down using the hard way what appears to me to be the posts you refer to. So is either this:


                              Or this ....

                              the posts to which you refer???

                              If so, please note the numbers that appear in the URLs and the numbers that appear in the posts themselves!!! I LINK YOU AND THE READERS DIRECTLY TO THE POSTS CONTAINING THE COMMENTS i HAVE REPEATEDLY ASKED YOU FOR!! So simple .... but you danced! WHY???

                              So if I simply click on the first link we see:


                              Please not that I specifically told you that the Trinity Doctrine does not rely on the Comma Johanneum, ..... ! So you come back with: "And? As I wrote, the Greek text provided to Erasumus was fake - created for the purpose" Specifically WHICH TEXT DO YOU REFER TO SINCE ERASMUS WAS USING MORE THAN ONE TEXT?????

                              You laid down an irrelevant rabbit trail and have never once even tried to answer my very relevant, appropriate, and proper question ..... WHICH TEXT?????




                              So where is YOUR EVIDENCE??? WHAT TEXT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU REFERRING TO???

                              if you want others to show proof then you show your proof instead of mere opinionated statements when asked!



                              1
                              Your use of capitals [the equivalent of shouting] is deemed extremely bad mannered.

                              If you cannot comprehend how these posts are numbered [this post of yours to which I am replying is post #808] then there is nothing more I can do.
                              "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 Post
                                The gospels do not entirely reflect "what was happening in Judaism at that time". There was a strong belief among many Jews that the End Times were near and the Messianic Kingdom was at hand. In the Synoptics [and most notably Mark] we get shadowy glimpses of the real Jewish holy man, travelling around the countryside [it was within rural communities that various Jewish Messianic movements originated] telling his fellow Jews to prepare for this and repent.


                                However, Jewish messianism did not include an anthropomorphic deity. The Jewish Messiah is not a divine/semi-divine being. He is just a man, who has been chosen by the Almighty.

                                It is this simple fact that many Christians, including yourself, do not appear to be able to comprehend and it continues to remain the insoluble problem of Christianity; namely the impossible attempt to reconcile the ineffable and immanent deity of Judaism with Hellenistic concepts of anthropomorphic deities. Hence the various theological concepts, dogmas, and constructs that we find developing within later Christianity as it attempts [and often fails] to reconcile these two irreconcilable notions of divinity.
                                You are right in certain ways and ignorant in others.

                                First thing... the Jews were expecting the Messiah around that time due to Daniel's prophecies. It was the time for the Messiah so the expectation was strong. The Jews were expecting a man like David or Gideon or Joshua. Plus, other than the self-appointed Jewish leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees), there was interest in just preserving their "place" and the peace.

                                Indeed the Jews just interpreted the prophecies that it would be a mere man with the Spirit of God upon him. However, this does not mean that God had to restrict his actions to what the typical Jew expected. There simply is no reason to expect God to limit his actions to the Jewish expectations. This makes God out to be a robot or a servant to the expectations of the people. Why should we rely on your artificial constraints on what God could have done?

                                As to the anthropomorphisms ... God has always been noted in anthropomorphic ways. The God of Israel has been described so that humanity could understand God. We are humans and that is the realm that God reaches us through. God also has full control of the creation he has made. So, God is not prohibited from making himself known through sending Jesus in the flesh, God incarnate.

                                You have no grounds to restrict God except for your unjustifiable restrictions on what God can do -- and what he has done. God's essence goes way beyond what humans can comprehend. To think otherwise is just plain foolish. ... or ... do you wish to explain how God is limited to the things you can imagine?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X