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

  • First off why do you so often tag your posts to the OP and then repeatedly quote my comments? Obviously the comments are specifically directed to me ... but tagged instead to the OP!!!!

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Tell us all something we do not know.
    It is most peculiar that you write this after alleging to have read my first comments on this topic.[
    It's most peculiar that you didn't properly address my simple and straight forward question I repeatedly ask you!! Instead, you repeatedly gave us dance demonstrations!! Very peculiar indeed! What a waste o fime and band width!!!

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    To recap. Here, in italics is what I originally wrote, and the post to which you initially responded:

    In that Latin Vulgate version there is a key passage that that did not occur in Erasmus’ source MSS and that was the account found at 1 John 5.7-8.

    Academics have called this the Johannine Comma. This passage is the only one in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it is also a later interpolation.

    This passage in the Vulgate reads:” There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

    Erasmus' Greek manuscripts, simply read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one". No mention of this Trinitarian concept of “ Father, the Word, and the Spirit"
    Why don;t you tell us somethng we don't already know???

    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Metzger points out that those words in I John 5.7-8 are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament.

    He mentions the external evidence noting that the passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except for eight and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late editorial revision of the Latin Vulgate.

    Four of the manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

    He goes on to note that the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they been aware of it,would surely have used it during the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century, and that it first appears in a Greek version of the [Latin] Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

    [see Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament
    Yup .. Pages 647-8! He then goes on to say quite a bit more about the passage [1jN 5:7-8]!!

    But where did he say, in speaking of Erasmus, that the text he was given was fake? No dancing please!

    And, as I have stated, I have seen more detailed information regarding the problems with the TR but that information is buried somewhere in the mountains of information [books and such] that have laying around.
    Last edited by Trucker; 07-25-2020, 12:19 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

      But where did he say, in speaking of Erasmus, that the text he was given was fake?
      As I have never written or contended that Metzger used the word "fake" I am at a loss to comprehend your question.

      In post #777 I wrote "This was achieved by a sixteenth century copy being produced purely for the occasion [we might call it a fake]" which is not an emphatic statement, but a suggestion.

      MS 61 may be the most likely candidate for this.

      Reading your most recent comments it is perfectly clear that you have not comprehended what I originally wrote.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        As I have never written or contended that Metzger used the word "fake" I am at a loss to comprehend your question.

        In post #777 I wrote "This was achieved by a sixteenth century copy being produced purely for the occasion [we might call it a fake]" which is not an emphatic statement, but a suggestion.

        MS 61 may be the most likely candidate for this.
        Nor have I ever written, contended, stated, inferred. implied, or in any way imaginable hinted that you ever said Metzer used the word "fake". So that's just one more misdirection on your part .... which you are very good at!

        But YOU did use the word I]fake[/I]" in your post which i am about to quote you!! Here, in bold and red, is your statement I have been questioning you about and you have been refusing to give any reasonable answer to:
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        And? As I wrote, the Greek text provided to Erasumus was fake - created for the purpose - .....
        And you've been dodging my simple, straight forward, and very appropriate questionS ever since!!

        The question was, and remains: Specifically which text do you refer to??????????????????????????????????????????

        Now let the Divine Diversional Dance continue! Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzze


        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Reading your most recent comments it is perfectly clear that you have not comprehended what I originally wrote.
        Reading your most recent comments it is perfectly clear that you love to quibble!!!

        Just answer my question!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
          []Nor have I ever written, contended, stated, inferred. implied, or in any way imaginable hinted that you ever said Metzer used the word "fake".
          In your previous reply that was in response to my citation of Metzger you wrote "But where did he say, in speaking of Erasmus, that the text he was given was fake?". That implies I had suggested Metzger had used the word.


          Originally posted by Trucker View Post
          But YOU did use the word I]fake[/I]"
          In a second post after I had made the suggestion in a previous post.

          Originally posted by Trucker View Post
          Specifically which text do you refer to
          Given your poor comprehension skills and your persistent distortions of what I have written I am no longer prepared to entertain your nonsense.

          Read through my replies from post number 777. It can be found on page 78 of this thread. The first post on that page is numbered 771 and is a reply from Tassman.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Given your poor comprehension skills and your persistent distortions of what I have written I am no longer prepared to entertain your nonsense.
            Abut what I expected!

            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Read through my replies from post number 777. It can be found on page 78 of this thread. The first post on that page is numbered 771 and is a reply from Tassman.
            Just post a link .... surely you know how!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
              Abut what I expected!



              Just post a link .... surely you know how!
              You do not appear able to find a particular post even when its page number and its own number is given to you. You appear to like distorting what your interlocutor has written. You have a bad mannered tendency to "shout" and attempt to browbeat.

              As you appear to have your own copy of Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, I recommend you read it. You might also find a copy of his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration equally helpful.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                You do not appear able to find a particular post even when its page number and its own number is given to you. You appear to like distorting what your interlocutor has written. You have a bad mannered tendency to "shout" and attempt to browbeat.

                As you appear to have your own copy of Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, I recommend you read it. You might also find a copy of his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration equally helpful.
                Asking of you the simple courtesy of providing a link ... even simpler than cut and paste ... is evidently too much to ask!

                Repeatedly asking you to simply answer a simple, straightforward, and appropriate question [Specifically which text do you refer to?] is to much.

                Instead you dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance dance .... endless diversion. Childish tactics to merely keep something going when you could have ended it eons ago by simply answering the simple question ....

                Games and more games!

                Specifically which text do you refer to?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                  Abut what I expected!
                  You running away from admitting your error?

                  Same here.

                  ps. I remember your tone and font color well.
                  I can solve the problem of evil without interfering with anyone's free will. So can your God, but he refuses. This is why I'm His moral superior.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    I wasn't talking about connections to ancient Judaism and other ancient cultures centuries prior to Paul. I was talking about Paul of the first century and his connection to Judaism around that time. I meant "ancient" Judaism relative to today.
                    You referred to the "Earliest forms of Judaism of Yahwey" and that would not be Paul's connection to Judaism That would be 'ancient Judaism of the Pentatuch, and the heritage I referred to which was influenced heavily with Canaanite to Sumarian . including the origins of Yahwey.
                    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 mikewhitney View Post
                      No. Not at all. there are not an infinite number of angels. You would have to take a census before you can start to answer this question.
                      No regardless of the number of angels standing on the hea dof a pin, there canalways be room for one more, which is the definition of infinity.
                      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 37818 View Post
                        Oh, didn't you know? Two thirds of all the angels. One third are fallen, Revelation 12:4.
                        Two thirds of an infinite number of angels.
                        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 rogue06 View Post
                          shuny is one of those who thinks that by merely making an assertion that he is corroborating it. And by simply repeating his original claim that he is providing further substantiation.
                          Charactor assination does not contribute to the dialogue.
                          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 JimL View Post
                            Except that they believe their polytheism to be monotheistic.
                            polytheism remains polytheism with Jesus seated at the right hand of God a distinctly separate diety.
                            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


                            • My apologies for the lateness of my reply. I have been in the hospital and then in rehab and only now starting to catch up a little bit.

                              Whose Son Is the Christ?

                              Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were together, Jesus questioned them,
                              Mat 22:42 "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son is He?" "David's," they told Him.
                              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?"

                              Mat 22:46 No one was able to answer Him at all, and from that day no one dared to question Him anymore. [HCSB, Bold text in the original]
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              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" says to my lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. [My Lord being the king]. Making ones enemies a footstool is a common metaphor found throughout the ancient near east..
                              if your interpretation is correct it would make the both inspired writer of Mathews and Jesus Himself wrong. Plus leaving inexplainable the inability of the Pharisees to answer the question. no tot even mention your countering the understanding of some of the greatest Scriptural teachers throughout the history of Christianity as well as today's Scriptural scholars.

                              I'm sure you will excuse me for going with the Scriptures as opposed to your "should be translated" reading.
                              .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                                My apologies for the lateness of my reply. I have been in the hospital and then in rehab and only now starting to catch up a little bit.





                                if your interpretation is correct it would make the both inspired writer of Mathews and Jesus Himself wrong. Plus leaving inexplainable the inability of the Pharisees to answer the question. no tot even mention your countering the understanding of some of the greatest Scriptural teachers throughout the history of Christianity as well as today's Scriptural scholars.

                                I'm sure you will excuse me for going with the Scriptures as opposed to your "should be translated" reading.
                                .
                                You would have to address the thousands of diverse and conflicting beliefs over the millennia, including yours that claim to believe the "one true way" it "should be translated" and interpreted.

                                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 lee_merrill, Yesterday, 09:01 PM
                                0 responses
                                6 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
                                12 responses
                                56 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Esther, 09-27-2020, 02:01 PM
                                57 responses
                                279 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-15-2020, 11:19 AM
                                49 responses
                                416 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                                1,069 responses
                                54,286 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Working...
                                X