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 shunyadragon View Post

    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.
    So you have to investigate all the designs of lightbulbs which didn't work in order to understand how to make a lightbulb that works? That sure is an interesting take on the situation.

    I advise those people knocking on my door that they should not simply assume a non-Trinitarian doctrine is correct. They should have a solid analysis with a convincing argument against it. None of them have even offered up the foolish arguments found in The Da Vinci Code.
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

      So you have to investigate all the designs of lightbulbs which didn't work in order to understand how to make a lightbulb that works? That sure is an interesting take on the situation.

      I advise those people knocking on my door that they should not simply assume a non-Trinitarian doctrine is correct. They should have a solid analysis with a convincing argument against it. None of them have even offered up the foolish arguments found in The Da Vinci Code.
      Not a coherent response worth sealing with.
      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 Trucker View Post

        If your interpretation is correct it would make the both inspired writer of Mathews and Jesus Himself wrong.
        That is not an interpretation. Those are textual references. Go the Hebrew and then go the Greek and look at those two different words for yourself.

        Originally posted by Trucker View Post
        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.
        The logical fallacy of an appeal to prestige is duly noted. It is also a false statement as there are many NT scholars who critically, dispassionately, and objectively study these texts just as they would any such ancient written sources.

        Originally posted by Trucker View Post
        I'm sure you will excuse me for going with the Scriptures as opposed to your "should be translated" reading.[/COLOR].
        Unless are you are fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek what do you think you are reading? You are reading a translation.

        "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 shunyadragon View Post
          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.
          Strange comment. By what process did you come to know what I believe or don't believe concerning the millennial?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            That is not an interpretation. Those are textual references. Go the Hebrew and then go the Greek and look at those two different words for yourself.
            Simple question for you:
            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 22:46No 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]
            Is Matthew 22: 41-46 Scripture or not?

            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            The logical fallacy of an appeal to prestige is duly noted. It is also a false statement as there are many NT scholars who critically, dispassionately, and objectively study these texts just as they would any such ancient written sources.
            Irrelevant to the present discussion ... but a really great diversion.

            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            Unless are you are fluent in both Hebrew and Koine Greek what do you think you are reading? You are reading a translation.
            Well golly gee whiz ah didn't no thet! Here all this here time I thunked it were that Paul taught from the KJV!!!

            Your diversionary attempts dully noted!! Cheeeeeezzzzz ......

            As I stated, I'll take the interpretation of Dr. Daniel Wallace over yours anytime and anyplace over yours. .

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

              Strange comment. By what process did you come to know what I believe or don't believe concerning the millennial?
              Over the millennia refers to over thousands of years of time, and doe not refer to millennial (?).
              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 Trucker View Post

                Simple question for you:

                Is Matthew 22: 41-46 Scripture or not?


                Yes, but your interpretation, or ah . . . or Dr. Daniel Wallace. One interpretation among many is authoritative.



                Irrelevant to the present discussion ... but a really great diversion.
                Very relevant when you reference an appeal to authority, which is an authority.

                As I stated, I'll take the interpretation of Dr. Daniel Wallace over yours anytime and anyplace over yours. . [/COLOR]
                Well, ah . . . at least you refer to an interpretation, whichis one among many.
                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 Trucker View Post

                  Simple question for you:[/COLOR]

                  Is Matthew 22: 41-46 Scripture or not?
                  All the above is a tactic to deflect.



                  Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                  Irrelevant to the present discussion ... but a really great diversion.
                  You attempted to impress me by making an appeal to prestige to wit your boast regarding "the greatest Scriptural teachers throughout the history of Christianity as well as today's Scriptural scholars."

                  There is a whole academic corpus of objective, dispassionate, and critical assessment of the texts found in the NT by eminently well qualified individuals. Your issue is with those academics who do not share your preconceived beliefs. Wallace ticks all your boxes ergo he must be the one person who is correct on this subject.

                  You made a stupid remark when you referred to my "should be translated" reading" given that you read the entire bible in a translation and a translation by its very nature in an interpretation.

                  You will not go and look at those two different words in the Hebrew and the Greek because if you did so, you would have to concede that Matthew misconstrued the meaning because the author used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text.

                  As previously stated the Septuagint substitutes κυριος [kurios/kyrios] for the Hebrew divine name. And 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].

                  Furthermore, making ones enemies a footstool is a common metaphor found throughout the ancient near east.
                  "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


                  • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1194596][/COLOR]

                    Yes, but your interpretation, or ah . . . or Dr. Daniel Wallace. One interpretation among many is authoritative?


                    Missed the question mark.
                    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


                    • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1194606]
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Yes, but your interpretation, or ah . . . or Dr. Daniel Wallace. One interpretation among many is authoritative?

                      Missed the question mark.
                      Perhaps you'd care to explain for us your understanding of Mat 22:41-46 and how it would apply to any millennium? Mat 22:41-46 does happen to be the passage I quoted to which you replied..

                      Also, according to you what i my, or ah .... Dr,Daniel Wallace's interpretation of Mat. 22:41-46 and ow does that apply to any millennium?

                      Did you mention something about missing the mark??

                      I could have sworn the issue here the Trinity.

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Trucker;n1194692]
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        Perhaps you'd care to explain for us your understanding of Mat 22:41-46 and how it would apply to any millennium? Mat 22:41-46 does happen to be the passage I quoted to which you replied..

                        Also, according to you what i my, or ah .... Dr,Daniel Wallace's interpretation of Mat. 22:41-46 and ow does that apply to any millennium?

                        Did you mention something about missing the mark??

                        I could have sworn the issue here the Trinity.
                        In the context of the Jewish view of the Tanakh. The Messiah is a descendent of the House of David and will rule the Hebrew people as the Lord with the authority of God. The King of Jews has the Title 'Lord.'

                        The gospels provide the geneaology of Jesus Christ as the descendant of the House of David.
                        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


                        • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1194724]
                          Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                          In the context of the Jewish view of the Tanakh. The Messiah is a descendent of the House of David and will rule the Hebrew people as the Lord with the authority of God. The King of Jews has the Title 'Lord.'

                          The gospels provide the geneaology of Jesus Christ as the descendant of the House of David.
                          So? What's the problem????

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trucker View Post
                            So? What's the problem????
                            You presented the citation where you believe the interpretation of this scripture would be a problem The scripture itself has nothing to with the claim of a Trinitarian God. The scripture refers to the Tanakh prophecy that a descendent of David and be the King of the Jews.

                            So? What's the problem????????????????????

                            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 shunyadragon View Post

                              You presented the citation where you believe the interpretation of this scripture would be a problem The scripture itself has nothing to with the claim of a Trinitarian God. The scripture refers to the Tanakh prophecy that a descendent of David and be the King of the Jews.

                              So? What's the problem????????????????????
                              Is not the Messiah the King of the Jews?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trucker View Post

                                Is not the Messiah the King of the Jews?
                                Yes but he is not divine and he is certainly not part of a Triune deity.

                                "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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                192 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