Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[shunyadragon]

Is not the Messiah the King of the Jews?

Yes that is the claim, but ther is no basis in the Tanakh, for the belief in the Trinity, and Jesus Christ as the incarnate Sone of God.

Again . . . you citation only reflects the claim that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

[Trucker]

Yes that is the claim, but ther is no basis in the Tanakh, for the belief in the Trinity, and Jesus Christ as the incarnate Sone of God.

Again . . . you citation only reflects the claim that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

From whence comes the Greek word "Christ"? Is it not, in fact, the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic word Messiah??????

[shunyadragon]

From whence comes the Greek word "Christ"? Is it not, in fact, the Greek translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic word Messiah??????

No problem with the claim Christ would be the 'anointed one of God' and the fulfillment of prophesy as King of the Jews, as Jesus claimed. Still nothing here supports the claim of the Trinity.

In fact the following supports the belief that Jesus Christ was a human bearer of the Word of God and not the Trinitarian God incarnate.

Matthew 24:35-37

35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man . . .

[Trucker]

No problem with the claim Christ would be the 'anointed one of God' and the fulfillment of prophesy as King of the Jews, as Jesus claimed. Still nothing here supports the claim of the Trinity.. .

But you just admitted that Jesus did claim to be King of the Jews.

So you claim to know and understand the Scriptures better than Jesus did???

[Trucker]

Yes but he is not divine and he is certainly not part of a Triune deity.

That's your story .... but the Scriptures teach a different story. Guess who losses that argument!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's your story .... but the Scriptures teach a different story.

The Hebrew scriptures do not.

[Trucker]

The Hebrew scriptures do not.

So you say but the New Testament says otherwise. And the NT is Scripture.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And the NT is Scripture.[/COLOR]

So you say.

[Tassman]

That's your story .... but the Scriptures teach a different story. Guess who losses that argument!

The Trinity doctrine's basis or lack of basis in the New Testament, has been vehemently debated for centuries, especially prior to the 20th century. People of faith can read the bible so that virtually any theological perspective will find some support in the bible.

[Trucker]

So you say but the New Testament says otherwise. And the NT is Scripture.

So you say.

It is your position that the NT is not Scripture?

[Trucker]

[The Trinity doctrine's basis or lack of basis in the New Testament, has been vehemently debated for centuries, especially prior to the 20th century.[/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=inherit][COLOR=#252c2f]People of faith can read the bible so that virtually any theological perspective will find some support in the bible.

Sure. Some folks can interpret up as meaning down. Have at it.

[Christian3]

No problem with the claim Christ would be the 'anointed one of God' and the fulfillment of prophesy as King of the Jews, as Jesus claimed. Still nothing here supports the claim of the Trinity.

In fact the following supports the belief that Jesus Christ was a human bearer of the Word of God and not the Trinitarian God incarnate.

Matthew 24:35-37

35Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. 36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man . . .

The key to understanding Jesus’ seeming lack of knowledge in this matter lies in the nature of the Incarnation. When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6–8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges” (NLT). He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant.

There were times when Jesus publicly manifested His divine knowledge and power on earth (John 2:25; 11:43 –44). On those occasions, Jesus’ demonstrations of His divinity were directed by the Father. On other occasions, He had no such directive from the Father, and He kept His glory veiled. On all occasions, Jesus obeyed the Father’s will: “I always do what pleases him,” He said (John 8:29). https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-know-return.html

[Tassman]

Sure. Some folks can interpret up as meaning down. Have at it.

Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine of the Trinity appears in the New Testament – at all. The notion evolved gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. It wasn’t defined as we know it today until the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. So, it a tad more than merely “interpreting up as meaning down” and vice versa – as you so glibly put it.

[mikewhitney]

Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine of the Trinity appears in the New Testament – at all. The notion evolved gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. It wasn’t defined as we know it today until the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. So, it a tad more than merely “interpreting up as meaning down” and vice versa – as you so glibly put it.

Do you mean that scriptures changed or do you mean that, like science, the ideas became clearer and more exact over time? I guess in your world that the universe did not operate in terms of Relativity until Einstein introduced the word Relativity. Are you suggesting that someone said there was a quadtarian concept and then eventually they said "oops there are only three"? What is your theory of the evolution from scriptures which, since the OT, have shown multiple persons in the Godhead unto the clarified Trinitarian doctrine? What was the early conception in Paul's writing and how did that change over the years? Where is your evidence of this change?

What then is the best explanation of the persons of God revealed in the monotheist conceptions of Judaism and Christianity?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is your position that the NT is not Scripture?

They were later deemed to be "scripture" [as in "sacred writings"] but those texts were not written as such.

You surely do not imagine that when Paul wrote his various letters to his acolytes he believed he was writing sacred text, do you? Those letters contain his opinions and offer guidance to his congregations Nothing more.

Likewise the four canonical gospels. If these were considered to be "sacred writings" why were the originals not preserved?

The same goes for all those other texts now contained in the canon of the NT. If, from the outset, these were held to be sacred writings why do we find fragments of those various texts in ancient rubbish dumps? Or evidence that bits of them have been used as palimpsests for more prosaic purposes?