Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[shunyadragon]

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

I go by the gospels, and as cited the Gospels do not clearly define the Christina God as a Trinity and it references can refer to Jesus Christ as a human Messiah, and the human nature of Jesus Christ is supported by the Tanakh, which the Trinity is not supported at all, with the total rejection of anything else but a One indivisible God, and that no human can be an incarnate God on earth.

[mikewhitney]

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?

Your argument here does not make any sense. How do you keep original parchments?

You are assuming that the material they are saved on is the important thing. It does not sound like you have studied the practices of the Jewish scribes. So you are hoping to make up things from thin air.

Why do you think that people were writing the gospels down if not to be scriptures? Paul was an expert on OT scriptures and became well informed about the Jewish Messiah. You could not find someone more informed to record the first century understanding.

[Christian3]

I go by the gospels, and as cited the Gospels do not clearly define the Christina God as a Trinity and it references can refer to Jesus Christ as a human Messiah, and the human nature of Jesus Christ is supported by the Tanakh, which the Trinity is not supported at all, with the total rejection of anything else but a One indivisible God, and that no human can be an incarnate God on earth.

The concept of the Trinity is biblical.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...ty/trinity.cfm

https://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity

https://www.monergism.com/topics/tri...idence-trinity

[Whateverman]

The concept of the Trinity is biblical.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...ty/trinity.cfm

https://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity

https://www.monergism.com/topics/tri...idence-trinity

Just because some idea is "biblical" doesn't mean the bible advocates it. Spilling your seed on the ground, slavery, and fining someone for causing a pregnant woman to spontaneously abort - are all "biblical" too.

[shunyadragon]

The concept of the Trinity is biblical.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm...ty/trinity.cfm

https://www.monergism.com/topics/trinity

https://www.monergism.com/topics/tri...idence-trinity

Meaningless speaking to only those that believe by those that believe. You need to be specific and not argue from web link which is against forum rules.

[Trucker]

Originally posted by Trucker View Post
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?

Interesting but not directly answering my simply stated question. It is your position that the NT is not Scripture?

[Trucker]

Neither the word “Trinity” nor the explicit doctrine of the Trinity appears in the New Testament – ..... at all.

Irrelevant. The word is not mentioned but the concept is definitely taught

[shunyadragon]

Interesting but not directly answering my simply stated question. It is your position that the NT is not Scripture?

The Bible is scripture believed by Christians, but not all Christians interpret and understand what they call their scripture. This is as variable as the number of diverse conflicting beliefs of the many different churches. Of course, the Jews only accept the Tanakh as scripture, and of course there is no basis for the Trinity in the Tanakh.

Some refer to the plurality in terms of God in the Tanakh as referring to the Trinity, but the reality it refers to a pantheon of Gods and hosts of heaven, and a council of Gods. The Trinity itself has no basis in the Tanakh, which rejects completely and specifically the concept of an incarnate God.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interesting but not directly answering my simply stated question. It is your position that the NT is not Scripture?

For me none of the texts are "scripture" [in the sense that you understand] I do not believe that any have divine origin or are in any respect divinely inspired. They are merely the expressions and speculations of human beings, and nothing more. I regard these texts as I would any other ancient written sources and they should be assessed employing the same criteria.

[Christian3]

Meaningless speaking to only those that believe by those that believe. You need to be specific and not argue from web link which is against forum rules.

Even the Jews of Jesus day knew Jesus was claiming deity and so do the Jews of today.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your argument here does not make any sense. How do you keep original parchments?

How do you think the Dead Sea sectaries preserved their documents? They've survived and many are considerably older than any extant NT texts.

It does not sound like you have studied the practices of the Jewish scribes.

As far as I am aware archaeologist have not unearthed fragments of the Torah in ancient rubbish tips as they have fragments of NT texts.

Why do you think that people were writing the gospels down if not to be scriptures?

The four canonical gospels are not the only ones that were written. These texts were written for teaching and preaching to the early Christian communities for which they were composed. One can see that from the Christian apocrypha. People then as now liked a good story.

In some respects the New Testament is rather like what today we might describe as an anthology. Namely, a collection of literary works, written at different times, and in different places, and brought together in one volume.

[Trucker]

For me none of the texts are "scripture" [in the sense that you understand] I do not believe that any have divine origin or are in any respect divinely inspired. They are merely the expressions and speculations of human beings, and nothing more. I regard these texts as I would any other ancient written sources and they should be assessed employing the same criteria.

How sad. .

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Even the Jews of Jesus day knew Jesus was claiming deity

No they did not and no he was not.

You cannot distance yourself from your own preconceived idea that the Greek form of Messiah [i.e. Christos] has a divine connotation.

In its original Hebrew context the term Messiah simply means anointed as an Israelite king would have been anointed at his coronation. The Hebrews did not go in for divine kings, they left that to the Egyptians!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How sad. .

Not for me.

[Trucker]

The Bible is scripture believed by Christians, but not all Christians interpret and understand what they call their scripture. This is as variable as the number of diverse conflicting beliefs of the many different churches. Of course, the Jews only accept the Tanakh as scripture, and of course there is no basis for the Trinity in the Tanakh.

Some refer to the plurality in terms of God in the Tanakh as referring to the Trinity, but the reality it refers to a pantheon of Gods and hosts of heaven, and a council of Gods. The Trinity itself has no basis in the Tanakh, which rejects completely and specifically the concept of an incarnate God.

So for you the inability of millions of fallible people to perfectly agree in their understanding proves the invalidity of the Scriptures?