Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[mikewhitney]

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

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.

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.

None of this is pertinent to anything about the Trinity.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

None of this is pertinent to anything about the Trinity.

It is all pertinent to the comments you made in post #872.

[shunyadragon]

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

I never said 'perfectly agree' nor that anything 'disproves scripture.' The problem is with your claim of the only translation, interpretation and understanding of the Bible. I clearly stated my view based on the history of the scriptures that ere redacted, compiled, and edited over time to their present form. The validity of the scriptures, like all ancient religions is based what people believe.

There are no original texts of either the Tanakh or the New Testament. All we have is scrapes dating after 200 AD for the New Testament and nothing close to the claim of authorship and provenance of the Pentateuch.

[Tassman]

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

It is not "taught" as such at all. The Trinity is far from a clear concept. This is why .it wasn’t defined as we know it today until the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century.

[Trucker]

[QUOTE=Tassman;n1195805] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Trucker View Post
Irrelevant. The word is not mentioned but the concept is definitely taught/

It is not "taught" as such at all. The Trinity is far from a clear concept. This is why .it wasn’t defined as we know it today until the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century.

It's there alright. Once you see it you can't miss it .... it [the Trinity] is definitely taught throughout the Bible. ..

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Trucker;n1195886][QUOTE=Tassman;n1195805]

Originally posted by Trucker View Post
Irrelevant. The word is not mentioned but the concept is definitely taught/

It's there alright. Once you see it you can't miss it .... it [the Trinity] is definitely taught throughout the Bible. ..

The Jews that know the Tanakh in detail in the original Hebrew will disagree with you.

Numbers 23:19 ¹⁹ God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

[Trucker]

I never said 'perfectly agree' nor that anything 'disproves scripture.'

Note:

Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
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

Essentially that is what you are saying I.

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.

You misrepresent me, sir. I have never claimed a perfect interpretation or understanding of the Bible..

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1195892][QUOTE=Trucker;n1195886]

The Jews that know the Tanakh in detail in the original Hebrew will disagree with you.

Numbers 23:19 ¹⁹ God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

God isn't a man; God is spirit.

[shunyadragon]

Silly you. There is only one God, John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, ". . . But to us there is but one God, the Father, . . ." 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . ."

These citations say nothing about the Trinity. They even contradict it.

[shunyadragon]

Note:

Essentially that is what you are saying I.



You misrepresent me, sir. I have never claimed a perfect interpretation or understanding of the Bible..

No one ever said you claimed a perfect understanding of the Bible, and no one has misrepresented you on this point.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

God isn't a man; God is spirit.

What does that make Jesus of Nazareth? Did he only seem to be human? Was his physical form merely an illusion? Your remark has a distinct whiff of Docetism.

[mikewhitney]

What does that make Jesus of Nazareth? Did he only seem to be human? Was his physical form merely an illusion? Your remark has a distinct whiff of Docetism.

I cannot believe that you posted that response. Your reading comprehension is normally better than that

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1195892][QUOTE=Trucker;n1195886]

The Jews that know the Tanakh in detail in the original Hebrew will disagree with you.

Numbers 23:19 ¹⁹ God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

In addition to what I said previously, Numbers 23:19 does not say God cannot become a man or that God cannot incarnate a man.

God appeared as a man in Genesis 18.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Christian3;n1195960][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1195892]

In addition to what I said previously, Numbers 23:19 does not say God cannot become a man or that God cannot incarnate a man.

God appeared as a man in Genesis 18.

Disagree, God did not become a man in Genesis 18. God is not a man is the same as 'God becoming a man, both are not supported by the text of the Tanakh.

[Christian3]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1195982][QUOTE=Christian3;n1195960]

Disagree, God did not become a man in Genesis 18. God is not a man is the same as 'God becoming a man, both are not supported by the text of the Tanakh.

"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw THREE MEN standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, ‘If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash YOUR FEET and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way-now that you have come to your servant.’ ‘Very well,’ they answered, ‘do as you say’… He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. WHILE THEY ATE, he stood near them under a tree. ‘Where is your wife Sarah?’ they asked him. ‘There, in the tent,’ he said. THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son’… THEN THE LORD SAID TO ABRAHAM, ‘Why did Sarah laugh and say, "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.’ Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, ‘I did not laugh.’ BUT HE SAID, ‘Yes, you did laugh.’ WHEN THE MEN GOT UP TO LEAVE, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?’ ... THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.’ The men turned away and went toward Sodom, BUT ABRAHAM REMAINED STANDING BEFORE THE LORD. Then Abraham APPROACHED HIM and said: ‘Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing - to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ THE LORD SAID, ‘If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake’… WHEN THE LORD HAD FINISHED SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM, HE LEFT, and Abraham returned home." Genesis 18:1-5, 8-10a, 13-17, 20-26, 33

Genesis 18:22 says the men got up and headed towards Sodom and Gomorrah, whereas Yahweh remained behind with Abraham:
"So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD." RSV

"The TWO angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, 'My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.' They said, 'No; we will spend the night in the street.' But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate." Genesis 19:1-3 RSV

Only two men show up at Sodom, which the text identifies as two angels. Where was the third man The third man had remained behind to talk to Abraham since that man was actually Yahweh God who had appeared with the other two!