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

    It is a similar argument you posted to me. My answer is the same.
    You already answered with your thoughts. You didn't need to respond again.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

      I have to go with the belief of the religious community itself how it identifies with that belief, and how it identities with other beliefs in God which is to reject alternate beliefs, because they do not conform to their beliefs.. Their belief in the Trinity is truly the nature of God, and not just a 'description of how they believe they encounter God in their lives.' Though from my perspective, yes, all the different religions do 'describe what they believe in their encounter God in their lives.'
      Fair enough although I would say that some of the best theologians have a much more universal take on God and are respectful of other beliefs.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

        What evidence do you have of 21st century people finding modalism (or whatever) more logical to the testimony of scripture?

        It is not sufficient in itself to move from the Trinitarian understanding to something else simply because it fits the 21st century mindset. There are a lot of cultural elements which are at odds with God and Christianity.
        Two different sources: I have read a good number of Christian theologians who have presented such models and, as both a 20th and now a 21st C person, I remember how I reacted (and how others reacted in my graduate level classes in a Catholic seminary - persons of different Christian expressions) when first reading/studying some of these thinkers on the Trinity and other subjects. Plus, it should be noted that what is in the scriptures is different that the formulation of a later century.

        Second and most important, I was a teacher in the 20th C and I experienced numerous teenagers (16-18), brought up as Christians, who struggled with or simply 'blew off' such doctrines and beliefs. Yet when presented with the model of Gregory Baum (BTW not your basic modalism) the response was, "Well, that makes sense" or "I get that" and all too often, "Why didn't anyone ever explain this to us before?"

        And I know from talking to numerous people today - and as also evidenced in these discussions - the same confusion, disagreement and irrelevance (disregarding) of these and similar doctrines continues.

        As should be evident with many such doctrine, if it is no longer relevant for people, then it is necessary to re-present such doctrines in a language of today, a language that people speak in order tor be heard and understood. There are cultural elements and there is also a radically different worldview that we have today than existed centuries upon centuries ago that also must be taken into account when we re-frame the doctrines. After all, that is what the doctrines were vis a vis the scriptures.



        Comment


        • Originally posted by thormas View Post

          Fair enough although I would say that some of the best theologians have a much more universal take on God and are respectful of other beliefs.
          I don't get this. Doctrines don't change because the culture changes. The Trinity doctrine, while not particularly satisfying, best represents what scriptures reveal. Its not a doctrine that everyone has to comprehend to live as a Christian but it is important for the ideas tied together. Groups that stray from the Trinitarian doctrine tend to go goofy on other doctrines too. It gets to the point in some sects that people could be saved despite the doctrine being taught. People may recognize the calling of the Shepherd even if there is a lot of noise surrounding the gospel. We are then cautious to provide the gospel in the proper framework. It is too hard to find some exact cutoff point where the gospel has been lost in the gunk. Christianity is not a free-for-all where anything goes. That is why Paul had to protect the churches from the non-Christ-followers among the Jews, when they pushed for the law and circumcision.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

            You are proposing that if Trinity is true or false we have to rationalize whether it is true or not or to come up with an improved conception, which is not a valid way to justify a religious belief
            In short, he's beginning with the conclusion and then searching for ways to 'prove' it.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

              You are off by a thousand miles. Jews wrote the New Testament. Jews followed Christ. The original Gentile followers were joining a Messianic sect of Judaism. The interpretation of the Old Testament and the words of Jesus were done by a Pharisee who was named Saul but became known as Paul.
              So, really, you have to say that Jews interpreted the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah and about the judgment of the Hebrew people. If it is in question whether these prophecies were accurate, the Temple indeed was destroyed by AD70. So, I'm not sure where the Jewish interpretation of the prophecies and events falls short in your estimation.
              Only a fraction of these carefully selected quotes are actual predictions in their original contexts – most are not. As for the prediction of the destruction of the temple - it’s easy to make a prophecy after the event.

              “Miller, Robert J. (11 December 2015). Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 325. ISBN 978-1-4982-2897-8. Historical criticism cannot argue that Jesus really did fulfill prophecy and then treat that fulfillment as evidence that he was the messiah. Historical criticism simply has no method by which to construct such an argument. ... However, there are also scholars who attempt to harmonize the belief that Jesus fulfilled prophecy with the findings of historical-critical exegesis by creating a place for that belief within that academic method. They run into great difficulty, as we will see”. Cited Wiki.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                Only a fraction of these carefully selected quotes are actual predictions in their original contexts – most are not. As for the prediction of the destruction of the temple - it’s easy to make a prophecy after the event.

                “Miller, Robert J. (11 December 2015). Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 325. ISBN 978-1-4982-2897-8. Historical criticism cannot argue that Jesus really did fulfill prophecy and then treat that fulfillment as evidence that he was the messiah. Historical criticism simply has no method by which to construct such an argument. ... However, there are also scholars who attempt to harmonize the belief that Jesus fulfilled prophecy with the findings of historical-critical exegesis by creating a place for that belief within that academic method. They run into great difficulty, as we will see”. Cited Wiki.
                The hard part was prophecies from 7000 years ago being fulfilled. But Daniel provided a timeline and may have contributed to people's expectation of the Messiah at the time of Jesus. I think the apologists have pointed out to the improbability of the prophecies being fulfilled except in a true fashion. Notwithstanding any of your disagreements about prophecy, the NT writings were by Jews (with maybe a handful of exceptions) in their interpretation of their scriptures. Those Jewish writers saw fulfillment and Jesus spoke of the fall of the Temple. (I'm not prepared to take you through the arguments of the times that NT writings were done. There are people good at that.) The Messianic sect was not a Gentile interpretation or perversion of Jewish scriptures. It was only later that the Gentiles became the prime users.

                You quote has nothing to do with the fulfillment or lack thereof. But on that topic, it is true that Christian scholars have had to fit a square peg into a round hole in order to fit in the secular university model. There may ways of relating the prophecy to the fulfillment in the NT writings but this might be about seeing the NT writer as observing the similar pattern.
                Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-16-2020, 12:27 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                  In short, he's beginning with the conclusion and then searching for ways to 'prove' it.
                  Is that what it means when you cannot figure out what someone is asking? I'll have to remember that.
                  Last edited by mikewhitney; 10-16-2020, 12:29 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                    It is a similar argument you posted to me. My answer is the same.
                    It seems the debate could go on endlessly. The fact is that Christianity 'finds' in the scripture the human experience of God is triune (is this debatable? sure). Christianity then employs the philosophical language of a later century as the primary means to explain and formalize the belief.

                    What I'm saying is that if one accepts this belief in the trinity and if one is familiar with the formula now centuries old, it is obvious that it is outdated and does not communicate to a present generation. Thus the need for new models or new language. If Trinity is still the best explanation of what we experience, of what we think about God........we might as well use our language and our philosophical systems rather than one that is no longer viable. If the present one doesn't make sense, we should simply 'translate' it into our language. And centuries in the future another generation will have to 'translate' the belief into their own present language.

                    On the other hand if one rejects this belief.............that is fine as it is their right.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196427][QUOTE=Christian3;n1196299]
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                      Three persons means three persons as in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of God the Father.
                      “Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post

                        I don't get this. Doctrines don't change because the culture changes. The Trinity doctrine, while not particularly satisfying, best represents what scriptures reveal. Its not a doctrine that everyone has to comprehend to live as a Christian but it is important for the ideas tied together. Groups that stray from the Trinitarian doctrine tend to go goofy on other doctrines too. It gets to the point in some sects that people could be saved despite the doctrine being taught. People may recognize the calling of the Shepherd even if there is a lot of noise surrounding the gospel. We are then cautious to provide the gospel in the proper framework. It is too hard to find some exact cutoff point where the gospel has been lost in the gunk. Christianity is not a free-for-all where anything goes. That is why Paul had to protect the churches from the non-Christ-followers among the Jews, when they pushed for the law and circumcision.
                        Doctrines or our Christian beliefs/teachings might not change but the language and the worldview in which they were first explained become, inevitably, outdated. We should want them presented in the 'language of the day' if we really care about them, if we want these doctrines to really 'speak' to people where we find them - and right now that is in the 21st C.

                        I mean who today speaks of substance and accidents? Who uses such language and who understands it when they hear it. Is there not a better way to present what is going on in the Eucharist? I happen to believe it is symbolic yet real presence. That is what transubstantiation was about- but we should be able to present this 'truth' in a more accessible language for people living today.

                        I have no problem acknowledging that some people just accept and live - my parents were such people, a great friend (who was a pastor and a journalist) was like this also. It worked for them. But the reality is that it does not work for many others.

                        Actually it is not that hard - it's called teaching and like all teaching it is work that demands dedication and education - but it is something that we do every day in many subjects, theology being one of them.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          My view is that Christianity was mainly corrupted by Paul into a Hellenist/Roman religion with the dogma of Tritheism, and many philosophers and believers agree.
                          Larry Hurtado (blog under his name open to all) and other biblical scholars have shown that Paul inherited rather than invented much from the early Christian community. That community already by 32CE (when it was being persecuted by Saul) was 'including' Jesus with God. I'll let others do the reading for themselves to see the extent of this inclusion. Paul did indeed have a great influence on what became Christianity (he preached the messenger as opposed to Jesus who preached the message) but he did not invent Christianity.

                          Hurtado, in his blog, commenting on the book 'Paul and His Predecessors, by Archibald M. Hunter' writes"

                          "Given the oceanic body of works on Paul as creative theologian and Paul’s theology, it is well to recall Hunter’s pioneering study and his argument that Paul’s main theological convictions, and the liturgical practices that Paul affirmed were not his invention, but derived from the circles of Jesus-believers that he initially opposed and then came to embrace.

                          It (Hunter's insights) has been reinforced by numerous studies since it was first printed, and there is now a growing consensus, for example, that the Jesus-devotion reflected in Paul’s letters, including the incorporation of the exalted/resurrected Jesus into the liturgical life of believers all goes back to the earliest circles of the Jesus-movement in Jerusalem.

                          In addition,Hurtado also shows that "..... it is clear that the theological developments that led to the doctrine of the Trinity were to some significant degree prompted and even made unavoidable by the dyadic (i.e. the Father and Lord Jesus) devotional pattern and the triadic shape of discourse (Father, Jesus as Lord and Spirit) about God that we see amply attested in the NT texts."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by thormas View Post

                            Larry Hurtado (blog under his name open to all) and other biblical scholars have shown that Paul inherited rather than invented much from the early Christian community. That community already by 32CE (when it was being persecuted by Saul) was 'including' Jesus with God. I'll let others do the reading for themselves to see the extent of this inclusion. Paul did indeed have a great influence on what became Christianity (he preached the messenger as opposed to Jesus who preached the message) but he did not invent Christianity.

                            Hurtado, in his blog, commenting on the book 'Paul and His Predecessors, by Archibald M. Hunter' writes"

                            "Given the oceanic body of works on Paul as creative theologian and Paul’s theology, it is well to recall Hunter’s pioneering study and his argument that Paul’s main theological convictions, and the liturgical practices that Paul affirmed were not his invention, but derived from the circles of Jesus-believers that he initially opposed and then came to embrace.

                            It (Hunter's insights) has been reinforced by numerous studies since it was first printed, and there is now a growing consensus, for example, that the Jesus-devotion reflected in Paul’s letters, including the incorporation of the exalted/resurrected Jesus into the liturgical life of believers all goes back to the earliest circles of the Jesus-movement in Jerusalem.

                            In addition,Hurtado also shows that "..... it is clear that the theological developments that led to the doctrine of the Trinity were to some significant degree prompted and even made unavoidable by the dyadic (i.e. the Father and Lord Jesus) devotional pattern and the triadic shape of discourse (Father, Jesus as Lord and Spirit) about God that we see amply attested in the NT texts."
                            I do not agree. I consider it speculation to trace Paul back to the original circle of believers as far as his beliefs. I believe he had some contact with believers in his life, but that is not conclusive that his beliefs can be traced back to them.
                            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

                              I do not agree. I consider it speculation to trace Paul back to the original circle of believers as far as his beliefs. I believe he had some contact with believers in his life, but that is not conclusive that his beliefs can be traced back to them.
                              Well, Hurtado is one of the experts on this subject so I respect your right to disagree but do you have scholars who refute Hurtado in any convincing way?

                              Hurtado actually looks at the wording in Paul and traces it back to the earliest Christian worship and his chronology on Paul is matched by others. It is there in his blog (and in his books).

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Christian3;n1196609][QUOTE=shunyadragon;n1196427]
                                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post

                                “Persons” means there are three personal distinctions within God, each who is fully God, yet only one God.
                                Not be definition, and does not compute with Jesus Christ seated on the right hand of God.
                                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 whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,507 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X