Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are right in certain ways and ignorant in others.

Ad hominem duly noted along with a somewhat condescending attitude.

First thing... the Jews were expecting the Messiah around that time due to Daniel's prophecies. It was the time for the Messiah so the expectation was strong. The Jews were expecting a man like David or Gideon or Joshua. Plus, other than the self-appointed Jewish leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees), there was interest in just preserving their "place" and the peace.

Indeed the Jews just interpreted the prophecies that it would be a mere man with the Spirit of God upon him. However, this does not mean that God had to restrict his actions to what the typical Jew expected. There simply is no reason to expect God to limit his actions to the Jewish expectations. This makes God out to be a robot or a servant to the expectations of the people. Why should we rely on your artificial constraints on what God could have done?

I do find your arrogant presumptions towards the Jewish people, their beliefs, and their Messiah quite breathtaking in their impertinence.

As to the anthropomorphisms ... God has always been noted in anthropomorphic ways.

The Maccabees? Gaius? Pilate and the standards? Representations of anthropomorphic deities?

The God of Israel has been described so that humanity could understand God.

That god cannot be represented in any form, the second commandment forbids it.

[Trucker]

Your use of capitals [the equivalent of shouting] is deemed extremely bad mannered.

But providing dance lessons rather than just correctly addressing the issues one is presented Emily Post all the way, huh??? Don't think so!!

[/quoyeIf you cannot comprehend how these posts are numbered [this post of yours to which I am replying is post #808] then there is nothing more I can do.

Thats strange since this is what appears in the header of my post to which you refer: Today, 06:55 AM#34

And this is what appears in the URL: :http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...989#post765989 All one need do is simply click on that link and ... presto ... they're looking at the post you refer to as ##808!!!

I don't see #808 anywhere except where you posted it. Clicking on #808 does nothing and running a search for #808 get me: Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.But on the other hand anyone can click on the link I posted and go straight to my post!!

Oh .. almost forgot ... back to this:

Quote Originally Posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
And? As I wrote, the Greek text provided to Erasumus was fake - created for the purpose - whoever wrote it took the Vulgate Latin verse and translated it into Greek.Regardless of what you think or of what Ehrman said in that clip the word "Trias/τριας" does not occur anywhere in the New Testament.

Specifically which of the half-dozen or so texts Erasmus used are you referring to as being fake??? Simple question if you vou ever get around to it!

[mikewhitney]

Ad hominem duly noted along with a somewhat condescending attitude.

I do find your arrogant presumptions towards the Jewish people, their beliefs, and their Messiah quite breathtaking in their impertinence.

The Maccabees? Gaius? Pilate and the standards? Representations of anthropomorphic deities?

That god cannot be represented in any form, the second commandment forbids it.

God can represent himself as he is. He does not violate any commandment by doing so. So your point seems mute.

You really have not argued against the limitation of understanding of God that you exhibit and that is the same limitation that the Jews could encounter. You have not really made an argument here. You only speak of philosophical preference. You limit God's ability without any basis. The New Testament reveals a single God and no other gods, so the Decalogue is not even violated by God himself.

The other odd point is that it should not matter if God were understood in a different way from Judaism, since you don't think God exists. In your perspective, God could be represented in any fashion whatsever and that would not make any difference. You might as well say the Christian concept is the better one to go with.

[Tassman]

The other odd point is that it should not matter if God were understood in a different way from Judaism, since you don't think God exists. In your perspective, God could be represented in any fashion whatsever and that would not make any difference. You might as well say the Christian concept is the better one to go with.

This is condescending and irrelevant. Any informed person can argue from the point of view of a believer without necessarily being a believer themselves. This is what historical methodology is all about. E.g. one can authoritatively discuss say, Tongan religion and shamanism without being either Tongan NOR a believer in shamans.

[mikewhitney]

This is condescending and irrelevant. Any informed person can argue from the point of view of a believer without necessarily being a believer themselves. This is what historical methodology is all about. E.g. one can authoritatively discuss say, Tongan religion and shamanism without being either Tongan NOR a believer in shamans.

This is not talking from the view of a Christian. It just seems odd to argue from a Old Testament view that has its inadequacies and then reject a New Testament view. Plus, the discussion against the Trinity does not make sense of all the passages. This anti-Trinitarian view seems to be made in isolation of most of what scripture says. To be convincing, you and Hypatia would need to offer a whole theological perspective to make sense of the whole scriptures. Do you know which doctrines fail to make sense if the Trinitarian concept of God were not true?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

.... As a result there appears in his work some Greek words that do not appear in any Greek manuscript known to ever have existed. Incomplete texts were not the only cause of Erasmus's errors. For one thing his publisher was pushing him to hurry hurry hurry. Not at all conducive to accuracy!!

Where are your sources to substantiate those statements?

I have made three requests for you to produce them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So your point seems mute.

"mute"? Or "moot"?

The rest is your own particular theological viewpoint.

[Tassman]

It just seems odd to argue from a Old Testament view that has its inadequacies and then reject a New Testament view.

The word Trinity is not found in the Old or New Testaments. And, despite the best efforts of countless theologians, the Trinity doctrine can at best be argued as merely implicit in scripture.

the discussion against the Trinity does not make sense of all the passages. This anti-Trinitarian view seems to be made in isolation of most of what scripture says. To be convincing, you and Hypatia would need to offer a whole theological perspective to make sense of the whole scriptures.

“Most of what scripture says” about the concept of the Holy Trinity is virtually non-existent. It took 350 years of contentious debate by theologians to arrive at a formula of the Trinity compatible with scripture and acceptable to the majority of Christians. And being contradictory it cannot be made subject to human reason or logic but merely accepted as a statement of faith.

[Tassman]

"mute"? Or "moot"?

He means "moot". "Mute" is a Freudian slip I suspect.

[Trucker]

Where are your sources to substantiate those statements?

I have made three requests for you to produce them.

You have a lot of guts again ignoring my request for clarification re your allegation of fake text being provided to Erasmus. Specifically which of the half-dozen or so texts Erasmus used are you referring to as being fake??? Simple question if you vou ever get around to it. When you start trying address the issues you are presented with instead of ignoring and derailing you'll find that have my sources.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[COLOR="#0000FF"]You have a lot of guts again ignoring my request for clarification

Given that my remarks for you to substantiate your allegations was made first, where does that leave you?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have a lot of guts again ignoring my request for clarification

Given that my request that you substantiate your allegations was made first, where does that leave you?


Duly corrected

[Trucker]

Given that my request that you substantiate your allegations was made first, where does that leave you?


Duly corrected

From THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE By D.A.Carson, page 69:

I would argue , moreover, that the TR in particular has major problems to overcome. It remains a fact that a dozen or so readings in the KJV finds no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever. In the last few verses of Revelation, a half dozen such inventions occur. These can be traced directly to the fact that Erasmus had to prepare a Greek Manuscript for these verses by translating back from the Vulgate. .....

I have seen more detailed information on this topic but I'd have to go through a mountain of data in order to find it. But it's common knowledge among the Bible scholars and textual experts. You even referred to it yourself in discussing the Comma Johanneum! Words were added to that passage that don't appear in any Greek manuscript until the 16th century!!!

Bottom line ... the "text was not fake" at all but was incomplete like most. Erasmus did not include the Comma Johanneum in his the first two editions of the TR!!! it was only after much pressure was brought to bear that he gave in and included it in his third and subsequent editions!

Hopefully this will settle the issue.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

From THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE By D.A.Carson, page 69[/COLOR]:

Tell us all something we do not know.

Bottom line ... the "text was not fake" at all but was incomplete like most. Erasmus did not include the Comma Johanneum in his the first two editions of the TR!!! it was only after much pressure was brought to bear that he gave in and included it in his third and subsequent editions!

It is most peculiar that you write this after alleging to have read my first comments on this topic.

To recap. Here, in italics is what I originally wrote, and the post to which you initially responded:

In that Latin Vulgate version there is a key passage that that did not occur in Erasmus’ source MSS and that was the account found at 1 John 5.7-8.

Academics have called this the Johannine Comma. This passage is the only one in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it is also a later interpolation.

This passage in the Vulgate reads:” There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”

Erasmus' Greek manuscripts, simply read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one". No mention of this Trinitarian concept of “ Father, the Word, and the Spirit"

Metzger points out that those words in I John 5.7-8 are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament.

He mentions the external evidence noting that the passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except for eight and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late editorial revision of the Latin Vulgate.

Four of the manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.

He goes on to note that the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they been aware of it,would surely have used it during the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century, and that it first appears in a Greek version of the [Latin] Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

[see Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament

[37818]

99% of all the manuscripts of 1 John 5:7-8 translate as, "For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Compare John 19:34.