Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why is the Trinity an essential to there even being a God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    So do I - when it is appropriate.

    I've been a heretic since way back in the when. Your point?
    My point? Belief in Jesus Christ as the incarnate God is a heresy. I believe the belief in the literal Trinity is a false Doctrine, and a form of Polytheism.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Disagree, I consider it an interpretation. I believe in a metaphysical and spiritual interpretation of the nature of 'God's Word' not physical.
    So do I - when it is appropriate.

    It is a heresy to make the claim regardless of how you word it.
    I've been a heretic since way back in the when. Your point?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    God incarnate means .... God made (having become) /flesh/, as at John 1. ... "flesh" is contextually implicit.
    Disagree, I consider it an interpretation. I believe in a metaphysical and spiritual interpretation of the nature of 'God's Word' not physical.

    Actually - that's wrong. In+carnare = in (the) flesh
    It is a heresy to make the claim regardless of how you word it.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
    Christians do not claim Jesus in an incarnate God. That would make him another God. He is the incarnation of the one God. There is only one God, not two or three.
    Double speak and contradiction. Regardless of how you word it, the definition of the Trinity is 'three separate and distinct) persons' in one God, which is not different than the Vedic view of the Brahman and the Vedic Gods. It is a heresy to claim the reincarnation of God regardless.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    An estimated 7000 discrepancies, and with many of them involving prophecies concerning the messiah and identifying him as God himself - and the Jews have no problem with the discrepancies... despite decrying the Septuagint as a flawed translation: but it is the Septuagint that shows consistency with texts pre-dating AD 150, where the current Hebrew scripture does not.
    Not really the topic of the thread, but nonetheless these problems of consistency and history extend throughout the OT, as it occurs in the Bible, and NT. You need to be more specific how this applies. I believe you are exaggerated the controversy among Jews. Jews do not rely on specific necessary interpretation of text as do Christians. Actually pragmatism and Midrash rule in Judaism..

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    God incarnate means .... God made (having become) /flesh/, as at John 1. ... "flesh" is contextually implicit.

    Actually - that's wrong. In+carnare = in (the) flesh
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-28-2015, 12:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jedidiah
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    True and the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the claim of Jesus Christ being an incarnate God is a heresy concerning the fundamental oneness of God.
    Christians do not claim Jesus in an incarnate God. That would make him another God. He is the incarnation of the one God. There is only one God, not two or three.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    An estimated 7000 discrepancies, and with many of them involving prophecies concerning the messiah and identifying him as God himself - and the Jews have no problem with the discrepancies... despite decrying the Septuagint as a flawed translation: but it is the Septuagint that shows consistency with texts pre-dating AD 150, where the current Hebrew scripture does not.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Indeed - the fundamental oneness of God does not change. Nor does the fundamental oneness of the generic human.
    True and the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the claim of Jesus Christ being an incarnate God is a heresy concerning the fundamental oneness of God.

    Is it your claim that the New Testament is in conflict with the Old Testament about the identity of Christ as God? Are you familiar with the archaeological findings that show the Masoretic Text - upon which modern Hebrew scripture is based - is not the same as the Hebrew text prior to 150AD?
    Yes, no problem. Neither do the Jews have a problem with these texts.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The One and only One God and indivisible as confirmed throughout the Old Testament.
    Which is true BTW. How is God's identity revealed by the Hebrew holy scripture? And that identity is?
    Last edited by 37818; 08-27-2015, 03:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    God is God. The One and only One God and indivisible as confirmed throughout the Old Testament.
    That is meaningless. That provides no meaningful identity as to God.

    Yes, God is an infinite being that does all these things. I do not see anywhere where God talks to himself.
    Walks in a garden. And speaks to himself as "us." Not as "we," mind you, but as "us."

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Yes I believe in progressive Revelation, but the fundamental oneness of God does not change. The evolution of Spiritual laws as humanity matures is the primary purpose of Progressive Revelation. The concept of Progressive Revelation includes restoring original foundation beliefs in God that have been corrupted by human culture. In this case a Roman Hellenist view of Gods. The history of OT Progressive Revelation reflects constant efforts to restore Monotheism as opposed to other polytheistic and corrupted views of God.
    Indeed - the fundamental oneness of God does not change. Nor does the fundamental oneness of the generic human.
    Is it your claim that the New Testament is in conflict with the Old Testament about the identity of Christ as God? Are you familiar with the archaeological findings that show the Masoretic Text - upon which modern Hebrew scripture is based - is not the same as the Hebrew text prior to 150AD?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    And God's identity?
    God is God. The One and only One God and indivisible as confirmed throughout the Old Testament.


    So God as a finite being does all those things. And talks to himself.
    Yes, God is an infinite being that does all these things. I do not see anywhere where God talks to himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Says he who claims to believe in progressive revelation.
    Yes I believe in progressive Revelation, but the fundamental oneness of God does not change. The evolution of Spiritual laws as humanity matures is the primary purpose of Progressive Revelation. The concept of Progressive Revelation includes restoring original foundation beliefs in God that have been corrupted by human culture. In this case a Roman Hellenist view of Gods. The history of OT Progressive Revelation reflects constant efforts to restore Monotheism as opposed to other polytheistic and corrupted views of God.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-27-2015, 06:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I do not consider these parallels to be adequate to justify the Trinity.



    Neither the Jews, Muslims, Baha'is nor I consider this an adequate explanation to justify the Trinity. A description of the manifestation of God in this world described in OT scripture is not adequate justification for a separate another 'person' of God, nor a Trinitarian belief.

    If the concept of the Trinity is true and essential it would have been more specifically defined in the OT.
    Says he who claims to believe in progressive revelation.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X