Christianity is a falling religion

[robrecht]

Added after I already responded

Your challenge that I am misrepresenting traditional Christianity because they believe the Trinity to be monotheistic represents a very one sided biased view of what constitutes differences in interpretation. The same would be the differences between Judaism and traditional Christianity concerning prophesy and citations supporting the Trinity. Judaism claims that traditional Christianity is 'misrepresenting' the Torah text that it supports prophesies for Jesus, and support for the Trinity. Would this be true that this is 'misrepresenting' the beliefs of Judaism? ...

It is not a matter of misrepresenting 'the Trinity' or 'traditional Christianity', but being disrespectful of Christians who strongly affirm their monotheistic belief in one God. They obviously have a differing interpretation of the Trinity than you do, and it is their belief, which they are free to define as they see fit.

The comparison with interpretation of prophecies in the Jewish/Christian scriptures is an interesting one, but not quite the same. The Christian interpretations of messianic (and non-messianic) prophetic texts began as Jewish interpretations of Jewish scriptures. They are very similar to the pesher exegesis of prophetic texts applied to the Teacher of Righteousness and his followers found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At the time they were a perfectly acceptable Jewish way of reading Jewish scriptures. Those Christians who still value or follow these originally Jewish interpretations of prophetic texts oftentimes recognize that they were not the originally intended meaning by the original authors of the texts in question. Likewise, Jewish interpreters of the same texts can also recognize that the Christian interpretations of these texts was originally a very Jewish type of pesher exegesis of prophetic texts, but not the originally intended meaning of the texts, to the extent that this can be known and hypothesized.

[robrecht]

I will not abandon the conversation despite your shenanagans.

Again, again, again, and again; What evidence do propose would possibly exist that would support or refute such an argument.

I've already answered this in various ways, but now it seems that you are posing this question somewhat differently. Exactly what argument are you proposing I am saying should be refuted with evidence? Merely your claim that Christians who believe in the Trinity but strongly claim to be monotheists who believe in one God are not what they say they are? That is a claim. The only 'argument' I've seen you put forward to support this claim uses the word 'person' in a different way than those Christians use the word when expressing their monotheistic faith. Is that the argument for which you are looking for contrary evidence? As I've said before, the evidence you should be considering are the actual doctrine and theology which explains this use of language.

I commend you for not abandoning the conversation. In order not to abandon the conversation, however, you should also respond to my questions.

[robrecht]

Robrecht, you still have not responded to this problem.

Still have not responded? The fact that you continue to change your posts even after I have already responded is not a problem caused by my lack of responsiveness!

Your challenge that I am misrepresenting traditional Christianity because they believe the Trinity to be monotheistic represents a very one sided biased view of what constitutes differences in interpretation. The same would be the differences between Judaism and traditional Christianity concerning prophesy and citations supporting the Trinity. Judaism claims that traditional Christianity is 'misrepresenting' the Torah text that it supports prophesies for Jesus, and support for the Trinity. Would this be true that this is 'misrepresenting' the beliefs of Judaism?

Responded to above.

This appears to be new:

As far as OT scripture in this discussion concerning the Trinity versus pure monotheism I definitely side with the Jewism understanding of the nature of a monotheistic God as it evolved in the scripture of the OT from the Jewish perspective and reject the traditional Christian 'misrepresentation' and 'manipulation' of the text to justify the Trinity.

I do not accept Trinitarian interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures, but I do agree with the idea that of community and interpersonality in God could not be avoided in the Jewish scriptures and this adds to their richness, in my opinion.

[shunyadragon]

Added after I already responded
It is not a matter of misrepresenting 'the Trinity' or 'traditional Christianity', but being disrespectful of Christians who strongly affirm their monotheistic belief in one God. They obviously have a differing interpretation of the Trinity than you do, and it is their belief, which they are free to define as they see fit.

The comparison with interpretation of prophecies in the Jewish/Christian scriptures is an interesting one, but not quite the same. The Christian interpretations of messianic (and non-messianic) prophetic texts began as Jewish interpretations of Jewish scriptures. They are very similar to the pesher exegesis of prophetic texts applied to the Teacher of Righteousness and his followers found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At the time they were a perfectly acceptable Jewish way of reading Jewish scriptures. Those Christians who still value or follow these originally Jewish interpretations of prophetic texts oftentimes recognize that they were not the originally intended meaning by the original authors of the texts in question. Likewise, Jewish interpreters of the same texts can also recognize that the Christian interpretations of these texts was originally a very Jewish type of pesher exegesis of prophetic texts, but not the originally intended meaning of the texts, to the extent that this can be known and hypothesized.

You previously specifically said 'misrepresent,' your adding an additional insult of being disrespectful. It is possible to interpret the fringe non-scripture documents of the Dead Sea cult to maybe possibly support indirectly the Christian understanding of the nature of God, but this did effectively address the long term Jewish understanding and belief of scripture itself concerning prophecy and the monotheistic nature of God. You have to admit most of the scripture references to prophecy and to support the nature of the Trinity are a far reaching stretch. I consider many of these references as 'misrepresenting' and 'disrespectful' of Jewish scripture and Jewish beliefs that reject the possibility of an incarnate God and the Trinity as heretical, and I believe many Jewish theologians also consider this the case.

[robrecht]

You previously specifically said 'misrepresent,' your adding an additional insult of being disrespectful. It is possible to interpret the fringe non-scripture documents of the Dead Sea cult to maybe possibly support indirectly the Christian understanding of the nature of God, but this did effectively address the long term Jewish understanding and belief of scripture itself concerning prophecy and the monotheistic nature of God. You have to admit most of the scripture references to prophecy and to support the nature of the Trinity are a far reaching stretch. I consider many of these references as 'misrepresenting' and 'disrespectful' of Jewish scripture and Jewish beliefs that reject the possibility of an incarnate God and the Trinity as heretical, and I believe many Jewish theologians also consider this the case.

As you should know, my opinion that you are a religious polemicist who is not sufficiently respectful of others and their religious beliefs and not sufficiently self-critical of your own beliefs is not at all new. It dates back at least a few years. I believe this is what best explains your lack of respect for others and their expression of their beliefs. It is not expected that you agree with the expression of the beliefs of others, but at least maintain a level of respect sufficient for genuine dialogue. I'm sorry you find this insulting. As I've said previously, I intend it merely as an objective description of your behavior on this forum. It is meant to challenge you, but it is not intended as an insult, but I understand if you cannot see it any other way due to your own understandable bias of being yourself and not wanting to hear something negative about yourself.

You did not understand my post. I was not looking to use Qumran texts to justify Christian belief in the nature of God or the Trinity! I was pointing to the style of pesher exegesis found in these texts to show that the Christian messianic use of prophetic texts was rooted in a very Jewish form of exegesis practiced at that time. Also, as I've tried to discuss with you previously (but you abandoned that discussion), your view of what is orthodox and fringe in Second Temple Judaism is anachronistic and not supported by the evidence as generally understood by scholars of this period.

[shunyadragon]

I think I'm beginning to understand the difficulty here. Shunya appears to assume that conditional clauses are necessarily true.

No, nothing here is necessarily 'TRUE.'

[shunyadragon]

As you should know, my opinion that you are a religious polemicist who is not sufficiently respectful of others and their religious beliefs and not sufficiently self-critical of your own beliefs is not at all new. It dates back at least a few years. I believe this is what best explains your lack of respect for others and their expression of their beliefs. It is not expected that you agree with the expression of the beliefs of others, but at least maintain a level of respect sufficient for genuine dialogue. I'm sorry you find this insulting. As I've said previously, I intend it merely as an objective description of your behavior on this forum. It is meant to challenge you, but it is not intended as an insult, but I understand if you cannot see it any other way due to your own understandable bias of being yourself and not wanting to hear something negative about yourself.

You consider differences interpretation showing disrespect, and that is as bogus as a three dollar bill. Christianity is as just disrespectful of Hebrew scriptures misrepresenting them to justify their own beliefs.

You did not understand my post. I was not looking to use Qumran texts to justify Christian belief in the nature of God or the Trinity! I was pointing to the style of pesher exegesis found in these texts to show that the Christian messianic use of prophetic texts was rooted in a very Jewish form of exegesis practiced at that time. Also, as I've tried to discuss with you previously (but you abandoned that discussion), your view of what is orthodox and fringe in Second Temple Judaism is anachronistic and not supported by the evidence as generally understood by scholars of this period.

I did not drop any discussion. As far as Jewish scholars in this thread, OFF-TOPIC. I ask you if you want to explore the issue start a thread. You have a tendency to take fringe views and avoid the reality, and misrepresent me.

There is no evidence. If you wish to justify Christian messianic use of prophetic texts and the Trinity start a thread and we will deal with it and I will refer to Jewish scholars who are seriously justified in considering most of these references weak if not totally out of context of the Hebrew text, and consider them 'misrepresenting' Hebrew scripture. Even many non-Jewish western scholars consider them highly questionable.

[robrecht]

You consider differences interpretation showing disrespect, and that is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

No, that is not at all what I said. I come from a background where everything is a matter of interpretation and practically everything is interpreted differently. It is not a matter of interpretation. As I said, I would not expect you to agree with the expression of the beliefs of others, but at least maintain a level of respect sufficient for genuine dialogue if you want to rise above the level of a religious polemicist. Christians who strongly affirm their monotheistic belief in one God obviously have a differing interpretation of the Trinity than you do, and it is their belief, which they are free to define as they see fit. If you assume they believe in your interpretation of the Trinity and thus are not monotheists, you are disrespecting their own interpretation and understanding of their own beliefs. That is not genuine dialogue. Just as you do not like it when people classify you as an atheist, despite your claim to be a theist. You cannot have a genuine dialogue about what it means to you to be a theist with someone who thinks you are not a theist. On the other hand, if they are willing to accept your understanding of what it means to you to be a theist, they would be able to better understand your perspective. It's up to you whether you prefer polemics or genuine dialogue. The latter requires mutual respect. The former does not.

Christianity is as just disrespectful of Hebrew scriptures misrepresenting them to justify their own beliefs.

But you do not think that is a good thing, right?

I did not drop any discussion. As far as Jewish scholars in this thread, OFF-TOPIC. I ask you if you want to explore the issue start a thread. You have a tendency to take fringe views and avoid the reality, and misrepresent me.

If you bring it up here, it is silly for you to then not allow me to discuss it here.

There is no evidence.

Of course there is evidence. We have quite a few writings of Jews from this perioid.

If you wish to justify Christian messianic use of prophetic texts and the Trinity start a thread and we will deal with it and I will refer to Jewish scholars who are seriously justified in considering most of these references weak if not totally out of context of the Hebrew text, and consider them 'misrepresenting' Hebrew scripture. Even many non-Jewish western scholars consider them highly questionable.

You brought up the issue here of the Christian interpretation of Jewish texts, why should I not be able to respond to you here? If you want to start another thread, go ahead, but if you want to discuss something here, I see no reason why someone cannot respond to you here. But you are still misunderstanding my post. I was not justifying the Christian messianic use of prophetic texts, I was explaining why your analogy was not really comparable, because the issue is grounded in contemporary Jewish methods of exegesis, not later Christian vs Jewish polemics.

[shunyadragon]

No, that is not at all what I said. I come from a background where everything is a matter of interpretation and practically everything is interpreted differently. It is not a matter of interpretation. As I said, I would not expect you to agree with the expression of the beliefs of others, but at least maintain a level of respect sufficient for genuine dialogue if you want to rise above the level of a religious polemicist. Christians who strongly affirm their monotheistic belief in one God obviously have a differing interpretation of the Trinity than you do, and it is their belief, which they are free to define as they see fit. If you assume they believe in your interpretation of the Trinity and thus are not monotheists, you are disrespecting their own interpretation and understanding of their own beliefs. That is not genuine dialogue. Just as you do not like it when people classify you as an atheist, despite your claim to be a theist. You cannot have a genuine dialogue about what it means to you to be a theist with someone who thinks you are not a theist. On the other hand, if they are willing to accept your understanding of what it means to you to be a theist, they would be able to better understand your perspective. It's up to you whether you prefer polemics or genuine dialogue. The latter requires mutual respect. The former does not.

But you do not think that is a good thing, right?

So what? Strength of belief does no put anyone above disagreement and alternative interpretations.

It is not right nor wrong it is simply a different interpretation. You are the one coaching a special case for your beliefs are above question, where you believe different interpretations represent misrepresentation and disrespect, which is bogus as a three dollar bill. Rant on, but it is meaningless pouting in a dialogue of different interpretations.

If you bring it up here, it is silly for you to then not allow me to discuss it here.

Feel free, but I also have the right to not discuss it in this thread, and request another thread.

Of course there is evidence. We have quite a few writings of Jews from this period.

Possibly, start a thread an I will discuss it. As with Christianity there are many minority beliefs, and many you would not accept.

You brought up the issue here of the Christian interpretation of Jewish texts, why should I not be able to respond to you here? If you want to start another thread, go ahead, but if you want to discuss something here, I see no reason why someone cannot respond to you here. But you are still misunderstanding my post. I was not justifying the Christian messianic use of prophetic texts, I was explaining why your analogy was not really comparable, because the issue is grounded in contemporary Jewish methods of exegesis, not later Christian vs Jewish polemics.

You can of course bring it up as you wish, but I do not care to deal with multi-topic thread cover everything under the sun. I did not abandon the subject, and I made my view clear.

[robrecht]

So what? Strength of belief does no put anyone above disagreement and alternative interpretations.

It is not right nor wrong it is simply a different interpretation.

You are the one coaching a special case for your beliefs are above question, where you believe different interpretations represent misrepresentation and disrespect, which is bogus as a three dollar bill. Rant on, but it is meaningless pouting in a dialogue of different interpretations.

Once again, it is not about alternative interpretations. Did you even read what I've been saying?

Feel free, but I also have the right to not discuss it in this thread, and request another thread.

Possibly, start a thread an I will discuss it. As with Christianity there are many minority beliefs, and many you would not accept.

You can of course bring it up as you wish, but I do not care to deal with multi-topic thread cover everything under the sun. I did not abandon the subject, and I made my view clear.

Again, you are the one who brought the topic up, and then when you realize you have not a leg to stand on, you want to abandon the subject and say it is off topic.

Should I bring up what you did not respond to here and previously in this thread?

[shunyadragon]

Once again, it is not about alternative interpretations. Did you even read what I've been saying?

Oh yes! I have been reading what you are saying, but I do not buy it.

Again, you are the one who brought the topic up, and then when you realize you have not a leg to stand on, you want to abandon the subject and say it is off topic.

No, I am not abandoning the subject. The subject gets too broad and contorted.

Another point is that Islam has always considered the Trinity as shirk and clearly polytheism. I guess you consider their belief as misrepresentation and disrespect of Christianity.

Should I bring up what you did not respond to here and previously in this thread?

It is your choice, and your problem.

[robrecht]

Oh yes! I have been reading what you are saying, but I do not buy it.

No, I am not abandoning the subject. The subject gets too broad and contorted.

Another point is that Islam has always considered the Trinity as shirk and clearly polytheism. I guess you consider their belief as misrepresentation and disrespect of Christianity.

No, I've told you it is not about interpretation. Muslims are perfectly capable of respectful religious dialogue.

It is your choice, and your problem.

So do you now realize that you were mistaken in your interpretation of Rea's view of the Trinity, that he believes in distinct persons but one God?

[shunyadragon]

No, I've told you it is not about interpretation. Muslims are perfectly capable of respectful religious dialogue.

I am sure they are, but your dodging the issue: Another point is that Islam has always considered the Trinity as shirk and clearly polytheism. I guess you consider their belief as misrepresentation and disrespect of Christianity.

So do you now realize that you were mistaken in your interpretation of Rea's view of the Trinity, that he believes in distinct persons but one God?

I am not sure what he 'believes,' His articles deal with philosophical arguments.

[robrecht]

I am sure they are, but your dodging the issue: Another point is that Islam has always considered the Trinity as shirk and clearly polytheism. I guess you consider their belief as misrepresentation and disrespect of Christianity.

You're having a great deal of difficulty understanding this point. A belief or interpretation or misrepresentation in and of itself is simply that. My point is about respectful religious dialogue vs bigoted religious polemics. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is, etc, are all capable of both of these extremes and everything in between.

I am not sure what he 'believes,' His articles deal with philosophical arguments.

Amazing that you choose to accuse others as dodging points. I see no reason to question whether or not he actually believes what he writes. But if you prefer to speak of his writing rather than his beliefs, let me rephrase this question, yet again. So do you now realize that you were mistaken in your interpretation of Rea's article, that his view of the Trinity clearly entails three distinct persons but one God?

[shunyadragon]

You're having a great deal of difficulty understanding this point. A belief or interpretation or misrepresentation in and of itself is simply that. My point is about respectful religious dialogue vs bigoted religious polemics. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is, etc, are all capable of both of these extremes and everything in between.

It's a dodge with abusive accusations. You did not answer the question: Another point is that Islam has always considered the Trinity as shirk and clearly polytheism. I guess you consider their belief as misrepresentation and disrespect of Christianity. The philosophical and theological arguments in Islam are very similar to mine.

Amazing that you choose to accuse others as dodging points. I see no reason to question whether or not he actually believes what he writes. But if you prefer to speak of his writing rather than his beliefs, let me rephrase this question, yet again. So do you now realize that you were mistaken in your interpretation of Rea's article, that his view of the Trinity clearly entails three distinct persons but one God?

No dodge, there is a distinct difference between 'belief' and philosophical arguments where Rea uses 'I think.'