Christians are polytheists?

[DNB]

I really don’t think you understand their creeds if this is your interpretation, dear sir. They are explicitly monotheistic. To attempt to distort the meaning in justifying any claim of polytheism is absurd, it makes no sense.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I am fully aware of what they think that they've formulated, but it is you who fails to see the absurdity and implausibility of their claims.
It is no mystery that they will assert their monotheistic disposition, but it is a mystery how some cannot see the irrationality and futility of their affirmations.

 

[Sundance]

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, I am fully aware of what they think that they've formulated, but it is you who fails to see the absurdity and implausibility of their claims.
It is no mystery that they will assert their monotheistic disposition, but it is a mystery how some cannot see the irrationality and futility of their affirmations.

Have you yourself taken some time in understanding why their creeds are formulated as they are?

 

[DNB]

Polytheism would be to say that there are three deities with independent minds and wills.

Trinitarianism does not posit this at all. It posits three "distinct manners of subsisting" or instantiations of the one, self-same divine essence, entity, being and mind in relation to Itself. Not three minds with independent consciousnesses cooperating with one another.

We have to carefully scrutinize what the Fathers (Tertullian, Athanasius etc.) actually meant by persons here, because it does not carry our modern connotations of independent agency and being.

As I noted above, it means three subsisting and concrete relations of one divine being, not three 'individual' minds with independent agencies, wills, thoughts and intentions etc. The persons are nothing other than the active relations subsisting in the eternal divine ousia.

The personality of God, His consciousness, is singular and found in the one essence (the ousia) which each Person is, because as St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in the Summa: “the act of God’s intellect is His substance (essence)” and thus His self-consciousness as an object in Himself is common to the Persons as one 'being', rather than individuated.

I'm not a Modalist, nor am I polytheist but a Trinitarian monotheist. I know what I believe and how to differentiate it from heresies to the left and right of that Nicene orthodox position.

To reiterate:

Trinitarianism - we're talking about three distinct manners of relating of the one and same Being to Itself, which are called subsisting relations. Unity of the one essence is consubstantial between the three hypostases (persons), each of which is that one, singular and self-same supreme reality, God.

Tritheism - three separate divine beings united, like three different human persons, together by a shared plan. Unity of essence can only be meant analogously in this case, not literally.

Modalism - one divine person simply "manifesting" Himself in different temporary guises in relation to us (His creation) with no real distinction of relations in Himself. This is Unitarianism, God has no distinctions of hypostases, only the one essence and attributes (i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely "masks" He assumes or temporary ways in which he reveals Himself to us).

Trinity - God relating to Himself in three distinct subsisting relations, Tritheism - three gods relating to one another, Modalism - God relating to us in three masks.

To an atheist, I appreciate that this probably seems a bit like "angels dancing on a pin-head" level stuff but to a theist like myself, the distinctions are extremely important.

A lot of sophistry, but you fail to recognize the impractical and meaningless aspect of what you're attempting to glorify.
God is one consciousness, one entity, one mind and one will - where in the world is the requirement of three persons within this already complete and perfected essence?
You are trying to sound sophisticated or erudite (not pretentiously) about something that does not require so much philosophy or esoteric linguistics - we are created in His image, our contemplation of Him therefore, is not beyond our means. It is the magnitude of His attributes that eludes us or is beyond fathoming, but not His essence or the characteristics themselves.

 

[DNB]

Have you yourself taken some time in understanding why their creeds are formulated as they are?

Yes, of course. I'm familiar with development from Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc... homoousios, filioque, theotokos, monophysite, monethelite , etc...
And, I can unequivocally affirm the unbiblical, convoluted and irrational, derivation and formulation of these creeds.

 

[Sundance]

Yes, of course. I'm familiar with development from Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc... homoousios, filioque, theotokos, monophysite, monethelite , etc...
And, I can unequivocally affirm the unbiblical, convoluted and irrational, derivation and formulation of these creeds.

The creeds expound upon what the Early Christians taught and believed, as well as address the doctrinal issues facing the church.

 

[DNB]

The creeds expound upon what the Early Christians taught and believed, as well as address the doctrinal issues facing the church.

I'm sorry, are you stating therefore, that the ecumenical councils were authoritative (I vehemently denounce this)? Again, I know what they believe themselves to be saying, and why, but I profoundly disagree with, first of all, Constantine's grounds for convening the council, his presiding over it, Aruis' inability to speak for himself, .... Secondly, I distrust any Christian body that has become a state religion (Edict of Thessalonica). Finally, the creeds are entirely unbiblical, based on conjecture or speculation, and its meanings have eluded even the most ardent and studied trinitarian proponents. Every facet of the doctrine ends with the clichéd 'it's a mystery' capitulation.

 

[Vouthon]

God is one consciousness, one entity, one mind and one will - where in the world is the requirement of three persons within this already complete and perfected essence?

I concur with you that God is one consciousness, one entity, one mind and one will - as I noted in my previous post. Every Trinitarian believes the same, because we are monotheists, and this was actually defined in the creeds and patristic writings.

The requirement of three hypostases (distinct relations of that one Being to Itself, I refuse to use the English person because others - though not you - are misunderstanding that it does not imply three personalities, agents, minds or wills) arises from the fact that the New Testament introduces what a consensus of modern scholars (beginning with the work of the late Larry Hurtado) agree is a fundamentally Binitarian conception of God, which developed into a Trinitarian one with the classic jargon we're all familiar with during the Patristic era.

To maintain monotheism but accept that Jesus is the incarnation of the Divine Word, eternally pre-existent and through whom the universe was created and understand the worship practices of the earliest Christians who subsumed Jesus into the worship offered to the one God YHWH, Trinitarianism is necessary.

It was actually the apparent inconsistencies within the New Testament itself - in the desire of its authors to subsume Jesus into the worship offered to, and the identity of, the one God YHWH, yet retain a distinct relation of Father and Son - that compelled the patristic theologians to arrive at a philosophically developed language that would enable them to successfully defend the NT belief that there's only one God but the Father and Jesus are both that one God and are in relation, without this contravening monotheism.

So, ironically, in accusing the doctrine of the Trinity of being internally contradictory, you've gotten this upside down and back to front in my opinion. It's actually the New Testament depiction of God that, on the bare uncontextualized reading without the hermeneutic of a theology such as Trinitarianism, is potentially open to accusation of logical inconsistency. And it was to rebut this that the Fathers conceived these philosophical arguments for Trinitarianism on the basis of the theology in the NT. And 99% of Christians ever since have accepted these definitions as the standard of their faith.

On its own terms, the Trinity claims to be a revelation about the divine life, what goes on in the Divine Mind and how God relates to Himself (rather than to us, hence where modalism goes wrong because it makes the "relations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit" about God revealing Himself to us, when what the Trinity is actually saying is that God really truly exists in Himself as three distinct subsisting relations of a single being/essence/conscious mind).

St. Augustine explained it by analogy with human psychology as: "the Mind, and the Knowledge wherewith the mind knows itself, and the Love wherewith it loves both itself and its own knowledge; and these three are one".

Mind in this Augustinian analogy is, of course, the Father, that which has the capacity to generate self-knowledge; the Knowledge that the Mind has of Itself is the Son (begotten or generated from the Father, just like self-understanding or a mental self-image in our own head) and the Love with which the Mind loves Itself through its knowledge of Itself as reflected in this generated self-image of Itself, is the Holy Spirit. The three are thus one conscious being relating to Itself by this internal process of self-awareness, which in the case of God takes on the character of actually distinctly existing, or subsisting, relations.

Because the divine hypostases are subsisting relations, the human person - created according to the divine model - also finds him or herself in a web of interwoven relations, as a conscious and self-aware being. We don't exist for ourselves. God in His own nature is relational, a self-communion of love and this is reflected in us too and our vocation which is to know and love God and our neighbor as ourselves.

And I disagree, the linguistics are important for a proper understanding of the doctrine, because person in English does not mean what any of the early Fathers meant.

The word translated person in English technically and properly refers to a "subsisting relation", a relation which exists in the divine nature, whereby the one Divine Being relates to Himself. It does not - under any circumstances - mean three independent beings, centres of consciousness, personalities or entities united together, or anything remotely of that ilk. That would be polytheism. We're talking here purely about one Divine Mind being aware of Itself.

Hence the misunderstanding at the very root of this thread.

 

[DNB]

I concur with you that God is one consciousness, one entity, one mind and one will - as I noted in my previous post. Every Trinitarian believes the same, because we are monotheists, and this was actual

The requirement of three hypostases (distinct relations of that one Being to Itself, I refuse to use the English person because others - though not you - are misunderstanding that it does not imply three personalities, agents, minds or wills) arises from the fact that the New Testament introduces what a consensus of modern scholars (beginning with the work of the late Larry Hurtado) agree is a fundamentally Binitarian conception of God, which developed into a Trinitarian one with the classic jargon we're all familiar with during the Patristic era.

To maintain monotheism but accept that Jesus is the incarnation of the Divine Word, eternally pre-existent and through whom the universe was created and understand the worship practices of the earliest Christians who subsumed Jesus into the worship offered to the one God YHWH, Trinitarianism is necessary.

It was actually the apparent inconsistencies within the New Testament itself - in the desire of its authors to subsume Jesus into the worship offered to, and the identity of, the one God YHWH, yet retain a distinct relation of Father and Son - that compelled the patristic theologians to arrive at a philosophically developed language that would enable them to successfully defend the NT belief that there's only one God but the Father and Jesus are both that one God and are in relation, without this contravening monotheism.

So, ironically, in accusing the doctrine of the Trinity of being internally contradictory, you've gotten this upside down and back to front in my opinion. It's actually the New Testament depiction of God that, on the bare uncontextualized reading without the hermeneutic of a theology such as Trinitarianism, is potentially open to accusation of logical inconsistency. And it was to rebut this that the Fathers conceived these philosophical arguments for Trinitarianism on the basis of the theology in the NT. And 99% of Christians ever since have accepted these definitions as the standard of their faith.

On its own terms, the Trinity claims to be a revelation about the divine life, what goes on in the Divine Mind and how God relates to Himself (rather than to us, hence where modalism goes wrong because it makes the "relations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit" about God revealing Himself to us, when what the Trinity is actually saying is that God really truly exists in Himself as three distinct subsisting relations of a single being/essence/conscious mind).

St. Augustine explained it by analogy with human psychology as: "the Mind, and the Knowledge wherewith the mind knows itself, and the Love wherewith it loves both itself and its own knowledge; and these three are one".

Mind in this Augustinian analogy is, of course, the Father; the Knowledge that the Mind has of Itself is the Son (begotten or generated just like self-understanding or a mental self-image/ in our own head) and the Love with which the Mind loves Itself through its knowledge of Itself as reflected in this generated self-image of Itself, is the Holy Spirit. The three are thus one conscious being relating to Itself by this internal process of self-awareness, which in the case of God takes on the character of actually distinctly existing, or subsisting, relations.

The divine hypostases are subsistent relations, and the human person, created according to the divine model, finds him or herself in a web of interwoven relations. We don't exist for ourselves. God in His own nature is relational, a self-communion of love and this is reflected in us too, and our vocation to love our neighbor as ourselves and God.

And I disagree, the linguistics are important for a proper understanding the doctrine, because person in English does not mean what any of the early Fathers meant.

The word translated person in English technically and properly refers to a "subsisting relation", a relation which exists in the divine nature, whereby the one Divine Being relates to Himself. It does not - under any circumstances - mean three independent beings, centres of consciousness, personalities or entities united together, or anything remotely of that ilk. That would be polytheism. We're talking here purely about one Divine Mind.

Hence the misunderstanding at the very root of this thread.

You are accusing the inspired and divinely selected authors of the New Testament as being either misleading, deficient or inconsistent, and that it took men moved by their own volition and caprice to elucidate and impress upon both the saved and the unsaved, the most enigmatic and incomprehensible doctrine in all of Christendom?
You see. much of the problem here is that, first of all, you are clever, but secondly, tat's to your own detriment. You almost sound like you're making sense because of the precision of your choice of words, but once one realizes that your dialectic only refers to definitions and not logistics, we appreciate the fact that you have only obfuscated the matter more - your arguments are circular and meaningless.
EG: '...The three are thus one conscious being relating to Itself by this internal process of self-awareness, which in the case of God takes on the character of actually distinctly existing, or subsisting, relations...'

This is by no means analogous, nor comprehensible. Again, you make statements in regards to definitions, but for the life of you, cannot offer anything applicable or rational.
How does one omniscient something, love another omniscient something (one's the duplicate of the other). Explain to me what kind of meaningful conversation or relationship could possibly take place within such a redundant dynamic? Not to mention the requirement to explain the significance of three - if anything that you said held water, two persons would've been sufficient to accommodate your ascriptions as to how the divine essence works.
'...God in His own nature is relational, a self-communion of love and this is reflected in us too, and our vocation to love our neighbor as ourselves and God...'

That is, how in the world does a being of aseity, by necessity, relate to itself and love another person identical to itself, without appearing narcistic or mindless?
Again, you exhausted a lot of effort in attempting to distinguish between terms, but after all has been said and done, the ontology remains superfluous, meaningless and implausible. You claim that there's no functional distinction between the three parts of the trinity (i don't even know what to call them anymore), despite the NT authors emphatically delineating this fact - and as you say, to their discredit, so that God appears then to be some mystical enigma that by His ontology alone (very essence), causes confusion amongst those who are created in His image, as to even know how to address Him (Father, Son, Spirit) or which thing-a-ma-jig to pray to?

Diabolical nonsense from start to finish!

 

[Vouthon]

You are accusing the inspired and divinely selected authors of the New Testament as being either misleading, deficient or inconsistent, and that it took men moved by their own volition and caprice to elucidate and impress upon both the saved and the unsaved, the most enigmatic and incomprehensible doctrine in all of Christendom?

In and of itself, the New Testament has admitted of gazillions of theological disputes. If the text were abundantly and avowedly clear on its own basis, there would be no need for exegesis, biblical study, hermeneutics, scholarship or theologians and philosophy.

But that's evidently not, and has never been, the case.

The New Testament proclaims the same fundamental doctrine of the oneness of God, that you'll find in Deuteronomy or Isaiah in the Tanakh.

Yet it advances upon the simple unitarianism that preceded it, with a more complicated revelation that involves that same Deity also being identified with a human person that is also said to have pre-existed eternally as the Logos or Son, through whom the Father created the universe and redeemed humanity.

The NT texts testify to the fact that Jesus was both identified with YHWH and subsumed into the worship rendered to this one God, and that alongside this binitarianism (as scholars term it) there was also a Triadic discourse about God that included the Holy Spirit (though only inchoately and not yet fully developed in the NT).

Articulating these truths and defending both monotheism and the relation within the one reality of God between Father and Son (or image / Word) that the NT uniquely reveals, required exegesis and a rigorous philosophical language to define it.

That's what the Fathers gave us in Trinitarianism. Without that patristic tradition, yes, I think that the NT by itself could be accused of logical inconsistency in, on the one hand, saying God is one yet seemingly speaking of a relation between Jesus and the Father within that one identity.

But I am not a sola scripturist.

 

[firedragon]

I often hear Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses say to Christians, "You are not monotheists, you are polytheists" And I see how some Christians try to defend the status as monotheists, and I wonder why? For it doesn't matter if you are a monotheist or a polytheist, what matters is which God you believe in. I as a Christian say I believe in 100 Gods, but these 100 Gods do not contradict each other in their divine nature, they are one and harmonize with each other. So I am a polytheist, but I as a Christian can say that as a polytheist I will stand victorious in the end, because I believe that God became man and was crucified and was raised, which is of course my personal belief.

Then you are not a trinitarian.

 

[Vouthon]

How does one omniscient something, love another omniscient something (one's the duplicate of the other). Explain to me what kind of meaningful conversation or relationship could possibly take place within such a redundant dynamic?

By analogy we might say that God is one omniscient object in Himself, but three objects to Himself (or three instantiations of that one being / essence / mind, whichever word you prefer to use).

So, God is eternally aware of and loves His own image, the Logos (word/reason) or Son (the word eikon, image of God, is used of the Son in Colossians), and through that image in turn all of creation, which is created through the Son and the human race that would ultimately populate it and be created according to the image of God (that is, in the image of the Son, who is God's own eternal image of Himself).

By being created in God's image, that means that we too are rational beings capable of knowing and loving, just like God is.

It is the relations between the Father and the Son, and the relations between the Father and the Son and the Spirit that constitute who God is.

I don't see that as redundant. Unlike in humans, God does not have a relation but is the relation.

The relations do not exist in God's essence but are identical with the divine substance. The three divine relations are therefore said to be subsistent relations. They are the distinct ways in which God simply Is.

I personally couldn't conceive of anything more dynamic than that. In the beautiful words of St Augustine: "They [the three divine persons] are each in each and all in each, and each in all and all in all, and all are one" (De Trinitate 6, 12). And this kind of language is lifted straight from scripture, it's how Jesus himself described the relation of Father and Son in the one reality of the divine nature: "as you, Father, are in me, and I in you" (John 17:21).

 

[Vouthon]

You claim that there's no functional distinction between the three parts of the trinity (i don't even know what to call them anymore), despite the NT authors emphatically delineating this fact - and as you say, to their discredit, so that God appears then to be some mystical enigma that by His ontology alone (very essence), causes confusion amongst those who are created in His image, as to even how to address Him (Father, Son, Spirit) or which thing-a-ma-jig to pray to?

There is real distinction, the distinction in the relations of origin is real (paternity/generation, sonship/being generated, spiration/procession) but nothing else is distinct but perfectly the same.

The Council of Florence defined that in God “everything is one where there is no distinction by relative opposition", to quote St. Thomas Aquinas: "Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute, namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity – but according to that which is relative."

Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, against the Eunomian objection that consubstantiality renders any distinction between the persons impossible: “Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another.”

Everything in God is one and the same that has not to do with this sole distinction of relation in the divine nature, because there is only one divine nature and being. Consciousness, will, majesty, power - everything is one.

There's no "thingamajiggy" to pray to other than the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the one God.

The relations do not merely exist between the Persons. They are the Persons, for they are subsistent relations. Thus, St. Thomas says that “relation… enters into the notion of the person…” and cites Boethius’ affirmation that “every word that refers to the persons signifies relation".

So there is only the one God to pray to who exists eternally in this way. St. Thomas therefore says that “each divine Person is a subsistent, incommunicable, internal divine relation.” This means that when we say “Father,” we are naming a personal relation. So, too, when we say “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”

 

[DNB]

In and of itself, the New Testament has admitted of gazillions of theological disputes. If the text were abundantly and avowedly clear on its own basis, there would be no need for exegesis, biblical study, hermeneutics, scholarship or theologians and philosophy.

But that's evidently not, and has never been, the case.

The New Testament proclaims the same fundamental doctrine of the oneness of God, that you'll find in Deuteronomy or Isaiah in the Tanakh.

Yet it advances upon the simple unitarianism that preceded it, with a more complicated revelation that involves that same Deity also being identified with a human person that is also said to have pre-existed eternally as the Logos or Son, through whom the Father created the universe and redeemed humanity.

The NT texts testify to the fact that Jesus was both identified with YHWH and subsumed into the worship rendered to this one God, and that alongside this binitarianism (as scholars term it) there was also a Triadic discourse about God that included the Holy Spirit (though only inchoately and not yet fully developed in the NT).

Articulating these truths and defending both monotheism and the relation within the one reality of God between Father and Son (or image / Word) that the NT uniquely reveals, required exegesis and a rigorous philosophical language to define it.

That's what the Fathers gave us in Trinitarianism. Without that patristic tradition, yes, I think that the NT by itself could be accused of logical inconsistency in, on the one hand, saying God is one yet seemingly speaking of a relation between Jesus and the Father within that one identity.

But I am not a sola scripturist.

Yes, in regard to your final statement, this, I believe, is where I'm sensing a bit of an arbitrary standard for 'what the Bible has conveyed'. For, first of all, I would argue immediately that the predicates that your entire thesis is based on - the Biblical impartation of the trinity in no uncertain terms (partially or not) - is manifestly spurious, if not entirely fallacious. Therefore, for you to move from that dubious catalyst, and then enter the realm of unbiblical or non-canonized literature to secure your position, appears to be somewhat haphazard and undisciplined in your hermeneutics.

All in all, I entirely question your exegesis, I do not interpret the passages that you claim say that Jesus was a co-creator or worshipped as God, the same way that you do. Yes, I understand where the controversy lies, but have always considered the trinitarian handling of their proof-text as impetuous, inept and irresponsible. For Thomas to call Jesus 'god', in a culture where men were often call gods, does not warrant a leap into the unfathomable. Or John's usage of the literary convention antanaclasis in the beginning of his Gospel, should have immediately impressed upon the reader that we are now in the realm of poetry and profundity, and not enigma and absurdity.

 

[DNB]

By analogy we might say that God is one omniscient object in Himself, but three objects to Himself (or three instantiations of that one being / essence / mind, whichever word you prefer to use).

So, God is eternally aware of and loves His own image, the Logos (word/reason) or Son (the word eikon, image of God, is used of the Son in Colossians), and through that image in turn all of creation, which is created through the Son and the human race that would ultimately populate it and be created according to the image of God (that is, in the image of the Son, who is God's own eternal image of Himself).

By being created in God's image, that means that we too are rational beings capable of knowing and loving, just like God is.

It is the relations between the Father and the Son, and the relations between the Father and the Son and the Spirit that constitute who God is.

I don't see that as redundant. Unlike in humans, God does not have a relation but is the relation.

The relations do not exist in God's essence but are identical with the divine substance. The three divine relations are therefore said to be subsistent relations. They are the distinct ways in which God simply Is.

I personally couldn't conceive of anything more dynamic than that. In the beautiful words of St Augustine: "They [the three divine persons] are each in each and all in each, and each in all and all in all, and all are one" (De Trinitate 6, 12). And this kind of language is lifted straight from scripture, it's how Jesus himself described the relation of Father and Son in the one reality of the divine nature: "as you, Father, are in me, and I in you" (John 17:21).

Oh my goodness, what in the world is one to do with all that pedantic mysticism? How is one suppose to process any of that sophistry, in an efficacious or purposeful manner. How does one glorify God when He is to be regarded as some multiplicity of Himself - is it enough to say hello to one of the hypostases, without feeling that one has neglected the others? Do we say 'amen' three times after every supplication?

Besides, Jesus told his disciples to become one with him and the Father, just as they are one (in the exact same manner) (John 17:21).

 

[DNB]

There is real distinction, the distinction in the relations of origin is real (paternity/generation, sonship/being generated, spiration/procession) but nothing else is distinct but perfectly the same.

The Council of Florence defined that in God “everything is one where there is no distinction by relative opposition", to quote St. Thomas Aquinas: "Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute, namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity – but according to that which is relative."

Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote, against the Eunomian objection that consubstantiality renders any distinction between the persons impossible: “Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another.”

Everything in God is one and the same that has not to do with this sole distinction of relation in the divine nature, because there is only one divine nature and being. Consciousness, will, majesty, power - everything is one.

There's no "thingamajiggy" to pray to other than the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the one God.

The relations do not merely exist between the Persons. They are the Persons, for they are subsistent relations. Thus, St. Thomas says that “relation… enters into the notion of the person…” and cites Boethius’ affirmation that “every word that refers to the persons signifies relation".

So there is only the one God to pray to who exists eternally in this way. St. Thomas therefore says that “each divine Person is a subsistent, incommunicable, internal divine relation.” This means that when we say “Father,” we are naming a personal relation. So, too, when we say “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”

My goodness, you are well read - but extremely credulous?
Again you spent the better part of your argument formulating definitions, without offering any meaningful notion for us to praise God.
What does the following mean, as far as three eternal, co-equal and co-powerful somethings are concerned (rhetorical)? (paternity/generation, sonship/being generated, spiration/procession)
You say that it is the origins that differentiate one from the other - from where does eternality originate from? The son is eternally begotten, ...you tell me that the devil is not behind this patently deranged oxymoron?
Can you explain the meaning of eternally begotten, or what procession means in regards to origin, functionality or purpose - as though the other two are incapable of the same?

 

[firedragon]

I really don’t think you understand their creeds if this is your interpretation, dear sir. They are explicitly monotheistic. To attempt to distort the meaning in justifying any claim of polytheism is absurd, it makes no sense.

I think you didnt understand what was said. DNB did not quote a creed, but the logical deduction that will contradict the creed. I dont know if he meant it or not but the contradiction in terms of monotheism, tritheism and the Trinity as in the athanasian creed that is generally followed today are each contradicting each other and is logically impossible to coexist.

 

[firedragon]

The crucifixion, however, is independently verified through the few available historical sources (see Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus, and a brief reference in Mara bar Serapion’s letter).

Josephus does not mention the crucifixion of Jesus while it is well known that the miracle working Jesus in Josephus were forgeries. Annals does not say Jesus was crucified but that he was given the punishment severe, and Mara bar Serapion’s letter does not say Jesus, Christ, or that he was crucified.

It is probable that Jesus was crucified based on the Roman history.

 

[Sundance]

Josephus does not mention the crucifixion of Jesus while it is well known that the miracle working Jesus in Josephus were forgeries. Annals does not say Jesus was crucified but that he was given the punishment severe, and Mara bar Serapion’s letter does not say Jesus, Christ, or that he was crucified.

It is probable that Jesus was crucified based on the Roman history.

Actually, while there is a version which circulates among the Christian West containing interpolation, there is an unedited version of the passage translated from an Arabic translation.

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”

Please read the bolded.

 

[firedragon]

Below is the original passage in Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”

Please read the bolded.

Yep. This part of Josephus is a known textual interpolation as I told you.

 

[Sundance]

Yep. This part of Josephus is a known textual interpolation as I told you.

What I quoted is the original passage, not the interpolated version.