God is 1 vs God is 3

[InformedIgnorance]

Not at all I am very familiar with common (and some rather uncommon) conceptual constructions of 'the trinity'; it comes from being a rather devout catholic when I was a child and considering becoming a christian brother - I have spent some considerable time examining the idea, related, alternative and contradicting concepts and noting the plethora of different potential forms that the Trinity might take.

We were debating that a particular subset of forms that the trinity might be expressed as might have significant theological implications in particular it's relation to a record of revelation (OT). When you realised that your argument was actually merely reinforcing my position you suddenly announced you didnt really believe the position that you had been 'defending' anyway and that I was merely engaging in 'wild theological speculation' (by proposing a position that I didnt believe in - interesting that you doing the same was somehow not considered relevant) rather than actually addressing the argument that I used or the position I raised.

You are either unwilling to refute the argument (in which case there is no point your continuing to post in a debate) or unable (in which case you might consider asking others you believe better suited). Your capacity to debate seems almost about as great as my capacity to believe - neither one worth mentioning; I on the other hand am willing to assume for the sake of debate or discussion that certain assertions are true (such as that Jesus is god, that he has the benevolent personality attributed to him, that he was around at the time when the OT was recorded, that he had divine agency during the OT) PURELY for the sake of the debate or discussion and can construct an unbiased argument for that position (which I do not believe in) purely in order to understand it's validity and implications - it seems that you however cannot do the same for your own position - or for the position you chose of your own volition to attempt to 'defend' (the counter position - that a static trinity poses no implications for the OT and vice versa).

This is simply not on topic. I will no longer post here unless we do return to topic.

 

[sojourner]

Not at all I am very familiar with common (and some rather uncommon) conceptual constructions of 'the trinity'; it comes from being a rather devout catholic when I was a child and considering becoming a christian brother - I have spent some considerable time examining the idea, related, alternative and contradicting concepts and noting the plethora of different potential forms that the Trinity might take.

We were debating that a particular subset of forms that the trinity might be expressed as might have significant theological implications in particular it's relation to a record of revelation (OT). When you realised that your argument was actually merely reinforcing my position you suddenly announced you didnt really believe the position that you had been 'defending' anyway and that I was merely engaging in 'wild theological speculation' (by proposing a position that I didnt believe in - interesting that you doing the same was somehow not considered relevant) rather than actually addressing the argument that I used or the position I raised.

You are either unwilling to refute the argument (in which case there is no point your continuing to post in a debate) or unable (in which case you might consider asking others you believe better suited). Your capacity to debate seems almost about as great as my capacity to believe - neither one worth mentioning; I on the other hand am willing to assume for the sake of debate or discussion that certain assertions are true (such as that Jesus is god, that he has the benevolent personality attributed to him, that he was around at the time when the OT was recorded, that he had divine agency during the OT) PURELY for the sake of the debate or discussion and can construct an unbiased argument for that position (which I do not believe in) purely in order to understand it's validity and implications - it seems that you however cannot do the same for your own position - or for the position you chose of your own volition to attempt to 'defend' (the counter position - that a static trinity poses no implications for the OT and vice versa).

This is simply not on topic. I will no longer post here unless we do return to topic.

Here's the thing: When you speak of the "problems" created by a "static Trinity" reconciling with the OT, you are speculating from a position of both the OT record and the Trinity being empirical realities. They are not. The OT picture of God is nothing more or less than a construct -- a system of metaphorical pictures of God, created by a certain group of ancients. The NT picture of God (that is, through the guise of Jesus) is a different construct -- a system of metaphorical images of God, created by a completely different group of ancients, from a completely different world view. The two do not reconcile -- indeed, are not meant to reconcile. What you're apparently doing here is trying to mush the two together into some sort of contrived, continuous single story of God. Since that's simply not what the bible is, it makes no real sense to do that -- hence, any premise based upon such treatment is speculation.

Considering becoming a brother notwithstanding; a childhood upbringing in "the faith" can not compare to a professional, graduate education, in which both the nature of the texts and various theological constructs are explored in-depth.

If you want to discuss the texts from a realistic -- rather than a speculative -- position, and the Trinity from realistic -- rather than a speculative - position, I'll be happy to do that. Otherwise, perhaps your valuable time would be better spent debating something you know something about -- say, the merits of steel clothesline wire over the merits of nylon clothesline wire. Or, if you insist on discussing theology, perhaps you should employ someone who you think knows more about the subject.

Since the argument has gone off topic, I might venture to say that your last suggestion might actually be worth considering.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Most would consider "The two do not reconcile" a rather significant theological implication. (one that you have chosen to deal with by suggesting that they are not meant to match)

 

[sojourner]

Most would consider "The two do not reconcile" a rather significant theological implication. (one that you have chosen to deal with by suggesting that they are not meant to match)

Would they? few that I've worked with have thought so -- none of my lay people, nor none of my colleagues. In my experience, most understand the cultural implications presented by the two traditions. But then, none of them are conservative evangelicals, many of whom, in my experience, spend a whole lot of energy back-tracking and moving goal posts, trying to force the texts into a box.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That is one way of dealing with the implications; another way is to discount the OT (as you have done). There are many many ways to deal with the implications - but that just shows how significant the implications are.

 

[sojourner]

That is one way of dealing with the implications; another way is to discount the OT (as you have done). There are many many ways to deal with the implications - but that just shows how significant the implications are.

Hold on there, Cochise! I don't "discount" the OT. I simply take it for what it is -- not for what it is not.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It was considered absolute, the record of revelation; you have discounted it to little more than a literary account which doesn't 'really' apply to your concept of God that the two are not merely irreconcilable but not meant to be reconcilable; this is one way you have chosen to deal with the immense theological implication of a trinity in which jesus is present during the times of the OT, had awareness, his personality similar to that in the NT and divine agency.

 

[sojourner]

It was considered absolute, the record of revelation; you have discounted it to little more than a literary account which doesn't 'really' apply to your concept of God that the two are not merely irreconcilable but not meant to be reconcilable; this is one way you have chosen to deal with the immense theological implication of a trinity in which jesus is present during the times of the OT, had awareness, his personality similar to that in the NT and divine agency.

What it may (or may not) have been considered is irrelevant. It is what it is. To continue to read a compendium of ancient documents that obviously contain more than their share of metaphor and allegory as "one literal document" is to discount it to little more than a contemporary news story, which doesn't really speak to their concept of God. And to continue to try to mush two different collections from two different cultures into one coherent story is one way you have chosen to try to get under my skin [if your "claim" to be a "nonbeliever" is true, you are taking this narrow and scholastically irresponsible stance as a feeble attempt to "strengthen" your "position"].
There simply is no "immense theological implication" here, other than what you're making up out of whole cloth. Jesus was unknown to the ancients who wrote the OT -- therefore, Jesus is not "present" in the OT. Jesus wasn't born until about 400 years after the texts were edited and compiled in their more-or-less present form. Christians believe Jesus was there in the beginning with God. Therefore, sacred history has been "rewritten" (as in John 1) to differ from the Judaic story, in which Jesus is not present. Our story overlays their story. WE use their story as a "beginning point" for us, and upon which we have "back-built" our history.

But you simply want to dismiss all that as somehow "irresponsible." Fine. If you don't wanna believe and share in our story, nobody's twisting your arm. But you don't get to stand on the outside, claim "objective superiority" and call us "irresponsible" when you're doing a lot of irresponsible twisting, yourself.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Discounting it from what it 'was', to what it 'is' was your mechanism by which to deal with the theological implications of a trinity with jesus present during the OT, there are other ways but that was the way you have chosen.

There is no point discussing this further, we are covering the same grounds; you claim that there is no theological implications in your CURRENT position (ignoring the fact that your current theological position has already sought to address those implications by discounting the OT); I claim that demonstrates that there were originally theological implications (of the static trinity and the OT) which you have already sought to address by way of discounting one of the conflicting components (the OT) and round and round we go.

Out.

 

[Shermana]

Just for the record, the NT does NOT have a Trinitarian view by any stretch necessarily. It is only a particular interpretation that has happened to be the mainstream one since the 200s or so, based on a series of distorted grammar, Theological coloring, interpolations, and ignorance of earlier Jewish concepts like Philo's explanation of the "Logos" of which this view is built upon. When read free of Trinitarian leanings and in proper use of grammar such as with issues of indefinites and not cherry picking verses and ignoring the relevance of others that show a different picture or explain certain "proof texts", the NT theology presents a view of Deity that does not actually contradict the OT in any way shape or form. It is only Trintiarian (of which most common views are Modalist leaning as many Trinitarian commentators have argued ) interpretation and its Modalist cousin which causes the rift. When read from the proper Arian perspective, there is no discrepancy, especially in light of Philo's Logos.

 

[sojourner]

Discounting it from what it 'was', to what it 'is' was your mechanism by which to deal with the theological implications of a trinity with jesus present during the OT, there are other ways but that was the way you have chosen.

There is no point discussing this further, we are covering the same grounds; you claim that there is no theological implications in your CURRENT position (ignoring the fact that your current theological position has already sought to address those implications by discounting the OT); I claim that demonstrates that there were originally theological implications (of the static trinity and the OT) which you have already sought to address by way of discounting one of the conflicting components (the OT) and round and round we go.

Out.

I'm not discounting it from what it "was." It is what it has always been (that is, until the biblical literalists got hold of it).
My position discounts nothing -- and your saying so don't make it so.
Your claim is ultimately a straw man since nothing has been discounted. The only thing that is a theological implication is whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. Since the Trinity is not static, your position is speculative at best.

And round and round we go.

'Bye.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Just for the record, the NT does NOT have a Trinitarian view by any stretch necessarily. It is only a particular interpretation that has happened to be the mainstream one since the 200s or so, based on a series of distorted grammar, Theological coloring, interpolations, and ignorance of earlier Jewish concepts like Philo's explanation of the "Logos" of which this view is built upon. When read free of Trinitarian leanings and in proper use of grammar such as with issues of indefinites and not cherry picking verses and ignoring the relevance of others that show a different picture or explain certain "proof texts", the NT theology presents a view of Deity that does not actually contradict the OT in any way shape or form. It is only Trintiarian (of which most common views are Modalist leaning as many Trinitarian commentators have argued ) interpretation and its Modalist cousin which causes the rift. When read from the proper Arian perspective, there is no discrepancy, especially in light of Philo's Logos.

Absolutely. Given a nontrinitarian approach the potential issues I was discussing may not arise to nearly the same extent, though it is possible others arise depending on which form of nontrinitarianism is discussed

 

[Sha'irullah]

its refreshing to see a muslim looking into the bible to see what it says.




There have always been christian groups throughout the ages who have rejected the churches trinity teaching for that reason. Scripture should form the basis of their teachings, but they have preferred to base their teachings on writings outside the bible which is why they have many non biblical teachings and practices.

In my Salafi Muslim days I would have to say that it is quite common for a Muslim to read the Bible. Muslims are by far more religious than Christians and often use the Bible to attack them. Christian read the Quran but the issue is they have very little understanding of it and they don't understand canonical Arabic. While Christians often don't know the canonical language of their own scriptures. Down to the Hebrew canon of the first 5 books of the Torah to the latter.
Muslims are not as close minded as the media makes them appear. To be honest they are quite the opposite.

 

[Sha'irullah]

One of the primary issues here is the fact that Christians unlike every other religion don't have their canonical scriptures in their native and original tongue. The Bible today is the interpretation of an interpretation and was forged in the days of Pagan influence. The Muslims have done an outstanding job preserving their texts along with the Jews. But Christians have let their Bible become very convoluted by church doctrine and the lack of interpretation of the Bible from its original sources primarily the Tawrat and Miqra. For example the Catholic Church which is often regarded as the First Church which is indeed true in regards to the first heavily organized one. Catholicism is openly pagan and one of the very first to spread the Bible, translate it and preach it amongst Europeans. One cannot possibley hold much faith in the Bible knowing a lot of it was produced and interpretated from the Cahtolich Church which is an organizationt hat is often regarded as separate from Christianity. My own mother and sister acknowledge that the Bible is corrupt yet cling to it still.
Without study of the original founding scriptures and original languag eof the Bible it is useless to debate it even.

 

[sojourner]

Absolutely. Given a nontrinitarian approach the potential issues I was discussing may not arise to nearly the same extent, though it is possible others arise depending on which form of nontrinitarianism is discussed

There's still the problem of Jesus not being the Messiah as promised by the OT, though. In fact, that theological difference presents a much larger problem if the paradigm hadn't been wholly shifted between OT and NT by the recognition of Trinity. In the non-Trinitarian scenario, it becomes merely an "Oops! We must have made a mistake!" In the Trinitarian scenario, it becomes possible to see God in simply an expanded, rather than a different perspective. I think the "potential issues" become greater in a non-Trinitarian approach.

 

[sojourner]

One of the primary issues here is the fact that Christians unlike every other religion don't have their canonical scriptures in their native and original tongue. The Bible today is the interpretation of an interpretation and was forged in the days of Pagan influence. The Muslims have done an outstanding job preserving their texts along with the Jews. But Christians have let their Bible become very convoluted by church doctrine and the lack of interpretation of the Bible from its original sources primarily the Tawrat and Miqra. For example the Catholic Church which is often regarded as the First Church which is indeed true in regards to the first heavily organized one. Catholicism is openly pagan and one of the very first to spread the Bible, translate it and preach it amongst Europeans. One cannot possibley hold much faith in the Bible knowing a lot of it was produced and interpretated from the Cahtolich Church which is an organizationt hat is often regarded as separate from Christianity. My own mother and sister acknowledge that the Bible is corrupt yet cling to it still.
Without study of the original founding scriptures and original languag eof the Bible it is useless to debate it even.

One of the primary issues here is the insistence from most outside sources that Christianity be "based on the bible," as in a sola scriptura stance. Christianity has never been "based on the bible," because, for the first 450 years, the bible didn't exist, and sola scriptura didn't enter the picture for the first 1500 years of the church's existence. We have always been based in relationship, not in scripture.

I wonder what "days of Pagan influence" you might be talking about. The OT certainly comes to us before the "Pagan influence." Paul's letters were written mostly less than 70 years following the Jesus Event. The gospels were written prior to 120 -- less than 100 years following the Jesus Event -- and the sources from which they're taken are decidedly earlier than that.

I simply don't find evidence that there has been any significant amount of "doctrinal tampering," outside of the fact that each of the gospel writers had his own theological agenda, and Paul's letters (which were letters -- not sacred script) were his own theological treatments. Your reference to the Tawrat as the "original source" is laughable, since the best biblical interpretations are very close to the Jewish editions, and since "Tawrat" is a Muslim concept, that comes to us from a much later period than the sources from which biblical interpretation is carried out.

Your church history is weak. There was no distinct "Catholic Church" until 1054 -- well after Europe had already been evangelized.

But thanks for your "interpretation" of why Christianity is so "convoluted." It has been mildly entertaining.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Actually there are many many messiahs in the OT, none of whom are suggested to be divine in and of themselves, so just to say that jesus was not god (which btw is not the only nontrinitarian position) does not imply he was not the promised messiah - especially since there is nothing in the OT to suggest that the promised messiah (there is some degree of emphasis on the term 'the' here) would be divine; so while I agree there might still be significant theological implications (as I mentioned above) the nontrinitarian approach seldom has as significant theological implications as the trinitarian approaches, given what is often a more limited assertion of jesus' divine agency throughout history.

 

[sojourner]

Actually there are many many messiahs in the OT, none of whom are suggested to be divine in and of themselves, so just to say that jesus was not god (which btw is not the only nontrinitarian position) does not imply he was not the promised messiah - especially since there is nothing in the OT to suggest that the promised messiah (there is some degree of emphasis on the term 'the' here) would be divine.

You have no idea what I'm getting at, do you?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I did actually (perhaps my edit went unnoticed, if so I apologise, I have a poor habit of editing my post and managing to catch people unawares when I do so) and acknowledge that it is a significant implication. The nontrinitarian approaches generally have significant implications for the new testament and the conception of jesus' role within it (generally it's implication is less divergence from the prior OT record of revelation as a result of a diminished conceptual role of jesus in comparison to the trinitarian approach); while those of the trinitiarian approach generally have more significant implications on the old testament and the conception of jesus's role within the past (generally it's implication is the discounting of the old testament to incorporate the construction of a new understanding of the concept of god in comparison to the nontrinitarian approach).

I would suggest that from the historical perspective, the construction of a new understanding of the concept of god within the trinitarian approach is a more significant theological implication than that of the divergence produced from the OT by the diminished conceptual role of jesus within the nontrinitarian approach - to be fair that is from a historical perspective (not from the view of someone who already holds a trinitarian position) based on the fact that prior to the adoption of the altered concept of god (i.e. before jesus), they were all nontrinitarians and thus of course, having a reduced role of jesus would have meant less significant theological implications.

EDIT: I should stress here btw that this historical perspective I am talking about is separate to the theological implications I was mentioning earlier with regard to the implications of a trinity on the OT; here i have placed emphasis on the concept of divergence from the prior teachings of the abrahamic god adopted by early christians (which i as not mentioning in the earlier sections) - this is merely for the sake of comparing the nontrinitarian and trinitarian here in terms of the varying magnitude of implications (the earlier discussion of implications can stand by itself without need to discuss the concept of divergence for it's historical adoption, though incongruence with prior recorded revelation persists).

 

[Aamer]

You have no idea what I'm getting at, do you?

I don't think anyone does. I'm not sure that you do. You continuously speak in circles without ever making a solid point. I'm not trying to be rude but after all these posts, I still have no idea what you base your beliefs on. Blind faith?