(June 17, 2011 at 8:35 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: It's not the "one God" that's polytheistic. It's the "three separate beings" part.

It is polytheistic if and only if each separate being is a god. Under orthodox Christian monotheism that is not the case, as confirmed in the scriptures, ancient creeds, liturgies, systematics, etc.

(June 17, 2011 at 9:06 am)Epimethean Wrote: Saying they are three but of one essence is like saying that a grandfather, father and son are actually one person. Utter rubbish.

Uh... no, not rubbish. When my child has a child of her own, I will be one person who is a grandfather, father, and son.

Which is simply sidestepping the issue semantically. Will you be the child's grandfather, father and the child of those two, all at once?

Hardly.

(June 17, 2011 at 3:17 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Why couldn't it be done the first time? (Because they had chariots of iron, that's the only answer given).

Chapter four proves that iron chariots were not any sort of problem. And apparently you truly did not read past chapter one, since the reason it did not happen the first time is explained in chapter two.

By the way, using Christian doctrine and scripture to assess whether Christianity is monotheistic is pretty closed reasoning. I could ask a psychopath whether he committed murder and he might say no, standing right over the body.

The police forensics team is likely to disagree. Bigger picture, wot-wot.

(June 17, 2011 at 9:54 am)Epimethean Wrote: Which is simply sidestepping the issue semantically. Will you be the child's grandfather, father and the child of those two, all at once? Hardly.

I would be one person who is a grandfather, father, and son at the same time, but not in the same respect. Correct. But this is not side-stepping because the same applies to God, who is Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time but not in the same respect.

(June 17, 2011 at 9:59 am)Epimethean Wrote: By the way, using Christian doctrine and scripture to assess whether Christianity is monotheistic is pretty closed reasoning.

Actually no, it is pretty good reasoning. If I want to know whether a belief system is monotheistic or not, I look at what that belief system teaches and what monotheism means.

(June 17, 2011 at 9:52 am)Ryft Wrote:

(June 17, 2011 at 9:06 am)Epimethean Wrote: Saying they are three but of one essence is like saying that a grandfather, father and son are actually one person. Utter rubbish.

Uh... no, not rubbish. When my child has a child of her own, I will be one person who is a grandfather, father, and son.

Ah, but those are merely three different labels for the same entity, you. The trinity is comprised of three separate entities, because when you go to heaven Jesus and God are separate, right? Your analogy falls short, but I understand the point you are trying to make. I would argue though, that since Jesus is worshiped as a separate entity, regardless if he is of the same essence as god, is polytheism.

(June 17, 2011 at 9:52 am)Ryft Wrote: It is polytheistic if and only if each separate being is a god. Under orthodox Christian monotheism that is not the case, as confirmed in the scriptures, ancient creeds, liturgies, systematics, etc.

But Jesus is a god as is Yahweh. Saying they are the same god yet somehow separate beings is just a nonsensical evasion. It is an attempt to be monotheistic and polytheistic at the same time.

The problem with citing scripture to justify this creed, aside from your apparent circular reasoning that the creeds confirm the creeds, is that scripture is actually not so clear on the issue. Read the Synoptic Gospels and nothing else in the NT and you would come to the conclusion that not only is Jesus not God but is clearly subordinate to God.

Lol just reading through some of the things said on that forum.
Here's a good one:

Idiot Wrote:It doesn't make sense according to human reason, but to God's common sense it does. A four dimensional cube doesn't make sense to me, let alone God's purpose in our creation, redemption, and sanctification. But through faith we can bypass explanations too subtle for our ape minds to grasp, and have a relationship with the Divine.

How much of a sheep do you want to be?

(June 17, 2011 at 9:56 am)Ryft Wrote:

(June 17, 2011 at 3:17 am)Stue Denim Wrote: Why couldn't it be done the first time? (Because they had chariots of iron, that's the only answer given).

Chapter four proves that iron chariots were not any sort of problem. And apparently you truly did not read past chapter one, since the reason it did not happen the first time is explained in chapter two.

judges 1:19
And the lord was with judah;

(Ok so he's with them at this point, hes fighting with/for them)

and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not (not would not, not refused to, could not) drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Please, its all much the same for a long while, god helps them, then sets enemies upon them, rescues them, sends enemies/allows them to be defeated, rescues them, sends enemies/allows them to be defeated... it's a recurring theme, his followers either do evil, or worship other gods, and this earns them x years of occupation. Arguing that he was displeased with them and so refused to help (in judges 2, which comes after judges 1) and sent an angel to say as much isn't a solid argument. The wording in judges 1 was that he/they could not, because the enemy had iron charriots. Its says nothing about refusal to help, it talks of inability. He was on their side the first time the iron chariots come up.

From KJV, if you're using a different version tell me and ill swap over.

Jesus talks to his "father" though, he talks to god. Is he just merely talking to himself?
Or is he in fact a bat-shit schizophrenic?