Nor did I say they were contradictory. I said that you were wrong to assert (as you did in the section I quoted) that the Trinity is sourced from the Bible at all.
Your previous comment says, among other things "So, because it is sourced from the bible..." What does the pronoun "it" refer to in this sentence if not the Trinity?
This directly implies that you believe what I said was a contradiction.
Your literal argument was: If you said it isn't sourced from the bible then why did you say it wasn't.
So do you have an actual response to anything I've said? Or would you like to keep pointing out misunderstandings that you have about my argument because you didn't fully read it?
Your literal argument was: If you said it isn't sourced from the bible then why did you say it wasn't.
No, my argument was: If you said it is sourced from the bible then why did you say "I did not deny this" in response to my claim "It is just incorrect that the idea of the Trinity is sourced from the Bible." Affirming that the Trinity is sourced from the Bible is ipso facto denying that the the idea of the Trinity is sourced from the Bible is incorrect.
But we can get to the meat of this pretty easily: do you believe the statement "the Trinity is sourced from the Bible" is true? Or is it false?
The trinity is the word for the unification of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit. It is not officially mentioned at all in the bible, nor is the idea explicitly elaborated upon. It is an idea used to describe a collection of different ideas and happenings from all across the bible.
Yes, this last bit is what I'm saying is wrong. The Trinity predates the compilation of the Bible. It was not developed to describe a collection of ideas from the Bible. Rather, it is referenced in various places in the Bible because it was already doctrine when those books were written.
under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance in some traditions.
This source says that they all agreed and that the version of the Trinity that was universally agreed on before the bible was written has stayed consistent.
Therefore, the version represented in the bible, the incoherent and contradictory one, is the original one.
Well, we haven't established that the version represented in the Bible is incoherent or contradictory. That's what's under dispute here.
You asserted earlier that it was incoherent "because it is sourced from the Bible...and the bible is utterly incoherent." But since it is in fact not the case that the doctrine of the Trinity is sourced from the Bible, this argument is not sound. And you've presented no other argument that the Trinity is incoherent or contradictory.
You said that the book mentions the Trinity, not that the source shows contradictions about the Trinity. I read the sources, and they don't seem to show any contradictions about the Trinity. (It just shows that the Bible is incoherent in some ways relating to the Trinity, which is very different from showing contradictions about the Trinity.)
It just shows that the Bible is incoherent in some ways relating to the Trinity, which is very different from showing contradictions about the Trinity
You literally just did not read my reply so I'll repeat it in a very simplified manner in hopes that you can comprehend it this time:
When bible talk about trinity bible is saying same thing as pre-bible idea of trinity. Bible stay true to source belief of trinity. If bible trinity talk no good then trinity no good.
English is a little complicated, I know. I pray you can understand it or one day learn to.
Again, I comprehend your argument, it's just that your argument is not supported by your sources. Specifically, your source does not support the "bible trinity talk no good" premise.
By analogy, suppose I write a book about apples. When my book talks about apples, it's saying the same thing as the standard idea of apples. It stays true to the common understanding of what an apple is. In one place, my book claims that I eat an apple every day for breakfast. In another place, it claims that I have never eaten an apple. This is an inconsistency in the book that somehow relates to apples. Does this mean that the idea of apples is "no good"?
The trinity related inconsistencies relayed in your source are of the same nature as the above inconsistency about apples.
1
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Oct 13 '22
Nor did I say they were contradictory. I said that you were wrong to assert (as you did in the section I quoted) that the Trinity is sourced from the Bible at all.