jriccitelli wrote:Are you saying that humans who lived prior to the development of the terms; heterosexual - monogamous or herbivore didn’t practice such things? It seems Adam and Eve lived as such without knowing there was a word for it.
Nope. I'm not saying it at all. You're examples make it clear that you've totally missed my point. I'm not arguing the semantics of the word “trinity”, nor am I saying that the nature of God's existence depends at all upon any theological framework that men use to describe it. In fact, I'm saying
exactly the opposite. It seems to me that it's the trinitarians who think they've got God all figured out. God exists, in whatever form, quite independent from how we try to describe him. He is what He is.
Your assumption that the early church held a trinitarian view prior to the development of the theology, assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes
a-priori that the trinitarian view is correct. But that's the very thing being debated. You can't use the
assumption that your view is correct as a defense that your view is correct.
Second, even if it is correct, that doesn't mean the early church thought in those terms.
As an example, we now have a view of physics that suggests that Newtonian physics does not go far enough in describing how the universe operates. As measurements of the physical world got more accurate, there were observed phenomena that Newtonian physics couldn't explain. In fact, some of the new evidence seemed contrary to it. So along comes Einstein, and gives us a theory that does a better job of coordinating the entirety of the observed data. His new theory explained everything that Newton's explained, and then some. It fit the data more completely.
The point here is that, prior to Einstein, physicists did not use his model in their thinking. Even though Einstein's view seems more correct, and even though the full reality existed prior to Einstein's better description of it, no one thought in those terms. Even so, they conducted their lives quite successfully.
Same with early Christians. Any later theories that describe the nature of God, even if they describe Him better, do not retroactively impose themselves on those Christians who predated the new theory. And that doesn't make those early Christians less Christian.
When you say:
jriccitelli wrote:The problem non-trins have is in trying to make God into the image of man...
you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't adopt your view is automatically has a particular view of God. That's just silly. Some “non-trins” may view God as a four-headed dragon. There are limitless views that “non-trins” may hold. Some of them may even exist in non-contradiction with the Biblical evidence.
I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating. I have nowhere said that the trinitarian description of God is false. What I've continually said is that it goes
further than the Bible does. Trinitarians, it seems to me, feel that their view is an obvious outgrowth that can be logically reached from the totality of the Biblical evidence available. They may be right! I've never denied that. I'm just saying that it is, indeed, and outgrowth, and a pretty convoluted one at that. There are simpler models that other people feel fit the Biblical evidence just as well.
jriccitelli wrote:As you related to the woman with MPD, we are trying to impose...
Man, you really need to get your facts straight. I've never given any example of any person with MPD. It would be better if you would attempt to understand my position before you try to refute it.
I find your reference to John 17 very interesting. To me, these verses have always weakened the case for the trinitarian. In the verses, and even the words that you specifically underlined, Jesus asks that we all may be one with each other in exactly the same way that he and the father are one. Do you think his prayer was answered? Does that make you and me a trinity?