It only becomes ludicrous when you bring in ludicrous examples.
The notion that you have a theology that lacks a Biblicly sound name is what is ludicrous.
Monotheisim isn't a title you see groups rallying behind but is a very sound concept explicitly detailed in the Bible.
Note, the following replies will be ignored: Further snide commentary; anything that doesn't address this post, but seeks to go off on a tangent; and finally, more specifically, any post that posts verses that seem to show Jesus' Will contradicted the Father's will, and/or verses that show Jesus talking to the Father, or referring to Him as His "father". This is because of the "tangential" reason given, and also, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of "hypostatic union".
Why don't you just toss out any references to the scriptures that point out that God is spirt and Jesus is flesh or that God is invisible and Jesus was seen, or that God cannot be tempted but Jesus was tempted?
Or is that snide?
Seems that you want to write your own rules so that you can ignore what is inconvenient and quite frankly yours is one of the most dishonest and disnengenuous posts I have ever seen on this topic and I've been on many.
I have no idea what you mean by this sentence. Please rephrase if you so desire.
Monotheisim isn't a title you see groups rallying behind but is a very sound concept explicitly detailed in the Bible.
I can't help but notice you completely ignored the references to Scriptures I provided that show the CONCEPT of the Trinity just as "detailed" in Scripture as the CONCEPT of Monotheism. And again, picking a few rebuttals here and there won't cut it; I need EVERY verse in that list rebutted. It's a fair request.
Why don't you just toss out any references to the scriptures that point out that God is spirt and Jesus is flesh or that God is invisible and Jesus was seen, or that God cannot be tempted but Jesus was tempted?
Because again, such verses would be to only distract (go off on a tangent) AND, if given to refute the concept of the Trinity, would "show a complete lack of understanding of the concept of hypostatic union". I'm the one that provided a list of verses that at least appear to show Jesus' and the Holy Spirit's divinity and personhood; if there exist other verses that contradict these verses, and you post them, then all you have succeeded in doing is to show Scripture contradicts itself. Nice job.
Seems that you want to write your own rules so that you can ignore what is inconvenient and quite frankly yours is one of the most dishonest and disnengenuous posts I have ever seen on this topic and I've been on many.
Seems you don't want to do the actual work required to soundly refute the concept of the Trinity. I've "seen many" (debates) on the Trinity too, FRiend, on Paltalk specifically. And they always go into verses JUST as I described, that show an aspect of Jesus' HYPOSTATIC UNION, NOT a rebuttal of the concept of the Trinity, because guess what? The concept of the Trinity is intimately LINKED with the concept of the hypostatic union. Therefore, one cannot refute the Trinity without addressing the concept of the hypostatic union, because the hypostatic union EXPLAINS said verses where: it appears Jesus' will contradicts the Fathers; where Jesus is talking to the Father; where Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God".
Hopefully your task becomes clear now. If not, then I'm sorry you don't want to attack the TRUE concept of the Trinity, and only a sorry strawman version, but that's not my problem.