Do people understand the trinity doctrine?

[Ingledsva]

You keep misrepresenting the trinity as positing three beings.


This is a misrepresentation and you know it. That's my point. It's not your rejection of the trinity that I accuse as being a lie, it's your strawman version of it which you set up to attack that we have told you multiple times is not what we assert. It explicitly rejects what you claim it to state, yet you keep presenting that as being an accurate representation of the doctrine. Of course your rendition of it is absurd, you've set it up to be. But how is that not being dishonest? You're smarter than that to honestly think that's what the trinity really says.

This is pure BULL!

You folks say it is one God - three beings. When we say THAT THREE BEINGS - ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL TOGETHER IN ONE-PLACE IN THREE SEPARATE FORMS, - is PAGAN - you have a fit.

Saying that ONE God can be separate entities for special jobs is one thing, - but all three of them together at the same time as separate beings is just Pagan. There also would be no logical reason for such!

I have pointed out the ridiculous in the idea that TWO GODS are together in Heaven - in your story, - that again would be PAGAN. There would be no reason for this ONE God to remain split IN HEAVEN!

We are not twisting or misrepresenting anything.

Your ideas do not hold up to scrutiny!

And again - there is no trinity in the Bible - any scholar worth his salt can tell you that. Several people have shown this already.

Nor is Jesus ever called God. Nor does he ever say he is God, or part of a trinity.

One would expect him to tell us that, - if it were the case. Obviously it is NOT the case.

*

*

 

[psychoslice]

When it comes to spiritual things, its not intellectual understanding that is needed, its a deeper spiritual discernment that is needed , so its nothing to do with understanding, its way beyond that.

 

[Ingledsva]

When it comes to spiritual things, its not intellectual understanding that is needed, its a deeper spiritual discernment that is needed , so its nothing to do with understanding, its way beyond that.

Whom are you replying to?

*

 

[psychoslice]

Whom are you replying to?

*

Whoever understand what I am saying, if you don't then its not for you.

 

[Ingledsva]

Whoever understand what I am saying, if you don't then its not for you.

You made a statement about spiritual understanding, - however, - they are using the Bible, - which does not say what they want us to believe.

*

 

[psychoslice]

You made a statement about spiritual understanding, - however, - they are using the Bible, - which does not say what they want us to believe.

*

Yes I see what you are saying, but that's not our problem, its theirs.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible does NOT say Jesus is God, or part of any trinity.

The bible heavily implies such.

The Jesus story is just a myth.

Yes, part of it is myth -- part is history. The mythic parts point to a greater truth.

 

[Desert Snake]

The bible heavily implies such.

Yes, part of it is myth -- part is history. The mythic parts point to a greater truth.

Well, it states it outright. If that is your definition of 'imply'. ''God'' was never used in the manner that some scholars are now claiming. Without a Caveat, it means the Creator Deity, whether you think that is Jesus, or some other entity.

 

[Ingledsva]

The bible heavily implies such.

Yes, part of it is myth -- part is history. The mythic parts point to a greater truth.

The Bible does NOT imply such, - later tradition does.

That later tradition is wrong.

The Bible nowhere says Jesus is God, or part of any trinity.

Jesus only claims to be the awaited Jewish Messiah - whom is a special HUMAN from the line of David.

*

 

[sojourner]

The Bible does NOT imply such, - later tradition does.

That later tradition is wrong.

The Bible nowhere says Jesus is God, or part of any trinity.

Jesus only claims to be the awaited Jewish Messiah - whom is a special HUMAN from the line of David.

*

Again: We don't know what Jesus claimed. We only know what later writers claimed about him. And those writers heavily Imply Jesus' Divinity. Whether you think it does or not.

 

[Ingledsva]

Again: We don't know what Jesus claimed. We only know what later writers claimed about him. And those writers heavily Imply Jesus' Divinity. Whether you think it does or not.

I have proven they did not think of him as Divine, - by posting all the texts!

He only claimed to be the awaited Messiah, - no God, - no trinity.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

I have proven they did not think of him as Divine, - by posting all the texts!

He only claimed to be the awaited Messiah, - no God, - no trinity.

*

I think you are placing your own beliefs, in the context of a religion. It doesn't work. Neither of us are Christians, but they have certain beliefs, that are completely traditional. We have found this, in various arguments, like the Israelite concept of a ;Hell', in another thread. Again, Christianity is a specific religion, trying to justify it with other religious idea, doesn't work.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think you are placing your own beliefs, in the context of a religion. It doesn't work. Neither of us are Christians, but they have certain beliefs, that are completely traditional. We have found this, in various arguments, like the Israelite concept of a ;Hell', in another thread. Again, Christianity is a specific religion, trying to justify it with other religious idea, doesn't work.

I am not placing my own beliefs.

They claim these things are in the Bible. I have proven they are not in the Bible.

*

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not placing my own beliefs.

They claim these things are in the Bible. I have proven they are not in the Bible.

*

Ahh....but they are. They are. My studies, which could go either way, indicate that they are.
Anyways, were just gonna have to disagree on this.

 

[Ingledsva]

I am not placing my own beliefs.

They claim these things are in the Bible. I have proven they are not in the Bible.

Ahh....but they are. They are. My studies, which could go either way, indicate that they are.
Anyways, were just gonna have to disagree on this.

Ahh...but they aren't.

My beliefs are that YHVH is not God, and the Bible is written by patriarchal men that wanted to do the evil crap it condones.

Obviously - that isn't what we are discussing.

We are debating what the Bible itself ACTUALLY says in the original languages, and how much is later add-ons.

SO - obviously not placing my own beliefs.

*

 

[kepha31]

The Jews wanted Him dead. You don't need a Bible to see why.

 

[sojourner]

I have proven they did not think of him as Divine, - by posting all the texts!

Have you considered the fact that Luke's birth narrative -- indeed, his entire history -- of Jesus is a shameless parallel of the story of Augustus, who was considered ... wait for it! ... divine? What about John 1? What about the fact that, to the ancient mind, resurrection was a sign of divinity? (All the gospels deal with Jesus' resurrection, as well as all of Paul's letters.)

 

[sojourner]

We are debating what the Bible itself ACTUALLY says in the original languages, and how much is later add-ons.

Do you read biblical Greek? Do you realize the exegetical gymnastics that have to be employed in order to get at "what the bible itself ACTUALLY says??"

 

[Redemptionsong]

God in everyone - does not make everyone God! Nor would it make Jesus so!

And how exactly am I saying God's word doesn't belong to him, - when neither God nor Jesus, say that Jesus is God in the Bible?

Ingledsva, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, but the spirit of God dwelt in him. Since Jesus did not sin, there was nothing to stand in the way of God's word being expressed perfectly. Through the words and actions of Jesus we see the light of God. When I look upon Jesus I see nothing of the flesh of man, only the glory of God.
When Jesus Christ is resurrected even his flesh is transformed. He becomes a spiritual being - able to sit at the right hand of the Father in heaven (a spiritual realm). Does this make the resurrected Christ one with the Father? Yes.

Do the scriptures say that the Word of God is indistinguishable from Jesus Christ? Yes. John 1:1 says exactly that. So too does 1 John 1-3. And Revelation 19:13.

 

[Ingledsva]

1. Have you considered the fact that Luke's birth narrative -- indeed, his entire history -- of Jesus is a shameless parallel of the story of Augustus, who was considered ... wait for it! ... divine? 2. What about John 1? 3. What about the fact that, to the ancient mind, resurrection was a sign of divinity? (All the gospels deal with Jesus' resurrection, as well as all of Paul's letters.)

1. That first sentence would be admitting that the birth narrative is COMPLETELY FALSE. Also Augustus was NOT considered a GOD!

2. We have already covered John 1, - which does not actually say Jesus is the Logos! It says he is the illumination= a Teacher. It says the Logos becomes enfleshed in him - NOT that he is the Logos. Read it in the Greek. He claims to be the awaited Jewish Messiah - NOT A GOD - or part of a trinity!

3. What would later misconceptions have to do with this? The Jews, and Jesus, as he was Jewish, - believed ALL - both good and bad - went to SHEOL to await the Messiah whom would bring about the end - and their Final JUDGMENT. Jesus is the first to rise from SHEOL - where if you read your Bible it says he goes after death - for three days! As the Messiah he is the first to rise, - to act as Messiah. It in NO WAY says he is a God, or part of any trinity, which obviously would be PAGAN, not Jewish! The corpses rising from graves and wondering around the city, is some later idiots idea of the story.

*