The Trinity

[sojourner]

You can totally ignore the links I posted about how what he did was not in actual violation of what Torah teaches as opposed to Pharisee interpretation.

Well, they're pretty useless...

No, you simply are refusing to read what I said about how it was the Pharisees who had made their own traditions and distorted the law from its original practice.

Once again, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide us with those original laws and their interpretations?

Oh okay, so now you don't accept any links that are "Extreme in their views".

Nope. I don't. That kind of conservatism I have no use for.

The better analogy would be that people choose to not fit the hole. I really don't see how they've changed that much. Gentile beliefs are gentile beliefs. We may have computers and cars, but I think the people of the 1st century weren't exactly too different.

This is where you're going horribly wrong, IMO. It's simply unrealistic to expect very diverse people to begin to think and act like 1st century Palestinians. This concept is borne out by failed RC attempts to "convert" native people. Only when the native people are allowed to adapt Xtian concepts to their own cultural expression is the conversion successful. It happened to the celts, to the American natives, to African natives, etc.

I don't care if my belief "remains relevant" so long as its the original truth of the teachings.

Then your belief will not be a living belief.

Please feel free to explain how we are so different today and how that differences makes a difference in how to interpret such documents. Paul clearly said that if anyone preaches a gospel different than his, let them be damned. He didn't say "Let my views be changed as the times go on". Please feel free to explain specifically, other than technological application.

One real good (and timely) example is homosexuality. You would trot out 1 Cor. 6:9 to say that Paul was against homosexuality. It's true. Paul made that statement. Paul was against it.

Or was he?

You see, 1st century Palestinians had no concept of sexual orientation. Had Paul understood the human psyche and human sexuality as we do, his take would likely have been completely different.

That's one example of how different we are.

Are you saying that you don't have to actually obey what Jesus taught since he is "The way"?

Jesus taught love. If I love, then I am following what Jesus taught.

He said "I have come to fulfill the Law". And specifically said "I have not come to abolish the Law". In the same use of the word "Fulfill", Paul said that believers are to "fulfill the Law of Christ". Thus, Jesus was simply saying that he has come to make the Law more full. After all, "fulfill" actually means "to fill up" in Greek.

Right. Jesus embodies the law. So do we, when we follow Jesus.

I just disagree and say that the cultures are supposed to adapt to the original teaching, not the original teaching adapting to the culture.

Recipe for disaster. It's been proven over and over again.

Wait, you are saying that the Bible itself becomes obsolete?

In terms of trying to interpret it in terms of obsolete culture yes.

I'd bet all my wealth that even Paul would disagree.

Feel free. Lots of people buy lottery tickets and lose, too...

What Paul taught was to be a very good person and that if you're a fornicator for example, you're not going to heaven. Quite plainly.

And yet, Paul also taught that we are saved by the faith of Christ...
Quite plainly.

What is "diversity" exactly? Even the Early Church Fathers weren't too fond of diversity. What you're saying is "Had they embraced the concepts that they were bitterly opposed to".

Let's look at this from a genetics standpoint, because it illustrates my point: People want to separate themselves by genetics -- royals marrying royals and all that. But what happens when the blood gets too blue? The children start popping out with bad eyes, one arm and half a brain. Diversity in the body of Christ is, likewise, a good thing.

I do in fact subscribe to divisiveness. So did Jesus.

It's obvious that you do. But not so with Jesus. What about the injunction in Matthew 28?

Well I say let it return to its original roots.

In the same way that humanity should return to its cro-magnon roots...

Divisiveness was the very nature of the Christian movement. To bring people away from what they considered false teachings.

You desperately need to reread Matthew.

 

[sojourner]

it is when they are no longer good people and are no longer pleasing to G-d.

Pounding people into molds that don't fit has historically not been either good or pleasing...

I am in no way opposed to suppressing new flavors, Jesus and Paul were very opposed to all the new flavors

Sooo... You're in favor of new flavors and Jesus wasn't?
Sounds to me like you're admitting that you don't follow Jesus' teachings, after all...

But I'm willing to back what I bray. Debate is a battlefield, and I'm willing to back everything I say.

Debate doesn't have to be that way.
And it certainly doesn't have to be black-and-white in the extreme.

Regardless how I feel about Paul, it seems you don't even understand what Paul even said. So I ask again, whether it was Jesus or Paul who said so, please get the quote you are referring to. It is referring to the functions of the body itself. It is referring to not casting someone out who is not useful in which something else is useful. You want to tell the class your opinion on what Jesus meant by the whole hand chopping thing?

1 Cor. 12:21

 

[garrydons]

1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

I suppose you are referring to God as Trinity. For me since I believe God as all powerful, He can be even not just Trinity. He can manifest even more than three . in other words, it is not an issue for me.

 

[Shermana]

Well, they're pretty useless...

Okay, so you think you can just write off a link as "useless" without offering a counter link or explaining why, let the reader note.

Once again, perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide us with those original laws and their interpretations?

The Torah. The Torah that Jesus of the Gospels kept talking about. Whether it's the same as the Masoretic and Septuagint, that's an issue for debate, but it seems that it was the same as of yet. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the actual point of contention, that Jesus was opposing the Pharisees' interpretations of the Law. Have you even read the Gospels? If you don't think Jesus was challenging the Pharisee's view of the Law, you give yourself away that you haven't even read them.

Nope. I don't. That kind of conservatism I have no use for.

So your whole contention is against "Conservatism", it's very common to see "liberal Christians" act like this when challenged with Conservative views. If you're not willing to even address the concerns of "Conservatives", then you basically forfeit the debate. Pack up your toys and go home if you don't want to bother actually addressing the other side of the argument. Do you think the only links we can discuss are those of liberals? Apparently so.

This is where you're going horribly wrong, IMO. It's simply unrealistic to expect very diverse people to begin to think and act like 1st century Palestinians.

Again, I don't exactly understand why the Scripture is supposed to conform to the culture. Are we to ignore everything it specifically says about behavior and culture and context because the modern culture is so entrenched in the behaviors which it speaks against? Is that what you think?

This concept is borne out by failed RC attempts to "convert" native people.

I really fail to see why it's about the Roman Catholic church trying to convert "native people" in modern times, this is about whether the culture and the context of the Scripture is subject to revisionism. This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the scripture is meant to be read as it was intended to be read and not subject to revisionism.

Only when the native people are allowed to adapt Xtian concepts to their own cultural expression is the conversion successful.

I guess you have your own definition of a "Successful conversion". Do you think Santeria fits with Christian concepts?

It happened to the celts, to the American natives, to African natives, etc.

Perhaps the conversion mostly owes its "success" to the muskets and axes wielded by the RC than the individual methods of belief. And the RC was not very happy about the individual deviations from what I understand.

Then your belief will not be a living belief.

So unless I subject my belief to revisionism it's "dead". Nice. I'll keep my "dead belief" just fine, though I hardly see it as "dead". You can have your "Living belief", but it's just a walking mutant in my view. For someone who complains about dismissing views, you sure like to dish it out. As I said, hypocrisy is a hallmark of "Christians" and here we have a prime example.

One real good (and timely) example is homosexuality. You would trot out 1 Cor. 6:9 to say that Paul was against homosexuality. It's true. Paul made that statement. Paul was against it.

So because more people are accepting to gaydom today, therefore you feel you must blot out what Paul and the OT teach about the subject. Your revisionism is as plain as day. If you consider it "living belief" to disagree with the text because of a cultural position, then that's all you. This is a very common liberal Christian perspective. And it's also very common for Liberal Christians to be downright dismissive of Conservative beliefs on the subject, here we have an example of you calling a view where Paul (and I don't even necessarily agree with Paul) says they won't get into heaven "dead", and that now we have to change what Paul said. So Paul should have said "fornicators and male-bedders will not enter the kingdom...until the 2000s, then it's okay".

Or was he?

He pretty clearly said "man-bedders". If you want to redefine what "man-bedders" means, that's your view.

You see, 1st century Palestinians had no concept of sexual orientation.

Right. But they had a view of what "man-bedder" meant.

Had Paul understood the human psyche and human sexuality as we do, his take would likely have been completely different.

Having studied psychology in school, I truly don't think there's any different understanding of the human psyche of "homosexuals" today than there was in the day of the Athenian Greeks (and Spartans for that matter). Such men want to have relations with other men, it's pretty simple. Do you not think the Law itself including Lev 18:22 and 20:13 was of Divine origin?

That's one example of how different we are.

Yes, you think that you can cherry pick from whatever scripture you find valid to begin with just because of some vague notions of what you think about modernistic culture. And you consider the idea of holding on to a view as absolute as "dead".

Jesus taught love. If I love, then I am following what Jesus taught.

And I ask you yet again, perhaps for the 10th time, what exactly is such love? You said you don't give a rat's (behind) about 1 John 5:3, so your definition is most likely not what the biblical writers said. And judging by your replies, I don't feel the love. So do you want to finally define what you consider love to be or do you want to just concede that you have no answer?

Right. Jesus embodies the law. So do we, when we follow Jesus.

And "following Jesus" means to follow the Law. You don't just automatically follow the Law by claiming to follow Jesus, that's not what the text says. Jesus gave a great deal of teachings. The point was to fill in the odds and ends and counter misinterpretations of the Torah and to argue against Pharisee interpretations. Do you think Gnostic Christians and Mormons embody the Law? Do you think it doesn't matter what your belief is on the subject?

Recipe for disaster. It's been proven over and over again.

Why don't you show where it's been proven, and don't use the RC as an example, because I'm not saying that they represent the original teaching. YOUR belief is the recipe for disaster, and may have something to do with why Western "Christianity" is on a big free fall (though to be fair, the conservatives are equally guilty). I have no problem with "Christianity" being on a free fall.

In terms of trying to interpret it in terms of obsolete culture yes.

Okay, so you're saying that the Bible itself is obselete. Thank you. Thank you very much for continuing to prove my points, you have no idea how much you're helping. An "obselete culture". I see. And do you consider Orthodox Judaism to be an obselete culture?

Feel free. Lots of people buy lottery tickets and lose, too...

Okay, so are you going to make the bet? Say amen. Whoever is closer to being right, may providential Fate cause them to win the net worth of the other, whoever is closer to being wrong loses all they have. Say amen and let it be on.

And yet, Paul also taught that we are saved by the faith of Christ...
Quite plainly.

Apparently we have different understandings of what even Paul (regardless if I agree with his overall views) meant by the faith of Christ. I asked you before I believe, what do you think Paul meant by "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling"? So you're basically saying that Paul contradicted himself. Nice. I'll just say I disagree, and that he clearly said that those who commit certain behaviors aren't on the train to heaven.

Let's look at this from a genetics standpoint, because it illustrates my point: People want to separate themselves by genetics -- royals marrying royals and all that. But what happens when the blood gets too blue? The children start popping out with bad eyes, one arm and half a brain. Diversity in the body of Christ is, likewise, a good thing.

Terrible example. This has nothing to do with genetics and inbreeding. Would you say the same thing about the Israelites and their commandments to stay away from all things gentile? If not, then the same applies to the church. Why it would be any different I have no idea.

It's obvious that you do. But not so with Jesus. What about the injunction in Matthew 28?

Excuse me? Did you completely ignore when I brought up the whole "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" thing? Which injunction in Matthew 28 are you talking about, in which he was talking directly to his Torah-obedient Disciples? The great commission is for his disciples to baptize in his name (and 28:19 contains an interpolation as I'm sure you're aware of), but feel free to explain to the class which injunction you're referring to that states Jesus was not about being divisive, and how it counters all the times he was in fact divisive.

In the same way that humanity should return to its cro-magnon roots...

That comparison doesn't work whatsoever. A better example would be like how the American government should return to its constitutional roots. And that's not even doing the concept justice. Do you believe there should be no limits to cultural change whatsoever? Out of curiosity, do you think it's not a problem for Christians to commit beastiality? I mean, it goes on a lot in the South and in Africa in Christian areas, so this would fit with your logic that it should be considered fine in Christian doctrine. Let's see you defend that one. Hey, gotta change with the times right

 

[Shermana]

]Pounding people into molds that don't fit has historically not been either good or pleasing...

That has absolutely nothing to do with the context of the salt of the Earth thing, which is about how pleasing the individual is to G-d.

Sooo... You're in favor of new flavors and Jesus wasn't?

How did you possibly get that from what I said? I am in favor of the OLD flavor, the one that you just 2 posts ago called "leftovers".

Sounds to me like you're admitting that you don't follow Jesus' teachings, after all...

Sounds to me like you have no idea what you're talking about and you haven't actually read what Jesus said to begin with. Jesus was not teaching new flavors, that's the point I'm making. He was a reactionary. He was saying that the PHARISEES were the ones with the new flavors. You really have no idea.

Debate doesn't have to be that way.

What is debate supposed to be? Conceding to your point of view? Explain.

And it certainly doesn't have to be black-and-white in the extreme.

Your own view is black-and-white in the extreme in its own way. Are you saying that people with black and white "extreme" views shouldn't debate?

1 Cor. 12:21

Wow, you are doing a fine job letting the reader know your interpretive skills. Do you have any idea what the context of that verse was? I explained it to you. It's about the members of the church (of whom Paul told them that if anyone taught them a different gospel let them be damned) being useful as different parts. Like in referring to the spiritual gifts, some were prophets, some were given gift of tongues, you have quite plainly revealed that context means very little or that you have no clue what you're actually reading. Have you even read 1 Cor 12:1-20? If you have, I'd say it's been a very long time.

1Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,a and to still another the interpretation of tongues.b 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

And the verses afterward explain the context as well. In addition to your utterly left-field understanding of the salt of the earth thing, it appears you have no idea how to interpret what is said whatsoever in any way that remains remotely in context to the subject and chapter.

Now I will ask yet again, for perhaps the 4th or 5th time, what do you think Jesus meant about chopping off your hand and foot if it causes you to enter the fire? We're talking about Mark 9.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, so you think you can just write off a link as "useless" without offering a counter link or explaining why, let the reader note.
The Torah. The Torah that Jesus of the Gospels kept talking about. Whether it's the same as the Masoretic and Septuagint, that's an issue for debate, but it seems that it was the same as of yet. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the actual point of contention, that Jesus was opposing the Pharisees' interpretations of the Law. Have you even read the Gospels? If you don't think Jesus was challenging the Pharisee's view of the Law, you give yourself away that you haven't even read them.
So your whole contention is against "Conservatism", it's very common to see "liberal Christians" act like this when challenged with Conservative views. If you're not willing to even address the concerns of "Conservatives", then you basically forfeit the debate. Pack up your toys and go home if you don't want to bother actually addressing the other side of the argument. Do you think the only links we can discuss are those of liberals? Apparently so.

Again, I don't exactly understand why the Scripture is supposed to conform to the culture. Are we to ignore everything it specifically says about behavior and culture and context because the modern culture is so entrenched in the behaviors which it speaks against? Is that what you think?
I really fail to see why it's about the Roman Catholic church trying to convert "native people" in modern times, this is about whether the culture and the context of the Scripture is subject to revisionism. This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the scripture is meant to be read as it was intended to be read and not subject to revisionism.

I guess you have your own definition of a "Successful conversion". Do you think Santeria fits with Christian concepts?

Perhaps the conversion mostly owes its "success" to the muskets and axes wielded by the RC than the individual methods of belief. And the RC was not very happy about the individual deviations from what I understand.

So unless I subject my belief to revisionism it's "dead". Nice. I'll keep my "dead belief" just fine, though I hardly see it as "dead". You can have your "Living belief", but it's just a walking mutant in my view. For someone who complains about dismissing views, you sure like to dish it out. As I said, hypocrisy is a hallmark of "Christians" and here we have a prime example.

So because more people are accepting to gaydom today, therefore you feel you must blot out what Paul and the OT teach about the subject. Your revisionism is as plain as day. If you consider it "living belief" to disagree with the text because of a cultural position, then that's all you. This is a very common liberal Christian perspective. And it's also very common for Liberal Christians to be downright dismissive of Conservative beliefs on the subject, here we have an example of you calling a view where Paul (and I don't even necessarily agree with Paul) says they won't get into heaven "dead", and that now we have to change what Paul said. So Paul should have said "fornicators and male-bedders will not enter the kingdom...until the 2000s, then it's okay".



He pretty clearly said "man-bedders". If you want to redefine what "man-bedders" means, that's your view.

Right. But they had a view of what "man-bedder" meant.

Having studied psychology in school, I truly don't think there's any different understanding of the human psyche of "homosexuals" today than there was in the day of the Athenian Greeks (and Spartans for that matter). Such men want to have relations with other men, it's pretty simple. Do you not think the Law itself including Lev 18:22 and 20:13 was of Divine origin?

Yes, you think that you can cherry pick from whatever scripture you find valid to begin with just because of some vague notions of what you think about modernistic culture. And you consider the idea of holding on to a view as absolute as "dead".
And I ask you yet again, perhaps for the 10th time, what exactly is such love? You said you don't give a rat's (behind) about 1 John 5:3, so your definition is most likely not what the biblical writers said. And judging by your replies, I don't feel the love. So do you want to finally define what you consider love to be or do you want to just concede that you have no answer?

And "following Jesus" means to follow the Law. You don't just automatically follow the Law by claiming to follow Jesus, that's not what the text says. Jesus gave a great deal of teachings. The point was to fill in the odds and ends and counter misinterpretations of the Torah and to argue against Pharisee interpretations. Do you think Gnostic Christians and Mormons embody the Law? Do you think it doesn't matter what your belief is on the subject?

Why don't you show where it's been proven, and don't use the RC as an example, because I'm not saying that they represent the original teaching. YOUR belief is the recipe for disaster, and may have something to do with why Western "Christianity" is on a big free fall (though to be fair, the conservatives are equally guilty). I have no problem with "Christianity" being on a free fall.

Okay, so you're saying that the Bible itself is obselete. Thank you. Thank you very much for continuing to prove my points, you have no idea how much you're helping. An "obselete culture". I see. And do you consider Orthodox Judaism to be an obselete culture?
Okay, so are you going to make the bet? Say amen. Whoever is closer to being right, may providential Fate cause them to win the net worth of the other, whoever is closer to being wrong loses all they have. Say amen and let it be on.
Apparently we have different understandings of what even Paul (regardless if I agree with his overall views) meant by the faith of Christ. I asked you before I believe, what do you think Paul meant by "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling"? So you're basically saying that Paul contradicted himself. Nice. I'll just say I disagree, and that he clearly said that those who commit certain behaviors aren't on the train to heaven.

Terrible example. This has nothing to do with genetics and inbreeding. Would you say the same thing about the Israelites and their commandments to stay away from all things gentile? If not, then the same applies to the church. Why it would be any different I have no idea.
Excuse me? Did you completely ignore when I brought up the whole "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" thing? Which injunction in Matthew 28 are you talking about, in which he was talking directly to his Torah-obedient Disciples? The great commission is for his disciples to baptize in his name (and 28:19 contains an interpolation as I'm sure you're aware of), but feel free to explain to the class which injunction you're referring to that states Jesus was not about being divisive, and how it counters all the times he was in fact divisive.
That comparison doesn't work whatsoever. A better example would be like how the American government should return to its constitutional roots. And that's not even doing the concept justice. Do you believe there should be no limits to cultural change whatsoever? Out of curiosity, do you think it's not a problem for Christians to commit beastiality? I mean, it goes on a lot in the South and in Africa in Christian areas, so this would fit with your logic that it should be considered fine in Christian doctrine. Let's see you defend that one. Hey, gotta change with the times right

I get that you've become obsessed with this. Can we get back to the OP argument now? This exact same argument has carried on now through two completely different threads, and utterly fails to address either one.

 

[outhouse]

I suppose you are referring to God as Trinity. For me since I believe God as all powerful, He can be even not just Trinity. He can manifest even more than three . in other words, it is not an issue for me.

exactly

it takes alot of magic, to believe the trinity

Up until the point you study history and find out a roman emporer settled the dispute on duality. not a deity.

it was so cut and dry the bishops all had to fight for a few hundred years to only BE TOLD how to vote of jesus divinity

 

[sojourner]

exactly

it takes alot of magic, to believe the trinity

Up until the point you study history and find out a roman emporer settled the dispute on duality. not a deity.

it was so cut and dry the bishops all had to fight for a few hundred years to only BE TOLD how to vote of jesus divinity

That's fine and dandy, except that the concept of the Trinity had been floating around loooong before Constantine.

What duality are you referring to?

 

[outhouse]

That's fine and dandy, except that the concept of the Trinity had been floating around loooong before Constantine.

What duality are you referring to?

of course there were many manmade concepts floating around.


the movement was far and wide, definition's were compiled not by popularity, reason or logic. BUT by the roman agenda


the duality is the Nicean creed, the father and son are of the same substance.

it was duality before trinity

 

[ER.Robin Zoe]

. TRINITY: According to the Athanasian Creed:
"The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three
Gods but one God."
In this Holy Trinity: "The three Persons are CO-EQUAL and CO-ETERNAL: all alike are
UNCREATED and OMNIPOTENT." (The Catholic Encyclopedia)
Thus the Trinity is considered to be: (One God in three Persons."
There is only one verse in the whole of Holy Scripture called the Bible which unequivocally
supports this Christian dogma, and that is:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost;
and these three are one. " The first Epistle of John 5:7
Dr C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.'s in a footnote to this verse opine:
"IT IS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THIS VERSE HAS NO MANUSCRIPT AUTHORITY AND HAS
BEEN INSERTED."
The fundamentalist Christians still retain this fabrication whereas, in all the modern
translations including the Revised Standard Version (RSV) this pious fraud has been
unceremoniously expunged,

Thank God! The Christians are willy-nilly discovering pagan forgeries in their "word of God",
but they are still dragging their feet.

 

[ER.Robin Zoe]

TRINITY
According to most Christians, Jesus was God incarnate, full man and full God. "To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from
helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.
1. To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son. How could Jesus
have the attributes of sonship and divinity altogether?
2. Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: "He that
has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as
it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me.
You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?
3. Christians say that Jesus was God because he was called Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah,
and "savior". Ezekiel was addressed in the Bible as Son of Man. Jesus spoke of "the peace
makers" as Sons of God. Any person who followed the Will and Plan of God was called SON
OF GOD in the Jewish tradition and in their language (Genesis 6:2,4; Exodus 4:22 ; Psalm
2:7; Romans 8:14 ) . "Messiah" which in Hebrew means "God’s anointed" and not "Christ",
and "Cyrus" the person is called "Messiah" or "the anointed". As for "savior", in II KINGS
13:5, other individuals were given that title too without being gods. So where is the proof in
these terms that Jesus was God when the word son is not exclusively used for him alone?
4. Christians claim that Jesus acknowledged that he and God were one in the sense of nature
when he says in John 10:30 "I and my father are one". Later on in John 17:21-23, Jesus
refers to his followers and himself and God as one in five places. So why did they give the
previous "one" a different meaning from the other five "ones?
5. Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?
6. If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God.
Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor
was the "father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about
His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord ? Does that also mean that there was
no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?
7. If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus was on
earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?
8. If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days
between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrect ion?
9. Christians say that: "The Father(F) is God, the Son(S) is God, and the Holy Ghost(H) is
God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not
the Father". In simple arithmetic and terms therefore, if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it
follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H
(meaning, "not equal"). Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself ?
10. If Jesus was God, why did he tell the man who called him "good master" not to call him
"good" because accordingly, there is none good but his God in Heaven alone?
11 .Why do Christians say that God is three-in-one and one in three when Jesus says in Mark
12:29: "The Lord our God is one Lord" in as many places as yet in the Bible?
12. If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t
Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time? How were those followers of
Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the
spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would
have taught and explained it in detail to the people.
13. Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is John speaking and not
Jesus. Also, the Greek word for the first occurrence of God is HOTHEOS which means "the
God" or "God" with a capital "G", while the Greek word for its second occurrence is
"TONTHEOS", which means "a god " or "god" with a small "g". Isn’t this dishonesty and
inconsistency on the part of those translating the Greek Bible? ? Isn’t such quotation in John
1:1 recognized by every Christian scholar of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named
Philo Alexandria way before Jesus and John?
14 .Wasn’t the word "god" or "TONTHEOS" also used to refer to others as well as in II
Corinthians 4:4 "(and the Devil is) the god of this world" and in Exodus 7:1 "See , I have
made thee (Moses ) a god to Pharaoh"?

 

[sojourner]

of course there were many manmade concepts floating around.

Aren't all concepts ... human?

the movement was far and wide, definition's were compiled not by popularity, reason or logic. BUT by the roman agenda

I agree. But I didn't know we were talking about particular "definitions." I thought we were talking about the Trinity. do you wanna talk dogma or theology?

the duality is the Nicean creed, the father and son are of the same substance.

That doesn't constitute a "duality." Everything is "of the same substance."

it was duality before trinity

I disagree. The Spirit of God has been bandied about since before Xy.

 

[sojourner]

Thank God! The Christians are willy-nilly discovering pagan forgeries in their "word of God",
but they are still dragging their feet.

In what way is it a "forgery?" What is it with this insistence that Xy must be "pure?" Xy is a living, growing organism, since we are living, growing organisms. It adapts itself to its cultural environment well, it improvises its way through problems, and it overcomes difficulties with creativity. What's wrong with that? Nature does that crap all the time. Why should Xy be placed under glass?

 

[sojourner]

To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from
helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.

I disagree. The universe is an embodied thing. God is embodied within it.
The human being is the imago Dei. Therefore, humanity contains at least a spark of Divinity.
The difference between God and creation and between God and humanity is negligible. It is the false imposition of difference that has created a lot of theological problems.

 

[outhouse]

I thought we were talking about the Trinity. do you wanna talk dogma or theology?

no difference here.

since scripture doesnt back it a single bit

That doesn't constitute a "duality." Everything is "of the same substance."

false

not everything is the same substance as Yahweh or god according to jewish romans

The Spirit of God has been bandied about since before Xy

because one person had thought about it before, does not mean it was in place just because dogma accepted it 75 years after the nicean creed

 

[sojourner]

no difference here.

since scripture doesnt back it a single bit

Whether scripture backs it or not -- and I suspect that it does, at least in a precursory way -- there is a difference between dogmatic and theological discussion. Which will it be? Your choice.

false

not everything is the same substance as Yahweh or god according to jewish romans

Explain what you mean by "duality."
as far as I'm aware of the term, it means that there is a substantive difference between Divinity and humanity. I claim that the imperial church got it wrong.

because one person had thought about it before, does not mean it was in place just because dogma accepted it 75 years after the nicean creed

As a dogma? No. As a concept? Definitely.

 

[ER.Robin Zoe]

In what way is it a "forgery?" What is it with this insistence that Xy must be "pure?" Xy is a living, growing organism, since we are living, growing organisms. It adapts itself to its cultural environment well, it improvises its way through problems, and it overcomes difficulties with creativity. What's wrong with that? Nature does that crap all the time. Why should Xy be placed under glass?

Hello friend,The evidence I have quoted in my post should suffice to prove that some of the corrupt disciples of Jesus have tampared with his pure teachings.If you shun prejudice,you shall be able to understand.


There is only one verse in the whole of Holy Scripture called the Bible which unequivocally
supports this Christian dogma, and that is:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost;
and these three are one. " The first Epistle of John 5:7
Dr C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.'s in a footnote to this verse opine:
"IT IS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THIS VERSE HAS NO MANUSCRIPT AUTHORITY AND HAS
BEEN INSERTED."

 

[ER.Robin Zoe]

TRINITY
According to most Christians, Jesus was God incarnate, full man and full God. "To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from
helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.
1. To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son. How could Jesus
have the attributes of sonship and divinity altogether?
2. Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: "He that
has seen me has seen the Father". Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as
it says in John 5:37: "And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me.
You have NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME NOR SEEN HIS SHAPE"?
3. Christians say that Jesus was God because he was called Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah,
and "savior". Ezekiel was addressed in the Bible as Son of Man. Jesus spoke of "the peace
makers" as Sons of God. Any person who followed the Will and Plan of God was called SON
OF GOD in the Jewish tradition and in their language (Genesis 6:2,4; Exodus 4:22 ; Psalm
2:7; Romans 8:14 ) . "Messiah" which in Hebrew means "God’s anointed" and not "Christ",
and "Cyrus" the person is called "Messiah" or "the anointed". As for "savior", in II KINGS
13:5, other individuals were given that title too without being gods. So where is the proof in
these terms that Jesus was God when the word son is not exclusively used for him alone?
4. Christians claim that Jesus acknowledged that he and God were one in the sense of nature
when he says in John 10:30 "I and my father are one". Later on in John 17:21-23, Jesus
refers to his followers and himself and God as one in five places. So why did they give the
previous "one" a different meaning from the other five "ones?
5. Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?
6. If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God.
Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor
was the "father in Heaven" a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about
His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord ? Does that also mean that there was
no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?
7. If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus was on
earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?
8. If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days
between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrect ion?
9. Christians say that: "The Father(F) is God, the Son(S) is God, and the Holy Ghost(H) is
God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not
the Father". In simple arithmetic and terms therefore, if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it
follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the statement suggests that F ¹ S ¹ H
(meaning, "not equal"). Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself ?
10. If Jesus was God, why did he tell the man who called him "good master" not to call him
"good" because accordingly, there is none good but his God in Heaven alone?
11 .Why do Christians say that God is three-in-one and one in three when Jesus says in Mark
12:29: "The Lord our God is one Lord" in as many places as yet in the Bible?:sarcastic
12. If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t
Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time? How were those followers of
Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the
spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would
have taught and explained it in detail to the people.
13. Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". This is John speaking and not
Jesus. Also, the Greek word for the first occurrence of God is HOTHEOS which means "the
God" or "God" with a capital "G", while the Greek word for its second occurrence is
"TONTHEOS", which means "a god " or "god" with a small "g". Isn’t this dishonesty and
inconsistency on the part of those translating the Greek Bible? ? Isn’t such quotation in John
1:1 recognized by every Christian scholar of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named
Philo Alexandria way before Jesus and John?
14 .Wasn’t the word "god" or "TONTHEOS" also used to refer to others as well as in II
Corinthians 4:4 "(and the Devil is) the god of this world" and in Exodus 7:1 "See , I have
made thee (Moses ) a god to Pharaoh"?

Can anyone answer my questions,logically?

 

[sojourner]

Hello friend,The evidence I have quoted in my post should suffice to prove that some of the corrupt disciples of Jesus have tampared with his pure teachings.If you shun prejudice,you shall be able to understand.


There is only one verse in the whole of Holy Scripture called the Bible which unequivocally
supports this Christian dogma, and that is:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost;
and these three are one. " The first Epistle of John 5:7
Dr C.I, Scofield, D.D. backed by eight other D.D.'s in a footnote to this verse opine:
"IT IS GENERALLY AGREED THAT THIS VERSE HAS NO MANUSCRIPT AUTHORITY AND HAS
BEEN INSERTED."

So? There are plenty of other indicators in the texts. Most of them are implicit, rather than explicit. But there is within the writings an indication that Jesus was, in some way, Divine. Whether that indication dictates or merely informs the dogma is immaterial.

 

[sojourner]

"To be full" God means freedom from finite forms and from
helplessness, and to be "full man" means the absence of divinity.

This is the second time you've made this claim, yet, so far, you've failed to provide reasons for why you think this is true. Your whole argument is predicated on this claim.

Back it up, please.

Can anyone answer my questions,logically?

Sure. You're ranting about something you want desperately to disprove, so you've cabbaged onto some unfounded definitions that you think bolster your claim. That's all this is.