The Trinity

[ER.Robin Zoe]

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.

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.

Friend,
I think I have provided sufficient evidence using bible and logic to disprove Trinity.Just think for a second.Ponder over my posts,read the bible and ask yourself questions without having any prejudice(ofcourse prejudice is the biggest factor that suppresses radical and rational thinking).To learn sth ,we must not have a discriminatory approach.We should with an open mind,think and not defend whatever we believe in.So I advise you friend,not to lie to yourself.Had man grown used to blind belief,we would yet till this date be believing in Ptolemy's theory which ironically was advocated by the church at that time!
Personally ,if you ask me,as I have quoted many a times before,I love and respect Jesus a lot but I don't consider him to be divine at all.Infact he was a humanbeing ,but ofcourse a multiple times better human being than you and me.I disbelieve in Bible because it has got many mathematical,scientific errors,which I do not think God can make,It contains pornography,it creates inequality btw men and women,Trinity,crucifiction,etc.I believe that some dishonest disciples of Jesus have introduced these illogical things and concepts in the Bible.The bible i believe ,is no longer as it might have been originally revealed but it has been tampered with over so many years.That 's why now we have so many versions of the bible!That is why I left christianity
,though till this date I do posess the red letter bible and read it.The red letter bible does not contain such illogical teachings of Mark,Luke,Paul etc.I plainly read what Jesus has got to say and I know that he neither preached trinity nor did he ever claim to be divine.
Lastly ,let me tell you that I am not ranting to disprove trinity and force you into my belief.You have your own views and you may agree or disagree with mine.I have done research and have come to the conclusion that Trinity is a fallacy.I do not follow blind belief.that can nver let me have true faith.I shall have faith only when i have proofs for what i am being asked to have faith in!If God has created us,he must be well aware of our nature of questioning so he must have provided and supported his message,if there us any,with sufficient logic and evidence.Ofcourse,he would not want us to have blind faith which can be shattered easily!

 

[sojourner]

Your post is a stew of erroneous assumptions. Let me try to address them one at a time:

I think I have provided sufficient evidence using bible and logic to disprove Trinity.

You haven't, because your whole argument against it is predicated upon the assumption of an erroneous definition of God and humanity that you have, thus far, refused to defend. Please defend it. This is now the third time I've asked.

I love and respect Jesus a lot but I don't consider him to be divine at all.

That's entirely your choice, but the Bible will not bear you out on this. Consider, just for the moment, the book of Luke. Luke's narrative about the life of Jesus very closely parallels the narrative about the life of Augustus, who was considered to be divine. That fact alone, of the choice of narrative by Luke, suggests that the very early Xtians did, in fact, identify Jesus as Divine.

Infact he was a humanbeing

A quality that the Trinity doctrine also affirms.

I disbelieve in Bible because it has got many mathematical,scientific errors

The Bible isn't a science textbook. It's a theological treatment.

which I do not think God can make

God didn't write it. People wrote it.

It contains pornography,it creates inequality btw men and women

Humanity contains those things, yes? Why should the Bible, whose purpose is to tell our story, leave those things out?

It contains ... Trinity

Wait a minute! Didn't you just say that the Trinity is not scripturally-supported?

It contains ... crucifiction

Well, yes. Crucifixion is also part of the human condition.

I believe that some dishonest disciples of Jesus have introduced these illogical things and concepts in the Bible.

We know that's not true, because we have ancient texts that predate disciples of Jesus. Those texts essentially agree with the later translations.

The bible i believe ,is no longer as it might have been originally revealed but it has been tampered with over so many years.

The Bible, as a whole, has never been "originally revealed." The texts, as we have them, are the product of a process of redaction since they were first written (probably before -- as the stories were told orally).

That 's why now we have so many versions of the bible!

We have so many versions for several reasons, two of which I'll outline here:
1) differences in translated language (for example, into English, German, etc.), 2) As better scholarship and availability of more ancient texts come into play, revisions are made to bring subsequent versions more into line with the ancient source material.

That is why I left christianity

If that's why you left, you left for the wrong reason: Misinformation.

I do posess the red letter bible and read it.The red letter bible does not contain such illogical teachings of Mark,Luke,Paul etc.I plainly read what Jesus has got to say and I know that he neither preached trinity nor did he ever claim to be divine.

You understand that there are several translations that include the rubric tool, right? Plus, the rubric is based solely on what's written and claimed as a quotation. There's no guarantee that the quotation is actually authentic. The rubric means nothing, other than to point out what Jesus is quoted as having said.

I have done research and have come to the conclusion that Trinity is a fallacy.

Given your post here, your research is inadequate to the task.

I do not follow blind belief.

From this post, you appear to be following a misunderstood belief.

I shall have faith only when i have proofs for what i am being asked to have faith in

Then you shall never have faith, for faith is not dependent upon "proof."

If God has created us,he must be well aware of our nature of questioning so he must have provided and supported his message,if there us any,with sufficient logic and evidence.

What "message" would that be, do you think?

Ofcourse,he would not want us to have blind faith which can be shattered easily!

Once again, faith isn't about what you can prove. It's about a stance toward how the world works.

 

[Shermana]

And what does "Divine" actually mean?

If Jesus was "a god" as the Anarthrous Theos clearly implies (Despite the common Trinitarian renderings of John 1:1c to "God", ignoring the Anarthrous), why wouldn't he be Divine? Are gods and "Elohim" (in the actual plural) not "Divine"? What does "Divine" mean then? Are Angels not divine? What does "god" actually mean? (Hint: The word "god" means "power", that is why Psalm 136:2 refers to the Father as "god of the gods").

 

[sojourner]

And what does "Divine" actually mean?

If Jesus was "a god" as the Anarthrous Theos clearly implies (Despite the common Trinitarian renderings of John 1:1c to "God", ignoring the Anarthrous), why wouldn't he be Divine? Are gods and "Elohim" (in the actual plural) not "Divine"? What does "Divine" mean then? Are Angels not divine? What does "god" actually mean? (Hint: The word "god" means "power", that is why Psalm 136:2 refers to the Father as "god of the gods").

The nascent definition is rather amorphous. However, since all theology is metaphoric in nature, the metaphor is developed as it makes sense and as it provides a piece of the puzzle. Jesus-as-God is a piece of that puzzle. Just as Jesus-as-not-divine provides a piece of the puzzle.

 

[outhouse]

And what does "Divine" actually mean?

If Jesus was "a god" as the Anarthrous Theos clearly implies (Despite the common Trinitarian renderings of John 1:1c to "God", ignoring the Anarthrous), why wouldn't he be Divine? Are gods and "Elohim" (in the actual plural) not "Divine"? What does "Divine" mean then? Are Angels not divine? What does "god" actually mean? (Hint: The word "god" means "power", that is why Psalm 136:2 refers to the Father as "god of the gods").

you really need to get a grasp on Elohim and its meaning.

its not always plural and oftren refers to its own deity.


god of the god's is refering to El the creator of Yahweh, Baal and Asherah. El was the father figure.



divine? = imaginitive mytholgy

 

[Shermana]

you really need to get a grasp on Elohim and its meaning.

its not always plural and oftren refers to its own deity.


god of the god's is refering to El the creator of Yahweh, Baal and Asherah. El was the father figure.



divine? = imaginitive mytholgy

Excuse me? I'm the one who earlier was saying that it's basically the "Majestic Plural" and is used as a singular term with a singular verb, and that it can also refer to angels. Why do you think I said "In the actual plural"? Clearly, Elohim can in fact be used as both singular and plural.

Now it seems you're trying to once again impose this shoddy idea that the Canaanite "El" (which simply means "god" like "Chief god) is what the Israelites picked up on, and I've shown you many times that this view is not anywhere close to conclusive, in fact we don't know if YHWH is the same as YHW to begin with. In fact, I'd say this view basically is trying to sell to those who have no idea even the most basic concept of Hebrew grammar. Why would "Elohim" even be used for angels if it was originally a name in itself? Clearly, the Canaanite "El" was little different than the word "Ba'al", it simply means "god", it's not a name, it's their way of saying their god was the "God of the gods". Do you even know what YWHW means? I think we've been over that before. Why don't you tell the class what you think YHWH actually means. If anything, the concept is shared with Deuteronomy 32:8 in the pre-Masoretic Septuagint in which the nations all have their own gods assigned to them.

Maybe the Canaanites were just trying to say that the Israelite god was underneath theirs.

Perhaps you'd like to prove that by the time Psalms was written that the "god of the gods" they were referencing was the Canaanite deity?

 

[outhouse]

A quality that the Trinity doctrine also affirms.

I dont think so bud

its more divine mythology then man

Given your post here, your research is inadequate to the task.

many would argue you here. including me.

 

[outhouse]

Excuse me? I'm the one who earlier was saying that it's basically the "Majestic Plural" and is used as a singular term with a singular verb.

Now it seems you're trying to once again impose this shoddy idea that the Canaanite "El" (which simply means "god" like "Chief god) is what the Israelites picked up on, and I've shown you many times that this view is not anywhere close to conclusive, in fact we don't know if YHWH is the same as YHW to begin with.

Shasu tribe has nothing to do with Elohim

Elohim has nothing to do with majestic plural



No one doubts ancient hebrews polytheistic past, or their early worship of El , Yawheh, Baal and Asherah.

Just seems like you havnt come to grip with the reality of history yet.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like many Ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on the cult of the ancestors and the worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[75] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god in the early period.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#cite_note-Smith_2002.2C_p._57-75

 

[Shermana]

Gotta love those Wikipedia articles written by people who buy into liberal scholars like Karen Armstrong and her ilk as if their theories are now fact.

As for having nothing to do with Majestic Plural, that would explain why singular angels are called "Elohim", with the indefinite, right.

 

[outhouse]

Gotta love those Wikipedia articles written by people who buy into Karen Armstrong and her ilk.

Im sorry but Israel Finkelstein, Israels top archeologist follows this as does every respected scholar on the subject.

Its sad you deny valid undisputed history.

 

[Shermana]

Im sorry but Israel Finkelstein, Israels top archeologist follows this as does every respected scholar on the subject.

Its sad you deny valid undisputed history.

Oh yeah, Finkelstein too.

The fact that you think Finkelstein is undisputed speaks volumes.

You must have never heard of Dr. William Dever, America's top archaeologist. Such venom that Finkelstein has for him too. And of course, Finkelstein isn't biased towards his secular anti-orthodox views at all. Nope. He's completely objective (cough). I think Dever put it best that "Scarcely any archaeologist accepts Finkelstein's work".

One day you may learn that these theories held by liberal scholars are only undisputed by other liberal scholars, of which their views are merely flimsy interpretations that generally have no actual backing.

Perhaps you'd like to actually address the objections? I wonder if Finkelstein is even aware of the fact that "Elohim" is used for angels. I think he isn't.

What's more sad is that you think "liberal scholarship" is somehow proven and undisputed. Anyone who thinks they aren't of their own bias is deluded. Let me guess, you think Karen Armstrong is all factual and undisputed too, right?

 

[sojourner]

One day you may learn that these theories held by liberal scholars are only undisputed by other liberal scholars, of which their views are merely flimsy interpretations that generally have no actual backing.

Riiiight...
Does that mean that the conservatives don't dispute the liberals? Only other liberals? And conservatives are disputed, not only by liberals, but other conservatives?
The problem with the conservatives, IMO, is they place way too much emphasis on the infallibility of the texts. Even if they've "made the transition" to a more realistic view, that long-held opinion still colors their analysis.

 

[Shermana]

Does that mean that the conservatives don't dispute the liberals?

Ummm, I believe I implied the opposite by what I said.

Only other liberals? And conservatives are disputed, not only by liberals, but other conservatives?

Of course Conservatives are disputed by other conservatives. But rarely will you see Conservatives agree with these Revisionist Liberal positions. Outhouse said that Finkelstein is undisputed. I said he's only really undisputed by other liberal scholars. If you'd like to provide a single Conservative scholar who agrees with him, feel free. Otherwise....

The problem with the conservatives, IMO, is they place way too much emphasis on the infallibility of the texts.

That's not the issue at stake here. I don't see the texts as "infallible" necessarily, but radical revisionistic interpretations like that YHWH and Elohim are different beings is just baseless and probably intended to play off of people who don't even know that Elohim can refer to angels, as I said. It's as if they're more concerned about sticking it to the Bible than about the actual facts. And also, I don't think Dr. Dever, America's top Archaeologist who Finkelstein hates with a passion because he exposes his views as fraudulent and spurious, is necessarily a Conservative.

Even if they've "made the transition" to a more realistic view, that long-held opinion still colors their analysis.

And of course you think you get to decide what is a "more realistic" view, for someone who complains about me "being dismissive", you sure are a master of it. As if liberal scholars don't have their own views colored by their own prejudices.

 

[outhouse]

You must have never heard of Dr. William Dever,

dever gets trashed and rightfully so

even then he's not far off the mark we are discussing to the point his material hurts your personal unfounded opinion

 

[Shermana]

dever gets trashed and rightfully so

even then he's not far off the mark we are discussing to the point his material hurts your personal unfounded opinion

Oh, so Dever gets trashed but Finkelstein doesn't.

Source please where Dever gets trashed, with detail. And source please where he agrees with anything that you're saying.

My opinion is not unfounded, you have consistently refused to address the issue of "Elohim" being used for angels, and so do they refuse to address it.

 

[outhouse]

I wonder if Finkelstein is even aware of the fact that "Elohim" is used for angels.

no obe doubts the redaction to hide polytheism when J and E were compiled.

 

[Shermana]

no obe doubts the redaction to hide polytheism when J and E were compiled.

Feel free to provide a source addressing the issue of "Elohim" being used in the singular for angels. The very crux of the position for "E" is based on sweeping over this kind of thing.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps you'd like to actually address the objections?

I really wish you knew even half about what you bring up, you wasit my unvaluable time.


William G. Dever - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dever backs my stance

Dever's views on the worship of Asherah are based to a significant extent on inscriptions at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud (though see also his discussion of the significance of a cultic stand from Taanach[5]).

 

[Shermana]

I really wish you knew even half about what you bring up, you wasit my unvaluable time.


William G. Dever - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dever backs my stance

Dever's views on the worship of Asherah are based to a significant extent on inscriptions at Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud (though see also his discussion of the significance of a cultic stand from Taanach[5]).

I really wish you even read what you posted, it says absolutely nothing about El and YHWH being different beings. It's as if you forgot what you're talking. I don't deny that the Israelites fell into idolatry worshiping Ashtarah, but as any reader can note, that has nothing to do with the subject you're discussing. You're trying to prove that YHWH and El are different beings.

 

[outhouse]

Feel free to provide a source addressing the issue of "Elohim" being used in the singular for angels. The very crux of the position for "E" is based on sweeping over this kind of thing.

this is simular to arguing algebra with a kindergardener at this point


you wont accept common knowledge :slap: