How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 the Father, the Son and . . .   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

the Father, the Son and . . .

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


25 posted 10-15-2006 11:00 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ Okay, here is the problem with the belief in a Trintiy. First off, the term "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible. If the trinity defines the nature of God, I am sure that the writers of the Bible would have mentioned "trinity" out of respect of the nature of God, but do not.

~ Wow... the same as the "immortal soul" doctrine, in that the phrase "immortal soul" cannot be found in the Bible.

~ So, the Bible does state that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Therefore, technically, the Father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Of course, we still do not have a name to name the Holy Spirit. Yet, Jesus prays to the Father as being His Father, not the Holy Spirit whom is His true Father. Therefore, if the trinity is a true doctrine, Jesus is in error, and if in error, He can't be the Son of God or is it the Father or is it the Holy Spirit?



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


26 posted 10-16-2006 12:28 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
First off, the term "trinity" is never mentioned in the Bible.



The last time I checked, when water froze outside my house, I didn't see the words "zero degrees Celsius" either, except on my thermometers which is basically a commentary on the weather.  The doctrine of Trinity is a Theological description deduced from the data we are given in the Bible.  


The words "Monotheism" and "Escatology" are not found in the Bible, either.  But I'll bet you wouldn't argue for a minute that the Bible doesn't teach the lone supremacy of God, or give us prophecies concerning the end times.


My point is ... The mere absence of a descriptive word, can never serve as an argument against what that word may describe.  Would you want to argue that Shakespeare's "Othello" is not a Tragedy just because the word "tragedy" is completely absent from the text?


quote:
I am sure that the writers of the Bible would have mentioned "trinity" out of respect of the nature of God



Why so sure?  Couldn't there be other modes of description besides this one summative word?


quote:
Wow... the same as the "immortal soul" doctrine, in that the phrase "immortal soul" cannot be found in the Bible



Wow ... same answer.


quote:
So, the Bible does state that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary. Therefore, technically, the Father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Of course, we still do not have a name to name the Holy Spirit. Yet, Jesus prays to the Father as being His Father, not the Holy Spirit whom is His true Father. Therefore, if the trinity is a true doctrine, Jesus is in error, and if in error, He can't be the Son of God or is it the Father or is it the Holy Spirit?



No offense, but the extreme pedantry of the above paragraph offers it's own refutation.  I once heard a man argue that he couldn't trust his own sensory perceptions, or believe in his own existence, using a similar style of reasoning.


I don't deny that the triune nature of God is a mystery that exceeds our logic.  But whether you believe it or not, that's what we are presented with textually in the Bible when we consider ALL of the scriptures together concerning The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit.  The trinitarian doctrine may not escape all difficulties (I'm not sure it really aims to), but it doesn't simply toss out certain passages of scripture in order to make its case, like unitarianism does.


Stephen.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


27 posted 10-16-2006 04:02 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The Holy Spirit is the one that "impregnated" Mary.  But he is not the Father, because the Holy Spirit is the eternal emanation of the Father and Son.   The Father eternally comes from no other.  The Son eternally comes from the Father.  The Holy Spirit though eternally comes from both the Father and the Son.  

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


28 posted 10-16-2006 06:13 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

Theway I explain this concept to people who are confused (andthe way it was explained to me) is simple:
The concept of G-d is the three entities creating the one position. Such as:
1)The Roman Triumverate. Three individuals creating a single ruling position.
2)The US governmental system... three separate parts of the government (Legisative, judicial, executive), yet together they are only one governmental ruling body.
3)The rock group RUSH (and ZZ Top, and others), where there are three separate musicians with three separate positions and responsibilities, yet, they are only one band, and act as a single unit to create and perform.

Clear as mud, yet?

You may burn my flag... only after you wrap yourself in it first.
www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


29 posted 10-16-2006 10:22 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ Nope. Those analogies, along with the others given don't work.

~ The fact remains that the Holy Spirit, if it is a separate, and at least equal, "entity" of a 3-headed hydra Godhead, He MUST have a name, but doesn't.

~ Second, the one Gospel that begins with describing the nature of God, doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit ... grave error, indeed, since the Holy Spirit is at least an equal "entity" of the Godhead.

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

~ The nature of God is given right here, yet those who believe in the pagan doctrine of a trinity, blinded as those in the days of Christ, cannot see in order to understand. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned. In fact, it clearly states 2 "entities" - The Word [Logos] = Christ, and Jehovah = God the Father. Where is the all important Holy Spirit?

~ Now back to facts and common sense 101... Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, yet Christ states later in the Bible that His Father in Heaven is God the Father. I don't care what analogy is used to counter this point. The fact remains that either Christ doesn't know who is Father is or the Holy Spirit IS NOT a separate entity of a triune God. Common sense 101, if he prayed to God the Father as the same as praying to the Holy Spirit, why doesn't He just pray to Himself and call Himself His own Father?

~ Too funny, indeed.

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


30 posted 10-17-2006 03:17 AM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Sugar is substance but it has a taste.
Perfume is liquid but it has a scent.
Which is sugar, the substance or the taste?
Which is prefume, the liquid or the scent?
Or are both one?
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


31 posted 10-17-2006 08:30 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo


Jesus Christ Pose:
The Holy Spirit is mentioned in several places in Holy Scriptures. I will leave the exact detail for you to find (yes, I know where they are).
As for Jesus praying to himself, you should also be able to answer that, and if you can, then it appears to me that you are in this for an argument. I apologize if I read this wrong, as no insult is intended.
Look at it from the view of the other posters oin here: You say that my analogies, as well as those of every other poster on here "don't work". You also take the time to shoot down every theory presented on here. Yet, for some reason, you offer none of your own, other than those of us who choose to believe in the triune G-d are paganistic.
quote:
The nature of God is given right here, yet those who believe in the pagan doctrine of a trinity, blinded as those in the days of Christ, cannot see in order to understand.

What are your explainations? And why is it that those who were there, and watched it happen had no understanding, yet you- seemingly- alone have all the answers?
Please offer us YOUR explainations for these questions.

Oh. to answer one of your points (how can he be a part of the Deity if he has no name):
There are several poets on here (myself included) who have left their works without a name, yet no one would ever doubt that they are poems. If one of His creations (poetry) can go unnamed and still be accepted as poetry, then why can He not?


You may burn my flag... only after you wrap yourself in it first. www.myspace.com/mindlesspoet
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


32 posted 10-17-2006 07:10 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

Hey Ringo, how have you been? I hope all is well with you. Now, onto business ....

"The Holy Spirit is mentioned in several places in Holy Scriptures. I will leave the exact detail for you to find (yes, I know where they are)."

~ Of course the Holy Spirit is mentioned. I never said it wasn't. I am arguing the nature of just what the Holy Spirit is.

"As for Jesus praying to himself, you should also be able to answer that, and if you can, then it appears to me that you are in this for an argument."

~ I don't get what you mean. It is rather simple. If the trinity is the true nature of God, then Jesus is praying to the wrong figure of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, but Christ calls the Father Godhead His Father, not the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the HS doctrine is correct, and Christ can pray to any of the Godhead figures as His Father, then He should just save the time and pray to Himself. He will get an answer faster that way.  

"I apologize if I read this wrong, as no insult is intended."

~ None taken.

"Look at it from the view of the other posters oin here: You say that my analogies, as well as those of every other poster on here "don't work". You also take the time to shoot down every theory presented on here. Yet, for some reason, you offer none of your own, other than those of us who choose to believe in the triune G-d are paganistic."

~ That is not true. I already mentioned John 1:1. If you read that passage the Holy Spirit is not mentioned being with or BEING God. There are only TWO entities mentioned: Logos = Christ and Theos = God the Father. Also ....

~ Other examples include:

One: The Embarassment

~ Believers of the trinity have used the words of 1st John 5:7-8 as a key argument for the trinity.

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

~ Of course, the passage is not authentic and is not found in the earlier NT texts! This verse is such obvious forgeries that even staunch mainstream Christian scholars have been forced to admit as much.

~ How can any supporter of the trinity believe that the blantant & fraudulent sneakery was a doing of the work of God? To me, that is just plain laughable.

Two: Trinity Not Mentioned

~ Not one place in the Bible does it state that God a 3-Headed HydraGodhead. Couple that with John 1:1, in which the Bible clearly states the nature of God, I don't see how any person can believe in a trinity, except that they are not being called at this time and are blinded just as those who heard the parables of Christ, but couldn't understand them.

Three: Sometimes the answers are right there and only unless we come like children to God can we see the simplicity in the truth.

~ It is right there in Genesis, the nature of the Holy Spirit:

"... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

~ Wow, there it is. This goes hand-in-hand with mainstream christianity's false belief in the immortal soul (nature of man). The Holy Spirit isn't a SEPARATE ENTITY, it is the Spirit OF God! It is how God gets things done. Let's see the trinity theory and the phrase "Spirit of God."

If

1. The Spirit of God moved across the waters.

Therefore

2. The Jesus of God moved across the waters?

"Oh. to answer one of your points (how can he be a part of the Deity if he has no name): There are several poets on here (myself included) who have left their works without a name, yet no one would ever doubt that they are poems. If one of His creations (poetry) can go unnamed and still be accepted as poetry, then why can He not?"

~ You do have a name, and it is Ringo. You do have a name, just like every living human being has one, just like God the Father has one, and in His case it is so revered that certain people are not allowed to say it, just like the Son of God has name, but no where is the Holy Spirit NAMED as in a separate entity that is part of a triune Godhead.

~ Just as false christianity adopted pagan customs and beliefs in other of its doctrines: eternal suffering, easter, christmas, immortality of the soul, false christianity BORROWED from Hinduism and its belief in a triune godhead.
http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/hindu_trinity.php

~ False christianity and its Lord Satan have been deceived as Rev 12:9 states, yet Ringo, if you have ever followed my message, it is one of inclusion and salvation, not one of "my way or the highway" or "If you don't believe in Jesus and accept Him as your Saviour and die you will suffer forever in an eternal hellfire."

... that is a HUGE difference.  



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 10-18-2006 12:19 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

JCP:
quote:
Of course the Holy Spirit is mentioned. I never said it wasn't. I am arguing the nature of just what the Holy Spirit is.



But you are not addressing those scriptures which ascribe Deity to the Holy Spirit.  Nor are you addressing the scriptures which ascribe Deity to Christ.  For whether or not John 1 mentions the Holy Spirit or not, it does mention both God and the Logos as distinct and yet unified.  It only takes two, to step out of Unitarianism into what is more akin to Trinitarianism.  And seeing that John was addressing mainly the nature of the Logos in Chapter 1, I don't see why that scripture would have to include the Holy Spirit. Aren't there also scriptures which speak of the Holy Spirit and not of Christ?  Yet I doubt anyone would want to argue that such texts discount the deity of Christ.


It's hard to convincingly argue from isolated examples of textual absence, when there are many other scriptures which include what you are arguing against.  It's almost like trying to prove that Jesus never went to Jerusalem, using scriptures which say that he went to Galilee.  That would be quite irrelevant, unless there were no other scriptures that mentioned Jerusalem.  See my point?


quote:
If the trinity is the true nature of God, then Jesus is praying to the wrong figure of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, but Christ calls the Father Godhead His Father, not the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the HS doctrine is correct, and Christ can pray to any of the Godhead figures as His Father, then He should just save the time and pray to Himself. He will get an answer faster that way.


Again your hyper-pedantic argument only shows that you have a significant misunderstanding of the doctrine, not that the doctrine is untrue.


The impregnation of Mary did not "make" Jesus into the Heavenly Father's son.  That relationship was already present spiritually and eternally.  What it did do was make Jesus into Mary's son.  That's why the Holy Spirit's role in the Virgin Birth has nothing to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son.  And yes, I can show you scriptures which plainly state the Son's divine and Eternal nature ... or for the case of this argument, at least a pre-nativity existence of his sonship.


quote:
One: The Embarrasment

Believers of the trinity have used the words of 1st John 5:7-8 as a key argument for the trinity.

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."


Admittedly this text is only found in a 14th century manuscript of the Latin Vulgate.  This wording is not found in any Greek manuscripts before that, and therefore it is plain that it does not belong to the original text of 1 John.  


But a couple of things should be remembered which might lessen this "embarassment" you are trying to punctuate.


1) The doctrine of the Trinity does not rest upon any one verse of scripture.  It is a deduction of many scriptural descriptions of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.  So pointing out this verse does nothing to help your argument.


2) This verse only made it into one modern translation of the Bible, the Authorized Version, or King James Version.  And though the verse is not doctrinally "wrong", all other versions (NIV, NASB, ASV, NLT, HCSB- to name a few) do not include it.


3) There are no Bible scholars I know of who would use this isolated verse as the "Key Verse" in proving the doctrine of the Trinity.  To say you are overstating your case is an understatement.  (That was a neat sentence huh?)


Lastly, for anyone who is interested I'll let you read William Barclay's explanation of how this verse came to be:


"In the Authorized Version, there is a verse which we have altogether omitted.  It reads, 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.'

The Revised Version omits this verse and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations include it.  It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.

The facts are as follows.  First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th Century.  The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries, and it occurs in none of them.  None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it.  Jerome's original version of the Vulgate does not include it.  The first person to quote it is a Spanism heretic called Priscillian who died in A.D. 385.  Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.

How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin.  Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity, through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered.

But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized Version?  The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516.  Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition.  By this time, however, theologians were using the verse.  It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514.  Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it.  His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition.  Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.

The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament.  This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called- he gave it that name himself -The Recieved Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version and of the Greek text for centuries to come.  That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version.  There is, of course, nothing wrong with it; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it.


(from 'The Daily Study Bible' by William Barclay)

quote:
Two: Trinity Not Mentioned


Why continue with a fallacious method of argument?  Absensce of one summative descriptive word does not disprove or prove a doctrine.  

quote:
The Holy Spirit isn't a SEPARATE ENTITY, it is the Spirit OF God! It is how God gets things done. Let's see the trinity theory and the phrase 'Spirit of God'


Since 1 Peter 1:11 would lead us to believe that the Holy Spirit is also "The Spirit of Christ", using those very words, then maybe the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, and of Christ ... exactly as the doctrine of the Trinity states.  Your interpretive problem, is that you are pitting isolated scripture against scripture rather than taking the larger contextual view.


Taking one scripture in isolation, and building a doctrine on it, does not represent "childlike simplicity" unless of course you are taking that in the negative sense.  My wife told me the story the other day, how when she was a child, she thought the variations of yellow lines on the highway (alternating between double, single, and interspaced) was due to the fact that the highway crew didn't have enough paint.  Perfectly reasonable, I suppose, given the "isolated" information she was working with ... but wrong nonetheless.  


quote:
You do have a name, just like every living human being has one, just like God the Father has one, and in His case it is so revered that certain people are not allowed to say it, just like the Son of God has name, but no where is the Holy Spirit NAMED as in a separate entity that is part of a triune Godhead.



Same fallacy.  The abscence of a personal name would in no way disprove the Trinitarian doctrine.  Personality is evident in other ways: by personal pronouns, acts of will, etc ... And Ringo's point, which you didn't  address, is that giving out a personal name is optional even in earthly society.


quote:
false christianity BORROWED from Hinduism and its belief in a triune godhead.


I think historical "borrowing" is something which cannot be presumed because of superficial similarities.  Actual connections have to be established, or it's a mere suspicion.  I get the feeling that if the triune U.S. Government of Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary had existed prior to Christianity, you would have made the same connection.  Or you could say that the U.S. government copied Hinduism as well?  


Also Hinduism does not believe in a "godhead" in any similar fashion to Christianity.  There are actually some 300,000,000 Hindu gods and godesses, which constitutes a pantheon.  This is a very different belief system.  And "borrowing" could only be the conclusion of a casual observer ... or someone looking to make connections, prior to any careful examination.    


Charles Penglase, writing about similarities between Mesopotamian myths once wrote that ""It is all too easy to run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must have similar ideas underlying them and, second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed, with a similar conceptual usage ... Finally, the parallels and their similar underlying ideas must involve central features in the material to be compared. Only then, it would seem, may any claim stronger than one of mere coincidence be worthy of serious consideration"



JCP, Consider the legends of Romulus and Remus written by Livy and Plutarch, written between 30 B.C. and 100 A.D.  Let me acquaint you with some of its content:  

  • When Romulus and Remus were born Amulius took them and put them into a basket and threw them in the Tiber river, hoping they would drown.

  • They were rescued by a wild wolf, who fed the babies with her own milk. A woodpecker also helped and fed them berries.

  • They were later rescued by the shepherd Faustulus and his wife who raised them as their own sons.

  • Romulus killed Remus with an axe in a quarrel.  Romulus later founded the city of Roma.

  • The legend ends by telling how Romulus was carried up to the heavens by his father, Mars.

  

Note that there are more than a few striking similarities between these legends and writings in the Jewish Old Testament:  Moses was placed in a river in a basket.  Elijah was fed by ravens.  Pharoah's daughter found and raised Moses as her own.  Cain killed Abel in a fit of anger, and afterward went and founded a city called Nod.  Elijah was carried up into the Heavens in a Chariot of fire.  


But you'll not find anyone linking the Jewish Old Testament and the later Roman Legends of Romulus and Remus.  hmmmm.  Seemingly obvious similarities, do not always indicate borrowing.

And there are many more similarities in this example, than the Christian Trinity / Hindu pantheon.  


quote:
if you have ever followed my message, it is one of inclusion and salvation, not one of "my way or the highway"


And you just claimed that those who disagree with you doctrinally about the Trinity worship Satan as Lord?  How inclusive.


Stephen.
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


34 posted 10-19-2006 07:21 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ I'll start at the bottom.

"And you just claimed that those who disagree with you doctrinally about the Trinity worship Satan as Lord?  How inclusive."

~ And you talk about me taking words out of context? Come on.     Your mainstream views claim that a person in his or her lifetime MUST accept Christ as his or her Saviour, otherwise that person will suffer forever in an eternal hellfire. Your christian views in its entire context is no where near inclusive, but totally exclusive to every other person of a non-christian faith.

~ There is no comparison. My message of Christianity is one of almost entire inclusion, believing that ALL will eventually be called by God and almost ALL will be saved. Yet, I digress, as I have already explained my views on salvation.


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


35 posted 10-19-2006 11:08 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"There is, of course, nothing wrong with it; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it.[/b]

(from 'The Daily Study Bible' by William Barclay)

~ LOL. Obviously, William is biased in his beliefs. To say that there is nothing wrong with the deception, proves my point. You would have to do better than posting excerpts from biased and blinded false christians.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


36 posted 10-19-2006 11:55 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
LOL. Obviously, William is biased in his beliefs. To say that there is nothing wrong with the deception, proves my point.


By "nothing wrong with", Barclay was referring to the doctrinal content of the addendum.  He wasn't commenting on the motives or circumstances behind its origin, of which little is known.  I'm quite sure Barclay recognized (as I do) that Trinitarian doctrine is not dependent upon a linchpin verse, but is the deductive understanding of a congregate of scriptures.  


If it was a conspiratorial "deception" of such a large scale, as you're making it out to be, I suppose it might have made it into more than one contemporary translation of the Bible.  But it didn't.


I guess what I consider to be a deception might be something like trying to convince people that contemporary Trinitarian scholars deny the inauthenticity of that addendum.  Like Barclay, however, they do not deny that even an addendum may be doctrinally okay.  And if that's the only fault you can find with Barclay, then you're not stating anything new ... only that you don't believe in the Trinity.  I'm only insisting that in doing so, you are contradicting the testimony of scripture as a whole.


wouldn't it be better if you replied to all the particular points in one post?  Just a suggestion.  


Stephen.      
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


37 posted 10-20-2006 06:35 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"By "nothing wrong with", Barclay was referring to the doctrinal content of the addendum.  He wasn't commenting on the motives or circumstances behind its origin, of which little is known."

~ I am taking his writing as a whole. The man is a believer in mainstream christian doctrine. By stating "nothing wrong with," he merely "whisked" away the real problem with the demon-inspired attempt [origin] to bolster a false doctrine. For sure, if the biblical God is a truly 3-headed, the adding of that biblical verse would of not been needed.

"I'm quite sure Barclay recognized (as I do) that Trinitarian doctrine is not dependent upon a linchpin verse, but is the deductive understanding of a congregate of scriptures."

~ The congregate of scriptures, coupled with a lack of congregated scriptures, proves otherwise.
  
"If it was a conspiratorial "deception" of such a large scale, as you're making it out to be, I suppose it might have made it into more than one contemporary translation of the Bible.  But it didn't."

~ Some call that speaking out of the side of one's neck. The fact is, it did make into biblical translations, and it did cause more laymen to believe in a false doctrine - not that it really mattered or matters anyway.

"I guess what I consider to be a deception might be something like trying to convince people that contemporary Trinitarian scholars deny the inauthenticity of that addendum."

~ They did at first! Now, it has been a while since I read books on this particular subject matter, but it wasn't until the proof came out that the verse was bogus, and then there was no denying it, that the mainstream christian leaders acting accordingly.

"wouldn't it be better if you replied to all the particular points in one post?  Just a suggestion."

~ I like it better this way. It resembles the way the Bible needs to be interpreted - like a jigsaw puzzle, which is similar to the separation process of the lamb from Azazel. Besides, what about the point of which one of us believes in inclusion of all the human race of all beliefs?

Enjoy your weekend.  


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


38 posted 10-20-2006 08:29 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I like it better this way.  It resembles the way the Bible needs to be interpreted - like a jigsaw puzzle, which is similar to the separation process of the lamb from Azazel. Besides, what about the point of which one of us believes in inclusion of all the human race of all beliefs?

The fact that you can seriously suggest some connection between a devilish heresy, and a mere presentational suggestion tells me alot.  It tells me that we've talked enough here ... at least on my part.  


But before I go, I will point out just one thing about your view which continues to be a glaring inconsistency.  On one hand you exult in your "inclusiveness" more than any relativist I've know.  On the other hand you insist on some kind of "separation of Christ and Azazel" with a spirit that rivals any hardline preacher on the planet.  That is an inconsistency indeed.  All-inclusiveness needs no winnowing or refining process; Because according to it, chaff is as good as wheat, and dross as desirable as silver.  An all-inclusive and indiscriminate company of angels would never even recognize a "demon inspired attempt" to deceive people.  Devils would be angels unaware.  Heretics would be unwitting saints.  You claim that God hugs the Hindu, who is lightyears from a Biblical worldview, but trounces upon the Trinitarian?  Inconsistent to the greatest degree.  I just wanted to point out that your stern treatment of what you call "mainstream Christianity" belies your true approach toward those who disagree with you.


Stephen.    
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


39 posted 10-20-2006 11:44 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

~ You said not a lot about nothing new, nor anything relevant to the dialogue between us both. Your misunderstanding of the interpretations I present seem to lead you to your latest reply.

~ I could go on about how you misintrepreted the facts I presented, which led you to your faulty conclusion, but then, the Scribes of Christ's day, as learned as they were, could not see either.

[This message has been edited by JesusChristPose (10-21-2006 11:08 AM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


40 posted 10-22-2006 10:15 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

"You claim that God hugs the Hindu, who is lightyears from a Biblical worldview, but trounces upon the Trinitarian?"

~ What I see about you is this, Stephanos. You see and interpret "things" in context according to what you believe is "in context." I am looking at "things" in a much broader sense, and interpret the Bible accordingly.

~ Actually, from what I believe, I shouldn't even be debating with you on this site, or debating at all with anyone for that matter. I don't believe God wants me to, and understandingly so, because it is pointless. If one is not being called, there is nothing I can do about it. So, I believe it is because of my own pride that is bringing down here.

[Edit Typical crudity removed - Ron]

~ All will receive the chance for salvation, but today is not the time. God is not trying to save the world now. To me, it is crystal clear. There will come a time that all will be taught by Christ and the saints themselves, and then the prophecy of Isaiah will be fulfilled, but only then - after the 2nd coming and the 1000 year rule of Christ and His "born again" saints. THAT, is the difference between your religion's EXclusion, and belief of INclusion, regardless if one is now a Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc.  

[This message has been edited by Ron (10-22-2006 11:47 PM).]

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


41 posted 10-24-2006 11:44 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

Ron,

I sincerely didn't mean to be what you stated, but I have to say this ... there is hidden intentional crudeness that is far worse than the unintentional "blunt" type of crudeness that I may, unintentionally, display. I don't know if you can, but I wish you could see it. I really do.



"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 02-11-2006
Posts 1398
Virginia


42 posted 10-29-2006 01:56 PM       View Profile for XOx Uriah xOX   Email XOx Uriah xOX   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for XOx Uriah xOX

Satchitananda   :: bows ::   pardon the trouncing.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 10-29-2006 10:26 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Trouncing is much too personal for something like Brahman.  YHWH is much more acquainted with the winepress ... and needs no pardon.  


Stephen.
Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


44 posted 02-02-2007 07:08 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

Stephanos...

I agree with Jesus Christ Pose. The Trinity is not a scriptural doctrine. As you should know, the Trinitarian doctrine was actually decided by Augustine and only about 22 percent of the Christian heirarchy at that time. No where in the bible does it refer to the Trinity (Besides not stating it directly) and it does not say that God (Jehovah), Jesus and the Holy Spirit are equal.

To reply to your point is actually quite simple: Jesus said that "The Father is greater than I..." and he also said that "I shall request of my Father to send you a helper..." This clearly indicates that Jehovah, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are not in anyway equal. Also, in Psalm 83:18 it says "... So that all may know that he who's name is Jehovah, he alone is most high over all the earth." This scripture alone proves what Jesus Christ Pose is trying to point out: Jehovah God said he was most high over all the earth... not tha He and the rest of the supposed Triune is ruling.

Another thing, if Jehovah and Jesus were equal, why then does he obey God? Why would he say : "This means everlasting life: taking in knowledge of YOU THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and THE ONE WHICH YOU SENT FORTH JESUS CHRIST". I do apologise, but this is a delicate subject for me.

Jesus Christ Pose, you go.

Now the actual Trinitarian doctine states:

God = Father
God = The Son
God = The Holy Spirit

BUT

Father Does not = The Son
The Son Does not = The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit Does not = Father.

So Not only is the doctrine philosopically impossible, it is also Scripturally unsound.  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> the Father, the Son and . . .   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors