Christians

[Epimethean]

It is as clear as mud, which is why so many Christians argue over the one vs three, multiple personality divinity.

And there is zero evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Elvis has as much. Rabid fans will see what they want whenever they want.

Kool aid drinkers, all.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Sure they fulfill different roles and purposes but where does it say they operate completely independently? I think that's an oversimplification.

Try reading the three "Synoptic" Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) just by themselves without reading John.

You will be hard pressed to come up with any scriptural justification for the belief that Jesus is God. The Jesus of the earliest Gospels was a being inferior to, independent of and subordinate to Yahweh. Consider:

Jesus speaks of Yahweh in the 3rd person.
Jesus prays to Yahweh in the 2nd person.
Jesus makes it clear, not his will but "thy" will be done, speaking to Yahweh.
Jesus claims that he doesn't know what the Father alone knows (the hour of his second coming).
A booming voice speaks to Jesus in the second person.
A booming voice speaks of Jesus in the third person.
Jesus asks why Yahweh had forsaken him on the cross.

Seems like independent operation to me.

---

I disagree my friend. Both the New and Old Testament are filled with Trinitarian language and concepts. Even the Gospel of Matthew establishes the fact that Jesus was eternal in the 28th Chapter, "20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The Trinity is a beautiful and necessary Christian Dogma that is arrived at systematically, by looking at scripture as a whole, not just one verse, passage, or book.

---

It is as clear as mud, which is why so many Christians argue over the one vs three, multiple personality divinity.

And there is zero evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Elvis has as much. Rabid fans will see what they want whenever they want.

Kool aid drinkers, all.

Actually the trinity is a concept that nearly all Christian denominations are united on.
There are eye witness accounts of Jesus after His death according to the historian Luke, so to say there is zero evidence is being disingenuous. You should probably rephrase that to say, "There isn't any evidence I accept for Jesus' resurrection."

---

---

When I make bold assertions I am asked to provide evidence to support them, I'd expect you to do the same.

AS you cannot demonstrate that there are any fucking gods, Waldork, that really limits your choices. Religion ( ALL religion.....even yours) are human inventions. The reason for that is simple. God only exists in your imagination.

When you can demonstrate that your god is not merely a figment of your limited imagination then I will consider your position. Not before.

---

Yeah I figured you wouldn't back your claim up with any actual evidence Min.

[Faith No More]

I disagree my friend. Both the New and Old Testament are filled with Trinitarian language and concepts. Even the Gospel of Matthew establishes the fact that Jesus was eternal in the 28th Chapter, "20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The Trinity is a beautiful and necessary Christian Dogma that is arrived at systematically, by looking at scripture as a whole, not just one verse, passage, or book.

According to this guy the holy trinity is never specifically mentioned and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only appear sequentially one time. He also says the trinity idea wasn't adopted until 325 A.D. with the Nicene Creed. So my point is that if there's such a biblical basis for the trinity concept, why did it take so long to implement?

[DeistPaladin]

I disagree my friend. Both the New and Old Testament are filled with Trinitarian language and concepts. Even the Gospel of Matthew establishes the fact that Jesus was eternal in the 28th Chapter, "20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The Trinity is a beautiful and necessary Christian Dogma that is arrived at systematically, by looking at scripture as a whole, not just one verse, passage, or book.

Matt 28:20? Seriously? I'd have thought you'd at least have tried his misquote of Isaiah 7:14.

Actual research of Christian history and reading the books of the NT in the order they were written shows how Christian dogma developed and changed over time. The reason for the Trinity was so they could keep the OT with it's appeal to antiquity. Otherwise, the Romans would never have accepted it. But for that need, they would have gone with Marcionite Christianity. It at least is more internally consistent.

Actually the trinity is a concept that nearly all Christian denominations are united on.
There are eye witness accounts of Jesus after His death according to the historian Luke, so to say there is zero evidence is being disingenuous. You should probably rephrase that to say, "There isn't any evidence I accept for Jesus' resurrection."

Every time I hear Christians hold up their mythology as "historical documentation" that proves their mythology to be true, I have to chuckle, thinking of that movie where some aliens see an earth TV show and think it's a historical account. Got anything outside of Christian mythology?

[Epimethean]

It's always worth a laugh, that "evidence."

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I disagree my friend. Both the New and Old Testament are filled with Trinitarian language and concepts. Even the Gospel of Matthew establishes the fact that Jesus was eternal in the 28th Chapter, "20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The Trinity is a beautiful and necessary Christian Dogma that is arrived at systematically, by looking at scripture as a whole, not just one verse, passage, or book.

According to this guy the holy trinity is never specifically mentioned and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit only appear sequentially one time. He also says the trinity idea wasn't adopted until 325 A.D. with the Nicene Creed. So my point is that if there's such a biblical basis for the trinity concept, why did it take so long to implement?

---

Well “that guy” has a doctorate in law and did his undergrad in political science, so I hardly find him to be a proper authority on biblical doctrine. That being said, the fact that the word “trinity” is never mentioned is a bit irrelevant, the words “omnipotence”, “omniscience”, and “omnipresent” are never mentioned either but they are attributes of God that can be derived from many passages of scripture. He can easily be proven wrong anyways, I found two verses really quickly that list the members of the trinity…

A. Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

B. 2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

Though the concept of the Trinity may have been concreted by the Nicene Creed (Creeds affirm doctrines, they do not create them) in the 4th century, it was not “invented” then. The concept is obviously believed by the disciples, Paul, and Luke long before the 4th century.

---

---

I disagree my friend. Both the New and Old Testament are filled with Trinitarian language and concepts. Even the Gospel of Matthew establishes the fact that Jesus was eternal in the 28th Chapter, "20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The Trinity is a beautiful and necessary Christian Dogma that is arrived at systematically, by looking at scripture as a whole, not just one verse, passage, or book.

Matt 28:20? Seriously? I'd have thought you'd at least have tried his misquote of Isaiah 7:14.

Actual research of Christian history and reading the books of the NT in the order they were written shows how Christian dogma developed and changed over time. The reason for the Trinity was so they could keep the OT with it's appeal to antiquity. Otherwise, the Romans would never have accepted it. But for that need, they would have gone with Marcionite Christianity. It at least is more internally consistent.

Actually the trinity is a concept that nearly all Christian denominations are united on.
There are eye witness accounts of Jesus after His death according to the historian Luke, so to say there is zero evidence is being disingenuous. You should probably rephrase that to say, "There isn't any evidence I accept for Jesus' resurrection."

Every time I hear Christians hold up their mythology as "historical documentation" that proves their mythology to be true, I have to chuckle, thinking of that movie where some aliens see an earth TV show and think it's a historical account. Got anything outside of Christian mythology?

---

You claimed there was no evidence in Matthew or Mark supporting the Trinity, so I gave you an example and you reply by saying "seriously?" ? That's it?

Some problems I noticed in your post...

1. There is nothing even close to a consensus as to exactly what order the books of the NT were written in.
2. The teaching of Jesus' resurrection is so foreign to the Jewish concept of death that it can hardly be called an appeal to antiquity. Rather it was a radical concept.
3. Your assertions about the disciples’ motives are nothing but pure speculation.
4. Galaxy Quest references aside, there is nothing wrong with using scripture to uphold scripture. In fact, many historians agree that people witnessed Christ after his death. So you may not accept this evidence but don't claim it does not exist.

---

It's always worth a laugh, that "evidence."

Your reluctance to accept it is not funny to me.

[Minimalist]

---

Sure they fulfill different roles and purposes but where does it say they operate completely independently? I think that's an oversimplification.

Try reading the three "Synoptic" Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) just by themselves without reading John.

You will be hard pressed to come up with any scriptural justification for the belief that Jesus is God. The Jesus of the earliest Gospels was a being inferior to, independent of and subordinate to Yahweh. Consider:

Jesus speaks of Yahweh in the 3rd person.
Jesus prays to Yahweh in the 2nd person.
Jesus makes it clear, not his will but "thy" will be done, speaking to Yahweh.
Jesus claims that he doesn't know what the Father alone knows (the hour of his second coming).
A booming voice speaks to Jesus in the second person.
A booming voice speaks of Jesus in the third person.
Jesus asks why Yahweh had forsaken him on the cross.

Seems like independent operation to me.

---

I disagree my friend. Both the New and Old Testament are filled with Trinitarian language and concepts. Even the Gospel of Matthew establishes the fact that Jesus was eternal in the 28th Chapter, "20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The Trinity is a beautiful and necessary Christian Dogma that is arrived at systematically, by looking at scripture as a whole, not just one verse, passage, or book.

---

It is as clear as mud, which is why so many Christians argue over the one vs three, multiple personality divinity.

And there is zero evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Elvis has as much. Rabid fans will see what they want whenever they want.

Kool aid drinkers, all.

Actually the trinity is a concept that nearly all Christian denominations are united on.
There are eye witness accounts of Jesus after His death according to the historian Luke, so to say there is zero evidence is being disingenuous. You should probably rephrase that to say, "There isn't any evidence I accept for Jesus' resurrection."

---

---

When I make bold assertions I am asked to provide evidence to support them, I'd expect you to do the same.

AS you cannot demonstrate that there are any fucking gods, Waldork, that really limits your choices. Religion ( ALL religion.....even yours) are human inventions. The reason for that is simple. God only exists in your imagination.

When you can demonstrate that your god is not merely a figment of your limited imagination then I will consider your position. Not before.

---

Yeah I figured you wouldn't back your claim up with any actual evidence Min.



It is not my job to substantiate your imaginary friend, asswipe. Show he exists or continue to be treated like a fool. Your choice.

[Epimethean]

"Your reluctance to accept it is not funny to me."

If I can bring the Easter Bunny to the next dance, you can bring J.C. or his pal the Sacred Zippo. We can sit down and talk over drinks. For you, Triple Awesome Grape; for me, a beer.

[DeistPaladin]

You claimed there was no evidence in Matthew or Mark supporting the Trinity, so I gave you an example and you reply by saying "seriously?" ? That's it?

Yes, because the example you provided does nothing of the kind. Do you want to try again or do you care to explain why that verse suggests that Jesus is one with Yahweh?

1. There is nothing even close to a consensus as to exactly what order the books of the NT were written in.

I've never heard of any controversy regarding the order of authorship and I'm going by Christian apologist assertions.

2. The teaching of Jesus' resurrection is so foreign to the Jewish concept of death that it can hardly be called an appeal to antiquity. Rather it was a radical concept.

Point flew over your head.

At Nicaea, Marcionism was a major contender but it failed only because it had no appeal to antiquity. It was a new religion. Christianity needed the OT to gain the legitimacy that the Romans felt antiquity provided.

3. Your assertions about the disciples’ motives are nothing but pure speculation.

Actually, the motives of those at Nicaea and prior to it are documented. Do a little digging and you may find there was no "original church" that Protestants like to dream about but many different Christianities.

4. Galaxy Quest references aside, there is nothing wrong with using scripture to uphold scripture. In fact, many historians agree that people witnessed Christ after his death. So you may not accept this evidence but don't claim it does not exist.

Mythology is not evidence. If the whole world said otherwise, it would not make it so. Christians agree when we're discussing the claims of other religions. The Iliad is not held up as historical documentation on the existence of Zeus.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "historians" you claim accept mythology as "evidence" are Christian apologists.

Personally, I hope one day we live in a truly rational society where anyone seriously holding up the Bible as reliable eye-witness accounts or historical documentation is simply laughed out of the room with no time wasted on discussion.

[Epimethean]

Didn't Yahweh have to kick all the other gods' asses before he declared the bit about thou shalt have no gods before me? They all come from polytheistic roots, and sometimes it just shows through the green curtain that they are puppeting older stuff while singing a catchy new tune.

Granted, that tune was hip when Constantine had his bad dream, which I think was probably the result of a bad bit of beef.