If I had to speak as someone who does not believe, the Trinity does not come from any religious beliefs outside the Jewish/Christian faith. It would merely be a way of reconciling the issue that there can only be one God. The Trinity states that all three are the same God,

From Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities: (p 151-152)

Quote:referring to “our God Jesus Christ, [who] is in the Father” (Ign. Rom. 8:3), or as “God come in the flesh” (Ign. Eph. 7:2), or of “the blood of God,” by which he means the blood of Christ (Ign. Eph. 1:1). But he was equally and passionately committed to Christ being human, as is evident in two of his letters, one sent to the Christians of Tralles and the other to those of Smyrna. He knew that in both cities there was opposition to the proto-orthodox view that Jesus was somehow both divine and human; the opponents were docetists, who maintained that Jesus was divine and not at all human.

And so in his letter to the Trallians, Ignatius warns against those who claim that Jesus “only appeared to suffer” (10:1) and insists, in response, that Jesus “was truly born, both ate and drank; was truly persecuted at the time of Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died . . . and was also truly raised from the dead” (9:1–2). So, too, in the letter to the Smyrneans, Ignatius attacks those who claimed that Jesus’ passion was a sham, that he was not an actual flesh-and-blood human being who really suffered (2:1). Ignatius again denies that such persons are “believers” (2:1) and warns his readers not even to meet and talk with them (4:1). In opposition to their views, he insists that Jesus was “actually born” (1:1) and was “actually crucified . . . in the flesh” (1:2), and he “genuinely suffered” and “genuinely raised himself” (2:1). Even after his resurrection he was “in the flesh” (3:1), as evidenced by the fact that his disciples touched him and observed him eating and drinking (3:2–3).

Now if ( and it is a BIG IF ) Ignatius was genuine and writing at the beginning of the first century this would bring the discussion of whether or not Jesus was man or god to well before Tertullian. Of course, if Ignatius is just another fictional character...much like jesus himself...invented to deal with these issues by later writers it means very little. But xtians, such as presumably Alter is, are stuck with the whole shooting match of bullshit put out by the church...so here you go.

(May 23, 2012 at 5:49 am)Kayenneh Wrote: Heehee, this is gonna be fun to watch. May the best christian win

Would christianity produce champions such as the ones you see here iif the best christians have won during its 2000 years?

(May 23, 2012 at 1:57 am)Godschild Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 1:05 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
It is true Jesus is the WORD in that he serves as Jehovah's chief spokesman. Likewise, Jesus is a god, since "god" is simply a title that describes someone who is powerful. But he is not Almighty God Jehovah. The apostle Paul made it clear that the title "god" can apply to all sorts of individuals, as noted below:

"For even though there are those who are called 'gods,' whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are MANY 'gods' and MANY 'lords,'..."
(1 Corinthians 8:5)

You should be a little more careful in quoting verses, what I mean you should read the verses around the ones you quote, you could find some answers to your own questions.

ALTER2EGO -to- GODSCHILD:
I appreciate your respectful approach.

I quoted the scripture at 1 Corinthians 8:5 with full knowledge of what's written in verses 4 and 6. What point are you making by presenting the other two verses?

(May 23, 2012 at 1:57 am)Godschild Wrote: 1st Corinthians 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and there is no God but one.
5) For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Though you pulled this out of the middle of a chapter on causing other Christians to stumble, it works, it works to show that the Father and Son are one and that we exist for and through God. So now we have scripture telling us that two of the three are one God.

ALTER2EGO -to- GODSCHILD:
I'm waiting for you to explain where those verses say anything about Jehovah the Father and Jesus Christ the son being one and the same. Verse 6 clearly makes a distinction between the two of them, as follows.

1. "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him;"

2. "and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

You do understand why the word "and" is used after the semi-colon in verse 6; don't you? The word "and" is used when separating independent clauses. A mere comma could have been used to separate the two statements listed above. But the translator went further by using a semi-colon, which is the strongest indication of an independent clause. To put it simply, statement #1 ("yet for us there is but one God, the Father") is completely independent of what's written in sentence #2 ("and one Lord, Jesus Christ"). The apostle Paul is talking about to separate and distinct individuals.

So the myth got altered slightly, big whoop. A myths a myth.

(May 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: So the myth got altered slightly, big whoop. A myths a myth.

Yes, but it has been defended in assertive lanuguage, written in large, purple fonts. If that doesn't convince you that it is the word of god as properly and truthly interpreted byAlter2EGO, what will?

(May 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: So the myth got altered slightly, big whoop. A myths a myth.

Yes, but it has been defended in assertive lanuguage, written in large, purple fonts. If that doesn't convince you that it is the word of god as properly and truthly interpreted byAlter2EGO[/color[color=#FF6347]], what will?

Ha! *fistbump*

(May 23, 2012 at 2:24 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: You do understand why the word "and" is used after the semi-colon in verse 6; don't you? The word "and" is used when separating independent clauses. A mere comma could have been used to separate the two statements listed above. But the translator went further by using a semi-colon, which is the strongest indication of an independent clause. To put it simply, statement #1 ("yet for us there is but one God, the Father") is completely independent of what's written in sentence #2 ("and one Lord, Jesus Christ"). The apostle Paul is talking about to separate and distinct individuals.[/size]

But can I not have fish AND chips and it be the SAME meal?