(September 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm)bladevalant546 Wrote: Glad you brough that up, with a discussion and cross referencing various theological books. Beyond anything written before catholic influence we find the trinity concept not mentioned or referenced. D.S you heard of the Arians? They were a majority theology up until the Council of Trent (maybe Nicea) made their theology "illegal".
Oh yes. They were a sect that thought Jesus was an angel or arch-angel of some sort, a view which better fits the Synoptics. I find it likely the Gospel of John was penned to rebuke heterodox beliefs like these.
Personally, my favorite were the Ebionites. JC was a man until the Holy Spirit came down at his baptism. My understanding is that the two had a symbiotic relationship from that point forward, explaining the miracles and why there were none before. In fact, the whole Herod-trying-to-kill-baby-Jesus made no sense to me because how do you kill a god? Don't you usually need to go on a quest for the special sword of the four elements guarded by the fierce Foosil and then anoint the blade with the Oil of Maguffin or something? If JC was just a baby at that point, he's more vulnerable. And then there's the "why have you forsaken me" moment, which makes sense in light of their explanation that the Spirit couldn't die and left Jesus on the cross. I still wouldn't believe any of it, but it's better story-telling.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
