Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 8, 2017 at 4:18 pm)Godscreated Wrote: It does and in the first and third chapters of the Bible.
GC
It doesn't, ofc, but you interpret them as-such because you believe them to be-such. Awfully convenient, I'd say. Funny thing about magic book...errybody sees what they believe in there, even when they all collectively disagree on what's in there. -You- believe in the trinitity because the pagans who founded your religion commonly believed in triune gods...and nobody was going to stray -too- far from their favorite brand of whiskey just because one bottle was cheaper than another.
Precisely, Khemical. Anyone who has made even a rudimentary study of Christian history and the development of Christian theology is well aware that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't Biblical.
Here's just a fast run-down of it's development, hidden to spare my AF friends from a text-wall of boring "creation of the church" history. (Cobbled from my notes from many theological sources - I didn't bother to list 'em, folks can always ask.) I have told you that I was raised Pentecostal . . . I needed to do some research for my own (marginal) sanity.
The teaching of the Trinity isn't Biblical. There are no verses that clarify the "Trinitarian nature" of the Godhead. It became doctrine more than 300 years after Jesus' death.
The divinity of Christ wasn't even "established" until the Council of Nicaea - in the year 325. (Called by Constantine, who remained a Sol Invictus worshiper all his life, but who needed to get the pesky warring christian factions under control somehow.) One of the purposes of the Council was the popularity of the teachings of Arias, who declared that Jesus was a prophet - a special creation of God, a son - but that God existed long before the creation of Jesus.
This teaching was rejected, but with great difficulty, and had little effect upon the teachings of the Bishops that were involved in the Council. Squabbles continued. The Nicene Creed was written in 325 to say the Jesus was "begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father". This, naturally, was confusing to most, particularly the tag line about the Holy Spirit being "the giver of life".
Most of these teachings came from Athanasius, who taught against the Arian "heresy". Both the Athanasian and Arian views were actually minority opinions - not even held by most of the bishops attending the council. But, they had no clear theology to replace the Athanasian teaching.
Incidentally, Athenasius was one of the first to start compiling a list of which books were "scripture", and which were not, in the year 367. (Actually, Eusebius and Origin made lists during the Council of Nicaea, but they were not widely accepted.) Squabbles continued over the books to be included in the Bible - even over the four "Gospels". Large numbers of popular works were banished.
In the year 381, the Council of Constantinople was convened to - again - try to resolve all of the squabbling. (Interestingly enough, Gregory, Archbishop of Constantiople, was to preside, but became ill. A man named Nectarius - a popular Senator - took Gregory's place. But he had to be baptized first. He was not a Christian.) A man who knew no Christian theology was appointed to preside over a major church council that was deciding what it would teach regarding the nature of God.
The Council of Constantiople, led by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus - Greek Philosophers - decided that the Holy Spirit was divine. Theodosius sent out an edict:
“We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but (who affirm) the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead”
Another Theodosian edict effectively established the Catholic Church:
“Let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles [assemblies] the name of churches."
This Trinitarian teaching was never taught by Christ, or the Apostles, or Apostle Paul. It is not based in scripture, but upon decades-long squabbles of men battling for power. The doctrine of the Trinity is not in the Bible.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
It seems that everyone except 8 people lost their salvation in Noah's flood. Yahweh saved the drunk and his family.
Then the people in Sodom & Gomorrah lost their salvation except for incestuous Lot and his two skanky daughters and their mom, who lost her's when she became salty.
Thousands of Moses' gang had been saved but then he went bonkers and killed them when they wanted to exercise freedom of religion.
(July 8, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So...there appears to be a bit of a disagreement. Never saw that coming.
Maybe you guys should figure it out between yourselves, and -then- get back to us with a definitive answer? It seems like it might be an important question..more important, at least, than whether or not godman's eyes were brown or blue.
Where exactly is the disagreement? Didn't I state that unless one is part of the elect, it is possible to lose salvation?
Now if it's his position that the elect can lose salvation, then he must prove it by scripture.
Well, looks like we have three different options:
1) The Elect cannot lose their salvation because, well, they are part of "the Elect".
2) Some of the Elect can lose their salvation but get it back, and if they do, they will go to Heaven, otherwise, they will burn in Hell forever.
3) Anyone who is not saved can be saved after spending some amount of time in Hell, which would, of course, include the Elect in #2.
July 8, 2017 at 8:55 pm (This post was last modified: July 8, 2017 at 8:56 pm by Jehanne.)
(July 8, 2017 at 8:51 pm)Lek Wrote:
(July 8, 2017 at 8:24 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Well, looks like we have three different options:
1) The Elect cannot lose their salvation because, well, they are part of "the Elect".
2) Some of the Elect can lose their salvation but get it back, and if they do, they will go to Heaven, otherwise, they will burn in Hell forever.
3) Anyone who is not saved can be saved after spending some amount of time in Hell, which would, of course, include the Elect in #2.
What did you believe when you were a christian?
I was raised in an Armenian sect; we were taught that we could sin and lose our salvation. After marrying a Catholic and converting, the idea of mortal (dying and going to Hell) and venial (going to Purgatory, and then, Heaven) sins were made, but hardly anyone within the Catholic Church believes in Purgatory, much less people going to Hell.
July 8, 2017 at 8:58 pm (This post was last modified: July 8, 2017 at 9:22 pm by Lek.)
(July 8, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
(July 8, 2017 at 8:51 pm)Lek Wrote: What did you believe when you were a christian?
I was raised in an Armenian sect; we were taught that we could sin and lose our salvation. After marrying a Catholic and converting, the idea of mortal (dying and going to Hell) and venial (going to Purgatory, and then, Heaven) sins were made, but hardly anyone within the Catholic Church believes in Purgatory, much less people going to Hell.
If you put a hundred evolutionary biologists together do you think there would be a bunch of varying opinions or would they all agree on everything concerning evolutionary biology? If they didn't agree on everything would you still accept evolution?
(July 8, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I was raised in an Armenian sect; we were taught that we could sin and lose our salvation. After marrying a Catholic and converting, the idea of mortal (dying and going to Hell) and venial (going to Purgatory, and then, Heaven) sins were made, but hardly anyone within the Catholic Church believes in Purgatory, much less people going to Hell.
If you put a hundred evolutionary biologists together do you think there would be a bunch of varying opinions or would they all agree on everything concerning evolutionary biology? If they didn't agree on everything would you still accept evolution?
What a poor example! All the biologists would agree on "descent with modification," just as all geologists agree that the Earth is spheroidal and all astronomers agree that the Earth moves.
(July 8, 2017 at 8:58 pm)Lek Wrote: If you put a hundred evolutionary biologists together do you think there would be a bunch of varying opinions or would they all agree on everything concerning evolutionary biology? If they didn't agree on everything would you still accept evolution?
What a poor example! All the biologists would agree on "descent with modification," just as all geologists agree that the Earth is spheroidal and all astronomers agree that the Earth moves.
And all christians agree that salvation is through Jesus Christ.
(July 8, 2017 at 9:44 pm)Jehanne Wrote: What a poor example! All the biologists would agree on "descent with modification," just as all geologists agree that the Earth is spheroidal and all astronomers agree that the Earth moves.
And all christians agree that salvation is through Jesus Christ.
