The Greatest Threat to the Church Today...

Oh, so now I am lying? You can prove this? That there is no God?

Definitive proof of their being no God exists? Enough that you can call religious people liars?

And your scientific evidence for this is? YOu do realize that five of your peers, today alone, were left screaming insults when asked to back up calling people liar based on their faith choices?

Are we clear on this? Statements like the one above cause all kinds of issues on this forum, and it really gets down to emotionalism from atheists - and that is your problem.

Unless of course you have studied them and found them to be good standards.

What standards do we follow that are bad? Honesty? Selflessness?

Having something to actually compare progress to makes a lot of sense. Having an excuse? Its just that.

Nor their consequences, which is what drives our standards. Wisdom.

All over. The ever changing standards of atheism are interesting. We do lie to ourselves right? That certainly implies you think it is good? Really?

So, it begins with as a lie, but when asked to justify that statement, well, now its not so bad after all?

So what exactly are you debating?

 

As opposed to genocide and mass murder ... Yep, its beheadings that have dented our moral compass .... that's THE thing that made ALL Muslims bad.

And of course, if we execute people by shooting them in the back of the head (which happens in the this country all the time), that form of execution is fine. Good even.

Its amazing what people will use to chastize others.

Killing the innocent by ANY means is bad - period.

 

As opposed to the ego of atheism? That something else is imperfect does not mean your solution is better. In fact, it may be a good deal worse.

Just like democracy is far from perfect, but it is a damb site better than everything that came before it. I believe Churchill put that one best.

 

Origen is clearly subordinationist:

Pope Dionysius of Alexandria was a student of Origin claimed that Jesus was divine but not the same substance as the father

From the Catholic Encyclopedia we read that:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05011a.htm

Spare me the apologetics .. (see in Bold)

Of course we would not expect the Catholic Encyclopedia to go on about how the Church just did not have this belief. They try and make it seem as if Dionysius somehow made an error that was not consistent with Church beliefs at the time.

This is to be expected from a Catholic encyclopedia.

The fact remains that his Teacher Origin did not believe that Jesus and God were the same, neither did those who came before him back at least until Clement of Rome in the first century. Those who came after Dionysius did not believe it either.

The idea that Jesus was the same substance with the father was generally considered heresy until Constantine dictated it so.

http://olrl.org/snt_docs/athnasus.shtml

Athanasius was born in 298... The Author is clearly on Athanasius's side .. which is nice, but this does not change the fact that the rest of the church was not.

I hope you notice that I have used only sources with a very Christian bias.

The Trinity as we know it today was just not part of the belief system of the average Christian in the Church proir to Constantine.

The Trinity debate raged for many decades, if not centuries after Constantine until the Church had destroyed enough history, dumbed the people down enough to accept anything they said, banned anyone but the Clergy from possessing or reading the Bible, and tortured and/or killed or persecuted anyone who disagreed.

 

So what part of this indicates, as you originally claimed, that someone went back in and changed the doctrine itself, the gospel and scripture, to add in the scriptural interpretation of the Trinity?

There have been docrtinal debates about these things, and based on which denomination, still are. Taking one side is fine, but simply stating, "Well, someone a long time ago in the same debate said the same thing," does not mean they were right - indeed, the fact that the larger churchs accept the Trinity indicates that their reasoning was the lesser of the two arguements.

Ergo:

#1 - What scripture do you think was changed, knowing that the source material for the NT Canon dates primarily to the 1st Century, to justify the Trinity?

#2 - What part of scripture do you think does or does not justify the interpretation of the Trinity?

Glad that you finally read something, now do what historians do and demonstrate familiarity with issue rather than just find annoying things to bug Christians about - who rapidly discern you really don;t know what you are talking about.

 

of you say you know just because you know then yes that’s a lie or at least not true though you may be correct

Honesty can be good people believe you more if your honest selfless is impossible you can’t will a selfless act you can however act selfishly by benefiting others if that’s what you want to do

(When did i say Christianity was bad?)

its not good that we lie to ourselves but people have biases and we often do

 

so you’re not being serous when you say all Muslims are bad it’s hard to tell online with text

 

And you don’t think there any ego involved with strong religious faith?

Maybe Christianity is better for you regardless of whether it’s true or not.

 

I have not claimed this .. but it is an interesting question.

We know that there were various insertions here and there, the long ending of Mark is a good example of an insertion but this has nothing to do with the trinity.

As was shown earlier:

"No such doctrine as that of the Trinity can be adequately proved by any citation of Scriptural passages"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.iv.vi.ii.html

Religious scholars are in general agreement citation of scripture can not prove the Trinity so there is no point in belaboring the issue.

The early Church did not believe that Jesus was the same substance as the Father and even when it was mandated - on pain of death - by Constantine the debate still raged for decades if not centuries.

That said there is little reason other than blind acceptance to accept the Trinity today.

1) I did not claim anything was changed to adapt to the Trinity formulation.
2) There are numerous passages in scripture ..

John 17:3. This is life eternal, that they might know THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Jesus is praying to God in this passage .. who on earth is he praying to ?

Mark 13:32. But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; NEITHER THE SON; but the Father.

I Timothy 2:5. There is one God and, one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

John 14:28 "My Father is greater than I."

Jesus tells of the unforgivable Sin. Almost any sin can be forgiven .. A sin against the Father, a Sin agains the son (you should be asking yourself at this point .. why mention both they are the same person), but a sin against the spirit can never be forgiven.

Obviously the three are separate entities.

Last but certianly not least .. the whole crucifixion story.

Im my mind God is likely not a stupid fellow.

Why on earth would God hand himself over to the Romans for crucifixion ? Is he a masochist ? Are we expected to feel sorry for a God that chooses to suffer ?

Why would God call out to himself while hanging on the cross in fake pain. Did he go mad ? Then he asks himself why have you forsaken me .. God is obviously really starting to lose it .. (Did God really forsake himself ?) Poor fellow.

(perhaps the pain was real but the only reason it would be real is because God willed it on himself)

Do we really think that God would expect humans to believe that God would do such silly things, like pretending to go mad on the Cross and forget who he was? Really now .. do you not even question this a little ?

I question the idea that God would think humans would be so stupid as to not question these things. After all God did create us so he should realize that we have some capacity for logic.

I tend to give God a little more credit, but you are welcome to your own opinion.

Then supposedly God went down to hell according to the Apostles and Nicene creed .. then rose from the dead after 3 days (did God really die or was he just visiting)

and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Does God now have a Father ?) ..

oh yeah .. that must be the fellow that God accidentally created while in his masochistic euphoria on the cross so that he could really have someone to forsake him proving to himself that he really wasn't mad.

Got it ! It all makes sense to me now.

Sorry neut but the God I believe in says "seek and you will find", "search out knowledge" and the Savior says "beware of false prophets" not believe everything that is spoon fed to you from an institution that spent a 1000 years killing torturing and persecuting people, stealing from people, killing Gods chosen people, destroying knowledge, banning the Bible, and doing all this in my name.

 

You understand the concept of the Trinity don't you?

THe Father, the Son, The Holy ghost - all the same, yet distinct.

They each serve their own purpose, hence the distinctness, yet they are of the same source the same thing.

And when someone asks you to define YOUR position and how you arrived at it about these three fairly common Christian themes, and they support your ... apparently thinking position ... it might help if you actually made a case that demonstrated that you knew what the hell you were talking about rather than blandly quoting things with no point.

Whatever the position of a church denomination on the three aspects of God, its all based in scripture - and that scripture, despite your claim, has not been altered.

Not surprisingly, your position is one that you think will offend the most people. Which is exactly what a God wants when he says to seek truth.

I understand the Trinity, I understand the debate about the Trinity, and I understand the three aspects of God. Enough to know that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The Trinity is not wrong. There are those who think the Trinity is takes the aspects too far and choose to emphasize the distinct aspects of the three aspects. They are not wrong either.

The fact that you missed my point about scripture to lecture me about the Trinity? Just means you are up to your usual stick in your eye self.

 

Go ahead and disprove it then.

That would be an example of ego leading you astray.

I am sure that nothing makes your life better? Certainly seem to make a lot of atheists think so? Not sure how absolutely nothing can be better than anything?

 

Its amazing how you would get the exact opposite meaning of what was written.

 

You asked the question . "scriptural basis for the Trinity" .. I answered it.

It is funny you talk about the Trinity but leave out the most important aspect of the docrine as believe today by almost every denomination of Christianity .. and then ad hom at me by claiming that I do not know what I am talking about.

Too funny. All kinds of Christian sects believed in distinct aspects or "emanations" from the same Godhead. They called them Aeons. The Gnostics believed in Aeons as did numerous other sects that were later deemed heretical.

Perhaps you should read some Gnostic literature and Nag Hammadi stuff.

Others sects that did not believe in Aeons believed that Jesus, God, and Holy Spirit were distinct entities but these were also deemed heretical.

The distinguishing feature of the Trinity doctrine of Constantine is not that the Trinity consists of three distinct entities.

The Trinity doctrine of Constantine is distinguished by the claim that Jesus "is" God.

Homoousios .. Same substance as the Father.

 

No, you did not, and indeed are not.

There are three aspects to God in the Bible - all with scriptural referrence - God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They have separate and distinct roles and yet are of the same source.

The Trinity is nothing more than an explanation of these things, that's it.

You have not stated how you think these aspects interact, what drives them, made no mention of their role, displayed no understanding of their role or what they are meant to do. That is what the heart of the Trinity is all about - it's an explanation of the aspects of God as they are revealed over the course of the Bible.

So saying some people viewed them as separate and distinct, and others the same .... so what?

If a Catholic tells me of the similiarity and source of these aspects, I will agree with him. If a Jehovah's Witness wishes to express the distinctions betwene them and emphasize them, I will agree with him.

What is important is understanding what these roles are for and what they do, and they are very relevant to one who ACTUALLY HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.

Indeed, all the atheists wishing for proof might take a gander as what it is the Holy Ghost is supposed to do.

And all that is absent from what is clearly nothing than another attempt oneupsmanship of something you simply do not understand.

 

The doctrine of the Trinity was being debated and formed during the days of the early Church. That doesn't mean the Church condemend the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Church did condemn Arianism which was a denial of Christs divinity. But when Constantine died, his son Constantius took over. And he was Arian. And he made it a point to force Arian doctrine on the Church. Thus he had Athanasiuis expelled him from his Alexandrian see in 339.

This was not the the condemnation of the Orthodox Church against the Trinity. This was the vindictive condemnation of the Trinity, by Constantius an Arian, due to the Churches early denounciation of Arianism.

The average Christian in those days didn't have access to a Bible. Thus it was left to the early church fathers to study and debate these doctrines. But the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly in the Bible. Clearly taught. And to be believed.

Quantrill

 

Again, show me where the Church condemned the doctrine of the Trinty. It didn'nt. There was much debate over the doctrine, of course. With the coming of Jesus Christ it would have to be now fully understood.

Tertullian held to the Trinity. Athanasius held to the Trinity. The Arians did not. Thus when Constantius, an Arian, came to power, he attacked the Orthodox views of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical and sound. This is why it was formed in the early days of the Church, and why Arianism didn't prevail.

Quantrill

 

If you read up on the fourth century debates you will find that Athanasius was way out of his league, and that it was pretty well impossible to to make the Nicene doctrine compatible with scripture. The matter was decided by the power of the Emperor and by mob rule.

 

PLEASE READ THIS:
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Doctrine of The Trinity is false, manufactured and unritheous. No matter what you proclaim, such te4aching is not of Allah whom you call God nor did Isa (Jesus) teaach such belief. It is purely an invention of the The Church and the Founders of it. As I have stated before, the worst enemy of The Church is THE CHURCH ITSELF!

 

the problem is the church.
they are -themselves- the very contradiction to the bible.
they are the labyrinthine of confusions, contradictions and forgeries.

belief in the trinity was a historical development,
not a "given" from the early years of the faith.

the original message contained only the notion of one God.
the rest is muddleheaded interpretations.

previous trinitarian concepts in history?

you can easily access this information and much more in
couple of clicks... or couple of foot steps to the library.

the second one is more reliable.

 

There could be some ligitimate truth to this statement.

 

Now that I have to agree with, if considering the administrative part of the secularized churches.

 

Do atheists understand what doctrine is? What its role is? Why it is important?

So, tell me atheists, what is to prevent some random wonk from showing up and claiming the holy hand grenade is the 4th aspect of God?

Doctrine.

What prevents some idiot from claiming that magic trees are the true source of God's Power?

Doctrine.

What allows people to professionalize clergy and ensure that what they teach is accurate, and standardized, and subjected to discipline and free of abuse?

Doctrine.

Do we understand what the point of a Seminary is? Any professional school?

And that is what the Trinity is. Its a simplified teaching point that helps people understand their relationship with God and the various aspects and how they interact with humanity. It helps people seek out and find these things as their relationship grows and to recognize them when they happen. That is it.

The arguement about the Trinity in various denominations is a healthy one. Such debate in and of itself helps HONEST people understand these aspects of God. There is a point in having an accepted medium, and from that basis being able to speak your differences with the accepted version.

It provides a standard educational set that professionalizes a global clergy, it prevent abuse and creative license with the power of the clergy, and it allows church authorities some power to exerice control to prevent those very things (albiet, admittedly, not always wisely).

Do you understand why those outside the church simply rejecting the standard based on cursory examination - which quite frankly looks to be little more than thumbing of the nose - is percieved as pevish?

Its a bit like lecturing a biolgist by looking at Mendel's early notes on genetics and calling him a twit. Most biologists probably would not appreciate such behavior.

Now, atheists, do you understand WHY reigions have a doctrine? Do you understand why NOT having a doctrine allows any atheist to cliam just about anything they want as atheism? And indeed they do.

Now, how is that a good thing?

 

Some might tend to ignore the fact that there are many sectarian differences in the "Church" as well as the "Church" is not a single entity - with the exception of those that refer to all Christians as being members of the "Church" but I'm referring to the different denominations where are basically political enities.

There is considerable "political" strife between the many different demoninations which are reflected in their different sectarian beliefs. Historically we need to remember that the "Church" as an entity, not an individual, was primarily about the power and control over the followers. The Pope, for example, literally had control over many kings in Europe for centuries. That was political power.

Institutionalized religion has often been more about political power than anything else. It was the political power of the "church" that was rejected by the founders of America because the "church" had often been very tyrannical in it's use of power and control of the followers. We see "churches" still attempting to use the political power over the followers today.

I hope that I don't personally offend anyone but when I see the hate-mongering of people like Rev. John Hagee and Rev. Fred Phelps it repulses me. I rebel against that type of hate-mongering regardless of who's propagating it or their irrational reasons for doing so. Once again, sorry if that sounds offensive as that was not my intent. It isn't an attack on "believers" but instead it's an attack on those that use religion for nefarious purposes.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said above. Hence my past mentioning of the term 'political theology', as well as my disdain toward the 501c3 churches. Admittedly some of those 501c3 churches were duped into the agreement, but nevertheless, they volunteered to become 501c3 whores of the state polity.

 

um what did you mean by all of that i dont get the post?