You are using a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy anyways./quote]
You wouldn't happen to be Hank Hanegraaf in real life would you?
The argument he is using is a post hoc argument. He is arguing that because similarities exist between modalistic, non trinitarian Christianity and some pagan deity, that the Modalists were influenced by the Celts. I think one should probably look a little closer at church history before making such claims.
Google Sabellius
I will do that. And don't take my question the wrong way, I'm enjoying the way you are giving better than you get in this debate as I am a believer myself!
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
Oh sorry, then. I wasnt talking about you when I said one should study church history before making such claims, which is why I said "one" instead of you.
Plus, you did not make the claims, someone else did.
Actually asking me if I'm Hank is a compliment, as I said he's way smarter than me (though I disagree with him on preterism)
By the way, I know people think I am here to just argue with people, and it may even look that way, but I am really just trying to clear up some misconceptions about Christianity.
...and plus I am learning in the process myself. I know I sound like I am being harsh, but I am enjoying the discussion and I appreciate everyone who is involved in the discussion, even those who disagree with me. It's a healthy discussion for me. i hope it will be healthy for everyone
I know people don't think I am listening to them, but I am.
In this thread we argue semantics when neither side will accept scholarly scientific articles, or listen to christian apologetic arguments with questionable scientific methods.
What scientific methods? I havent endorsed any scientific methods. Has someone else?
WE started out talking about Philosophy and then it progressed into a study about Theology and the history of theology. Very little said about science.
...and why should I listen to scholarly articles that use ad hoc arguments and badly misdefine Trinitarianism
What you need to realize is that a seminary education does not make someone right. The article that was posted can easily be refuted by a knowledgeable layman, (because Trinitarianism, Polytheism, and Modalism are three very different things.
The triple godess described as Maiden, Mother, and Crone is NEO-PAGAN, not ancient pagan in origin.
n modern Pagan religions, the triune deity often makes an appearance in the form of the Maiden, Mother and Crone archetype. This may be due to some influence from Robert Graves and his work The White Goddess, in which he states that ancient peoples all worshiped a triple goddess.
However, much of Graves’ work has been questioned over time, and his scholarship called into doubt. Professor Ronald Hutton has argued that the triple goddess in the Maiden/Mother/Crone format is largely Graves’ invention, rather than a carryover from some ancient and universal pre-Christian belief system.
Followers of the Wiccan, Dianic, and Neopagan religions, as well as some archeologists and mythographers, believe that long before the coming of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the Triple Goddess embodied the three-fold aspect of Gaia, the Earth Mother (Roman Magna Mater). A mother goddess was worshipped under a variety of names not only in the Ancient Near East and the Aegean and Anatolia, but also in pre-Islamic Arabia.
a. She was married to Ouranos, god of the sky and gave birth to the heavenly gods through her union with Ouranos.
b.She also had children through her union with another God, Pontos. These were the sea gods.
c. She also gave birth to the Gigantes through her union with Tartarus
Does anyone see any resemblence to the Trinity here. I sure dont
So Crystal Link seems to be making a comparison to a polygamous godess to a Triune God. It's pretty weak. I'll look into some more Triple godesses, and see what I can dig up
There are a number of common neopagan misconceptions regarding the Celtic gods], and the most prominent one is that of the Triple Goddess. To be sure, there are triplets of goddesses in Celtic myth, particularly in Ireland; there are even triplets of gods, in fact. But the fallacy is that these triplets are in the form of "maiden, mother, crone", conceived by Robert Graves in his book The White Goddess and popularized with the neopagan movement. In fact, it is not only goddesses which come in triplet form, but gods also. This is not unusual--the Celts had an affinity for the number three, witnessed over and over again in their literature and their religion.
I do not have any quarrel with whether or not a "maiden-mother-crone" system is a valid theology; no, my argument is with the idea that it is authentically Celtic.
The earliest example of the Triple Goddess is in the figure of The Mothers--Matronae--found in inscriptions on the continent, dating from [/the first centuries of [b]the Common Era[u]/b] . Usually, the reliefs depict three well-attired women, holding flowers, fruit, wheat, and so on. Sometimes they were depicted as married, otherwise as not (noted by a lack of bonnets, apparently). Often, secondary names--likely that of local land or river goddess--are given along with the title of "Matronae". It is important to note, however, that there is a lack of uniformity to this depiction--that is, the figures do not fit a "maiden-mother-crone" pattern. Sometimes there is a mix of married and unmarried figures, sometimes it is entirely married women, etc.
SO the author doesnt believe in the historicity of Maiden, Mother, Crone godess. But notice when he says the EARLIEST triple Deities come from...
Quote:
[u]The earliest example of the Triple Goddess[/u] is in the figure of The Mothers--Matronae--found in inscriptions dating from [u]the first centuries of the Common Era on the continent, .
First centuries of the COMMON ERA. That puts them after the earliest Trinitarian writings. Even if you don't think the Bible teaches the Trinity (it does, but we'll just play along for the sake of argument), I provided a link to quotes from the ECF of the late first through early third century C.E that were Trinitarian, so to say that Christianity borrowed from pagan traditions from the first centuries of C.E is quite a stretch. So we can rule the Celtic goddess out as an influence on early Christianity.
I will wait and see if someone gives me SOMETHING to substantiate this "Trinity influenced by paganism" claim. I havent heard or found any yet. SO rather than go through all the various gods and godesses, I will challenge any taker to substantiate this claim of Trinitarianism influenced by paganism.
This is rich. You actually expect written documents from a people that were burned for not accepting the new religion. Let's try an spell this out again. I have first hand knowledge from a practitioner of an ancient religion that was handed down by mouth, not in written form. They differentiate themselves by stating they are taught the 'old ways' and not the new wiccan paganism, which takes it's queues from the 'old ways' and chritianizes them.
Most people assume that everything that bears the label “Christian” must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true.
The historical record shows that, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many” (Matthew 24:4-5).
You can read many similar warnings in other passages (such as Matthew 24:11; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; 2 Timothy 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 2:18-26; 1 John 4:1-3).
Barely two decades after Christ’s death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already “turning away . . . to a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). He wrote that he was forced to contend with “false apostles, deceitful workers” who were fraudulently “transforming themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). One of the major problems he had to deal with was “false brethren” (2 Corinthians 11:26).
By late in the first century, as we see from 3 John 9-10, conditions had grown so dire that false ministers openly refused to receive representatives of the apostle John and were excommunicating true Christians from the Church!
Of this troubling period Edward Gibbon, the famed historian, wrote in his classic work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire of a “dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church” (1821, Vol. 2, p. 111).
It wasn’t long before true servants of God became a marginalized and scattered minority among those calling themselves Christian. A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as syncretism, common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ. ................................................ Historian Henry Chadwick attests, “Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun” ( The Early Church, 1993, p. 122). As to the emperor’s embrace of Christianity, Chadwick admits, “His conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear” (p. 125).
Chadwick does say that Constantine’s deathbed baptism itself “implies no doubt about his Christian belief,” it being common for rulers to put off baptism to avoid accountability for things like torture and executing criminals (p. 127). But this justification doesn’t really help the case for the emperor’s conversion being genuine.
Norbert Brox, a professor of church history, confirms that Constantine was never actually a converted Christian: “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned to another god . . . At the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” ( A Concise History of the Early Church, 1996, p. 48).
When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386).
With the emperor’s approval, the Council rejected the minority view of Arius and, having nothing definitive with which to replace it, approved the view of Athanasius—also a minority view. The church was left in the odd position of officially supporting, from that point forward, the decision made at Nicaea to endorse a belief held by only a minority of those attending.
The groundwork for official acceptance of the Trinity was now laid—but it took more than three centuries after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection for this unbiblical teaching to emerge! ........................ The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture” ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568).
The council adopted a statement that translates into English as, in part: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets . . .” The statement also affirmed belief “in one holy, catholic [meaning in this context universal, whole or complete] and apostolic Church . . .”
With this declaration in 381, which would become known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Trinity as generally understood today became the official belief and teaching concerning the nature of God. ====================================================
So, this pagan creation that is now christianity was approved by a pagan emperor and sanctified by committee? And you refuse to accept the teachings I know because you can't find written reference from a people who's religion, practitioners, and writings were burned? I'd say you're a bit biased in your arguments.
This is rich. You actually expect written documents from a people that were burned for not accepting the new religion.
Well, they weren't burned by my forebears at least. But hey, I have written documents from Polycarp, and he was burned at the stake by the Romans. I have documents from Justyn Martyr, who was also martyred, and people have tried to destroy the Bible through the ages, but I still have the Bible, so why not.
By the way, nothing I quoted was from a Christian source.
Quote:
I have first hand knowledge from a practitioner of an ancient religion that was handed down by mouth, not in written form.
kind of like the game of "telephone"? Well we know how that usually works out.
Quote:
They differentiate themselves by stating they are taught the 'old ways' and not the new wiccan paganism, which takes it's queues from the 'old ways' and chritianizes them.
So I am supposed to believe that ancient pagans believed in a "maiden, mother, crone" godess because neo-pagans say so? And I am supposed to accept an ad hoc argument against Christianity while I'm at it?
I see you posted a link. Let me take a look at it and I will reply again shortly
Ok, the first thing I see is that you linked an article from a non Trinitarian church. First of all, NOTHING in the article supports your earlier claim that the Trinity was borrowed from a Celtic godess. So are you abandoning that claim?
Secondly, I am not a Catholic, so my belief in the Trinity has NOTHING to do with church councils. I think the early Creeds (Nicene, Chalcedonian, etc) have truth in them, but I do not base my doctrine on creeds. I base my doctrine on the Bible. And even though the Word Trinity is not in the Bible, the Bible teaches the Trinity. Now some churches don't agree with this. But like the article says, heretics rose up (Gnostics who denied the humanity of Christ and Ebionites and others who denied His Deity)
So you are strangely taking sides on a debate regarding Christ's Deity, choosing the side that supports your argument.
So does the Bible teach the Trinity? YES.
a. There is ONE GOD Deuteronomy 6:4, Hear Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord.
b. The Father is God. Galatians 1:3- Grace to you and peace from God our Father...
c. The Son is God... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14. and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
d. The Holy Spirit is God-Acts 5- Why has satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit...you have not lied to men, but to God.
The Trinity throughout the Bible...
Matthew 28:19-Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit
1 Peter 1:2- Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
I have plenty more, but I will post them later as I do not have time right now.
Basically 1. I will show that the Trinity is throughout the Bible. 2. The Apostles were strict Monotheists 3.Trinitarianism was part of primitive Christianity
ON top of that
a. you have provided no evidence that the "maiden, mother, crone" godess predated the trinity.
b. Even if it did (no evidence though), your assertion that Christianity borrowed from it is an ad hoc argument.
c. Where is evidence that the Apostles of the First Century or the Patristic Fathers beginning in late first century were influenced by a Celtic godess?
So far, this "trinity influenced by a Celtic godess" appears to be another in a line of many fallacious anti Christian arguments
“The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D. … In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as ‘the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.’
It's also difficult to prove a concrete biblical basis for trinity when there is no ironclad scripture for it. The most commonly quoted scripture is Matthew 28:19, which readers/pastors claim supports the trinity.
Originally Posted By: KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Conversely, there are Christians who believe that this verse does little to explain a triune Godhead. You could just as easily explain the verse as God calling someone to baptism, the person being baptized as accepting Jesus's sacrifice for your sins, and the Holy Ghost entering the person upon baptism. It doesn't mean they are all the same, but could also mean that they are. Like many tent poles of Christianity, you are relying on interpretation of scripture and declaring the interpretation as iron clad, more than the scripture itself.
There were many interpretations of the Bible manuscripts in the early days of Christianity. Arianists believed that Christ was created, and therefore not equal to God. Some Christians believed the God of the OT and God of the NT were different deities. Gnostics in particular thought the world was created by an evil god, different than the god of the new testament. These issues ended up "resolved" through edicts at Nicaea. This is where modern Christianity tends to follow the roman sun worshipers (Sabbath on Sunday and birth of Jesus on Dec 25). The Trinity concept wasn't made ironclad until these summits, and if you disagreed with the results, you probably died at the hands of zealots. Nothing solidifies an early religion like killing dissenters.
I don't really care one way or another which way Christians side on this issue. However I do think it's an interesting claim to worship a trinity and also insist your religion is monotheist.
“The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D. … In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as ‘the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.’
It's also difficult to prove a concrete biblical basis for trinity when there is no ironclad scripture for it. The most commonly quoted scripture is Matthew 28:19, which readers/pastors claim supports the trinity.
Originally Posted By: KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Conversely, there are Christians who believe that this verse does little to explain a triune Godhead. You could just as easily explain the verse as God calling someone to baptism, the person being baptized as accepting Jesus's sacrifice for your sins, and the Holy Ghost entering the person upon baptism. It doesn't mean they are all the same, but could also mean that they are. Like many tent poles of Christianity, you are relying on interpretation of scripture and declaring the interpretation as iron clad, more than the scripture itself.
There were many interpretations of the Bible manuscripts in the early days of Christianity. Arianists believed that Christ was created, and therefore not equal to God. Some Christians believed the God of the OT and God of the NT were different deities. Gnostics in particular thought the world was created by an evil god, different than the god of the new testament. These issues ended up "resolved" through edicts at Nicaea. This is where modern Christianity tends to follow the roman sun worshipers (Sabbath on Sunday and birth of Jesus on Dec 25). The Trinity concept wasn't made ironclad until these summits, and if you disagreed with the results, you probably died at the hands of zealots. Nothing solidifies an early religion like killing dissenters.
I don't really care one way or another which way Christians side on this issue. However I do think it's an interesting claim to worship a trinity and also insist your religion is monotheist.
I have already disproved the first quote about co existence not being accepted until the fourth century when I posted a link of early church fathers BEFORE THE FOURTH century that articulated this.
SO the point being that in some cases anti theists use fallacious arguments and misinformation to attempt to debunk Christianity. This reveals that they are merely doing whatever it takes to support their agenda.
Not saying anyone here is being deliberately dishonest, but they are getting their information either from dishonest or seriously misinformed people.
Regarding the Trinity, I have already given verses that speak of the Trinity, and even though some churches disagree with me, the verses I provided CERTAINLY reveal that the Trinity as Erik incompletely understands it certainly predates the fourth century.
So the question and discussion is "was the doctrine of the Trinity influenced by paganism?" So far, no one has validated this claim. So carry on in your attempts and I will carry on in my answers.
“The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D. … In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as ‘the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.’
It's also difficult to prove a concrete biblical basis for trinity when there is no ironclad scripture for it. The most commonly quoted scripture is Matthew 28:19, which readers/pastors claim supports the trinity.
Originally Posted By: KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Conversely, there are Christians who believe that this verse does little to explain a triune Godhead. You could just as easily explain the verse as God calling someone to baptism, the person being baptized as accepting Jesus's sacrifice for your sins, and the Holy Ghost entering the person upon baptism. It doesn't mean they are all the same, but could also mean that they are. Like many tent poles of Christianity, you are relying on interpretation of scripture and declaring the interpretation as iron clad, more than the scripture itself.
There were many interpretations of the Bible manuscripts in the early days of Christianity. Arianists believed that Christ was created, and therefore not equal to God. Some Christians believed the God of the OT and God of the NT were different deities. Gnostics in particular thought the world was created by an evil god, different than the god of the new testament. These issues ended up "resolved" through edicts at Nicaea. This is where modern Christianity tends to follow the roman sun worshipers (Sabbath on Sunday and birth of Jesus on Dec 25). The Trinity concept wasn't made ironclad until these summits, and if you disagreed with the results, you probably died at the hands of zealots. Nothing solidifies an early religion like killing dissenters.
I don't really care one way or another which way Christians side on this issue. However I do think it's an interesting claim to worship a trinity and also insist your religion is monotheist.
BTW, this is a big red herring. The question being discusses is "was the doctrine of the Trinity influenced by paganism"? Your post doesnt even address the question.
SO do you want to add anything that might support Eric's assertion?
a. The point in question is "was Trinitarianism influenced by paganism?"
b. Whether or not Trinitarianism is universally accepted among people who call themselves Christians does not establish pagan influenes on Trinitarianism
c. Therefore, Gage's post does not address the question
SO I am asking for real, historical evidence that Christianity was influenced by paganism.
So far, this "trinity influenced by a Celtic godess" appears to be another in a line of many fallacious anti Christian arguments
You should watch your use of quotation marks. I never said it was influenced. I said this type of philosophy was around long before christians, and long before they made it doctrine.
If you study pagan religions, which it appears by your definition means 'not christian', you will see that the triple god 'trinity' exists all throughout paganism, which has predated christianity. You might even notice that the article I posted stated that pagan concepts, like trinities, had made their way into christianity. Hell, even the story of virgins giving birth predated christianity. My point is that the use of the trinity is not unique. By the way, I love the way religious scholars have parsed various flavors of this same concept into their own sub-concepts, so they can elevate the christian trinity as unique over the others. It's all the same concept.
It doesn't matter if you show the trinity throughout the bible, although I find it interesting that you used the Old Testament for some of your proof when the trinity would have been considered blasphemy. You seem to think there was an unbroken line of succession for christ's heir, which there wasn't. All of the apostles were killed for their beliefs, all their 'writings' were written around 100 years after their deaths. You might have also noted that Jesus never once mentions a trinity, which might have been good for solving this little problem. You couldn't even get christians to agree on his divinity until after the Nicean creeds, and usually by force after the creeds.
You might have also noted that Jesus never once mentions a trinity, which might have been good for solving this little problem. You couldn't even get christians to agree on his divinity until after the Nicean creeds, and usually by force after the .
Jesus said that He and the Father are one, yet only the Father knows the day of judgement. Obviously there is an arrangement here that exceeds our understanding.
Jesus said, in Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
He says, in John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
John 3:30-33 says I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
There is no use of the word "Trinity" that I can think of in the Bible, but the fact that The Farther, Son, and Holy Spirit are all seen as equal, as one and the same, while also having different aspects (for lack of a better word) is a theme that is expressed in many different ways throughout the New Testament.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
You should watch your use of quotation marks. I never said it was influenced.
Great. Then pagan triads are not an argument against Christianity then, right?
Quote:
I said this type of philosophy was around long before christians, and long before they made it doctrine.
I'm still waiting for a pagan philosophy that is Trinitarian in it's (Trinitarianism's) proper, BIBLICAL, orthodox understanding.
Quote:
If you study pagan religions, which it appears by your definition means 'not christian',
When did I say that?
Quote:
you will see that the triple god 'trinity' exists all throughout paganism,
Triple gods maybe, but you havent shown me a pagan "trinity" yet.
Quote:
You might even notice that the article I posted stated that pagan concepts, like trinities, had made their way into christianity
...and I critiqued the article and pointed out fallacies (like ad hocs) and falifications (like "Holy Spirit as God not taught till after the middle of the fourth century) etc.
DO you just accept everything you read online uncritically?
quote- Hell, even the story of virgins giving birth predated christianity.
give the earliest and best example(s)
Quote:
By the way, I love the way religious scholars have parsed various flavors of this same concept into their own sub-concepts, so they can elevate the christian trinity as unique over the others.
I hold to the original form of Trinitarianism. In addition, as early as the books of Moses you have plural nouns ("let us") describing the Monotheistic (the LORD our God is ONE). So the doctrine is strongly alluded to in the earliest biblical books.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you show the trinity throughout the bible, although I find it interesting that you used the Old Testament for some of your proof when the trinity would have been considered blasphemy.
Where do you get that from?
Quote:
all their 'writings' were written around 100 years after their deaths.
Interesting thought. The New Testament writings were so widespread during the life of Polycarp (69-155 AD)(a disciple of the apostle John) that he frequently quotes from numerous of the New Testament texts. (and of course there was time needed for the books to be written, copied, and circulated (they didnt have printing presses and publishers back them)
Here is a list of the New Testament quotations Ignatius quoted.
Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians
2 – John 8:29 3 – John 17:11-12 5 – James 4:6 6 – names Onesimus, as in Philemon 6 – John 1:14 7 - 1 Tim 4:10 8 – 1 Pet 2:9 9 – Matt 5:2, 2 Tim 2:24-25, Luke 23:34 11 – Rom 2:4 12 – Matt 23:35, Acts 9:15 13 – Eph 6:16, 6:12 14 – Luke 10:27, Matt 12:33 15 – 1 Cor 4:20, Rom 10:10, 2 Cor 8:18 16 – 2 Cor 6:14-16 18 – 1 Cor 1:20 Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians
3 – 1 Tim 4:12 4 – Luke 6:46 8 – 2 Cor 5:17, mentions Judaizers 9 – 2 Thess 3:10, Phil 3:18-19, 2 Tim 3:4 10 – Acts 11:26 Letter of Ignatius to the Trallians
9 – Heb 10:12-13 11 – warns of "Nicolaitanes" Letter of Ignatius to the Romans
2 – 2 Cor 4:18 7 – Gal 2:20 Letter of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
2 – 2 Tim 3:6 6 – “dragon Nicolaitanes" Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnans
3 – Maybe Rev 1:7
So for your hypothesis to be true (the New Testament books written a hundred years after the apostles death), the apostles would have had to die around 8 A.D, and this is not even factoring in the time needed for the books to be copied, circulated, and accepted as canonical.
Quote:
You might have also noted that Jesus never once mentions a trinity,
He does say "I and the Father are one" and the Jews understood Him as making Himself God. Also, of the Holy Spirit, He says this...
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you.
Jesus said He will ask the Father and the Father would send another advocate (Jesus is the first advocate and the Holy Spirit is the second advocate). Also, He says that they already knew the Comforter, because He was already in their midst (He dwelleth with you) and He would later be in them (He shall be in you). SO the Holy Spirit was already present in the person of Jesus, but He would later be present as Christ dwelling in them.
In the very next verse, He says "I will not leave you Comfortless, I WILL COME TO YOU."
This is in the context of the coming of the Comforter, (the Holy Spirit.)
In the same conversation, Jesus said "...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." John 14:23)
So we see the Father and the Son making their home in the believers (John 14:23) and also the Spirit doing the same (John 14:17)
Later, Paul an apostle of Jesus identifies the Holy Spirit as BOTH the Spirit of of God and of Christ.
Romans 8:9- But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father.
Matthew 10:20- For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
So we see an unbreaky unity (One God) between three persons (three persons) that are One Spirit. Where is your pagan god or godess that corresponds to that.
So while these verses do not explicitely say "trinity", they pretty much describe a Unity between the Father, Son, and Spirit. And not just a unity of purpose, for the Father and the Son are ONE essence and ONE Spirit.
The Bible also teaches that GOD ALONE created the world, but it also says that Christ was involved in the creation (John 1:1, Hebrews 10:9-10) and also the Spirit (Genesis 1:3, Job 26:13, etc) so the Creator of the word is God, who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Pay very close attention to what this verse says...
Romans 8:9- However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Being "in the Spirit" means endwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of Christ. God is a Spirit (Romans 4:24) and when we say that the three members of the Trinity have the same (one) essence, I believe that is referring to a SPIRITUAL essence.
It doesn't matter if you show the trinity throughout the bible, although I find it interesting that you used the Old Testament for some of your proof when the trinity would have been considered blasphemy.
Where do you get that from?
The bible quote you put up about Jews stoning Jesus to death for blasphemy will do.
Since the topic originally was about Atheism ......
I was sent this, and found it interesting. Penn Jilette, is an Atheist. Isn't it weird that an Atheist speaks more clearly about proselytizing one's faith,and the positive virtues of doing so, than some Christians do? One question that ought to prick the consciences of all Christians is one he poses, when he asks how much someone must hate another person, when they feel that they have the key that allows a person to go to heaven rather than going to hell, and yet they stay silent on the matter?
I think that this is definitely worth thinking about.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Actually, I have. You've parsed the definition to the point where if it doesn't exactly matched your definition, you won't accept it
It's not my definition. It's the standard theological meaning of Trinity held by all Trinitarians. Modalism is non-Trinitarian, and Triads do not fit the theological definition of Trinitarianism either. It's not that I parsed the word, it's that you are attempting to REDEFINE THE WORD.
I'll tell you what. You give me the name of ONE Trinitarian whose view of the Trinity involves a Triad of gods. Not an anti theist, mind you. An actual Trinitarian (since we should be allowed to define our own beliefs and not have people who oppose our view define it for us). After all, redefining words is a popular, but dishonest tactic used by oponents of any position.
OK, I don't have time to address these all now, but I will later today.
Quote:
The bible quote you put up about Jews stoning Jesus to death for blasphemy will do.
Except you forgot to read the part about the fact that the thing they considered blasphemous was the fact that "Jesus being a MAN, made Himself to be God."
The contention was purely regarding a man calling Himself God/YHWH, which Jesus basically did when He answered their question "you are not even 50 yet, and you have seen Abraham?!!!" and He answered and said Before Abraham was I AM"
So they accused Him of Blasphemy because He claimed to be God, not because of Trinitarianism.
Isn't it weird that an Atheist speaks more clearly about proselytizing one's faith,and the positive virtues of doing so, than some Christians do?
No, it's not weird.. it's pathetic. It is also the single biggest reason that the church is struggling in this country and other countries, because too many Christians cannot articulate what their faith means to them and why they choose to follow Jesus...
Instead they represent the faith by spending their time arguing over stupid details and telling others what's wrong with them and why THEY are the ones ruining the world....
I thought Horus was said to be born when Isis was impregnated by Osirus
From Hymn to Osiris- She raised up the inactive members of whose heart was still, she drew from him his essence, she made an heir, she reared the child in loneliness, and the place where he was not known, and he grew in strength and stature, and his hand was mighty in the house of Keb. The company of the gods rejoiced, rejoiced, at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, whose heart was firm, the triumphant, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris."
Isn't it weird that an Atheist speaks more clearly about proselytizing one's faith,and the positive virtues of doing so, than some Christians do?
No, it's not weird.. it's pathetic. It is also the single biggest reason that the church is struggling in this country and other countries, because too many Christians cannot articulate what their faith means to them and why they choose to follow Jesus...
Instead they represent the faith by spending their time arguing over stupid details and telling others what's wrong with them and why THEY are the ones ruining the world....
SO are you saying we should let atheists spread misinformation about our faith, (as is being done here), and not say anything. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I am just having a discussion about misinformation and fallacies about Christianity.
Is this what the Apostles did when people perverted or attacked the faith?
Twenty-five centuries ago, King Suddhodana ruled a land near the Himalaya Mountains.
One day during a midsummer festival, his wife Queen Maya retired to her quarters to rest, and she fell asleep and dreamed a vivid dream. Four angels carried her high into white mountain peaks and clothed her in flowers. A magnificent white bull elephant bearing a white lotus in its trunk approached Maya and walked around her three times. Then the elephant struck her on the right side with its trunk and vanished into her.
When Maya awoke, she told her husband about the dream. The King summoned 64 Brahmans to come and interpret it. Queen Maya would give birth to a son...etc
From Wikipedia- ome historians have asserted that the idea that Buddhism influenced Christianity in this regard is anachronistic, and that the idea that Maya was a virgin only developed after the advent of Christianity. According to scholar Thomas Boslooper, "It is obvious that ancient pre-Christian Buddhism knows nothing of the virginity of the mother of Buddha." The oldest accounts of his ancestry mention nothing abnormal about his birth.
Are you getting all this from the spurious movie "Zeitgeist"? If so, I might save us time and post a video that critiques "Zeitgeist"
Lao Tsze- Isaiah predicted the Virgin birth before He was born. Anyways,The myth makes him appear more of a tumor than a child, considering His mother carried him for eighty one years.
SO are you saying we should let atheists spread misinformation about our faith, (as is being done here), and not say anything. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I am just having a discussion about misinformation and fallacies about Christianity.
Is this what the Apostles did when people perverted or attacked the faith?
To the contrary, I'm saying Christians should be better informed about their own faith.. and at least get the big points right.. and live into those big points daily.
I have no problem with you defending the faith in the manner in which you are doing it. Carry on.
Mutemwiya is shown in the Luxor temple, in scenes depicting the divine birth of her son Amenhotep III. The scenes resemble (and in some cases copy) scenes of the divine birth of Hatshepsut in Deir el-Bahari. Hatshepsut had used the birth story to reinforce her claims to the throne. Amenhotep was the son of a ruling Pharaoh and it seems that the birth scene is used to stress the semi-divine nature of Amenhotep III. In a key scene Mutemwiya is shown seated on a bed receiving the god Amun who had taken the form of her husband Thutmosis IV. They are in the presence of the goddesses Selket and Neith. The scenes show Amenhotep III to be the result of the union of his mother with the god Amun himself.[4][8] A pregnant queen Mutemwiya as later shown being led to the birthing room by Isis and Khnum.[5]
SO are you saying we should let atheists spread misinformation about our faith, (as is being done here), and not say anything. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I am just having a discussion about misinformation and fallacies about Christianity.
Is this what the Apostles did when people perverted or attacked the faith?
To the contrary, I'm saying Christians should be better informed about their own faith.. and at least get the big points right.. and live into those big points daily.
I have no problem with you defending the faith in the manner in which you are doing it. Carry on.
OK, sorry. I thought I was starting to upset Christians,and I don't want to do that. I want to strengthen faith, not offend
A large part of why I am doing this is to edify Christians.
. Usually, the reliefs depict three well-attired women, holding flowers, fruit, wheat, and so on. Sometimes they were depicted as married, otherwise as not (noted by a lack of bonnets, apparently). Often, secondary names--likely that of local land or river goddess--are given along with the title of "Matronae". It is important to note, however, that there is a lack of uniformity to this depiction--that is, the figures do not fit a "maiden-mother-crone" pattern. Sometimes there is a mix of married and unmarried figures, sometimes it is entirely married women, etc.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
