A case for the Trinity

[jasoncran]

the catholic church was perscuted by the romans
the first use of the word catholic predates the very bible collection as we know it.

 

[jasoncran]

use the roman govt, and the catholic chruch wasnt the roman govt. please.

if that was the case then why was the saints perscuted before constatine?

 

[francisdesales]

I dont beleive I did, the catholic church was the Roman govt - they persecuted the gnostics who disagreed with the trinitarian docterine.

No doubt, in between Christian snacks, the lions were hired by the pope to feast on Gnostics...

The Church was not in a position to "persecute" anyone the first few hundred years of its existence.

Regards

 

[Mysteryman]

What you need to understand, is that before the actual doctrine of the trinity was introduced. The very first thing that needed to be introduced was the lie that Jesus was God.

Why? According to who? Where do you get this stuff?? That is funny ! As you are the one who just provided us with the information !

Once this lie was introduced and established. Then approx around the third or fouth century the actual doctrine of the trinity was introduced and established.

You're splitting hairs. You don't believe that Jesus is God, yet this doctrine was mentioned, and NOT REFUTED, as early as 110 AD, 10 years after the traditional death of John. Notice how the ECFs simply MENTION the fact that Jesus is God. Almost like they are assuming it's truth. They are not arguing the point at all, and there is NO REFUTATION. Of course, you are going to go to the conspiracy card. I can feel it coming...LOL, Like I just told you, the first lie that needed to be established , was that Jesus was God. Just what your information provied. Also notice, that your information was not about the trinity, it was about establishing that Jesus was God. Which by the way, had no biblical evidence or support. Only speculation .

[quote:783me4c8]Now, that said ------ Biblically speaking -- There is no trinity in the OT, nowhere ! There is no three in one theory in the OT, nowhere !

There are many Christian doctrines not specifically mentioned in the OT that you believe. Water baptism, the end of circumcision, communion services, salvation by faith, salvation by Grace alone. There are others. The point is, this is a sad argument. You want to know what is actually very sad. It is when you and others do not read what I type. You assume , manipulate my comments , and make erroneous states like I believe in grace alone. As it is true, we are saved by grace, and not of our works. And we can do nothing to achieve eternal salvation of our own. The salvation I speak of is conditional upon the rewards and crowns one could get by walking faithfully.

Since the OT writings do not even have a hint of a trinity doctrine. And since the NT had not been written , nor copied, nor translated as of yet. The first century church established the epislte of Christ.

What in the world is the "epistle of Christ"If you do not know, then no wonder you are so lost.

The NT writings and all the copies, and all the translations, have introduced certain comments / wording changes etc, that would imply two things. 1. the lie that Jesus is God , and 2. the lie that that they baptized in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.

????

We know the name of the Son - Jesus the Christ

Very good.

The Holy Spirit is a Father, the Father, because we know that it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary. This shows that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not seperate in any way. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not two gods, nor are they two persons, nor are they two entities. The confusion comes, when you seperate them as being anything other than the exact same spirit being.

The same with a human being, in that a human being does not become a father until this male human being has an offspring. Then and only then does this male human being become a father.

:crazy Whew...Why don't we stick to Jesus...

God has many names that are associated with God Almighty, and all of His attributes. Never, ever in the OT is God called Jesus or Jesus Christ.

Agreed. The OT does not even use the words "Jesus Christ"

Both the OT and the NT writings should line up perfectly. However, the NT is much more corrupted than the OT, and this is why the OT and the NT writings do not line up perfectly.

Which parts of the NT are corrupted? This should be good. Let me guess, the parts that explain the Trinity, perhaps?LOL, NO, as there are no parts that explain the trinity. What a joke !

Once one corrects the corruption within the NT, then and only then does the OT and the NT line up perfectly.

Awesome. Who, in your opinion, should be the "corrector"? Where does the NT say it will "line up" with the OT? Wait a minute...is this one of the "corrupted" parts? Maybe it DID say so, but those evil 3rd century Trinitarians removed those parts. Those rascally Trinitarians...You can try and be humorous and sarcastic, but the truth still prevails. There never were any trinitarians in the first century church.

If someone disagrees with me. The only alternative is to claim the opposite of what I have just claimed ! They would have to claim that the OT is corrupted and must be corrected to line up with the NT writings. However, this would be most difficult to do, if not down right impossible.

Are you kidding? It would be easy. Just claim that the "Holy Spirit" told me that the OT was "corrupted" and needed to be corrected. I'll simply accept the parts that agree with me...I mean...the Holy Spirit, and reject the parts that contradict him. See, simple.I see this reply as ignorance. Or you are just trying to be funny again. No seriousness within your reply. Why not try and be honest when you reply. If you think it is easy, then it should be easy for you to refute what I said. Give it a try!

You believe in your catholic writings much more than you do as to what the scriptures tells us.

So what? Aren't the Scriptures "corrupt"? I can "correct" Scriptures the same as you can, right? I'll simply open the Canon, [creeeaaakkk}....there...Now Ignatius' letters are Scripture and the entire "Jesus is God" problem is solved. You're welcome.

You only use those scriptures that in some way support your specific doctrines. Your catholic writings are much more important too you.

i love it when non-Catholics try and tell me what the Church teaches. Show me where in Catholic doctrine this is true. Show me where it's taught that we put "Catholic writings over Scripture" and please don't use any Jack Chick comix or jesusislord.com.This is simple to answer. Just in your conversation with me here in this thread. You put the history of the RCC above the scriptures in order to make your point.

Not that I have your attention, I would like an answer to this question. I've posted it a few times, but you may have missed it.

You wrote:

God is Spirit ! True, Jesus Christ was not created, I agree. He was born of the virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Jesus the Christ, is both, the son of man and the Son of God. Thus, his flesh is of man, which was taken from the earth. However, his seed is spiritual, which comes from his Father. Jesus the Christ is the seed Son of God - speaking spiritually.

My question is, if Jesus is "not created" wouldn't that make Him the Creator?No ! I don't see a middle ground, He was either created or He is God the Creator. Do you see another way?He is the only begotten Son of God, born . [/quote:783me4c8]

 

[dadof10]

Hi dad

Let me also point out the words of Jesus , which he spoke to the tempter.

'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

All of your comments from your church history are words that come from men, and not from the mouth of God ! The Words of God are established within scripture (writ) . The words of your church history is not to be associated with that which has already been written by holy men of God. In fact , your church history contradicts that which has already been written prior to these writings of your church history. And this starts with the OT writings !

Bless

i was in a hurry yesterday and missed this. I was responding to your claim that the Trinity wasn't taught until after the third century. I was responding to a historical statement, not a Biblical or theological one. Do you think it's logical to expect someone to discuss third century Church teaching using only Scripture? Is it logical to discuss the historical accuracy of your statements using only Scripture? Does logic even matter to you at all?

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi dad

Let me also point out the words of Jesus , which he spoke to the tempter.

'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

All of your comments from your church history are words that come from men, and not from the mouth of God ! The Words of God are established within scripture (writ) . The words of your church history is not to be associated with that which has already been written by holy men of God. In fact , your church history contradicts that which has already been written prior to these writings of your church history. And this starts with the OT writings !

Bless

i was in a hurry yesterday and missed this. I was responding to your claim that the Trinity wasn't taught until after the third century. I was responding to a historical statement, not a Biblical or theological one. Do you think it's logical to expect someone to discuss third century Church teaching using only Scripture? Is it logical to discuss the historical accuracy of your statements using only Scripture? Does logic even matter to you at all?

Hi dad

It is totally illogical to suggest that one is talking about history, while eliminating the greatest history book in the world --- The Word of God !

The trinity doctrine did not show up until about the fourth century. Prior to that , the trinity doctrine is not shown within the greatest history book in the world --- The Word of God !

How many times in our history, do people try and figure out this or that, and do so by avoiding the greatest history book in the world ? Time and time again !

Do you believe that the earth is flat ? I am sure you do not. But do you believe that world is not flat becaue you saw a picture from a satelite ? Or does the word of God already supply this information for us ?

There is no such thing as the bang theory. Yet how many times have you heard of the big bang theory ?

How many times does it have to happen, that history avoids the greatest history book that is in the world , before they finally come back to the scriptures for the answer ?

In the first century, there is no trinity doctrine , none ! The greatest history book in the world, confirms this !

 

[jasoncran]

neither is there a raptrure doctrin either mm. that idea wasnt till the 1800's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eugene_Blackstone

interesting what he has done for the american christians, and others.

i do believe in the rapture, but theres no tradition of seeing it before him. interesting. he borrowed some from an irish priest.

 

[dadof10]

Tradition holds that John died around the year 100 AD. This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Im still trying to wrap my head around the ages of these men.

When does day one of the AD era begin? because I am just assuming it began after the crusifixtion (I may be wrong). So lets say John was around the same age as Jesus(AS), lets say between 20 and 35 - that wold make John 120 - 135 years old when he died. Am I missing something?

in adition Ignatius was born in 50AD - thus making John around 70 -85 when ignatius was born, which means by the time ignatius was 15 - John was around 100 - Am I seeing something wrong here?

Lets clarify these facts before we assume that John taught ignatius the trinity docterine.

Jesus was born around 4-5 AD. He was about 33 years old when He died. Traditionally, John was younger than Jesus at the crucifixion, maybe even late teens, probably early 20's.

The crucifixion probably happened around 37-39 AD. If John was around 20 at that time, that would make him around around 82-87 in the year 100 AD. Somewhere in that ballpark.

Ignatius was probably born around 50 AD, which would make him around 50 years old in 100 AD. He was martyred around the year 110 at around 60 years.

As I said above, these are ballpark numbers, but you can see how John and Ignatius (and Justin Martyr, for that matter) were contemporaries.

Oh boy. Another conspiracy theorist. Let's do this the easy way. You want proof of my statements above, and rightfully so. I want proof of your statement above also. That seems fair. Where is the historical proof of "anti trinitarian" documents being destroyed by "the church".

conspiracy? Its well known fact that after the Roman Church decided on a particular ideology surrounding Jesus(AS), that the gnostic groups that existed were deemed heretical and forced out of existance - which is why the gnostic texts like the Nag Hammadi were discovered "hidden" - thus we can assume that there were more texts that the Romans got their hands on and destroyed. The gnostic groups that fled Roman dominion suchas the Madeans still survive today in Iraq (formerly Persian controlled).

Gnosticism is not a "branch" of Christianity. This is a nice short explanation from the Nag Hammadi library:

Gnosticism encompasses the various forms of religious thought in the Roman empire between the 1st century BC and the 4th century AC, and was mainly based in Alexandria. All these forms are strongly characterised by the duality between the material, which was rejected, and the spiritual. Gnostic thought was declared heretical by the Church.

http://www.nag-hammadi.com/manuscripts.html

As you can see, Gnosticism was around before Christianity. Some Christians embraced gnostic thought, which was heretical.

Non-Trinitarians try to romanticize Gnosticism, as do Atheists and most other liberals (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). In reality, the Gnostics taught many doctrines totally contrary to the Gospel. Here is a quick list:

Although Christ appeared to be human, his humanity was merely an illusion.

Christ appeared to die, but did not really die. The Crucifixion was really a crucifiction.

Christ was not truly God, the second Person of the Trinity. He was merely a created being who was the lowest of the aeons, a group of semi-divine beings between God and man. Each lower aeon was given power by a higher aeon. Christ, the aeon furthest removed from God, created the world because God was too pure to dirty himself with matter.

Matter is evil, so one can do anything one wants with one's body, including killing it to release the soul from its imprisonment.

The God of the Old Testament is evil, as evidenced by the fact that he created the material universe. He is not the same as the God of the New Testament, who is the God of Love, as Jesus and his apostles taught (1 John 4:8, 16).

People are saved by acquiring secret knowledge (gnosis), which is imparted only to the initiated.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm

Are there any Christians who believe these things? I don't think so. The Church rightly condemned the gnostic teachings as heresy. Can any Christian disagree?

You also have not proved that the Church destroyed any non-Trinitarian documents. Saying the Gnostics hid their writings is a far cry from the charge of institutional destruction.

I find it interesting that the same Roman govt that persecuted Jesus(AS) and the Apostles (RA) also went about persecuting people who claimed true knowledge of the nature of Jesus(AS) - The same govt who tried to destroy jesus from spreading his gospel, was the same govt who tried to destroy the gnostic gospels.

The Catholic Church is not the Roman Govt.

 

[Drew]

Its interesting, and I suggest no co-incidence, that MysteryMan has refused to engage a set of arguments that I have provided in support of arguing that Jesus is indeed divine (in the sense of being co-equal to God).

Why are you not engaging those arguments, MysteryMan?

I politely suggest that those argument make the case that, despite all "conceptual game playing" that goes on by those who deny the Trinity, the important thing is how Jesus fits into the Old Testament model of God, not how he fits into these more abstract categories.

To my fellow Trinitarians: Please do not get sucked into these "concept" arguments. Obviously, when we Trinitarians commit to saying that "Jesus is fully divine and also fully human", there are going to be conceptual problems and inconsistencies.

But this does not mean that the Trinitarian model is incorrect, it means instead that you are not making the argument the right way. As I believe I have shown in one of my arguments, Jesus fits the model of YHWH returning to His people to a T. At the risk of over-simplifying, this should seal the deal - Jesus life constitutes the return of God to His people, and therefore God-hood can be predicated of Jesus.

This should not be a concept argument - it should be an argument as to whether Jesus "fits" the Old Testament picture of God. And I suggest He clearly does.

And this, I suggest, while non-Trinitarians are ignoring such Old Testament-based arguments.

 

[dadof10]

You're splitting hairs. You don't believe that Jesus is God, yet this doctrine was mentioned, and NOT REFUTED, as early as 110 AD, 10 years after the traditional death of John. Notice how the ECFs simply MENTION the fact that Jesus is God. Almost like they are assuming it's truth. They are not arguing the point at all, and there is NO REFUTATION. Of course, you are going to go to the conspiracy card. I can feel it coming...

LOL, Like I just told you, the first lie that needed to be established , was that Jesus was God. Just what your information provied.

Why was it NECESSARY to establish Jesus' divinity "first"? That is the question.

Also notice, that your information was not about the trinity, it was about establishing that Jesus was God.

Certainly there is more information from the ECFs about the divinity of Jesus than there is about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The early Church was preaching faith in Jesus for salvation. He is the INCARNATE Word and as such is easier to preach. There are some quotes from the ECF's within the third century which mention the HS as God and use the word "Trinity", but those won't make any difference to you, will they. If quotes from 10-50 years after the close of the Apostolic Age don't matter to you, these won't either.

Which by the way, had no biblical evidence or support. Only speculation .

The Biblical evidence for the divinity of Jesus is overwhelming. You just won't accept it.

[quote:c0hnkq1f]Now, that said ------ Biblically speaking -- There is no trinity in the OT, nowhere ! There is no three in one theory in the OT, nowhere !

There are many Christian doctrines not specifically mentioned in the OT that you believe. Water baptism, the end of circumcision, communion services, salvation by faith, salvation by Grace alone. There are others. The point is, this is a sad argument.

You want to know what is actually very sad. It is when you and others do not read what I type. You assume , manipulate my comments , and make erroneous states like I believe in grace alone. As it is true, we are saved by grace, and not of our works. And we can do nothing to achieve eternal salvation of our own. The salvation I speak of is conditional upon the rewards and crowns one could get by walking faithfully.[/quote:c0hnkq1f]

:help That's not the point, and you know it. I was not trying to "manipulate" your comments. You didn't comment on the above doctrines at all. The point is, you hold doctrines NOT MENTIONED IN THE OT, so the above argument (that the Trinity is not in the OT and therefore is false) is itself flawed. Should I repeat it, or will you respond to it?

[quote:c0hnkq1f]Since the OT writings do not even have a hint of a trinity doctrine. And since the NT had not been written , nor copied, nor translated as of yet. The first century church established the epislte of Christ.

What in the world is the "epistle of Christ"

If you do not know, then no wonder you are so lost.[/quote:c0hnkq1f]

The word "epistle" means letter. I have never heard of the "epistle of Christ" nor that the "first century church established" it. You don't need to be so snarky, just explain it.

[quote:c0hnkq1f]Both the OT and the NT writings should line up perfectly. However, the NT is much more corrupted than the OT, and this is why the OT and the NT writings do not line up perfectly.

Which parts of the NT are corrupted? This should be good. Let me guess, the parts that explain the Trinity, perhaps?

LOL, NO, as there are no parts that explain the trinity. What a joke ![/quote:c0hnkq1f]

WHAT PARTS OF THE NT ARE "CORRUPTED" AN WHY? It's a simple question so stop with the distractions.

[quote:c0hnkq1f]Once one corrects the corruption within the NT, then and only then does the OT and the NT line up perfectly.

Awesome. Who, in your opinion, should be the "corrector"? Where does the NT say it will "line up" with the OT? Wait a minute...is this one of the "corrupted" parts? Maybe it DID say so, but those evil 3rd century Trinitarians removed those parts. Those rascally Trinitarians...

You can try and be humorous and sarcastic, but the truth still prevails. There never were any trinitarians in the first century church.[/quote:c0hnkq1f]

WHO SHOULD BE THE "CORRECTOR" OF THE "CORRUPTED" NT? It's a simple question, so stop with the distractions. I may be goofing around a bit, but the questions are legitimate.

[quote:c0hnkq1f]If someone disagrees with me. The only alternative is to claim the opposite of what I have just claimed ! They would have to claim that the OT is corrupted and must be corrected to line up with the NT writings. However, this would be most difficult to do, if not down right impossible.

Are you kidding? It would be easy. Just claim that the "Holy Spirit" told me that the OT was "corrupted" and needed to be corrected. I'll simply accept the parts that agree with me...I mean...the Holy Spirit, and reject the parts that contradict him. See, simple.

I see this reply as ignorance. Or you are just trying to be funny again. No seriousness within your reply. Why not try and be honest when you reply. If you think it is easy, then it should be easy for you to refute what I said. Give it a try![/quote:c0hnkq1f]

You entire working hypothesis is fallacious. You need to PROVE the NT is "corrupted". I don't accept this, and neither does any one else who calls themselves Christian. The OT and NT do "line up" if you will go into study without a preconceived bias.

[quote:c0hnkq1f]You believe in your catholic writings much more than you do as to what the scriptures tells us.

So what? Aren't the Scriptures "corrupt"? I can "correct" Scriptures the same as you can, right? I'll simply open the Canon, [creeeaaakkk}....there...Now Ignatius' letters are Scripture and the entire "Jesus is God" problem is solved. You're welcome.

You only use those scriptures that in some way support your specific doctrines. Your catholic writings are much more important too you.

i love it when non-Catholics try and tell me what the Church teaches. Show me where in Catholic doctrine this is true. Show me where it's taught that we put "Catholic writings over Scripture" and please don't use any Jack Chick comix or jesusislord.com.

This is simple to answer. Just in your conversation with me here in this thread. You put the history of the RCC above the scriptures in order to make your point.[/quote:c0hnkq1f]

ABOVE the Scriptures??? You make the claim that the Trinity wasn't taught until after the 3rd century, I use HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS to prove you wrong, and I'm putting those documents ABOVE Scripture? Why, because I used them? In what way did I put them "above" Scripture?

Now that I have your attention, I would like an answer to this question. I've posted it a few times, but you may have missed it.

You wrote:

God is Spirit ! True, Jesus Christ was not created, I agree. He was born of the virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Jesus the Christ, is both, the son of man and the Son of God. Thus, his flesh is of man, which was taken from the earth. However, his seed is spiritual, which comes from his Father. Jesus the Christ is the seed Son of God - speaking spiritually.

My question is, if Jesus is "not created" wouldn't that make Him the Creator?
No !

I don't see a middle ground, He was either created or He is God the Creator. Do you see another way?

He is the only begotten Son of God, born .

So He had a beginning ("born"), yet was not created. How did this happen? Could you please explain in more detail.

It is totally illogical to suggest that one is talking about history, while eliminating the greatest history book in the world --- The Word of God !

Let me get this straight. The "greatest history book in the world" is corrupt? Using historical documents to argue historical fact is "illogical", yet using a "corrupted" book to argue history is not?

The trinity doctrine did not show up until about the fourth century. Prior to that , the trinity doctrine is not shown within the greatest history book in the world --- The Word of God !

Show me where you are getting the information that the Trinity didn't "show up" until the 4th century. Please post the docum...wait a minute...you just told me that all documents are invalid except the "greatest history book in the world", the Bible, right? I guess there are books of the "corrupt" Bible written in the 4th century? Do you see how silly this argument is yet?

How many times in our history, do people try and figure out this or that, and do so by avoiding the greatest history book in the world ? Time and time again !

Do you believe that the earth is flat ? I am sure you do not. But do you believe that world is not flat becaue you saw a picture from a satelite ? Or does the word of God already supply this information for us ?

There is no such thing as the bang theory. Yet how many times have you heard of the big bang theory ?

I'm starting to feel sorry I engaged you in the first place.

 

[francisdesales]

I'm starting to feel sorry I engaged you in the first place.

I feel your pain, dad, I really do...

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote dadof10 : "So He had a beginning ("born"), yet was not created. How did this happen? Could you please explain in more detail."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi dad

Let me get this straight. 1. You do not understand the epistle of Christ and 2. You were never taught that Jesus the Christ was born. And now you want an explanation as to how this birth took place.

Don't they teach you anything in the RCC ?

 

[Sinthesis]

Never in scripture is there a specific name given to the Holy Spirit, unless you believe as I do, that the Holy Spirit is God Almighty and the Father is God Almighty, are all the same entitiy. The words Holy Spirit carry the same meaning that the words human being, carry in the earthly realm.

The Holy Spirit is a Father, the Father, because we know that it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary. This shows that the Father and the Holy Spirit are not seperate in any way. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not two gods, nor are they two persons, nor are they two entities. The confusion comes, when you seperate them as being anything other than the exact same spirit being.

I guess it should come as no surprise that you would also have trouble concerning the nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Who sends who? Can one send another over whom he has no authority? Who has authority?

• Jhn 13:20 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
  
  Jhn 14:26 - But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
  
  Jhn 15:26 - But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
  
  Jhn 16:7 - Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

 

[dadof10]

Quote dadof10 : "So He had a beginning ("born"), yet was not created. How did this happen? Could you please explain in more detail."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi dad

Let me get this straight. 1. You do not understand the epistle of Christ

I Googled "epistle of Christ" and 2Cor. 3:2 came back.

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2Corinthians (RSV) 3)

Is this what you are referring to? Paul's metaphor?

2. You were never taught that Jesus the Christ was born. And now you want an explanation as to how this birth took place.

Don't they teach you anything in the RCC ?

They teach us that to be born means to be CREATED, and they teach it in the 2nd grade. You seem to be confused on this simple point since you are attempting to draw a distinction between the two. All I want is an explanation as to how Jesus can be both uncreated (which assumes NO beginning) and born (Which assumes a beginning).

There are still many questions which you can't answer. I'll post them again in case you want to at least attempt them.

1) Why was it NECESSARY to establish Jesus' divinity "first"?

2) The point is, you hold doctrines NOT MENTIONED IN THE OT, so the above argument (that the Trinity is not in the OT and therefore is false) is itself flawed. Should I repeat it, or will you respond to it?

3) WHAT PARTS OF THE NT ARE "CORRUPTED" AN WHY?

4) WHO SHOULD BE THE "CORRECTOR" OF THE "CORRUPTED" NT?

5) Your entire working hypothesis is fallacious. You need to PROVE the NT is "corrupted". I don't accept this, and neither does any one else who calls themselves Christian. The OT and NT do "line up" if you will go into study without a preconceived bias.

6) Let me get this straight. The "greatest history book in the world" is corrupt? Using historical documents to argue historical fact is "illogical", yet using a "corrupted" book to argue history is not?

7) Show where the doctrine of the Trinity was taught in the fourth century only using "the greatest history book in the world", the Bible. This is what you expect from me.

If you are going to ignore these questions AGAIN, don't even bother responding.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote dadof10 : "So He had a beginning ("born"), yet was not created. How did this happen? Could you please explain in more detail."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi dad

Let me get this straight. 1. You do not understand the epistle of Christ

I Googled "epistle of Christ" and 2Cor. 3:2 came back.

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2Corinthians (RSV) 3)

Is this what you are referring to? Paul's metaphor?

2. You were never taught that Jesus the Christ was born. And now you want an explanation as to how this birth took place.

Don't they teach you anything in the RCC ?

They teach us that to be born means to be CREATED, and they teach it in the 2nd grade. You seem to be confused on this simple point since you are attempting to draw a distinction between the two. All I want is an explanation as to how Jesus can be both uncreated (which assumes NO beginning) and born (Which assumes a beginning).

There are still many questions which you can't answer. I'll post them again in case you want to at least attempt them.

1) Why was it NECESSARY to establish Jesus' divinity "first"?

2) The point is, you hold doctrines NOT MENTIONED IN THE OT, so the above argument (that the Trinity is not in the OT and therefore is false) is itself flawed. Should I repeat it, or will you respond to it?

3) WHAT PARTS OF THE NT ARE "CORRUPTED" AN WHY?

4) WHO SHOULD BE THE "CORRECTOR" OF THE "CORRUPTED" NT?

5) Your entire working hypothesis is fallacious. You need to PROVE the NT is "corrupted". I don't accept this, and neither does any one else who calls themselves Christian. The OT and NT do "line up" if you will go into study without a preconceived bias.

6) Let me get this straight. The "greatest history book in the world" is corrupt? Using historical documents to argue historical fact is "illogical", yet using a "corrupted" book to argue history is not?

7) Show where the doctrine of the Trinity was taught in the fourth century only using "the greatest history book in the world", the Bible. This is what you expect from me.

If you are going to ignore these questions AGAIN, don't even bother responding.

-----------------

Hi dad

Being born of a woman does not equate to being created. If someone lied to you since your second grade, then maybe you should go through grade school once again.

I am shocked that you still do not know what the epistle of Chirst means. Let me ask you --- What does the word "epistle" mean ? Why do you believe that II Corinth. 3:3 is a metaphor ?

Jesus Christ is divine. But being divine does not make one God or a god.

I believe that I am dealing in my conversation with you, that which is called a lack of knowledge.

You assume, then become demanding, then when an answer is given, you become arrogant. This is a sad quality .

If you feel you can substanciate something, give it a try. I will correct your errors or shortcomings, where necessary.

The greatest history book in the world, does not teach, nor does it have the man made doctrine of the trinity within it.

Our translations most definitely are corrupt, and many if not all of the copiest writtings are also corrupt. The OT is the least corrupt, and the NT is corrupted the greatest. This is becaue of the influences of the copiest and the translators . Or maybe I should say the influences put upon the copiest and translators.

 

[dadof10]

Being born of a woman does not equate to being created. If someone lied to you since your second grade, then maybe you should go through grade school once again.

It absolutely does. Again, to be born ASSUMES A BEGINNING, as does being created. THEY BOTH ASSUME A CREATOR. To be UNCREATED ASSUMES NO BEGINNING.

You can't explain it because it makes no sense. I'm becoming more and more convinced of the fact you are making this up as you go along.

I am shocked that you still do not know what the epistle of Chirst means. Let me ask you --- What does the word "epistle" mean ? Why do you believe that II Corinth. 3:3 is a metaphor ?

Epistle means letter, as I said in an earlier post. 2Cor. 3:2-3 is metaphorical because a person cannot be a "letter of recommendation" or "a letter of Christ".

Another obvious point which you are missing, and a distraction from your lack of clear answers.

Jesus Christ is divine. But being divine does not make one God or a god.

I asked you how could Jesus be born, yet uncreated. Just explain it, please.

I believe that I am dealing in my conversation with you, that which is called a lack of knowledge.

Distraction.

You assume, then become demanding, then when an answer is given, you become arrogant. This is a sad quality .

Distraction.

If you feel you can substanciate something, give it a try. I will correct your errors or shortcomings, where necessary.

Substantiate what? That to be born equates with being created? Common sense "substantiates" what I'm saying.

The greatest history book in the world, does not teach, nor does it have the man made doctrine of the trinity within it.

Why are you even bringing up Scripture? It's corrupt, in your opinion.

Our translations most definitely are corrupt, and many if not all of the copiest writtings are also corrupt. The OT is the least corrupt, and the NT is corrupted the greatest. This is becaue of the influences of the copiest and the translators . Or maybe I should say the influences put upon the copiest and translators.

Prove it!

Of course, my questions go unanswered...AGAIN. This is typical.

 

[shad]

I just proved that part of trinity of "Jesus is equal with God the Father" with abundant Scriptures. So your trinity is corrupt.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote dadof10 : "Substantiate what? That to be born equates with being created? Common sense "substantiates" what I'm saying. "
-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi dadof10

Substanciate this statement ! You constantly keep saying this, now substantiate it !

You failed grade school, and I am assuming that within your grade school education, you now are drawing from your so called common sense. Life does not work this way !

Jesus Christ was born, not created.

The Revealed Mystery, where Christ is the head of the body of Christ is a creation. Having neither father nor mother. Adam was created, the woman was made. The first man was created in the image of God, male and female. The Last Adam was also created in the image of God - male and female. Christ the male, the head of the body of Christ, the female. The two are one, in the image of God.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote dadof10 : "Epistle means letter, as I said in an earlier post. 2Cor. 3:2-3 is metaphorical because a person cannot be a "letter of recommendation" or "a letter of Christ". "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi dad

Who is telling you this stuff ? II Corinth. 3:3 is not a metaphor.

When Paul spoke to the Corinthians, there was no NT to read. The epsitle of Christ is written in our hearts, spiritually, but also liteally. Not on stone, nor on paper with ink. But on our hearts. There is no metaphor here ! Those who have Christ in them, have the epistle of Christ. This is why we cry out Abba, Father. Because we are sons of God, born from above, with the seed of Christ in us, the promise seed. Galatians 3:16.

No one can prove something to someone else if their mind is totally closed. You want me to prove that the NT is corrupted, of which I can show you, but to prove it too you would require your ability and willingness, to reason it out as well.

 

[Drew]

Our translations most definitely are corrupt, and many if not all of the copiest writtings are also corrupt. The OT is the least corrupt, and the NT is corrupted the greatest. This is becaue of the influences of the copiest and the translators . Or maybe I should say the influences put upon the copiest and translators.

You used this very same argument to deny the rather obvious meaning of Romans 2:6-7.

Interesting....when the relevant texts do not line up with your position, you suggest that the texts are corrupt. Hmmm.............