popsthebuilder
Member
That isn't what I said sir. I tried to plainly state that faith/ belief in GOD, is not dependent upon scripture. And one can surely know what is true by what I leads to.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Yahwah is a Holy Spirit
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
popsthebuilder
Member
Can't you see how unbalanced the weights are in this regard? Basically all opposing reference material was literally destroyed. I wonder why there are more records of mention of three eventually....hmmm. ...let me think....
That's quite the unwarranted assumption.
popsthebuilder
Member
No sir; it's called history. The opposition to the trinity were literally tried as criminals, one of their main priests poisoned, and all related documents from their sympathizers, destroyed.
Unwarranted is not seeing it for what it is presumably due to preconceived bias.
Or, things were just lost, just as the autographs were. I really don't see anyone burning scripture.
We are lucky to forefathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who were unitarian deists.
popsthebuilder
Member
Yet unfortunate, in that even their eyes were veiled. How do you love your neighbor and keep them in involuntary slavery for profit?
popsthebuilder
Member
No one said anyone burned scripture. You seem to be being intentionally overly obtuse.
Benny freed his slaves. And Thomas was a hypocrite instead.
There is so much wrong with this.
Just to take 3 points:
1. It quotes from Alexander Hislop's book The Two Babylons as evidence.
Alexander Hislop was a complete charlatan. His claims were thoroughly debunked by Ralph Woodrow, in his book The Babylon Connection?
The reviewer of Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? says:
The Babylon Connection? is a devastating critique of Hislop and his many imitators. Almost from the first page, the shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty, and personal prejudices of Alexander Hislop are quite evident. By the end of the first chapter, none except those suffering from “black helicopters over America” paranoia could possibly view Hislop as anything but a crackpot and a fraud. Woodrow presses on, however, and in painstaking detail demonstrates Hislop’s lack of scholarly integrity. As one who was formerly believed Hislop to be a credible source, Woodrow understands the mindset of those fooled by this belief system and he leaves their delusions in tatters. When it is over, nothing of Hislop’s rhetorical edifice is left standing.
(http://labarum.net/)
Firstly his claims turned out to be bogus. He simply invented information about Babylonia which doesn’t exist. Likewise his diagrams and sketches were just a product of his imagination,
Secondly he made links without any causal evidence, avoiding more realistic causal links. For example he claimed that the Babylonians offered round wafers to their God, the same a Catholic hosts at the Catholic Mass. His Babylonian claim was false, he showed no link as to how the Catholic Church took this from Babylon, and ignored the obvious point that the Matzo bread which Jesus broke at the last supper was flat round unleavened bread. Also manna is described as round (Ex 16:14) and like wafers (Ex16:31)
As Wikipedia says: "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]
The Two Babylons - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
2. Semiramis was not married to Nimrod. That is utter historical nonsense.
In his book Woodrow says he referenced many recognised reference works including:
The Encyclopaedia Americana
The Encyclopaedia Britannica
The Encyclopaedia Judaica
The Encyclopaedia of Religion
The New Catholic Encyclopaedia
The World Book Encyclopedia.
None of the works he consulted make any mention of Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife.
Not only that but the information given rules it out.
The Encyclopaedia Americana and The Encyclopaedia Britannica say Semiramis (or Sammu-ramat), as she was called by the Assyrians was the wife of Shamshi-Adad V who reigned 823-811 BC. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520556/Sammu-ramat)
Nimrod on the other hand is identified by some scholars as Sargon the Great (who lived about 2600 BC), others with Gilgamesh (who lived about 2200 BC), other with the Egyptian monarch Amenophis III (about 1411 BC), others with the Assyrianor Tukulti-Ninurti I (about 1246 BC).
So Semiramis and Nimrod lived several centuries apart.
3. The examples given of a "trinity" - in Babylon, Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz, in Egypt, their trinity became Osiris, Horus and Isis (top left). In Greece it was Zeus, Apollo and Athena (top right). And in India there was Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
These are not trinities but triads.- 3 beings whereas the Trinity is one being.
Triad
tri·ad
NOUN
A group or set of three connected people or things.
Trinity
trin·i·ty
NOUN
The Christian one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
Bibles Burned.
The Council of Tarragona of 1234,
in its second canon, ruled that:
“No one may possess the books of the Old
and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses
them he must turn them over to the local bishop
within eight days, so that they may be burned…”
– The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD;
2nd Cannon – Source : D. Lortsch,
Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.
popsthebuilder
Member
LolBenny freed his slaves. And Thomas was a hypocrite instead.
God is not a man: In Numbers 23:19; "God is not a man..." defies the possibility that Yahshua The Messiah is God. The text states that: Yahwah is not an ("iys/man) that He should lie, nor the son of (Adam/Man")...
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:
Also Here:
Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.
Psalm 80:17
Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself.
Matthew 22:44
" 'The Lord said (Yahwah) said to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '
Matthew 26:64
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:
Also Here:
Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you.
Psalm 80:17
Let your hand rest on the man at your right hand, the son of man you have raised up for yourself.
Matthew 22:44
" 'The Lord said (Yahwah) said to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '
Matthew 26:64
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
popsthebuilder
Member
GOD is surely not a man, but we do see a parallel between the Christ and the Spirit of GOD.
It seems that the key distinction would be between spirit and flesh. And even then; o how we must test the spirits.
How's your racism thing going?
I was not aware that I have a racism thing.
It’s not I. I was discussing Matt 28:19 with someone else and gave evidence that suggests the ending of that verse was quite possibly how it currently is. You replied to that with: “Can't you see how unbalanced the weights are in this regard? Basically all opposing reference material was literally destroyed.”
So, since I was discussing a particular verse and which ending it has, any opposing reference material would be manuscripts or writings that contained the verse with a different ending than what we currently have. If those were destroyed, then they would be destroying scripture, would they not?
Yes, God is a single being and he is the only God. Those are both statements of monotheism that no Trinitarian disagrees with.
The more I debate non-Trinitarians, the more it becomes clear that they haven’t either actually studied the doctrine or haven’t tried to understand it. It makes me wonder then why they don’t believe it.
It is stated. One has to first look at all the verses in the Bible that God reveals about himself and make sense of it. The Trinity is what emerges.
He is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. That much is clear.
The word Trinity is not in the bible. God states that there is no other person whom is God. Single person who is a single God and not a multiple.
John1:1.
In English we have:
In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with (the only) Divine Eternal, and divine was The Word.
Why do translators drop off the definite article TON (the only) before Divine Eternal?
Trinity fact.
When a council of bishops convened by the Emperor Constantine in (280–337 AD) he decreed that the Father and Son were homoousios (same substance or essence.)
Christian trinity theology of that creed is rooted in the terminology of Augustine's, "On the Trinity." (published about 415 AD) It was about this time when it was determined that the Holy Spirit is a third person.
When a council of bishops convened by the Emperor Constantine in (280–337 AD) he decreed that the Father and Son were homoousios (same substance or essence.)
Christian trinity theology of that creed is rooted in the terminology of Augustine's, "On the Trinity." (published about 415 AD) It was about this time when it was determined that the Holy Spirit is a third person.