I Believe (to address the complaints of last week)
-
But the whole concept of a Trinity was decided by a vote over three centuries after the crucifixion.
The terms "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" appear sequentially in the Bible; are even mentioned by Christ when he instructs his apostles to go out into the world and spread the word....but they are never claimed to be one and the same thing.The Trinity is entirely a human invention, adopted by the Roman branch of the Church after it denounced the priest Arius as a heretic and split from the Orthodox Christianity of the Eastern Mediterranean. The preachings of Arius...that God had no beginning or end, so could not be the same as Christ, who had a very definite beginning and end...prompted the Emporor Constantine to convene the first ecumenical council of Nicea in 325.
The Trinity is not a fact of God or Christ but the result of power-struggle between different factions of the Church. Earlier Christianity had no concern about the notion of a Trinity...in the same way that they did not use the symbol of the cross; they used a fish.
It was Constantine's idea to use a cross, just as it was Constantine's idea to perpetuate the old pagan Roman idea of a Triad of gods (Jupiter, Juno and Minerva). Roman mythology even describes Minerva's creation as "light from light, true god from true god." Sound familiar?The Trinity, like so many other aspects of Christianity was introduced by Constantine in order to smooth the transition of the population from paganism to the Church. In other words, it was a marketing ploy to get converts. It has no foundation in the Bible whatsoever. The vast majority of Christians today just accept it as a "fact" because they are to lazy or too scared to check the origins for themselves.
-
Surely thats of little consequence though, as the bible was translated in to english.
(i cant believe im actually arguing the validity of the bible as a historical source!)
-
TIG wrote:
"You must understand the older English use of the 'plural' as the 'singular'..."
I know that, BUT (a 'big but'!),
you (TIG, Tom, etc.) must understand the older Greek (very precise) and Latin languages.
Sorry again!, gentlemen.
-
that is a kick on the tommy
Cornel,
understand so please that we dont play the same way.
understand that it will be dif_ficult for you in here unless you understand this is not a game of altogether kids but an each_ one
each_one conversation about what,. is going on, on this trhread, .for example.
get it ? -
I'm a little rusty on my biblical studies, but I believe the Old Testament was largely Aramaic, which is a proto-Hebrew language and predates Greek and Latin.
-
Paul's right. It's utterly pointless arguing about small points of semantics in a document that has been imperfectly translated from Aramaic to Greek and then into English...possibly via Latin.
Heck, scholars can't even agree on the precise significance of the term "Virgin"...as in Virgin Mary...as used in Aramaic at that time. Many claim it simply meant unmarried; rather like the older English use of the term "maiden". Trying to score points about whether a pronoun is singular, plural or both is really pretty desperate stuff. -
Sorry, guys,
I was on vacation…!
THE TRINITY IS NOT A HUMAN INVENTION…!
There is a real GOD - 3 UNITARY Person: The Father, The Son and The Holly Spirit.
Humans, inspired by Trinity, combined those 3 ‘Powers’: Judicial, Legislative and Executive.
Initially, I mentioned: “The TRINITY is remarked even in the first chaptre of the Bible”.
I was expecting you to read The Bible, to see hundreds of verses refering to these 3 ‘CONSTITUENTS’…, but…
My conclusion: you weren't interested!
Cornel
-
Apparently it's you who aren't interested, Cornel. If you actually read what I wrote, it was that the terms father, son and holy spirit are mentioned ...even sequentially...in the Bible, but nowhere, NOWHERE, does it mention a Trinity. Here's a text version...run a word search. I'm not interested in what you or anyone else may infer...that's merely your assessment. I repeat; the Trinity is not mentiond in the Bible, it's a human invention.
-
Alan,
Humans established only a concise, explicative term...!
"TRINITY" was a proper proposed name, not an "invention"!"BIBLE" term is not included in The Bible...
but The Bible isn't a "human invention"!Cornel
-
I love it when some crazy runs into a school and blows away fifty kids, or a school bus gets hit by a train and the parents of the surviving kid thank 'god' for saving 'their little Billy or Betty'. It's also nice that God takes the time to help athletes win basketball games. God hates losers and infidels and loves me.
-
I asked God for help when I was learning SketchUp, but he only knew how to use the 'follow me' tool.
-
You seem to get a big kick out making fun of those who believe in God. Do you also mock those who believe in Allah or are you a single religion hater?
-
Is their anything wrong with believing that someone of a particular religious bent is wrong?
-
How could it be wrong, Remus ?
-
@unknownuser said:
Humans established only a concise, explicative term...!
"TRINITY" was a proper proposed name, not an "invention"!SO, *** , NEVER TELLS HUMAN ABOUT TRINITY and human comes and establish a concise, explicative term
, in terms that it is a proposed name, , and it is not an invention. Come on Cornel,
it was all about trying to grasp, *** s identity so that it could not be comprehended but by those who proposed it.A GREAT SIN, in my view.
I am not saying that it was done on purpose, I am saying that, that was and is, the result of that thinking. And, because the result of that has been the confussion and the need to get an explanation by the Church who holds that believe AND that makes the path to *** to have to get the Church´s approval, wich is nonsense, and, since it has not been changed yet, it is a sin. A BIG ONE.
IS NOT IT ?*** , is for everyone and is easy
and heart catches without the need of rational puzzle thinking.I THINK YOU SHOULD LET YOURSELF FEEL RATHER THAN READ TO GET WHAT SUITS YOU BEST.
written with care for you, indeed.
honest. -
My point exactly.
EDIT: i just re read what i wrote and it makes little to no sense, please ignore it
-
@remus said:
Is their anything wrong with believing that someone of a particular religious bent is wrong?
Actually, I think I know what you mean. I have a problem with Islam, so I would have to answer your question with a "no".
-
Could i ask what that problem is? im intrigued.
-
For me, it started in 1979 with the Iran hostage crisis and then 9/11. I have not seen "moderate" Muslims condemn what happened and I don't think I ever will. I believe Islam aims for dominance.
Edit: They seem to be getting their way in Europe, don't you think?
-
I've heard quite a few Muslims condemn those terrorist events, one of them (the one doing the condemning) was even a good friend of mine.
In the least offensive way possible, i wonder, have you spoken to many muslims about it?
Advertisement