I Believe (to address the complaints of last week)
-
Time out from religion; just Carl Sagan, telling it the way it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw&feature=related -
Thanks Alan, that was very nice indeed.
-
-
Andy,
I did read already Darwin, Dawkins, Sagan, and so onā¦, and now itās easy for me to compare them. My difficulty is āEnglish Compositionā, because English is my 4th language, not the 1st or the 2nd oneā¦Tom,
Iām not a descendent of Abrahamā¦!
You are right that Abraham is a comun āelementā in some Godās names, but Islam has a āGod of Ismaelā and (for example) Juda has a āGod of Isaacā, they are not āone and the sameā (diff. names, character, attributes, etc.).Judaās God is a 3 Person God [The Father, The Son (Messiah) and The Holly Spirit]
What is the name of Son of Allah? (do you know that?!)Cornel
-
Ismael was son of Avraham, same as Isaac.
to the branch of Isaac comes the Torah, the message for the Jews.
to the branch of Ismael comes the CorƔn, the message for the Arabs.
Jesus gives the message of the Gospel for everyone.
Jews dont follow Him. Roman Catholic Christian Church try to grasp His message with no luck to be honest.
then, in the 600 year comes Mahoma and reveals the last message.
All go in the same direction : there is a message from YHVH to be known.
yes, lets talk about those videos
-
Yes, J.V.S.,
You are right about PEOPLE: Jews and Arabs.About religion:
Cornel
-
@juanv.soler said:
Ismael was son of Avraham, same as Isaac.
to the branch of Isaac comes the Torah, the message for the jews.
to the branch of Ismael comes the CorƔn, the message for the arabs.(Juan, you slipped an edit in on me :`)
And from the Jews come the Christians...right?!? Otherwise why include the Old Testament in the Christian Bible?
Cornel, surely you understand the scriptures refered to in your quotes from the New Testament were written first in the Old Testament; understand that until after his death Jesus was received as a new prophet with a new interpretation of the old Word!?!
I'm starting to wonder about you, Cornel...?
-
Tom,
Jesus Christ (The Messiah) is The Son of God, is part (not a 'fragment', but a Person) of The Thrinity!
Jesus is The God!
Now, you can "start to wonder" about me!
Cornel
-
Alan, WOW! Thanks a bunch for that...out now to all I know.
-
Cornel, I'm tired of your bait and switch...I'm going to go home now and have some ice cream.
-
There you go again, Alan.
Providing accurate historical data showing the contradictions, absurdity, plagiarism
and plain nonesense propagated by the adherents of religion.
And will you receive a sensible rebuttal of any kind?
Nope! Most likely you will just receive another quote from one of their holy books.Regards
Mr S -
Yes, but it's fun though.
-
Alan,
I have inclusive those āhistorical dataā and different comments about themā¦Alan wrote: āThe Trinity is entirely a human inventionā¦ā
The TRINITY is remarked even in the first chaptre of the Bible (Iām sorry for you, Alan!)!:
āAnd God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.ā (Genesis 1:26)The word āOURā is plural, isnāt it?!!
Cornel
-
so we are three
the us you mention
no?
how good from us to have understood finally YHVH** divinity
now, Cornel,
that is not fair
is it ?
how can *YHVH**divide ?
*YHVH is just superior to us
that is why is ***YHVH
-
I LIKE very much Dawkins talk about atheism
first time to meet him.
maybe we can make a deal.. -
@unknownuser said:
Alan,
I have inclusive those āhistorical dataā and different comments about themā¦Alan wrote: āThe Trinity is entirely a human inventionā¦ā
The TRINITY is remarked even in the first chaptre of the Bible (Iām sorry for you, Alan!)!:
āAnd God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.ā (Genesis 1:26)The word āOURā is plural, isnāt it?!!
Cornel
You must understand the older English use of the 'plural' as the 'singular' when applied to 'the powers that be'. The monarch (king/queen) of England might still say, "We are not amused" - when meaning "I am not amused". Therefore long ago when translating 'what God said' it'd seem very appropriate to say 'We' and 'Us' when God is saying things about himself rather than 'I' and 'me' - when you are omnipotent you are at the same time 'one' and 'all' - by definition.The Trinity IS a human invention - it was invented to get over the logical problem that arises when you all agree that you have ONE God but 'he' is seeming split into two OR three parts... So 'three-in-one' make it OK[ish]...
.
-
Just read: "The Hebrew word for God: 'elohim' is a plural noun...it can be used in grammatical agreement with both singular verbs and plural pronouns. Thus the confusion in Genesis and the split in the church Alan mentioned. (Of course, Cornel will soon tell us he is not confused at all by this :`)
-
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.
Advertisement