Yorick? - Page 9

Yorick · 07-12-2001, 03:18 AM

Fljotsdale,
Let us go back to the original issue I took up with you.
You initially said that "the Trinity is unbiblical", or words to that effect.
I think the fact that we are dissecting the very book that you alleged did not contain the concept is proof enough that it is a biblical concept. Are we dissecting the Quran? The Bhagavid Gita? The Book of Mormon even? Are we dissecting writings by C.S.Lewis, Freud, Confucious or Martin Luther?

No.

Our entire reference has been the Bible. We have cited Greek, and English and argued over word phrasing or context, but ultimately centred around that which is the foundation for Christians - The Bible.

What we are dealing with is interpretation. When I read "The Son is the radiance of Gods Glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb 3) I read "Jesus IS God, and is Gods earthly presence. As I discussed earlier, the representation being the equivialent of an artist depiction of himself in his painting. It is God in his creation - subject to it's laws - rather than remaining outside it. You are interpreting it differently, but one cannot argue the concept is unbiblical.

The Bible needs to be read in totality to gain an understanding of the tone, intent and broader message that smaller verses must be taken in light of. The entire theme of the Bible is on Gods love. "God is love" "For God so loved the world" etc. There is a consistency within the interpretation of Jesus being one with God that is inherant through the passages quoted and also in the speculatory worldview I posed earlier.

Fljotsdale the crux of this is that by your own admission, the views you are presenting are flawed - as you yourself have rejected them. You are not presenting a compelling counter theory other than reinterpreting the Trinity interpretation with single word twistings. You are finding faults with the theory that millions of Christians hold central to their belief. Anyone can do that. That is why it is theory, faith, belief - as opposed to theorum, fact, knowledge. What you are not presenting is a consistent interpretaion backed up with a coherant worldview that you believe strongly enough to put into practice.

At the end of the day we - I - will not convince you. Words and phrases will not proove what you have chosen to reject because they fail to totally convey the Spirit of God within - the third aspect of the Trinity. The difference between you and I is that we are talking about a God I am following and communicating with pretty much hourly. (at least) There is a "rightness" of spirit when the passages we have discussed are read, and the interpretation I follow is taken. There is harmony with all I see in nature, in creation with the beliefs I glean from the Bible. I have no doubt. Long ago did I toss this all up, and long has it stood the test of time and dissection. Indeed, discussion only makes it grow stronger, life makes it grow stronger.

I have a failed marriage and I see how much more God loves me, that he forgives where I could not. That he is gracious where I am not. That he endured silently when I ran. I create music and I revel in how complete Gods creation is next to mine. I manipulate sound waves, but he created them. I merely capture light in a photograph, yet light was the first thing he created. I do - whether you accept it or not - pour my spirit into my music, and, as the moment is captured, the spirit resides within, replaying again and again. I see Gods Spirit in his people - his ultimate creation, and his creation. And when I "see" Jesus I "see" God because he is God-I-can-relate to. Not because he is merely a son that looks like his father. If that were the case I would see a likeness of God, an image of God. Man is made in Gods image. Jesus is the exact representation. There is a difference. "There is no God but me" yet Jesus existed at the dawn of time to "participate" (conduit or originator is irrelevant) in creation.

I see the God-I-can-relate-to because he has been through the pit. Through hell. Through the parts of life that can destroy us. Isn't that what establishes connection with other humans? We connect on a deeper level with those who have experienced similar circumstances. A word or knowing glance conveys enourmous paragraphs of information. So too with God. The comforter, providor, healer and friend. The faith I have only works because Jesus was, is, God. Your faith clearly did not work for you and he was not.

There is not much else to say. We have dissected and dissected and could do so for ages more. The initial point I made: that "the Trinity is a biblical concept" has if anything been proven by this discussion.

Adios Fljotsdale

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

Fljotsdale · 07-12-2001, 03:03 PM

Yorick, John D: I'll get back to you on your posts - haven't got time to read 'em properly this evening.

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

Fljotsdale · 07-13-2001, 04:17 PM

From John D
I see where you're going with the Phsyical, Mental, and Spiritual examples I would offer these instead:
Phsyical: Rock, Plant, Animal, Man
Mental: Instinc, Emotion, Thought, Intent, Reason, Logic
Spiritual: That which resides in us (humans) that is imortal, again I would say that it is intangeble (sp?). God has set enternity in man heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning to the end. Ecc 3:11. In Jeremiah God tells Jeremiah that He has put enternity in the mind of man but doesn't allow him to grasp it.(Paraphased by me). My dad is going to kill me it's one of his favorite verses and I can't recall the exact verse

Mm. I was going for ‘pure’ definitions, John. Plant, animal, man, are not purely physical, like rock; and instinct, emotion, are not purely mind like logic and reason, but are bound up with physical chemical reactions in the body - eyes see, brain reacts, body produces chemicals, whole creature acts.
The whole point of the exercise was to show that the living creature is indivisible – divide it and it ceases to ‘be’.

LOL! I think you are safe from your dad! Ecclesiastes 3:11 is also the verse that says God placed ‘eternity in the heart of man’.

I would not call it life, as we think of life ie: plants, animals. That kind of life is purely chemical, and comes about because the right elements combined in the right amounts and order. That is not to say: That God is not responsible for that coming about. Gen 1:1 clearly states that He is.

Plant life, microbes, etc, probably are, but animals are not purely chemical, in fact, the bible calls them ‘souls’. In Genesis 2:7 we read that ‘the man came to be a living soul’. The same word that is translated ‘soul’ in that verse (it may be translated differently in your bible – the first 8 chapters of Genesis are missing from my 2nd-hand copy of The Good News Bible) is also used of animals in Gen 1:21, 24, and in many other places in the bible. That word is ‘nephesh’ in Hebrew, ‘psyche’ in Greek and ‘anima’ in Latin – so we cannot exclude the animal kingdom in the definition of the word ‘spirit'.

Hebrews 4:12 clearly states the word of God is able to seperate the three (see earlier post) How it does it I don't have a clue, and I'll leave that to God. Way above my pay scale.

If you read verses 11 & 13 as well as 12, you will see what is meant, I think – that God’s word divides false from true just as a sword slices through bone to the marrow (the centre or heart of a matter), and through flesh to separate it from life. It is an illustration of his power to penetrate falsity rather than a statement of the divisibility of 3 separable elements of a human.
People try to make the bible much harder than it is, sometimes – which is not to say that SOME parts of it are not difficult!

You're right the "term" trinity is not used in the bible. I think the concept comes from Matt. 28:16-20. Matt. 28:19 in particular. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (side note it is interesting that even in the ancient greek there are not any comas between the entities)

Neither the term nor the concept. See my ‘authorities’ that I quoted (page 3 of this thread) in my posts to Yorick and Leonidas. Not sure if I included any in my posts to you.
As for commas in ancient Greek in that passage – ancient Greek used no punctuation at all. All punctuation you see in biblical Greek has been added in later times (as were the vowel points in Hebrew, which only used consonants). Sometimes, the adding of punctuation was influenced by doctrine rather than common sense, comparison or observation, which sometimes gave very odd readings. For instance, in Luke 23:43 we have Jesus saying to the 'good thief' dying beside him: ‘truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise’. Yet Jesus was not raised until the third day and did not ascend to heaven for (if I remember correctly) another 40 days. So the thief could not have been ‘in Paradise with' Jesus on that day. It makes more sense to put the comma AFTER ‘today’, rather than before it – thus ‘truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise’. I know it sounds awkward to ears more used to the familiar comma position, but rendering the ‘being together’ to a future time rather than to THAT VERY DAY makes much more sense, since it adheres to the fact that Jesus very evidently was NOT in Paradise with the thief on that day.

It does not say " in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the cherubim and the serubim (sp?)and the avartar and any other spirits that are in heaven". So, there must be a cut off point, and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit all made the cut.

I never said it did! Honest!

I see no problem with:"with us is god" although Thayer's Greek English Lexicon says that the word for God used in the verse (I'd spell it out but I don't know how the make the niffty greek font. On my MAC I'd just highlight the word and change the type NO

r/> NONE OF THAT HIDDEN PC CODE stuff).Can be used sometimes as a small "g" or a "G", so I guess the fight is just going to have to be on.

Since you cannot accept the evidence of the scriptures (yes, I know you will say it is ME not accepting it, lol!

), I suggest you look at the external authorities I quoted previously! I can quote lots more if you want me to.

Regarding the ‘nifty Greek font’ – do you not have a ‘symbols’ page? On my computer, if I click on ‘insert’ at the top of the Windows text page I am writing in, one of the items to come up is ‘symbol’ which contains various letters in basic greek, cyrillic, etc. Mind you, the forum uses a font – verdana, I think – that corrupts some of these letters, so I just Anglicise them and put ‘em in italics. Thus Ö becomes ph. O’course, it helps if you have a Greek-English alphabet conversion to hand!

Darn it! It changed Greek letter phi into a capital 'o' with a diuresis(sp)
Regards

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

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-13-2001).]

Fljotsdale · 07-13-2001, 07:18 PM

Yorick!
To save space, I am not posting all you wrote. I have numbered the paragraphs instead, and will quote the first line of each to make it easy to refer to them.

Paragraph 1. Let us go back to the original issue I took up with you.

The word ‘allege’ means: ‘to state as fact without proof’. I do not think I have done that at any time in this discussion, Yorick. I have certainly stated that the Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical, but I have substantiated that fact both scripturally and by the presentation of quotes from various external authorities. It is not an ‘allegation’.
As for not dissecting other books on this matter – why would I? We were discussing whether the Trinity was a BIBLE teaching. Dissecting other books would be pointless. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying that NOT discussing those other books proves the bible contains the doctrine.

Para 2. Our entire reference has been the Bible.

Obviously it centred round the bible – the foundation, as you say, of Christianity. But also the foundation of Judaism and Islam. I believe the first five books of the bible are the basis of Islam and are in the Quran. The OT is the basis of Judaism. It is interesting to note, in passing, that both the bible-based Islam and the bible-based Judaism are Monotheistic religions. Of the three great religions based on the bible only Christianity has adopted the concept of a Trinitarian ‘godhead’ of 3-in-one.

Para 3. What we are dealing with is interpretation.

Perhaps you would care to examine the quotes from external authorities that I have posted previously

(see page 3 of thread) which state quite unequivocally that the trinity is not a biblical concept in either the OT or NT. You state, very revealingly, that you read the words of Heb 3 in a particular way, rather than as the words are written down. Yorick, the bible itself says not to ‘go beyond the things written’.
I endeavour to ‘interpret’ nothing. I quote the scripture ‘as written’ as my evidence, only offering explanation, where people seem to need it, by showing the original language and contexts and using illustrative examples in an effort to clarify any difficulties. Different translations can sometimes confuse and sometimes clarify a text. Original language word definitions can also be helpful in these cases, as can the writings of bible scholars, such as those quoted in other posts. But you seem to have almost totally ignored these things.
I am aware that even examining ‘new ideas’ (though in truth they are as old as Jesus and his Apostles) can make a person feel a traitor to his/her faith and thus cause an automatic ‘rejection’ reaction. But Jesus said we should ‘build on rock’ not ‘on sand’; and Paul (I think) said ‘make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine’.

Para 4. The Bible needs to be read in totality
Yes, the bible does need to be read in totality, and I have done just that many times. I agree that god’s love is one of the themes of the bible. The primary theme, though, in my opinion, is the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This started in Genesis and finished in Revelation.
I do not agree, however, with your conclusion that it is consistent to see Jesus and God as the same person. Such a conclusion negates the Ransom of Jesus. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread Adam lost the right to perfect, everlasting human life for mankind. Since God requires a perfect balance (eye for eye, etc, NOT limb for eye) then the only thing that could be used to buy back what Adam lost was the sacrifice of a perfect human life – not a god-man aspect of a Trinitarian God. But that is slightly off-topic.

Para 5. Fljotsdale the crux of this is that by your own admission, the views you are presenting are flawed

My beliefs – or lack of them – make no difference at all to the contents of the bible! And it is not I that twist words, Yorick – nor you either. It was politically motivated church fathers who introduced the trinity doctrine, added verses and words that were not in the oldest writings and passed them off as true for centuries. It was only in the last 100 yrs or so that these spurious texts were discovered by bible scholars and removed from the bible. I think that even recent Catholic translations no longer print these as part of the main body of text. It will take longer to remove it from minds, however.
I am pleased to see you label the trinity doctrine as a ‘theory’. Though to my mind it should not be dignified by that term, it is better than calling it a proven fact.
You say I ‘do not present 1) a consistent interpretation. 2) backed up with a coherent world view, 3) that I believe strongly enough to put into practice.
To answer:
1) I endeavour not to interpret; I have been consistent throughout this debate. 2) You do not know my world view so cannot say if it is coherent or not. 3) My beliefs are strong and I put ‘em into practice!

Para 6. At the end of the day we - I - will not convince you.

That is true. I have had a ‘nose’ for lies and deception most of my life. It is almost instinctive. If I go against that instinct - as I sometimes do, being human and wanting to believe the best of everyone – I find that my ‘instinct’ was right all along.
I will not accept deception as ‘truth’ merely because millions of people have believed it for centuries. If everyone did that we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe.

Para 7 to 8. I have a failed marriage and I see how much more God loves me,

Apart from one or two trinity references in these paragraphs, I empathise and see very much where you are coming from here.

Last paragraph. Sorry, Yorick, but it is not at all possible to read the trinity doctrine into the bible. You believe it because you were taught it was true, and Christians have believed it for centuries.
I believe that I have gone some way towards proving it is not a biblical concept.

I guess the ‘adios’ means you and I have come to the end of this debate – but not, I hope, to a continuing friendly relationship?

Regards.

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

[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-13-2001).]

Fljotsdale · 07-14-2001, 05:50 PM

jus' bumpin'

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

Fljotsdale · 07-15-2001, 05:58 PM

Awwwww! C'mon, somebody! I was enjoyin' this!

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

Yorick · 07-16-2001, 05:10 PM

Fljotsadale, you can not do anything other than interpret. How a person reads ideas and concepts depends a great deal on the individuals perspective - where they have come from. You certainly have not proved your allegations. Offering third party opinions and dissecting scriptures can be done for both sides of the argument. The bottom line is, the theory originates in the bible, not from the Quran or any other writing. That is my point. I defined "God", I defined "Bible" and my opinions on the subject are drawn exclusively from the Bible, not any other book. What I have or have not been taught is beside the point. I believe what I do out of concious educated choice, picking the idea(s) which make the most sense of all I've seen and read. I take umbrage at any suggestion to the contrary, as I do the notion that I would be holding fast to an idea out of stubborn ignorance or closed mindedness. Why would I do that? What would I have to gain? I embrace knowledge, enjoy discover and new ideas and ways of doing things. Travel excites me because of the contact with new ideas and new horizons.

The proof of the Trinity for me exists every day. Countering it is like saying my parents don't exist. As much as anyone exists they do because I communicate with them regularly. A few counter arguements attempting to propose a contrary notion doesn't hold anywhere near the weight that regular communication does. It has nothing to do with ingrained or taught ideas Fljotsdale, and I would have thought my posts made that obvious. No matter

Regarding your world view, I made no judgement on it, but rather pointed out you had not presented one. As I stated you have found some passages that can be read two ways but that is all. For the passages that are clear you insist on saying that politically motivated church fathers spuriously introduced the ideas. What? Why? What would they have to gain? History is quite clear that in the early church there was a schism with the Arians who refuted the concept. They were a breakaway. The "spurious" doctrine would have had to have been introduced very early on if that were the case, and I doubt that early Christians would have stood for such ideas that would have constituted "heresy". It's hardly likely that the fathers would have slipped a fast one past the theologians of the time - and why would they? What would they have to gain? If Jesus was NOT God, Jews would have had an easier time accepting Jesus as their messiah and the Church would have grown even faster. Jesus as a non-God wouldn't have been as threatening to the Roman Emperor worship of the time, and could have been incorperated into the all encompassing faith it expressed. Instead, some idea in Christianity was so repugnant to Jews and so threatening to the Romans, Priests like Saul/Paul were killing people for their beliefs. What could that have been other than what is historically accepted. That early Christians proclaimed an executed carpenter as God?

Lets look at similar situations today. The idea of Jesus as God is still incredibly repugnant to Islamics, who regard themselves as the true followers of Jesus. I have read furious counter arguments from a couple of Muslims who find the idea offensive in the extreme.

The idea that lies were introduced makes no sense and you certainly have not presented proof that such occured other than pure hypothesis. IF the verses are indeed flawed, a more likely scenario is human error or reliance on recollections or lost documents perhaps, rather than documents we have today.

This is part of what I am saying about the lack of presentation of a coherant worldview. With the Trinity concept in mind history has made sense of the actions. To counter the idea you'd need also to find counter motives for the persecutions, executions and extraordinary growth. Remember that Christians prayed to Jesus from very early on. People from Pauls day healed in the name of Jesus. People still heal in the name of Jesus. No-one healed/heals in the name of Paul or Elijah, or Adam, or even Enoch, or Melchizidek - of whom Jesus was a "Priest in the order of". Those that attempted to "drive out demons" in the name of Paul failed miserably.

You have not offered a compelling theory as to what Jesus is if he is not God. What do you call a being that is called the "Word of God", is the begotten son of God (not made), is with God from the start of eternity and participates in creation, and sustains all creation. Are we not talking about a god? A creator? The sustainer of life? That is my definition of what (a) god is. The Creator awareness. The sustainer of life.

However we cannot resolve the additional god idea Biblically because God makes it quite clear that he is SOLO - no other God but him. Tell me Fljotsdale, what you think Jesus is, where you get your idea from, and why you think he existed. To counter Adam? The balance would be uneven. Adam had no healing power, no power over life and death, was not a childhood bible scholar, and lived way, way beyond 33 years. He had a wife and three children (at least). He was the son of God, made in Gods image. Jesus on the other hand is described as "the exact representaion". When we see Adam we do not see God, yet through Jesus we see God. There are marked differences.

It should be noted that I am not debating that some of the verses have since been removed, what I am debating is that there was an insidious motivation behind it. It could be argued that it is more likely that there is a spurious motive in removing those and creating new bibles to be sold. I have had fierce arguments against an individual who insists proclaiming the KJV as the ONLY bible, and swears that there is an underhanded motive in changing the scriptures. I'm only bringing this up to point out that both sides of the translation arguments can claim similar things.

This is one reason why one cannot rely on the words alone. Consensus is important. If not adhered to then at least to be noted or reacted against. Teaching, comparing or sharing views IS important. Isolated interpretations can lead to bizzarre cults. The Bible recommends believers meeting together for both solidarity and refinement of belief. Instinct can and does lie - human failability as well as "the Deceiver" can be at fault. In a relationship instinct can be misleading. There are many cases of spouses being unaware or anothers infidelity, or the other way round - swearing black and blue an affair exists when it does not.

The Word of God is alive and active. The written word provides the benchmark that the spoken word can be measured against. The two must be in harmony, for there are many things in the Bible which can be, and often are, misinterpreted.

In all probability the simplest and most likely explaination is that the church - historically extremely conservative, still believes what it has for thousands of years. Anglicans recite creeds from the early church in Nicea that proclaims the Trinity. The "Apostles" creed, another creed from the early church proclaims the Trinity. Old hymns speak of Jesus being God. We offer communion and some churches still cling to rituals from ages past. Again looking at today, how readily do churches change an idea. Female ordination has only just been achieved in some churches!

To suggest that THE DEFINING IDEA that seperates Christianity from every other religion was spuriously introduced because of political motivation defies every historical precedent where faiths have developed. To fundamentally change a religion at the core has proven to be impossible and an attempt results in either a schism or a new faith. Hinduism birthed Buddhism which split into Theravada, Mayaserana(sp?) and Lamaist Buddhism. Judaism begat Christianity which was followed by Islam. Christianity -> Catholocism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism/Pentecostalism. Islam -> Shia/Sunni. A large percentage cling to the original idea(s). As I mentioned, it is documented that the early church split on the issue when the Arian breakaway refuted the concept. The Arians only gained strength by converting new believers in Germanica.

FLJOTSDALE: That is true. I have had a ‘nose’ for lies and deception most of my life. It is almost instinctive. If I go against that instinct - as I sometimes do, being human and wanting to believe the best of everyone – I find that my ‘instinct’ was right all along.
I will not accept deception as ‘truth’ merely because millions of people have believed it for centuries. If everyone did that we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe.

As do I. Where does that leave us? The majority of the world is actually with you on this one Fljotsdale, as most don't accept Jesus is God. The majority of those who choose to follow Jesus however are with me. So I could and can say exactly the same quote as you.

FLJOTSDALE: Sorry, Yorick, but it is not at all possible to read the trinity doctrine into the bible. You believe it because you were taught it was true, and Christians have believed it for centuries.
I believe that I have gone some way towards proving it is not a biblical concept.

I guess the ‘adios’ means you and I have come to the end of this debate – but not, I hope, to a continuing friendly relationship?
Regards.

Of course not! Adios meant I'd be unable to get online for a while.

However, I believe you meant to write the following as your last paragraph, which is more condusive to further friendly debate.

"Sorry, Yorick, but it is not at all possible to for me to read the trinity doctrine into the bible."

It should be plainly obvious to you that I DO read the Trinity in the Bible again and again. So stating that it is not possible is delving into dangerous territory, as is presuming to know why someone believes what they do.

While I have enjoyed these debates I do feel we are at a standoff. Presenting opinions of third parties does nothing, because they are no more "expert" than you or I. I remain totally unconvinced of your argument, but do not see how I can convince you of mine. It is not a matter of clinging to a belief for the sake of it, but rather an acknowledgement of flaws, picking the best available option and then experiencing God personally. I am absolutely convinced there is a Creator of the planet, and from what I've seen, the theory I have presented is what seems to me to be the most logical path to finding and experiencing "him". I repeat, it is not to say the path is without error, but it certainly has less errors and more truth than any other paths I have explored.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 07-16-2001).]

Ladyzekke · 07-16-2001, 05:38 PM

Helloooo Yorick!

Having fun with your trip to the U.S.? Or are you somewhere else now??

Fljotsdale · 07-16-2001, 07:23 PM

Oh GOOD!

I was getting bored!
I wish someone else would join in to support my half of the debate, though! Any takers?

I'll have to take a little time to read and digest your post Yorick, then I'll get back to you, ok?

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

tracey · 07-17-2001, 04:58 PM

in support of fljots - go girl!!
the concept of the trinity has been around far longer than the bible. pagan and celtic 'religion' to name but two, have had trinities from their inception. they are useful devices to represent different areas of the spiritual and the physical. christianity has adopted them in their current form, in the same way that the winter festival and accompanying traditions were
amalgamated in order to entice the simple folk to accept christianity - they didn't have to dispense with their own long-held festivals of fun and frolics. the 'trinity'has been laid over as fact what actually is never actually stated at all in the bible. and what makes the bible the sole source of wisdom and truth anyway? it's bollocks. as is the q'raan (can't spell it) and all other religions. they have some nice ideas, but frankly, the thought that anyone takes any of it seriously is completely laughable.

take from any text and spoken word or deed anything that is nice, and good. but hey, develop your own concience and morality. the bible's morality is appalling in the extreme. i never could accept that god was a nice person, and i don't care how split its personality is.

tomorrow, i will post some proper info on trinities after doing some swift research at work to refresh my memory. so, there you go, fljots, a bit od support - hasty, and possibly slightly offensive. but...... anyway, it's been interesting reading the nit picking..!

07-13-2001, 04:17 PM	#83
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 87 Posts: 2,859	From John D I see where you're going with the Phsyical, Mental, and Spiritual examples I would offer these instead: Phsyical: Rock, Plant, Animal, Man Mental: Instinc, Emotion, Thought, Intent, Reason, Logic Spiritual: That which resides in us (humans) that is imortal, again I would say that it is intangeble (sp?). God has set enternity in man heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning to the end. Ecc 3:11. In Jeremiah God tells Jeremiah that He has put enternity in the mind of man but doesn't allow him to grasp it.(Paraphased by me). My dad is going to kill me it's one of his favorite verses and I can't recall the exact verse Mm. I was going for ‘pure’ definitions, John. Plant, animal, man, are not purely physical, like rock; and instinct, emotion, are not purely mind like logic and reason, but are bound up with physical chemical reactions in the body - eyes see, brain reacts, body produces chemicals, whole creature acts. The whole point of the exercise was to show that the living creature is indivisible – divide it and it ceases to ‘be’. LOL! I think you are safe from your dad! Ecclesiastes 3:11 is also the verse that says God placed ‘eternity in the heart of man’. I would not call it life, as we think of life ie: plants, animals. That kind of life is purely chemical, and comes about because the right elements combined in the right amounts and order. That is not to say: That God is not responsible for that coming about. Gen 1:1 clearly states that He is. Plant life, microbes, etc, probably are, but animals are not purely chemical, in fact, the bible calls them ‘souls’. In Genesis 2:7 we read that ‘the man came to be a living soul’. The same word that is translated ‘soul’ in that verse (it may be translated differently in your bible – the first 8 chapters of Genesis are missing from my 2nd-hand copy of The Good News Bible) is also used of animals in Gen 1:21, 24, and in many other places in the bible. That word is ‘nephesh’ in Hebrew, ‘psyche’ in Greek and ‘anima’ in Latin – so we cannot exclude the animal kingdom in the definition of the word ‘spirit'. Hebrews 4:12 clearly states the word of God is able to seperate the three (see earlier post) How it does it I don't have a clue, and I'll leave that to God. Way above my pay scale. If you read verses 11 & 13 as well as 12, you will see what is meant, I think – that God’s word divides false from true just as a sword slices through bone to the marrow (the centre or heart of a matter), and through flesh to separate it from life. It is an illustration of his power to penetrate falsity rather than a statement of the divisibility of 3 separable elements of a human. People try to make the bible much harder than it is, sometimes – which is not to say that SOME parts of it are not difficult! You're right the "term" trinity is not used in the bible. I think the concept comes from Matt. 28:16-20. Matt. 28:19 in particular. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," (side note it is interesting that even in the ancient greek there are not any comas between the entities) Neither the term nor the concept. See my ‘authorities’ that I quoted (page 3 of this thread) in my posts to Yorick and Leonidas. Not sure if I included any in my posts to you. As for commas in ancient Greek in that passage – ancient Greek used no punctuation at all. All punctuation you see in biblical Greek has been added in later times (as were the vowel points in Hebrew, which only used consonants). Sometimes, the adding of punctuation was influenced by doctrine rather than common sense, comparison or observation, which sometimes gave very odd readings. For instance, in Luke 23:43 we have Jesus saying to the 'good thief' dying beside him: ‘truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise’. Yet Jesus was not raised until the third day and did not ascend to heaven for (if I remember correctly) another 40 days. So the thief could not have been ‘in Paradise with' Jesus on that day. It makes more sense to put the comma AFTER ‘today’, rather than before it – thus ‘truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise’. I know it sounds awkward to ears more used to the familiar comma position, but rendering the ‘being together’ to a future time rather than to THAT VERY DAY makes much more sense, since it adheres to the fact that Jesus very evidently was NOT in Paradise with the thief on that day. It does not say " in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the cherubim and the serubim (sp?)and the avartar and any other spirits that are in heaven". So, there must be a cut off point, and the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit all made the cut. I never said it did! Honest! I see no problem with:"with us is god" although Thayer's Greek English Lexicon says that the word for God used in the verse (I'd spell it out but I don't know how the make the niffty greek font. On my MAC I'd just highlight the word and change the type NOr/> NONE OF THAT HIDDEN PC CODE stuff).Can be used sometimes as a small "g" or a "G", so I guess the fight is just going to have to be on. Since you cannot accept the evidence of the scriptures (yes, I know you will say it is ME not accepting it, lol! ), I suggest you look at the external authorities I quoted previously! I can quote lots more if you want me to. Regarding the ‘nifty Greek font’ – do you not have a ‘symbols’ page? On my computer, if I click on ‘insert’ at the top of the Windows text page I am writing in, one of the items to come up is ‘symbol’ which contains various letters in basic greek, cyrillic, etc. Mind you, the forum uses a font – verdana, I think – that corrupts some of these letters, so I just Anglicise them and put ‘em in italics. Thus Ö becomes ph. O’course, it helps if you have a Greek-English alphabet conversion to hand! Darn it! It changed Greek letter phi into a capital 'o' with a diuresis(sp) Regards ------------------ [This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-13-2001).]

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Yorick!	250	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	6	10-20-2001 04:40 AM
Yorick	Draconia	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	7	09-27-2001 05:55 PM
Yorick?	John D Harris	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	5	09-25-2001 12:43 AM
Yorick...	Moni	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	2	07-21-2001 10:37 PM
Where is Yorick?	Leonis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	17	03-24-2001 01:00 PM

07-12-2001, 03:18 AM	#81
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	Fljotsdale, Let us go back to the original issue I took up with you. You initially said that "the Trinity is unbiblical", or words to that effect. I think the fact that we are dissecting the very book that you alleged did not contain the concept is proof enough that it is a biblical concept. Are we dissecting the Quran? The Bhagavid Gita? The Book of Mormon even? Are we dissecting writings by C.S.Lewis, Freud, Confucious or Martin Luther? No. Our entire reference has been the Bible. We have cited Greek, and English and argued over word phrasing or context, but ultimately centred around that which is the foundation for Christians - The Bible. What we are dealing with is interpretation. When I read "The Son is the radiance of Gods Glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb 3) I read "Jesus IS God, and is Gods earthly presence. As I discussed earlier, the representation being the equivialent of an artist depiction of himself in his painting. It is God in his creation - subject to it's laws - rather than remaining outside it. You are interpreting it differently, but one cannot argue the concept is unbiblical. The Bible needs to be read in totality to gain an understanding of the tone, intent and broader message that smaller verses must be taken in light of. The entire theme of the Bible is on Gods love. "God is love" "For God so loved the world" etc. There is a consistency within the interpretation of Jesus being one with God that is inherant through the passages quoted and also in the speculatory worldview I posed earlier. Fljotsdale the crux of this is that by your own admission, the views you are presenting are flawed - as you yourself have rejected them. You are not presenting a compelling counter theory other than reinterpreting the Trinity interpretation with single word twistings. You are finding faults with the theory that millions of Christians hold central to their belief. Anyone can do that. That is why it is theory, faith, belief - as opposed to theorum, fact, knowledge. What you are not presenting is a consistent interpretaion backed up with a coherant worldview that you believe strongly enough to put into practice. At the end of the day we - I - will not convince you. Words and phrases will not proove what you have chosen to reject because they fail to totally convey the Spirit of God within - the third aspect of the Trinity. The difference between you and I is that we are talking about a God I am following and communicating with pretty much hourly. (at least) There is a "rightness" of spirit when the passages we have discussed are read, and the interpretation I follow is taken. There is harmony with all I see in nature, in creation with the beliefs I glean from the Bible. I have no doubt. Long ago did I toss this all up, and long has it stood the test of time and dissection. Indeed, discussion only makes it grow stronger, life makes it grow stronger. I have a failed marriage and I see how much more God loves me, that he forgives where I could not. That he is gracious where I am not. That he endured silently when I ran. I create music and I revel in how complete Gods creation is next to mine. I manipulate sound waves, but he created them. I merely capture light in a photograph, yet light was the first thing he created. I do - whether you accept it or not - pour my spirit into my music, and, as the moment is captured, the spirit resides within, replaying again and again. I see Gods Spirit in his people - his ultimate creation, and his creation. And when I "see" Jesus I "see" God because he is God-I-can-relate to. Not because he is merely a son that looks like his father. If that were the case I would see a likeness of God, an image of God. Man is made in Gods image. Jesus is the exact representation. There is a difference. "There is no God but me" yet Jesus existed at the dawn of time to "participate" (conduit or originator is irrelevant) in creation. I see the God-I-can-relate-to because he has been through the pit. Through hell. Through the parts of life that can destroy us. Isn't that what establishes connection with other humans? We connect on a deeper level with those who have experienced similar circumstances. A word or knowing glance conveys enourmous paragraphs of information. So too with God. The comforter, providor, healer and friend. The faith I have only works because Jesus was, is, God. Your faith clearly did not work for you and he was not. There is not much else to say. We have dissected and dissected and could do so for ages more. The initial point I made: that "the Trinity is a biblical concept" has if anything been proven by this discussion. Adios Fljotsdale ------------------ I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on.... A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

07-12-2001, 03:03 PM	#82
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 87 Posts: 2,859	Yorick, John D: I'll get back to you on your posts - haven't got time to read 'em properly this evening. ------------------

07-13-2001, 07:18 PM	#84
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 87 Posts: 2,859	Yorick! To save space, I am not posting all you wrote. I have numbered the paragraphs instead, and will quote the first line of each to make it easy to refer to them. Paragraph 1. Let us go back to the original issue I took up with you. The word ‘allege’ means: ‘to state as fact without proof’. I do not think I have done that at any time in this discussion, Yorick. I have certainly stated that the Trinity Doctrine is unbiblical, but I have substantiated that fact both scripturally and by the presentation of quotes from various external authorities. It is not an ‘allegation’. As for not dissecting other books on this matter – why would I? We were discussing whether the Trinity was a BIBLE teaching. Dissecting other books would be pointless. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you seem to be saying that NOT discussing those other books proves the bible contains the doctrine. Para 2. Our entire reference has been the Bible. Obviously it centred round the bible – the foundation, as you say, of Christianity. But also the foundation of Judaism and Islam. I believe the first five books of the bible are the basis of Islam and are in the Quran. The OT is the basis of Judaism. It is interesting to note, in passing, that both the bible-based Islam and the bible-based Judaism are Monotheistic religions. Of the three great religions based on the bible only Christianity has adopted the concept of a Trinitarian ‘godhead’ of 3-in-one. Para 3. What we are dealing with is interpretation. Perhaps you would care to examine the quotes from external authorities that I have posted previously (see page 3 of thread) which state quite unequivocally that the trinity is not a biblical concept in either the OT or NT. You state, very revealingly, that you read the words of Heb 3 in a particular way, rather than as the words are written down. Yorick, the bible itself says not to ‘go beyond the things written’. I endeavour to ‘interpret’ nothing. I quote the scripture ‘as written’ as my evidence, only offering explanation, where people seem to need it, by showing the original language and contexts and using illustrative examples in an effort to clarify any difficulties. Different translations can sometimes confuse and sometimes clarify a text. Original language word definitions can also be helpful in these cases, as can the writings of bible scholars, such as those quoted in other posts. But you seem to have almost totally ignored these things. I am aware that even examining ‘new ideas’ (though in truth they are as old as Jesus and his Apostles) can make a person feel a traitor to his/her faith and thus cause an automatic ‘rejection’ reaction. But Jesus said we should ‘build on rock’ not ‘on sand’; and Paul (I think) said ‘make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine’. Para 4. The Bible needs to be read in totality Yes, the bible does need to be read in totality, and I have done just that many times. I agree that god’s love is one of the themes of the bible. The primary theme, though, in my opinion, is the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. This started in Genesis and finished in Revelation. I do not agree, however, with your conclusion that it is consistent to see Jesus and God as the same person. Such a conclusion negates the Ransom of Jesus. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread Adam lost the right to perfect, everlasting human life for mankind. Since God requires a perfect balance (eye for eye, etc, NOT limb for eye) then the only thing that could be used to buy back what Adam lost was the sacrifice of a perfect human life – not a god-man aspect of a Trinitarian God. But that is slightly off-topic. Para 5. Fljotsdale the crux of this is that by your own admission, the views you are presenting are flawed My beliefs – or lack of them – make no difference at all to the contents of the bible! And it is not I that twist words, Yorick – nor you either. It was politically motivated church fathers who introduced the trinity doctrine, added verses and words that were not in the oldest writings and passed them off as true for centuries. It was only in the last 100 yrs or so that these spurious texts were discovered by bible scholars and removed from the bible. I think that even recent Catholic translations no longer print these as part of the main body of text. It will take longer to remove it from minds, however. I am pleased to see you label the trinity doctrine as a ‘theory’. Though to my mind it should not be dignified by that term, it is better than calling it a proven fact. You say I ‘do not present 1) a consistent interpretation. 2) backed up with a coherent world view, 3) that I believe strongly enough to put into practice. To answer: 1) I endeavour not to interpret; I have been consistent throughout this debate. 2) You do not know my world view so cannot say if it is coherent or not. 3) My beliefs are strong and I put ‘em into practice! Para 6. At the end of the day we - I - will not convince you. That is true. I have had a ‘nose’ for lies and deception most of my life. It is almost instinctive. If I go against that instinct - as I sometimes do, being human and wanting to believe the best of everyone – I find that my ‘instinct’ was right all along. I will not accept deception as ‘truth’ merely because millions of people have believed it for centuries. If everyone did that we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe. Para 7 to 8. I have a failed marriage and I see how much more God loves me, Apart from one or two trinity references in these paragraphs, I empathise and see very much where you are coming from here. Last paragraph. Sorry, Yorick, but it is not at all possible to read the trinity doctrine into the bible. You believe it because you were taught it was true, and Christians have believed it for centuries. I believe that I have gone some way towards proving it is not a biblical concept. I guess the ‘adios’ means you and I have come to the end of this debate – but not, I hope, to a continuing friendly relationship? Regards. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-13-2001).]

07-14-2001, 05:50 PM	#85
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 87 Posts: 2,859	jus' bumpin' ------------------

07-15-2001, 05:58 PM	#86
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 87 Posts: 2,859	Awwwww! C'mon, somebody! I was enjoyin' this! ------------------

07-16-2001, 05:10 PM	#87
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	Fljotsadale, you can not do anything other than interpret. How a person reads ideas and concepts depends a great deal on the individuals perspective - where they have come from. You certainly have not proved your allegations. Offering third party opinions and dissecting scriptures can be done for both sides of the argument. The bottom line is, the theory originates in the bible, not from the Quran or any other writing. That is my point. I defined "God", I defined "Bible" and my opinions on the subject are drawn exclusively from the Bible, not any other book. What I have or have not been taught is beside the point. I believe what I do out of concious educated choice, picking the idea(s) which make the most sense of all I've seen and read. I take umbrage at any suggestion to the contrary, as I do the notion that I would be holding fast to an idea out of stubborn ignorance or closed mindedness. Why would I do that? What would I have to gain? I embrace knowledge, enjoy discover and new ideas and ways of doing things. Travel excites me because of the contact with new ideas and new horizons. The proof of the Trinity for me exists every day. Countering it is like saying my parents don't exist. As much as anyone exists they do because I communicate with them regularly. A few counter arguements attempting to propose a contrary notion doesn't hold anywhere near the weight that regular communication does. It has nothing to do with ingrained or taught ideas Fljotsdale, and I would have thought my posts made that obvious. No matter Regarding your world view, I made no judgement on it, but rather pointed out you had not presented one. As I stated you have found some passages that can be read two ways but that is all. For the passages that are clear you insist on saying that politically motivated church fathers spuriously introduced the ideas. What? Why? What would they have to gain? History is quite clear that in the early church there was a schism with the Arians who refuted the concept. They were a breakaway. The "spurious" doctrine would have had to have been introduced very early on if that were the case, and I doubt that early Christians would have stood for such ideas that would have constituted "heresy". It's hardly likely that the fathers would have slipped a fast one past the theologians of the time - and why would they? What would they have to gain? If Jesus was NOT God, Jews would have had an easier time accepting Jesus as their messiah and the Church would have grown even faster. Jesus as a non-God wouldn't have been as threatening to the Roman Emperor worship of the time, and could have been incorperated into the all encompassing faith it expressed. Instead, some idea in Christianity was so repugnant to Jews and so threatening to the Romans, Priests like Saul/Paul were killing people for their beliefs. What could that have been other than what is historically accepted. That early Christians proclaimed an executed carpenter as God? Lets look at similar situations today. The idea of Jesus as God is still incredibly repugnant to Islamics, who regard themselves as the true followers of Jesus. I have read furious counter arguments from a couple of Muslims who find the idea offensive in the extreme. The idea that lies were introduced makes no sense and you certainly have not presented proof that such occured other than pure hypothesis. IF the verses are indeed flawed, a more likely scenario is human error or reliance on recollections or lost documents perhaps, rather than documents we have today. This is part of what I am saying about the lack of presentation of a coherant worldview. With the Trinity concept in mind history has made sense of the actions. To counter the idea you'd need also to find counter motives for the persecutions, executions and extraordinary growth. Remember that Christians prayed to Jesus from very early on. People from Pauls day healed in the name of Jesus. People still heal in the name of Jesus. No-one healed/heals in the name of Paul or Elijah, or Adam, or even Enoch, or Melchizidek - of whom Jesus was a "Priest in the order of". Those that attempted to "drive out demons" in the name of Paul failed miserably. You have not offered a compelling theory as to what Jesus is if he is not God. What do you call a being that is called the "Word of God", is the begotten son of God (not made), is with God from the start of eternity and participates in creation, and sustains all creation. Are we not talking about a god? A creator? The sustainer of life? That is my definition of what (a) god is. The Creator awareness. The sustainer of life. However we cannot resolve the additional god idea Biblically because God makes it quite clear that he is SOLO - no other God but him. Tell me Fljotsdale, what you think Jesus is, where you get your idea from, and why you think he existed. To counter Adam? The balance would be uneven. Adam had no healing power, no power over life and death, was not a childhood bible scholar, and lived way, way beyond 33 years. He had a wife and three children (at least). He was the son of God, made in Gods image. Jesus on the other hand is described as "the exact representaion". When we see Adam we do not see God, yet through Jesus we see God. There are marked differences. It should be noted that I am not debating that some of the verses have since been removed, what I am debating is that there was an insidious motivation behind it. It could be argued that it is more likely that there is a spurious motive in removing those and creating new bibles to be sold. I have had fierce arguments against an individual who insists proclaiming the KJV as the ONLY bible, and swears that there is an underhanded motive in changing the scriptures. I'm only bringing this up to point out that both sides of the translation arguments can claim similar things. This is one reason why one cannot rely on the words alone. Consensus is important. If not adhered to then at least to be noted or reacted against. Teaching, comparing or sharing views IS important. Isolated interpretations can lead to bizzarre cults. The Bible recommends believers meeting together for both solidarity and refinement of belief. Instinct can and does lie - human failability as well as "the Deceiver" can be at fault. In a relationship instinct can be misleading. There are many cases of spouses being unaware or anothers infidelity, or the other way round - swearing black and blue an affair exists when it does not. The Word of God is alive and active. The written word provides the benchmark that the spoken word can be measured against. The two must be in harmony, for there are many things in the Bible which can be, and often are, misinterpreted. In all probability the simplest and most likely explaination is that the church - historically extremely conservative, still believes what it has for thousands of years. Anglicans recite creeds from the early church in Nicea that proclaims the Trinity. The "Apostles" creed, another creed from the early church proclaims the Trinity. Old hymns speak of Jesus being God. We offer communion and some churches still cling to rituals from ages past. Again looking at today, how readily do churches change an idea. Female ordination has only just been achieved in some churches! To suggest that THE DEFINING IDEA that seperates Christianity from every other religion was spuriously introduced because of political motivation defies every historical precedent where faiths have developed. To fundamentally change a religion at the core has proven to be impossible and an attempt results in either a schism or a new faith. Hinduism birthed Buddhism which split into Theravada, Mayaserana(sp?) and Lamaist Buddhism. Judaism begat Christianity which was followed by Islam. Christianity -> Catholocism/Orthodoxy/Protestantism/Pentecostalism. Islam -> Shia/Sunni. A large percentage cling to the original idea(s). As I mentioned, it is documented that the early church split on the issue when the Arian breakaway refuted the concept. The Arians only gained strength by converting new believers in Germanica. FLJOTSDALE: That is true. I have had a ‘nose’ for lies and deception most of my life. It is almost instinctive. If I go against that instinct - as I sometimes do, being human and wanting to believe the best of everyone – I find that my ‘instinct’ was right all along. I will not accept deception as ‘truth’ merely because millions of people have believed it for centuries. If everyone did that we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe. As do I. Where does that leave us? The majority of the world is actually with you on this one Fljotsdale, as most don't accept Jesus is God. The majority of those who choose to follow Jesus however are with me. So I could and can say exactly the same quote as you. FLJOTSDALE: Sorry, Yorick, but it is not at all possible to read the trinity doctrine into the bible. You believe it because you were taught it was true, and Christians have believed it for centuries. I believe that I have gone some way towards proving it is not a biblical concept. I guess the ‘adios’ means you and I have come to the end of this debate – but not, I hope, to a continuing friendly relationship? Regards. Of course not! Adios meant I'd be unable to get online for a while. However, I believe you meant to write the following as your last paragraph, which is more condusive to further friendly debate. "Sorry, Yorick, but it is not at all possible to for me to read the trinity doctrine into the bible." It should be plainly obvious to you that I DO read the Trinity in the Bible again and again. So stating that it is not possible is delving into dangerous territory, as is presuming to know why someone believes what they do. While I have enjoyed these debates I do feel we are at a standoff. Presenting opinions of third parties does nothing, because they are no more "expert" than you or I. I remain totally unconvinced of your argument, but do not see how I can convince you of mine. It is not a matter of clinging to a belief for the sake of it, but rather an acknowledgement of flaws, picking the best available option and then experiencing God personally. I am absolutely convinced there is a Creator of the planet, and from what I've seen, the theory I have presented is what seems to me to be the most logical path to finding and experiencing "him". I repeat, it is not to say the path is without error, but it certainly has less errors and more truth than any other paths I have explored. ------------------ I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on.... A fair dinkum laughing Hyena! [This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 07-16-2001).]

07-16-2001, 05:38 PM	#88
Ladyzekke Ironworks Atomic Moderator Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Virginia, U.S.A. Age: 57 Posts: 9,005	Helloooo Yorick! Having fun with your trip to the U.S.? Or are you somewhere else now??

07-16-2001, 07:23 PM	#89
Fljotsdale Thoth - Egyptian God of Wisdom Join Date: March 12, 2001 Location: Birmingham, West Mid\'s, England Age: 87 Posts: 2,859	Oh GOOD! I was getting bored! I wish someone else would join in to support my half of the debate, though! Any takers? I'll have to take a little time to read and digest your post Yorick, then I'll get back to you, ok? ------------------

07-17-2001, 04:58 PM	#90
tracey Manshoon Join Date: June 18, 2001 Location: England Posts: 217	in support of fljots - go girl!! the concept of the trinity has been around far longer than the bible. pagan and celtic 'religion' to name but two, have had trinities from their inception. they are useful devices to represent different areas of the spiritual and the physical. christianity has adopted them in their current form, in the same way that the winter festival and accompanying traditions were amalgamated in order to entice the simple folk to accept christianity - they didn't have to dispense with their own long-held festivals of fun and frolics. the 'trinity'has been laid over as fact what actually is never actually stated at all in the bible. and what makes the bible the sole source of wisdom and truth anyway? it's bollocks. as is the q'raan (can't spell it) and all other religions. they have some nice ideas, but frankly, the thought that anyone takes any of it seriously is completely laughable. take from any text and spoken word or deed anything that is nice, and good. but hey, develop your own concience and morality. the bible's morality is appalling in the extreme. i never could accept that god was a nice person, and i don't care how split its personality is. tomorrow, i will post some proper info on trinities after doing some swift research at work to refresh my memory. so, there you go, fljots, a bit od support - hasty, and possibly slightly offensive. but...... anyway, it's been interesting reading the nit picking..!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)