Originally posted by galveston75But as I said earlier it was never taught by the earkly Christians and was of pagan origin. Does that not worry you? No disrespect meant but just my view...
You know Jay...I honestly really, really try to understand what your saying, even a little so I can make some kind of responce to you that would make sence. But the Bible is really so simple and to be honest with you, this makes no sence at all. The truth should be so all looking to understand can do it. But this is so confusing and contridicts itself in ...[text shortened]... tians and was of pagan origin. Does that not worry you? No disrespect meant but just my view...
Well, if it was taught by Tertullian, then yes, it was taught by early Christians. And I don't think you have exactly explained the pagan origin.
Originally posted by galveston75I get the reasoning behind not celebrating holidays and birthdays. That is a choice and not a commandment from God.
"""Thats a lame argument, because by extension anything done by pagans will be wrong. """"
What does that mean? Ok..I'll stop eating because pagans do that too....OMG!!!!
There are no prohibitions in scripture against celebrating holidays. The Jews in fact had numerous feast days. Pentecost was the 50th day after passover and was the celebration of the first fruits. The first harvest was taken in and celebration feasts ensued. They had a very naturilistic connection to nature. Celebrating Christmas is like celebrating the winter solctice, a natural phenomena made by God, is in fact celebrating God's creation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have been working for years at getting the beam out of my eye... I may need a crowbar
i suggest that instead of pontificating to others, you know, let me take that straw out of your eye, that you have a good look at yourself, then, and only then will you see clearly and be able to help others, for it is well known fact that Christendom is full of such armchair christians who are somehow able to point out the straw in their brothers ey ...[text shortened]... e straining out the gnat and gulping down your camels! bunch of weed like armchair christians!
Originally posted by Conrau KI have many referances but can't seem to figure out how to put the links on here. If you want to email me I'll send them to you. Let me know...
[b]But as I said earlier it was never taught by the earkly Christians and was of pagan origin. Does that not worry you? No disrespect meant but just my view...
Well, if it was taught by Tertullian, then yes, it was taught by early Christians. And I don't think you have exactly explained the pagan origin.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillI have quite a few refrences about the origin of the trinity if you want. Let me know...
I'll give short answers.
[b]==================================
Well I have a couple questions about Jesus and God being the same. Go to Gen 1:26. It says "let us" there. Who was he speaking to?
========================================
God was speaking to God. Compare it with Isaiah 6:8 .
================================
John 6:4 ...[text shortened]...
It is indeed mysterious.
And I will stop here for length's sake.
Originally posted by duecerLol, you must forgive this utterance Duecer, it was said in haste and in the heat of debate, in retrospect, i really regret it, but the words were out, the dye was caste and i cannot take it back, even though i want to.
I have been working for years at getting the beam out of my eye... I may need a crowbar
Originally posted by galveston75I have quite a few links to the biblical basis of the Triune God.
I have quite a few refrences about the origin of the trinity if you want. Let me know...
Here's a sample of one I consider very balanced and reliable.
MODALISM, TRITHEISM, OR THE PURE REVELATION OF THE TRIUNE GOD ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE
http://www.contendingforthefaith.org/responses/booklets/modalism.html
Originally posted by galveston75==========================
You know Jay...I honestly really, really try to understand what your saying, even a little so I can make some kind of responce to you that would make sence. But the Bible is really so simple and to be honest with you, this makes no sence at all. The truth should be so all looking to understand can do it. But this is so confusing and contridicts itself in ...[text shortened]... tians and was of pagan origin. Does that not worry you? No disrespect meant but just my view...
But as I said earlier it was never taught by the earkly Christians and was of pagan origin. Does that not worry you? No disrespect meant but just my view...
=============================
The references to the three-oneness of God were mentioned in the New Testament casually, matter of factly, and often as a side issue to the main point of a passage.
The disciples were in the experience of the three-oneness of God rather than in the doctrinal debates which developed in the 2nd century.
What as taken for granted and assumed latter came under attack. And the 18 centuries that followed consisted of endless debates about what was casually accepted from the beginnings of the Christian church.
It is quite clear from Paul's basic letter of Christian doctrine, the book of Romans, particularly chapter 8, that the believers could make NO experiencial difference between Christ, the Spirit of God, and the Father. They could not detect within them any difference.
The attacks against the three-oneness of God mostly came from those thinkers who were less into experience and more into doctrinal disputes to reconcile paradoxes of Scripture.
Paul uses these titles interchangeably in Romans 8:9-11, as the same Divine God indwelling the Christrians:
The Spirit of God,
The Spirit of Christ
Christ
The Spirit of the One who raised Christ Jesus from the dead
The Apostle goes breathlessly from one title to the other. It is assumed that the readers know exactly WHO He is talking about, the God Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by jaywillFound this with very easy research on the internet.. This is a small part of this page.
[b]==========================
But as I said earlier it was never taught by the earkly Christians and was of pagan origin. Does that not worry you? No disrespect meant but just my view...
=============================
The references to the three-oneness of God were mentioned in the New Testament casually, matter of factly, and often as a side ...[text shortened]... the readers know exactly WHO He is talking about, the God Who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[/b]
The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: ‘[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,’ which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in ‘one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all’ (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1
Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered. The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the ‘Father’, and the ‘King of the Gods’; Enlil, the ‘wind-god’ was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of ‘three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures’ (316).
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, ‘In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day’ (16).
More to come.......
Egypt’s history is similar to Sumeria’s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a ‘transcendental, above creation, and preexisting’ one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were ‘combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity’ (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: ‘All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah’ (Hornung 219).
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? No. However, Durant submits that ‘from Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity...’ (Caesar 595). Dr. Gordon Laing, retired Dean of the Humanities Department at the University of Chicago, agrees that ‘the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus’ probably accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God, and was influential ‘in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicaean and Athanasian creeds’ (128-129).
More to come...
These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans,’ and yet it became so ‘typical of Rome’ that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. That Christianity was not ashamed to borrow from pagan culture is amply shown by Durant: ‘Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it’ (Caesar 595).
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No. However, Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Yale, confirms the Church’s respect for pagan ideas when he states that the Apologists and other early church fathers used and cited the [pagan] Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that they were called ‘Sibyllists’ by the 2nd century critic, Celsus. There was even a medieval hymn, ‘Dies irae,’ which foretold the ‘coming of the day of wrath’ based on the ‘dual authority of ‘David and the Sibyl”(Emergence 64-65). The attitude of the Church toward paganism is best summed up in Pope Gregory the Great’s words to a missionary: ‘You must not interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity’ (qtd. in Laing 130).
==========================
The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man.
===========================
Why are you impressed with this nonsense ?
=====================================
Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas.
====================================
Please specifically mention THE chapter and paragraphs in Alexander Hislop's book which speak of the pagan origins of the Trinity.
I read the book and recall NO discussion in it about the Trinity. If I am wrong, please specify WHICH CHAPTER.
It is not good enough to throw up the name Hislop and "The Two Babylons" in a vague general way for support. Vague references like this do not support anti-trinitarian argument.
==================================
A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: ‘[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,’ which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in ‘one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all’ (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1
==================================
Where in Hisplop's book does he say any of the following:
1.) The Word in John 1:1 is another God besides the one God Almighty?
2.) Jesus Christ was an arch angel or a created being who was not eternal.
3.) There is no Triune God and the Trinity is a false belief.
4.) The Holy Spirit is not the Third "Person" of the Trinity.
WHERE in Hislop's book The Two Babylons are the discussions making these classic anti trinitarian claims ?
========================================
Most of ancient theology is lost under the sands of time. However, archaeological expeditions in ancient Mesopotamia have uncovered the fascinating culture of the Sumerians, which flourished over 4,000 years ago. Though Sumeria was overthrown first by Assyria, and then by Babylon, its gods lived on in the cultures of those who conquered.
====================================
It is nice that you have an interest in archeology and ancient Mesopatamia. None of this has any bearing on the Scriptural revelation of the Father being God, the Son being God incarnate, and the Holy Spirit being God imparted into man.
I consider what you are doing as just kind of throwing dust up into the air (Acts 22:23). These are false alarms you are sounding off.
Jesus told the disciples to baptize the disciples into the ONE NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28. Jesus did not say baptize them into the NAMES (plural) but "baptizing them into the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ..."
So the ONE NAME is actually "Father - Son - Holy Spirit" the Triune God. That is Matthew 28:19. And references to Hislop and Sumaria and ancient Mesopotamia I regard as so much bluster.
=======================================
The historian S. H. Hooke tells in detail of the ancient Sumerian trinity: Anu was the primary god of heaven, the ‘Father’, and the ‘King of the Gods’; Enlil, the ‘wind-god’ was the god of the earth, and a creator god; and Enki was the god of waters and the ‘lord of wisdom’ (15-18). The historian, H. W. F. Saggs, explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of ‘three gods of roughly equal rank... whose inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures’ (316).
====================================
It has nothing to do with the Triune God of the Bible. The Sumerians did not insert Isaiah 9:6 into the Hebrew Scripture. They did not add Matthew 28:19. The prophets and the apostles wrote those and many many other passages.
You can not appeal to demi-gods of the pagans or to polytheistic duos or triads or quartets or multiple familes of dieties of India or Mesopotamia to turn the Christian away from the revelation of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Bible.
=============================================
Is this positive proof that the Christian Trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison, ‘In the unity of that one, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize [sic] that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed... the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day’ (16).
=====================================
I do not recall Hislop discussing this. But I will double check. I would like you to refer me to the chapter where this can be examined in The Two Babylons.
Originally posted by galveston75As I argued earlier, the Roman Catholic Church was largely peripheral in the early church. It was the Greek churches that held the greater theological status. Indeed, most of the early Christian theologians were Greek. And not until the fourth century did the Latin church achieve equal footing, with the arrival of St. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Pope Gregory. Before then, the Patristic writings composed primarily of Greek writings. So I hardly see how the Trinity can be blamed on the Roman Catholic Church adopting Paganism. I would be skeptical of those sources of yours.
These were not the only trinities early Christians were exposed to. The historical lecturer, Jesse Benedict Carter, tells us of the Etruscans. As they slowly passed from Babylon through Greece and went on to Rome (16-19), they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. This trinity was a ‘new idea to the Romans,’ and yet it became so ‘ty ...[text shortened]... al belief or religious observance that can be harmonized with Christianity’ (qtd. in Laing 130).
and yet it became so ‘typical of Rome’ that it quickly spread throughout Italy (26). Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry.
The similarities however are short. When the Romans spoke of these gods as a triad, they simply meant that these were three separate gods deserving equal worship. When the early Church spoke of the Trinity, they meant that there was only God, of one nature, shared equally in three persons.
Originally posted by Conrau KSo does it really matter how or from whom the trinity came to be in the Christian churches in the 4th century? But what does matter is that it was introduced by one's that did not follow Jesus's teachings and gave into the pressures that were now being applied by outside, non christians.
As I argued earlier, the Roman Catholic Church was largely peripheral in the early church. It was the Greek churches that held the greater theological status. Indeed, most of the early Christian theologians were Greek. And not until the fourth century did the Latin church achieve equal footing, with the arrival of St. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose and Pope Gre ...[text shortened]... nity, they meant that there was only God, of one nature, shared equally in three persons.
((( Jesus time "no trinity teachings" in the congregations or in the Bible. )))
((( 4th century trinity teachings now in the churches? Hum???? )))
Sounds like a prohpecy being fulfilled to me!!!!
A trend that still continues today with some so called Christian churches letting homosexuals into their congregations.
Jesus told his followers to keep the congregations clean from any defilements or false teachings......
Come on guys..you all to smart for this!