Pagan basis of the trinity.

Originally posted by galveston75
Unbelieveable that anyone would fall for this stuff. Very, very sad. And this is the truth that sets ones free? I don't think so!!!!

But, I know so!!!

Nope nope nope

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Nope nope nope

Yeap yeap yeap

Originally posted by RJHinds
You did not quote the Athanasian Creed.

The following is the Athanasian Creed

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

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish ...[text shortened]... e faithfully he cannot be saved.

That is the Athanasian Creed.
It says nothing about modes.

i am perfectly aware of what it is, it is not I that is having trouble with it, but you, for example, you have stated that it was used by cults (not mentioned), and that by inference its not widely accepted (another inaccuracy). Clearly its universally adopted indicating that you really dont know what you are talking about. Secondly, it mentions, as per the definition, three distinct entities, lets look at number five, eight, ten and thirteen, shall we.


5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

from the definition: there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God.

Thus the definition given is entirely reflective of the Athanasian Creed. This has led me to the conclusion based on your responses that 1. you do not read the text. 2. If you have read the text you have failed to understand it. 3. If you have read the text and understood it, you dont know what you are talking about. 4. You simply want to argue for arguments sake by making up non entities (which when we consider that you are a trinitarian, is entirely tenable)

Now if you will spare me any further inconvenience, you will now explain the following, remember to read and to try to assimilate the ideas, rather than just spouting out non entities and fraudulent claims (its used by cults, is not widely recognised, contains no modes, etc etc)

1. Christ nor Paul mentioned the doctrine,
2. It did not appear as church dogma until the fourth century,
3. It was assimilated through Helenistic philosophy, itself a manifestation of earlier religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

Originally posted by menace71
Using the ideas and concepts the " philosophical thought" of a culture in and of itself does not negate the truthfulness of an idea. Paul did this very thing in his writings such as on Mars Hill. Otherwise we should just throw away 90% of the New Testament. All roads lead to Rome at that time and God knew this.




Manny

with the small exception, that Paul, NEVER MENTIONED THE DOCTRINE! strange for a doctrine you think would be so important, why is that Manny, why would God not inspire Paul to make mention of a doctrine that is apparently sooo important?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
with the small exception, that Paul, NEVER MENTIONED THE DOCTRINE! strange for a doctrine you think would be so important, why is that Manny, why would God not inspire Paul to make mention of a doctrine that is apparently sooo important?

Wow, members of the SAME religion fighting. Amazing. Not surprising but amazing all the same, fighting over the differences in dogma but ignoring the similarities. Like the similarity of the entire concept of all the forms of christian faith being totally hilarious.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, members of the SAME religion fighting. Amazing. Not surprising but amazing all the same, fighting over the differences in dogma but ignoring the similarities. Like the similarity of the entire concept of all the forms of christian faith being totally hilarious.

sigh, please consider these points

1. we are not fighting
2. we are not members of the same religion
3. this is not my religious dogma
4. your inability to state anything with accuracy with regard to any religious expression being prejudiced by your materialism, which, in itself is absolutely useless in imparting spiritual knowledge the demonstration of which is self evident from some of your utterances and yet you regard it as panacea for all. That is hilarious. But if it makes you happy, then so be it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, please consider these points

1. we are not fighting
2. we are not members of the same religion
3. this is not my religious dogma
4. your inability to state anything with accuracy with regard to any religious expression being prejudiced by your materialism, which, in itself is absolutely useless in imparting spiritual knowledge the demonst ...[text shortened]... you regard it as panacea for all. That is hilarious. But if it makes you happy, then so be it.

1: You are fighting.
2: You worship the same god, is that not true?
3: What is your religious dogma then?

It is still hilarious!

Originally posted by sonhouse
1: You are fighting.
2: You worship the same god, is that not true?
3: What is your religious dogma then?

It is still hilarious!

1. hardly
2. no its not true, i worship Jehovah, they worship Jesus
3. none of your concern

whatever rocks your socks.

Nope nope nope

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am perfectly aware of what it is, it is not I that is having trouble with it, but you, for example, you have stated that it was used by cults (not mentioned), and that by inference its not widely accepted (another inaccuracy). Clearly its universally adopted indicating that you really dont know what you are talking about. Secondly, it mentions, a ...[text shortened]... religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

I pointed out that the definition you gave for the Trinity was not the
Trinity Doctrine but Modalism or Sebellianism name after Sebellius
who proposed it. This Modelism is used in the place of the Trinity in
some cults. See the following link to the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Originally posted by RJHinds
I pointed out that the definition you gave for the Trinity was not the
Trinity Doctrine but Modalism or Sebellianism name after Sebellius
who proposed it. This Modelism is used in the place of the Trinity in
some cults. See the following link to the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

then either you cannot read or have trouble understanding what you read. It has been pointed out with reference how ludicrous your claims are.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then either you cannot read or have trouble understanding what you read. It has been pointed out with reference how ludicrous your claims are.

What claims in specific are you talking about. And wha did you point out
was ludicrous about each claim. I am of the opinion that it is you that is
having trouble understanding what you read or else you are being
dishonest again.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What claims in specific are you talking about. And wha did you point out
was ludicrous about each claim. I am of the opinion that it is you that is
having trouble understanding what you read or else you are being
dishonest again.

what you think and what truth is are two distinct propositions, i resent your defamatory claims of dishonesty and i have provided ample evidence that my definition of the trinity is as set out by the Athanasian Creed, your vain and quite frankly scurrilous attempts to deny this, in the face of incontrovertible evidence are naught but a sham. But then again, so is the trinity. If you have anything to say, you may address, these unanswered points,

1. Christ nor Paul mentioned the doctrine,
2. It did not appear as church dogma until the fourth century,
3. It was assimilated through Helenistic philosophy, itself a manifestation of earlier religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what you think and what truth is are two distinct propositions, i resent your defamatory claims of dishonesty and i have provided ample evidence that my definition of the trinity is as set out by the Athanasian Creed, your vain and quite frankly scurrilous attempts to deny this, in the face of incontrovertible evidence are naught but a sham. But th ...[text shortened]... religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

3. It was assimilated through Helenistic philosophy, itself a manifestation of earlier religions, expressed in Greek Philosophical terms not found in scripture and misapplied to God.

Could you substantiate this third claim? I do not believe that Hellenistic philosophy was necessarily a manifestation at all of earlier religions. That said, I am not sure what you mean by Hellenistic philosophy. The ancient world was philosophically diverse.