Pagan basis of the trinity.

Pagan basis of the trinity.

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
30 Jun 11
1 edit

Originally posted by RJHinds
Let's play safe and make it only 99.9%
Sounds like a small seed of doubt in there? You know the smallest seed for any tree in the world from what I've heard is from the giant Redwoods.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
30 Jun 11

Originally posted by galveston75
Sounds like a small seed of doubt in there? You know the smallest seed for any tree in the world from what I've heard is from the giant Redwoods.
Yes, but there is a lot more faith than doubt there and isn't a lot of faith more
important than a little bit of doubt?

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
30 Jun 11

Originally posted by galveston75
So Constintine started the whole trinity thingy then that we now see today in so called Christine churches. Finally we're getting somewhare here.
You do realize what your saying here don't you? I hope so but I truely doubt it....
I did not say any thing about the Emperor Constintine starting the Trinity.
He had no input at all into what the dogmas and doctines of the church were.
He only demaned that they come to some agreement and declare these
beliefs so all knew what they were, especially himself.

Texasman

San Antonio Texas

Joined
19 Jul 08
Moves
78698
30 Jun 11
2 edits

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say any thing about the Emperor Constintine starting the Trinity.
He had no input at all into what the dogmas and doctines of the church were.
He only demaned that they come to some agreement and declare these
beliefs so all knew what they were, especially himself.
"2. It is my understanding that it was the Roman Catholic Church at the
request of the Emperor Constintine that dogmas in the church began to
be declared along with the doctrines."

It really Doesn't matter I guess who started it, commanded it to be adopted or whatever one calls it. The point here is it is man made, man concieved, mans idea, mans philosophes, mans dogmas, mans doctrines.
The trinity is only that and nothing else no matter how much you want it to be something different.

It is NOT from God

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by galveston75
"2. It is my understanding that it was the Roman Catholic Church at the
request of the Emperor Constintine that dogmas in the church began to
be declared along with the doctrines."

It really Doesn't matter I guess who started it, commanded it to be adopted or whatever one calls it. The point here is it is man made, man concieved, mans idea, mans ...[text shortened]... nothing else no matter how much you want it to be something different.

It is NOT from God
But the ideas for the trinity were given by Jesus and also
the writers of the New Testament. It was a lttle later that
a name was given to it. The name does not negate the
ideas, however. A rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.

Can't win a game of

38N Lat X 121W Lon

Joined
03 Apr 03
Moves
154931
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by galveston75
"2. It is my understanding that it was the Roman Catholic Church at the
request of the Emperor Constantine that dogmas in the church began to
be declared along with the doctrines."

It really Doesn't matter I guess who started it, commanded it to be adopted or whatever one calls it. The point here is it is man made, man concieved, mans idea, mans ...[text shortened]... nothing else no matter how much you want it to be something different.

It is NOT from God
More proof my G-Man LOL that you don't know your history at all. The Catholic church was not around (The Roman Catholic version at least) during the reign of Constantine



Manny

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
01 Jul 11
2 edits

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the ideas for the trinity were given by Jesus and also
the writers of the New Testament. It was a lttle later that
a name was given to it. The name does not negate the
ideas, however. A rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.
I am curious if you will read this link, it's long and takes a serious reading, just wondered how you would come down on the final conclusion:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1639

I came across this in the 'pre-critical naivete' post.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by galveston75
"2. It is my understanding that it was the Roman Catholic Church at the
request of the Emperor Constintine that dogmas in the church began to
be declared along with the doctrines."

It really Doesn't matter I guess who started it, commanded it to be adopted or whatever one calls it. The point here is it is man made, man concieved, mans idea, mans ...[text shortened]... nothing else no matter how much you want it to be something different.

It is NOT from God
So then, it really doen't matter to you if the "Trinity" is from pagan roots
are not, you still will not believe in the "Trinity" because you were not
taught to believe it as a Jehovah's Witness. As you said, that is it it in a
nutshell. The pagan origins bit was just a "smoke screen".

D

St. Peter's

Joined
06 Dec 10
Moves
11313
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
would you drink a glass of water that was 0.01 percent poison?
most people do. There is naturally occuring arsenic in most well water...so your illustartion is a poor one.

D

St. Peter's

Joined
06 Dec 10
Moves
11313
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by galveston75
ox·y·mo·ron (ks-môrn, -mr-)
n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

True Christianity / trinity.......

Anyway....... So you are 100% absolutly positive that your trinity
is completely supported by the Bible an ...[text shortened]... are you sure you understand completely what paganism is in God's eyes?
Not yours but God's.
are you 100% certain that the NWT is 100% correct...think before you answer, because I can site several instances where it is not....

Joined
02 Feb 06
Moves
123634
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by galveston75
It's for sure the Jews don't accept it....Never did even to this day.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/trinity.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism's_view_of_Jesus

http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation6.html
"It's for sure the Jews don't accept it....Never did even to this day."

I wonder what else the Jews don't accept? Oh that's right, they don't accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53223
01 Jul 11

Originally posted by Ullr
"It's for sure the Jews don't accept it....Never did even to this day."

I wonder what else the Jews don't accept? Oh that's right, they don't accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
Why should they? Why shouldn't they just as easily accept Baha'u'llah or Mohammed or Jim Jones?

What right do christians have to condemn Jews for not embracing Jesus as the lord of the universe?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
01 Jul 11
1 edit

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why should they? Why shouldn't they just as easily accept Baha'u'llah or Mohammed or Jim Jones?

What right do christians have to condemn Jews for not embracing Jesus as the lord of the universe?
What right do christians have to condemn Jews for not embracing Jesus as the lord of the universe?

there are like over four hundred references in their holy writings identifying Christ as the Messiah, might be a good place to start.

Joined
02 Feb 06
Moves
123634
01 Jul 11
1 edit

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why should they? Why shouldn't they just as easily accept Baha'u'llah or Mohammed or Jim Jones?

What right do christians have to condemn Jews for not embracing Jesus as the lord of the universe?
Sorry it wasn't clear that I was being sarcastic in my post.

For what it's worth I think the Jews have the right to choose their own savior. Obviously they've chosen not to accept Jesus as such.

The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
01 Jul 11
1 edit

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why should they? Why shouldn't they just as easily accept Baha'u'llah or Mohammed or Jim Jones?

What right do christians have to condemn Jews for not embracing Jesus as the lord of the universe?
It is from their Holy writings that their Prophets predicted the coming of
their Messiah and the savior of the world. Jesus fulfilled most of those
prophecies. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies pertaining to the "suffering
servant" but not those pertaining to the "conquering King". The Jews
were only looking for the "conquering King". Now only Jesus can fulfill
the remainder of those prophecies and fullfill the entire prophecy. It
is too late for anyone after the time of Jesus, because the Messiah King
was predicted to come at the time Jesus was crucified. In case you
don't know "Messiah" is the Hebrew, meaning the same as the Greek
word "Christ". So the Jews were blinded and did not see that Jesus the
Christ was their promised Messiah.

But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of
the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed
by Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:14 NASB)

For I do not want you brethren to be uninformed of this mystery, lest
you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial harding has happened
to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; (Romans 11:25)