# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine

## Ronin Truth

> *Pagan Roots of the Trinity Doctrine*
> 
> Posted 
> 
> 
> *( Ed Torrence 2002)*
> 
> The Trinity doctrine is not unique to, nor original with, Christianity. It has deep Pagan roots, dating back to at least two centuries BC, and has been prominent in many Eastern religions ever since.
> 
> ...





http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/art...-torrence-2002

----------


## Ronin Truth

When you care enough to fabricate and "borrow" the very best.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Stay tuned for what those goofy Paulinista pranksters manage to dream up next.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Stay tuned for what those goofy Paulinista pranksters manage to dream up next.


My guess is the demonization of the two witnesses.  And as their reward Satan will likely have them all exterminated for being Abrahamists if they don't convert to whatever form of Illuminism is mandatory.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> My guess is the demonization of the two witnesses. And as their reward Satan will likely have them all exterminated for being Abrahamists if they don't convert to whatever form of Illuminism is mandatory.


I think that's the last cliffhanger episode show for the next season.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Trinitarian doctrine actually comes from the words of Jesus himself (there was no immediate Pauline influence on the Eastern Churches established by the apostles who met Jesus), but believe as you will.

WRT OT references to Christ-this occurs because Yeshua is of one essence with the Father and Holy Spirit (hence the plural pronouns used when God is quoted in the early chapters of Genesis).  

You cite a lot of terrible sources, RT.  I suggest coming up with better research methods.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Trinitarian doctrine actually comes from the words of Jesus himself (there was no immediate Pauline influence on the Eastern Churches established by the apostles who met Jesus), but believe as you will.


Trinity is centuries older than Jesus. Check it out. Believe as you won't.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...37.3Jng9DSEwLI

----------


## heavenlyboy34

QUOTE=Ronin Truth;5880727]Trinity is centuries older than Jesus. Check it out. Believe as you won't.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...37.3Jng9DSEwLI[ QUOTE]

You really are an awful researcher.  You disproved _yourself._  Congrats!
One of the first sources in your link:



> *Christians did not borrow Trinity from the pagans!*
> *Trinity is truth!*
> But these Anti-Trinitarians wrongly say Trinity is of Pagan origin:
> 
> Arians (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Unitarians, The Way International)Modalists (United Pentecostal Church, UPCI)Muslims (Islamic)Jews Note: No encyclopedia says Trinity is of pagan origin!) 
> 
> "The fact that the church fathers never defend trinity against a charge of pagan influence is significant. If the source was so obviously pagan, then there would have been a huge outcry! But as it is, in all the discussion of trinity, those who opposed it didn't compare the Christian trinity with pagan trinities."


MUCH more at the link, and pictures. http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-...an-reasons.htm

----------


## Ronin Truth

An Appeal to Trinitarian Christians

Historical Background of the Trinity




> The current mainstream teaching in Christianity is that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance trinity, and that Jesus Christ is God. This doctrine is considered by many as the cornerstone of Christianity, but where did this doctrine come from? The historical record is overwhelming that the church of the first three centuries did not worship God as a coequal, coeternal, consubstantial, one-substance three in one mysterious godhead. The early church worshipped one God and believed in a subordinate Son. The trinity originated with Babylon, and was passed on to most of the world's religions. This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Christ. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Worshipping "God the Son" is idolatry, and idolatry is Biblically condemned; it breaks the first great commandment of God of not having any gods before him (Exodus 20:3). Then three centuries after Christ the corrupt emperor Constantine forced the minority opinion of the trinity upon the council of Nicea. The Christian church went downward from there; in fact some of the creeds and councils actually contradict each other. The council of Nicea 325 said that "Jesus Christ is God," the council of Constantinople 381 said that "the Holy Spirit is God," the council of Ephesus 431 said that "human beings are totally depraved," the council of Chalcedon 451 said that "Jesus Christ is both man and God." If you follow the logic here then first you have Jesus Christ as God, then you have man totally depraved, and then you have Jesus Christ as man and God. If Jesus Christ is both man and God does this mean that God is also totally depraved? Well maybe the doctrine of the coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead is deprived of any historical foundation tying it into the Christianity of the Bible and the Christianity of the first three centuries. However the historical information ties the trinity into various pagan origins.
> And yet most Christian churches continue to teach and believe the doctrine that God is a coequal, coeternal, one-substance, mysterious three in one triune godhead, and that Jesus Christ is God, and that the trinity is "the cornerstone of Christianity".


http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm


Complain to Google, maybe they'll care what you think.

----------


## fisharmor

Not the same subject, but the same rhetoric.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> An Appeal to Trinitarian Christians
> 
> Historical Background of the Trinity
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm
> 
> 
> Complain to Google, maybe they'll care what you think.


The Christadelphians are not an accurate or unbiased source.  Christadelphianism is just a 19th century movement from the US.  Why would I complain to google?  You're the one trying to prove a claim and finding a bunch of false facts.  The burden of proof is on you in this thread.  Thus far, you've failed to prove your claim.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Christadelphians are not an accurate or unbiased source. Christadelphianism is just a 19th century movement from the US. Why would I complain to google? You're the one trying to prove a claim and finding a bunch of false facts. The burden of proof is on you in this thread. Thus far, you've failed to prove your claim.


 Big Woo. Buzz off. Who cares besides you? Anything I chose to show you, Paulinista, you'd just poo-poo anyway.  

You and Sola should maybe start a club together.  You've both got a lot in common.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Trinitarian doctrine actually comes from the words of Jesus himself (there was no immediate Pauline influence on the Eastern Churches established by the apostles who met Jesus), but believe as you will.
> 
> WRT OT references to Christ-this occurs because Yeshua is of one essence with the Father and Holy Spirit (hence the plural pronouns used when God is quoted in the early chapters of Genesis).


Ok, so because God said "let us create them" and because Jesus said "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", therefore every other of the many many scriptures indicating God's solitary omnipotence is negated?

You have a weird understanding on which side the burden of proof should be on.

You aren't arguing from scripture you're arguing from "accepted doctrine".  It's a very different thing.

----------


## William Tell

> Stay tuned for what those goofy* Paulinista* pranksters manage to dream up next.


Did Mark Levin teach you that big word?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Did Mark Levin teach you that big word?


Nah, the RPF Paulinists did.  

Screw Mark Levin.

----------


## William Tell

> Screw Mark Levin.


Why? He didn't vote for Ron Paul either.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Big Woo. Buzz off. Who cares besides you? Anything I chose to show you, Paulinista, you'd just poo-poo anyway.  
> 
> You and Sola should maybe start a club together.  You've both got a lot in common.


Well, anyone who is interested in true facts on this subject cares.  Sola and I really don't have that much in common.  I disagree with the vast majority of his and Reformation belief generally.  It just seems to you that we have a lot in common because we can both prove you and your claims wrong.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Ancient Pagan Trinities:

Babylonian: Nimrod, Semiramis, Tammuz

Hindu: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva

Egyptian: Osirus, Isis, Horus*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ok, so because God said "let us create them" and because Jesus said "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", *therefore every other of the many many scriptures indicating God's solitary omnipotence is negated?
> *


 


> You have a weird understanding on which side the burden of proof should be on.


Traditionally, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.  Do you not agree?




> You aren't arguing from scripture you're arguing from "accepted doctrine".  It's a very different thing.


No, I'm arguing from scripture.  I use the original semantic instead of the shifted semantic that heterodox religions do.  Please review Genesis 1:26, noting the plural pronouns.  Also see John 10:30 where Jesus says "I and The Father are one".

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why? He didn't vote for Ron Paul either.


I've heard more than enough of him to know that he's just another one of the ignorant statist $#@!s.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Traditionally, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant.  Do you not agree?
> 
> 
> No, I'm arguing from scripture.  I use the original semantic instead of the shifted semantic that heterodox religions do.  Please review Genesis 1:26, noting the plural pronouns.  Also see John 10:30 where Jesus says "I and The Father are one".


Yes, you are the one claiming a trinity of three coequal God's exist.  This is not said by Jesus or God.  How am I the "positive claimant"?

Jesus said, I don't do my will but my father's.
Jesus said, don't call me good only the father is good.
Jesus said, I go to see my father.
Jesus said, no man has seen the father at any time.

and on, and on, and on.

And I have said many times that that verse of "I and the Father are one" and the other one where he says, "If you've seen me you've seen the father" are more correctly interpreted as obedience, alignment of wills, and authority the Father gave to Jesus.  But to prove the trinity to me, that verse and the other are the only verses you or anyone else can seem to come up with and you ignore the myriad of others like the 4 I posted above.

So my question is, what about all the other ones that I could post on here, 4 shown above, clearly indicating they are not the same and that God is in fact God and not Jesus?

Scripture is AGAINST the trinity.  But trinitarians support their crazy idea with like 2 little misinterpreted verses.  Why?  Because YOU ARE ARGUING FROM ACCEPTED POPULAR OPINION NOT SCRIPTURE SO YOU CHERRY PICK WHAT IS IN AGREEMENT AND IGNORE THE REST.

And "pronouns"?   That's you're argument?  "There is none with me", saith the Lord.  But you said "US"!  Therefore God is a liar?

Try to use your brain when thinking.  It helps.

EDIT:  By the way, we're still only up to "binary", please show me the verse where Jesus or God claims that the Holy Spirit is God and/or that Jesus/God and the spirit are one.  I'm expecting, "God is a spirit", but maybe you'll surprise me.

----------


## pcosmar

Just because some pagan religions recognize the existence of Trinity does not diminish or disparage that existence.

Many recognize God (or some understanding of a god).. That does not disprove His existence.

It only proves that there is something in man that recognizes a supreme being.. though the understanding may be distorted.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

The *three creeds in the OP* are historic, Christian, statements of faith.  These are what I believe about the Trinity.  Praise be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Childhood brainwashing and conditioning often dies really hard.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yes, you are the one claiming a trinity of three coequal God's exist. This is not said by Jesus or God. How am I the "positive claimant"?
> 
> Jesus said, I don't do my will but my father's.
> Jesus said, don't call me good only the father is good.
> Jesus said, I go to see my father.
> Jesus said, no man has seen the father at any time.
> 
> and on, and on, and on.
> 
> ...


What good is scripture when trying to stand up against Roman Empire pagan Paulinist hijacking?  <shrug>

----------


## wizardwatson

> What good is scripture when trying to stand up against Roman Empire pagan Paulinist hijacking?  <shrug>


I just want to be on record I suppose.

I don't have a problem with people having a "general idea" of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit being central to salvation.  I have a problem with getting so over-involved in this distillation process that it becomes an idol that contradicts scripture to the point where people start saying that Jesus created the universe.  

Things are "related", that doesn't mean that by nature of them being related their separateness dissolves into some new type of God.  The relationships define their individuality they don't point to some abstract unity.  God is God.  Why is there now God the Father and some abstract God in the middle of three Gods?  It serves no purpose other than a mental idol to worship.

Look at the Athanasian creed.  That was the first time I read it, from this thread.  I thought the Nicene Creed was bad, that one is so convoluted my head was spinning.  It starts off saying "And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." and then 6 paragraphs follow where you're left confounded and divided and it says if you don't believe that you're going to hell.  

People want to define God in relation to themselves.  They want to "fit in somewhere" as they are.  So the general inclination is to construct a mental bridge to God.  'If I believe "correctly" then I'm good.'  But there is no correct "belief".  Everyone's metaphysics is wonky.  Only by OBEYING do you please God.  He doesn't care if you are a Catholic or an agnostic.  If you lived your life obeying Christ's commands but never heard of Jesus in your life, when the resurrection happens you will hear his voice.  That is what I believe the scripture teaches.  

It's about simplicity.  Right and wrong.  But men are lazy and sinful and we want a shortcut and consolation that we've "done what we needed to do".  Hence, we spend 90+% of our time arguing about metaphysics instead of right and wrong.

That Athanasian creed says that plainly and directly.  You must believe in the incarnation "rightly".  If the three persons are "incomprehensible" how can I believe "rightly"?  You just said I can't comprehend them?  Are we back to the Socratic maxim "I only know that I know nothing" with the addition of "...therefore I am saved in Christ"?

It's just absolutely ridiculous.  All it is in my opinion is to purposefully be confusing so that the church member is perpetually wrong and the church father is perpetually right no matter how close either of them is to the truth.  And this is evidenced by all the ridiculous positions I've rebutted from many on this forum.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Childhood brainwashing and conditioning often dies really hard.


Ain't it the truth, Ronin.  It is important to leave childish ways behind, past hurts, struggles with those in authority, etc.

A very good source of *historic Christian documents* is here:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ain't it the truth, Ronin. It is important to leave childish ways behind, past hurts, struggles with those in authority, etc.
> 
> A very good source of *historic Christian documents* is here:
> 
> http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html


   Thanks!

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Thanks!


Ronin, would you consider posting this same thread title at a Christian forum?  You would have people coming out of the walls to help you understand the doctrine of the Trinity.  Why not give it a try?  Are you so sure you are right, here?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin, would you consider posting this same thread title at a Christian forum? You would have people coming out of the walls to help you understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Why not give it a try? Are you so sure you are right, here?


Nah, not really. I'm anti-Paulinist/"Christian"(so called) and the savage barbaric Roman Empire hijacking of the religion of Jesus.

The pagan Trinity is just another part of it.  

Thanks anyway. 

For me, Gandhi absolutely nailed it.
*
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”-- Mahatma Gandhi*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nah, not really. I'm anti-Paulinist/"Christian"(so called) and the savage barbaric Roman Empire hijacking of the religion of Jesus.
> 
> The pagan Trinity is just another part of it.  
> 
> Thanks anyway. 
> 
> For me, Gandhi absolutely nailed it.
> *
> “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”-- Mahatma Gandhi*


The Trinity isn't pagan, bro.  It's in any pre-Constantine or Pre-Paul Christian literature you care to read.  See again post 8 above^^

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Trinity isn't pagan, bro. It's in any pre-Constantine or Pre-Paul Christian literature you care to read. See again post 8 above^^


Only about ~300,000 more Google links to check before legitimately drawing the other conclusion. And you still may be wrong.

Times a wasting. Hop to it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *The Unholy Trinity*
> 
> The concept of the Trinity was shoehorned together in the most ridiculous way to allow Christianity to be both monotheistic and polytheistic. Jehovah and Allah are proper monotheistic gods and you wouldn't find either of them incarnating on earth, being crucified and then resurrected. For Christianity to "work" i.e. for it to be literally true that God walked the earth before being killed then brought back to life by himself (even though he was dead) then it is necessary to divide God into at least two parts (one that dies and one that goes on living). Christianity then compounded the problem by introducing the "Holy Spirit" which descends upon righteous people and imbues them with godliness. So, now there were three gods instead of the one required by monotheism. All three gods were declared to in fact be one - a remarkable and transcendent Holy Trinity, a supreme "mystery" of the universe that no mortal mind could truly comprehend. 
> 
> Of course, the whole notion is the most ludicrous, insupportable, incredible nonsense imaginable. No rational person could ever accept it. To state it with crystal clarity: a monotheistic God is a single God with no mysterious separate parts or split personalities. Christianity is not monotheism; it is polytheism. The only people who don't understand this are Christians.
> 
> There is not one particle of logic in the absurd concept of the Holy Trinity. 
> 
> Jews worship God the Father. Christians worship God the Son. Christian Gnostics worship God the Holy Spirit. As for Islam, Muslims reject the Trinity and worship only Allah, yet he is still somehow to be equated with the God of the Christians and Jews. The Jewish and Christian prophets (especially Jesus) are accorded a high status in Islam. Mohammed and the Koran are seen as correcting the errors of Judaeo-Christianity. 
> ...



*
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/Hi...m(1702612).htm*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> An Appeal to Trinitarian Christians
> 
> Historical Background of the Trinity
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm
> 
> 
> Complain to Google, maybe they'll care what you think.


Complain to Google?  Seriously?

You started this discussion and you imply that we should go talk to google because you apparently don't care?  That is messed up.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Only about ~300,000 more Google links to check before legitimately drawing the other conclusion. And you still may be wrong.
> 
> Times a wasting. Hop to it.


You made the claim; prove it.  Hop to it.  Time's a-wastin'.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Only about ~300,000 more Google links to check before legitimately drawing the other conclusion. And you still may be wrong.
> 
> Times a wasting. Hop to it.


You made the claim; prove it.  Hop to it.  Time's a-wastin'.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
> 
> *Few understand how the Trinity doctrine came to be accepted - several centuries after the Bible was completed! Yet its roots go back much farther in history. 
> 
> “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32)
> 
> Most people assume that everything that bears the label “Christian” must have originated with Jesus Christ and His early followers. But this is definitely not the case. All we have to do is look at the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles to see that this is clearly not true.
> 
> The historical record shows that, just as Jesus and the New Testament writers foretold, various heretical ideas and teachers rose up from within the early Church and infiltrated it from without. Christ Himself warned His followers: 
> ...


http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools...inity-doctrine

----------


## Eagles' Wings

What is your point, Ronin?

Is it your mission to warn about the Trinity doctrine? 

Do you confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God, in three Persons? 

I think you are being very careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  Why is that?

----------


## wizardwatson

> What is your point, Ronin?
> 
> Is it your mission to warn about the Trinity doctrine? 
> 
> Do you confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God, in three Persons? 
> 
> I think you are being very careful not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.  Why is that?


I believe it's hard to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you have to know it to blaspheme it.  Most people, in my opinion, have no conception of what it is.  But to know it and then blaspheme it is something worthy of excommunication which is why it is considered unforgiveable.

My current theory, anyway.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I believe it's hard to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you have to know it to blaspheme it.  Most people, in my opinion, have no conception of what it is.  But to know it and then blaspheme it is something worthy of excommunication which is why it is considered unforgiveable.
> 
> My current theory, anyway.


What is your definition of it?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What is your point, Ronin?
> 
> *Jesus is cool. Christianity ain't.
> 
> *Is it your mission to warn about the Trinity doctrine? 
> 
> *Is a mission required?  I just thought I was yanking chains and rattling cages.
> 
> *Do you confess that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God, in three Persons?
> ...



Additional questions? 

BTW, I ain't the thread topic.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Additional questions? 
> 
> BTW, I ain't the thread topic.


What do you think it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit?      Matthew 12:22-32

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What do you think it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Matthew 12:22-32


Take your pick.  

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...03.ZSF1i3TcZ_0

(Probably with my luck, just Googling it.)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine
> *
> _by Cher-El L. Hagensick_
> 
> The Rabbi s deep voice echoes through the dusk, Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.{# De 6:4} What a far cry that is from Judaisms offspring, Christianity, and its belief in the Trinity. While the majority of the Christian world considers the concept of the Trinity vital to Christianity, many historians and Bible scholars agree that the Trinity of Christianity owes more to Greek philosophy and pagan polytheism than to the monotheism of the Jew and the Jewish Jesus.
> 
> 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).
> ...


http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Content...%20Trinity.htm

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Take your pick.  
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...03.ZSF1i3TcZ_0
> 
> (Probably with my luck, just Googling it.)


No thanks.  Typically don't click on google links.  Any other thoughts?  Perhaps from your own reading of the passage?      No need to answer, just something to think about.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No thanks. Typically don't click on google links. Any other thoughts? Perhaps from your own reading of the passage? No need to answer, just something to think about.


http://new.yippy.com/search?query=bl...ect=clusty-new

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> http://new.yippy.com/search?query=bl...ect=clusty-new


Nevermind, Ronin.  I was hoping you would answer from your own understanding of the passage.  Anyway, sorry to get this off topic by making it about you.  Proceed as usual.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Nevermind, Ronin. I was hoping you would answer from your own understanding of the passage. Anyway, sorry to get this off topic by making it about you. Proceed as usual.


OK, you too!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *How Ancient Trinitarian Gods Influenced Adoption of the Trinity
> **
> *Posted on Jul 22, 2011 by United Church of God 
> 
> Many who believe in the Trinity are surprised, perhaps shocked, to learn that the idea of divine beings existing as trinities or triads long predated Christianity. Yet, as we will see, the evidence is abundantly documented. 
> 
> Marie Sinclair, Countess of Caithness, in her 1876 book Old Truths in a New Light, states: It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine. [The early Catholic theologian] St. Jerome testifies unequivocally, All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity? (p. 382).
> 
> Notice how the following quotes document belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions of the ancient world.
> ...


http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools...doption-of-the

----------


## RJB

> *
> “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”-- Mahatma Gandhi*


*"I like your Buddha, I do not like your Bhuddists.  Your Buddhists are so unlike your Buddha."  --Interchange the religion and person quoted and you get the human dilemma, but after reading this thread and subsequent posts, I apply it towards the OP*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nah, not really. I'm anti-Paulinist/"Christian"(so called) and the savage barbaric Roman Empire hijacking of the religion of Jesus.
> 
> The pagan Trinity is just another part of it.  
> 
> Thanks anyway. 
> 
> For me, Gandhi absolutely nailed it.
> *
> I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.-- Mahatma Gandhi*


Neither you or Ghandi love Jesus.  Jesus said He was God.  You don't believe Him or love Him.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Neither you or Ghandi love Jesus. Jesus said He was God. You don't believe Him or love Him.


And you do not know $#@! from Shinola.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

[QUOTE=Ronin Truth;5883803]http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools...doption-of-the[ QUOTE]

A bunch of weak correlations in the "Zeitgeist" film tradition, proving nothing.  Well done, if that's your goal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you do not know $#@! from Shinola.


Do you believe Jesus is God?  Yes or no?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Do you believe Jesus is God? Yes or no?


  Go ask a Paulinst/"Christian"(so called).  Yes or no?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> *Ancient Pagan Trinities:
> 
> Babylonian: Nimrod, Semiramis, Tammuz
> 
> Hindu: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva
> 
> Egyptian: Osirus, Isis, Horus*


These are not trinities, these are tri-theism. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity does not posit 3 different divine natures (ergo 3 gods), it posits 3 persons, one nature. Furthermore, the theology behind the Holy Trinity is present in several points in the Old Testament, which goes back a good bit further. Claiming that Paul just magically came up with the doctrine of the Trinity is Arian/Islamic nonsense.

For the better reading of anyone else happening upon this thread, since Ronin be loving him some trolling:

http://www.answering-islam.org/autho..._isaiah_1.html

----------


## Ronin Truth

> These are not trinities, these are tri-theism. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity does not posit 3 different divine natures (ergo 3 gods), it posits 3 persons, one nature. Furthermore, the theology behind the Holy Trinity is present in several points in the Old Testament, which goes back a good bit further. Claiming that Paul just magically came up with the doctrine of the Trinity is Arian/Islamic nonsense.
> 
> For the better reading of anyone else happening upon this thread, since Ronin be loving him some trolling:
> 
> http://www.answering-islam.org/autho..._isaiah_1.html


Disagree.  Trinity is polytheism.

----------


## RJB

> Disagree.  Trinity is polytheism.


As someone who is actually a Trinitarian, I worship one God.  Are you calling me a liar?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> As someone who is actually a Trinitarian, I worship one God. Are you calling me a liar?


Sure if the shoe fits.

----------


## RJB

> Sure if the shoe fits.


  LOL

*"I like your Buddha, I do not like the way your Buddists post on RPFs. Ronin Truth is so unlike your Buddha." --cited from a google bomb*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Disagree.  Trinity is polytheism.


Wrong.  Jesus said he is one with the father (John 14:7).  Genesis tells us in several spots that the spirit proceeds from the Father.  Take your disagreement to Jesus.  I'm inclined to believe him over you any day.

----------


## RJB

> Wrong.  Jesus said he is one with the father (John 14:7).  Genesis tells us in several spots that the spirit proceeds from the Father.  Take your disagreement to Jesus.  I'm inclined to believe him over you any day.


HB, either he is a troll from hell trying to get a rise from us or that stroke seriously affected his cognitive abilities.  He called me a liar above.  

Don't take his post seriously.  He obviously doesn't.

----------


## RJB

> Sure if the shoe fits.


Actually, I just reported that.  How can there be any "respectful" discussion if you call me a liar when I've made the sincerest statement I'll ever make?  This conversation can only go down hill at this point.  This is probably the 3rd time I've done a report.  I admit them when I do them.

I've wasted enough time.  I'm done with these threads.  Bye.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Disagree.  Trinity is polytheism.


Disagree to your heart's content Ronin, wrong is wrong whether you acknowledge it or not. If the Trinity was polytheistic, the Council of Nicaea would not have been so specific about all 3 persons having an IDENTICAL NATURE, ergo they NEVER HAVE A DISAGREEMENT INSOFAR AS THEY PARTAKE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. Have you ever paged through the literature that serves as the sources for all these polytheistic gods Ronin? Between the drama and the carnal means in which they perpetuate themselves, I have a hard time qualifying them as spirits, let alone partaking of any hypothetical mode of deity.

Your selected pagan Trifecta groups are all distinct deities, that is a different concept with a different definition than the Doctrine of the Trinity, not that you care of course.

P.S. -  Does anyone else find it odd that the Greek Orthodox, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Baptists all seem to be in conspiracy with the Roman Church to give Ronin a hard time in his cozy little fantasy world?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Actually, I just reported that. How can there be any "respectful" discussion if you call me a liar when I've made the sincerest statement I'll ever make? This conversation can only go down hill at this point. This is probably the 3rd time I've done a report. I admit them when I do them.
> 
> I've wasted enough time. I'm done with these threads. Bye.


Sincerity is the most important thing, when you can FAKE that, you've got it made.  Actually I really much prefer accuracy over sincerity.

Don't have a COW, MAN!  Try a Valium.  

Perhaps some other drama queen will come along shortly to fill the vacant spot your departure leaves.

Bye-bye.

----------


## Ronin Truth

//

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Disagree to your heart's content Ronin, wrong is wrong whether you acknowledge it or not. If the Trinity was polytheistic, the Council of Nicaea would not have been so specific about all 3 persons having an IDENTICAL NATURE, ergo they NEVER HAVE A DISAGREEMENT INSOFAR AS THEY PARTAKE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. Have you ever paged through the literature that serves as the sources for all these polytheistic gods Ronin? Between the drama and the carnal means in which they perpetuate themselves, I have a hard time qualifying them as spirits, let alone partaking of any hypothetical mode of deity.
> 
> Your selected pagan Trifecta groups are all distinct deities, that is a different concept with a different definition than the Doctrine of the Trinity, not that you care of course.
> 
> P.S. - Does anyone else find it odd that the Greek Orthodox, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Baptists all seem to be in conspiracy with the Roman Church to give Ronin a hard time in his cozy little fantasy world?


Have you ever heard of anyone(s) in history just making some crap up? I have, a bunch. You probably have too.

A lie is just as good as the truth if you can con (or threaten) enough folks into believing it.
*
"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Use an extension ladder.


Using a ladder would imply that I'm trying to get there.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Disagree.  Trinity is polytheism.


You "disagree"?  Well, who cares?   You are wrong.   Christians worship ONE God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Have you ever heard of anyone(s) in history just making some crap up? I have, a bunch. You probably have too.
> 
> A lie is just as good as the truth if you can con (or threaten) enough folks into believing it.
> *
> "Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."
> 
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."*


And still you can't provide one logical reason why extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence.  Claims require evidence, period.  The word "extraordinary" is just a distraction that you like to bring up.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. Have you ever heard of anyone(s) in history just making some crap up? I have, a bunch. You probably have too.
> 
> 2. A lie is just as good as the truth if you can con (or threaten) enough folks into believing it.
> 
> 3. "Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."
> 
> 4. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."[/SIZE][/B]


1. Yeah, one of my favorites is people who place Jesus and Paul at odds with each other, probably one of the most ridiculous historical fictions ever dreamed up.

2. You mean all the post-Enlightenment and fanatical separatist garbage that you've been using as sources?

3. So whenever somebody comes up with a more complex video game, I'm being hustled. You must be really popular with the higher mathematics crowd with this mentality as well.

4. David Hume was a charlatan, didn't you get the memo?

----------


## RJB

No problem.  The internet has ceased offending me years ago.  I was mostly testing the bounds.  If this thread is considered a "respectful discussion," then there isn't just wiggle room.  You could host an Stanley Cup Hockey Tournament in that arena.  

With that in mind, I may stick around.  I have an odd appreciation of the absurd.




> Don't have a COW, MAN!  Try a Valium.  
> 
> Perhaps some other drama queen will come along shortly to fill the vacant spot your departure leaves.
> 
> Bye-bye.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> 1. Yeah, one of my favorites is people who place Jesus and Paul at odds with each other, probably one of the most ridiculous historical fictions ever dreamed up.
> *
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...94.3ZqTXruM_iY
> 
> *2. You mean all the post-Enlightenment and fanatical separatist garbage that you've been using as sources?
> 
> *No, did I say that? No, I didn't.
> 
> *3. So whenever somebody comes up with a more complex video game, I'm being hustled. You must be really popular with the higher mathematics crowd with this mentality as well.
> ...


Why argue with me, your Paulinist Bible contains the answers you seek?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...94.3ZqTXruM_iY
> 
> 2. No, did I say that? No, I didn't.
> 
> 3. Read the quote again, for comprehension this time. See if you can find the word 'all' in there anywhere.
> 
> 4. Not a Hume fan either.
> 
> 5. Why argue with me, your Paulinist Bible contains the answers you seek?


1. Google results are for trolls, arguments with original content are for men.

2. Yeah you did, you simply used links instead of your own words.

3. The quote doesn't have to have the word "all" in it in order to be all-encompassing, it merely needs to not qualify what it's talking about or fail in even attempting to establish a particular context. The quote itself is actually idiotic in its simplistic cliche, and I'm of a mind to mock you simply for using it, regardless of what use you had in mind.

4. Then stop using quotes that lead back to his nonsense. Professor I.M. Stoned 24/7 Carl Sagan got that rubbish quote directly from something similar that Hume said a couple centuries earlier, and it was just as inane back in the days of pedophile Free Masons running rampant in the moors of Scotland as it is today.

5. Because stupidity is contagious, and when left unchecked, damages civilization. I live in this world too, so I'm going to do my best to make sure it can still function.

----------


## wizardwatson

Ronin, as I've said before you can't win against a trinitarian.  

They conflate and say they don't conflate.  It's "trinity in unity".  That is to say, "it's 3 and 1 and also neither 3 nor 1".  It's "unfathomable" they say.  Well, of course it is.  What fun is saying things plainly when you can win every argument by jumping back and forth when you try to pin them down?

The only thing I stick to in this argument is to make it clear that Jesus IS NOT GOD.  

To repeat for Sola, JESUS IS NOT GOD.  God is a proper name.  There is nothing in the gospel where Jesus says "I am God".  He says he is not good and God is.  The only verse the trinitarians-HB in this thread-ever produce are "I and the father are one" and "if you've seen the father you've seen me" both of which I've said are incorrectly interpreted as "same identity".  

In the hundred or so other places Jesus clearly indicates God is a separate person.  To say they are "one substance" doesn't mean anything.  There is no mystery trinity substance.  And even if you conflate God with Jesus that is still no justification to conflate the Holy Spirit with either which Jesus AGAIN separates by saying you can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be forgiven.  

There is no justification to conflate these entities beyond their clearly defined relationship.  And a "trinity doctrine" that says you will go to hell if you don't interpret it that way is ridiculous.


Question:  If the trinity is true and they are unified and you blaspheme Jesus aren't you also blaspheming the Holy Spirit?  Which means probably everyone is going to hell?  Oh wait...I'm conflating the persons aren't I?

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Ronin, as I've said before you can't win against a trinitarian.  
> 
> They conflate and say they don't conflate.  It's "trinity in unity".  That is to say, "it's 3 and 1 and also neither 3 nor 1".  It's "unfathomable" they say.  Well, of course it is.  What fun is saying things plainly when you can win every argument by jumping back and forth when you try to pin them down?
> 
> The only thing I stick to in this argument is to make it clear that Jesus IS NOT GOD.  
> 
> To repeat for Sola, JESUS IS NOT GOD.  God is a proper name.  There is nothing in the gospel where Jesus says "I am God".  He says he is not good and God is.  The only verse the trinitarians-HB in this thread-ever produce are "I and the father are one" and "if you've seen the father you've seen me" both of which I've said are incorrectly interpreted as "same identity".  
> 
> In the hundred or so other places Jesus clearly indicates God is a separate person.  To say they are "one substance" doesn't mean anything.  There is no mystery trinity substance.  And even if you conflate God with Jesus that is still no justification to conflate the Holy Spirit with either which Jesus AGAIN separates by saying you can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and be forgiven.  
> ...


This entire stream of words could easily be distilled to "I have no idea what I'm talking about but I will continue to do so" and make the exact same point. Oh wasted words, oh the humanity.

----------


## wizardwatson

> This entire stream of words could easily be distilled to "I have no idea what I'm talking about but I will continue to do so" and make the exact same point. Oh wasted words, oh the humanity.


You argue with Ronin and he doesn't even try to make a point.  

I make a point and you dismiss me as a moron.  

You are predictable and a bore.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> You argue with Ronin and he doesn't even try to make a point.  
> 
> I make a point and you dismiss me as a moron.  
> 
> You are predictable and a bore.


Ronin has proven himself a [mod edit] who can't even keep his philosophical principles straight, hence simply being dismissive doesn't accomplish much whereas adding content to the exchange may prove beneficial to others reading. The only point I drew out of that word salad you just posted is that you agree with the so-called premise behind Ronin's antics here, and that you understand the doctrine of the Trinity about as well as a 10 year old Muslim.

Instead of whining about not being able to win with Trinitarians and throwing illogical objections that you end up defeating in the same post while trying to appear sarcastic, you could try reading the Nicene Creed and then come back with a reason why the entire historic church minus a band of 4th century heretics who were the forerunners to Islam were wrong. Do keep in mind that a simple "Dat wurd Trindatee ain't in da bybul" will not cut it as an objection, nor babbling about a secret Roman conspiracy behind Paul's acceptance as an apostle as noted in Luke's and Peter's writings for that matter.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Ok, so because God said "let us create them" and because Jesus said "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", therefore every other of the many many scriptures indicating God's solitary omnipotence is negated?
> 
> You have a weird understanding on which side the burden of proof should be on.
> 
> You aren't arguing from scripture you're arguing from "accepted doctrine".  It's a very different thing.


I have yet to see a single scripture that prove the Trinitarian idea. It is the Trinity that has no support form the scriptures unless you read it into  them.

----------


## TER

> I have yet to see a single scripture that prove the Trinitarian idea. It is the Trinity that has no support form the scriptures unless you read it into  them.


The Holy Trinity was not fully revealed to mankind until after Christ's advent, but even in the OT, there were hints. The very first paragraph of Genesis reveals the Trinitarian God. The three Angels which appeared to Abraham who he worshipped as God is another great example. The greatest examples however are in the theophanies in the NT, such as at Christ's Baptism and Transfiguration.  

The language regarding this mystery  developed to attempt to express in words what the Christian experience was of God, as well as to counter the heretical movements which were springing up, such as Arianism, which was distorting the apostolic faith. 

But my bigger wonder with your post is, when has something not explicitly written in the NT ever stopped a Mormon from believing it?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> 1. Google results are for trolls, arguments with original content are for men.
> 
> *Do you always make up silly and stupid posting rules?
> 
> *2. Yeah you did, you simply used links instead of your own words.
> *
> So what? Work smarter not harder.
> 
> *3. The quote doesn't have to have the word "all" in it in order to be all-encompassing, it merely needs to not qualify what it's talking about or fail in even attempting to establish a particular context. The quote itself is actually idiotic in its simplistic cliche, and I'm of a mind to mock you simply for using it, regardless of what use you had in mind.
> ...


*
"As a reminder to all, it is against the guidelines to call other members troll, even in reps.
Thank you." -- Bryan (Admin)

*http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5673582

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Holy Trinity was not fully revealed to mankind until after Christ's advent, but even in the OT, there were hints. The very first paragraph of Genesis reveals the Trinitarian God. The three Angels which appeared to Abraham who he worshipped as God is another great example. The greatest examples however are in the theophanies in the NT, such as at Christ's Baptism and Transfiguration. 
> 
> The language regarding this mystery developed to attempt to express in words what the Christian experience was of God, as well as to counter the heretical movements which were springing up, such as Arianism, which was distorting the apostolic faith. 
> 
> But my bigger wonder with your post is, when has something not explicitly written in the NT ever stopped a Mormon from believing it?


Is that why the trinity is so prominently referred to and repeatedly obviously plainly stated in your Paulinist Bible? 

Even for the Mormons, it all filters down from the NT, Paul and the Satanic pagan Roman Empire.

*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
*
Where's Jesus?

----------


## RJB

> Ronin, as I've said before you can't win against a trinitarian.


I would agree, because we are correct.  

Joking aside, I could say the same about unitarians, Buddhist, Mormons, atheists, or anyone with a deeply held belief in their hearts.

----------


## RJB

> Is that why the trinity is so prominently referred to and repeatedly obviously plainly stated in your Paulinist Bible?


  Could you suggest an alternitive to learn of Jesus than the Christian bible?




> Even for the Mormons, it all filters down from the NT,


 Of course.  We won't learn of Jesus from Buddhist texts, Dan Brown, nor from Ronin.




> Paul and the Satanic pagan Roman Empire.


 Uh, Paul was beheaded by the Roman Empire.




> *"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
> *


Yes, you are quite known, Ronin.



> Where's Jesus?


 *"Seek and ye shall find.  Knock and it shall be opened to you."*  If truly want to find Jesus you should start with prayer, guidence of the Holy Spirit and His word, instead of disparaging it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I have yet to see a single scripture that prove the Trinitarian idea. It is the Trinity that has no support form the scriptures unless you read it into them.


Absitively! Thanks.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Could you suggest an alternitive to learn of Jesus than the Christian bible?
> 
> *Yes, and I have.
> 
> *Of course. We won't learn of Jesus from Buddhist texts, Dan Brown, nor from Ronin.
> 
> *The intelligent ones will.
> 
> *Uh, Paul was beheaded by the Roman Empire.
> ...


Couldn't manage stay away, eh? 

Oh, the drama.

----------


## RJB

> Couldn't manage stay away, eh? 
> 
> Oh, the drama.


I explained it in post #72.  It's good to test the bounds.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 1. Is that why the trinity is so prominently referred to and repeatedly obviously plainly stated in your Paulinist Bible? 
> 
> 2. Even for the Mormons, it all filters down from the NT, Paul and the Satanic pagan Roman Empire.
> 
> 3. Where's Jesus?


1. Do you literally think that this stupid statement will sound smarter if you repeat it enough times?

2. Mormons are polytheistic. They don't get their views from the New Testament, they get it from Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, which was originally a fictional novel that he stole from Solomon Spaulding and put his name on.

3. If you haven't found him yet, you're probably not looking right. 




> "As a reminder to all, it is against the guidelines to call other members troll, even in reps. Thank you." -- Bryan (Admin)


What's this site's policy on acting like one?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> 1. Do you literally think that this stupid statement will sound smarter if you repeat it enough times?
> 
> 2. Mormons are polytheistic. They don't get their views from the New Testament, they get it from Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, which was originally a fictional novel that he stole from Solomon Spaulding and put his name on.
> 
> 3. If you haven't found him yet, you're probably not looking right. 
> 
> 
> 
> What's this site's policy on acting like one?


 Arguing with unicorns is just a meaningless endeavor and a pointless waste of time. Moving on.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I would agree, because we are correct. 
> 
> Joking aside, I could say the same about unitarians, Buddhist, Mormons, atheists, or anyone with a deeply held belief in their hearts.



I used to work with a Mormon and a JW. Several others of us and I had great fun siccing[SP] them on each other, and then sitting back and watching the fur fly.   Good times! LOL!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Arguing with unicorns is just a meaningless and pointless waste of time.  Moving on.


Yeah, but you don't have any arguments at all, so what does it matter?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Yeah, but you don't have any arguments at all, so what does it matter?


Just keep lying to yourself and stay on your meds.  It will all get better soon.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just keep lying to yourself and stay on your meds.  It will all get better soon.


What are your arguments?

----------


## William Tell

> What are your arguments?


Poop against wall, some sticks = win the debate?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Poop against wall, some sticks = win the debate?


LOL   That sums up the RT school of rhetoric and debate quite well.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What are your arguments?



Thread page 1, you didn't read it before you began your whining did you?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL  That sums up the RT school of rhetoric and debate quite well.


I started to say you knew better, but  then realized you don't.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Poop against wall, some sticks = win the debate?


 With most of the intellects here, that's usually much more than enough.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> With most of the intellects here, that's usually much more than enough.


You don't have any arguments though.  You copy/paste from Google.  You are one of the most misinformed people I've come across.

As for your article, I stopped reading at the second paragraph:




> The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church Councils (Western and Eastern churches) brought the Trinity doctrine into Christianity.


That is completely false.  The concept of the tri-personhood of God comes from Scripture alone.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> With most of the intellects here, that's usually much more than enough.


Your pseudo-intellectualism and childish, condescending discussion manner are quickly becoming among the best running jokes in RPF history.  ~applauds~

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You don't have any arguments though. You copy/paste from Google. You are one of the most misinformed people I've come across.
> 
> As for your article, I stopped reading at the second paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> That is completely false. The concept of the tri-personhood of God comes from Scripture alone.


And there's the reason for your abysmal ignorance and stupidity.  It's all by choice and voluntarily self imposed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I started to say you knew better, but  then realized you don't.


Meh, facts is facts, as they say.  I just acknowledged it.  Have a fabulous day!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And there's the reason for your abysmal ignorance and stupidity.  It's all by choice and voluntarily self imposed.


You know, I just noticed that your posts make more sense when I imagine them being spoken by Ralph Cramden.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What are your arguments?


http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html  Run away. (again )

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html  Run away. (again )


Oh, you're posting your cult website again.  Well, those "problems" are ridiculous.  None of them are problems at all.  One question they ask is:




> If the law was “against us” as Paul claims in Colossians 2:14, then why do Deuteronomy 17:19, Proverbs 6:23 and Proverbs 13:14 say it’s the way to life?


Your cult website doesn't understand Christian theology, because if they did understand it, they would know that the law is holy and good, and following it perfectly IS the way to life.  The problem that man has is that he is a slave to sin and can't follow it.  Therefore man needed a perfect substitute to represent him:  Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ's perfect law-keeping is imputed to believers so that they can stand in the presence of God as law-keepers.

Neither you or the people at your cult website understand Christianity, so you should take some time off the internet and study a little bit before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Arguing with unicorns is just a meaningless endeavor and a pointless waste of time. Moving on.


Metaphors aren't your forte, I take it. It's okay, not being able to draw implicit meanings from figurative language, when it is so painfully obvious it hurts, is the universal brand of all historic heterodoxy, so its modern proponents should naturally wear it with honor. (that was sarcasm by the way, in case you weren't clear on that)

But for the sake of argument, I'm going to add a few wrinkles to this otherwise fruitless debate.

*John 10:30* - "I and [my] Father are one." (statement of unity between the Father and Son)
*Matthew 28:19* - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Unity in Baptism between the 3 divine persons)
*Matthew 3:16-17* - "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" (statement invoking a distinction between the persons of The Father and Son)
*John 14:26* - "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (This verse establishes the unity of purpose in the 3 persons, while likewise establishing the distinction in economy between the 3 persons, as The Spirit proceeds from the Father through The Son's name as the mediator between The Father and Man, thus establishing The Father's primacy in economy)
*John 1:14* - "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (Here is established Christ's eternal divine nature in distinction to his human nature, which was made flesh at a specific point in history, while without confusion, conflation or separation, is linked via hypostasis to the eternal divine nature, which as stated in John 1:1, was with God and was God.)
*1 John 5:7-8* - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (This verse is the most explicit pronouncement of the co-equality of the 3 persons in their essence, and the most explicit pronouncement of the trinity itself, hence this verse is often singled out as being a fabrication by Arian-inspired heretics. For some Fundamentalist turned Liberals, the historicity of these verses are in doubt as all original manuscripts have been lost. However, it is well established that when Jerome composed The Vulgate translation that he had the originals and that these verses were in 1 John 5.)
*Genesis 1:26* - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Why would a singular, solitary, Unitarian, non-triune God refer to himself in the plural right smack in the beginning of The Pentateuch? This is my favorite verse for refuting Jewish and Muslim apologists who insist that God has always been 1 in all senses, and the original Hebrew words are pretty clear that the pronoun in use is not the singular "I")
*1 Peter 1:2* - "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (Another verse dealing with the distinction of economy between the 3 persons, getting into further detail of their function in the Christian experience, and again beginning with the primacy of The Father and the function of the Holy Spirit as subordinate to The Father, through The Son. Keep in mind that all 3 persons, while distinct in economy, are unified in their purposes, which is not the case with ANY polytheistic trifecta of deities)
*Genesis 3:22* - "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" (Another early Old Testament passage dealing with the plurality of persons of The Godhead)

There are select Old Testament quotes from The Book of Psalms and The Prophet Isaiah that further bolster what has already been cited and expanded upon, none of which came out of any of Paul's epistles, all of which are in agreement with the Gospel accounts and the epistles of John and Peter I might add. 

In closing, since I don't think I'll get a response out of you other than "blah blah, Paulinist, blah blah, Roman conspiracy, blah blah, cheesy poofs", I would like to state that Sola_Fide is correct that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is fully discernible from scripture alone when The Holy Spirit works efficaciously in the reader, and that is precisely how the early fathers of the church came to define the Trinity in corresponding creeds and councils. Likewise, while I view scripture as sufficient in itself to logically explain the point in question, given the advent of sin and the innate desire of man to rebel against the truth, the help of The Holy Spirit becomes necessary to properly articulate this sufficiency, and the wisdom of past and present pastoral defenders of the faith are of a corresponding subordinate necessity to maintain clarity on these points. Setting obedient defenders of the faith against the faith is folly, let alone trying to set the written word of the apostles against each other.

----------


## TER

The explanation given above, including the Christology and Trinitarian theology which HU touched upon, are entirely in line with the patristic teachings of the Church.  Thank you for putting the time to write it!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, you're posting your cult website again.  Well, those "problems" are ridiculous.  None of them are problems at all.  One question they ask is:
> 
> 
> 
> Your cult website doesn't understand Christian theology, because if they did understand it, they would know that the law is holy and good, and following it perfectly IS the way to life.  The problem that man has is that he is a slave to sin and can't follow it.  Therefore man needed a perfect substitute to represent him:  Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ's perfect law-keeping is imputed to believers so that they can stand in the presence of God as law-keepers.
> 
> Neither you or the people at your cult website understand Christianity, so you should take some time off the internet and study a little bit before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.


  The only thing I disagree with here is the Imputed Righteousness.  http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2013/...teousness.html

----------


## hells_unicorn

> http://www.problemswithpaul.com/index.html  Run away. (again )


You know what Ronin, despite the fact that I have a life and better things to do than waste time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't want to know about, I'm going to set some time aside over the next couple weeks answering the falsehoods on this website, and I'm going to start with the easiest one, which is the site's inability to distinguish between the 12 apostles of Christ's ministry which were meant to fulfill the sign of the 12 tribes of Israel, and the corresponding apostles that spread the faith to the gentile nations.

First, since fanatics love to resort to dictionary definitions in an attempt to cut against scripture by resorting to "modern usage" against more archaic definitions, the first full definition in Merriam-Webster's dictionary for the word Apostle states: *"a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul"* Take note of the fact that in addition to including Paul in the list, though making him distinct from the other 12 (which makes sense, since his message was distinct in terms of its outreach), the definition makes room for other people during the apostolic period carrying the name apostle, including Paul's own subordinate Barnabas, as well as others, including a woman named Junias. I wonder if the authors of this website are so overtly chauvinistic that they can't stomach the idea of a woman bearing this title as no mention of her is made in the passage questioning Paul's apostle status on the site.

Regarding whether or not Paul was a valid member of Christ's Church can easily be deduced by the words of Peter, one of Christ's appointed apostles. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter mentions Paul as a "beloved brother" and basically destroys the entire argument of this website by stating that those who are ignorant of what Paul is teaching, wrestle against it to their own destruction. Doesn't sound like an interloper at cross-purposes with the original 12 to me, hence your notion of "liking Jesus and his 12" goes clear out the window. Acts 9, penned by Luke, deals with the nature of Paul's conversion, and states that Christ himself commissioned him and healed him through his disciple Ananias. If Paul's conversion is to be regarded as a Roman conspiracy or some other fraud, Luke becomes complicit in this. Likewise, given that there were witnesses to these events both with Paul and Ananias, we have to further multiply the fraud within the quarters of the early believers in Damascus, and also draw the divinity of Jesus' spiritual nature into question since his ability to convert a follower after his ascension is in play here.

Finally, moving from the modern English understanding of the word "apostle" in Merriam-Webster, the original Greek definition in play that is time specific to the New Testament designates the terms as "a messenger, one who is sent". In keeping with what is written by Luke, one of the original 12, Paul's apostleship according to this definition is clearly established as it was Jesus who commissioned him, independent of the other 12 (he never claims to be one of the original 12, that's a fallacious assertion unique to the creative imaginations of people like the ones who created this website) with a purpose to go outside the bounds of the Hebrew world. His relationship to the other 12 has a degree of friction at a few points, reflecting the difference in his charge as an apostle specifically to the gentiles, as in Galatians 2:11-14 where he rebukes Peter for reverting back to the old habit of not eating in the company of gentiles for fear of what other Jews sent by James would think. This cuts against the spirit of Matthew 28:19 to "teach and baptize ALL NATIONS" (emphasis mine), since such a concept presupposes a termination of the OT ceremonial laws regarding separating oneself from the uncircumcised.

This pretty much knocks this one out of the park, but do feel free to "kick against the pricks" Ronin, and do be sure to include plenty of "Paulinists" in your woeful attempt at a retort.

P.S. - If anyone wants to see just how retarded the people who put this website together actually are, get a load of the 5th objection on the point where Paul mentions himself as a "masterbuilder", which is another word for what would be known as a "foreman" in carpentry and architecture today, and is meant to be an analogy for him being a teacher charged with educating Christians so that they might likewise educate others. The idiots on Ronin's website actually try to tie Paul in with freemasonry, which started in the Middle Ages, several centuries after Paul died. I've seen some ridiculously anachronistic arguments in my life, but this one is simply beyond the pale.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You know what Ronin, despite the fact that I have a life and better things to do than waste time trying to convince you of something you obviously don't want to know about, I'm going to set some time aside over the next couple weeks answering the falsehoods on this website, and I'm going to start with the easiest one, which is the site's inability to distinguish between the 12 apostles of Christ's ministry which were meant to fulfill the sign of the 12 tribes of Israel, and the corresponding apostles that spread the faith to the gentile nations.
> 
> First, since fanatics love to resort to dictionary definitions in an attempt to cut against scripture by resorting to "modern usage" against more archaic definitions, the first full definition in Merriam-Webster's dictionary for the word Apostle states: *"a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul"* Take note of the fact that in addition to including Paul in the list, though making him distinct from the other 12 (which makes sense, since his message was distinct in terms of its outreach), the definition makes room for other people during the apostolic period carrying the name apostle, including Paul's own subordinate Barnabas, as well as others, including a woman named Junias. I wonder if the authors of this website are so overtly chauvinistic that they can't stomach the idea of a woman bearing this title as no mention of her is made in the passage questioning Paul's apostle status on the site.
> 
> Regarding whether or not Paul was a valid member of Christ's Church can easily be deduced by the writings of Luke and Peter, both Christ appointed apostles. Acts 9, penned by Luke, deals with the nature of Paul's conversion, and states that Christ himself commissioned him and healed him through his disciple Ananias. If Paul's conversion is to be regarded as a Roman conspiracy or some other fraud, Luke becomes complicit in this, hence your notion of "liking Jesus and his 12" goes clear out the window. Likewise, given that there were witnesses to these events both with Paul and Ananias, we have to further multiply the fraud within the quarters of the early believers in Damascus, and also draw the divinity of Jesus' spiritual nature into question since his ability to convert a follower after his ascension is in play here. Correspondingly, in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter mentions Paul as a "beloved brother" and basically destroys the entire argument of this website by stating that those who are ignorant of what Paul is teaching, wrestle against it to their own destruction. Doesn't sound like an interloper at cross-purposes with the original 12 to me.
> 
> Finally, moving from the modern English understanding of the word "apostle" in Merriam-Webster, the original Greek definition in play that is time specific to the New Testament designates the terms as "a messenger, one who is sent". In keeping with what is written by Luke, one of the original 12, Paul's apostleship according to this definition is clearly established as it was Jesus who commissioned him, independent of the other 12 (he never claims to be one of the original 12, that's a fallacious assertion unique to the creative imaginations of people like the ones who created this website) with a purpose to go outside the bounds of the Hebrew world. His relationship to the other 12 has a degree of friction at a few points, reflecting the difference in his charge as an apostle specifically to the gentiles, as in Galatians 2:11-14 where he rebukes Peter for reverting back to the old habit of not eating in the company of gentiles for fear of what other Jews sent by James would think. This cuts against the spirit of Matthew 28:19 to "teach and baptize ALL NATIONS" (emphasis mine), since such a concept presupposes a termination of the OT ceremonial laws regarding separating oneself from the uncircumcised.
> 
> This pretty much knocks this one out of the park, but do feel free to "kick against the pricks" Ronin, and do be sure to include plenty of "Paulinists" in your woeful attempt at a retort.
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hells_unicorn again.

----------


## TER

Another excellent analysis HU, but it should be mentioned that St. Luke the Apostle was not one of the Twelve, but rather, one of the Seventy!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The only thing I disagree with here is the Imputed Righteousness.  http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2013/...teousness.html


I don't see how you can deny it.  Imputed righteousness is what Christianity is.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Another excellent analysis HU, but it should be mentioned that St. Luke the Apostle was not one of the Twelve, but rather, one of the Seventy!


I just reread my post and adjusted it accordingly to reflect what I meant to accomplish. I typed that whole thing on the fly and didn't realize that I lumped Luke in with the original 12 as I was typing. Luke's account in Acts is a good source outside of Paul, but I did misappropriate his function a bit with my words. I think it's fixed now.

And thank you all for the complements. Although I am a bit annoyed at having to essentially deal with stuff that I consider childish in nature, I am getting a chance to check my own knowledge. Christ had many apostles following his first 12, and all of their contributions to the biblical canon are valid and binding, despite what the church's enemies say to the contrary.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I don't see how you can deny it.  Imputed righteousness is what Christianity is.


This is the divergence between post-Trent Rome and the Reformed faith. Imputed Righteousness is a monergistic understanding of the free grace by which justifying faith is given, whereas Trent decrees a synergistic justification that is mixed with sanctification. I think anyone with a clear understanding of Augustine's soteriology or anyone who truly understands the relationship between the epistles of Paul and that of James will favor the Reformed position on this point, as there is a clear distinction between justification and sanctification in Paul's epistles that is echoed in James mostly sanctification oriented words.

I ended up moving away from the Trent position and eventually from Rome about 6 years ago when I studied the theological works of Cornelius Jansen and Pasquier Quesnel, both of whom I would argue were wrongly designated as heretics by Semi-pelagian popes given their clearly orthodox understanding of Augustine's doctrine of salvation, in large part because of what was wrongly decreed at Trent. The Jesuits actually incited the magisterium to put Jansen's teacher Michael Baius under a gag order when he attended Trent so that no one would object to what was being agreed upon at said council.

P.S. - Just wanted to add an edit as I didn't want it to sound like I was asserting that Heavenlyboy34 was taking the Trent position, I was only trying to flesh out an important distinction as I don't think there is a necessarily legalistic character to Justification by Faith Alone (one of the 5 solas), unless it is made the only part of the process of salvation and sanctification is taken out of the picture. When we are saved, it is a good idea to frame it from the relationship of the believer to the Triune Godhead, namely that we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ's obedience, ministry and sacrifice through his office as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), we are adopted by The Father's free grace (from eternity) as The Father draws us (John 6:44,65), and we are sanctified unto good works by The Holy Spirit (Romans 15:16).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't see how you can deny it.  Imputed righteousness is what Christianity is.


Incorrect.  This is just a Reformation _opinion_.  It's not scriptural or historically correct interpretation.




> The Protestant reformers made much of their doctrine of justification by faith alone. We agree that justification is by faith... just not that it is by faith alone.
> 
> What do we mean by "justification"? When Christians speak of being  justified by God, we mean that we, who were once sinners, are made  righteous by God. One important way that we differ from these Reformers  (though not all Protestants) is that we believe that we are not simply  declared to be righteous in a purely legal manner, but we are made  righteous, and are then to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.  We believe that if we become unrighteous, by living in unrepentant sin,  we cease to be just in the sight of God. To remain justified, we must  live a life of repentance, and a life in which the righteousness of God  is lived out in our lives.
> 
> The Reformers often quote St. Paul's statements from the Epistle to the Romans:
> 
> "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted  unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward  not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but  believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for  righteousness" (Romans 4:3-5).
> 
> And so, we are told, the Patriarch Abraham's faith was credited to him  for righteousness, and so they are argue we are saved by faith alone.
> ...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh, you're posting your cult website again. Well, those "problems" are ridiculous. None of them are problems at all. One question they ask is:
> 
> 
> 
> Your cult website doesn't understand Christian theology, because if they did understand it, they would know that the law is holy and good, and following it perfectly IS the way to life. The problem that man has is that he is a slave to sin and can't follow it. Therefore man needed a perfect substitute to represent him: Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ's perfect law-keeping is imputed to believers so that they can stand in the presence of God as law-keepers.
> 
> Neither you or the people at your cult website understand Christianity, so you should take some time off the internet and study a little bit before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.


And you are arguing with your Paulinist Bible because .........?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL   That sums up the RT school of rhetoric and debate quite well.


I don't bother with RT anymore.  He's beyond reason.  A true troll.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't bother with RT anymore. He's beyond reason. A true troll.


How does one troll their own thread, Goober?  DUH!  

Did your parents happen to be siblings?

"As a reminder to all, it is against the guidelines to call other members troll, even in reps.
Thank you." -- Bryan (Admin)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5673582

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't see how you can deny it.  Imputed righteousness is what Christianity is.


I believe the word is "reckon."  Even though we may not necessarily be righteous, we are "reckoned" to be by God because we have earnestly chosen the right path.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Metaphors aren't your forte, I take it. It's okay, not being able to draw implicit meanings from figurative language, when it is so painfully obvious it hurts, is the universal brand of all historic heterodoxy, so its modern proponents should naturally wear it with honor. (that was sarcasm by the way, in case you weren't clear on that)
> 
> But for the sake of argument, I'm going to add a few wrinkles to this otherwise fruitless debate.
> 
> *John 10:30* - "I and [my] Father are one." (statement of unity between the Father and Son)
> *Matthew 28:19* - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Unity in Baptism between the 3 divine persons)
> *Matthew 3:16-17* - "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:" (statement invoking a distinction between the persons of The Father and Son)
> *John 14:26* - "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (This verse establishes the unity of purpose in the 3 persons, while likewise establishing the distinction in economy between the 3 persons, as The Spirit proceeds from the Father through The Son's name as the mediator between The Father and Man, thus establishing The Father's primacy in economy)
> *John 1:14* - "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (Here is established Christ's eternal divine nature in distinction to his human nature, which was made flesh at a specific point in history, while without confusion, conflation or separation, is linked via hypostasis to the eternal divine nature, which as stated in John 1:1, was with God and was God.)
> ...


This post is going to the printer.  Thank you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How does one troll their own thread, Goober?  DUH!  
> 
> *It's a troll thread.  DUH!*
> 
> Did your parents happen to be siblings?
> 
> *I'm supposed to merit that with a response?  The question says more about you than it does me.*
> 
> "As a reminder to all, it is against the guidelines to call other members troll, even in reps.
> ...


//

----------


## PierzStyx

> The Holy Trinity was not fully revealed to mankind until after Christ's advent, but even in the OT, there were hints. The very first paragraph of Genesis reveals the Trinitarian God. 
> 
> *If anything Genesis reveals a God who is not Trinitarian. "Let us make man in our image, in [U]our[U/] likeness..." (Gen. 1:26)* 
> 
> The three Angels which appeared to Abraham who he worshipped as God is another great example. The greatest examples however are in the theophanies in the NT, such as at Christ's Baptism and Transfiguration.  
> 
> *Again, the baptism of Christ specifically mentions three individuals. The father speaks from heaven, Jesus is in the water having just been dunked, and the Holy Spirit is descending as shown by the sign of the dove. 
> 
> The Mount of Transfiguration you might be able to argue the trinity with, but only if you really want to read the Trinity into it. Jesus is overshadowed by a cloud of glory and again the distinct voice of the Father testifies from Heaven that Jesus is the Son of God. The apostles in Matthew's account clearly understand the Father's voice as being distinct and individual from Christ's, a sthey fall down in fear of the Father and are comforted by Jesus.* 
> ...


Bold portions are my response.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Don't you believe in magic? The pagans did. 

ALAKAZAM, PRESTO, CHANGO! 3 = 1!!! Voila! 

(I really hate the new math.)

----------


## TER

> If anything Genesis reveals a God who is not Trinitarian. "Let us make man in our image, in [U]our[U/] likeness..." (Gen. 1:26)


That is evidence that God is Three Persons, in addition to the other many revelations given in Scripture and in the life of the Church.

The three Angels which appeared to Abraham who he worshipped as God is another great example. The greatest examples however are in the theophanies in the NT, such as at Christ's Baptism and Transfiguration. 




> Again, the baptism of Christ specifically mentions three individuals. The father speaks from heaven, Jesus is in the water having just been dunked, and the Holy Spirit is descending as shown by the sign of the dove.


Yes, Three Hypostasis of the One God.




> The Mount of Transfiguration you might be able to argue the trinity with, but only if you really want to read the Trinity into it. Jesus is overshadowed by a cloud of glory and again the distinct voice of the Father testifies from Heaven that Jesus is the Son of God. The apostles in Matthew's account clearly understand the Father's voice as being distinct and individual from Christ's, a sthey fall down in fear of the Father and are comforted by Jesus.


Don't forget they are filled with the Holy Spirit, indeed, surrounded by Him, as in a cloud!  Again, demonstrating the Holy Trinity.

The language regarding this mystery developed to attempt to express in words what the Christian experience was of God, as well as to counter the heretical movements which were springing up, such as Arianism, which was distorting the apostolic faith. 




> I don't think either Trinitarians or Arians understood the Nature of God. The Trinitarians just managed to kill the most people and wipe their enemy out.


I'm sorry, what?  You have been misled, my friend.  First that the Trinitarians had no knowledge of God, for they indeed proclaimed what the catholic and orthodox faith was, as proclaimed by the leaders of the Christian Churches which were spread as far as they were known to go.  Entire cities and nations as worshiping members of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, whose roots were from the beginning. The Holy Trinity was the shared Christian experience of these churches and was the stated apostolic teachings that they held to be handed down to them from the beginning.  And not just handed down by anybody, but by those ordained by the Holy Spirit into the Church as Bishops and confirmed by the whole Church, the people of God spread through the nations.

The second point is in the lie you were told that the doctrine of the Trinity endured and won out to become the universal faith because the Trinitarians killed off everyone else.   It wasn't until Arians came around and started denying the Son was consubstantial and of one nature and essence of the Father (something you too are doing), that the language finally had to be proclaimed to express what was the catholic, apostolic, ancient and orthodox faith handed down.  You are ignoring the experience of >99.9999% of Christians who ever lived, distort historical reality, and worse of all! are accusing great and holy Saints of God, and indeed the Holy Spirit working in them.  I would be careful, friend.  I understand you have chosen Joseph Smith to be above them all.  I'm just saying perhaps he wasn't.  And after studying historical reality, I can say he wasn't. 

...But my bigger wonder with your post is, when has something not explicitly written in the NT ever stopped a Mormon from believing it?




> Never. But at least I believe all my additional beliefs are revealed from Heaven by God through duly appointed prophets and apostles in His ancient pattern that goes all the way back to Adam. Men of lesser offices than Apostle, so, for example, bishops, have no authority to determine religious doctrines. The NT pattern is clear about how God reveals His truths and can be seen when Peter receives the revelation to open the gospel to the gentiles. When a supposed church wide revelation breaks with this form and is instead determined by a council of bishops arguing and fighting and voting over what should and shouldn't be doctrine, relying more on pagan philosophical constructs than the clear intent of the scripture, I see men assuming powers beyond their office. No matter how good their intentions, they will eventually go astray.


Except your definitions of ecclesiology and charge against Bishops are destroyed by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers at the end of the first century, by Saints much greater than us and much more knowledgable of the teachings of the Apostles.  Have you ever read the writings of St. Ignatius?  Or were you told that the Holy Spirit failed before the end of the first century, and all the Christians spread everywhere believe something wrong and different regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ?  I don't think God is so weak!  Nor so merciless!

I get it.  You use the Holy Scriptures for the verses you want from it, ignore verses which speak against your beliefs, and then fill in the holes with the books of Joseph Smith.  Well, as a disciple of Christ and a member of His Church, I cannot commit to that, for the Holy Spirit has not failed, Jesus Christ is not a liar, and I dare not judge myself to greater than the Christian Saints.

As for the claim about duly appointed apostles, it is a claim which the Orthodox Church can make and the Mormon Church cannot, unless we wish to ignore historical reality, create whimsical fantasies, and cast almost every Christian person who came before us as ignorant fools heading towards hell.

But it is okay!  After judging them and making Joseph Smith the Prophet of God (in the vein of Muhammadism), we can baptize them against their will, even if they believed in the Triune God! 

 I am sorry, but weighing all things together, I can not so blindly believe such things with no historical proof or consistency of belief in the teachings and the faith handed down through the Holy Spirit eternally and also in this world.

----------


## euphemia

> Don't you believe in magic? The pagans did. 
> 
> ALAKAZAM, PRESTO, CHANGO! 3 = 1!!! Voila! U
> 
> (I really hate the new math.)



Oh, look.  Cultic and trying to be clever.  Not working.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That is evidence that God is Three Persons, in addition to the other many revelations given in Scripture and in the life of the Church.
> 
> The three Angels which appeared to Abraham who he worshipped as God is another great example. The greatest examples however are in the theophanies in the NT, such as at Christ's Baptism and Transfiguration. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Three Hypostasis of the One God.
> 
> 
> ...


My eyes glazed over a bit somewhere, in there, but OK.

----------


## euphemia

And of course you recognize no Divine Power of any kind in your life, so I'm going to believe what you say.

Just laughing at your ridiculousness.  Like a hamster on a wheel.

----------

