It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A contradiction in the bible

page: 16
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Having the trinity does not make it monotheism. Its like saying, if im a child, son, and father. Does that make me 3 different people? Its the excat same thing here....




posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyYankee13
 


Never did Jesus claim to be almighty God himself. Any impartial reading of the Bible without preconceived ideas about the Trinity will verify that. For example, at John 3:16, Jesus said:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son.”


Just two verses later, Jesus again said that he was “the only-begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18) When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, he answered: “Do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?” (John 10:36)

Jesus did not say that he was ‘God the Son’ but that he was “God’s Son.”

When Jesus died, even the Roman soldiers standing by knew that Jesus was not God: “The army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: ‘Certainly this was God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:54)

They did not say, ‘this was God’ or ‘this was God the Son,’ because Jesus and his disciples taught that Jesus was the Son of God, not God Almighty in human form.

God himself testified that Jesus was his beloved Son, as the Bible writer Matthew noted when Jesus was baptized. (Matthew 3:17) Other Bible writers noted the same. Mark wrote:

“A voice came out of the heavens: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Mark 1:11)

Luke said: “A voice came out of heaven: ‘You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.’” (Luke 3:22) And John the Baptizer, who baptized Jesus, testified: “I have borne witness that this one [Jesus] is the Son of God.” (John 1:34)

So God himself, all four Gospel writers, and John the Baptizer clearly state that Jesus was the Son of God. And some time later, at the transfiguration of Jesus, a similar thing happened: “A voice [God’s] came out of the cloud, saying: ‘This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.’”—Luke 9:35.

In these accounts, was God saying that he was his own son, that he sent himself, and that he approved himself? No, God the Father, the Creator, was saying that he had sent his Son Jesus, a separate individual, to do God’s work. h

hence, throughout the Greek Scriptures the phrase “Son of God” is used to refer to Jesus. But not once do we see the phrase ‘God the Son,’ for Jesus was not almighty God. He was the Son of God. They are two different persons, and no theological “mystery” can change that truth.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I have stated in this thread that I believe the trinity is a false teaching and a direct contradiction in the bible.

Was it a attempt to make early Christianity more Pagan so it would be more acceptable to the heathen masses?

Or was it just a effort to forever corrupt the religion of Christianity?



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyYankee13
Having the trinity does not make it monotheism. Its like saying, if im a child, son, and father. Does that make me 3 different people? Its the excat same thing here....


Following your line of reasoning, all three would be the same and equal.....
Question; Did Jesus ever say that we was the Father? Answer; No.
Question, Did Jesus say that he was even Equal to God? Anywhere? at any time?
Answer; No.
Quite the opposite, The scriptures make it clear that he was subject to his father before his prehuman existance, during his life as man, and even after his resurrection. You may rightly say, " i'm a child, son, and father."

But Jesus never said that.



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Was it a attempt to make early Christianity more Pagan so it would be more acceptable to the heathen masses?

Or was it just a effort to forever corrupt the religion of Christianity?


Here is some information that outlines the Historical development of the Trinity. Some of these sources are from Catholic References.


The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1985, Micropædia, Volume 11, page 928, says under the subject of Trinity: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.’ (Deut. 6:4)” This encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father,’ even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume 14, page 299, acknowledges: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

Thus, the Trinity doctrine is not Scriptural, but it was officially adopted at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 C.E. The doctrine incorporated a pagan idea that had originated long before in ancient Babylon and Egypt and was in use in other lands as well. Historian Will Durant observed in The Story of Civilization: Part III, page 595: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.”

In An Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Vergilius Ferm, 1964, on pages 793 and 794, under the word “triad,” are listed the trinities of the Babylonian, Buddhist, Hindu, Norse, Taoist, and other religions, as well as those of Christendom. As an example, it notes that in India, “the great Triad include Brahma, the Creator, Vishnu, the Preserver and Shiva, the Destroyer. These represent the cycle of existence, just as the Babylonian triad of Anu, Enlil and Ea represent the materials of existence, air, water, earth.”

London’s British Museum contains artifacts that show ancient trinities, such as Egypt’s Isis, Harpokratēs, and Nephthys. A publication of the museum’s Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities notes the following that was inscribed on ancient jewelry: “Obverse [side], the Egyptian gods Horus-Baït (hawk-headed), Buto-Akori (the snake), and Hathor (frog-headed). Reverse [side], the Greek verse ‘One Baït, one Hathor, one Akori; the power of these is one. Hail, father of the world, hail, three-formed god!’ The gods are thus identified as three manifestations of one power, probably the sun-god.”

History confirms that the Trinity was borrowed from pagans and was in existence centuries before Jesus came to the earth. Long after his death, it was promoted by those who had been influenced by pagan philosophies and who had apostatized from the true worship of God as taught by Jesus and the apostles.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Sparky63]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Historian Will Durant observed in The Story of Civilization: Part III, page 595: “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity.”



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Christendom incorporated the Trinity, a pagan concept, into its teachings. This was instigated by Roman emperor Constantine, who was not interested in the truth about this matter but wanted to solidify his empire made up of pagans and apostate Christians.

Far from being a development of a Christian teaching, the Trinity was evidence that Christendom had apostatized from the teachings of Christ and had adopted pagan teachings instead.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
It is also understood by scholars that the early Christians brought in many of the beliefs of the Romans, and Hellenistic beliefs into Christianity. More is being discovered about Paul and that he was responsible for bringing a lot of possible Hellenistic beliefs along.

Christianity was very diluted from the very beginning and Constantine furthered the corruption. I firmly believe that Paul was a con-man and ran with the whole Christian religion concept.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 
first understand this God is a plrual and singular like sheep plural and singular

now God was here on this earth his spirit was split certain attribute of his sprirt and soul given to the spirit bodies of jesus and the holy ghost

so all are seperate but are one God

now why would God split his spirit and soul? so that he can be in heaven and on earth. so that he could die for our sins but still be able to rule heaven. so that the attributes needed in that dispensation can be ruled by him as well as earth. etcc

the reasons are endless but to put it simple its so that his plan for his creations would run smoother



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by iesus_freak

first understand this God is a plrual and singular like sheep plural and singular


if you are going to refer to ancient hebrew, then you must take all of ancient hebrew into account, including basic grammar.



Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are bre# bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.

In most English translations of the Bible (e.g. the King James Version), the letter G in "god" is capitalized in cases where Elohim refers to the God of Israel, but there is no distinction between upper and lower case in the Hebrew text.




now why would God split his spirit and soul? so that he can be in heaven and on earth. so that he could die for our sins but still be able to rule heaven.


now does that really make sense to you? if jesus was god, then how could he be an equal sacrifice for adam? Why would god then resurrect that second part of him? would he need to? why would god make jesus king, only to have the kingdom handed back to him after the thousand years?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by iesus_freak
 


It is a very convoluted theory that quite frankly doesn't make a bit of sense! Does this happen to us? But, we are made in God's image, so why don't we divide or return to the womb at some point? It fails the test of common sense.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 



It is a very convoluted theory ....

Trinity, trinity trinity............
I had a girlfriend, years ago, who began to like me less, when I deviated from the accepted norm, belief in the trinity.
It was not something I took lightly, I spent a lot of energy gathering all the source material and commentary, to use to help me, in this process.
One day I handed her a book I had bought, named God in Three Persons.
I told her that the best argument against the trinity is to look at the very best argument in support of it.
Of course she could not come up with one word to contradict me, but she started hating me after that.
People do not like their cherished beliefs being taken away and the more clever of us will, come up with some explanation for why they can keep it.
I heard a preacher say in a sermon, "Despite all the evils the Catholic Church has perpetrated throughout history, we have to thank them for preserving the doctrine of the trinity. If we would have had to figure it out, ourselves, from the Bible, it never would have happened."
I had to ask him, after his sermon, why he did not find a problem with that statement.
He did not, because, it is one of his beliefs, and of course it had to be true.


[edit on 9-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyYankee13
Having the trinity does not make it monotheism. Its like saying, if im a child, son, and father. Does that make me 3 different people? Its the excat same thing here....



When you transcend time, space and physical prescence, then no



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyYankee13
Having the trinity does not make it monotheism. Its like saying, if im a child, son, and father. Does that make me 3 different people? Its the excat same thing here....


i wanted to comment on this because i found it funny.

ive seen this argument used alot and its true, one person can have many titles.

but never, and i would like to emphasis never, has anyone been a son AND HIS OWN father at the same time.

so no, its not as simple as that.

if i am a daughter and a mother, that actually does involve 3 separate people. my mother whom im daughter to, me, and my daughter whom im mother to.
(i dont have a daughter, im just illustrating)



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

i wanted to comment on this because i found it funny.

ive seen this argument used alot and its true, one person can have many titles.

but never, and i would like to emphasis never, has anyone been a son AND HIS OWN father at the same time.

so no, its not as simple as that.

if i am a daughter and a mother, that actually does involve 3 separate people. my mother whom im daughter to, me, and my daughter whom im mother to.
(i dont have a daughter, im just illustrating)


yes, but in your scenario was your mother a being that does not exist in time and space as we know and actually created everything ever



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

Jesus is my God but I don't put him before Yahweh, Jesus' God & father.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
yes, but in your scenario was your mother a being that does not exist in time and space as we know and actually created everything ever


no, but my point still stands.

jesus is called god's son because he's exactly that. why would god be his own father? it serves absolutely no purpose.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 



a being that does not exist in time and space

Revelation 4 (New American Standard Bible)

a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne.
And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance....
....give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever,
...."Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."
And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God....
....in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book....
....a lamb... took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.
"....You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men...."
" You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God...."

Here is your trinity:
1) the creator of the universe, happily sitting inside his universe of time and space.
2) the lamb, who creates a kingdom, for God, by purchasing men, for God, to be priests to God.
3) the seven Spirits of God.

They appear together, at the same time and the same place.


[edit on 10-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Hmmm. Actually, Jesus did say he was God many times. Folks just choose not to see it and the apostols say it as well.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"

"Truly I say to you, before Abrahm was I am" and they took up stones to stone him. ? why? because to the Jews he just claimed to be God.

The intersting thing to me, is most people will deny Christ based on the OT but Jesus said that it was the scripture (the jewish scripture) that testified of him. All through, the OT there are allusions to him, prophecies of him and in some cases stories of people meeting what many believe was him.

The trinity is a mystery? Why, we each have a body a mind and a spirit? Are we not created in His image?
edit for clarification: I'm not saying that this is how God is but rather how who we are reflects who He is.

Paul was pretty blunt when it came to preaching. He said it this way, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned"

We can deny all we want but we can't use the bible to do it as it has been prepared to defeat all arguments against it if you'll just take the time to look.



[edit on 15-7-2008 by WarBow]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WarBow
 



Jesus did say he was God many times. Folks just choose not to see it …

I read the Bible multiple times before I realized that there was a problem with the theology of the Trinity that I had been taught.
I do not think I just decided to ignore all those familiar verses that have always been used to back up something that I began to look at with renewed interest.

"Truly I say to you, before Abrahm was I am" and they took up stones to stone him. ? why? because to the Jews he just claimed to be God.

How often did the Jews misunderstand Jesus?
Jesus also said, at this time, that Abraham desired to see his time, and he did.
What Jesus is saying is that the “Savior” concept existed previously.
Jesus himself was not around, in a form that Abraham could see.
The Jews said Abraham was dead and Jesus said they were liars.
I would conclude that Abraham knew God and knew of God’s plan, and he believed.
So, that eternal life that Jesus said he was here to offer had been given to Abraham and he witnessed Jesus, in actuality.
Of course, the Sadducees were in hot dispute with the Pharisees over the resurrection and Paul later said, in trial, that the Jews wanted to kill him over this very dispute.
Jesus was using the simple version to indicate his existence, and not the form used to indicate the God, I AM.

most people will deny Christ based on the OT

Are you claiming that not calling Jesus God is denying Christ?
I would claim the opposite is true, that claiming godhood for Jesus destroys the true meaning of being the Christ.

stories of people meeting what many believe was him.

I would not count myself among this number, despite having been taught that Michael, the archangel and the man who ate with Lot, and the fourth person in the fiery furnace were all Jesus.

The trinity is a mystery?

Perhaps Miriam would like to answer that one.

Paul was pretty blunt when it came to preaching. He said it this way, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

If Paul was speaking to Pagans, they would have had no problem with the idea of a dying God, as they have several of those in the Pagan religions.
The idea of a man dying in order to advance himself and to bring about salvation would have been incomprehensible to them.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned"

I do not think that non-Trinitarians are spiritually inferior to Trinitarians, and personally, I would consider myself to be as spiritual as any.

We can deny all we want but we can't use the bible to do it as it has been prepared to defeat all arguments against it if you'll just take the time to look.

I am not arguing against the Bible.
I have taken plenty of time looking at it.
This is something I take very serious.
By teaching the true meaning of Jesus being the Messiah, I have to take responsibility if I was leading anyone astray.
You call what I think, as being denying but I feel that stripping Jesus of full manhood, denies him of his true status, as if the label, Messiah is not good enough, so you take it upon yourself to elevate his status.
Making Jesus God only destroys the whole concept of Jesus being the Christ, and makes it a transitory step and not what he is today.


[edit on 15-7-2008 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join