Virgin Birth and Trinity Conspiracy

reply to post by pdpayne0418


Since these so called bible experts say those other verses aren't really dealing with the trinity, what are their comments on my earlier post?

I think it's funny that not one person replied to my post. Happens a lot actually.

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
And if you take the writings of Church Fathers as part of your evidence for the Trinity, I am left speechless - do you also consider their writing inspired and infallible?

Er... your entire argument for the trinity rested on the altered I John passage that you pointed out as being a later interpolation. And YOU originally mentioned the early church fathers.

Let's examine the paragraph from your OP relating to the trinity:

The Trinity

The major proof text Christians use to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is the Comma Johanneum found in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus. This text was used to translate the King James Version. This portion of scripture did not find its way into the biblical texts until the 7th century. It was never mentioned by any early Church Fathers. I do give credit to modern Bible translators, as nearly all of them either footnote the problem with this portion of scripture, or omit it altogether. However, there are still strong bands of King James only proponents who, for some reason, insist the scripture in question should remain in the English translations. I assume this is because it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the entire Bible.

No, I do not consider the early church fathers inspired but apparently you consider them important enough to bring them up concerning the lack of citation of the Comma Johanneum. So I used them in reply to you. Their value to me is of historical importance.

What your argument dishonestly boils down to is that the trinitarian doctrine was a later belief. So I was refuting your argument by pointing out evidence that clearly shows the trinity being believed by Christians centuries before the 7th century.

Understand now?

[edit on 8/7/2009 by AshleyD]

Jesus was born of a virgin. But that virgin wasn't Mary. The virgin is the father himself, as Jesus was born of the spirit, and there is no equal to the father.

Saying that Mary is a virgin as a "sign" is logically false. I'll sum up a story I heard from a Jewish Rabbi. I wish I could find the link, but it was great for this. I'll try not to butcher it too much.

There is this small town outside of Chicago - The windy city. The town had a problem because the wind kept blowing down their street signs. This caused problems with people not stopping where they needed to, maintenance to put them back up, as well as a potential deadly weapon.

So they get together and decide to have a town meeting on how they can solve the problem. They gather up and idea after idea is presented, and each of them is shown not to work. Finally a little old lady from the back of the room pipes up "If you want to fix the signs, listen to me". The room quiets down and everyone listens to her.

She says - All you need to do is just bury the signs. Then the wind will not be able to touch the signs, and we won't have this problem anymore. The room bursts out in laughter.

But the lady was right, the wind would not blow down those signs anymore with her solution. So what is the problem? The problem is - It's not a sign if nobody can see it.

The true virgin is still a virgin today. And all must be born of that virgin(all are, it's mostly a matter of knowing it). "Marvel not that I have said ye must be born again".

Jesus denies Mary is even his mother at one point.

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

I can easily demonstrate this with atheists. Atheists believe they are nothing more than the flesh. They have not experienced that 2nd birth to know they are actually more than flesh. As such, they are unable to see the kingdom.

This is also true of many Christians and stuff, even though they do repeat there is a soul, they have not actually experienced and really know what it means.

John 14:20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

On that day you will know it, and nobody will have to tell you it either.



[edit on 8/7/2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
And if you take the writings of Church Fathers as part of your evidence for the Trinity, I am left speechless - do you also consider their writing inspired and infallible?

Er... your entire argument for the trinity rested on the altered I John passage that you pointed out as being a later interpolation. And YOU originally mentioned the early church fathers.

Let's examine the paragraph from your OP relating to the trinity:

The Trinity

The major proof text Christians use to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is the Comma Johanneum found in the 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus. This text was used to translate the King James Version. This portion of scripture did not find its way into the biblical texts until the 7th century. It was never mentioned by any early Church Fathers. I do give credit to modern Bible translators, as nearly all of them either footnote the problem with this portion of scripture, or omit it altogether. However, there are still strong bands of King James only proponents who, for some reason, insist the scripture in question should remain in the English translations. I assume this is because it is the only explicit reference to the Trinity in the entire Bible.

No, I do not consider the early church fathers inspired but apparently you consider them important enough to bring them up concerning the lack of citation of the Comma Johanneum. So I used them in reply to you. Their value to me is of historical importance.

What your argument dishonestly boils down to is that the trinitarian doctrine was a later belief. So I was refuting your argument by pointing out evidence that clearly shows the trinity being believed by Christians centuries before the 7th century.

Understand now?

[edit on 8/7/2009 by AshleyD]

Exactly, I referred to the church fathers in relation to the Comma Johanneum, not to their other mentions of belief in the Trinity. I could not care less what the church fathers believed about the Trinity, since that is not the topic of my OP.I never said the Trinitarian doctrine was a later belief; simply that the I John passage was not mentioned by the church fathers. How, exactly, is this being dishonest? What the church fathers believed, and what the earliest manuscripts teach, are very often divergent.

Peace,
Daniel

Hi/

Genesis...."I shall put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy seed and Her Seed" (Genesis 3:15)

Woman was to bear the God-Child.

Esais:Chapter 7:14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.(Emmanuel means 'God is with us')

PSALM 44:13-15...Pre figuration of the Theotokos.
13 All her glory [is that] of the daughter of the king of Esebon, robed [as she is] in golden fringed garments,
14 in embroidered [clothing]: virgins shall be brought to the king after her: her fellows shall be brought to thee.
15 They shall be brought with gladness and exultation: they shall be led into the king's temple.

Mary told no one of the appearance of the angel,
The Angel himself revealed to Joseph concerning Mary's miraculous conception from the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:l8-25)
Mary understood this and heard the word of God and kept it (Luke 11:27,28
The Holy Spirit Who descended upon Her taught (Her) all things (John 14:26),
Having previously endured suspicion in silence, Mary now also listened in silence and kept in her heart the sayings concerning the greatness of Her Son (Luke 2:8-19).
She heard forty days later Symeon's prayer of praise and the prophecy concerning the weapon which would pierce Her soul.
Later She saw how Jesus advanced in wisdom; She heard Him at the age of twelve teaching in the Temple and everything She kept in Her heart (Luke 2:21-51)
Thou that art full of grace,
the Lord is with Thee.
Blessed an Thou among women ... The Holy Spirit shall come upon Thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow Thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be holy and shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:28-35).
Several prophecies of the Old Testament foretold of the incarnation of the ... Hence the title Theotokos — “birth- giver of God” — given to the Virgin Mary.
www.stvladimiraami.org...

ICXC NIKA
helen

Just to weigh in on this one, OP gets it half right

Virgin Birth is a fact of reality, do you really think it would be so hard for the creator of every atom in the universe and every original living being, to insert the life force of his son Jesus from a spiritual being to a physical one within the womb of a woman? No he could do it easily, and he did.

And that being correct verifies that the trinity is false dogma. The creator of the entire universe was not living inside Mary for 9 months, seriously people give your heads a shake if you think the supreme being in the universe became a physical being incapable of taking care of itself. The son of God received the highest and most important assignment, save mankind with his death. If he never really died as some people say, because it was God then that nullifies the sacrifice itself, and in reality you unknowingly reject it.
God's existence is eternal, so is Jesus now, but he really died for a few days, and God resurrected him back to life, they are separate entities.

Don't believe the lies started by some old men in the 4th century, this is one of the greatest lies that Christianity had foisted on the masses. This is only a small part of the great apostasy Jesus said was coming. Although it seems to be the most emotional one, from all the Christians I have talked too.

Pure Christianity that is true to the first century does not teach the Trinity.
People who have studied this themselves have discovered this to be the fact of the bible.

If you choose to listen to a Pastor or Minster who is just reciting what the clergy has passed on for centuries, without doing some serious personal research, then you only have yourself to blame in the end.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Blue_Jay33]

reply to post by 12.21.12

What is faith?

Although the Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence. Faith is not about turning off the brain and merely relying on the heart, or squashing reason in favor of emotion. No, Christian faith is about seeking and knowing Jesus with all facets of the human character. It's not a "blind faith" as I once thought... It's a "calculated faith" based on a preponderance of the evidence. Well, I've collected the evidence, and I've put it on trial... After a number of months in the jury room, I have returned with my personal verdict... Jesus Christ is who he claims to be... the Son of God who came to this earth about 2,000 years ago to offer true and lasting hope for mankind.

OK, now what...? I intellectually believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that God exists, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is his Son... How does this affect me? What is faith, as far as it concerns me?

I love the metaphor of a chair... Find the chair closest to you. Look at it closely. Examine its design. Is it structurally sound? Is it sufficiently engineered? Will the materials chosen by the manufacturer support your weight?

Most likely, you picked a chair that you believe will support you. That's belief. You applied logic, knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision.

Now sit in the chair... That's faith! At one point, intellectual assent only goes so far. True living requires that we put our beliefs into action. Intellectual belief without actionable faith is hollow and meaningless...

Have you ever heard about the guy who walked a tight rope across Niagra Falls? Many people watched him do it. To them he asked, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls?" They all replied, "Yes." They had already seen him do it.

Then he pushed a wheel barrow on a tight rope across Niagra Falls. When he completed the feat, he asked the onlookers, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow?" To that they replied unanimously, "Yes." Because they saw him do that too.

Finally, a buddy of the tight rope walker climbs into the wheel barrow and the tight rope walker pushes him across the Falls. Wow, what a daring feat! When they finished, the tight rope walker asked the crowd, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow with a person in it?" To that they exclaimed, "Yes!" For they were now believers in this guy's awesome abilities.

Then he looked at the crowd and asked, "Who's next?"

Link

reply to post by badmedia


Greetings all,

The rabbi Badmedia is referring to is Tovia Singer, who is also a radio host on Arutz Sheva (Israel National Radio). I had posted a link in an old thread here which has a number of audio recordings from different presentations he's given in front of live audiences, and I hope the mods won't mind my posting it in this thread, the material is free and in MP3 format:
www.simpletoremember.com...

It is important to understand that Rabbi singer is speaking to a primarily jewish audience with the intent that they not leave their spiritual tradition and convert to christianity he has stated many times that he is not attacking christians or christianity. He is a very learned biblical scholar, and not just the O.T., I encourage christians to listen to some of these lectures he's given, it's quite eye-opening, and his style is enjoyable and often amusing.

Without getting into a whole big thing, the Hebrew term is "Alma" which means young woman, that's the "sticky-widget" here, the word in the Greek that it was translated to has the connotation of being virgin. Nowhere in the Torah/Tanahk does it state that the messiah will be born of a virgin-- this is not a jewish concept, it is a concept ported into christianity from various pre-existing "pagan" religions. If anyone is interested I can bring the sources, but in Isaiah the "sign of the son" (which is not a reference to the messiah) actually refers to Isaiah's wife giving birth, this was to be a sign to the wicked king of the time. If you read Isaiah in context, all the way through, and from a reliable translation, you will find that "the suffering servant" is collective Israel (the people, not the land), who are called the "Son of God" in a collective and singular sense. And the part about being "wounded in the house of my friends" from Zecharia does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth, at least according to even Evangelical sources like Pat Robertson, because this passage is referring to a "False Prophet." Rabbi Singer does a much better job explaining this with all of the appropriate reference material. I encourage you to not take my word for any of this, but to listen to the lectures, and feel free to break out your Bible and follow along, it's quiet enlightening.

On a last side note here, I want to mention that nowhere in Jewish theology does is state that the messiah (which means "anointed," the hebrew term would be Moshiach) is God in the flesh. In fact there are at least two different Moshiachs according to hebrew eschatology, the first being Moshiach Ben Yosef (messiah the son of Joseph), which ultimately fails at his immediate mission and is killed, and then the Moshiach ben David (messiah son of David). Anyhow, this is a subject unto itself, my only reason for posting was to fill-in the pertinent info regarding the rabbi badmedia mentioned. Although I have been a student of comparative religion for a number of years now, I find that unfortunately it's largely pointless to argue difference in theology or try to change anyone's mind about anything. So I usually don't bother, because honestly I don't care if you believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, all I'm concerned about is humans living concientious and reasonably moral lives. Too many people focus on this notion of "Heaven" when our focus should be on improving this world "down here."

Peace,
Hexagram23

reply to post by pdpayne0418


Hi Pd,
I read your post with much regret that you will be hard pressed to get any intelligiable, addition information to answer your queries here.

With threads that I have started before on very similar topics to yours, there is only afew points that become clear in the outcome:
1) There are 2 types of individual that will be interested enough to reply, those being: i) the analytical truth seeker, and ii) those that believe by mere faith alone.
2) When you rephrase your points then a campaign of ridicule and denial will most probably ensue.
3) Ridicule and denial are the choice mechanism for those that for one cannot accept that others have a difference of opinion,; and the fact is they get frustrated because they are arguing for a cause which is full of inconsistencies, and which essentilly they have no proof.

I've asked questions of the Trinity to scores of people over years, and seem to get the trite response of : the father, the son and Holy spirit.
If they are indeed permutations of each other, why the need for the trinity concept?
And if its a trinity; is really Monotheisistic??

Yah Weh said "I am A jealous God", does that mean he/it is conceeding that there are indeed other gods?
Why would he/it not be jealous of a Prophet, that calls themself a God or this Father character?

Here's a different trinity: Bar Abba (Aramaic for "the son of the father"), Jesus the Christ, and Bar jesus (Elymus).

You can't be too analytical about this, as it boils down to a question of faith; like the rest of the Christian doctrines.

reply to post by hexagram23


Yes, that is it. Thanks a bunch, I had been there once and lost a link.

www.simpletoremember.com...

This page has the actual story I referred to and a bit more. I also love the story of the archer who painted the targets around his arrows.

HA! I'm officially a thread killer! This has happened to me before, because people don't like to acknowledge my scholarly points, HAHAHA. Well, that's fine, like I said before, arguing theology is a zero-sum game, everyone loses because it's a losers game. Theology is ultimately bull-hockey, however the point behind it is quite valid, which is connecting with the Divine. So, a big raspberry to all of yous! TTTTHHHHHPPPPPPTTTTT!!!!!

-H23

reply to post by hexagram23



Hi hexagram/

Sometimes 'SILENCE' is the best answer, but here is a link.

www.ocf.org...

take care,

ICXC NIKA
helen

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by daysofnoe

 

Lets be logical....

So you mean to imply that the angels look like God? I mean, it didn't say mankind in our IMAGES...and why would he say 'us' unless angels are on the same level....

And give me a clear definition of angel....if it means the soul of a deceased person that reigns with God, then remember there were no people here at the part of Genesis...

And the reason it later says " And God made man in his image" is because it only took one of the Annunaki to clone a man....remember they were all referred to as 'gods'....

I love how you started this off with, "Lets be logical." An angel is a creation of God. That dwells in Heaven with God. It has no free will, and is a servant of God. Man was created because God wanted to be worshiped, not by force, but by choice. Angels also look like God, hence He says "our image" The president refers to the Americans sometimes with himself, saying "we" and "us" Does that make us the president?

Originally posted by 12.21.12
'Faith' is just a word for 'no evidence'.

I have so much evidence for my faith. Enough that I have faith that God can do ANYTHING.

Ok fact is the bible has been written by men.Words were changed words were added and words were taken out.What I think most people don't seem to realize that classfy themselves as Christians is that the entity known as Jesus didn't want to be worshipped as an idol as most Christians do because of the later dogma added to the bible.The entity was trying to show people that the Christ is in everybody the Christ consciousness.That everybody is one with the Christ Consciousness.That we all have the light inside us.

Now for the so called virgin birth:
essentially, under Constantine, the concept of the Catholic or Universal, (Catholic meaning Universal) religion, the official Roman religion, as that which was a composite of various religious writings which were brought together to form that which is known as the Christian religion. That many of the writings were assembled from various sources, and brought into, and comprised those books of the Bible

The New Testament is assembled from patterns related to stories taken from earlier sources, such as Zoroastrian, Mithrain, Krishna, Buddhism, and Egyptian, and others

people should realize the origins of the Bible did not come from the pen of God, but came from the earlier writings in different cultures and nations at the time these Hebrew priests put this work together.

Jesus was a composite of different entities and the name was chosen several hundred years later at the Council of Nicea, wherein the entity Constantine ordered the various religious sects to come together and create a single religion for Rome, a Universal religion that incorporated all of the aspects of the various religions, so that all could accept and subscribe to it.

Apollonius of Tyana was incorporated, there was also energies of several other spiritual leaders of Roman religious sects whose stories were also brought in and there were those spiritual personalities or deities from other Roman religious orders whose histories or religious myths came from other cultures.

Krishna for example, of India, was one of the religious cults and groups in Rome, and his story was merged with that of Apollonius of Tyana. The story of Krishna as that entity who came into the earth born of a virgin and who attempted to save people from error and sin, but who was hanged for his efforts

Forming a composite in which the central heroic character was the Son of God, having 12 disciples, being born of a virgin, whose intent and purpose was to help save mankind, and for his efforts, the entity was slain and put upon a cross; the entity also having certain miraculous powers, including that of those who can heal by touch, or raise from the dead or move into states of suspended animation, such as some of the masters of India have demonstrated in various times throughout history.

There were those who had proposed the name Zeus, but many objected because Zeus was a Greek God and the Romans wanted nothing to do with Greek gods. Therefore they sought to find a Roman name, or a name that was neutral, which Rome could use as its own god, and the name that came eventually to the forefront was the name Jesus, or Hesus (pronounced heysoos) and it was a Hebrew term that meant "neither He nor She." It was neutral.

The further name of Christ was originally Christos. Hesus Christos and Christos meant the Clear One, or Enlightened One, or Jesus the Enlightened One. The Christed entity had been traditionally recognized long before this time. The Greek had a character whose name was Krestus, and Krestus or krest meant the height or the top, and there were the various other types of Christs.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...