Was There A Trinity Before The Birth Of Jesus? (Biblically, pray, Christianity)

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Nikk So you agree with me that the Islam, Christianity and the Jews all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham?

Right.
If the Roman Empire had never accepted early Christianity as its state religion, Christianity would never have become the world largest religion.

Yes, Christianity and Judaism believe in the same God. The Jewish nation just rejected His Son Jesus Christ. There is hope for Israel yet. No, Islam dose not serve the same God. Islam serves Allah and his prophet Mohamad. Allah is not Yahweh. They are not the same Yahweh is God, Allah is a devil.

Christianity did not need the Roman Empire. It was convenient at the time, but not a necessity. God does not need man. It is man that needs God. See how God himself is converting Muslims today. He is appearing to them in dreams and visions. We do not even need to send missionaries to Iran or Iraq or other Muslim nations.

[Nikk]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Nope - they just reinvented it to suit their agenda.

What are you talking about? Christianity is the same today as it was 2000 years ago. The Romans never reinvented it. What are you refering to?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Nikk

They are not the same Yahweh is God, Allah is a devil.

Allah is Arabic for God* so the Islam worship the same God as the Jews.
You could compare the Jews and the Islam with Protestants and Catholics.

What are you talking about? Christianity is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

No it isn't.
Some examples for changes are the East-West Schism** and the Investiture Controversy***.

* Allah is the standard Arabic word for "God". While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".
Source: Allah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**The East-West Schism, or the Great Schism, divided medieval Christendom into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, respectively. Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes.
Source: East-West Schism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

***The Investiture Controversy or Investiture Contest was an 11th century dispute between Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor and Pope Gregory VII over who would control appointments of church officials (investiture). It was the most significant conflict between secular and religious powers in medieval Europe. By undercutting the Imperial power established by the Salian emperors, the controversy lead to nearly 50 years of civil war in Germany, the triumph of the great dukes and abbots, and the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire from which Germany would not recover until the unification of Germany in the 19th century.
Source: Investiture Controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

Interesting , Materialism over Principal & Spirituality. Never saw that one coming

And yet everyone has answered that question over and over, but in your drug induced state of mind from drinking whatever spiritistic Kool-Aid you've been gulping, you can't seem to accept anyone's words or explanation of anything. So you fall back on calling everyone a fraud and a liar, when you are the one promoting a Satanic Fraud.
Nice try!

So I guess you believe that going to church makes one Spiritual. WOW. I work for a hospital, and I'm the powerhouse engineer. I help keep the sick and staff comfortable, so I feel I'm doing a service that is needed. Also, at leasts for me, I have found that church tends to bring me down spiritually. Often I have found that church tends to make your walk with God more mechanical, than spiritual. I don't recall calling anyone a liar. I did say your doctrine was false because you could not give me an answer to that question. Even now you will tell me how you answered that question and spend a considerable amount of time explaining this to me, when just answering the question would save you countless words. I have even listed all the possible answers to the questions by A. B. and C. And still, I can't even get a letter slection from you.

So if everyone has answered that question over and over, what would it hurt to answer it one more time? I have looked at your past post, and I don't see a clear answer.
Could you give me the post number where that question was answered?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

I work for a hospital, and I'm the powerhouse engineer.

Like you Jesus helped many people, but never asked anything in return for it.
It even cost him his life.
The question is would you do your job as an engineer for free or 'only' as volunteer work?
Would you still do your job if it would not earn you any money or prestige; if it would only cost you (money)?

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Especially in medieval times the various popes generally acted as any other (corrupt) king and the bishops generally act exactly as other (power-hungry) princes.

Are you saying Constantine was Pope now, or did you just change lanes on me again?

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Campbell34 Like you Jesus helped many people, but never asked anything in return for it.
It even cost him his life.
The question is would you do your job as an engineer for free or 'only' as volunteer work?
Would you still do your job if it would not earn you any money or prestige; if it would only cost you (money)?

It was Judas who kept the money that Jesus and his people lived on. And it was Paul who stated that a labor was worthy of his wages. It would be a mistake to believe that Jesus did not use money back then. And no, I would not work for free if my family had to go without. And the Bible teaches we are not to neglect are family.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

I think hell is this thread



Your pat answers offered do not include all possibilities. You present this with the paradigm of a dogma that presupposes the trinity doctrine is correct. That is being narrow minded and it has been answered already.

If yoiu bother to read some of the articles I posted, you will see from where this doctrine originated and it WAS NOT taught or even contemplated as such by the early church.

There is only one God and it is you that somehow needs to elevate Jesus to a position He emphatically denied Himself sooo many times.

Ever wondered why IF He was the long awaited Messiah (Christ) He instructed His disciples many time to tell no one He was the Christ even after Peter claimed it. I mean IF He was God in the flesh (Incarnate) then why did He alway defer honor and praise to the Father. The early church baptised in the Name of Jesus NOT the trinity.

Why is a creed necessary to adhere to the trinity doctrine if it is NOT clearly stated in the bible?

There are a few for you to chew on but I will answer your question with my own answer.

YHWH aka God

Jesus IS NOT GOD. He never claimed to be. You are doing exactly what the article I posted states - You believe in

When the name Yashua was first Grecianized, then Latinized, and finally Anglicized it became Jesus. Since Christian story-telling depicted him as virgin born, he can quite correctly be called Jesus ben Parthenos, that is, Jesus, son of the Virgin.

Jesus ben Parthenos was the foundation of that great system of religious absolutism known as Christianity. What an elaborate edifice of thought control it became, presided over by a suitably elaborate hierarchy of suitably frocked holy men who could defend the Chalcedonian formula of the hypostatic union of divine and human in one person! Or how God was three persons but not three Gods. How the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son and not the Father only. How wine became the real blood of Christ sacramentally but not physically. Are we justified before God by a righteousness imputare or efficare? Is saving faith formed with charity before it justifies or after it justifies?. Is predestination only directed toward the elect (single) or toward the non-elect also (double)? These are just a few of the big theological issues. We won't distract ourselves now with minor issues such as the transmission of original sin through sex, distinction between venial and mortal sin or distinctions between the intermediate state and the final judgment, and so on. There is enough here which has kept legions of theologians employed for centuries defining the faith and labeling heretics.

Even though you claim not to attend church, your mind is still polluted with the mythos of mainstream Christanity.

In fact when I became a believer, bought my 1st bible which was not a KJV, and elder flipped to 1 John 5:7 to see it the trinity stuff was there. At the time I did not understand what he was on about and later realised this was something taught, not in the bible.

This was confirmed when I acquired my NKJV and guess what it says in the margin?


1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness on the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are into the one.

Now look at how many other translations have these bits greyed out and itialisized

(LITV) For there are three bearing witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
(MKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
(MSG) A triple testimony:
(Murdock) [For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.]
(NET) For19 there are three that testify,20
(NKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
(RV) And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
(VW) For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
(Vulgate) quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
(WEB) For there are three who testify:
(Webster) For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
(WNT) For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;
(YLT) because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these--the three--are one;

Why is that do you think?? This was the "cast in concrete" proof text but hey guess what, when others started translating, other manuscripts did NOT have this in - wonder why??

In fact the whole premise of the KJV being properly translated is another mythos of American "trinitarian" Christianity. The fact is that the KJV has been doctored so much no one who stands on the KJV Onlyism POV even knows the facts of the original mistakes and of course we are thus told this is inerrant - yeah right!

Even the so called custodians of the hebrew texts have many marginal references true meaning unknown etc. yet the KJV translators were 100%????

Do yourself a favor and download e-Sword then download all the english translations

Im sure your NKJV confirmed that, because the NKJV is a perversion of the Scriptures. Consider the link below, and look at the countless verses and how they have been played with in your new NKJV.

And when it comes to Jesus Christ, Jesus tells us in John 14:6

(I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME.)

Now maybe you want to play around with other names, but Jesus statement here is clear enought for me.

The NKJV Condemns Itself as a Fraud!

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

No it is not. Show me where in the bible I am supposed to believe in triangles. Don't bother with 1 John 5:7-8 - these are known add ons.

Got time to explore this controversy (124 page word document)?

Here you go:

The Scandal of Joshua Ben Adam

Read that and then come tell me I am inconsistent. (But I am guessing many do not want to be confused with facts OR it does not fit the normal "sound-byte" paradigm mentality of many here)

OK, if you don't want to be inconsistent, then I must truthfully tell you that you are consistently wrong-headed on this particular issue.

<<<<<
We don't accept the thesis of some scholars that "the quest of the historical Jesus" is futile on the grounds that the history is not recoverable. Robert Crotty's (The Jesus Question- the Historical Search) bottom line is that we'd be better off staying with a myth which has no basis in history.
>>>>>

Either Scripture is truth or it is not. Classical orthodoxy has always stood on the on the propositional truth that Scripture is inspired. Classical Christians upholding orthodoxy have always understood the information of Scripture to be historical and accurate. If you downgrade the historicity of Scripture then the obvious result is to downgrade the chief Character of its truth.

You can maintain the faithless theology (oxymoronic, I know) of Dominic Crossan and the like....this is certainly your choice. Issues of low Christology, however, have already been dealt with. If you would like to rehabilitate heretical teachings you do so at your own peril. I sincerely pray that you come into a full saving knowledge of a Savior that is calling you to Himself.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Are you saying Constantine was Pope now, or did you just change lanes on me again?

Why ask me questions if you only want to stay "secure in your informed convictions."
The best way to stay "secure in your informed convictions" is to isolate yourself from anyone who disagree with you and only listen to people who agree with your convictions.

Anywayz, I'm just stating the fact that many popes (especially in medieval times before the Vatican was annexed by Italy) believed themselves to be kings of the Catholic Empire.
Because of the whole Investiture Controversy did Europe realise that there should be a separation between the church and the state.


Originally Posted by Campbell34

And it was Paul who stated that a labor was worthy of his wages.

Ah, but does this justify the making of profit?
Jesus never profited from anyone.

And the Bible teaches we are not to neglect are family.

I guess Matthew 10,37 and Matthew 5,46
contradict your statement.

Matthew 10
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 5
46 If you love only those people who love you, will God reward you for that? Even tax collectors love their friends.

Only loving people who already love you (like your family) is easy.
A Christian is required to do more than just provide for his family, so it certainly should not be your (Christian) family first like so many (Christian) rightwing groups preach about.