Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you took offense to the video. You will deny it but you seem to have taken it. Even though I made a disclaimer that this is NOT to attack your faith. It was only to show you how non-believers of Trinity (a word that doesn’t exist in Bible) see it.
Any Christian would. It's offensive. It's meant to be offensive to Christians. It's not surprising, but it is what it is.
And yes, I'm aware that it's a difficult concept for non-Christians to grasp. You may argue that "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the doctrine certainly is taught.
Quote:
“Both terms are used in scripture”
Yes that interchangeability is what is explained in the video.
Yes. I get it. And Antifa-wannabe completely missed the point.
Quote:
He changes God with God’s son and then interchanges it with Holy Spirit. Please watch it again with a cool mind as a non offensive view to see the “interchangeability” as it’s seen by non-believers of Trinity.
My mind was perfectly cool and collected. The issue is that you can't seem to grasp that the Bible does use different terms in different contexts. I'm sorry that you can't see that.
Quote:
This is the whole idea of this forum so that we understand each other’s point of view - without extending or taking any offense.
You think too highly of your ability to rattle me by posting some juvenile video meant to offend Christians. It had no effect on my ability to reason and argue against the strawman presented in the video. Any 8th grader in a decent Bible preaching church would be able to calmly counter his arguments.
Any Christian would. It's offensive. It's meant to be offensive to Christians. It's not surprising, but it is what it is.
And yes, I'm aware that it's a difficult concept for non-Christians to grasp. You may argue that "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the doctrine certainly is taught.
Yes. I get it. And Antifa-wannabe completely missed the point.
My mind was perfectly cool and collected. The issue is that you can't seem to grasp that the Bible does use different terms in different contexts. I'm sorry that you can't see that.
You think too highly of your ability to rattle me by posting some juvenile video meant to offend Christians. It had no effect on my ability to reason and argue against the strawman presented in the video. Any 8th grader in a decent Bible preaching church would be able to calmly counter his arguments.
Well… at least you agreed that the concept of Trinity is difficult for non-Christians to understand.
All I can add to it is that since IMO, it’s a false, fake, made up and illogical concept, it’s difficult to understand by many Christians as well.
And no wonder, modern day Christianity is considered by some, to be the biggest source of Atheism.
Many many believers in God, left and continuously leaving Christianity for Atheism, mostly because of this lie of Trinity.
And I see the obvious issue here, the entire modern day doctrine of Christianity falls apart if you take Trinity out of it. I think the financial loss to Vatican will be in trillions.
Again, you believe in it by faith? Good for you. And I don’t have an issue with it.
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord." Job 2:1
God has many sons, not just Jesus.
It's satan, not Satan.
It is written as s-t-n not S-t-n. It is also a Sumerian-Akkadian loan-word and it means "accuser" or "one who accuses."
The Hebrews did not write the Book of Job. That is an original Sumerian work that was copied and slightly modified by more than a dozen cultures as the Book diffused through the region.
That is evidenced by the fact that it contains more than 30 Sumerian and Akkadian words. The earliest known version dates to circa 5,000 BCE.
It diffused from Sumer to Akkad to Ebla to the Mitanni, Mari, and Nuzi and then into Canaan.
Regardless, the word s-t-n is not a proper noun nor is it the name of a person.
That is evidenced further by the fact that the Hebrews do not consider it to be a proper noun or the name of a person.
Only the followers of the disingenuous King Joke Vision treat it as the name of a person.
That bene-elohim means sons of gods plural is also evidence by its contextual usage. For example, it says the bene-elohim took wives for themselves. That it should apply to humans is nonsensical since humans had been taking wives for millennium prior to that. Generally, commoners co-habitated. Only the Classes actually married, like the merchant class, administrator class, royal class, priestly class and such.
The idea that people who lived together lived in "sin" and had to be married was an idea created and fostered by the Imperial Roman Catholic Church for purposes of deriving revenues, since the Church had total control of marriage until governments finally "usurped" the power of the Church. You can read any number of historical works like Ptolemy writing in the 2nd Century that say living together was perfectly acceptable.
And yes, I'm aware that it's a difficult concept for non-Christians to grasp. You may argue that "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but the doctrine certainly is taught.
No. It really isn't. The Bible says there is only 1 God, but all 3 persons are called God, and all 3 persons are described as persons. It's a logical, systematic conclusion.
In one passage that according to Eusebius, was not in every Bible.
You really don't have a clue how the doctrine is taught, do you? Do you even know what it is? No Biblical scholar that I know of would say it's based on one passage.
No. It really isn't. The Bible says there is only 1 God, but all 3 persons are called God,
Why?
Looks like Bible is lying to you.
On one hand it says there is ONLY ONE GOD - which means no other person is God or called be God or be described as God.
But in the same breath, the Bible then says, there are TWO other persons who are described as God as well.
Really?
Which one is it?
Quote:
and all 3 persons are described as persons. It's a logical, systematic conclusion.
all three persons are now persons?
A second ago, ONE was God. And the two others were described as God as well.
And you call it all “logical and systematic”, and perhaps ready to jump into more tangled up mess of God’s son, and God’s head and holy Ghost.
As I suggested earlier - don’t even try it.
IMO, Trinity is a false narrative that is based on lies, lies and more lies.
You wanna believe in it? Be my guest.
Don’t try to explain it. You will simply keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
