Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[fuddam]

The term Holy Trinity seems to have been invented by the Catholic Church.

the Bible never mentions the trinity in as many words. There was actually a scripture (which eludes me right now) which was amended by the church 100s of years ago, but is publically acknowledged to have been done so, in which the word trinity is used.

as before, there are only about 40 amendments that have been made to the new testament, all clearly marked, since its original writing.

nonetheless, anyone reading the bible will come across, time and again, the unity of the Godhead. Even in Genesis 1:26, it states

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...

and also Genesis 1:1 the word used in the Hebrew for God is "Elohim," which is a form of the word "El." In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the "im" ending imputes plurality. Therefore, "Elohim" is the plural from of the word "El."

When confronted with this passage, modern rabbis often claim that God is speaking to the angels. However, this explanation fails to recognize a number of problems.

First, there is no indication in the Bible that angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels are made in the image of God. Finally, there is no indication that mankind was made in the image of angels either!

We may conclude that the person with whom Elohim is conversing lives in the eternal realm, has His creative power and exists in the image or likeness of God. No angel, no man, no created being in heaven or on earth could possibly fit these criteria.

I paraphrased / copied some of that from here

[Akira]

the Bible never mentions the trinity in as many words. There was actually a scripture (which eludes me right now) which was amended by the church 100s of years ago, but is publically acknowledged to have been done so, in which the word trinity is used.

as before, there are only about 40 amendments that have been made to the new testament, all clearly marked, since its original writing.

nonetheless, anyone reading the bible will come across, time and again, the unity of the Godhead. Even in Genesis 1:26, it states

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...

and also Genesis 1:1 the word used in the Hebrew for God is "Elohim," which is a form of the word "El." In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the "im" ending imputes plurality. Therefore, "Elohim" is the plural from of the word "El."

When confronted with this passage, modern rabbis often claim that God is speaking to the angels. However, this explanation fails to recognize a number of problems.

First, there is no indication in the Bible that angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels are made in the image of God. Finally, there is no indication that mankind was made in the image of angels either!

We may conclude that the person with whom Elohim is conversing lives in the eternal realm, has His creative power and exists in the image or likeness of God. No angel, no man, no created being in heaven or on earth could possibly fit these criteria.

I paraphrased / copied some of that from here

That was your 666'th post - beware guys, we're in the presence of the beast

Better check your scalp just to be sure though eh (only kidding)?

[kalniel]

I thought it was actually 616 that you had to look out for?

[Akira]

I thought it was actually 616 that you had to look out for?

[Kezzer]

I thought it was actually 616 that you had to look out for?

Yeh, the literal translation is 616 as opposed to 666 but some random hebrew/greek translation made it 666. It's 666 in the NLT but with a comment saying something like "transliteral is 616"

[JPreston]

So in fact your raising of Hitler's alleged Christianity was not in support of any argument, advanced no position and was done with no other purpose than to troll.

Actually it was to refute the assertion that he was an athiest, which had just been made by a christian. But again, why would anyone expect you to leave a remark in its original context or let the facts get in the way of your 'argument'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPreston View Post
blah blah blah...bile...invective...blah, blah, blah

I do - quite literally - laugh at your posts, in the same way that you would be laughed at for saying "blah blah blah" in what is no doubt a whiny voice in a debate in the real world. Perhaps you would accompany that with a 'talk to the hand, girlfriend' gesture? I'd be hard pushed to come with an answer to that...no wait I wouldn't, because I am not eleven years old.

You know what I think of you, your beliefs, and your ability to articulate them - and it is to my credit that I am able to make this clear within the bounds of conventional debate, and without inventing quotes and ascribing them to you.

[JPreston]

...
If one of the religions IS true, there has to be a way of ascertaining that. There has to be a logical approach that requires (eg) internal consistency, historical evidence, extra-scriptural evidence, etc
that is a sphere I am intimately involved in. Watch this space

There doesn't have to be a way ascertaining it, but I happen to agree that the existence or otherwise of god is a property of our particular universe that may well be within the bounds of science to ascertain one day. Not all philosopher would agree with us though.

When you manage to prove it either way do be sure to post your findings here for our edification

...I respect believers of other religions, but I do not respect their beliefs. I respect the individual but not the system....

I've posted something similar above somewhere - that every person deserves respect (well, at least until they unequivocally prove otherwise ) but not every idea does.

I can't finish your christian quote (predator drones? pipe bombs? it's lost on me ) but I do smile at how we agree on the ultimate worthlessness of 99.9% of all the religions ever practised by mankind, disagreeing only on the special status of yours