Trinity

[Ross]

Where did this concept come from?

I would suggest it began with John 1:1

[Miles]

Right now, I'll admit just that: "The Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere."

That's all I needed.

Thank you.

By the way, you claim to be an atheist in an unrelated post in this thread to another member.

Can you explain that?

Certainly. Although an atheist, I'm willing to meet Jews and Christians on their own ground. Discussing their beliefs, theology, faith, claims, and what not as a "believer," just as one can discuss the logical intricacies of Harry Potter story without believing there's an actual Hogwarts. It's far more interesting to look at the Christian religion and what I consider to be the faulty reasonings supporting it from the inside, rather than ignoring them altogether because I reject their beliefs. And so far my fellow posters seem to agree with much of what I say from this position, having thanked me 1,289 times.

As for the ongoing issue we were having:

I see that having satisfied your needs (seeing me admit that "the Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere.") evidently that's all you care about. Rather gutless don't you think when you have my supporting scripture question still staring you in the face? Not that I believe you could ever answer it---having put yourself in a corner---but the attempt would have been interesting. I'll just take your flight as an admission of defeat.

Have a good day.


.

[Runner]

Certainly. Although an atheist, I'm willing to meet Jews and Christians on their own ground. Discussing their beliefs, theology, faith, claims, and what not as a "believer," just as one can discuss the logical intricacies of Harry Potter story without believing there's an actual Hogwarts. It's far more interesting to look at the Christian religion and what I consider to be the faulty reasonings supporting it from the inside, rather than ignoring them altogether because I reject their beliefs. And so far my fellow posters seem to agree with much of what I say from this position, having thanked me 1,289 times.

As for the ongoing issue we were having:

I see that having satisfied your needs (seeing me admit that "the Bible does not teach a trinity concept anywhere.") evidently that's all you care about. Rather gutless don't you think when you have my supporting scripture question still staring you in the face? Not that I believe you could ever answer it---having put yourself in a corner---but the attempt would have been interesting. I'll just take your flight as an admission of defeat.

Have a good day.

Okey doke.

Somewhat of a delusional perspective on things, with all due respect, but to each their own.

With 4355 posts, you have been thanked for roughly a third of those, or that many times in general. But there's no record of how many times people disagreed with you, of course. Oh, and I thanked you as well. Just to give you a little extra fodder for that argument. A 'Thank you' from somebody who doesn't even agree with you.

As far as discussing Christianity's faulty reasons for believing, just for fun, as an atheist, has it ever occurred to you that the Bible does declare quite clearly that Faith is a gift from God and nobody just wakes up one day and decides to believe in God - contrary to what mainstream churchianity teaches?

God tells us that we are not capable of believing in things of the spirit if we do not first have the Spirit.

In other words, declaring that Christianity doesn't make any human sense, and can't be proven with science, is basically making God's point for Him. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you are very into space and all things Star Trek, Star Wars and NASA.

Am I right?

All atheists doggedly deny it, but atheism is a religion in itself.

[Miles]

As far as discussing Christianity's faulty reasons for believing, just for fun, as an atheist, has it ever occurred to you that the Bible does declare quite clearly that Faith is a gift from God and nobody just wakes up one day and decides to believe in God - contrary to what mainstream churchianity teaches?

And why should I care what the Bible says? Particularly when there are other religious writings out there such as The Urantia Book, the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, various Buddhist sacred texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads, the Quran, Jainism's Agamas, the Sikhs Guru Granth Sahib, the Tao Te Ching and Chuang-tzu of Taoism, and Zoroastrianism's Avesta, each claiming they, not the Bible, has the truth?

All atheists doggedly deny it, but atheism is a religion in itself.

Then I suggest you familiarize yourself with atheism, and look up a good definition of "religion."


.

[kjw47]

Most translations are erred at John 1:1 The sad part of this scenario is that all trinity scholars know its fact.

The sad fact is that the 'translation' that you read, the New World Translation came into being to trick its followers into believing that Jesus Christ in his pre-existing form was a creation, an angel.
The wording in that translation has been unfaithfully changed from what is present in manuscript form, to reflect your movements pre- conceived doctrine. All koine' Greek scholars are aware of this, Trinity or any other persuasion.

Thats funny a Greek scholar=A.Kneeland in 1822 translated the NT from trinity lexicons and compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct in the last line at John 1:1, 19 other translations had a god, or was godlike, 3 had was divine. The wording in the LXX proves a god is correct. as well.

[Ross]

Most translations are erred at John 1:1 The sad part of this scenario is that all trinity scholars know its fact.

The sad fact is that the 'translation' that you read, the New World Translation came into being to trick its followers into believing that Jesus Christ in his pre-existing form was a creation, an angel.
The wording in that translation has been unfaithfully changed from what is present in manuscript form, to reflect your movements pre- conceived doctrine. All koine' Greek scholars are aware of this, Trinity or any other persuasion.

Thats funny a Greek scholar=A.Kneeland in 1822 translated the NT from trinity lexicons and compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct in the last line at John 1:1, 19 other translations had a god, or was godlike, 3 had was divine. The wording in the LXX proves a god is correct. as well.

So there are two Gods in John 1:1? Polytheism!
Why does the text not say Angel or Archangel if the movement to which you belong is correct ?

Why does John later in John 20:28 record Thomas uttering:

"My Lord and My God" to the face of Jesus?

[2timothy316]

But the Word is not THE God and not THE divine bring. The Word is not the God, just a god.

You are adding words to the text that are not there. And please keep the discussion in context. We are not talking about Moses.
John 1:14 identifies "The God" as "The Father"
The Word is not The Father but he "was" with The Father before time. Eternally.
It says The Word was God. Not Angel, or little god, or Mini-me.

Words are add all through out the Bible for English speaking to understand. The words, 'and', 'an', 'or' 'a' are all added to the Bible every where you see them because Hebrew and Greek don't have these words. The word 'a' is appropriate in John 1:1c for correct grammar as scholars say it should. No one in the Greek speaking language understood Jesus to be THE God. Otherwise the teaching of the trinity would have existed in John's day but it didn't.

[Ross]

The word 'a' is appropriate in John 1:1c for correct grammar as scholars say it should.

What, you mean about one percent of them?

No one in the Greek speaking language understood Jesus to be THE God.

You are quite wrong. The Bible testifies that Jesus is The God and actually calls him "The God".

[2timothy316]

The word 'a' is appropriate in John 1:1c for correct grammar as scholars say it should.

What, you mean about one percent of them?

Numbers don't matter. The number of people that believe one way or another is not what makes something true. The number of people that believed in Jesus Christ were at one time less than 1% in the whole world. So if you were smart you wouldn't rely on the number of people who believe a certain way to direct what you believe. That just makes you a follower of the status quo and the status quo isn't always correct.

No one in the Greek speaking language understood Jesus to be THE God.

You are quite wrong. The Bible testifies that Jesus is The God and actually calls him "The God".

Actually you're quite wrong. Nowhere in the Greek or Hebrew language is the definite article and the word god used where Jesus is concerned. This is all in your head and is not based on facts.
https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm
Pay attention to the words τὸν Θεόν. They translate to The God. Yet when referring to ὁ Λόγος or The Word it uses Θεὸς by itself. There is no definite article when referring to Jesus. In the absence of the definite article it translates that Jesus is not The God.

Jesus has a God over him and it is the same one over me.
"Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” - John 20:17

[kjw47]

Most translations are erred at John 1:1 The sad part of this scenario is that all trinity scholars know its fact.

The sad fact is that the 'translation' that you read, the New World Translation came into being to trick its followers into believing that Jesus Christ in his pre-existing form was a creation, an angel.
The wording in that translation has been unfaithfully changed from what is present in manuscript form, to reflect your movements pre- conceived doctrine. All koine' Greek scholars are aware of this, Trinity or any other persuasion.

Thats funny a Greek scholar=A.Kneeland in 1822 translated the NT from trinity lexicons and compared the Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct in the last line at John 1:1, 19 other translations had a god, or was godlike, 3 had was divine. The wording in the LXX proves a god is correct. as well.

So there are two Gods in John 1:1? Polytheism!
Why does the text not say Angel or Archangel if the movement to which you belong is correct ?

Why does John later in John 20:28 record Thomas uttering:

"My Lord and My God" to the face of Jesus?

No, in your translations there is because in simple english, if the word is God, then your second line reads--And God was with God=impossible. Small g god is not calling that one God. As 2Cor 4:4 proves.

[tigger 2]

John 1:1c is properly rendered as "and the Word was a god."

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... er_21.html