It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
Isn't the trinity just a reinvention of the old pagan triple goddess meant to illustrate the phases of life.
No. As JMDewey said, it is a theological construct which is intended to understand a key concept of Christianity, evidenced by both historical and theological points -- the divinity of Christ.
Originally posted by adjensen
testified to him having power and authority that only God would have, and flat out referred to him as God.
Originally posted by adjensen
In that conundrum, the Doctrine of the Trinity arose. It has nothing to do with pagan anything, it is a philosophical / theological explanation of Christian belief.
Wrong, he was not speaking of God.
. . . spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God.
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.
How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word?
Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by Angle
If Jesus was one thing why did he always speak in parables and metaphors, so no, you cannot label Jesus truth as one thing, but 2 or many things, and it is up to the mind and spirit to to 'hear' because 'hearing' means two things. It was specifically said to interpret as perceiving audibility but recognized as understanding.
That is why you see so many Christians today and you immediately just get one feeling about them - whatever they are thinking and whatever they are doing is wrong.
Originally posted by vethumanbeing
There was a reason the teachings were parables (mass produced to affect anyone that could decifer their en-coding almost like a billboard slogan). Think of it as hooks dropped in a river baited with happenstance (we caught one) what specie eats this? Oh the one that fears God? Or a fish, or a swallowing of the highest upon the high. Jinks was shillifying trying to get more time to qualify its existance EXIT strategy, thats all and his skin was not saved to its satifaction. Jesus has problems regarding its betrayal, who could blame it. This man god is very unhappy, has anyone spoken to it lately?
Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.
Did you not read all of John? Did you forget about John 10:30?
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.
Consider this; also in John 17:20-22 Jesus prays that we all should be one. How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word? Which is more ignorant friend; following THE institution that Christ himself founded at Pentecost in 33 AD which Christ Himself said the gates of Hades would not prevail against, or an individual (or many individuals) interpretation of scripture?
God bless you.
No official interpretation? You do realize that it was the Church that put it together, yes? No Church = no Bible.
Or did Christ ascend to Heaven, drop a King James Bible, and shout "Figure it out!" as He rose?
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Originally posted by IsidoreOfSeville
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong, Christ was the son of God. Because he not only never said that he was God, but, on the contrary, spoke of the Father, who sent him, as God, and as the only God. “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” John 17:3.
Did you not read all of John? Did you forget about John 10:30?
Originally posted by MrBigDave
Wrong! It WAS an attempt to unify the population around a combined religion. It is ignorant to just accept what the RCC tells you.
Consider this; also in John 17:20-22 Jesus prays that we all should be one. How can we call be one if we each have our own understanding of the Word? Which is more ignorant friend; following THE institution that Christ himself founded at Pentecost in 33 AD which Christ Himself said the gates of Hades would not prevail against, or an individual (or many individuals) interpretation of scripture?
God bless you.
I have read all of John, and I think that maybe your concept of "one" is off. If Jesus is God because his is "one" with the father, then we are are also God because we are one with Christ and by proxy "one" with God.
[20] Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: - Jhn 17:20-22 KJV
Version of what? The Church? Or the Bible? Either way, speak for yourself, I don't laugh at either.
But some movement eh? Movement would imply it will eventually stop. The Catholic Church has been going strong for nearly 2,000 years now and shows no signs of stopping.
I suppose that you mean the New Testament, and the Catholic Church.
No official interpretation? You do realize that it was the Church that put it together, yes? No Church = no Bible.
The Apostles who wrote the NT were not Catholics.
Or did Christ ascend to Heaven, drop a King James Bible, and shout "Figure it out!" as He rose?
Paul wrote and probably published the NT before there was a such thing as a Catholic Church.
No.
Paul published the New Testament? Are you kidding me?