Author Topic: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1  (Read 8405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« on: February 26, 2013, 02:00:35 PM »
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4328
  • Darwins +205/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2013, 02:12:26 PM »
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

Many have tried.  I've never been impressed.

I personally don't even buy the Trinity aspect that most Christians do.  The concept of the Trinity is never explicitly mentioned in the bible, and indeed, there are very few passages that even hint at it.  I would think, in particular, that any Christian who subscribes to the doctrine of sola scriptura would have to reject it on that basis.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline mrbiscoop

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • Darwins +28/-2
  • Faith is not a virtue!
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2013, 02:16:14 PM »
  The bible would of benefited greatly from a good editor.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
              -Emo Philips

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4328
  • Darwins +205/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2013, 03:21:35 PM »
  The bible would of benefited greatly from a good editor.

Definitely.  If it were submitted as-is as a manuscript today, in a world in which Judaism and Christianity had never existed, I doubt there would be any publisher anywhere that would print it.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2717
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2013, 03:31:34 PM »
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

Really, what we have here is not a contradiction per say, but a change in the concept of god, or at least of the Jesus character.  The bible itself has more of a semi-limited power god, rather than the omni-max being that people tends to think of. (Just look at what happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.  First thing god does is try to find them!  Not something you have to do if you're omni-max.)  Problems arises when you try to read those passages with the omni-max idea in mind. 

Same thing with Jesus and Mark.  Everyone is reading it with all those other gospels and ideas in mind.  Mark didn't have the "100% god and 100% human" idea in mind when he wrote his story.  Or the virgin birth...  Or the resurrection.  Jesus not knowing stuff was fine when Mark was just its own little story.  It wasn't until later that the "Jesus is god himself" idea became fully fleshed out.  You're best off reading each gospels as their own thing (which is what some early christains did).


It can be amusing to see all the mental gymnastics that apologetics goes through to make everything fit together.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10294
  • Darwins +177/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2013, 03:32:20 PM »
2 words.....mysterious ways.....
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2013, 04:08:59 PM »
I never trust anyone, be it human or deity, once they demonstrate that adding simple integers presents a problem.


Oh, and he/she/it totally mangled the value of Pi too ;)
rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5651
  • Darwins +677/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2013, 04:51:24 PM »
We have had Christians come here and say that Jesus or god could become selectively ignorant or selectively powerless. You know, so he could be killed and die and all.

It does make sense that we are talking about several different stories with different gods all blended like a smoothie. But there are a few big chunks that keep floating to the top....the pagan polytheism, for example, keeps shining through. The father (Zeus) the son (Apollo) and so forth.

Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Bluecolour

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2013, 10:40:54 PM »
Okay.
So when discussing the trinity, i find the head of the problem is that most Christians grow up hearing the word Trinity, learn it and never understand what it means. You are being taught the father, son and holy ghost in Sunday school before you can make any sense of the bible itself and beyond that you never receive any further information about this. In fact the closest most people ever come to understanding the Trinity are a couple of vague doctrinal statements and some fourth century diagrams.

On this particular subject I think the most important thing to know is that the word Trinity is neither descriptive nor explanatory, its merely a label attached by first century biblical scholars in their attempts to compile a sound general doctrine for the church. The word was used by these Christian academics in reference to a phenomenon that they themselves repeatedly found in scripture. Part of the reason that the trinity is such a stumbling block for most is because we hear the word first and then try to explain it in scripture. This is not how it was done.

I want anyone reading this to imagine those scholars in the first century. So they're going over the manuscripts and letters that would one day become the bible and they see statements like:

Quote
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,

Believe in God; believe also in me,

I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do

The glory that you have given me I have given to them,
that they may be one even as we are one,

know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Their confusion at this point should be apparent.
So their scratching their heads asking how this makes any sense but then they bunker down and keep searching through scripture for some kind of explanation. God is one, Jesus is God but at the same time Jesus is not God. If Jesus thought he was God then why not just talk that way all the time; why begin referring to yourself in second and third person like you're crazy.[1]
At this point what these scholars were looking for was some kind of distinction, because despite claiming to be God and one with God, Jesus had still created a distinction between himself and the Father who was also God.

What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two. The entire thing a complex and colorful, back, forth and upsides drama of sorts all taking place within the individual being. Proving that God was not the staunch, stoic and inflexible character they thought he was, but rather something beautiful, dynamic, and full of life. It must have been a shock, it was completely unorthodox and yet they should have been looking for it from the start.
How could a being who was alone in himself be called love?
How could a single fixed and solitary icon be responsible for all the beauty and wonder we see in this world?
The answer was clear, there it was rising right before their faces. And like explorers standing on the brink of something alien and undiscovered, they gave it a name: The mystery of the Triune God.

So the Trinity is not merely a doctrine, it is a revelation, and like all revelation it is in its core a mystery, carrying a sense of awe that fills you as you break step by step into the understanding of it. When we use the word it is in reference to this mystery that we speak, to this secret thing of God's hidden apart from his grace or his miraculous hand but buried within the physicality of his very nature.[2] The nature of the relationship that has been going on since before the founding of the world. The one atop of which everything we know was built and the one which through everything we have been asked to join. Looking back the trinity it seems should have been a self-evident truth because God is one, but at the same time He is so much more, He is infinite and he is eternal.
 1. Imagine what it was like for the disciples, standing around watching Jesus pray to himself. I think the fact that they didn't just shake their heads and walk away says something about the kind of man that Jesus was.
 2. The creeds use the word essence.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2013, 01:56:27 AM »
Okay.
So when discussing the trinity, i find the head of the problem is that most Christians grow up hearing the word Trinity, learn it and never understand what it means. You are being taught the father, son and holy ghost in Sunday school before you can make any sense of the bible itself and beyond that you never receive any further information about this. In fact the closest most people ever come to understanding the Trinity are a couple of vague doctrinal statements and some fourth century diagrams.


The beginning of indoctrination!


On this particular subject I think the most important thing to know is that the word Trinity is neither descriptive nor explanatory, its merely a label attached by first century biblical scholars in their attempts to compile a sound general doctrine for the church.

False!  The word/label trinity is not found in any Christian document in the first century.
 

The word was used by these Christian academics in reference to a phenomenon that they themselves repeatedly found in scripture. Part of the reason that the trinity is such a stumbling block for most is because we hear the word first and then try to explain it in scripture. This is not how it was done.


1.)  Christian academics is an oxymoron

2.)  Yes! We hear the word first and then try to explain it in scripture only to find out the word trinity isn't even in scripture.  Your right, that is a stumbling block!


If Jesus thought he was God then why not just talk that way all the time; why begin referring to yourself in second and third person like you're crazy.

What a great question!!!


[nb]Imagine what it was like for the disciples, standing around watching Jesus pray to himself.



Jesus is never mentioned in the bible to ever pray to himself.  He always prayed to his father.  For instance: "My Father who art in heaven...".   


What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two.



The definition of the trinity is one God in three persons that are consubstantial (one substance), coequal, and CO-ETERNAL.  According to the definition of the trinity the third person cannot be "born out of the communion" because he's supposed to have no beginning (birth) and be CO-ETERNAL.


The entire thing a complex and colorful, back, forth and upsides drama of sorts all taking place within the individual being. Proving that God was not the staunch, stoic and inflexible character they thought he was, but rather something beautiful, dynamic, and full of life. It must have been a shock, it was completely unorthodox and yet they should have been looking for it from the start.


The "staunch, stoic and inflexible character" is who God revealed himself as in the Old Testament.  Why should the disciples have been looking for something beautiful and dynamic?  That's not how God revealed himself in his revealed word of the Old Testament.


How could a being who was alone in himself be called love?



I ask myself this question everyday.  How can the Judeo-Christian God who is responsible for so many atrocities be called love?


How could a single fixed and solitary icon be responsible for all the beauty and wonder we see in this world?
The answer was clear, there it was rising right before their faces. And like explorers standing on the brink of something alien and undiscovered, they gave it a name: The mystery of the Triune God.



If the first century "scholars" gave it a name then why don't I see the word Triune in the New Testament or in any other first century document for that matter?  The number or word 3 is never used in the bible to describe the God of the bible.


So the Trinity is not merely a doctrine, it is a revelation, and like all revelation it is in its core a mystery, carrying a sense of awe that fills you as you break step by step into the understanding of it.



No, the trinity is merely a developed doctrine.  It is not a revelation.  If it was a revelation then it would have been spelled out more clearly in the bible.  I think Paul would have talked about this mystery more if it were true since Jesus taught him the gospel directly.

By the way, if you think you have an understanding on the trinity then you need to quit wasting your time on forums and start writing books that reveal your knowledge of the complex doctrine and mystery of the trinity.


When we use the word it is in reference to this mystery that we speak, to this secret thing of God's hidden apart from his grace or his miraculous hand but buried within the physicality of his very nature.[1] The nature of the relationship that has been going on since before the founding of the world. The one atop of which everything we know was built and the one which through everything we have been asked to join. Looking back the trinity it seems should have been a self-evident truth because God is one, but at the same time He is so much more, He is infinite and he is eternal.
 1. The creeds use the word essence.


1 Corinthians 14:33 says that God is not a God of confusion.  Why is the trinity and the nature of God so confusing?  The topic of who Jesus really was remains to be the most controversial topic in church history.  The trinity is not a "self-evident" truth.  People don't read through the whole bible and say, "Wow, that was amazing how God revealed himself as one in the Old Testament and then as one in three persons that are coequal, co-eternal and consubstantial in the New Testament. 

Many Christians have been ostracized, excommunicated, and killed over the course of church history because they had a wrong interpretation over the nature of Jesus.  I think if God was "love" and wanted his church to be united then he would have spelled out the nature and essence of himself more clearly so there wouldn't be so many divisions in his church.

I don't know if you have done a whole lot of research on the trinity since you thought the label was used by Christian "scholars" in the first century, but I bet you know enough about the topic to solve my riddle:

Who begot a son who took care of sin,
and his son is the same age as him? 
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2013, 02:50:33 AM »
What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two.

So, you're saying we had some divine incest going on here and divine daddy impregnates divine son who gives birth to the holy spirit. Makes more sense than saying they are the same person but still seperate people which is really wacky.

I had always wondered how anyone got 3 - ever. When jesus is alive there are 2: god & jesus. When jesus is dead he is the holy spirit and there are still just 2: god & the holy spirit. There are never 3 at the same time.

Or was the holy spirit always the incestuous male pregnancy product?
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Bluecolour

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2013, 08:25:42 AM »
I just realized I never answered the first question. Sorry.
The Son is wholly dependent on the Father.
The Son is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because He just is, He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because the Father is. All that the Father has is towards the Son but all that the Son has is what has been given to Him by the Father. Everything He does is what has come from His Father, in the same way all that He knows is what the Father has shown Him.
In conclusion, there are things with the Father that have not been passed to the Son, likewise there is knowledge with the Father that has not come to the Son.

If you still didn't understand then read these verses:

Quote
John 5:19,20  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Notice the Father has shown some things but is yet to show other things, revealing that the Son does not have everything. Your question is like seeing this verse and asking, "If God is omnipotent then why does Jesus say He cannot do anything of Himself?" A question to which I would show you this:

Quote
John 1:3  All things were made and came into existence through Him [the Word]; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

Now we have a Father that does not do anything except by/through the Son, making the Father seem almost impotent without the Son.

The answer to your question is this: yes God is omniscient but when discussing this in terms of the Trinity then 'God' becomes a collective term. The Son is no more God without the Father than the Father is God without the Son, and neither is anything at all once we remove the Holy Spirit. I hope this solves the problem.


Offline Bluecolour

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2013, 09:35:22 AM »
So, you're saying we had some divine incest going on here and divine daddy impregnates divine son who gives birth to the holy spirit.

Actually, its more like divine masturbation than it is incest.
 
On this particular subject I think the most important thing to know is that the word Trinity is neither descriptive nor explanatory, its merely a label attached by first century biblical scholars in their attempts to compile a sound general doctrine for the church.
False!  The word/label trinity is not found in any Christian document in the first century.

Your right, that should be 4th century. Sorry.

Quote
If Jesus thought he was God then why not just talk that way all the time; why begin referring to yourself in second and third person like you're crazy.
What a great question!!!

But I answered that question. He was trying to create a distinction between the three persons.

Quote
What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two.

The definition of the trinity is one God in three persons that are consubstantial (one substance), coequal, and CO-ETERNAL.  According to the definition of the trinity the third person cannot be "born out of the communion" because he's supposed to have no beginning (birth) and be CO-ETERNAL.

Don't confuse what I said.
The Spirit comes out of the communion between the Father and the Son, but this does not mean he is not co-eternal (since the two have been in eternal communion) nor that one is prior to another. In  the same way when I say the Son comes from the Father or is dependent of the Father it does not mean that He was created or that the Father at any point existed without His Son.
Quote
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

1 Corinthians 14:33 says that God is not a God of confusion.  Why is the trinity and the nature of God so confusing?  The topic of who Jesus really was remains to be the most controversial topic in church history.  The trinity is not a "self-evident" truth.  People don't read through the whole bible and say, "Wow, that was amazing how God revealed himself as one in the Old Testament and then as one in three persons that are coequal, co-eternal and consubstantial in the New Testament. 

Many Christians have been ostracized, excommunicated, and killed over the course of church history because they had a wrong interpretation over the nature of Jesus.  I think if God was "love" and wanted his church to be united then he would have spelled out the nature and essence of himself more clearly so there wouldn't be so many divisions in his church.

Your failing to consider the intellectual gap that by needs exists between God and man. Have you ever tried to spell something out clearly to a child?
Confusion is unavoidable when attempting to understand complexity. If the revealed nature of God were not complicated it would be the 51st proof on this website.
I didn't say that the Trinity was self-evident, I said that retrospectively it seems that way. It's like looking back and saying "of course the moon isn't made of cheese," or like you thinking back and going "of course there's no God," even though we had you completely fooled at the time.
The Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned in the New testament not as a 'Trinity,' but as three distinct persons that we worship and in who's names all must be baptized. The trinitarian doctrine came up much later however to answer the question of who they were.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 09:38:54 AM by Bluecolour »

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2013, 09:55:00 AM »
Or was the holy spirit always the incestuous male pregnancy product?

Luke 2:30 the angel Gabriel said to Mary, "...behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son...".  Mary said, "How can this be since I'm a virgin?" (v. 34).  The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you...".

Mary's next questions should have been, "How can I become pregnant if the Holy Spirit comes upon me? Doesn't he have to come inside of me."



"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2013, 10:43:10 AM »
The Son is wholly dependent on the Father.

If one being is dependent on another being then the two beings cannot be consubstantial.  You just shattered the concept of the trinity in your first sentence.

By the way, since your revealed word of God is so vague and ambiguous, I could make an argument that the son is not dependent on the father.  Matthew 28:18 says, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth".  All means all.  I could make the argument that the father is now dependent on the son.

The Son is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because He just is, He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because the Father is.

You need to read Mark 13:32 very carefully again.  The son is not omniscient!

All that the Father has is towards the Son but all that the Son has is what has been given to Him by the Father. Everything He does is what has come from His Father, in the same way all that He knows is what the Father has shown Him.
In conclusion, there are things with the Father that have not been passed to the Son, likewise there is knowledge with the Father that has not come to the Son.

If one being has to give, show, or pass knowledge on to another being then the two beings are not consubstantial.  You might want to look up the word consubstantial (one in being) which is a word that is used in the definition of the trinity.


John 1:3  All things were made and came into existence through Him [the Word]; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

What a surprise, I discovered another contradiction in God's wonderful revealed word!  How can John 1:3 be true when Colossians 1:15 says that the son was the "FIRSTBORN of all creation".  In Revelation 3:14 Jesus says that he is "...the Beginning of the creation of God". 


The Son is no more God without the Father than the Father is God without the Son, and neither is anything at all once we remove the Holy Spirit. I hope this solves the problem.

First, this statement is completely unbiblical.  Nowhere in the bible will you find this nonsense.  Please give me the scripture that says, "neither is anything at all once we remove the Holy Spirit?"  I think you just made that up to try to make sense of your complicated God.

Secondly, this post did not solve my problem...it only made the understanding of the trinity more problematic for me.  I only discovered more ambiguities and contradictions in responding to you.

I actually don't really have a "problem" with this mysterious doctrine of trinity.  My problem went away once I discovered the bible is not the revealed word of God, but instead it's the revealed word of man.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2013, 11:38:24 AM »

Your failing to consider the intellectual gap that by needs exists between God and man. Have you ever tried to spell something out clearly to a child?
Confusion is unavoidable when attempting to understand complexity.

I think God could have spelled it out more clearly.  In fact, a MAN who tampered with the bible spelled it out more clearly than God did.  In the King James Version we find 1 John 5:7 say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".  This is the clearest expression of the trinitarian concept in the bible.  However, this verse is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.  This tells me that a MAN who tampered with the bible could express the trinity clearer than God.

Furthermore, don't you think your loving and omnipotent God would express the trinity clear enough in the bible to where John Calvin wouldn't have to burn Michael Servetus on a stake for having a wrong understanding of the nature of Christ?  Why isn't the MAN MADE Athanasian creed in the divinely inspired New Testament?  This creed spells out the doctrine of the trinity clearly.  It sure could have saved Michael Servetus' life along with many others who denied the doctrine of the trinity because they couldn't explicitly find the mysterious doctrine in God's revealed word.

The Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned in the New testament not as a 'Trinity,' but as three distinct persons that we worship and in who's names all must be baptized.


Where does it say in the bible that Christians are to worship the Holy Spirit?

The trinitarian doctrine came up much later however to answer the question of who they were.

Right!  Like I said before, the trinity is a MAN MADE DEVELOPED DOCTRINE.  The bible does not explicitly and clearly express the trinitarian concept.  One God in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial is a MAN MADE formula.  The word trinity, it's formula and it's definition should have been expressed explicitly in God's revealed word especially since it is an essential doctrine of the church.  If the words that make up the formula to the trinity was included to the bible, then some confusion could be avoided.  Of course, not all confusion could be avoided because this formula contradicts other parts of the bible as I have already pointed out.  At least the church wouldn't have to spend centuries trying to nail down the exact nature of the godhead with their man made creeds and they could have minimized excommunications and killings for heresy. 
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6168
  • Darwins +408/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2013, 03:52:48 PM »
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

Jesus does know the time of the second coming - he says it will be within the lifetime of the Disciples. He does not say exactly when though. It is not because He does not know, it is because, the way hHe phrased it, requires all Christians to be prepared - i.e. to lead a constantly Godly life.

Your second thought that 1+1+1 = 1 is based upon what is known as "The Johannine Comma". John:5:7-8

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The red text is an error. The story can be found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html The words should not appear in the Bible. IIRC, Jehovah's Witnesses ignore this and are not Trinitarians, however, they are probably closer to real scripture than all sects who accept it.
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2013, 06:14:00 PM »

Jesus does know the time of the second coming - he says it will be within the lifetime of the Disciples. He does not say exactly when though. It is not because He does not know, it is because, the way hHe phrased it, requires all Christians to be prepared - i.e. to lead a constantly Godly life.

I definitely think that Jesus, as an apocalyptic figure, did think he was going to return in the lifetime of the disciples ("this generation will not pass away...Matt 24:34).  However, Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 is specific as to not knowing the day or hour.  So although Jesus taught the imminence of his second coming, he clearly plead ignorance to the exact timing of his second coming especially since these texts say that the father alone knows.  My argument is that if Jesus plead ignorance to this knowledge, then he can't be God (1 John 3:20). 

Your second thought that 1+1+1 = 1 is based upon what is known as "The Johannine Comma". John:5:7-8

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The red text is an error. The story can be found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html The words should not appear in the Bible. IIRC, Jehovah's Witnesses ignore this and are not Trinitarians, however, they are probably closer to real scripture than all sects who accept it.

I did mention the Johannine Comma in my reply #15.  I'm really curious how bluecolour is going to respond to this.  Thanks for the link!  I hope bluecolour reads it.
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2013, 08:18:57 AM »
A question I never get an answer to:

Where is Jesus' Heavenly Mother? Just as the Jesus story required a mother on earth, the term "son" also requires a mother in heaven. Son implies mother just as it implies Father. Where is Jesus' mother? It just doesnt make sense, at all.

Offline rev45

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1192
  • Darwins +35/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Did your parents raise you to be an idiot?
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2013, 08:49:15 AM »
Here read a book.  It's free.
http://www.literatureproject.com/

Could a being create the fifty billion galaxies, each with two hundred billion stars, then rejoice in the smell of burning goat flesh?   Ron Patterson

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2013, 09:14:32 AM »
^Possibly Asherah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah
definitely worth the consideration. I mentioned her when I posed this question elsewhere. But is Asherah mentioned in any translation of the bible? And she would have to have been there always, no?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11499
  • Darwins +560/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2013, 10:47:13 AM »
But is Asherah mentioned in any translation of the bible? And she would have to have been there always, no?

yes, but she's mentioned as a false god. 
judges 3:7
1kings 15:13
1kings 18:19
2kings 21:7
2kings 23:4
2 chron 15:16


the parts of hebrew/ canaanite polytheism/ henotheism that included her were scrubbed by time they got around to writing that stuff down. but not altogether.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2013, 11:37:12 AM »

yes, but she's mentioned as a false god. 
judges 3:7
1kings 15:13
1kings 18:19
2kings 21:7
2kings 23:4
2 chron 15:16


I thought it was interesting that wikipedia (Asherah) didn't have any of these verses.  They said, the book of Jeremiah could have "possibly" referenced Asherah.  This thread maybe took a turn for the boring but I found it interesting that the King James version translated Asherah as grove or groves which means an "image of the same". 

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/strongs_842.htm
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11499
  • Darwins +560/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2013, 12:38:22 PM »
I found it interesting that the King James version translated Asherah as grove or groves which means an "image of the same". 

asherim, being the plural.  If I recall, Asherah's symbol was a tree.  Thus plural, a grove.  However, it may have been indicating an asherah pole, which was a fertility symbol, and thus, a form of idolatry to the jews, harkening back to their pagan roots.  It brings to mind Numbers 21:8-9, where yhwh instructed moses to erect a pole with a bronze snake on it, for healing.  It is now the symbol of medicine.  Later, the jews were instructed to cut it down (2kings 18:4).

Also, I believe asherah was sort of a goddess of knowledge as well.  She was depicted as holding a snake or talking to a snake.  Thus, the whole Eden story was a polemic against asherah worship.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2013, 01:06:01 AM »
  It brings to mind Numbers 21:8-9, where yhwh instructed moses to erect a pole with a bronze snake on it, for healing.  It is now the symbol of medicine.  Later, the jews were instructed to cut it down (2kings 18:4).

It sure doesn't take long to uncover more biblical contradictions when discussing just one single contradiction.

1.  Numbers 21:8 says, "the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.  Exodus 20:4 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...".  YHWH is contradicting his own moral law.  Either that or it was a test and Moses failed miserably by making a brass serpent.  Moses should have said He wouldn't do it!  But then again it couldn't have been a test because Jesus alludes to this brass serpent as being a foreshadow in referring to his forthcoming crucifixion.  So, once again, I'm left to believe that YHWH is contradictory.

2.  As you accurately pointed out, Hezekiah "...did that which was right in the sight of the LORD" and he broke the brasen serpent that Moses had made in pieces because the people were burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4).  So this brass serpent was being used by the Jews as an idol.  Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:14, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up".  NO WONDER THE MAJORITY OF DEVOUT JEWS REJECTED JESUS!!!  If I was a Pharisee like Nicodemus, I would say piss off to Jesus.  There is no way I would give allegiance, honor or worship to someone who compares himself in anyway to an idol that was ordered by YHWH to be broken into pieces.  Especially when the verse just before this comparison (v. 13), Jesus lies and breaks the 9th commandment.  Jesus is not the only man that has ascended up to heaven according to the inspired writings of the Jews.  What about Elijah and Enoch? 

In the end, I do believe Nicodemus ended up following Jesus.  This was bound to happen as I don't think Nicodemus thought too critically.  I mean, what do you expect from someone who asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? (John 3:3) :laugh:               

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2013, 01:47:54 AM »
  It brings to mind Numbers 21:8-9, where yhwh instructed moses to erect a pole with a bronze snake on it, for healing.  It is now the symbol of medicine.  Later, the jews were instructed to cut it down (2kings 18:4).

It sure doesn't take long to uncover more biblical contradictions when discussing just one single contradiction.

1.  Numbers 21:8 says, "the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.  Exodus 20:4 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...".  YHWH is contradicting his own moral law.  Either that or it was a test and Moses failed miserably by making a brass serpent.  Moses should have said He wouldn't do it!  But then again it couldn't have been a test because Jesus alludes to this brass serpent as being a foreshadow in referring to his forthcoming crucifixion.  So, once again, I'm left to believe that YHWH is contradictory.

2.  As you accurately pointed out, Hezekiah "...did that which was right in the sight of the LORD" and he broke the brasen serpent that Moses had made in pieces because the people were burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4).  So this brass serpent was being used by the Jews as an idol.  Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:14, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up".  NO WONDER THE MAJORITY OF DEVOUT JEWS REJECTED JESUS!!!  If I was a Pharisee like Nicodemus, I would say piss off to Jesus.  There is no way I would give allegiance, honor or worship to someone who compares himself in anyway to an idol that was ordered by YHWH to be broken into pieces.  Especially when the verse just before this comparison (v. 13), Jesus lies and breaks the 9th commandment.  Jesus is not the only man that has ascended up to heaven according to the inspired writings of the Jews.  What about Elijah and Enoch? 

In the end, I do believe Nicodemus ended up following Jesus.  This was bound to happen as I don't think Nicodemus thought too critically.  I mean, what do you expect from someone who asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? (John 3:3) :laugh:               

Something about that story being written in Greek rendered that verse as a later addition. Cant remember the exact facts of it, but being born again wouldnt use the same words in Greek like it does in english making that verse nonsensical.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2013, 11:49:56 AM »

Something about that story being written in Greek rendered that verse as a later addition. Cant remember the exact facts of it, but being born again wouldnt use the same words in Greek like it does in english making that verse nonsensical.

Hey The Gawd,

I would be interested to find out more about these conclusions.  Do you have a link.  I have studied biblical textual criticism quite a bit and never heard that John 3:4 could be a later addition.  In addition, I checked the Greek on this verse and do not know how this verse could be rendered any different.  I love learning about new "additions" in the Bible so can you give me a source or link?  I checked around on the web a little but couldn't find anything.  I'm left to believe that Nicodemus was not a critical thinker if he thinks he could re-enter his mother's womb at an old age. 
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2013, 09:00:22 PM »
Im no linguist, but I think I read it here somewhere first, but it revolves around the conversation being in Aramaic, not Greek... it apparently is Bart Ehrman's argument...

heres a lank explaining it http://errancy.org/born-again.html (dont know about the source, but its a general idea)

here's a response to that argument. Again Im no linguist so someone much smarter than me would have to determine who's correct. I tend to not trust apologetics though, they love lying for jesus http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/the-born-again-narrative-in-john-3-an-aramaic-impossibility-well-no/ (again, dont know about the source but youll get the gist)

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 978
  • Darwins +16/-69
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2013, 02:18:43 PM »
Quote
1.  Numbers 21:8 says, "the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.  Exodus 20:4 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...".  YHWH is contradicting his own moral law.  Either that or it was a test and Moses failed miserably by making a brass serpent.  Moses should have said He wouldn't do it!  But then again it couldn't have been a test because Jesus alludes to this brass serpent as being a foreshadow in referring to his forthcoming crucifixion.  So, once again, I'm left to believe that YHWH is contradictory.

Making a fiery serpent is not the same as making an idol.  Maybe you should look up the definition of "gaven image".  Bing defines it this way, "  1.carving of god: a carving representing a god."

Many Bible actually say "idol" and not "graven image".  But they are both one and the same.


So I guess if you change the meaning of words in the Bible then you can say there is a contradiction.  But that just means you are contradicting the Bible and not that it is contradicting itself.
"I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me"  (Isaiah 45:5)