Is the trinity pagan ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
And He taught what we call the trinity of God,

He never mentions the doctrine, neither does Paul, strange one would think for
something so apparently important, don't you think.

Think of the Trinity Doctrine as a defintion of the Christian God for that is what it really is. Trinity is the one word name that was decided upon by the Church council to explain the true Christian God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So you are going to have to live with it because it has been the name for at least 1600 years and is not likely to change. SO GET OVER IT, ALREADY!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Think of the Trinity Doctrine as a defintion of the Christian God for that is what it really is. Trinity is the one word name that was decided upon by the Church council to explain the true Christian God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So you are going to have to live with it because it has been the name for at least 1600 years and is not likely to change. [b]SO GET OVER IT, ALREADY! [/b]

no, your statement is false, neither Christ nor Paul mention it, FACT. You stated that
Christ taught it when in fact he never mentions it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, your statement is false, neither Christ nor Paul mention it, FACT. You stated that
Christ taught it when in fact he never mentions it.

He seems to miss out on some simple facts like "he never mentions it"!

Originally posted by RJHinds
God does not want dummies in Heaven. All undesirables go to hell. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

It may be poor forum etiquette to say this...but you really are an idiot aren't you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, your statement is false, neither Christ nor Paul mention it, FACT. You stated that
Christ taught it when in fact he never mentions it.

It seems to me that being a Christian requires selective/interpretations of the Bible which are dependent on your particular flavour of Christianity. I mean it wasn't that long ago you were trying to claim that the Biblical creation account in Genesis made reference to the primitive earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water', which of course is patently false. Here you are pulling up Ron for something you have been guilty of in the past.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It seems to me that being a Christian requires selective/interpretations of the Bible which are dependent on your particular flavour of Christianity. I mean it wasn't that long ago you were trying to claim that the Biblical creation account in Genesis made reference to the primitive earth being 'enshrouded in heavy gases and water', which of course is patently false. Here you are pulling up Ron for something you have been guilty of in the past.

No the truth does not lie between two polarities. either it is true, or it is not. What I
stated was that the creation account is scientifically accurate and listed some ten
processes or so in chronological order. As the Bible does not concern itself with
details, merely the order, it seems self evident that the earth was enshrouded in
heavy gases and water from the primitive atmosphere and volcanic activity etc, if
you dispute this as a scientific fact, then provide your evidence, the Bible, while not
specifically providing these details, still remains accurate, in the order of events, this
is something quite different from uttering forth a lie, like Christ taught the trinity,
when in fact, he never mentions it. In retrospect, I readily admit that the Bible does
not explicitly state that the earth was enshrouded in heavy gases and water,
although it does mention a water canopy, or division. If RJH is willing to state that
the trinity is not explicitly taught, then fine, but he hasn't and therein lies the
difference.

Originally posted by galveston75
He seems to miss out on some simple facts like "he never mentions it"!

LOL, a rather glaring omission!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL, a rather glaring omission!

But then as RJH's thoughts go the bible never says that Jesus wasn't 25' tall. So I guess we have to go that he could have been? Ya never know huh? Lol

Originally posted by galveston75
But then as RJH's thoughts go the bible never says that Jesus wasn't 25' tall. So I guess we have to go that he could have been? Ya never know huh? Lol

shameful for a fellow Texan to behave that way!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No the truth does not lie between two polarities. either it is true, or it is not. What I
stated was that the creation account is scientifically accurate and listed some ten
processes or so in chronological order. As the Bible does not concern itself with
details, merely the order, it seems self evident that the earth was enshrouded in
heav ...[text shortened]... e trinity is not explicitly taught, then fine, but he hasn't and therein lies the
difference.

I suspect it is unclear to everyone what you believe is a scientific fact.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I suspect it is unclear to everyone what you believe is a scientific fact.

really? have I not consistently made it clear that it is one governed by empirical evidence, lord knows I have.

Originally posted by galveston75
You really don't get what you just quoted do you? I'm honestly really believing you and your buddy RJH are that far into this trap by satan called the tinity that you don't even understand what you post that clearly shows the trinity for what it is.
I've seen this over and over for all my life but it still astounds me when it happens again.
But there is always hope....

What do you want? I agree with you as far as the word trinity is never used in the scripture. There you have it. The key issue is this "Who Do men say that I am?" Regardless of anything or our finite understanding..... Jesus is the center of everything for mankind. He Jesus is not a created being. He Jesus is not an angel. The father says to obey the son and every knee will bow to Christ on earth and in Heaven so you can argue all you want but Christ at minimum is still God of God's.

PS: The words theocratic government are not in scripture either. The words Watchtower society of Brooklyn NY are also not in scripture. SO WHAT?

Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really? have I not consistently made it clear that it is one governed by empirical evidence, lord knows I have.

Yes, but you reject a lot of scientific facts which have supporting empirical evidence. And since you are by no means a trained scientist, it is difficult to see how you could credibly evaluate what constitutes empirical evidence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, but you reject a lot of scientific facts which have supporting empirical evidence. And since you are by no means a trained scientist, it is difficult to see how you could credibly evaluate what constitutes empirical evidence.

another inaccuracy, the only so called scientific fact that I reject on the basis of empirical evidence, not lack of, is transmutation. I am not a trained lawyer either, but i know when i am breaking the law, making your assertion of not being able to assimilate scientific evidence on the basis of not being a trained scientist, ludicrous. I suppose that as you are not a trained painter, you cannot understand great works of art? or music and must resign yourself exclusively to whatever discipline you have studied, neeeext!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another inaccuracy, the only so called scientific fact that I reject on the basis of empirical evidence, not lack of, is transmutation. I am not a trained lawyer either, but i know when i am breaking the law, making your assertion of not being able to assimilate scientific evidence on the basis of not being a trained scientist, ludicrous. I suppose ...[text shortened]... or music and must resign yourself exclusively to whatever discipline you have studied, neeeext!

Appreciation for art and music are subjective things not based on empiricism at all. Your analogy does not work.