Pagan basis of the trinity.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “I see... ...than God.”

Wrong. The incidents I described are not “Greek History” but accepted historical details regarding Graeco-Buddhism. On the other hand, the Trikayan Concept is dated around 498BC.


Edit: ” Second, the idea that something has to be completely understandable to be true is false.”

A concept has to be understandable, o ...[text shortened]... igion; however I claim that the Christian Triune God is an ill-considered meta-concept too
😵

If you would put a few years into the study of the Holy Bible, Christian
history, and Christian theology, you might be able to make some claims.
But now you are to ignorant to claim anything about the roots of Christian
theology or Christianity. My claim is that you are wrong.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why not? are you not a Christian? do not Christian's go to church on Sundays?

Yes, I am a Christian and most Christians go to church on Sundays and
a few on Saturday and there is also Wednesday night. But it is none of
your business as to why I did not go today.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol!!! spelling it incorrectly would have been forgiven me thinks, but systematically removing an authors name from a book he published? Even Mr Dawkins would have a snowballs chance for the former when he reached the pearly gates! But our friend Doward? Its gonna be roasty toasty for him!

Sorry Robbo, its clear to everyone but you that you have lost this argument.

Originally posted by Badwater
Well, I would suggest that in calling RC a pip-squeak British idiot and bb's entry a load of crap, that you are being far too dismissive out of hand and all too ready with personal attacks.

The fact of the matter is that I'm quite certain your theology and RC's theology are far more congruent than mine to either of you. Regardless, RC is no idiot and for g the minds, even if it is but to understand a view that you ultimately do not agree with.

If a person speaks a falsehood, he is either ignorant of the truth or a liar.
I think it is kinder to call him ignorant than a liar. To me, anything that is
not enlightening on the subject matter under discussion is a bunch of crap.
I know rc is not an idiot, but he has been so indoctinated by that cult group
that he want get his head out and use his mind to see that much of what
they are feeding him is untrue crap. The JW's cleverly mix some truth in
with their false teachings to make it seem like it is all from God's word and
even have to make their own special translation of the scriptures to support
their lies. This entices their victims into their spiders web of deceit. It
would be nice if we could calmly reason with them to come to a conclusion;
but their indoctrination includes circular reasoning so they eventually come
right back to the beginning. My idea is to shock them out of their trance-like
state, even if I must make them angry at me to do it. It may not help with
those that are very indoctrinated, but at least I can tell Jesus, at the
judgement, that I made the effort. Under the circumstances, I hope He will
approve of my methods. And there is only one view that leads to eternal life.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If a person speaks a falsehood, he is either ignorant of the truth or a liar.
I think it is kinder to call him ignorant than a liar. To me, anything that is
not enlightening on the subject matter under discussion is a bunch of crap.
I know rc is not an idiot, but he has been so indoctinated by that cult group
that he want get his head out and use his mi ...[text shortened]... hope He will
approve of my methods. And there is only one view that leads to eternal life.

I'm personally sad of your opinion of the JW's but yet reassuerd by your actions.

Matthew 5:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I hope you understand this but I fear you won't.

Originally posted by galveston75
I'm personally sad of your opinion of the JW's but yet reassuerd by your actions.

Matthew 5:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

I hope you understand this but I fear you won't.

I am sure you don't understand it, since you try to apply it where it
is not called for. Do you love me, now?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure you don't understand it, since you try to apply it where it
is not called for. Do you love me, now?

I didn't think you would...

Originally posted by galveston75
I didn't think you would...

Maybe so. But do you love me, now?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you would put a few years into the study of the Holy Bible, Christian
history, and Christian theology, you might be able to make some claims.
But now you are to ignorant to claim anything about the roots of Christian
theology or Christianity. My claim is that you are wrong.

Who, during your "study of the Holy Bible, Christian history and Christian theology", told you that Genesis 1:26, Matthew 28:19 and Deuteronomy 6:4 predate the concept of Trikaya? I already informed you and I gave you sources proving that the term “Dharmakaya” was current even before the Buddha's Parinirvana, adding that “Dharmakaya” without the concept of Trikaya is unconceivable.
The fact that the doctrine of Trikaya took its final form, a form accepted from all the masters and the disciples of the 6 basic Buddhist schools, by the 4th century CE, doesn’t mean that it was firstly conceived about that time, as you falsely concluded😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Who, during your "study of the Holy Bible, Christian history and Christian theology", told you that Genesis 1:26, Matthew 28:19 and Deuteronomy 6:4 predate the concept of Trikaya? I already informed you and I gave you sources proving that the term “Dharmakaya” was current even before the Buddha's Parinirvana, adding that “Dharmakaya” without the concept ...[text shortened]... ry CE, doesn’t mean that it was firstly conceived about that time, as you falsely concluded😵

It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the Christian Trinity, but
what is your date and how do you know?

Originally posted by Doward
Sorry Robbo, its clear to everyone but you that you have lost this argument.

Just because you say it is? then of course it must be your most illustrious holy
eminence!

No reasoning, no evidence, mere unsubstantiated opinion. You have no way of
knowing in what way Christs name was pronounced, yet you are happy to use it, but
when it comes to the name of the father your pedantry suddenly takes precedence, it is
to laugh.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I am a Christian and most Christians go to church on Sundays and
a few on Saturday and there is also Wednesday night. But it is none of
your business as to why I did not go today.

Actually in view of the following text, i think i can help you, to readjust your thinking on the matter.

(Hebrews 10:24-25) . . .And let us consider one another to incite to love and fine
works,  not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together, as some have the
custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day
drawing near.

you see RJH you are correct the reason why you did not attend church is none of my
business, but if it has become a 'custom' for you, that is habitual, then it is a matter
of some concern to me. How can you be helped to readjust your point of view?
Well the point of attending Christian gatherings is to do what? To incite to love and
fine works.

You see RJH, when a coal is removed from the fire, what happens to it? that is
correct, it becomes cold and stops glowing, yet when it is put back into the hearth, it
feels the warmth of the other coals and once again glows in harmonious union. Do
you get the point? Have you let yourself become 'cold' and embittered from a
drawing away from Christian gatherings? Is it not my duty to try to readjust your
perspective although it may be as painful as resetting a bone. Yes indeed, as your
spiritual adviser, i feel it is best, you can Pm me for private consultation regarding
spiritual matters any time, regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Just because you say it is? then of course it must be your most illustrious holy
eminence!

No reasoning, no evidence, mere unsubstantiated opinion. You have no way of
knowing in what way Christs name was pronounced, yet you are happy to use it, but
when it comes to the name of the father your pedantry suddenly takes precedence, it is
to laugh.

wrong again Robbo. It wasn't I that declared that Jehovah was the only correct name of God now was it? Your twisting and manipulating aside you cannot substantiate your position. The use of capitilized LORD in place of capitilized YHWH is a like for like representation of the ancient text. We do not know for certain what the vowels are (since they were never ever ever written down) but we do know that the letter J or the sound J wasn't part of the Hebrew language. Now if the NWT wanted to use YHWH in its translations then I would say that would be accurate. In fact I would go so far as to say that YHWH could replace LORD in all study bibles without any real problems.

Perhaps (since your "denomination" is so enamored with being accurate) you should call yourself YHWH's Witnesses

Originally posted by Doward
wrong again Robbo. It wasn't I that declared that Jehovah was the only correct name of God now was it? Your twisting and manipulating aside you cannot substantiate your position. The use of capitilized LORD in place of capitilized YHWH is a like for like representation of the ancient text. We do not know for certain what the vowels are (since they were never denomination" is so enamored with being accurate) you should call yourself YHWH's Witnesses

LORD in place of capitilized YHWH is a like for like representation of the ancient text

How anyone can make this statement with any integrity I cannot say. If you can stop bitchin, for just a second, please tell the forum, how it is a like for like representation. You may wish to add the following,

Warning: This post includes references and studies.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Just because you say it is? then of course it must be your most illustrious holy
eminence!

No reasoning, no evidence, mere unsubstantiated opinion. You have no way of
knowing in what way Christs name was pronounced, yet you are happy to use it, but
when it comes to the name of the father your pedantry suddenly takes precedence, it is
to laugh.

"I AM" is another name used by Jesus, the Son of God, to descibe Himself.
"Jehovah" or "Yahweh" is translated to mean "I AM" (the self-existing one).
So it was actually the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Son of God, that talked to
Moses and told Moses that name and not God the Father.