Pagan basis of the trinity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Trinity
Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emp ...[text shortened]... r Paul or Christ, uses expressions derived from Hellenistic philosophy, from whence did it come?

It can be proven from your own Bible that God has revealed Himself as three persons in one.

Ever have the experience of looking for something you've misplaced and then discovered that it was right there before your eyes all along?

That's how it's going to be robbie when I finally get around to showing it to you.

Originally posted by galveston75
Why wasn't it used earlier by let's say.....JESUS?

When Dickens wrote Oliver Twist he didn't say: failure of charity (in relation to the poor law of 1834). Neither did he explicitly mention capitalism or socialism, but those themes were certainly present. The reader reads the book and interprets the book and attempts to find the meaning in the authors words. Sometimes they use words that the author never even used (imagine that).

Your argument that Christ didn't say "Trinity" is weak and reflects an infintile view of God's word.

Originally posted by Doward
When Dickens wrote Oliver Twist he didn't say: failure of charity (in relation to the poor law of 1834). Neither did he explicitly mention capitalism or socialism, but those themes were certainly present. The reader reads the book and interprets the book and attempts to find the meaning in the authors words. Sometimes they use words that the author never even ...[text shortened]... ment that Christ didn't say "Trinity" is weak and reflects an infintile view of God's word.

No it's actually extrememly strong in every sense of the word. He did not teach it, the apostles never taught it and the Bible does not teach it no matter how you play with words of fairy tales.
The ball has been your courts from day one on this and to date no one has ever proved it in any sense.
But keep trying if you must!!!!!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
No it's actually extrememly strong in every sense of the word. He did not teach it, the apostles never taught it and the Bible does not teach it no matter how you play with words of fairy tales.
The ball has been your courts from day one on this and to date no one has ever proved it in any sense.
But keep trying if you must!!!!!!!

The fact is that He did teach it. It was for this reason the Jews
wanted to stone Him. And How would we have know about the
Holy Spirit if it were not for the teachings of Jesus. He was the
first one to bring up the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as
being one God.

Originally posted by galveston75
No it's actually extrememly strong in every sense of the word. He did not teach it, the apostles never taught it and the Bible does not teach it no matter how you play with words of fairy tales.
The ball has been your courts from day one on this and to date no one has ever proved it in any sense.
But keep trying if you must!!!!!!!

If the trinity concept is not in the bible G-75 then where did Christians come up with it? Out of thin air? No.........It is revealed in the bible.

Originally posted by josephw
It can be proven from your own Bible that God has revealed Himself as three persons in one.

Ever have the experience of looking for something you've misplaced and then discovered that it was right there before your eyes all along?

That's how it's going to be robbie when I finally get around to showing it to you.

yeah yeah, whenever your ready!

Originally posted by menace71
If the trinity concept is not in the bible G-75 then where did Christians come up with it? Out of thin air? No.........It is revealed in the bible.

well lets think now Sherlock. . . .Greek philosophical terms not found in the Bible and misapplied to God, mmmm

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact is that He did teach it. It was for this reason the Jews
wanted to stone Him. And How would we have know about the
Holy Spirit if it were not for the teachings of Jesus. He was the
first one to bring up the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as
being one God.

Before the rising of the Abrahamic religions, the Western and the Eastern meditators were aware of the concepts known as Eastern Yoga and Western Yoga.
The Eastern Yoga is the sum of Kriya Tantra, Charya Tantra, Yoga Tantra, Mahayoga, Anuyoga and Atiyoga. The Western Yoga is the mystical qblh, and there is also the Way of the Catholic Church that is based on Mantra and Bhakti Yoga.
The Eastern Yoga was designed according to the East Dharma, and the Western Yoga was designed according to the West Dharma. And the Eastern Yoga defines “trinity” (in Sanskrit “trikaya” -kaya means body/ hypostasis/ dimension of existence) as Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya.

Trikaya is a conception used in order to ease the meditators to decipher the manifestation of the Perfect Existence within three pillars, which they somehow look like the following three existential dimensions of the Human:
The first is “Body”, and this notion goes beyond our body itself for it is also the sole dimension of which we are all aware, the dimension that we cannot refuse its existence, the dimension that is understood as reality, as the physical world that we perceive by means of our 6 senses.
The second is “Logos” and stands for “energy”, therefore it is a dimensional level that offers life to our physical body. This energy is linked to our respiration and to our mental/ sentimental condition, and it is called “Logos” because through respiration we produce the sounds that we use in order to communicate by means of our language.
And the third is “Spirit”, and it is the most hidden dimension of the trikayan nature of the Human: we know that we are capable of thinking but for the time being nobody can define the origins and the nature of our thoughts.

So the nature of Dharmakaya is the void/ emptiness/ sunyata.
The nature of Sambhogakaya is the Enlightenment.
The nature of Nirmanakaya is the way to the Enlightenment.
Therefore Dharmakaya is manifested at the level of Shambogakaya as clear light; and Dharmakaya is manifested at the level of Nirmanakaya as our physical universe, which is a phenomenal world -a Floating World.
Clearly, Nirmanakaya is the mingling of the Floating World and of the Void. Sambhogakaya is the mingling of the Enlightenment and of the Void. And Dharmakaya is the mingling of the Awareness and of the Void.

Due to the above methinks the Christian Trinity is a bad copy-paste, a meta-concept of Trikaya. So it is no mystery at all the fact that until this very moment the Trinitarian Christians are unable to explain rationally this invention of theirs whilst Trikaya is fully understandable regardless of one’s personal beliefs and religion
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Before the rising of the Abrahamic religions, the Western and the Eastern meditators were aware of the concepts known as Eastern Yoga and Western Yoga.
The Eastern Yoga is the sum of Kriya Tantra, Charya Tantra, Yoga Tantra, Mahayoga, Anuyoga and Atiyoga. The Western Yoga is the mystical qblh, and there is also the Way of the Catholic Church that is ba ...[text shortened]... irs whilst Trikaya is fully understandable regardless of one’s personal beliefs and religion
😵

I guess I'll have to repeat this again for you.

The following is from britannica.com online encyclopedis:

trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies&rdquo😉, in Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (body of enjoyment), the heavenly mode; and the nirmanakaya (body of transformation), the earthly mode, the Buddha as he appeared on earth or manifested himself in an earthly bodhisattva, an earthly king, a painting, or a natural object, such as a lotus.

The concept of trikaya applies not only to the historical Buddha, Gautama, but to all other buddhas as well.

According to wikipedia it was not until the 4th century CE that the Trikaya
Doctrine assumed the form that we now know. So it appears that the
Christian idea came before this Buddhist doctrine by at least 100 years.
Although, it is true that it is closer to the Trinity Doctrine than the pagan
Triads; but it is more like the modalism of Sabellius than the Trinity of
Tertullian. So the Buddhist idea of the trikaya may have been borrowed
from the ideas of Sabellius. In any case, it is not the same as the orthodox
Christian Trinity doctrine.

So the Christian Trinity is not at all like a copy-paste, a meta-concept of
Trikaya.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess I'll have to repeat this again for you.

The following is from britannica.com online encyclopedis:

trikaya, (Sanskrit: “three bodies&rdquo😉, in Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of the three bodies, or modes of being, of the Buddha: the dharmakaya (body of essence), the unmanifested mode, and the supreme state of absolute knowledge; the sambhogakaya (b ...[text shortened]... trine.

So the Christian Trinity is not at all like a copy-paste, a meta-concept of
Trikaya.

It is all but certain the central dogma's ofChristianity (Which should really be called Paulism) was based on earlier religions. I saw with my own eyes in Cairo, in the wonderful museum there, the 7 day creation story, for instance, in 3000 + year old cartouche drawings, which laid it out almost word for word the Genesis fairy tale of creation.

I saw that with my own eyes, there is no denying that.

Plus this:

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-355250/christianity-a-copy-cat-religion#

For instance, how did it come about that Jesus (if there even was such a person) was born at the end of December?

Luke 2:8 describes Jesus's birthplace as "In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over the flock by night."

Just exactly what kind of crop would be being grown in December that flocks would be living in the fields? There sure would not have been much for a flock to eat in December.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is all but certain the central dogma's ofChristianity (Which should really be called Paulism) was based on earlier religions. I saw with my own eyes in Cairo, in the wonderful museum there, the 7 day creation story, for instance, in 3000 + year old cartouche drawings, which laid it out almost word for word the Genesis fairy tale of creation.

I saw th ...[text shortened]... e living in the fields? There sure would not have been much for a flock to eat in December.

Sorry but this is incoherent drivel, let me just adress a few points:

The Genesis story is not unique to Christianity, it belongs to the Hebrew and Muslim traditions as well. Most serious Christian, Hebrew and Muslim scholars read it as allegory.

The new testament never says that Christ was born in December, though its equally probable that he was. The scriptures also say that they were in the fields watching over the flock. They were sheppards, the scripture says nothing about crops.

You are seriously grasping for straws, what's worse is you are illinformed.

Originally posted by galveston75
No it's actually extrememly strong in every sense of the word. He did not teach it, the apostles never taught it and the Bible does not teach it no matter how you play with words of fairy tales.
The ball has been your courts from day one on this and to date no one has ever proved it in any sense.
But keep trying if you must!!!!!!!

yes, there you go, completly ignore anything anyone has to say on the subject. Why don't yoiu just stick fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA!

Ample evidence has been provided in these forums, while you have offered nothing but poor translations, poor interpretations and outright twisting of scripture.

Originally posted by Doward
yes, there you go, completly ignore anything anyone has to say on the subject. Why don't yoiu just stick fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA!

Ample evidence has been provided in these forums, while you have offered nothing but poor translations, poor interpretations and outright twisting of scripture.

If you'd actually read the post you might learn the truth of the trinity.

Originally posted by galveston75
If you'd actually read the post you might learn the truth of the trinity.

LOL, G-man, they proffer texts from the King James version, itself a translation of a translation, containing twenty thousand errors, have been made to publicly admit that neither Christ nor Paul made mention of the doctrine, then with the same breath claim that its demonstrated through inference and then have the audacity to talk about weak translations and twisting verses, I dont think i would have believed his text if I had not read it myself, talk about being in darkness mentally?

Originally posted by Doward
yes, there you go, completly ignore anything anyone has to say on the subject. Why don't yoiu just stick fingers in your ears and sing LA LA LA LA!

Ample evidence has been provided in these forums, while you have offered nothing but poor translations, poor interpretations and outright twisting of scripture.

what a scammer, changing texts to read 'theos' instead of hos, downright underhanded and dithpicable!