Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:First of, do you understand the difference between TriUNE and Three goods?

ALTER2EGO -to- PAUL SACRAMENTO:
There is very little difference between "triune" and "three" (as in gods). The word "triune" is a synonym for trinity, which means three of anything. Synonyms are words that are the same in meaning or almost the same in meaning.

DEFINITION OF TRIUNE
": three in one:
a : of or relating to the Trinity <the triune God>
b : consisting of three parts, members, or aspects"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triune


DEFINITION OF "TRINITY":
"The definition of a trinity is the state of being three, or a set of three."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/trinity


Your argument is that three persons in one (as in the case of Christendom's trinity) is superior to three separate gods (as in the case of the pagan trinities). Telling me that Christendom's trinity is different from the pagan trinities and therefore it is an improvement on the pagan versions doesn't mean a thing. Especially since you will never find any scriptures in the Bible that support the dogma.

And guess why you will never find Biblical support for the trinity dogma? It is because it is not a Bible teaching. It was borrowed from paganism and became official "Christian" teaching in the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ returned to heavenly life and more than 300 years after the last book of the Judeo-Christian Bible was written by inspiration of God.

Someone doesn't understand the Trinity (big shock). God is not "split up" to use the words of your first post. God is not a recipe, which is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Spirit. There are not "three gods." There is one God who is three persons. There is one substance. There is one will. There is one intellect. There is one act. There is one essence. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the Persons one from another except their relations: paternity, filiation, and procession. There actually is a fourth relation, which is common spiration, but that relation is common to both Father and Son. Thus, that relation which is called paternity is the Person called the Father; that relation which is called filiation is the Person called the Son; that relation which is called procession is the Person called the Holy Spirit.

Learn more here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1030.htm

If you're going to reject the Trinity, at least have some basic grasp of what you are rejecting.

edit: that's not to say that the relations are basic. On the contrary, it takes a lot of study to grasp them. What is basic is your misunderstanding of the essence of the Trinity itself. That you think there are three gods that are somehow one god shows your fundamental failure to grasp the doctrine as it has actually been developed and is believed.

Triune = Three in One ( Think union of mind, body and soul)
Three gods means three separate Gods.

Paul said:
Philipians:
5 Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [f]grasped, 7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross.

Christ, existed in the form of God.
God is the term was use the describe the NATURE of Jahveh ( using God's personal name).
Christ being God means that He has the same nature.

The only time we read Christ being called "a god" is in the NWT, so if anyone is promoting more than one god, it is the JW's.

Jac3510 wrote:Someone doesn't understand the Trinity (big shock). God is not "split up" to use the words of your first post. God is not a recipe, which is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Spirit. There are not "three gods." There is one God who is three persons. There is one substance. There is one will. There is one intellect. There is one act. There is one essence. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the Persons one from another except their relations: paternity, filiation, and procession. There actually is a fourth relation, which is common spiration, but that relation is common to both Father and Son. Thus, that relation which is called paternity is the Person called the Father; that relation which is called filiation is the Person called the Son; that relation which is called procession is the Person called the Holy Spirit.

Learn more here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1030.htm

If you're going to reject the Trinity, at least have some basic grasp of what you are rejecting.

I think you may be wasting your "breath", as am I.
Debating this with a person that uses a "translation mistake" for the name of God simply because it may be more "commonly known", is probably a wast of time.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think you may be wasting your "breath", as am I.
Debating this with a person that uses a "translation mistake" for the name of God simply because it may be more "commonly known", is probably a wast of time.

If I were actually trying to persuade A2E, you would be right. I just thought the comment might be edifying for we orthodox Christians who actually do believe the Bible.

edit:

And since you've mentioned translational issues in your last two posts, I just want to say that I have no idea how anyone with an actual knowledge of Greek or Hebrew could take JWs seriously. Their entire theology is just based on a factual misunderstanding of the biblical languages. It isn't even a matter of interpretation. They're just wrong.

Sadly, most will never bother actually learning the languages. They'll just continue to let themselves be brainwashed and refuse to actually consider the other side. Ah well . . . there's a bunch of cliches that apply to here, things like leading a horse to water . . .

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think you may be wasting your "breath", as am I.
Debating this with a person that uses a "translation mistake" for the name of God simply because it may be more "commonly known", is probably a wast of time.

If I were actually trying to persuade A2E, you would be right. I just thought the comment might be edifying for we orthodox Christians who actually do believe the Bible.

Fair enough.
I think she believes that if she says the same thing over and over it may actually be true.

I've had to deal with enough closed minded Jw's to know that pattern.
Ignore what is presented and keep going back to the same issues you THINK have not been addressed because you didn't bother to read/understand them.

p

PaulSacramento wrote:

Alter2Ego wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- PAUL SACRAMENTO:
Somehow I knew you would not be able to produce Biblical proof of a 3-prong god and Christendom's version of Dante's fictional hell. A little birdie told me.

Oivey.
Funny thing that YOU of all people would start a thread asking about Bible teachings or traditions of men.
You're a JW right? probably the denomination more "man oriented" than any other.
Quite possibly the most "selective passage" oriented denomination there is.

ALTER2EGO -to- PAUL SACRAMENTO:
I realize you would love to change this into an anti-Jehovah's Witness debate so that you can divert attention away from the fact that there are no scriptures--in any version of the Bible--that speaks of a trinity god and Christendom's version of Dante's fictional hell.

BTW: They tried the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses routine over at republican forum where ClassicalTeacher and I met for the first time about two weeks ago. Ask him/her if it worked. When I did not take the bait over there, three of the Trinitarian moderators joined forces with the regular members of the website and spent the entire time gossiping about me on the open forum, barely posted anything that was on topic with the thread, and could not produce a single verse of scripture that supports trinity or literal hellfire torment. If I did not take the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses bait over at republican forum (or at any other website where I have debated this topic), surely you don't think I will take the bait here.

Jac3510 wrote:Someone doesn't understand the Trinity (big shock). God is not "split up" to use the words of your first post. God is not a recipe, which is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Spirit. There are not "three gods." There is one God who is three persons. There is one substance. There is one will. There is one intellect. There is one act. There is one essence. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the Persons one from another except their relations: paternity, filiation, and procession. There actually is a fourth relation, which is common spiration, but that relation is common to both Father and Son. Thus, that relation which is called paternity is the Person called the Father; that relation which is called filiation is the Person called the Son; that relation which is called procession is the Person called the Holy Spirit.

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
God is not split up into three persons within a "Godhead," you say? Then what else do you call three separate persons that are in different places at the same time, at least two of them (the Father and the Son) have been quoted talking to one another from different locations, one of them prays to the other one and worships the other one, etc., and then when they feel inclined, they turn around and blend into a single "Godhead"? If that's not an example of one god split up into three different persons, then I don't know what is.

Jac3510 wrote:Someone doesn't understand the Trinity (big shock). God is not "split up" to use the words of your first post. God is not a recipe, which is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Spirit. There are not "three gods." There is one God who is three persons. There is one substance. There is one will. There is one intellect. There is one act. There is one essence. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish the Persons one from another except their relations: paternity, filiation, and procession. There actually is a fourth relation, which is common spiration, but that relation is common to both Father and Son. Thus, that relation which is called paternity is the Person called the Father; that relation which is called filiation is the Person called the Son; that relation which is called procession is the Person called the Holy Spirit.

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
There is one will and one intellect with the Father (Jehovah) and the Son (Jesus Christ), you say? The Bible contradicts you.


DIFFERENT WILLS, JESUS' OWN WORDS:
"saying: 'Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, NOT MY WILL, but yours take place.' " (Luke 22:42)


DIFFERENT INTELLECT, IN JESUS' OWN WORDS:
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
(Matthew 24:36 -- King James Version)


QUESTION #1 to JAC3510: If you were in my position, whose version of facts would you believe? The Bible's version, as quoted above, being that the Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah? Or the pagan version facts that you referred to when you claimed God and Jesus Christ have the same intellect and the same will?


Let me know.

Alter2Ego wrote: 2. Why are these teachings found in pagan/false religions that never worshipped the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible? For instance there were pagan trinities at least 200 years before Jesus came to the earth as a human.[/color]

A. In the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Egypt had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Horus, (2) Osiris, and (3) Isis.

B. Likewise, in the 2nd century B.C.E. (two centuries before Christ came to the earth), Babylon had a triad of gods consisting of (1) Ishtar, (2) Sin, and (3) Shamash.

C. In fact, during the 1st century AD when Jesus was on earth, Palmyra, which was an ancient city in Syria, had a triune god which consisted of (1) moon god, (2) Lord of Heavens, and (3) sun god.


3. If the Trinity and hellfire are Bible teachings, why is it that Jesus and his apostles who followed him around never taught anyone about the Trinity and literal hellfire?

8. Are the words "Trinity" and "Godhead" in the Bible? If so, were those words part of the original writings?

Alter2Ego
What does it matter that many other religions had beliefs about a "trinity" or "three gods in one"? (Although they were obviously not the same as the orthodox Christian Trinity)
Other religions (Hinduism) believed in an incarnate god. Does that mean Jesus coming in the flesh was a myth? (This should be an easy answer "No" in case you don't respond to this post)
There are a number of examples where religions overlap. That does not mean that where Christianity overlaps its automatically wrong. This should be obvious.
So we can get rid of that question.

Are the words "Trinity" or "Godhead" in the Bible? Nope. There are a number of doctrines not in the Bible that are held by Christians (rapture, incarnation, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc)
So no problem there

Why did Jesus/His apostles never teach about the Trinity? I think they did (at least indirectly a few times) but this is just an argument from silence. There are a number of topics that Jesus/the apostles didn't teach on. Are all those false as well? (Again, an easy answer "No" here)

Alter2Ego wrote:ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
God is not split up into three persons within a "Godhead," you say? Then what else do you call three separate persons that are in different places at the same time, at least two of them (the Father and the Son) have been quoted talking to one another from different locations, one of them prays to the other one and worships the other one, etc., and then when they feel inclined, they turn around and blend into a single "Godhead"? If that's not an example of one god split up into three different persons, then I don't know what is.

What makes you think the three Persons are "in different places at the same time"?

Again, A2E, you need to recognize that what you are rejecting is NOT the doctrine of the Trinity.

ALTER2EGO -to- JAC3510:
There is one will and one intellect with the Father (Jehovah) and the Son (Jesus Christ), you say? The Bible contradicts you.


DIFFERENT WILLS, JESUS' OWN WORDS:
"saying: 'Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, NOT MY WILL, but yours take place.' " (<a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Luke 22.42" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Luke%2022.42">Luke 22:42</a>)


DIFFERENT INTELLECT, IN JESUS' OWN WORDS:
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
(<a target="_blank" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Matthew 24.36" class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Matthew%2024.36">Matthew 24:36</a> -- King James Version)


QUESTION #1 to JAC3510: If you were in my position, whose version of facts would you believe? The Bible's version, as quoted above, being that the Bible is the inspired word of Jehovah? Or the pagan version facts that you referred to when you claimed God and Jesus Christ have the same intellect and the same will?


Let me know.

And you also don't understand the hypostatic union. Jesus, being fully human and fully God, has two wills and two intellects--that of his human nature and that of his divine nature. The doctrine of the Trinity refers only to the divine nature, not the human. The divine will and the divine intellect of Jesus are numerically identical (that is, they are exactly the same, not merely in purpose (as Christians are to have the "same mind"), but rather that they are one and the same) with the will and intellect of the Father and the Spirit.

In fact, to expand on something I said earlier, in God, there is no real distinction between God's will and His intellect. The "two" are really just different ways of talking about the same thing. And the same is true when we talk about His love, His presence, His nature, and even His very existence. But again, we're talking about the divine nature, not the human nature of Christ.

Alter2Ego wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:First of, do you understand the difference between TriUNE and Three goods?

ALTER2EGO -to- PAUL SACRAMENTO:
There is very little difference between "triune" and "three" (as in gods). The word "triune" is a synonym for trinity, which means three of anything. Synonyms are words that are the same in meaning or almost the same in meaning.

DEFINITION OF TRIUNE
": three in one:
a : of or relating to the Trinity <the triune God>
b : consisting of three parts, members, or aspects"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triune


DEFINITION OF "TRINITY":
"The definition of a trinity is the state of being three, or a set of three."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/trinity


Your argument is that three persons in one (as in the case of Christendom's trinity) is superior to three separate gods (as in the case of the pagan trinities). Telling me that Christendom's trinity is different from the pagan trinities and therefore it is an improvement on the pagan versions doesn't mean a thing. Especially since you will never find any scriptures in the Bible that support the dogma.

And guess why you will never find Biblical support for the trinity dogma? It is because it is not a Bible teaching. It was borrowed from paganism and became official "Christian" teaching in the 4th century AD--more than 300 years after Jesus Christ returned to heavenly life and more than 300 years after the last book of the Judeo-Christian Bible was written by inspiration of God.

Hey Alter! I have a couple of questions for you from your ol' pal FC at RO! You never answered them despite the fact that he asked these questions at least a dozen times... Bet you can guess what they are!!

1. Do you believe that Jesus is God?
2. Do you believe that Jesus is holy?

She'll never answer these questions.

Alter2Ego wrote:

neo-x wrote: I gave her a link and she declined to read it saying "I don't do links" but shes wants us to read her links, how absurd.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEO-X:
The post in which I included the weblinks was a direct response to the moderator, RickD. In case you did not notice, on Page 1 of this thread, RickD asked ClassicalTeacher, a Trinitarian Roman Catholic, to tell RickD why I may or may not be a Christian. So I provided RickD with links to conversations between me and others at another website where ClassicalTeacher and I met about two weeks ago--as opposed to RickD allowing the lame opinions of my opponent, ClassicalTeacher, to define whether or not I am a Christian.

BTW: Nobody asked you to click on the links. Furthermore, you can hardly compare my weblinks that are to direct conversations between me and others to the weblink you posted in my macroevolution myth thread. In that instance, you refused to quote the relevant portions of your third-party source; you did not bother to summarize your source; you did not bother to tell me which paragraph I should read when I clicked the weblink, etc. You merely posted the weblink as your idea of a rebuttal. Who do you think has that kind of time to waste?

Wwaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Alter2Ego wrote:

neo-x wrote: I gave her a link and she declined to read it saying "I don't do links" but shes wants us to read her links, how absurd.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEO-X:
The post in which I included the weblinks was a direct response to the moderator, RickD. In case you did not notice, on Page 1 of this thread, RickD asked ClassicalTeacher, a Trinitarian Roman Catholic, to tell RickD why I may or may not be a Christian. So I provided RickD with links to conversations between me and others at another website where ClassicalTeacher and I met about two weeks ago--as opposed to RickD allowing the lame opinions of my opponent, ClassicalTeacher, to define whether or not I am a Christian.

BTW: Nobody asked you to click on the links. Furthermore, you can hardly compare my weblinks that are to direct conversations between me and others to the weblink you posted in my macroevolution myth thread. In that instance, you refused to quote the relevant portions of your third-party source; you did not bother to summarize your source; you did not bother to tell me which paragraph I should read when I clicked the weblink, etc. You merely posted the weblink as your idea of a rebuttal. Who do you think has that kind of time to waste?

There's no secret that I'm a "trinitarian" Roman Catholic!! Did you think you were spilling the proverbial beans on me?? YOU are the one who refused to identify yourself as a jw both here and on RO.

He did not ask me to explain why you are not a Christian. Please re-read the post before you make spurious accusations. Ridiculous.