Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post

    Muhamed, islamÂ’s founder had to flee Mecca for his life because he badly offended the sensibilities of the Meccans and Quraish whom he had earlier tried to desperately convert to his new cult and ideology but had failed miserably at.
    ...
    At-Tabari and the Sirah of Muhammad tell of the horrific massacre and genocide of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza...
    Besides that, he also banished 2 other Jewish tribes, the banu Nadir and banu Qaynuqa and confiscated their properties, assets and lands, further enriching his booty and war chests. What were the crimes of these Jewish victims ...
    Like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law---not theology.

    Before the Prophet was invited to Yathrib (Medina) there was deadly tribal warfare occurring there. The people invited Muhammed(Pbuh) to arbitrate according to (Islamic) law---to settle the disputes and bring peace. In order to do so, most of the people of Yathrib converted to Islam. When the Prophet reached Yathrib/Medina with his followers, he instituted a mentorship system in which each Medina family became guardians/mentors for each Meccan immigrant. Such a system evenly distributed the burdens of a large group of immigrants and reduced social tensions.

    The Medinan population decided to elect the Prophet as their leader---and the Prophet requested an acceptance of this decision (what we might today refer to as "vote") from the community---including women.
    This practice of being "elected" was also carried out by the succeeding 4 caliphs.

    Further, the Prophet also made a treaty---which today is referred to as the "constitution of Medina" in which the Jewish tribes of Yathrib were free to practice their religion (religion = law) and be equal members of the society. There were perhaps 9 Jewish tribes.(?) When the Meccans attacked Medina---3 of these tribes were proven to have committed treason---in direct contradiction to the treaty terms---therefore 2 of them were exiled according to Islamic law. The third Jewish tribe was tried according to Jewish Law by a Jewish tribe, the Aws (Sa‘ad ibn Mu‘adh.) According to Jewish law, the penalty for treason is death. (...today, according to Western laws, the penalty for treason is death or life imprisonment)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      ...
      ...need to bear in mind that warfare was then, and remains now, a bloody business. Nor were there such as things as the ICC and Geneva Conventions in previous centuries.

      Christians massacring Jews and Muslims when they took Jerusalem in 1099 were no less barbaric. The Christian church and its adherents persecuted and massacred Jews "back home" as well for centuries. Christians even slaughtered their own when they took Constantinople in 1204....
      War is a bloody business---and pretending otherwise is simply foolish. However, maybe some war strategies might be needlessly brutal? The Mongol invasions might also be an example?

      Sun Tsu (art of war) advised:-
      In the practical art of war, the best thing is to take the enemy's country whole and intact, to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it. To capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
      ...and...
      hence, to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence: supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemies resistance without fighting
      ...and...
      there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

      Historically, the "Early Islamic Conquests" were very fast, the damage was minimal, and the post-war recovery was also speedy.
      Peace brought an increase in trade activities and this brought in more taxes for the state which were used to repair, rebuild or build new, ---the roads, caravenserai, aquaducts, canals and various other public works that had been neglected by the Sassanid and Byzantines.

      ICC and Geneva conventions..etc. Though we have such instruments and guidelines on the conduct of war, not everyone follows them---the U.S. and its wars are a good example.
      Islamic law also has ethical guidelines on war and conduct in war. ---some have followed it, some have not....

      Comment


      • New Testament verses that could be misused---?......

        I do not know how they are interpreted or used/misused in Christian history...

        Mathew 10: 34-36
        The Sword of the Gospel
        34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.…

        ...and...

        He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

        — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV

        ...and....

        5 I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
        John 15 NIV


        ......etc...
        Last edited by siam; 07-03-2020, 01:41 AM.

        Comment


        • Jesus Calling for swords? Why do you misuse the Gospel passages when you indeed have not understood their correct meanings and exegesis, Siam?

          It is actually quite difficult to imagine Jesus telling his disciples to “buy swords for warfare and fighting”, considering that he would soon state the following -

          ". . . for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" - Matthew 26:52, NASB

          'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him . . . Matthew 26:52, NIV

          It also was already late in the day, according to the situational context and Jesus and his disciples would soon leave for the Mount of Olives. He had much to discuss with them before he would be taken prisoner, so there would be no time to go to the market, argue for the best value for their garments, then haggle over the price of swords.

          Interestingly, there isn’t any Strong's Concordance definition listed for the noun "sword" in the KJV Bible translation of Luke 22:36. According to the Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary for the verse, mentions that the word has been inserted from what is said in verse 38, as it is evident Jesus never intended any resistance to his capture, nor to allow such a weapon like a sword to be used on the occasion – SEE Matthew 26 v 52:
          “Put away your sword - those who take up the sword will also perish by the sword.”

          In Luke 22:38, Strong's Concordance acknowledges the Greek word machaira (Strong's #G3162) is defined as a knife, dirk or sword.

          Back up to verse 35 and we hear Jesus reminding his disciples that he had sent them on a temporary journey with neither purse nor passports, nor shoes (see Matthew 10:5 - 10). When he asked if they lacked anything during the trip, they answered, "Nothing." But when Jesus was no longer with them, their journey would not be temporary.

          The disciples would need certain provisions, including a knife for preparation of food, cutting wood for fuel, and possibly to fend off robbers for which the locality was noted. So, once Jesus' ordeal was over, they should make sure they each had a knife.

          In Luke 22:38 the disciples said they had two knives, and Jesus said, "It is enough." By this he may have been saying that's all they would need, but Bible commentators Adam Clarke and John Gill believe that he was saying, "Enough of this ‘sword talk’." This is likely correct since, according to Luke's account, Jesus then left for the Mount of Olives where his real agony would begin (Luke 22:39). Discussion about “fighting with swords” would be insignificant AND irrelevant in comparison, as Matthew 26 confirms.

          CONTEXT is the only key to correctly understand Jesus' words. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. In that respect, Jesus Christ has come to bring division between relatives, family and friends who would not countenance Christ’s disciples who are steadfastly following Him. This context is also related in Luke 12:51. Nothing whatsoever in both passages about “physical fighting between family members and Christians with swords”.

          Jesus was only using the accepted analogous meaning of the word “sword” in the first century A.D. to imply “be prepared for division, disunity and rejection” among your friends and even your family members, because you are My – Jesus’ loyal followers and disciples” (ie. hawarii / hawariyun the koranic Arabic term).

          Unlike the clear commands of God and Muhamed upon Muslims in the Koran like:

          "God / Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. So that some ye SLEW, and some ye MADE PRISONERS. And He made you muslims Heirs of THEIR LANDS, their HOUSES, and their GOODS, and of A LAND which ye had not frequented or GONE TO BEFORE."
          Sura 33/25-27 (Yusuf Ali version)

          “AND FIGHT THEM until there is no more Fitnah - disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah and the religion or worship will ALL BE for Allah Alone IN THE WHOLE OF THE WORLD.” QS 8/39 (Hilali-Khan version)

          “So, when you meet in the Jihad of Allah's Cause those who disbelieve, SMITE at their necks till when you have KILLED AND WOUNDED MANY of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden.

          “Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers UNTIL THEY EMBRACE ISLAM in the or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them without you. But HE LETS YOU FIGHT, in order to test you, some with others. But those who ARE KILLED in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,” QS. 47/4.

          “Jihad FIGHTING (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) IS ORDAINED FOR YOU MUSLIMS, though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike something which is GOOD FOR YOU (!) and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.” (2/216)

          No fighting was ever “ordained” by Jesus Christ in the NT, like that was ordained, enjoined and commanded upon all Muslims in Koranic verses, ayats and suras 8/39, 47/4 and 2/216 and many more.

          There are in fact at least 164 verses in the Koran inciting Muslims to engage in Jihad & holy war – the physical acts of aggression and violence kind known as jihad fisibilillah “fighting in the way of Allah” – armed warfare, listed here:

          https://www.answering-islam.org/Qura..._passages.html







          Originally posted by siam View Post
          New Testament verses that could be misused---?......

          I do not know how they are interpreted or used/misused in Christian history...

          Mathew 10: 34-36
          The Sword of the Gospel
          34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.…

          ...and...

          He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

          — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV

          ...and....

          5 I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
          John 15 NIV


          ......etc...

          Comment


          • Mohammed first entered Yathrib (later Madina), he was counting on the support of its people. One particular ethnic group he thought would give more authority to his prophethood were the Jews because they had the Torah and all the previous Prophets were Jewish. They also controlled the city's trade and commerce.

            The Jews were many in Yathrib and its suburbs. There were the Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, the Bani Qaynuqa' Jews, the Bani Quraytha (Qurayza) Jews, and several more. The Jews were rich and successful in their businesses. A great asset to the young Islamic nation Muhamed was trying to construct there.

            At first, Mohammed was trying to befriend the Jews and get them on his side. He insisted that the People of the Book - Jews and Christians, "worship the same God" [Quran Surah 29:46]. He claimed that the same God sent down the Torah [Quran Surah 5:48]. He ordered the Muslims to fast Ashura' or the Passover [Saheeh Bukhari - 2004]. Even the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) faced towards Jerusalem - the SAME direction the Jews faced in prayer [Saheeh Bukhari - 41].

            But no matter how hard Mohammed tried to convince them that he is a prophet he just couldn't, he just FAILED spectacularly. Once he even barged into a Jewish Synagogue in Yathrib (Madina) and said that if only twelve Jews would believe in him then Allah would spare them his wrath [Musnad Ahmad - 23464].

            When he realized that the Jews wouldn't believe in him, and that their unbelief would TURN AGAINST him - because they have the Torah which has the criteria for any prophet, he realized that they should be eliminated.

            So at first he switched the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca [Quran Surah 2:144 and Saheeh Bukhari - 41]. Then warned them; they either become Muslims and be safe, or sell their possessions and LEAVE THEIR LAND [Saheeh Muslim - 1765 & 1767 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003].

            Mohammed marched towards the Jews in order to either exile them or make a treaty with them. The Bani Al-Nadheer Jews refused to make a treaty with Mohammed so they fought against him, lost, and subsequently were exiled. The Bani Quraytha Jews saw the fate of their Bani Al-Nadheer brethren so they had no choice but to make a peace treaty with him [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].

            Yet Mohammed was determined that all Jews should be either exiled or killed - he was set on their elimination. He cannot simply break the treaty with Bani Quraytha though because it would be bad for his image as a Prophet who's supposed to keep his promises and treaties. He strongly emphasized the importance of keeping treaties [Quran Surah 9:4 and Saheeh Bukhari - 33]. So his only way out was to MAKE IT APPEAR as though Bani Qurayza were the ones who broke the treaty.

            Then came the Ghazwat Al-Khandaq (The Battle of the Trench or Ditch). The Pagan Arab tribes retreated and Mohammed was ready for battle. Mohammed went to the Bani Quraytha/Qurayza Jews and eliminated them because it was CLAIMED that they betrayed the Muslims and renounced the treaty, but did they?

            The Battle of Al-Khandaq (Trench) and The Battle of Bani Quraytha:

            The Quraysh tribes and Ghatfan, encouraged by the exiled Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, wanted to eliminate Mohammed once and for all. They gathered up a great army and put Yathrib under siege [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103]. Mohammed , based on a suggestion by Salman Al-Farisi, dug a trench around Yathrib [Saheeh Bukhari - 2837], except for the Bani Quraytha side that is, because they had great fortresses and it would be practically impossible for the Pagan Arabs to get through their fortresses unless Bani Quraytha allowed it. Now since Mohammed and Bani Quraytha had a treaty, Mohammed had nothing to fear [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004]. Thus all was set.

            Now the siege has started, Mohammed was running low on food and resources [Saheeh Bukhari - 4101 and Musnad Ahmad - 13808], his companions were terrified [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103 and Musnad Ahmad - 10613], and above all that it was rumored that Bani Quraytha were going to break the treaty between them and Mohammed and let the Pagan Arabs come through their side. But after a while, a sandstorm hit the armies of the Pagan Arabs, and since Bani Quraytha refused to let them in through their fortresses, the armies had no choice but to retreat [Musnad Ahmad - 22823].

            Mohammed on the other hand was ready for battle, he had a full army equipped and eager to fight in the name of Allah. The rumors that Bani Quraytha wanted to betray him were his only excuse, that and an order sent from Allah via Jibreel (Gabriel). He went to them, put them under siege for 14 days. Finally they surrendered. So Muhamed killed ALL their men and male youth - 700-900 souls, enslaved their women and children [Saheeh Muslim - 1769]. Now there was one less Jewish tribe to worry about.

            The Sirah biographer, Ibn Ishaq says:

            A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle, among whom were Sallam b. AbuÂ’l-Huqayq al-Nadir [he had been assassinated so the chronology is questionable], and Huyayy b. Aktab al-Nadri, and Kinana b. AbuÂ’l-Huaqayq al-Nadri, and Hauda b. Qays al-WaÂ’ili, and Abu Ammar al-WaÂ’ili with a number of B. [Bani or tribe or clan] Nadir and B. WaÂ’il, went to the Quraysh at Mecca and invited them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get rid of him altogether. (p. 450).

            How much did the Jews actually instigate the battle, and how much were the Meccans fed up with Muslim harassment on their own without Jewish provocation? This is unclear. Let us assume only for the sake of argument that the Islamic sources - written 200 years later, are right. These specific Jews were the alleged "principal instigators". In the end, this does not matter, for the following reason.

            It is important to cite these complex names, above, because today’s Muslim polemicists who defend Muhammad’s extermination and enslavement of the Qurayza Jews overlook the fact that early Islam knew specifically who the enemy Jewish leaders were—BY THEIR NAMES.

            So DID ALL the men and adolescent boys have to be executed and all the women and children enslaved? Could only the leaders not have been executed?

            Sources: Ibn Ishaq; Tabari, The Victory of Islam, trans. M. Fishbein, vol. 8, (1997), pp. 6-7. Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet, Darrusalam, 1996, p. 201.




            Originally posted by siam View Post
            Like Judaism, Islam is a religion of law---not theology.

            Before the Prophet was invited to Yathrib (Medina) there was deadly tribal warfare occurring there. The people invited Muhammed(Pbuh) to arbitrate according to (Islamic) law---to settle the disputes and bring peace. In order to do so, most of the people of Yathrib converted to Islam. When the Prophet reached Yathrib/Medina with his followers, he instituted a mentorship system in which each Medina family became guardians/mentors for each Meccan immigrant. Such a system evenly distributed the burdens of a large group of immigrants and reduced social tensions.

            The Medinan population decided to elect the Prophet as their leader---and the Prophet requested an acceptance of this decision (what we might today refer to as "vote") from the community---including women.
            This practice of being "elected" was also carried out by the succeeding 4 caliphs.

            Further, the Prophet also made a treaty---which today is referred to as the "constitution of Medina" in which the Jewish tribes of Yathrib were free to practice their religion (religion = law) and be equal members of the society. There were perhaps 9 Jewish tribes.(?) When the Meccans attacked Medina---3 of these tribes were proven to have committed treason---in direct contradiction to the treaty terms---therefore 2 of them were exiled according to Islamic law. The third Jewish tribe was tried according to Jewish Law by a Jewish tribe, the Aws (Sa‘ad ibn Mu‘adh.) According to Jewish law, the penalty for treason is death. (...today, according to Western laws, the penalty for treason is death or life imprisonment)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by siam View Post
              New Testament verses that could be misused---?......

              I do not know how they are interpreted or used/misused in Christian history...

              Mathew 10: 34-36
              The Sword of the Gospel
              34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.…

              ...and...

              He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

              — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
              That does rather suggest that Jesus might not have been as pacific as other verses in the gospels would suggest. The "render unto Caesar" verse may also be considered with an entirely different interpretation, likewise the verses about Jesus as the son of a carpenter.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Not really, just because Jesus Christ used some terminology about “swords” far from implies that he may have had an agenda involving violence for His disciples and followers.

                The polemic you are trying to assert is answered in my post #619 replying to Siam previously, just above.

                “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (full quote from Matthew 22:21) is one way of Christ’s reminding his followers to be balanced and responsible citizens of the state while fulfilling their purpose and destinies as children of God. Those two economies are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive for Christians and can get along quite well when the balance enjoined by Christ is maintained.





                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                That does rather suggest that Jesus might not have been as pacific as other verses in the gospels would suggest. The "render unto Caesar" verse may also be considered with an entirely different interpretation, likewise the verses about Jesus as the son of a carpenter.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View Post
                  Not really, just because Jesus Christ used some terminology about “swords” far from implies that he may have had an agenda involving violence for His disciples and followers.

                  The polemic you are trying to assert is answered in my post #619 replying to Siam previously, just above.

                  “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (full quote from Matthew 22:21) is one way of Christ’s reminding his followers to be balanced and responsible citizens of the state while fulfilling their purpose and destinies as children of God. Those two economies are not necessarily contradictory or mutually exclusive for Christians and can get along quite well when the balance enjoined by Christ is maintained.
                  In point of fact the reference occurs in all three Synoptic gospels [see also Mark 12.17 and Luke 20.25].

                  That depends on how that verse is interpreted. In view of the apologetical concerns of each of the four canonical gospel writers that vary in their individual motives, it is unsurprising that no mention is made by any of them of any anti-Roman comments that may have been made by the flesh and blood figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

                  However it is legitimate to ask if behind the earliest apologetical use of the Tribute money, i.e. in Mark 12.17, whether there may, or may not have been, a traditional saying of Jesus concerning the issue which originally had quite a different meaning from that which it is intended to have in its Markan setting.

                  It may be suggested that Jesus could not have exercised his public ministry of preparing Israel for the coming of God's kingdom without having to make clear his attitude to the payment of the Roman tribute. Moreover, it is can also be surmised that it would be absolutely necessary to conclude that he would never have been popularly regarded as the Messiah, if he had ruled that the Jews had rightly to pay tribute to Rome.

                  Consequently, it may be argued there is good reason to see in those words “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” an authentic pronouncement made by Jesus on this fundamental issue of Jewish religious and political life.

                  Furthermore such a saying would have met with the approval of any Zealot because for the Zealot there was no doubt that God owned the land of Israel, not Caesar.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    JimL,
                    The Trinity explanation are three distinct persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one God.
                    But Jesus himself limited the knowledge of his second coming to "THE FATHER ONLY" in Matthew 24:36 "of that day and that hour no one knows not even the angels in heaven BUT THE FATHER ALONE" hence the Holy Spirit CANNOT BE GOD since God the Father ONLY knows his second coming.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      JimL,
                      The Trinity explanation are three distinct persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit who are the one God.
                      Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Except that it's NOT an explanation, it's an incoherent logical contradiction. Three distinct persons cannot logically be one person.
                        You've been provided an explanation of the Trinity so many times now that this cannot be other than deliberate misrepresentation. Stop lying about what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          You've been provided an explanation of the Trinity so many times now that this cannot be other than deliberate misrepresentation. Stop lying about what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.
                          Give us a logical explanation of 3 persons who are also 1 god? Otherwise it is a logical contradition.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Give us a logical explanation of 3 persons who are also 1 god? Otherwise it is a logical contradition.
                            The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's logical contradiction, without misrepresenting what the Trinity teaches. Unless you can do that you haven't got a leg to stand on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              The burden is on you to demonstrate that it's logical contradiction, without misrepresenting what the Trinity teaches. Unless you can do that you haven't got a leg to stand on.
                              Well that's a cop out if I ever saw one. 1 being+1 being+1 being=3 beings, not 1 indivisable being.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Well that's a cop out if I ever saw one. 1 being+1 being+1 being=3 beings, not 1 indivisable being.
                                As I said, if you're going to demonstrate that there is a logical contradiction you have to show that there is a logical contradiction in the actual teaching of the Trinity, and not in your misrepresentation of it. The Trinity does not teach that "1 being+1 being+1 being=1 being". The word "person" when talking about the Trinity does not constitute a being. The Trinity teaches that there are three persons in one Being.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                144 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X