Automaton

I'm glad you agree that God is nonsense.
An incomplete, faulted creation kind of replects upon the nature of the creator, does it not?

Theli

Look at this monkey, look at this silly monkey!


Great episode.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi David,
Then we are back to square one. "How do you determine TRUTH value in your beliefs?"

sandlewood

Do you really find that argument convincing yourself? Do you recognize what is wrong with it?

wordsmyth

Actually, the word Trinity doesn’t appear anywhere in the O.T. or N.T. The concept of the Trinity is wholly a concept of early xian apologists. However, more than one is alluded to in the following passages from Genesis…

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

So, while it’s true the deity in the O.T. (or N.T. for that matter) is not specifically presented as a Trinity, there still remains (in places) the implication of more than one. I do not believe the passages in question support the xian doctrine of the Trinity, but that is another argument entirely.

Here is a brief timeline of events leading up to the xian doctrine of the God of Abraham as a Trinity…

· 325 A.D.: Emperor Constantine calls to order the Council of Nice and decrees that Christ is "consubstantial" (of the same nature) with the Father.

· 381 A.D.: Emperor Theodosius calls to order the First Council of Constantinople, there it is decided that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

· 388 A.D.: Emperor Theodosius threatens punishment to all who refute the Trinity.

· 451 A.D.: Emperor Marcian calls the Council of Chalcedon to order, there it is decided that Christ has both human and divine natures.

· 680 A.D.: Emperor Constantine Pogonatus holds the Third Council of Constantinople, there it is decreed that Christ has two wills.

· 1274 A.D.: At the Second Council of Lyons it is finally decided that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

So here we have nearly a thousand years of xian apologists attempting to rationalize and explain the concept of the God of Abraham as a Trinity.

Note: I still have yet to see a single coherent explanation that reconciles the Trinity as a monotheistic deity. However, from 388 A.D. onward, Emperor Theodosius ensured that a coherent explanation was not necessary.

It is true that Trinitarians consider themselves monotheists and are generally regarded as such, even though there is no coherent rationale behind it. The God of Abraham defined by Judaism is not a Trinity. Jesus has no part or place in the God of Abraham defined by Judaism or Islam and that is the reason it is not logical to believe xians accept it.

Unless you are implying that xians somehow believe there are two distinctly different Gods of Abraham. One that is a Trinity that includes Jesus and one that is a Non-Trinity that excludes Jesus. This however would preclude xians from being considered monotheistic, so I doubt this is what you are implying.

Note: I doubt the majority of xians have the first clue that muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham. They might however recognize the name Allah as the name of the muslim deity. Your quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows the Catholic Church’s stance in regard to muslims, but it in no way speaks for all xians, most of which probably have never even heard of said text.

Then you admit that the authors’ imagination played at least some part in recounting events during the life of Jesus. I wonder what other events proscribed to Jesus might merely have been exaggerated by the authors’ superstitious imagination. Then again, the authors of the N.T. didn’t actually witness these events firsthand, so it would really be more dependant on the imagination of all those who passed the story(s) by oral tradition until the authors themselves actually heard them before the authors could have colored events further (Gmatt) through allegory and their own imagination.

excreationist

1 John 5:7-8 is used as direct support of the trinity. It is true that that word "trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible though.

The passage from various translations:

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1JOHN+5:7-8&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref= on" target="_blank">NIV:</a>
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the[1] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Footnotes
5:7,8 Late manuscripts of the [Latin] Vulgate "...testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the..." (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1JOHN%2B5%3A7-8&showfn=on&showxref=on&language=english&version=K JV&x=11&y=12" target="_blank">KJV</a>:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

wordsmyth

Does that footnote refer to all of passages 7 & 8 not being found in any Greek Manuscript prior to the sixteenth century? or just the part in quotes that refers to the Trinity?

excreationist

I'd say just the part in quotes. The official NIV translation of the verses would be based on early Greek texts and it doesn't explicitly give support for the trinity. It just says that the three that testify "are in agreement".