Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 11-09-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I don’t know what to think of any of this.

It took 400 years to agree on the trinity. It is not even hinted at in the gospels.

Who in the trinity comes from who (proceed) has not been agreed by the Christian churches yet

It took 400 years to make Jesus the catholic god

The nature of Jesus has not been agreed yet.....

What is the argument I should understand from all these postings?

Oh Jesus is not God, and for sure not and most certainly is not part of the trinity either, . . . or he could not go to hell in Matthew and Mark where 'forsaken' indeed means "left behind."

But be careful here, in that Jesus has the potential to become God in his dual nature that he carried about, if and only if he was without sin, and so it is that Catholics are sinners and are not torn in the 'saved sinner' complex that Jesus indeed was in Matthew and Mark, and therefore was forsaken by God, in the exact same way the Galatians who were also 'bewitched' (Gal. 3:1), remained torn in the saved sinner complex as is shown in Gal. 5:1-4, where 4 reads: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor."

Crucial is that he proves himself the 'servant of Christ' for which he was called as Nazarite and not as Egyption with a hard-on for Christ; the difference being a 'product of desire' or 'called by God' and so not of desire but God as per Jn. 1:13.

'Efficiently' it defines the Conception Immaculate, or not, and for this Mary's Canticle was absent in Matthew and Mark.

So then, accordingly, only the son as Christ is part of the trinity indeed, that in Matthew and Mark did not collapse simply because without Ascension the BVM can never be Assumed to be one with God, and hence will always be the cause of emnity in the mind of the lukewarm Galilean so made (still from Gen.3:15 except now empowered and so peace on earth will never be, and be it known here that She is and always will be in charge of our TOL and so be our Determinate Cause).

You have understood what this thread is about. I admire your ability to decode messages.

Who comes first and from where has not been agreed by the Christian churches yet nor has Jesus’ nature been defined to the satisfaction of all.

Chili · 11-09-2012, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I don’t know what to think of any of this.

It took 400 years to agree on the trinity.

The trinity? The definite article gives an impression of obedient faith.

Quote:

It is not even hinted at in the gospels.

It's contradiction of the gospels, the letters, and the whole OT. But 'atheism', living in a world of make-believe, supporting the make-believe world of denominations, doesn't want to know that.

The man's too big, the man's too strong.

The trinity is indeed a human concept that does not exist in heaven, and so, without the BVM you only have a twoony left.

Chili · 11-09-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

"upon" is a mistranslation and should be "unto"/"into" http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:10

Not really Joe because in Mark the HS left again and 'unto' does not allow that to happen (if unto = into; similar as the distinction is made between "with you" and [will be] "within you" of Jn.14:17.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.