Kirk Cameron shows us the light

Ophiolite said:
Chapter and verse please, for an unambiguous statement to this effect.
And while you are at it, if it is so clear, can you explain why, as I asked before, this concept was not introduced until three centuries after Christ died?
Click to expand...

Jesus said: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

[Jesus speaking to His disciples] "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." ... "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him." (John 14:16-17, 23)
 
That is not clear and unambiguous statement of the trinity. At best it is a binity(!!).
And you are still avoiding telling me why it took three centuries for early Christians to recognise that the concept of the Holy Trinity was embedded in the works of the New Testament.

Sandy, unlike some of the other posters here I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the concept of the Trinity. I can readily conceive of a being that is both three discrete elements, yet a single entity.
What I am questioning, and you are failing to address, is where is there justification for this in the Bible, and why did it take three centuries to recognise this justificaiton.
 
Last edited:
sandy, repeating yourself is not the same as explaining yourself. Again, there is nothing indicated in your links explaining the Trinity.
 
God the Son (Jesus) is fully, completely God
Click to expand...

I already quoted you on this and asked you if you consider god to be omniscient. For some reason you didn't answer... Seems a tad suspiscious to me.

I will assume for now, (while awaiting your confirmation), that you do believe god is omniscient. This means we have the following:

1) You say jesus is completely, fully god.

2) You say that god is omniscient.

3) As jesus is fully, completely god and god is omniscient, jesus must be omniscient.

"Matthew 24:36
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father..”

jesus very own words show beyond any doubt given your beliefs, that jesus isn't and can't be god.

Let's try another couple.. Do you consider god omnipotent? Do you consider god omnipresent? (You'll find the outcome is the same).

Further from there we can look at other aspects:

Hebrews 5:4
No one takes this honour upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. 5So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.” And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

This shows a distinct and undeniable difference between god and jesus. god is a god, jesus is but a priest - of which there have been others including melchizedek, (who never dies and was never born).

My dear Sandy, you should change it to a "quadrinity".

You would undoubtedly also consider god perfect and has been so for ever and ever.

jesus was not perfect but had to be made perfect:

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek

All these biblical passages show beyond any doubt whatsoever that jesus is not and never has been god.

Better luck with your next belief.
 
Ophiolite said:
Point 1: Obviously your post was light hearted, but not all know the origin of the expression 'just a tad', so I communicated it.
Point 2: In your post you state "The early church fathers (i.e. Romans) made it up closer to 400 AD". Two posts earlier I have clearly stated that " the concept of the Trinity was not introduced until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD". Either you failed to read that post, or ......?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Read it, but don't quite agree with it. The Council of Nicea took place in 325 AD, but the only thing they established at that time was the "Nicene Creed." The trinity was made-up later.

The Nicean Council formulated the Nicene Creed, which mentioned a belief of the trinity, but they did not invent the trinity at that time.

Arias was a priest at the time who did not believe in the idea of a trinity. The Council of Nicea condemned the beliefs of Arias and wrote a draft copy of the famous creed that proclaims that Jesus the Son was the same as the father, as in "one in being with the father."

The Council didn't invent the idea of the trinity that the father, son and holy spirit were one-in-three. The idea of the trinity was around in earlier writings prior to the Council of Nicea.

Actually, when the Council met, they condemned Arius to heresy for his concept of the trinity (even though it had been around since the late first century, but that's what church councils did in those days). Eventually, they found Arius' idea of the trinity was probably a good thing for the church to believe in, but he was probably dead by then by the hand of the early church fathers, but that's how it worked.
 
sandy: The word 'trinity' has nothing to do with the combination of Tri and Unity. It has roots in Latin "trinitas", derived from "trinus" (trine). Trine itself means threefold or triple...if you have a source for this "Tri and Unity" business, please post.

At any rate, I watched the debate Rational Responders v The Way of the Master a few weeks ago. Kirk and Ray behaved so much like victims of hypnosis, it was frightening. Worse again, Ray Comfort (who else thinks that is a pseudonym right? 'Comfort' my a$$), used so many convoluted arguments and employed many many fallacies; and uses them to fuel the mass hypnosis he has fallen victim to.

It should be noted that The Way of the Master sells a lot of religious quirks at quite unreasonable prices.
 
Enterprise-D said:
sandy: The word 'trinity' has nothing to do with the combination of Tri and Unity. It has roots in Latin "trinitas", derived from "trinus" (trine). Trine itself means threefold or triple...if you have a source for this "Tri and Unity" business, please post.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Thank you for pointing this error out to sandy. I would have done so, but my chronic irritation with her "politically incorrect hottiness" would have surely gotten me banned.
 
Lol no problemo M*W

The error struck me as akin to one Ray Comfort uses...sandy seemed to have come to an epiphany, noting the similarity between "trinity" and "tri + unity" which spurred her onto her own conclusion.

Ray Comfort uses a banana argument, noting how it's peel is easy to remove, how it has five "walls" seemingly designed for the human hand. Therefore, Comfort says, god exists. What he does not know however, due to his lack of education, is that the modern banana was cultivated from a much harsher fruit that had no (a)peel :p and no geometric coincidences. Comfort is right only in that the banana was designed, but the designers were hardly omnipotent, and probably knew even less of cosmic matters than we strive to.
 
Last edited:
SnakeLord said:
Sandy? Hmm.. maybe she got abducted by aliens or something.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't get our hopes up!!

Even if she did get kidnapped by aliens, the aliens would bring her back soon enough; because I'm sure they'd get tired of the incessant rambling of shit talking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top