Alabama judge loses. Thank God. [Archive] - TD Talk(Formally Dumb Laws)

DEAD ZONE

August 24th, 2003, 10:19 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tigsnort
W1che's right. But the fact is we can't be erecting huge Christian monuments (or Islamic for that matter) on public or government property. It goes against the spirit of a basic American tenet (seperation of church & state); this is pretty much agreed on by the overwhelming majority of reasonable people.

I agree though, that a legal basis for preventing such monuments is iffy, and something needs to be done about it, like a federal law or constitutional amendment--just to put an end to the insanity once and for all. [/QUOTE
No it is not tig. Its only force on the majority by judicial activists that have no clue about what that phrase even means or represents.
You have to explain the Christian requirements for holding public office and the other state initiated religious doings. Like Jefferson;
On december 3, 1803 Jefferson recommended that congress pass a treat with the kaskaskia Indians. The treaty included support for a catholic missionary, to be paid $100 from the treasury. Similar treaties were made with the Wyandotte and Cherokee. He extended 3 times an act of congress in which special lands were designated:
"For the sole use of Christian Indians and the maravian bretheren missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity."

It clearly does not mean what you leftist’s activist say it does. Its simple judicial activism by fiat of the "living document" religion that has been established {see w1 definition you agreed with}.

One can easily take this Jefferson phrase and ask, JUST WHAT SECT IS BEING ESTABLISHED?

In the catalog he had written, listing all the books in his library, Jefferson wrote on the title page;"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another..."

So which religion is being established here?

Jefferson declared that: religion is: "Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet by our experience to be its best support."[Stephen k mcdowell and mark a. beliles;"Americas` providential history"p.148]

Compatible does not mean founded on any religion {a theocracy as in Iran}.It also does not mean that religion played no role, nor that Christian principles were not the source or influence.

The separation has to do with forcing one sect on everyone. Like the Church of England. It so historically obvious as to be almost mute to need to point it out.

Its a state isue. The fed had no business even stepping in at any time nore should it have been apealed to the S.C.

kontulib

August 24th, 2003, 10:52 AM

I don´t care is someone Christian, Jew, Moslem or whatever, so long when those people don´t ring my doorbell, force me go to church or other religious place or force me to swear for the name of God (or Allah or whatever) :smash

Everyone can thrust what he/she wants if it doesn´t bother me!

DEAD ZONE

August 24th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by kontulib
I don´t care is someone Christian, Jew, Moslem or whatever, so long when those people don´t ring my doorbell, force me go to church or other religious place or force me to swear for the name of God (or Allah or whatever) :smash

Everyone can thrust what he/she wants if it doesn´t bother me! Jefferson like the other founders felt that religion was between a man and his Good.

..."our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them {in a social compact}. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This establishes Jesus as God, assuming that the Word is referring to Jesus. John 1:14 (ESV)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. This refers to Christ's incarnation. The Word is flesh. The Word is God. The syllogistic is complete in "Christ is God."
Now, knowing theat the Father is God it is a natural step to see that whereas the Son and the Father are God and equal (Philip. 2:6 (ESV)who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped) we see a clear plurality in the God. But we must not lose sight of the fact that God is one.

Romans 9
5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Keep in mind that thomas called jesus The one and only God and jesus blessed him for it. We would have to beleive jesus blesed blasphemy if we follow your logic.

Greek is a very inflected language so one size doesn't fit all, nominitive for nouns, present active indicative first singular for verbs .there are different kinds of nouns in Greek, indicated by their endings, such as nominitive, genative, ablative, dative, locative, instrumental and vocative which help to identify how the word should sit in the sentence and with what prepositions, etc.so on so forth.

Ateo

August 24th, 2003, 04:48 PM

Some other founding father quotes on religion.
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- Thomas Jefferson
to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

Thomas Jefferson: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

James Madison: "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Benjamin Franklin: When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-- letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

August 24th, 2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
No sir. Different. It’s not the name but the person put into the name. You might want to learn a small bit of theology there King before commenting on something.
Think about it. 3 prophets and religions that are all opposed to each other? Come on. How can they possibly be from the same entity? Ever read the holy books? I have all 3.
It is from the Jews. Heard anyone complaining that the religion being established is Judaism? Don’t you find it odd that a supposed Christian would want to do that? Is it not odd that its Christianity being thrown out as being "established hear"?

I am afraid that King Solomon is right and you are wrong. The fact that Christianity was BORN out of Judaism and the fact that they still use the Old Testament as part of their bible is proof that they are from the same GOD. If you look further into the Old Testament follow the path of the sons of Abraham (the founder of the Hebrew race). It is here that you will find the division of the hebrew families, one remaining Jewish and the other forming the Islam religion. Again, they were born out of the same God.

Maybe if you used your Holy books to read instead of using them to sit up high enough to reach your mommies keyboard you would know these things that I say. It is quite evident from your spelling errors that you are ignorant of religion or at the very least uneducated and therefore should not be taken seriously by anyone searching for the truth.

DustyBottoms

August 25th, 2003, 03:18 AM

Chew on this for awhile.......

ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR
In God I Trust
Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama.

BY ROY S. MOORE
Monday, August 25, 2003 12:01 a.m.

MONTGOMERY, Ala.--The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written--not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.

One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.

Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.
Mr. Moore is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Ateo

August 25th, 2003, 03:31 AM

Acknowledging God is one thing. Installing a gigantic Christian monument on gov't property is another entirely...

w1che

August 25th, 2003, 07:58 AM

If installing this gigantic Christian momument on state property is not a violation of any federal law..(if it is tell me what law) then what right does a federal judge have to tell him he must remove it?

Someday if we ever get conservative judges in power on the high court & they start making up their own constitution while making law from the bench.. You libs will be singing another tune.. That's why we the people at some point soon must demand that judge's stick to what the laws say & not what they want it to say. Otherwise we are not a nation of laws but a nation of whatever a judge says on any given day..

DEAD ZONE

August 25th, 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort
Some other founding father quotes on religion.

Jefferson hated the established christian orthodoxy.He felt it had been corrupted{and the Bible} by platonism.Jefferson was a diest Christian{modern unitarian if you will}.He denied the miricals of the Bible and the trinity.However he did not detest christianity,only what he belived were coruptions in it{i.e. miricals,magic and false doctrines about God}.He did detest a religion running the state .Just as most christian i know do as well.That formula has always lead to tyranny and the perverting of the principles of Christ for power.This is what the founders saw and had to live with ,with European monarchy and religion running the state.That is the perspective that needs to be taken when looking at these statements of the founders.Running the state is not,and was never entended to be,the churches job.If you read your Bile,that priveledge is reserved for Christ at his second coming.Not the church.So if Judge Moore thinks the Bible should be the law of the land[loke the islamic law states}, he is sadly mistaken. We are not a theocracy.

However,the point ofargument post was christian principles,not christian doctrin.
Diests beleifs,such as jefferson,paine, and a few others,were fundamentally
compatible with christianity in there views of law and government.

some of jeffersons writings:

Jefferson,april 21, 1803 wrote to benjamin Rush:
"My views... are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection,and very different
from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who no nothing of my opinions.To the corruptions of christianity I am,indeed,opposed;but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.I am a christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others..."

March 23, 1801 jefferson wrote to Moses Robinson:
"The christian religion,when divested of the rags in which they[the clergy] have enveloped it,and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor,is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty,science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

November 4, 1820,jefferson wrote to Jared Sparks;"I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by himself,to be the most pure,benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man..."

In the catalog he had written,listing all the books in his library,Jefferson
wrote on the title page;
"I am for freedom of religion,and against all maneuvers to bring about a
legal ascendancy of one sect over another..."

He stated;
"A more beautiful or precious morsole of ethics i have never seen;it is a document in proof that I am a christian;that is to say,a disciple of the
doctrine of jesus."
Again he states:
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came
from his lips,the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.I have
always said,i always will say,that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens,better fathers,and better husbands.

1.The doctrines of jesus are simple and tend to the happiness of man
2.There is only one God ,and he is all perfect .
3.There is a future state of rewards and punishment.
4.To love God with all the heart and thy neighbor as thyself is the sum of all.These are the great points on which to reform the religion of the jews.

No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advance towards rational Christianity,and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed from His lips,the whole world would at this day be Christian....had there never been a commentator there never would have been an infidel.I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator,and ,i hope,to the pure doctrines of Jesus also."

Jefferson declared that: religion is:
"Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet by our experience to be its best support."[Stephen k mcdowell and mark a.
beliles;"Americas` providential history"p.148]

Compatible does not mean founded on any religion{a theocracy as in iran}.It also does not mean that religion played no role ,nor that christian principles were not the source or influence.

DEAD ZONE

August 25th, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Hiram

I am afraid that King Solomon is right and you are wrong. The fact that Christianity was BORN out of Judaism and the fact that they still use the Old Testament as part of their bible is proof that they are from the same GOD. If you look further into the Old Testament follow the path of the sons of Abraham (the founder of the Hebrew race). It is here that you will find the division of the hebrew families, one remaining Jewish and the other forming the Islam religion. Again, they were born out of the same God.

Maybe if you used your Holy books to read instead of using them to sit up high enough to reach your mommies keyboard you would know these things that I say. It is quite evident from your spelling errors that you are ignorant of religion or at the very least uneducated and therefore should not be taken seriously by anyone searching for the truth.

Sorry but it is you who are wrong. Superficial similarities do not make them the same. Islam believes in one God in one person. Christian orthodoxy does not. One God in 3 person. How is that the same?

The Jews believe in one God and not three person. Messianic Jews believe in one God three persons. How are these the same?

Muslims believe Jesus to be just a man and a prophet. Christians believe him to be God, the Jews neither, a false prophet. How are these the same? The list could go on and on dealing with sin, redemption salvation yada yada yada. You are talking genetic ancestry. I am talking religious belief and who they say God is. Not the same thing. Just because they are brothers does not mean they worship the same God.

And as for you cheap shot. Its evident you put superficial appeal over substance. I suggest you actually get the definition of who god is from these groups and then ask them what the other thinks they are. You will be surprised. For that matter, just ask some groups like Mormons, Jehovah witness, Catholics, orthodox and Unitarians.

Why waist spell check on those that have no interest in the substance over the superficial. You under stood what was said but were far more interested in how it looked. :rolleyes:

DEAD ZONE

August 25th, 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort
Acknowledging God is one thing. Installing a gigantic Christian monument on gov't property is another entirely...

The commandments are Jewish .they can be found in other religions just in different form. How are they suddenly Only Christian property? I don’t recall any copy rights?

Ateo

August 25th, 2003, 09:35 PM

I see nothing wrong with acknowledging God in the courtroom as long as it's done in an inclusive way. It IS possible to do without bringing a specific religion into it. If a judge is so filled with the holy spirit that he can't help but to fill his courtroom with little Jesus bobbleheads and ten commandment icons, then while he may be fit to be a preacher, he ain't fit to be a judge in a court of law.

America was founded on religious inclusiveness. It's an intrinsic part of our identity. Moore can't see, or just doesn't respect that.

aclu14

August 25th, 2003, 10:10 PM

I wonder if they'd let me swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on a Book of Shadows....

Ateo

August 25th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Is the courtroom testimony of an Islamic fundamentalist, Buddhist, or an atheist who had been sworn in on the bible questionable? They aren't Christians, therefore their allegiance isn't to a Christian God.

Do we go back and throw all that testimony out?

aclu14

August 25th, 2003, 10:48 PM

Why not? :confused :rolleyes:

w1che

August 26th, 2003, 12:11 AM

Moore said he was doing what he is because this was not a federal question because there is no federal law that says he can't have the ten commandments in the AL. court house. I agree.. One must look at the state constitution and he says it supports what he is doing... Each state should decide what they want to do in this area without a constitutional federal law to over rides the states...

DEAD ZONE

August 26th, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
I see nothing wrong with acknowledging God in the courtroom as long as it's done in an inclusive way. It IS possible to do without bringing a specific religion into it. If a judge is so filled with the holy spirit that he can't help but to fill his courtroom with little Jesus bobbleheads and ten commandment icons, then while he may be fit to be a preacher, he ain't fit to be a judge in a court of law.

America was founded on religious inclusiveness. It's an intrinsic part of our identity. Moore can't see, or just doesn't respect that. why not. If he does not let that make his rullings a theocracy based set of laws? Its being done everyday. Why cant he or a muslim for that matter if the constitution of that state rules? We were founded on freedom and independant choice,not a mandatory exclussion from religious expression.

DEAD ZONE

August 26th, 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by aclu14
I wonder if they'd let me swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on a Book of Shadows.... why not. If what youu swear to is what you give the authority to .Athiest swearing to God is stupid.

DEAD ZONE

August 26th, 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
Is the courtroom testimony of an Islamic fundamentalist, Buddhist, or an atheist who had been sworn in on the bible questionable? They aren't Christians, therefore their allegiance isn't to a Christian God.

Do we go back and throw all that testimony out?

That is a good point. Swear to what they give the authority. That does not take away from the base foundation of our laws. I cant beleive it tig. On that we seem to agree.:eek:

Ateo

August 26th, 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

I cant beleive it tig. On that we seem to agree.:eek:
There's hope after all. :) :wink

They really should throw the bible out, and make the swearing in more generic. And keep all religion-specific items, plaques, monoliths, statues, whatever, out of the court.

The constitution demands that our justice system be fair to the accused. If a Christian defendant had to sit through his trial staring at a giant Star Of David hung on the wall we'd be hearing a very different tune, wouldn't we?

DEAD ZONE

August 26th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort

There's hope after all. :) :wink

The constitution demands that our justice system be fair to the accused. If a Christian defendant had to sit through his trial staring at a giant Star Of David hung on the wall we'd be hearing a very different tune, wouldn't we?

No we would not. I know many christians that wear star of david pendants.
Maybe you should have picked the crescent.

:wink

aclu14

August 27th, 2003, 12:19 AM

I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me....Isis. :smash

DEAD ZONE

August 27th, 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by aclu14
I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me....Isis. :smash
What ever floats your boat.

How about Elvis?

aclu14

August 27th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Well, isn't he The King? :confused

DEAD ZONE

August 28th, 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by aclu14
Well, isn't he The King? :confused He is god to some.

AWPrime

August 30th, 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

Sorry but it is you who are wrong. Superficial similarities do not make them the same. Islam believes in one God in one person. Christian orthodoxy does not. One God in 3 person. How is that the same?

It's my opinion that it's the same god but viewed in different ways. This can be seen even among Christians, for the worship the same god and may view him in different ways.

ps. Trinity was added only after christianity became the roman state religion.

DEAD ZONE

August 31st, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

It's my opinion that it's the same god but viewed in different ways. This can be seen even among Christians, for the worship the same god and may view him in different ways.

ps. Trinity was added only after christianity became the roman state religion.

Your p.s. is wrong for starters. It was listed in definite terms at that time, not added. It was Arius who introduced as normal the denial of the trinity and thus sprang the need to set orthodoxy down in writing.
At Nicene, the deity of Christ as one with the Father was the argument. The third person was not mentioned or put down in writing later not because it was invented then but because there was until then no need. It was as plain as the nose on their faces so why bother. The trinity was finalized in writing at Constantinople.
You don’t date an idea by its final terminology.
A simple look at the opposing beliefs makes it clear, they are not the same. Even "Christian" Gods clearly are not depending on the essence poured into them.

DustyBottoms

September 1st, 2003, 11:08 PM

Did you see in the news last week where the A C L U doesn't want any crosses on Federal Property?

w1che

September 2nd, 2003, 01:20 AM

It won't be long before they will all come down... That's the way the world is going & it will only get worse. So hold on to your hat for the down hill ride..:rolleyes:

RubberDucky

September 2nd, 2003, 01:44 PM

you say that like its a bad thing...

Ateo

September 5th, 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Did you see in the news last week where the A C L U doesn't want any crosses on Federal Property?
Hmm, gee, no I didn't.

Care to provide a link?

PS - DB, what cemetery is that in your uploaded image? (just curious)

DustyBottoms

September 8th, 2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort

Hmm, gee, no I didn't.

Care to provide a link?

PS - DB, what cemetery is that in your uploaded image? (just curious)

I do not know - it was emailed to me.

I just searched for "crosses - united states - cemetary"

Arlington came up as well as others. The crosses are mostly in the UK and France.

Here is another one.

Children's Cemetery Memorial and graves at the Minnesota State Public School for Dependent and Neglected Children. There are 151 named crosses of the 198 children who rest in the cemetery, and other photo clip art.

DustyBottoms

September 8th, 2003, 01:19 AM

And another. (Arlington National Cemetary)

Let me know if you want some more.

AWPrime

September 8th, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

The trinity was finalized in writing at Constantinople.

I don't agree.

The trinity was nothing more than a way to make it more populair among the pagans (trinity was very normal among them) it was also meant to make Jesus divine (but the guy was just a profet).

You reallize how much is stolen from pagans if you try to find any holiday that is purely Christian.

DEAD ZONE

September 8th, 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

I don't agree.

The trinity was nothing more than a way to make it more populair among the pagans (trinity was very normal among them) it was also meant to make Jesus divine (but the guy was just a profet).

You reallize how much is stolen from pagans if you try to find any holiday that is purely Christian. You are wrong. No pagan sect had a trinity as defined in Christian circles. Same word defined differently. A triad and trinity is not the same thing and the idea of polytheism was detested even then. Men went to their deaths on that creed. Even roman pagan historians shortly after Jesus death described the worship of Jesus by Christians as that of a God.
The holidays were set on pagan ones to try and arrest them from the pagans. Some of those traditions were kept to try and “Christianize” them. That is a poor argument for pagan influences as far as the trinity goes. These holidays were not even around when the trinity was put down in specific definition. AW.

You are confusing the origin of a doctrine with its later formation. It was finalized due to pagan belief entering; by such as arias and the Gnostic sect. the ancient world was polytheistic. The trinity is not. In order to defend the doctrine from early heretics, that doctrine had to already have existed. Your apriori assumption is the same fallacious one made about the idea of the messiah until the Dead Sea scrolls proved that one wrong as well.

Actually, the ideas of Plato and other pagans can be traced to those denying the trinity easily.

AWPrime

September 9th, 2003, 07:07 AM

Come on, even Hell was a rip-off.

And if you know the bible you would know that trinity doesn't fit in.

DEAD ZONE

September 9th, 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Come on, even Hell was a rip-off.

And if you know the bible you would know that trinity doesn't fit in. not hardly. And I know it better than you think. Check your original greek, hebrew language, culture and understanddings and you get a good picture .You have not apparently.

Want to get into Logos theology, Nominative references of theos, definite and indefinite articles ,syntax and the dreaded amen, lego humin, prin Abraam genesthai, ego eimi

Been a long long time since I dug into that stuff.

Ateo

November 13th, 2003, 03:18 PM

buh-bye.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20031113/ts_nm/religion_alabama_moore_dc_1MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Reuters) - The Alabama chief justice whose refusal to obey a U.S. order to move a Ten Commandments monument fueled a national debate over the place of God in public life was stripped of his office by a state judicial panel on Thursday.

DEAD ZONE

November 14th, 2003, 12:18 PM

HELLOW.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, has ruled a Ten Commandments monument on the state Capitol grounds does not violate the U.S. Constitution by establishing a state-sponsored religion.

Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man, had sued, claimed the monument was a government endorsement of Judeo-Christian values.

In its ruling, the appeals panel agreed with the state, which argued the Ten Commandments are historical in nature because they provide a foundation for Western law.

"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture," Attorney General Greg Abbott, who defended the Texas monument, told the Associated Press today. "The Texas monument has stood for over 40 years, and the court's decision affirms that the monument is entirely consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution."

Some common sense at last for both sides

aclu14

November 14th, 2003, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
You are wrong. No pagan sect had a trinity as defined in Christian circles. Same word defined differently. A triad and trinity is not the same thing and the idea of polytheism was detested even then. Men went to their deaths on that creed. Even roman pagan historians shortly after Jesus death described the worship of Jesus by Christians as that of a God.
The holidays were set on pagan ones to try and arrest them from the pagans. Some of those traditions were kept to try and “Christianize” them. That is a poor argument for pagan influences as far as the trinity goes. These holidays were not even around when the trinity was put down in specific definition. AW.

You are confusing the origin of a doctrine with its later formation. It was finalized due to pagan belief entering; by such as arias and the Gnostic sect. the ancient world was polytheistic. The trinity is not. In order to defend the doctrine from early heretics, that doctrine had to already have existed. Your apriori assumption is the same fallacious one made about the idea of the messiah until the Dead Sea scrolls proved that one wrong as well.

Actually, the ideas of Plato and other pagans can be traced to those denying the trinity easily.

*waves* Hello! Pagan here! :wave

Maid, Mother, Crone. That's our 'trinity,' in the form of any three goddesses who fit the profile. Or Isis, as all three. Easter? Pagan Eostre. Christmas? Yule. Candlemas? Imbolc. Midsummer? Beltaine. You name 'em, we started 'em back in the day.

DEAD ZONE

November 15th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by aclu14

*waves* Hello! Pagan here! :wave

Maid, Mother, Crone. That's our 'trinity,' in the form of any three goddesses who fit the profile. Or Isis, as all three. Easter? Pagan Eostre. Christmas? Yule. Candlemas? Imbolc. Midsummer? Beltaine. You name 'em, we started 'em back in the day. LOL

Learn the difference between a trinity and a triad. :wave :lol

weldordave

November 15th, 2003, 04:13 AM

Christians can't even agree if the trinity is one or three. Isn't that why there is Roman hats and Eastern Orthodox onions?

DEAD ZONE

November 15th, 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by weldordave
Christians can't even agree if the trinity is one or three. Isn't that why there is Roman hats and Eastern Orthodox onions? No sir. That schism has nothing to do with the definition of the essence of the trinity, only its wording. The main disagreement there stems from the pope as authority and other doctrines.
There is truth to the idea that many don’t understand its definition. They waver between modelism and tritheism, both of which were heresy fought early on in the church. I think this is where welders idea came from. In the east, it was primarily a modelism problem and in the west, the main one fought was a tritheism or triad set up. Naturally one side wants to use words that define the trinity to fight one heresy more than the other. At the council the west thought the eastern definition was to loose and gave aid to tritheism . The east felt the west’s definition was to close to and aided modelism . The essence was agreed upon and still is by both sides to my knowledge.

AWPrime

November 15th, 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
"The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture,"

More like the undermining of development.

Your ever wondered why de dark ages started when christianity got rid of all the competitors in Europe?

w1che

November 15th, 2003, 03:14 PM

It's fun to see people posting about religion when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.. You guys should stick to posting about the weather or something simple...:lol :lol

DEAD ZONE

November 15th, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

More like the undermining of development.

Your ever wondered why de dark ages started when christianity got rid of all the competitors in Europe? Because the Roman Empire fell, that’s why. Blaming religion on that is asinine.

W1, then try posting instead of hoping folks will believe you really have a clue.

AWPrime

November 16th, 2003, 05:02 AM

Blaming the dark ages upon the fall of the Roman Empire is weird.

The dark ages lasted about a thousand years, when a empire falls the recovery shouldn't take so long.

DEAD ZONE

November 16th, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Blaming the dark ages upon the fall of the Roman Empire is weird.

The dark ages lasted about a thousand years, when a empire falls the recovery shouldn't take so long. That’s history. It was and is taught from grade school up into college. Every teacher I had taught it and I still have my college notes from the last one .Its not weird at all.

It will under the futile lord system. When the crusaders returned with all those desired goodies, things began to stir.

p.s. Yes I went to college for a year and a half. Surprise surprise. Passed the basics.

Phreakmeister

November 20th, 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
No it is not the same God.Just look at the differing theology and persons and that is clear.

It is, DZ. Islam, judaism and christianity are different ways to worship one and the same deity. The Quran explicitly describes and islam explicitly worships Ibrahim (Abraham), Yusuf (Joseph), Ishaq (Issac, Yitzhak in Hebrew), Yaqub (Jacob), Ismail (Ishmael), Nuh (Noah), Harun (Aaron), Adam (Adam), Yunas (Jonah), Dawoud (David), Iliyas (Elias), Ayub (Job), Lut (Lot), Al-Yas (Elisha), Musa (Moses), Zakariya (Zachariya), Sulaiman (Solomon), Uzair (Ezra), Yahya (John the Baptist) and last but not definitely not least Issa (Jesus Christ). Islam is another way to worship the God of christianity and the God of judaism. Or, as the Quran calls judaism and christianity, "the people of the Book."

DEAD ZONE

November 20th, 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

It is, DZ. Islam, judaism and christianity are different ways to worship one and the same deity. The Quran explicitly describes and islam explicitly worships Ibrahim (Abraham), Yusuf (Joseph), Ishaq (Issac, Yitzhak in Hebrew), Yaqub (Jacob), Ismail (Ishmael), Nuh (Noah), Harun (Aaron), Adam (Adam), Yunas (Jonah), Dawoud (David), Iliyas (Elias), Ayub (Job), Lut (Lot), Al-Yas (Elisha), Musa (Moses), Zakariya (Zachariya), Sulaiman (Solomon), Uzair (Ezra), Yahya (John the Baptist) and last but not definitely not least Issa (Jesus Christ). Islam is another way to worship the God of christianity and the God of judaism. Or, as the Quran calls judaism and christianity, "the people of the Book." Again.Sorry but it is you who are wrong. Superficial similarities do not make them the same. Islam believes in one God in one person. Christian orthodoxy does not. One God in 3 person. How is that the same?

The Jews believe in one God and not three person. Messianic Jews believe in one God three persons. How are these the same?

Muslims believe Jesus to be just a man and a prophet. Christians believe him to be God, the Jews neither, a false prophet. How are these the same? The list could go on and on dealing with sin, redemption salvation yada yada yada. You are talking genetic ancestry. I am talking religious belief and who they say God is. Not the same thing. Just because they are brothers does not mean they worship the same God.

Just because they use similar persons in history does not mean the diety is the same. And they dont worship those prophets either.

They are defined as completely different intities.

Allah is the only true God and there is no such thing or God as a blaphemous "Trinity".

Phreakmeister

November 23rd, 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Christian orthodoxy does not. One God in 3 person.

A small lesson in christianity: christian orthodoxy doesn't mention the Trinity. Allow me to prove my statement. The words Trinity, triune, Jehovah-Jesus, God-man, are not in the Scriptures. The Bible doesn't mention God the Son, but always the Son of God. The Bible doesn't mention God the Holy Spirit, but always the spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. The expressions first person, second person, third person, three persons, are not found. The very words that are necessary to express the notion of a Trinity are not in the Scriptures.
The doctrine of the sole divinity of the Father is mentioned explicitly. There are three texts which speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit in formal connection, and neither of these declares them to be three equal persons in the Divinity.
I John 5:7 says: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." This verse was not written by John, but has been added to this epistle since his day. John wrote in Greek; but the old manuscripts of the Greek New Testament do not contain it. It is found only in the Latin.
Matthew 28:19 says: "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Here the three are placed in connection. Does it say that the three are three persons? Does it refer to the three as constituting one God? Does it say that each is God? Does it call the three equal? Does it say they are all to be worshipped? It doesn't declare them to be three persons. It doesn't declare them to be equal to each other. It doesn't declare each to be God. It doesn't declare each to be worshipped. It therefore doesn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity.
II Corinthians 13:14 says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." This doesn't declare each to be God. This doesn't declare all to be equal. This doesn't declare that all are to be worshipped. This doesn't declare that all constitute one. Therefore it does not teach the Trinity. On the contrary, it speaks of Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. These three are treated as seperate entities.
The Bible even gives evidence against the Trinity. John 17:3 says: "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Mark 13:32 says: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son; but the Father." The Son (Jesus Christ) and the Father (God) are explicitly mentioned as two separate "persons." The Son cannot know what the Father knows. I Timothy 2:5 says: "There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Here, Jesus is explicitly referred to as Mediator between God and men. The Bible explicitly calls Jesus "the man." I Corinthians 8:6 says: "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we in Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him." This text declares that Jesus is our Lord, but that the Father only is our God. Ephesians 4:5-6 says: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." The Lord is "separated" from the Father (God). The Bible explicitly makes a distinction between the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus Christ). The Bible explicitly calls God the only God.
Jesus himself made several statements that corrobate the previous denial of the Trinity. "I came not to do mine own will." "I can of myself do nothing." "The Son can do nothing of himself." "The Father that is in me, he doeth the works." Jesus Christ called himself "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent." He said "I am come in my Father's name." And after his resurrection he said "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." The Apostles have said about Jesus: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him," "Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour," "at the right hand of God exalted," "made both Lord and Christ." Because of His obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name."
In the end Jesus shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all." Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God." Martha said: "I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God;" John said: "These [the Gospel] are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ... Whoso believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God ... He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God [shall overcome the world]." What was the preaching of the Apostles? Look through the book of Acts, and you will find the burden of it to be, "Reasoning from the Scriptures and testifying, that Jesus is the Christ." Now is it possible, that, in all which is thus said of the necessity and value of faith in Jesus, when believers were to be received into the church and their immortal interests were depending -- is it possible that they should not have been required to believe him the Almighty God, if he were so? Would he and the Apostles have so solemnly assured them that faith in him as the Son of God was sufficient, if in truth he had been the very God?

(I can go on for a long time, but I don't have the time for that.)

Muslims believe Jesus to be just a man and a prophet. Christians believe him to be God, the Jews neither, a false prophet. How are these the same? The list could go on and on dealing with sin, redemption salvation yada yada yada. You are talking genetic ancestry. I am talking religious belief and who they say God is. Not the same thing. Just because they are brothers does not mean they worship the same God.

These are all different ways of worshipping, interpreting and viewing the same deity. The simple reality is that Allah is the Arab word for what is called JHWH (the unspeakable tetragrammaton) in Hebrew and God in English. Islam, judaism and christianity share the same roots and know the same prophets. You say that there are differences in the approach towards the prophets. To jews, Jesus is a false prophet. To christians, Jesus is the prophet. To muslims, Jesus is but one of many prophets. This is indeed true. This, however, does not make islam, christianity and judaism three different religions. I'd like to point out to you that catholicism and protestantism differ from one another in the way they view Mary. For catholicism, Mary's status is below Jesus' status, but above the status of the saints. Some regard Mary as co-redemptrix with Jesus. For protestantism, Mary plays a minor role. Would this make protestantism and catholicism different religions as well?

DEAD ZONE

November 23rd, 2003, 10:37 PM

For starters, you do know the bible was not written in English or with English grammar rules right? This renders you word order defense worthless. The order of words is irrelevant. The terms meaning in ancient orient thought and culture is what counts. What they understood them to mean and how they used them. Jesus says he and the Father are one. When asked by the Jewish leaders if he was the son of God, he said yes. They then accused him of blasphemy. WHY/ because they {unlike you} understood the term to mean he was God. Equal in every way to God.
Se john 19:7 also.
The term son of did not always mean the literal son of someone. It was used often to refer to of the order or nature of since they were monotheists when he said he was the son of God he was saying I am God.

1kings 20:35 Sons of the prophets means of the order or nature of the prophets
Nehemiah 12;28 sons of the singers means of the order of the singers Sons of disobedience is used in Ephesians 2:2 referring to having a disobedient nature. So on and so forth.

Col. 2:9 and Heb 1:2 makes clear that the son of God poses the nature completely and fully thus, since they are monotjhi9ests, Jesus is God. He said I and the Father are one. John 1:1 says he is God. The Spirit of god is used many times sand given the same attributes as God. You see phreak, in the Greek; the definite article carries much more emphasis than in English. It designates the one and only. So when it’s used it refers only to the one and only God. It’s used of Jesus and the Spirit. You can’t use the inability of the English language to try and pull a word order game. I have a book shelve full of these books and I know what you are trying to pull here. To those that don’t know it looks good. To those that have looked at the original language, it’s laughable.

Let’s see just how word order runs in the ancient text. Let’s use Luke 12:26
Literal. Then if you are not able to do even {the} least, why are you anxious about the rest.

The original as best as can be done in English;

If then not the least you are able, why about the rest are you anxious

Word order in English is irrelevant Phreak. What matters is whether the definite Greek article is used and it is. There are different words for God. theos and theon. Depending on syntax, article, grammar cultural use and context, these can be translated exactly as you say has not been done. there is no need for your specific word order either in English or in the original .Jesus is called God with the article in john20:28.I believe Thomas is very clear when he says Jesus is God, the one and only{article used}.titus2:13 peter1:1 1john 5:20.All use the definite article and identify him as God.

Mathew28:19 says to baptize in all 3 names. There are clearly 3 here and given equal glory.
Revelations 4:10 says that Jesus and the father receive the same worship.rev5:11-14 where Jesus alone is being worshiped. That’s reserved only for God. Exodus 34:14 math 4:10 Hebrew 1:6 has Jesus worshipped. When the entity is given Gods attributes and equated with God, he is God and individually naming is not needed when called to worship. All 3 are God and since you are to worship God that’s what you do.Romans8:27 says the father and Spirit know each others mind. Since no angel or being can be given the attributes of God, the spirit can only be God. Since blasphemy can only be done against God and the spirit can be blasphemed, what is the spirit?

God says he will share his glory with no one and he alone is to be worshiped in the bible yet all three do share the glory and are worshiped as God. The one and only definite article. Jesus says whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. That carries more weight than blasphemy against the Father and Christ. For some one that is not God, the one and only to be worshiped He sure caries a lot of weight. It’s clear that the Spirit is an entity. A person. He’s given the same attributes as God, associated with God and in fact genesis 1 has Him at the creation creating which only God did according to the bible. The spirit has mind, a will emotions he testifies he issues commands and intercedes. He can be obeyed, lied to, blasphemed grieved and is sent.1john 5:6-8 speaks of the three and it was added. But Mathew 28 above covers it. In ancient orient speak; to do something in ones name ment they carried all the authority of that name. To baptize in the fathers name, the sons name and the spirits name would be seen as definite blasphemy because only god had that kind of authority. Only God had that right. Only God was to be given that position and he shares his glory with no one Isaiah 42:8.John 14-16 speaks of him as the other helper.

You used Jehovah in your defense. Since trinity is not in the bible and neither is Jehovah, does that not make a dent in that thinking?

Theocracy is not in the bible either but even you can’t deny the concept is clearly there. Rome had a type of theocracy as did Egypt and the Old Testament Jewish kingdoms.
The concepts are there sir. Whether the specific word we use is or is not is clearly irrelevant and a smoke and mirrors tactic.

Clearly by attributing attributes reserved for God, terms reserved for god ad worship and glory that’s reserved for god to all three they are all three God. Simply because it’s not done how you want it or to your liking or in your cultural way hardly make your case.

This is beside the point really. You said that all 3 religions worshipped the same god. You just help me prove you wrong by your own post. The Christians do believe these things of the trinity and the others do not. The Jews believe God as one entity with attributes that are in direct conflict with Islam. That is a fact and they cannot be melded.

You need to look at the bible as a whole phreak not just cherry pick. The three are separate and one. That’s the very idea of the trinity. One what 3 who’s. The verses I gave and could fill this board with do attribute God hood to all three.

John 17:3 this is not evidence against the trinity but for it.
I agree they are two different persons and the same god. One what 3 who’s. Kind of like body souls and spirit or ice liquid and water vapor. The bible repeated says that a personal relationship with Christ is the only way to salvation. John 14:6.I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me. There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. Acts 4:12John3;16 4:42 6:33 are clear that Jesus is the only way to salvation yet God alone is the way of salvation and the giver. AS mentioned john 1:1{and other passages} calls Jesus God, Now in both grammar and context john17:3 is not intended to contrast the father and son but rather the nature of the one true God in reference to false gods. The Greek word for true here carries the meaning of real or genuine .This Jesus here is simply saying the father is the only real God as opposed to the many false Gods. This does not take away from Christ deity at all in context and infact his deity is firmly established already in john1:1 and 8:58 before as well as 20:28.
What you don’t understand is what the trinity is. The three persons are not separate parts of god but 3 personal distinctions within God each of whom is fully god person here is not used to refer to a separate individual being. They are 3 persons in that they are aware of the other, speak to the other and love and honor the other.
This passage says there is one true God and all others are false. Jesus is called god in 3 other placed in the sane book. If the Father is the only true god, and Jesus is called God and Thomas calls him God them he must be God. When he says here my God, it’s the same as when Thomas says Jesus is my God. As a man Jesus was required to worship God the same as any other man or he would be sinning. He was both God and man having both natures. In this passage Jesus is clearly saying that the only way to know God is to know him; see philip. 3;4-6 where Paul says knowing Christ is all that matters and all else is loss. Rather odd if he was merely a man or an angel. John 5:23 says all are to honor the son just as they do the Father. The bible contains many warnings against creature and idol worship. It is full of commands to love, worship, honor, praise, fear and serves Christ and warns against those that do not. We are warned that denying Christ is wrong since he is our owner and lord [jude4] how can this be unless he is God? The Bible never once warns against exalting Jesus no one is ever censured for honoring him.

Mark 13:32. Remember that Jesus is now incarnate and has 2 natures. Divine and human. the attributes of each are never attributed to each other but they are both attributed to him He was finite and infinite, weak and omnipotent increasing in knowledge yet and omniscient limited by human form to one place and time yet omnipresent He is here simply operating within his human nature. He had human attributes [luke4:2 john4:6 luke8:23 and divine ones john2:24 john1:48 john11]he operated under different natures at different times so cherry picking one verse as a proof will simply not work. In the big context we now look at mark and see he was simply operating in the human nature. He was asked a human question by humans for a time he would not give them. John2:25 show his omniscients. He cannot as a human know what the father does but he sure does in his devine nature.the persons of the trinity are seperate persons, not inteties. One what 3 who’s.

DEAD ZONE

November 23rd, 2003, 10:38 PM

I Timothy 2:5
Jesus must be human to be a mediator for humans and god as well. 2 natures are needed to make the bridge. This passage is a good trinity one actually. A mediator must represent both parties. If he was only God, he could not die. Only by taking on humanity with deity could the sacrifice be worth mans salvation. This is related to the Old Testament kinsman redeemer concept. It was a blood relations duty to buy another from slavery. Only a human could buy our release from sins captive grip. Hebrews 2:14-16 states how he had to take o humanity in order to redeem us. This in no way dictates he had to loose divinity or in anyway dictates how or when he could operate in that divinity. Hebrew 9:11-28 tells of his being fully God and how his death has infinite value because of it. The Old Testament reveals it’s only GOD who saves. Isaiah43:11 states there is no savior but God. Any claim to be savior is a claim to deity. Luke 2:11 calls Jesus savior as does john4:42.titus 2:13 state for us to await the glorious appearing of our great God and savior Jesus. Calling him god flat out and savior. All through Titus the term savior Jesus and God are used. He became flesh to mediate between us and God. This does not take away nor does it even hint of a loss of divine nature. Simply taking on a human one as well. It does not call him a man alone.

Corinthians 8:6

So we can conclude that because Jesus is Lord that the Father can’t possibly be Lord??? That’s what you are stuck with in that kind of reasoning. You and I both know they are called both in the Bible. You are using faulty logic here phreak .the use of a title for one person does not exclude it from the other. You need to look at all of scripture to make a call not just cherry pick one verse. The Father is called God is called Lord 1peter1:2 mathew11:25 and Jesus is called both God and Lord John20:28 and hebrews1:8 and Romans 10:9.Deut. 10:7 calls the Father Lord of Lords. Revelation 17:14 calls Jesus Lord of Lords. Jud 4 says there is only 1 Lord.
You are in gross error here.

Ephesians 4:5-6
Says: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." The Lord is "separated" from the Father (God). The father is separate from god.
You just killed your own argument. See above. Jesus is Lord. Only one Lord. There is no separation here simply titles and person distinctions within the God head. There is only one Father. There is only one Son. There is only one Spirit one baptism one Lord one faith One God. The previous verse says there is one body one Spirit. The church body is one made up of equal parts and many people. Read the context.v, .4-6 is actually the basis for the first Trinitarian creed.

The Bible explicitly calls God the only God. My point exactly. But who is God. I think I made my points clear on who he is.

"I came not to do mine own will." "I can of myself do nothing." "The Son can do nothing of himself." "The Father that is in me, he doeth the works." This does not deny the trinity. john 8:28. then said Jesus unto them, When you have lifted up the son of man, then you will know that I am the one that I claim to be And that I do nothing on my own ....{as a man he could not and would not claim to. Go back to the 2 natures and the need for a mediator man. He would be a sinner as a man if he did anything else. You are out of context cherry picking again. Just one example from the above. John 5:19 I tell you the truth. The son can do nothing by himself: he can do only what he sees his father doing because what ever the Father does the son also does. This complete verse fits perfectly with what I have been saying about Jesus natures. He can’t do anything contrary to God nature or will because.1} he is God
2} he as a human must obey and not become a sinner.

My father your father my god your God;
Again are the 2 natures. As a man he had a God. But ad only divine nature before the incarnation he had no need to acknowledge it. If he did not acknowledge God as a man he would have become a sinner. It is mans duty is to acknowledge, pray to and worship God; the Man Christ had to do so as well. Not in this verse he did not say I ascend to our father and our God, He did this because he was always careful to distinguish his relationship with the Father from the relationship humans had to the father as sinners redeemed and of one nature. Jesus was god by nature and man where as we were not.
It is significant that nowhere in the teachings of Jesus did he ever speak of God to his disciples as "our Father' or "our God”. through out his ministry he consistently spoke of the Father as "the Father " or ' my Father”, but never as 'our father".[the Lords prayer is an instruction to man so it still applies}.he in John20:17 in keeping with his established pattern of speech, he avoided the obvious shorter form of expression{our} and chose to remain with the longer form {my' and "your'}.His concern here was to maintain the distinction between the sense in which he is God's Son by nature and by Right and the sense in which his disciples are God's sons by grace and adoption.
Scholar Robert reymond

In the end Jesus shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father that God may be all in all."
1 corin 15;28 in context simply refers to Jesus and the Fathers role. It has nothing to do with Christ essential nature or being. It simply points to the functional subjugation of Christ the God man and mediator in the salvation plan. Just like the women is subject to the man functionally in the hierarchy but is equal to him in nature and value. There is a chain of command in the trinity. It’s a matter of function position and role not superiority. The idea of he who is on top is superior is a Human idea.

Secondly Jesus still retains his dual natures and the human one is subjected. He was raised in that human body .When he returns he will return as a glorified man. His human nature is subject to the same rules as ours in relation to God but his divine nature is not. He will as a man have to obey and turn over the kingdom .this is not a denial of the trinity at all. There is no contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among Persons in the trinity Godhead. Once the mediator roll is over and Christ turns over the kingdom, there will no longer be a need for a mediator and the triune God will reign as such without the need of an incarnate Son.

I too could go on and disprove your cherry picking superficial modern dictate on an ancient document as false. But the point of the post was they all worship the same God. The Christians of orthodoxy do not. Even the ones that deny a trinity like Mormons and Jehovah witnesses will tell you they are not the same. Orthodox Jews see Christians as apostate and worshipping a false God ad do Muslims. If not, there would be no need to prostilatise. The are not different ways to worship, they are totally different gods being worshiped. By the very definition the sects give god that is clear.

It does make the religions different. The very God they serve state totally different views and define himself completely different. They cannot be the same. Words sound the same but have totally different meanings. Examples are easily found in Christian circles. Let’s take Mormons for instance. Salvation. Orthodoxy sees this as resurrection to eternal life in heaven with God as opposed to eternal damnation to hell.

Mormon sees it as simply resurrection that all get but only few go to hell, and a few to heaven to become gods. The rest are on other levels.

Jesus is the Son of god, deity incarnate and always was with the Father. Lucifer is a fallen angel and demon.

Mormons see him as a created being and spirit brother of Lucifer .He was created by the father fiscally on earth. He paid a debt not for all but for one and we must work to pay him back and achieve reword.

There are many examples. Words mean things and simply because they sound the same or are used by many does not mean they are all filled or defined the same by those who are using them.

They are different because of the essence of the very God they worship and who is and how they define him.

As for Mary, as long as she is not god or added to the trinity in any way it is irrelevant. Only God as defined matters. Those that do are heretics and I would consider them as worshipping another God as well for they have defined Him differently. The early church fought similar heresy of making gods of mean or identifying the one true God.

AWPrime

November 24th, 2003, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
For starters, you do know the bible was not written in English or with English grammar rules right? This renders you word order defense worthless. The order of words is irrelevant.

And your words as well.

AWPrime

November 24th, 2003, 03:40 AM

If you only reallize that Christianty ripped alot from Roman paganisme to become more populair.

DEAD ZONE

November 24th, 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
If you only reallize that Christianty ripped alot from Roman paganisme to become more populair. If you would realize that similarity does not mean reliance, you would learn something.

DEAD ZONE

November 24th, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

And your words as well. ooo!!!. What a stunning scholarly opraoch we have.

Dont like it cant refute it, just ignore it. Brillant aw. Brilliant.Makes us really think hard about your roman rip off bit.

AWPrime

November 25th, 2003, 07:17 AM

No you just make a insane argument This renders you word order defense worthless. The order of words is irrelevantso don't go :mad if it's turned back to you.

If you would realize that similarity does not mean reliance, you would learn something.

similarity and reliance my @ss. They just ripped it (examples: hell, trinity, rebirth), were do you think all those contradictions come from.

You should try to read something about the dead sea scrolls, their less poluted.

Phreakmeister

November 25th, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
When asked by the Jewish leaders if he was the son of God, he said yes. They then accused him of blasphemy. WHY/ because they {unlike you} understood the term to mean he was God.

How wrong you are, DZ. Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because they believed His calling Himself Son of God meant His equalling Himself with God. When He called Himself Son of God, He gave God human features and capacities (i.e. the capacity to spawn human children). That was what they considered the blasphemy in what Jesus said: not that they believed He saw Himself as God, but that He saw Himself (a human being) as Son of God (a suprahuman being). The perceived blasphemy was in Jesus taking God down from His divine level to an inferior human level.

I don't have the time to get the rest of your posts, that'll have to wait. What I will say is this: the simple reality is that all prophetic monotheistic religions are variations of one Religion, if you will. The differences between the varying religions (be it islam, be it catholicism, be it protestantism, be it orthodoxy (whether Greek or Russian or any other), be it judaism) are not differences in the deity. They are differences in the way the followers worship the same God.

DEAD ZONE

November 25th, 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
No you just make a insane argument so don't go :mad if it's turned back to you.

similarity and reliance my @ss. They just ripped it (examples: hell, trinity, rebirth), were do you think all those contradictions come from.

You should try to read something about the dead sea scrolls, their less poluted. I did not go :mad . You did and simply lable a sound and verified argument insane. Calm down aw. Its not the end of the world.

They are not even defined as the same aw. Learn what you are talking about. Apples and oranges.

Just because 2 cars are red does not mean they are made by the same company or in the same way nor their components.I have read the dead sea scrolls and they have no relation to wht you are advocatting.

DEAD ZONE

November 25th, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

How wrong you are, DZ. Jesus wasn't accused of blasphemy because they believed His calling Himself Son of God meant His equalling Himself with God. When He called Himself Son of God, He gave God human features and capacities (i.e. the capacity to spawn human children). That was what they considered the blasphemy in what Jesus said: not that they believed He saw Himself as God, but that He saw Himself (a human being) as Son of God (a suprahuman being). The perceived blasphemy was in Jesus taking God down from His divine level to an inferior human level.

I don't have the time to get the rest of your posts, that'll have to wait. What I will say is this: the simple reality is that all prophetic monotheistic religions are variations of one Religion, if you will. The differences between the varying religions (be it islam, be it catholicism, be it protestantism, be it orthodoxy (whether Greek or Russian or any other), be it judaism) are not differences in the deity. They are differences in the way the followers worship the same God. no sir. The leaders even used the term. As I pointed out already, the term did not mean literal son in the culture or way it was used.The leaders even said you make yourself equal with God. They did not say you lower God to our level or equal us.The greek words used are very clear here.

That difference is what makes them different and what makes the god different. You already assume your position correct and then proceed from that apriori. that is a false asumption and not only does the original language reveal it, the cultural use also does.

The point is not what YOU beleive is being worshiped. You can not tell others what they do and dont beleive.Wht those followers believe is what defines God to them so when they say they are different they are. To you they may all seem the same but the personalities, laws and atributes as well as the essence of being are not only different but incompatible with each other.

Phreakmeister

November 25th, 2003, 02:25 PM

You try to prove your position by stating that the term Son of God equals God, or something to that extent. You state that the two terms and the two concepts are partly interchangeable, one being the deity and the other being the personification of the deity (or rather, the christian view on that). The problem with both the Greek and the Hebrew texts on which the Old and the New Testament are based, is that neither of the two languages knew small letters back then. Both languages only knew what we have come to see as capitals. The word "son" can therefore be translated as both son and Son. There are many places in the Bible which say there are sons of God. If someone is called son of God it conveys a higher religious position according to Biblical context, but it can not be taken to mean the literal Son of God.
The following verses in the Bible are references to sons of God other than Jesus Christ: "You are gods; you are all Sons of the Most High."(Psalm 82:6) "The Sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful..." (Genesis 6:2) "You are children of the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 14:1) "Satan appeared amongst the Sons of God when they had gone to present themselves before their Lord..."(Job 1:6) "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons of God." (Matthew 5:9) Other prophets that are called Son of God are Adam (Luke 3:38), Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9), Jacob (Exodus 4:22) and Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10).
Luke 3:38 says Adam is the son of God. If this were interpreted as Son of God it could mean that Adam is the literal Son of God (especially since Adam had neither a father nor a mother). However, looking at all the other verses, Adam is referred to as a magnificent creation of God, but not the literal son of God.
How does this relate to Jesus? The jews came to Jesus one time asking Him to tell them directly if He was the anointed one. He explained that the works he performed in his Father's name bear witness that he is the anointed one: "I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (as I said, he equalled God to a mere human being) Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, `I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming' because I said, "I am the Son of God?" (John 10:30-36) The jews misinterpreted his first statement when he said, "I and the Father are one." They assumed that he was equating himself with God, which he was not. He was figuratively saying that he is one with God in purpose. This is illustrated in another passage when Jesus prays to God on behalf of his followers. He asks God that they would be one in purpose the same way that he and God are one in purpose. He says, "... that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected in unity..." (John 17:22, 23). What did Jesus mean when he prayed for his followers to be one? He certainly didn't mean that they would be equal in a metaphysical sense but rather that they would be united in conveying the message he had given them, just as Jesus conveyed the message he had received from God. The explanation Jesus gives in the former passage also clarifies that he is not saying he is the literal son of God. He has taken the metaphorical title given to prophets and princes in the Old Testament. The scripture he was referring to comes from Psalm 82:6,7 where it says, "I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you will die like men, and fall like any one of the princes'." In a metaphorical sense, Jesus considered himself one of the "sons of God." Bible translators have misinterpreted this statement, capitalized the word Son, taken it out of context, and made it into a title as the "Son of God", which Jesus himself would have considered blasphemous.

DEAD ZONE

November 25th, 2003, 02:43 PM

The problem with both the Greek and the Hebrew texts on which the Old and the New Testament are based, is that neither of the two languages knew small letters back then. Both languages only knew what we have come to see as capitals. The word "son" can therefore be translated as both son and Son. There are many places in the Bible which say there are sons of God. If someone is called son of God it conveys a higher religious position according to Biblical context, but it can not be taken to mean the literal Son of God. I realize that and it is irrelavant to my argument. The definate article takes care of that and the cultural use and traditions of the time lend to it. Its of the order of.

p.s. Hebrew had no a e i o u either nor spacing.

You are ignorring the article designate . Look at the septuagent for further clarifications.
They said he called himself God. They did not say he lowered God to himself. They were made because they never felt a mere man could be as a human. God can be what ever he wants.

[QOUTE]He was figuratively saying that he is one with God in purpose[/QUOTE]

Not so. The originals are very specific in the terms used. He used a term reserved soley for God himself. He said he was the I Am . They understood exactly what he was saying. That he was God taken on human form.

The "Son" refers to the humanity of Christ. Many times He called himself the son of man. Yet He was much more. He was the Word made flesh. "And the WORD was GOD" As a mere mortal He had no power, but His power came from the spirit of God which was fully in Him without limit, and also filled all of heaven.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace

DEAD ZONE

November 25th, 2003, 04:36 PM

DEAD ZONE

November 25th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Here Phreak.Ytry this.{maybe my clarity is not }.

Thayer's Lexicon, which is referred to by the Watchtower as being “comprehensive”, states that ‘theot’ (deity) differs from ‘theiot’ (divinity) as essence differs from quality.” So according to Thayer, a man quoted very often by Jehovah's Witnesses in their Theological arguments, this use of ‘theotetos’ means that Jesus is the same essence as deity which greatly differs from just possessing the quality of God.

He is the Godhead ‘theotetos’ in the flesh ‘somatikos’, and God was well pleased ‘eudokeo’ for all that fullness to dwell in him, Col. 1:19.

The Bible is very clear here on the difference for we read that true believers can share in the nature of divinity ‘theios’ (root of ‘theiot’, divinity), 2 Pet. 1:4, and Jesus is the ‘theotetos’ (deity) we share in. How can these words be both be rendered as “divinity” by the Editors of the NWT. That these words are synonyms but definitely not the same is obvious.

In fact, almost any Lexicon can validate this.I have thayers lexicon and a greek interlinear available at my house.Its there.Does that clear up how english and greek cant be just cherry picked and intermixed. The syntax, grammar, cultural use and context are criticle to determining what is ment.

AWPrime

November 26th, 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE

Just because 2 cars are red does not mean they are made by the same company or in the same way nor their components.I have read the dead sea scrolls and they have no relation to wht you are advocatting.

I bet if you lived a 1000 years from now you would deny that the catholic and protestant branches of the Christian faith ever came from the same source.

The truth is that religions sometimes split and change in time.

DEAD ZONE

November 26th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime

I bet if you lived a 1000 years from now you would deny that the catholic and protestant branches of the Christian faith ever came from the same source.

The truth is that religions sometimes split and change in time. Irrelavant to the issue. Sectarianism is not the same thing. The esscense of an intety. Its personality, traits so on so forth are what make it what it is not superficial words

Phreakmeister

November 26th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Point is this trinity truth bit is off topic.

This is not about the matter of truth of the Trinity-doctrine. This is about the relation of the Trinity-doctrine to christian orthodoxy. This is not about whether or not the Trinity is a real thing, this is about whether or not it is part of christian orthodoxy.
(You do know what orthodoxy is, don't you? Orthodoxy is the traditional belief(s) of a religious group or political party. Note the word traditional here. In other words, it is about the tradition, about what the foundation of the religion is, not about what it has turned into. It is about what the relevant christian documents (the Scriptures) say about the Trinity, not about what people nowadays believe. It's about the orthodoxy, not about how people relate to and/or feel about the orthodoxy.)

We have Phreak trying to once again tell people what they beleive and then saying he has proven his point.

I am not talking about what people believe. This is about two things. Firstly, this is about the orthodoxy, not about how people relate to or feel about the orthodoxy. Secondly, this is not about the deity followers of the religions believe in, but about the relationship between the different religions. Once again, you are unable to understand what I'm actually saying. You only read what you want to read, not what I'm actually saying. I don't think that it's bad will anymore. I've lost faith in your ability to understand basic English texts.

The Unitarian position I am advocating here is nothing new, DZ. In the early 4th century, an Alexandrian presbyterian called Anus preached that the Son was "not equal to" the Father, nor "of the same substance," and that "the substances of the Father and of the Son are different and have no share in each other." There are several other early christians who advocated this. In fact, the earliest ontological definition of the nature of Christ and his relationship to God date back to the very same period, the 4th century AD. The entire Trinity-doctrine was alien to the Apostles and the earliest christians. The Trinity is a post-Apostolical theory/philosophy/concept. This does not mean that it can't be true. This does mean that it is not part of christian orthodoxy.
In 325, Emperor Constantine the Great called for the Council of Nicaea. These men were all forced to oblige with the Emperor. Disagreement with the Emperor was not allowed, under penalty of death. It was the Council of Nicaea that formed the Roman Catholic Church. At this council meeting the Trinity-doctrine was made the Official Doctrine of the Catholic Church. In 381 AD, at the Council of Constantinople, the Catholic Church reconfirmed the Trinity-doctrine and made it more complete. The Trinity-doctrine is part of the Catholic church, not of the christian orthodoxy. The Catholic church has deviated, and still deviates, from christian orthodoxy. Whether they're right in doing so is a different issue altogether ofcourse.

DEAD ZONE

November 26th, 2003, 10:39 AM

the trinity is orthodoxy sir. its been around .And no, the issue is wether the same God is worshipped.You have side tract the main issue withthis one.

Tyhat was arias. There were knostic, arians and modelists. The church has been fighting these for longer than simply the 4th century.

At one point, arius won out and that swhere the term athenasias aginst the world came from. His position was then overturned and present orthodoxy returned.

Its you basic inability to grasp what the main issue was and the idea of syntax thats the problem.

orthodoxy does not mean what was around at the time but what was the church view of doctirne.

the trinity was not allien.There was no need to define against something untill that something threatened the church.Doctrine is derived as the threats become more prevalant .It is not dumped on us all at once. Evenm Paul had to continually write letters clarifying what was and was not correct.

The idea that they were forced by constantine is idiotic, These men still had the scarse of their persecution. You seriously beleive that all of a sudenthey decided to change without threat?Constantine was no theologan He only wanted to secure his state. he was ready to except what ever the main body belived in order to solidify his hold. He would have followed anything.

Phreakmeister

November 26th, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
the trinity is orthodoxy sir.

How wrong you are, as usual. The Trinity is a "modern" concept, in the sense that it was formed way after christianity formed. It's a heresy, if you will, from the christian orthodoxy, which explicitly treats Jesus Christ and God as separate, unrelated entities.

And no, the issue is wether the same God is worshipped.

Exactly. But what you have failed to realize, it that it's not about the deity itself, but about the relation between the various religions. This is about the religions, absolutely, I have never denied that. But this is not about the deity itself. I am not telling people what they believe in. I am saying (as anyone with common sense would) that the religions are variations upon the same "mother religion," which is the religion of Abraham. I have constantly talked about whether or not the religions are related, not about whether or not the deity itself exists or not. My sincere apologies for failing to realise you were unable to grasp that concept.

You have side tract the main issue withthis one.

And who brought the Trinity up, may I ask?

Tyhat was arias. There were knostic, arians and modelists. The church has been fighting these for longer than simply the 4th century.

Arius and the Arians are but another group.

His position was then overturned and present orthodoxy returned.

Dear DZ, there is a difference between present orthodoxy (i.e. church doctrine, which you are talking about) and christian orthodoxy (i.e. the original christian doctrine, the foundation, if you will).

DEAD ZONE

November 26th, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister

How wrong you are, as usual. The Trinity is a "modern" concept, in the sense that it was formed way after christianity formed. It's a heresy, if you will, from the christian orthodoxy, which explicitly treats Jesus Christ and God as separate, unrelated entities.
How wrong you ware. defined is not formed. A common fallacey that your side makes. See my post I have finished editing.All doctrine is formed after :rolleyes:

I have shown that they are not as sepreate as you claim and have done it by the book. Original language, syntax, cultural use and so forth. You wish to force a modern idea in language on an ancient document. that gets you flunked out of a first year ancient studies class sir.

Exactly. But what you have failed to realize, it that it's not about the deity itself, but about the relation between the various religions. This is about the religions, absolutely, I have never denied that. But this is not about the deity itself. I am not telling people what they believe in. I am saying (as anyone with common sense would) that the religions are variations upon the same "mother religion," which is the religion of Abraham. I have constantly talked about whether or not the religions are related, not about whether or not the deity itself exists or not. My sincere apologies for failing to realise you were unable to grasp that concept.
WRONG You have used you same old tactic. of switching premise in the middle of the debate. You said the GODS were the same. Thats th point. They are not.You are trying to tell others what their Gods essence, personality and traits are. Variasion was notthe issue. Wheter the same God was worshiped was.
If you would not say one thing at the start and thenm change in mid stream you would not confuse a lot of people. You use the same lame line for sin , w1 and anyone else that tels you the same thing.

And who brought the Trinity up, may I ask?

By name me. By inference {they are the same god} you.

Arius and the Arians are but another group. they were the ones at the councel YOU mentioned.

Dear DZ, there is a difference between present orthodoxy (i.e. church doctrine, which you are talking about) and christian orthodoxy (i.e. the original christian doctrine, the foundation, if you will). Not when it comes to the nature of God v. islam there is not. Yes doctrine forms by specific definition with time as the threats arise. Thats common sense. That does not mean the concepts were foreign or dreamed up WHEN they finally were or had to be defined.

DEAD ZONE

November 26th, 2003, 11:49 AM

Hay Phreak. Lets make a date after thanksgiving to start this trinity thing in another thread. Is kinda fun.Gota go:wave

AWPrime

November 27th, 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
Irrelavant to the issue. Sectarianism is not the same thing. The esscense of an intety. Its personality, traits so on so forth are what make it what it is not superficial words

It apperantly went over your head.

DEAD ZONE

November 27th, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

It apperantly went over your head. No. You missed the entire point from the begining. Mormonism came from christanity but they are not considered christians and do not worsip the same God either. The point was :

The same God is worshipped. That is in essence incorect.I dont deal with superficials here but the core .At the core, they are different.

AWPrime

November 28th, 2003, 10:33 AM

People have fought wars over those so called superficials.

If you mean that the basic message (core) of a religion defines the worshipped god, than Muslims and Christians do worship the same god.

DEAD ZONE

November 28th, 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
People have fought wars over those so called superficials.

. yes they have.so what. irrelavant to my point.
If you mean that the basic message (core) of a religion defines the worshipped god, than Muslims and Christians do worship the same god
No, i am not saying that. The personhood of God, his atributes, character what makes him God is the issue. How many times do I have to repeat it.

The basic core message is not exactly the same either., least not in practise by any of the three.

AWPrime

November 28th, 2003, 01:40 PM

Then you have trouble with their interpretation of the texts.

In text both religions only differ slightly (same source materiaal), but how currently people view their meaning does radically differ.

DEAD ZONE

November 28th, 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Then you have trouble with their interpretation of the texts.

In text both religions only differ slightly (same source materiaal), but how currently people view their meaning does radically differ. Isay their idea of God is wrong. The text menat only one thing when it was written. No way can all three be the true original. They are at odds. They are at odds in the very nature and being of God .

Phreakmeister

November 28th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
WRONG You have used you same old tactic. of switching premise in the middle of the debate. You said the GODS were the same. Thats th point. They are not.You are trying to tell others what their Gods essence, personality and traits are. Variasion was notthe issue. Wheter the same God was worshiped was.

There are two separate issues here: the religion (the worship of one or more deities) and the deity (the object of worship). I have touched the religions, as being different ways to worship one and the same deity, which you would see, if you would learn about the history of the three prophetic monotheistic religions (islam, judaism, christianity). That I have touched. What I haven't touched, is the object of worship, the deity worshipped by the three religions. I haven't said anything about the essence, personality and traits of that deity. I have adressed the relation between the specific ways of worship. Although religion and deity (worship and the object of worship) are strongly related, they are separate "fields" nonetheless. I have touched one of those fields, but I have not touched the other.

If you would not say one thing at the start and thenm change in mid stream you would not confuse a lot of people.

This is getting really boring: if you would just reread this thread, DZ, you would see that I haven't changed my position one single bit. If you perceive it as having changed, maybe it's because you have changed your position compared to my position, I don't know. But I have not changed my position. Accuse me of what I've done all you want, but don't accuse of things I haven't done.

You use the same lame line for sin , w1 and anyone else that tels you the same thing.

they were the ones at the councel YOU mentioned.

I deeply apologize: Arius and Anus are one and the same person. Both names are used to describe the person we were both referring to.

Not when it comes to the nature of God v. islam there is not. Yes doctrine forms by specific definition with time as the threats arise. Thats common sense. That does not mean the concepts were foreign or dreamed up WHEN they finally were or had to be defined.

It indeed does not mean that concepts upon which church doctrine is based in general, is foreign or dreamed up. But that is beside the point in this specific case. What matters, is whether the specific doctrine, the Trinity-doctrine, was part of Christian orthodoxy (i.e. the traditional beliefs of christianity).