The trinity of three scriptures destroys the myth of the Trinity:

[Scott1]

Silly boy..... why waste her time with historical evidence? Hehehe.... nice post!

 

[No*s]

Thanks .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First, the Early Church was extremely secretive about its internal teachings.

So, one is "extremely secretive" among the Jews but, 7 decades later, open and polemical among the Gentiles. That seems rather convenient.

I may ask the same question about the Old Testament, also. After all, why does God take the pagan name El? Why does the Bible contain stories copied from Babylonian paganism?

You mean: why did the early henotheists conflate their Sumerian/Canaanite Deity with that of the co-resident Shasu? Because myth/folklore grows by accretion.

 

[Scott1]

So, one is "extremely secretive" among the Jews but, 7 decades later, open and polemical among the Gentiles. That seems rather convenient.

..... or explained by numerous factors such as political climate, size of the community, etc.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hi LittleNipper



FIRST, Your statement on,Clearly shows Jesus (Yeshua) differentiating himself from his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and in no way claiming to be his father, to learn more, go to my exhaustive article on the subject,Discourse on John 8:58:

http://p078.ezboard.com/fyahwehstruthinchristfrm2.showMessage?topicID=83.topic

SECOND, your comment,Is also covered in my same article at the link in item FIRST, go there and learn the facts:THIRD, your comment,Now here is my answer on this scripture you fail to understand:John 10:30 I and my Father are one. (New American Standard Bible; NASB)



This is an interesting scripture, and taken alone out of context could lead the unsteadfast to the false conclusion that they were one in body, but taken in contest, this would be seen as impossible. In John 10:29, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly showed they were two separate individuals, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." (NASB). Clearly here was a giver, the Father (YHWH) whom Jesus (Yeshua) publically declared was "greater than all" which statement would include being greater than himself, Jesus (Yeshua). Also, there was a receiver, a distinct individual, "has given them to Me."



This 'one' is one in purpose and this is made clear at John 17:9-11, " "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are." (NASB). Which not only shows Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) as being one in prupose, but also, all the true Christian followers of his Son (Yeshua).



As previously mentioned, many try and misuse this scripture, John 10:30, to support either a Duality or a Trinity; however, it supports neither and especially not a Trinity as only two individual beings are mentioned in it.



With respect a Trinity, Jay P. Green's, "Classic Bible Dictionary," says, "This is not itself a Biblical term, but was a term coined by Tertullian to refer to the whole concept under one word." [Classic Bible Dictionary," by Jay P. Green, page 483]. Another renown work says, "Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one G-d, the Scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to us." [Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature," under Trinity, on page 553]. In other words, this false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the Trinity is a revealed doctrine of men that is foreign to the scripture (Bible). It is to be outright rejected by all who are true followers of Jesus (Yeshua). Your Friend in Christ Iris89

I made no original statements. I quoted Scripture. You have been making statements based from what I see on the false doctines of men, who clearly are trying to interpret scripture for you and provide their understanding to you.
I feel that you are reading the interpretations and faulty doctrines of your "religious persuasion". Jesus clearly was a man-----all man. The Bible says Christ emptied HIMSELF and took on a humanity. I believe that this means that while Jesus was God he had assumed the role of a subordinate to God HIS Father. There were some things Jesus as a man had denied HIMSELF from knowing. All your interpretations are based on what Jesus said as a human being. They ignore Jesus Glorified and attempt to cast doubts on Revelations, which is clearly Christ in his GLORY REVEALING HIMSELF for what HE truly is. God the Father is invisible. Christ, God the Son is not invisible.
The Holy Spirit could not come to man UNTIL Jesus returned to Heaven. Clearly, there is a UNITY of these three personages and those three are ONE TOTAL GOD acting in complete devoted harmony. Remove any ONE from this GODHEAD and what you see in an incomplete picture of what GOD is and what HE accomplished.

Revelations 1: 12-16
Only GOD is worthy of our worship. Our worship of CHRIST does not make HIM God. CHRIST deserves our worship because HE IS GOD and TOTALLY united with Our HEAVENLY FATHER and presently TRUE Christians are forever tied to GOD by the Baptizing/Anointing power of the HOLY SPIRIT.

If you do not see this, you are clearly missing the boat!

 

[No*s]

So, one is "extremely secretive" among the Jews but, 7 decades later, open and polemical among the Gentiles. That seems rather convenient.

Actually, Deut., you'll not find that much on the Trinity at that time. Everything I cited from that period was actually written to Christians and preserved. The sole exception is the Dialogue With Trypho. So, I'm not making some convenient setup. Ignatius wrote the churches as he went, the Didache is a Christian guide, and Against Heresies is a book written to Christians as a refutation of the Gnostics that had been perpetuating themselves. All these were by Christians to Christians.

The second century apologists, though, were a direct result of the fact that Christians reached a certain number. Scott has already pointed out that there could be innumerable other causes. However, even the apologists didn't often go into extensive detail about the Eucharist, for instance. Justin Martyr's dialogues address it, but only briefly compared to other topics...and it is the central piece of Christian worship. So, they still weren't all that loose-liped about the inner-secrets of the religion. It's taken a long time for it to reach the point it's at now.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..... or explained by numerous factors such as political climate, size of the community, etc.

I'd be more than willing to entertain such explations. So, for example, the political climate was much worse after the destructon of the temple. Why might that argue for less secrecy?

 

[No*s]

I'd be more than willing to entertain such explations. So, for example, the political climate was much worse after the destructon of the temple. Why might that argue for less secrecy?

Very simply. First, there were more Christians, and the successful conversions couldn't help but bolser confidence. So, they see themselves as winning, and going to win. Even if they suffer, they're going to win. That's the basic mentality.

Secondly, Chrstianity has always had a fixation with martyrdom. Most of us would consider it an honor. For an insight into the mentality of the time, take a quick read at Ignatius' writings. He was practically begging people not to so much as to try to keep him from dying.

The increase in danger created a corresponding increase with secrecy in their meetings, but the confidence and desire for martyrdom caused much more polemics. As a result, the second century became a century of apologists, and it laid the foundations for the dominant social movements of the next.

EDIT:

The secrecy was due in part to the belief that the Eucharist was holy and not fit for public viewing. Thus, those who hadn't purified themselves weren't fit to participate in it.

The need for safety, naturally, was also a consideration. While individuals were martyred, whole congregations didn't seek it with one voice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Very simply. First, there were more Christians, and the successful conversions couldn't help but bolser confidence. So, they see themselves as winning, and going to win. Even if they suffer, they're going to win. That's the basic mentality.

So Jesus, able to draw upwards of "about five thousand men, beside women and children", didn't talk about the trinity because he lacked confidence and wasn't sure of victory? Wouldn't it be just as reasonable, if not more so, to view the trinity as an Hellenistic accretion?

 

[HelpMe]

^but...these other people said...

 

[Scott1]

So Jesus, able to draw upwards of "about five thousand men, beside women and children", didn't talk about the trinity because he lacked confidence and wasn't sure of victory? Wouldn't it be just as reasonable, if not more so, to view the trinity as an Hellenistic accretion?

WHAT? Jesus didn't talk about the Trinity? .... you assume this because he never used the word Trinity?

 

[No*s]

So Jesus, able to draw upwards of "about five thousand men, beside women and children", didn't talk about the trinity because he lacked confidence and wasn't sure of victory? Wouldn't it be just as reasonable, if not more so, to view the trinity as an Hellenistic accretion?

No, actually, I don't think it would be more reasonable.

We know that in the second century (about 107, but scholars are now moving the date to 117 in place of the traditional dating), Ignatius of Antioch could feel confident writing letters peppered with thought that required the Deity of Christ from Antioch all the way over to Rome. So, somehow the accretion has taken full hold prior to that date.

Considering there was no Roman Empire to enforce this, then some idea must have spread fast and eliminated all resistence. I don't find this likely. We've both seen how long and how difficultly an opinion dies. Just look at literalist creationism. It still continues to this day, despite the fact it can't muster a decent shred of evidence and calling itself science. I have trouble believing that Ignatius would be able to assume the Deity of Christ as easily as he did if it had been entrenched already. There would still be a good deal of infighting.

I've demonstrated in my thread on John 1 the Christian thought that mandates that the Logos be God in John 1. This doctrine, called theosis, was (and is) worded in several different ways. One of those is the Synoptics' promise for making us "sons of God." We also find the Eucharist in place in the Markon account of the Lord's Supper. I can see no explanation for Jesus' teaching in the Synoptics that we are tp eat His flesh and drink His blood. We also see the Trinitarian formula in the baptismal formula. While the Gospels don't state this explicitly, we know that people were baptized by three-fold immersion on account of the Didache and later Christian writings (it is still practiced in the Orthodox Church today). This practice would make absolutely no sense if there wasn't a proto-Trinitarian belief underlying it. Lastly, we see that Jesus takes liberty to say things like "You have heard it said of old...but I say to you" and juxtapose His words over gainst that of God's in the Hebrew Scriptures. This would be inconceivable without some thought of Jesus as an incarnate God.

I can, thus, date belief in the Deity of Christ to the writing of the Synoptics. This takes the doctrine back to the first century. Now this is also recent enough that if there had been a mass replacement of theology, that I could reasonablly expect reference to it in the Gospel texts, and if these were part of the replacement, that I could expect to see extensive argumentation for the Deity of Christ. Instead, I don't see any such extensive argumentation, but rather they assume the doctrine rather than spell it out. In Luke-Acts, we see the Jerusalem Council dealing with the issue of Judaism and Christianity, and it deals with a number of issues, but it gives no hint that there was so much as a question of Christ's deity. It was not a major issue for the Council apparantly.

In the Pauline corpus, we don't see much argumentation for the Deity of Christ. Again, it is mostly assumed. The closest we come is Paul's extensive passage on the preeminance of Christ in Colossians, but that doesn't take the form of an argument, but more a sermon. It's something they mutually believe, and Paul could teach at face value. Paul even includes some hymns on the matter.

Hebrews, though, does explicitly argue for the Deity of Christ in its opening, and it also comes later in the first century. The author of Hebrews is clearly writing to refute what he believes to be nonstandard Christianity. So, here we do have a single NT author seeking to establish it.

Laslty, I would add that the examples of blatant Hellenistic accretion, the Gnostics in their various forms, more often than anything denied the humanity of Christ. These same sects, though, were exactly that: sects. Irenaeus, in his arguments, could take for granted that his readers knew that the Apostles taught men, and that these men had appointed successors and so on. He used this as a club, and made their points of origin a major piece of argumentation. So we have an area-wide and systematic teaching, of which groups did break away.

What we have as a result may be summed up thusly:

1. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is ubiquitous at the very beginning of the second century.
2. The doctrine is implicitly assumed in the Synoptics for some of Christ's teachings and for the liturgical references.
3. It is assumed implicitly in our earliest texts.
4. Our sole early history of the Church makes no mention of massive in-fighting, even while assuming the doctrine implicitly.
5. The only Christian document that we have that records conflict over this issue is a late first century document, indicating the context of the conflict is also later.
6. Through conflict with Gnostics of their various shades, we know that the Apostles had spread Christianity in an organized and systematic manner, and we know that the traditional texts and doctrines for those within the system that they established were used as clubs against their enemies.

Given the above, I would have to say that belief in the Deity of Christ had to be part of the original teachings, and that a pretty elaborate scenario would have to be created to account for all the facts above.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, actually, I don't think it would be more reasonable.

We know that in the second century (about 107, but scholars are now moving the date to 117 in place of the traditional dating), Ignatius of Antioch could feel confident writing letters peppered with thought that required the Deity of Christ from Antioch all the way over to Rome. So, somehow the accretion has taken full hold prior to that date.

But this is simple story-telling. The singular difference between 30-85 and 107-177 is the isolatioin and defeat of the Jerusalem sect, the victory of the pervasively Gentile mission(s), and the corresponding victory of the replacement theology and its campaign against 'Judaization'. Whatever roots might have existed in Eretz Israel, they had long since whithered and died, leaving the Ebionites and others bitter and able to do little other than complain about Paul's apostasy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What we have as a result may be summed up thusly:

1. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ is ubiquitous at the very beginning of the second century.
2. The doctrine is implicitly assumed in the Synoptics for some of Christ's teachings and for the liturgical references.
3. It is assumed implicitly in our earliest texts.

There is no evidence of this.

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone



FIRST, One poster summed up reality and fact in his answer to one of my questions as follows,

4. If the Trinity Doctrine was a solidly based truth, why didn't Jesus and his di sciples contradict the Shema of the Old Testament? "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deut 6:4) Jesus even quoted this scripture at Mark 12:29.





The Trinity didn't exist at the time. Chrsitians firmly believe in One God, so we don't feel it contradicts the Shema.

Clearly showing that within Christianity there was no such thing as the Trinity. This God (YHWH) dishonoring doctrine did not sneak into so Called Christianity until it went apostate and started doing the bidding of a pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, a worshipper of the unconquered Sun in 325 A.D. It is high time that all recognize this pagan doctrine that is masquerading as a Christian doctrine for what it is, a pagan doctrine. For more details, go to and learn the facts, i.e., reality:



Mainstream Religion Sold Out To Paganism, Details Sellout to Pagan Politicians

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=209



SECOND, One poster showed the origin of the trinity in paganism in his/her answer to my #5 question:

Quote: (Originally Posted by iris89)

5. Why would God tell his people to have nothing to do with the Pagan nations, if those Pagan nations had the right concept and beliefs about God? (a Trinity concept of God, as part of their worship, can be traced to virtually all Pagan nations of ancient times):





Because they aren't the same thing. When you look at Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon, they are three separate gods who form a kind of triumverant. That is not how Christians look at God. So, this is a bit off to say the least.

So why do not the majority of those who call themselves Christian wake up to the fact of this pagan doctrine masquerading as a Christian doctrine and put it away? Because most like to play 'follow-the-leader' and accept blindly what their church leaders tell them instead of doing as the apostle recommended at Acts 17:10-11, " But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).



THIRD, One poster said in response to my #3 question,

Quote: (Originally Posted by iris89)

3. Since the Trinity was so contrary to the Jewish belief in God, why didn't Jesus and his apostles expend considerable time and effort in teaching and stressing the Trinity so as to convince the Jews of the truth of it, as they did other Christian teachings?





The reason we don't see much of anything in the first century is due in part to two things. First, the Early Church was extremely secretive about its internal teachings. To this day, the Liturgy still has "The doors! The doors!" for the barring of the doors and "Let all the catechumans depart" for when the non-baptized students leave, neither of which is still done. The deity of Christ and the Spirit were the "Mystery of Godliness" and weren't made too terribly public. Thus, you can't expect much on it. Like the Temple, and like the Mystery Religions, there are parts of it that were accessible only to the members of the community.

I disagree with this idea that the early church was secretive as the New Testament clearly shows the apostles and disciples of Christ carrying on a very public and active campaign to comply with Jesus' (Yeshua's) directive laid on them at Matthew 24:14, "and this good news of the reign shall be proclaimed in all the world, for a testimony to all the nations; and then shall the end arrive." (Young's Literal Translation; YLT); and secretiveness does not harmonize with what is said of the scriptures at 2 Timothy 3:16, "Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." (American Standard Version; ASV).



FOURTH, One poster said with respect my #1 question,

Quote: (Originally Posted by iris89)

1. If belief in the Trinity is so important to our salvation why isn't the word "Trinity", or the concept of three being one found in the Bible?





Because the word was invented in the third century to describe a doctrine already in place.

His/her reply that the word was invented in the third century is wrong as it is found as triad or equivalent form in pagan doctrines back to at least the first Dynasty in Egypt. It only entered so called Christian writings by masquerading as a so called Christian doctrine to curry the favor of a pagan emperor by bishops who went apostate at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD called by a pagan worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, Roman Emperor Constantine. For details go to my articles on the subject at:



Mainstream Religion Sold Out To Paganism, Details Sellout to Pagan Politicians

http://examining-doctrines.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=209



FIFTH, Now concerning Baptism, clearly most have no idea why Matthew 28:18-20 says, "And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (ASV), and this is a shame. To learn why and the facts, go to my article at:



* Discourse on Baptism

http://p197.ezboard.com/fabnafrm10.showMessage?topicID=103.topic



SIXTH, The individual to whom these questions were directed has as yet failed to answer, but was formerly directing all types of questions in a most arrogant way to me. Strange, that he can send/throw questions at me, but does not answer any. I guess he can not wear the other show.



SEVENTH, with respect the divinity of Christ, I have already posted an article on this forum clearly showing he was divine. What else would you expect of an only begotten Son of God (YHWH)? Some seem to forget the rule that like begets like, why?



Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi No*

Clearly you do not grasp and/or understand John 1:1. So let me help you get a grasp on it from a writing of my PhD. Theologian husband as follows:

A discourse on understanding John 1:1.

This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's original writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English translations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (TNT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptures easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Your love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when the translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the ambiguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any Bible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost relate to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the translator's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its unique and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate it at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either A discourse on understanding John 1:1.
This discourse will not go down into an in depth explanation of the translating challenges provided by the rather unusual construction of the Apostle John's original writing in Koine (ancient) Greek. Sufficient to say the ancient Greek language had a certain amount of ambiguity as does modern English. Most English translations including the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), New world Translation (NWT), Goodspeed, Torrey, New English of 1961, Moffatt of 1972, International English Bible (IEB), International Bible Translators N.T. 1981 (IBT), Philip Harner of 1974, Translator's NT of 1973 (TNT), Scholar's Version of 1993, etc. have all made an effort to make the scriptures easier to read and have tried to remove ambiguity of the original text. For example, if the literal text were to say: "The love of God". The translator may decide to translate the text: "God's love for you", or he might translate it: "Your love for God". The reader can interpret the original text either way. when the translator chooses one of the ways to translate a text and eliminates the ambiguity, you miss the opportunity to view the text in other ways. The reader must (if objectivity is to be maintained) keep in mind that the translators of any Bible version were believers in one of the doctrine or beliefs with regard how God Almighty (YHWH), Jesus (Jeshua or YHWH saves), and the spirit or Holy Ghost relate to each other of which there are five principle beliefs, Oneness Theology, Trinitarian Theology, Arian Theology, Unitarian Theology, and Sabellianism Theology. Therefore, bias will and does exist in translation depending on the translator's theology. This is especially true with respect John 1:1 because of its unique and ambiguous grammatical structure it allows for translators to translate it at least nine different ways that all have equal validity from the language structure point of view, in that none of these can either be proven totally correct or incorrect, i.e., a translator's nightmare. In an unusual case like this the translator can only fall back on related text with similar structure and his own belief system, BIAS.

Now, let's look at the original Koine Greek writing as shown in the work of Westcott & Hort Interlinear (John 1:1-3):
[[The Bulletin Board can not handle Koine Greek, if you want to see it send me an email, [email protected]]]

Now let's look at the three most common renderings of John 1:1 into modern English with a brief mention of some of the Bibles that follow each:

1. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 AV)
This style rendering is found in most of the Bibles translations made by believers in the Trinitarian Theology and include the Authorized King James Version (AV), The New American Bible (Catholic) (TNAB), etc.

2. "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (John 1:1 NWT)
This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believers in the Arian theology
And many translators of no particular theology and include The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin 1883, NWT, Belsham N.T. 1809, Leicester Ambrose, 1879, Robert Young, 1885, (Concise Commentary), Greek Orthodox /Arabic translation, 1983,etc.

3. "In the beginning there was the Message. The Message was with God. The Message was deity." (John 1:1 International Bible Translators N.T. 1981).
This style rendering is found in most of the Bible translations made by believers in the Unitarian Theology and by some of Arian Theology And many translators of no particular theology and include the International Bible Translators N.T. (IBT), Translator's NT of 1973, Goodspeed of 1939, Moffatt of 1972, Simple English Bible, etc.

[due to space limitations, go to the following to read the entire article and the appendix to it.

A discourse on understanding John 1:1.
http://p197.ezboard.com/fabnafrm10.showMessage?topicID=60.topic

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Scuba Pete]

Stop telling untruths and making false accusations.

I am just inspecting your fruit. But please, call me a liar all you want. That's what the Pharisees did:

John 9:34 To this they replied, "You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!" And they threw him out.

If belief in the Trinity is so important to our salvation why isn't the word "Trinity", or the concept of three being one found in the Bible?

Belief or non-belief in the doctrine of "trinity" is not essential for salvation. That's my point!

2. Why didn't the apostles and early Christians believe in the Trinity? (If you say they did, prove it from the Scriptures or quotations from one of the ante-Nicene Fathers before 200 AD.)

Who cares? If they specifically didn't prohibit the belief then it's JUST your opinion. No more and no less. Passing it off as anathema is anathema in and of itself.

3. Since the Trinity was so contrary to the Jewish belief in God, why didn't Jesus and his apostles expend considerable time and effort in teaching and stressing the Trinity so as to convince the Jews of the truth of it, as they did other Christian teachings?

You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself. You're repeating yourself.

4. If the Trinity Doctrine was a solidly based truth, why didn't Jesus and his di sciples contradict the Shema of the Old Testament? "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." (Deut 6:4) Jesus even quoted this scripture at Mark 12:29.

Why would Jesus contradict the Old Testament? The mystery of the Trinity is that they are still "ONE".

5. Why would God tell his people to have nothing to do with the Pagan nations, if those Pagan nations had the right concept and beliefs about God? (a Trinity concept of God, as part of their worship, can be traced to virtually all Pagan nations of ancient times):

What about the Great Commision do you not understand? Yes, even the pagans can convert!

Let’s see how well you do with the proverbial shoe being on the other foot so to speak.

As long as it's a 10 1/2 EE we'll have no problems.

I think your God is way too small. You need to trade up to a real God. He's turbo charged and able to do far more than all we can ask or imagine. Instead of having to follow a bunch of nitpicky rules, he has written his law on my heart. He want's me to excel in LOVING my neighbor rather than in becoming a New Testament Pharisee. Go God! Go Jesus!

 

[Scott1]

He want's me to excel in LOVING my neighbor rather than in becoming a New Testament Pharisee. Go God! Go Jesus!

Yeah, but I bet you don't have a PhD. Theologian husband... so you CAN'T be right.:tsk:

So there.
Scott

My wife is a bartender.... I wonder why I can't make a decent Martini?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

.... you assume this because he never used the word Trinity?

And you assume otherwise because..?

 

[Scott1]

And you assume otherwise because..?

No*s is doing a much better job explaining this subject, so I'll go and hide...