A curious comparison. Christianity/nazism

What's standard christianity?

The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine
Orthodox Christian teaching about God's nature is that He is "one God in three persons." Shocking as it may seem to many, the Bible nowhere teaches the Trinity, even though it is the most widely acknowledged teaching about God in professing Christianity! In fact, the word "trinity" is not even in the Bible. Where then did this teaching originate and how did it come to be so universally believed?

Writing about thirty years after the founding of the New Testament Church, the youngest of Jesus' half-brothers (sons of Joseph and Mary), Jude, exhorted the brethren to earnestly contend for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Clearly, the true Christian faith had already been delivered intact prior to Jude's writing. The Apostle Jude explained that ungodly men had secretly crept into the Church and were already beginning to distort the true doctrines that Jesus Christ had delivered to His disciples.

Even Catholic scholars admit that Tertullian (c. 150-225) was the first writer to use the term "trinity." If this fundamental teaching about the very nature of the Godhead is true, why was it not revealed until over 150 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why was not this doctrine clearly taught and explained by the original disciples of Christ and by the Apostle Paul? As we shall soon see, they taught a very different explanation of the nature of the true God!

In the second and third centuries there was not simply one heresy regarding the nature of God, but many contradictory ones. There seem to have been almost as many different ideas as there were philosophical schools and teachers. Mainstream Catholic thought, from which orthodox Protestant teaching on the subject sprang, merely represents the particular brand of heresy that won out over its competitors.

The Trinity, as I understand it, is God in three persons or manifestations. All are equal because all are the same. Jesus being God is like Professor McGonagall being a cat in the Harry Potter series.

But with Christians you never know because they don't know.

One God with Jesus being the same God that loved killing people in the OT.

But with Christians you never know because they don't know. They all take a bite and claim their food is Christianity and all others are eating s**t.

According to this guy the Trinity is a false teaching; but yet the Trinity is the foundation for a lot of Christian beliefs.

When I was Christian, it hardly seemed important whether or not the God head was a trinity, a duo, or a pyramid, in that, whichever one it was, it wouldn't affect my beliefs or practises, so I think perhaps you have placed too much weight on this one example.

In Christianity, Trinity is the doctrine that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons (not to be confused by "person"): the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son Himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. Most divisions of Christianity are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of Christian orthodoxy.

Opposing nontrinitarian positions held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings, one in purpose) and Modalism (Oneness).

Looks like Trinity is believed by a majority of Christians but I have no stats on that.

Anyway, in the years following Jesus' death, no one could agree what to make of him. They all wanted to use him for their own selfish purposes. They still do.

There's still a lot of money and power to be gained from that dead Jew.

xingu wrote:

Looks like Trinity is believed by a majority of Christians but I have no stats on that.

I'm sure you are right. But many who say they believe have no idea what they believe.

neologist wrote:

xingu wrote:

Looks like Trinity is believed by a majority of Christians but I have no stats on that.

I'm sure you are right. But many who say they believe have no idea what they believe.

But, of course, that doesn't include you.

I'm sure you are right. But many who say they believe have no idea what they believe.

Until someone can tell me where the other half of Jesus' DNA came from without resorting to POOFISM then he is just another flawed Homo sapien.

okay, i misunderstood the jw position on trinity. i've been reading the watchtower site, and they take issue with it being nonbiblical (i disagree) or pagan (i agree.)

they also take issue with this:

Quote:

so the trinity could only be okay from a jw standpoint if: 1. it wasn't pagan 2. god and jesus were *not* equal and 3. it was biblical.

for three, there's nothing we can do to agree on this.

for one, it's shouldn't matter whether it's pagan, pagans worshipped, that doesn't stop christians for worshipping, pagans had a god concept, that doesn't stop christians from having a god concept, they prayed, that doesn't stop christians from praying, and so on. not everything pagan goes against christianity.

but just because something is a unit doesn't mean that all parts are equal. jesus doesn't have to be equal to god to be part of a trinity. a family of three is a trinity, that doesn't imply the child is equal to the father. but a family is one. it may seem like a horribly pagan concept, but the idea that there was a father and a son makes the trinity seem very biblical to me after all. of course jw's do not agree.

still, the idea of attacking the trinity as evil and shameful (to the point of implying that someone is a "closeted" believer) seems very immature.

xingu wrote:

Until someone can tell me where the other half of Jesus' DNA came from without resorting to POOFISM then he is just another flawed Homo sapien.

As soon as you can tell me why that would be important, I would slap my head in amazement.

neologist wrote:

xingu wrote:

Until someone can tell me where the other half of Jesus' DNA came from without resorting to POOFISM then he is just another flawed Homo sapien.

As soon as you can tell me why that would be important, I would slap my head in amazement.

I guess the reason you ask that question is you have no answer for the missing DNA, execpt POOFISM.

If Jesus was born of a virgin where did the other DNA come from?

Of course, the virgin birth story could be a load of pagan crap. Paul didn't believe it.