Interesting. Can you please direct me to where I can find the "Gospel" you are talking about? From Wikipedia - "A gospel (from Old English, gÅd spell "good news") is to be generally one of the first four books of the New Testament that describe the birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. The four canonical texts are the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 100 (see also the Gospel according to the Hebrews)...More generally, gospels compose a genre of Early Christian literature. Gospels that did not become canonical likely also circulated in early Christianity. Some, such as the Gospel of Thomas, lack the narrative framework typical of a gospel. These gospels probably appeared later than the canonical gospels, though in the case of Thomas, scholarship is divided on the exact date." (Note that the above parallels my first post regarding apocryphal books of the bible.) From Webster's Dictionary - "one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; also : a similar apocryphal book" You have asserted as fact that the trinity "IS however mentioned in the 'Gospels' of Jesus Christ himself." All I am asking is that you refer me to an authoritative source that supports this claim. There is nothing personal behind the request. Think of it as a scholarly inquiry.
Dont need to, everyone saw how stox jumped up and down when I brought these numbers up and he complained about how im counting non-educated people in the world. These numbers dont lie and he knows it. The problem with the atheistic movement is that they have the worst leaders. Hitchens has to be either a retard or a closet theist because everytime he utters a word from those moronic lips he causes reasoning atheists to question their own beliefs.The same way a right winged religious leader would make people lean towards atheism. The problem with this new atheist movement is that the inmates are running the asylum lol.
Does MIA stand for Missing in Action, because that seems to be the case here. "Don't confuse me with the facts???"
Pong I can't remember the last time I didn't get a name check In one of your posts. I must have either caused you to doubt your dogma or you are In love with me, and as you are asexual with none of the normal human urges I'd have to conclude that I have caused you to doubt, which is good. Admitting, to yourself at least, that you may have a problem isthe first step to recovery. I just hope, what with you being middle aged, that the realisation that you have wasted your life believing childish bollocks about magic men and fairylands doesn't cause you to kill yourself.
Notice the last 4 posts here by atheists have nothing to do with the subject. Im glad I can school so many at one time. loooooooool Nice to know u can reduce self professed reasonable men to showing pics of the 3 stooges lol.
At least I can show the pictures of the 3 stooges, you only believe in 3 imaginary stooges that you have never seen or have any proof of their existence.
Why don't you wiki it... Seems you are confused by facts you quoted below. I did. I'd suggest re-reading the thread. But then again so did you. Maybe you should read both. Most scholars I know READ... Perhaps you should follow their lead. It's really tragic watching another human being continually self destruct. He gets beat up in the DMOZ forums and comes over here to vent. It's really quite sad.
Ah, Mr. Missing in Action Kinsey, shouting a single vague word does absolutely nothing to shore up a fatally flawed argument. Let's get back to basic rhetoric. (I hope you understand the meaning of that word.) Define your terms. What is the meaning of the term "Gospel"? Where can one find this definition? You have been quite unsuccessful in directing us to a source supporting your assertion that trinity appears in the "Gospel" of Jesus. Perhaps you will find more success in defining your terms. Inquiring minds, and all that...
^ Yet another pathetic Gworld groupie. Can someone bring this back on topic, or at the very least learn how to use the ban hammer!!!!!!
Jeremy, you are ranting! Please stop and supply us the sources of your assertions. What definition of "Gospel" are you using to support them? The topic is "Who invented the Trinity?" You have stated, "...the term 'Trinity' post dates the 'Bible' and no, it is NOT mentioned in the 'Bible'. It IS however mentioned in the 'Gospels' of Jesus Christ himself." Since you have rejected the generally accepted definition of the term "Gospel" I am simply asking you to provide your alternative definition, without which it would be impossible to rationally continue this discussion. You can't just throw out unsupportable claims and expect them to stand, can you? And if your unsupported claims are challenged, why would you call for someone to be banned? Kind of totalitarianistic, don't you think. (Translation - "My way or the highway!!")
No, its called yelling. Sometimes you have to in order to get something through ones thick skull. I'm beginning to think its a lost cause thanks to your participation in this thread. Already did it. As I have indicated in another thread. Read. In fact, RE-READ. Really? And you have a problem with what? I do not remember seeing the Trinity mentioned in the "Bible". I'm fairly certain from what I have read, learned, and have been taught over time that the concept does post date the Old Testament, of the "Bible"... Is that better? It seems generally accepted here that most that make reference to the "Bible" here are almost always referring to the Old Testament in some way shape or form with regard to nearly every discussion here. Either way, I do not remember seeing the Trinity mentioned in the "Bible" period. New or Old Testament. So what exactly do you find wrong with my statement? The "Bible" I have is the "New American Catholic Bible" Thomas Nelson Inc. Copewood and Davis STS Publishers Camden NJ. It was purchased for me by my Italian Grandmother in 1970 in the Bronx NY and given to me when I was born. I've had it a long time, and its not the only one I've read or own. One given to me by my mother-in-law (non-denominational) differs greatly in many aspects. Similar, yes. Same, no. I've not rejected the definition of the term. What I've done is state that according to "my own beliefs" and those of a great many is that the term is derived from Christ himself. It is also my belief that the concept of the Triune God is one that a great many religions have adopted and for all I know, was created by the Catholics. Christ himself referred to the Holy Spirit, and God as being both divine and separate or individuals, depending on what and where you read. Ultimately the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have all been associated with divine power and as such have been equally blessed upon believers as one almighty power or presence. Now, while Jesus "in the 'Bible" (New Testament) does make reference to all three, no reference to a Triune God or Trinity is distinctly referenced, PERIOD. Again, I believe that concept is derived later in Christs Gospels with which Catholicism likely embraced and delivered as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one being. Unsupportable claims? Its a life time of experience, reading, teaching, school, church, "Bible" and more. Of course I did provide you with a linked reference as well initially. Sadly you've chosen to accept or digest only certain portions of what I have spelled out for you. Who I think should be banned are the ingrates that are here for no other reason than to fuck with reality, screw with the real contributors and otherwise denigrate all those that are here to share.
Wow, stOx makes this really really easy... Agnostics do not "lack a belief in God" - they are not sure of God's existence one way or another and are open to the possibility. That is NOT the same as being an atheist. Secular people do not "lack a belief in God" - they just usually feel that their belief in God should not affect government decisions. Now, as to stOx's increasingly silly attempts to continue to deceitfully cooking the numbers... The purpose of the Pew Research Poll was to determine the religious affiliation of Americans - NOT their belief in God!!! So, 16.1% of Americans do not affiliate themselves with a particular religion. When you break that down, a mere 1.6% are atheist - and do not believe in God. Aside from Agnostics, the rest of that number believe in God, but do not affiliate themselves with a particular religion. stOx has been powned. He's misquoted the poll, misrepresented it's intent, and now is desperately and deceitfully cooking the numbers. All he's doing is embarassing himself more. It's too late. Trying to dig himself out of this is like trying to raise a submarine with a fishing line. He's bottomed himself out.
Corwin, Im going to have to disagree, here, though we are dealing with semantics. By definition, Agnostics do lack a belief in God, or deity - to say "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" is to say that person obviously holds no belief in a god, does it not? In other words, I cannot believe in something I say cannot be known - right? And as such, they do intersect with atheists; literally, a-theos, from Attic Greek, without a belief in deity. Secular folks simply are not religious, by definition; they are concerned with worldly affairs. Many folks beyond secular folks believe religious and civil affairs should not be conjoined. Many religious folks, as well.
Secular unaffiliated means religion isn't important to them. So I'm not sure a conclusion can be drawn from someone choosing that in regards to their belief in god, although it would probably be safe to say that their belief in god is seriously in doubt. If I were asked that question several years ago I may have answered the same way. I would say people generally don't grow up religiously, like most Americans, and then all of a sudden overnight decide they don't believe in god. For most, like me, it's probably a journey, where they become more uncertain over time. Now I'm not sure if you're intentionally being hard headed or not. I already made the point that many of those other "religions" don't require a belief in god, such as buddhism and scientology(I know you probably don't consider these to be real religions anyway, but that's beside the point).
Corwin someone either holds a belief that a god exists, or they don't. Agnostics don't, because the alternative would be that they do, in which case they wouldn't be agnostics. That's not to say agnostics believe a god doesn't exist, they just lack the belief that one does exist. And what do we call someone who lacks a belief in god? Thats right, an atheist. it's quite simple really and i frankly don't know how much more simple i can make it for you, so try extra hard to grasp the simple point written in plain English, there's a good lad.
In case my earlier comment this way was lost, just to chime in, I'm both an atheist, and a buddhist - though a lapsed buddhist. "Lapsed" not because I'm a "backslider," in any religious sense, but because buddhism is simply a practice - basically, sitting your ass down on a cushion, breathing with attention, and, by a physical practice, coming to realize no matter what you do, the world will move on. It took the guy called "Buddha" 6 long years of arduous practice to realize, at the end of the day, how ridiculously simple it all was; I'd consider the written record surrounding "the Buddha" a story of a pretty decent psychologist, codifying a psychology of active participation in one's health, more than anything else. I'm afraid my ass hasn't been sitting anywhere near a meditation cushion for a few years now. Does it show?
And, this is the crux of my question. Where does Christ use the term "Trinity"? It is not in the Bible (old or new testament). It's apparently in the "Gospel" and, "'Gospel' is the 'Gospel'. It is not the 'Bible'. Two different books." Yet, I don't know what other "book" you might be reffering to, and yu have yet to answer that question. I ask for Book/Chapter/Verse and you respond by ranting and demanding taht I be banned?
For the love of God man. READ. When you are not taking a thread off topic, you are busy asking the same answered questions over and over again. Its really getting old.