There is absolute proof that the DELUGE actually happened

[LittleNipper]

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not Pagan in Origin​

The developing doctrine of the Trinity was articulated in its early stages by Tertullian, Origen and Athanasius. They articulated much of the doctrine around the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I repeat, the doctrine of the Trinity is not pagan in origin. It was merely articulated by these churchmen. That’s a whole lot different from taking the doctrine from a pagan source and passing it off as being from the Bible.

The Arian heresy clearly sparked a significant development in understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Much was written to counter Arius, which is why we get the writings of these three in particular. Again, this does not mean that the doctrine was absent prior to these men.

The argument could be made that writers such as Athanasius were simply toeing the party line of Constantine in the lead up to the Nicean Council. In fact, Athanasius was not only in conflict throughout his early career against Arius but also against a succession of emperors starting with Constantine.

Arius taught that Christ was made, not begotten and therefore subordinate to God though still part of the Trinity. This was a common doctrine in Alexandria led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Therefore this illustrates that a form of doctrine of the Trinity was not rare in the first few centuries. Its form might have been debated, but the doctrine existed.

Triads of Gods​

Sadly, those who seek to assert that the doctrine of Trinity is pagan get very selective in their quoting of sources. Have a look at this breakdown for an example. As a unitarian of a few years ago, I was guilty of this myself. Bruce M Metzger notes “the mere presence of trinities in pagan mythology is irrelevant to the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian theology.” This is important.

For a parallel, let’s consider the story of Moses. Many suggest that the story of Moses was based on the story of Sargon of Akkad or Sargon the Great. For a brief consideration of the parallels in the two stories, have a look at this article. Both were placed in a river by their mothers and both were rescued by someone. That’s where the similarities end. If you look at the detail of both, they are very different.

The mere fact that you find triads of Gods in other early cultures is meaningless. None of them match the story and framework of our God’s engagement with this world. The similarity is merely superficial and can safely be ignored.

The specific details of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity are not found in any pagan religion. The Trinity is one God who exists eternally in three persons who are equal in nature and distinct in their roles. Millard Erikson states “while it is true that various religions have had triads of deities, the concept of the Trinity is unique to Christianity.”

Continued below​

 

[LittleNipper]

Philosophy and Thinking about the Doctrine of the Trinity​

The belief that the Doctrine of the Trinity was the product of Plato’s philosophy is a common misconception that has been around for centuries. It is not supported by historical evidence or theological analysis.

As we note above, the doctrine of the Trinity is not pagan in origin. It emerged in a distinctly Christian context. The early Church was steeped in Jewish and Christian scripture. It sought to articulate a coherent understanding of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that was faithful to the biblical witness.

Certainly, some Christian thinkers were influenced by Greek philosophy, including Plato. Claiming this philosophy as the source of the doctrine is over-egging in the worst way. In fact, the Church was highly critical of many aspects of Platonic philosophy, especially its rejection of the material world.

There are significant differences between Plato’s philosophy and the doctrine of the Trinity. Plato’s concept of the divine involves a hierarchy of Forms or Ideas, with the highest Form being Good. The Trinity on the other hand, emphasises the unity of God in three distinct, co-eternal, co-equal persons who are not separate.

Platonic thinking is characterised by dualism between material and spiritual realms. The Trinity emphasises the unity of God in both transcendent and immanent aspects. God is transcendent in his absolute and infinite nature, beyond the physical world and human comprehension. He is not bound by time, space or physical limitation. God is immanant in that He is present in everything that exists. Rather than the Platonic view that the physical is a pale imitation of the spiritual, the Spiritual and the Physical are two different states in which God exists and acts.

Fundamentally, Plato believed in a multitude of Gods or divine beings, the Trinity does not match this world view.

Conclusion​

the mere coincidence of triads of Gods in other ancient religions is not indicative of Pagan sources for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Some Christian thinkers were clearly influenced by Greek philosophy, including Plato. It is nevertheless wrong to assert that the doctrine of the Trinity was merely transplanted doctrine from Plato. This was not a Christianised version of Platonic thought.

The doctrine emerged within Christianity as an articulation of scriptural concepts around the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Any resemblance to pagan concepts is not evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity is pagan in origin. The doctrine of the trinity is not pagan in origin. It is an articulation of scriptural principles by early church fathers who grew in knowledge of God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit.

The above entire article can be found here:

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not Pagan in Origin -

Any resemblance in the doctrine to pagan concepts is not evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity is pagan in origin.

www.heartforkingdom.com

 

[LittleNipper]

Anti-Trinitarians appear to be practicing deception

Metzger, Bruce M. and Coogan, Michael D., Editors; Daniel N. Scholwalter, author: Oxford Companion to the Bible

1. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)

What Anti-Trinitarians quote:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the NT. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected with the confines of the canon. ... (Mt 28.19) ... Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God. ... it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places here it does not appear." (pages 782-3) (Oxford Companion to the Bible, Daniel N. Scholwalter, author; Metzger and Coogan, editors, p 782-3)

"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as a god ... Matthew 28.19 ... Matthew records a special connection between God the Father and Jesus the Son (e.g., 11.27), but he falls short of claiming that Jesus is equal with God. It is John's gospel that suggests the idea of equality between Jesus and God ... While there are other New Testament texts where God, Jesus, and the Spirit are referred to in the same passage (e.g., Jude 20-21), it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear. An example is 1 Peter 1.1-2 (Oxford Companion to the Bible, Daniel N. Scholwalter, author; Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Editors, Trinity, p 782)

Deception Exposed:

Deception Exposed:

Wow! Anti-trinitarians mislead to reader into a conclusion that is opposite to what the text is saying! They leave out Scholwalter's statement that early Christians worshipped Jesus The mislead the reader into thinking that Scholwalter rejects that trinity is found in Mt 28:19. Rather he actually says trinity is there, but that Jesus is not stated, in that passage to be equal with God. Scholwalter the tells us that it is John's gospel, not Matthews, portrays Jesus as both God and equal to God. But even worse, anti-Trinitarians, practice the most deceptive selective quoting by inserting the ellipses (...) between two different thoughts, misleading the reader into thinking that the phrase, "it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places here it does not appear" is applied by Scholwalter to Matthew 28:19. In fact, as you see in the full text below, Scholwalter openly states that trinity is found in Mt 28:19, offers Jude 20-21 as a second passage, but the warning "it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places here it does not appear" Scholwalter applies to the passage: 1 Peter 1:1-2.

Full article may be seen here: https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Metzger.htm

 

[Terryj]

Do you know where the term "Pagan" came from. Pagan comes from the Latin word "Paganus" meaning any person that lived in a rural setting, and that word comes from the Latin word "Pagus" which means a small rural land unit. The Romans used the word Pagan in a demeaning way, like calling someone a "hillbilly or a hick", it had no religious significance at all. Then along comes Christanity and Rome's conversion to it, those who did not convert to Christanity were labled as being "outside the church" just as those who lived in rural areas were "outside the city" the term Pagan was adopted by the church and has carried forward ever since.

 

[roguenuke]

KIND is the English equivalent of the Hebrew word min (מִין) found in the Bible thousands of years ago. Even though there is nothing wrong with scientific terms, one must still understand that our scientific words are relatively new. However, while one cannot judge the new terms, likewise one cannot judge those from antiquity.

You are attempting to use unscientific words to describe a part of science, categorize living, biological beings in a way that is meant to attempt to prove your story via science. Therefore, you need to show the criteria that is required to put any animal into a kind.

Our words being new doesn't change what I'm asking for. In order to translate any word, you need to understand what they meant, not just make up something that you feel makes it work.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are attempting to use unscientific words to describe a part of science, categorize living, biological beings in a way that is meant to attempt to prove your story via science. Therefore, you need to show the criteria that is required to put any animal into a kind.

Our words being new doesn't change what I'm asking for. In order to translate any word, you need to understand what they meant, not just make up something that you feel makes it work.

NO, No, no. The word “kind” was written in King James bible in the early 17th century, as the English translation of the Hebrew מִין And that went back to the time of Moses. When Carl Linnaeus formulated the modern taxonomic system in the 1700s, he did so in Latin. Species is a Latin word. It means “kind.” Linnaeus was attempting to describe the biblical kind with his term species. While Linnaeus was wrong about the taxonomic level of species initially, by the end of his life, he had moved his “kind” level to a position virtually indistinguishable from that of modern creationists. However, his mistake has caused generations of confusion about species and kinds. For the entire article go here: https://answersingenesis.org/natura...X38LHQVjdLE6GdLhF854hWFYQBYN87iT1n7O-G8ki4W6R

 

[roguenuke]

NO, No, no. The word “kind” was written in King James bible in the early 17th century, as the English translation of the Hebrew מִין And that went back to the time of Moses. When Carl Linnaeus formulated the modern taxonomic system in the 1700s, he did so in Latin. Species is a Latin word. It means “kind.” Linnaeus was attempting to describe the biblical kind with his term species. While Linnaeus was wrong about the taxonomic level of species initially, by the end of his life, he had moved his “kind” level to a position virtually indistinguishable from that of modern creationists. However, his mistake has caused generations of confusion about species and kinds. For the entire article go here: https://answersingenesis.org/natura...X38LHQVjdLE6GdLhF854hWFYQBYN87iT1n7O-G8ki4W6R

It has no actual meaning though. You can't define it. Saying it was written from a translation is not itself a definition. Where exactly does each kind begin and end? What differentiates a kind from a species, be very specific.

There are millions of species of animals alive today. Explain where kinds end and how they diverged using math. Not from AiG, which lies and is vague. You have to get from at least 6k animals to 10M+ species in 4000 years. And then explain how we have several hominid species that are clearly older species of humans. We lived with Neanderthals. Were they on the Ark too? How did the plants survive complete submergence in salt water for over 100 days? How did the marine animals survive the rapidly changing salinity of the water they lived in?

What about the heat problem?

Not surprised you would use Answers in Genesis, as if they have any actual scientific knowledge and aren't giant frauds.

 

[LittleNipper]

It has no actual meaning though. You can't define it. Saying it was written from a translation is not itself a definition. Where exactly does each kind begin and end? What differentiates a kind from a species, be very specific.

There are millions of species of animals alive today. Explain where kinds end and how they diverged using math. Not from AiG, which lies and is vague. You have to get from at least 6k animals to 10M+ species in 4000 years. And then explain how we have several hominid species that are clearly older species of humans. We lived with Neanderthals. Were they on the Ark too? How did the plants survive complete submergence in salt water for over 100 days? How did the marine animals survive the rapidly changing salinity of the water they lived in?

What about the heat problem?

Not surprised you would use Answers in Genesis, as if they have any actual scientific knowledge and aren't giant frauds

Answers in Genesis have any actual scientific knowledge and aren't giant frauds.

 

[roguenuke]

Answers in Genesis have any actual scientific knowledge and aren't giant frauds.

They are giant frauds. They don't have any actual scientific knowledge or evidence to back up their claims and they use misinformation and complete nonsense when making claims.

[TITLE]

The personal website of Adam Furman.

www.adamfurman.sk

Answers in Genesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[roguenuke]

Answers in Genesis have any actual scientific knowledge and aren't giant frauds.

Let's look at some more science taking down Ken Ham and his BS in Answers in Genesis.

 

[poppopfox]

Because GOD is love and would reveal HIMSELF to those seeking HIM. And CHRIST claimed to be the very SON of GOD and to know GOD and look like GOD and speak for GOD.

Thats not it.

 

[Rumpelstil]

There have been floods, on every continent, all over the earth since the surface cooled millions of years ago. Evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia is not evidence of Noah's "global" flood.

so i would also say