Trinity: Fact or Fiction?

[9TH]

Thank you, 9th, you saved me some time. I don't know where you found this site, but it sure does help my case.

Glad I could help.
As you can see, it seems the literalist (Skil) has left because literalists have no need for literal truth and facts.

Be not so quick to conclude that you know all there is to know of the Bible when all you have is your 21st century language, experience, and prejudices.

I never said I know everything about the Bible. All I did was support Peralin's position that book is not perfect or perfectly truthful. I do know that much with my 21st century mind. As do you since you also see contradictions.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Glad I could help.
As you can see, it seems the literalist (Skil) has left because literalists have no need for literal truth and facts.



I never said I know everything about the Bible. All I did was support Peralin's position that book is not perfect or perfectly truthful. I do know that much with my 21st century mind. As do you since you also see contradictions.

Present company excepted, however, some see those contradictions to be proof that the entire Bible is bogus and/or unreliable. I see those contradictions in a much different light and, though they must be honestly acknowledged and understood as to their origins, they in no way blunt the message of the magnificent body of writings we know as the Bible.

 

[Peralin]

Present company excepted, however, some see those contradictions to be proof that the entire Bible is bogus and/or unreliable. I see those contradictions in a much different light and, though they must be honestly acknowledged and understood as to their origins, they in no way blunt the message of the magnificent body of writings we know as the Bible.

That's the thing. I made sure that I never said the Bible was entirely bogus, only that it was NOT entirely true. All three of us agree on that matter, right? BTW, where did Skilmatic go? Did he just give up and leave?

 

[SKILMATIC]

That's the thing. I made sure that I never said the Bible was entirely bogus, only that it was NOT entirely true. All three of us agree on that matter, right? BTW, where did Skilmatic go? Did he just give up and leave?

No I just got word that I got accepted into the air force academy. So I have been alittle busy. However, I will just tell you to read the whole book instead of taking bits and peices. The only way to fully understand any book is to read the entire thing.

For example, yu just dont read one chapter or one portion of the divinci code to know everyhting there is anout the code do you? So the same goes for the Bible. Yes I know I dont beleive things like God turned a man into salt even though the bible says that becasue I beleive those types of passages and scriptures are just whats called parables(story lessons). However, the notions about prophecies and future prophecies are real and those arent stories.

You have to put each portion into perspectve and in its proper context. If its a parable then its a story that teaches a moral lesson. However, if its a history lesson then its true and it did happen. Does that make more sense? Mabe you misconstrued what I meant.

 

[leejosepho]

I guess I don't see how the passage from Isaiah ... relates to the Trinity. I don't see the doctrine of the Trinity to be a 'religiosity' if you mean 'religiosity' to be a specific religious practice. The Trinity is a belief--one that millions 'believe in' if you will.

I still wonder whether you distinguish between "believe" and "believe in". To "believe in" the Trinity (or whatever other doctrine) is to "put faith in" a mere doctrine, and doctrines simply do not -- cannot -- heal or save. Yet as I assume you are aware, religionists quickly put people like me down in various ways when I/we either do not "believe in" or even "believe" something they either "believe" or "believe in" as an absolute, often claiming to be doing so "in defense of 'the faith'" ...

... and personally, I call that religiosity, where mere beliefs are wrongfully "believed in" and thus wrongfully worshipped by those who thereby "qualify" for membership and acceptance in the "believe in" club.

Further it is my observation that adherants of [the Trinity] are those most likely to 'reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow, etc.'

We obviously do not live near the same kind of people. But even if you are correct as to "most likely", that fact would not prove anything about the alleged "Trinity".

Having said that, I tend to agree with Isaiah that we probably aren't doing worship of Yhwh very well. I just hope we get credit for honest effort sometimes.

I believe honest efforts are at least noticed, and possibly even recognized at times ...

 

[AlbqOwl]

I still wonder whether you distinguish between "believe" and "believe in". To "believe in" the Trinity (or whatever other doctrine) is to "put faith in" a mere doctrine, and doctrines simply do not -- cannot -- heal or save. Yet as I assume you are aware, religionists quickly put people like me down in various ways when I/we either do not "believe in" or even "believe" something they either "believe" or "believe in" as an absolute, often claiming to be doing so "in defense of 'the faith'" ...

... and personally, I call that religiosity, where mere beliefs are wrongfully "believed in" and thus wrongfully worshipped by those who thereby "qualify" for membership and acceptance in the "believe in" club.



We obviously do not live near the same kind of people. But even if you are correct as to "most likely", that fact would not prove anything about the alleged "Trinity".



I believe honest efforts are at least noticed, and possibly even recognized at times ...

To me, 'to believe' is to be confident that a fact is presented or perceived accurately. "To believe in" is to put ones faith, trust, and confidence in a person, concept, or policy or action with assurance of consistency in results, action, or response. I 'believe in' the Trinity because I see results in my own life and in the lives of others who accept that doctrine in more or less the same way I do. I believe in God whom you (as the ancients did) call YHWH--I don't think He cares a hoot what name we call Him so long as we do it with reverence and I know He loves and cares about me. I believe in Jesus of Nazareth as being who He claimed to be, and I believe in the Holy Spirit that I have personally experienced in various ways on numerous occasions.

I do not share many or sometimes most of the beliefs of those of other faiths, but I respect them. I have no reason to diminish them in my mind or by word or action, and I certainly don't require that they share my beliefs or believe in what I believe in. I don't require that of other Christians either.

I do not mind challenges to my beliefs as I believe that if it cannot stand up under scrutiny, it isn't worth having as a belief anyway.

 

[leejosepho]

To me, 'to believe' is to be confident that a fact is presented or perceived accurately. "To believe in" is to put ones faith, trust, and confidence in a person, concept, or policy or action with assurance of consistency in results, action, or response. I 'believe in' the Trinity [doctrine] because I see results in my own life and in the lives of others who accept that doctrine in more or less the same way I do.

In my mind, that sounds like "results" are in whatever way believed to be dependent upon "accepting" and "believing in" a particular doctrine -- that is essentially how Dorothy allegedly flew back to Kansas -- and I have yet to find any such idea evidenced in Scripture.

I believe in God whom you (as the ancients did) call YHWH--I don't think He cares a hoot what name we call Him ...

Where did you get that idea?

I do not share many or sometimes most of the beliefs of those of other faiths, but I respect them.

What do you believe is respectable about the beliefs of "other faiths"?

I have no reason to diminish them in my mind or by word or action, and I certainly don't require that they share my beliefs or believe in what I believe in ...

Then why were you so willing to publicly "diminish me" into the category of "non-believer"? Not that I actually care about that, but just wondering about the seeming inconsistency between certain of your words and actions.

I do not mind challenges to my beliefs as I believe that if it cannot stand up under scrutiny ...

... according to whose standard(s)?

 

[9TH]

No I just got word that I got accepted into the air force academy. So I have been alittle busy. However, I will just tell you to read the whole book instead of taking bits and peices. The only way to fully understand any book is to read the entire thing.

For example, yu just dont read one chapter or one portion of the divinci code to know everyhting there is anout the code do you? So the same goes for the Bible. Yes I know I dont beleive things like God turned a man into salt even though the bible says that becasue I beleive those types of passages and scriptures are just whats called parables(story lessons). However, the notions about prophecies and future prophecies are real and those arent stories.

You have to put each portion into perspectve and in its proper context. If its a parable then its a story that teaches a moral lesson. However, if its a history lesson then its true and it did happen. Does that make more sense? Mabe you misconstrued what I meant.

I have read the whole book, from cover to cover, and I'm amazed that it still carries such mystical fascination for people.

So, if you don't believe someone turned into salt (wasn't that a woman?) then you agree that the bible isn't entirely, literally true in all respects, which is a change from what you said before.

As to prophesies, if one of them didn't come true in every detail as foretold, then they are all suspect, wouldn't you agree? There are quite a few faulty and/or false prophesies if you read the list on the site I provided earlier. For instance, if the messiah was to be named Emmanuel, as it says in the prophesy in Isaiah, and his name turned out to be Jesus, then isn't that prophesy faulty?

Personally, absent verifiable historical items, I consider the entire bible to be a collection of parables, tales, myths and such. Hell, some of it isn't even original.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I have read the whole book, from cover to cover, and I'm amazed that it still carries such mystical fascination for people.

Then I must say you must not be a very good reader.

So, if you don't believe someone turned into salt (wasn't that a woman?) then you agree that the bible isn't entirely, literally true in all respects, which is a change from what you said before.

No I said it is leteraly true in the historical and prophecial facts that it brings. If you read the whole thread I have even explained that parables arent literally a factual even. They are moral story lessons. I have said that before. And the person who was turned into salt was Lots wife. Oops I said man huh? My bad. I mean tto say woman. I forgot the wo part :lol: .

And jesus was emmanuel. In the name it means "God with us." And I beleive if I am not mistake he was God with us. So that argument is dead. Any other prophecies you think are wrong?

And could please provide chapter and verse for this supposed false prophecy? I would greatly appreicate it my good friend. I have provided chapters and verses for you all to look back to for evidence and I have heard much from the opposers(kinda funny huh?). Since you read the bible cover to cover I would think you would remember a false prophecy dont you think? I know I wouldnt forget it casue I could use that to say to every theologian and every god teacher was wrong and I am smarter than all of them who have been trying to prove the Bible wrong for centuries.

I will be awaiting fo that verse so I can bring it to all the bible scholars and prove them wrong. :lol:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
To me, 'to believe' is to be confident that a fact is presented or perceived accurately. "To believe in" is to put ones faith, trust, and confidence in a person, concept, or policy or action with assurance of consistency in results, action, or response. I 'believe in' the Trinity [doctrine] because I see results in my own life and in the lives of others who accept that doctrine in more or less the same way I do.

Response from Lee

In my mind, that sounds like "results" are in whatever way believed to be dependent upon "accepting" and "believing in" a particular doctrine -- that is essentially how Dorothy allegedly flew back to Kansas -- and I have yet to find any such idea evidenced in Scripture.

No, the results are not necessarily dependent upon 'accepting' and 'believing'. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and everybody gets blessings. The 'results' of which I speak is a form of knowing, of empowerment if you will. I don't know that it is limited to Christians only. I do know Christians, including myself, who have experienced it up close and personal and, of course, that's why we 'believe in it'.

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
I believe in God whom you (as the ancients did) call YHWH--I don't think He cares a hoot what name we call Him ...

Lee responded:

Where did you get that idea?

I think He would have let us know if He minded. (I do think he expects the name, whatever it is, to be used with respect and reverence.)

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl: I do not share many or sometimes most of the beliefs of those of other faiths, but I respect them.

Lee responded

What do you believe is respectable about the beliefs of "other faiths"?

Having spent most of my life studying religion as an avocation, I am convinced all religions have pieces of the truth and none have the whole truth. Who am I to question the depth of faith in a Ghandi or a Buddhist master or a Jewish rabbi whose very face radiates joy? I do not see it as my prerogative to judge others re their relationship with the Most High unless what they profess is evil.

Originally posted by AlbqOwl - I have no reason to diminish them in my mind or by word or action, and I certainly don't require that they share my beliefs or believe in what I believe in ...

Lee responded

Then why were you so willing to publicly "diminish me" into the category of "non-believer"? Not that I actually care about that, but just wondering about the seeming inconsistency between certain of your words and actions.

I did not 'diminish you'. I was affirming your own statement (on another thread) that in effect you rejected Christianity and/or the Trinity. Would that not make you a 'non-believer' so far as Christianity is concerned? I was making a statement of my own belief at the time and my intent was to convey to you I did not expect you to believe it nor did I think it diminished you in any way because we disagreed.

Why is the semantics of 'belief' and 'believing in' so important to you?

:

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl
I do not mind challenges to my beliefs as I believe that if it cannot stand up under scrutiny ...

Lee responded

... according to whose standard(s)?

I am an old debate coach and judge. It has to stand up to a stiff standard of logic, reason, and/or credible evidence before I won't take points away. So I guess by my standards.

 

[leejosepho]

... if the messiah was to be named Emmanuel, as it says in the prophesy in Isaiah, and his name turned out to be Jesus, then isn't that prophesy faulty?

No, but Christianity's representation of The Messiah's name surely is.

If I have heard correctly ...

"Emmanuel" means something like "'God' (Elohim, The Almighty One) with us", there is no Saviour but Him (YHWH), and the Hebrew name The Father (YHWH) gave His Son is something like "Y'Shua", meaning something like "YahSaves" or "YahSaviour" ... "Yah with us".

 

[SKILMATIC]

I am still wating for the verse from 9th to prove his opionion. I have presented facts against that opinion.

 

[leejosepho]

I think He would have let us know if He minded [... I don’t think He cares a hoot what name we call Him]. (I do think he expects the name, whatever it is, to be used with respect and reverence.)

Where did you get any of those ideas, and do you not see any conflicts between them? I contend that the first comes from simple ignorance, that the second comes from the fanciful imaginations of mere men, and that the third is drawn from a combination of some common sense – speak all names correctly, please – and things He has specifically said.

Having spent most of my life studying religion as an avocation, I am convinced all religions have pieces of the truth and none have the whole truth.

So then, we would agree that no religion either truly heals or ultimately saves?

Who am I to question the depth of faith in a Ghandi or a Buddhist master or a Jewish rabbi whose very face radiates joy? I do not see it as my prerogative to judge others re their relationship with the Most High unless what they profess is evil.

I could be wrong here, and I do not intend to press the matter. However, I contend that your previous comments about my allegedly being a non-believer were at least in some way connected to some kind of thought that my speaking against Christianity and/or the so-called “Trinity” is in some way (or in some way might even make me) evil. At least, and while yet meaning to be cautious about stereotyping, that is the way many Christians often seem to believe/act in this kind of discussion, and especially when they might ultimately find themselves with no other significant arguments remaining. But with that aside ...

Personally, I do not question your implied observation that one’s “depth of faith” might make it possible for his or her face to “radiate joy”, and I do not claim any right to judge anyone’s relationship with the Most High for any reason. However, neither do I see “radiation of joy” from someone’s face as undeniable evidence of a/the right relationship to/with The One who created us.

Why is the semantics of 'belief' and 'believing in' so important to you?

Because believing in beliefs does not heal or save anyone any more than it could have ever flown Dorothy and her little dog back to Kansas.

 

[Old and wise]

Trinity: Fact or Fiction?

Pure and simple answer: Absolute fiction - the product of someone's imagination.

 

[y not peace?]

that was a very wise statement you just made. Mind elaborating?

 

[SKILMATIC]

Whether you beleive in the trinity or not doesnt make you any less or more wise than you are. Its just your opinion much like the rest of these opinionated claims.

 

[Peralin]

Whether you beleive in the trinity or not doesnt make you any less or more wise than you are. Its just your opinion much like the rest of these opinionated claims.

Explain this:

Isaiah 19: 4-5

19:4 And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts.

19:5 And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.

Did the Nile dry up? I don't remember studying about that. Please explain. I've got more if you can prove this one.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Where did you get any of those ideas, and do you not see any conflicts between them? I contend that the first comes from simple ignorance, that the second comes from the fanciful imaginations of mere men, and that the third is drawn from a combination of some common sense – speak all names correctly, please – and things He has specifically said.

It is your prerogative to see whatever it is you see and believe what you will believe. If one will trust scripture to be an accurate portrayal of what 'He has specifically said', then we would dare not ignore a single word attributed to Him could we? That would require a very radical change in lifestyle and interpretation of Law for all of us, not to mention that it would make us all pretty socially unacceptable. Skilmatic has it right that the texts have to be taken as a whole, and further I believe we have to allow God to write into our minds what the message of the ancient words are for us today.

That is my belief. I will probably insult you again by sayng so, but we obviously do not share the same beliefs or perceptions. I do not require or expect others to share mine.

So then, we would agree that no religion either truly heals or ultimately saves?

It depends on what you mean by religion. If you mean the rituals and liturgy that we practice in our religion, then no, I think these having no ultimate healing or saving powers. They are sometimes comforting and meaningfull, but are not essential. But I know that God both heals and saves. That is my belief. I believe He does not restrict Himself in how that is done, and my personal belief says that we should not presume to assume how He does or will do it.

I could be wrong here, and I do not intend to press the matter. However, I contend that your previous comments about my allegedly being a non-believer were at least in some way connected to some kind of thought that my speaking against Christianity and/or the so-called “Trinity” is in some way (or in some way might even make me) evil. At least, and while yet meaning to be cautious about stereotyping, that is the way many Christians often seem to believe/act in this kind of discussion, and especially when they might ultimately find themselves with no other significant arguments remaining. But with that aside.

I have made it crystal clear that I do not judge your (or anybody else's) goodness or lack thereof ased on what you believe in the matters of religion and faith. You don't know me other than through these brief exchanges on a message board, so your suggestion of what I think or feel about you is logically unfounded and unsubstantiated. I have received unkind judgment, criticism, and condemnation from Moslems, Jews, athiests, Buddhists, and other Christians. I don't assume that all from any of those groups hold the same views as those who had/have issues with me.

Personally, I do not question your implied obsrvation that one’s “depth of faith” might make it possible for his or her face to “radiate joy”, and I do not claim any right to judge anyone’s relationship with the Most High for any reason. However, neither do I see “radiation of joy” from someone’s face as undeniable evidence of a/the right relationship to/with The One who created us.

Because believing in beliefs does not heal or save anyone any more than it could have ever flown Dorothy and her little dog back to Kansas.

I don't make assumptions about anyone's 'right relationship towith The One who created us. I do feel and share the joy that some obviously experience in that relationship without drawing assumptions about what any others might be experiencing.. I don't 'believe in beliefs'. I believe in what I know and experience. And I believe if God wants Dorothy and Toto (or me) back in Kansas, He's quite capable of getting any of us there.

 

[leejosepho]

It is your prerogative to see whatever it is you see and believe what you will believe. If one will trust scripture to be an accurate portrayal of what 'He has specifically said', then we would dare not ignore a single word attributed to Him could we? That would require a very radical change in lifestyle and interpretation of Law for all of us, not to mention that it would make us all pretty socially unacceptable. Skilmatic has it right that the texts have to be taken as a whole, and further I believe we have to allow God to write into our minds what the message of the ancient words are for us today.

That is my belief. I will probably insult you again by sayng so, but we obviously do not share the same beliefs or perceptions. I do not require or expect others to share mine.

In spite of however I might either perceive or misperceive either you or your responses, I thank you for talking with me and offering them, and for the kindness you show along the way.

I certainly agree that the texts of "Scripture" must be taken as a whole, yet not at the expense of anything even but loosely or sparsely described or reported therein. So then, I do trust Scripture "to be an accurate portrayal of what 'He has specifically said'," and that we "dare not ignore a single word attributed to" The One who has created us ... and yes, that ultimately leads to "a very radical change in lifestyle and interpretation of Law" for at least those who might try to live accordingly, and along with making us/them "pretty socially unacceptable" in the eyes of many.

... I believe we have to allow God to write into our minds what the message of the ancient words are for us today.

Maybe this is what you meant to convey, but He actually writes on hearts ... with minds then later able to come along also. At least, that is my own experience with the timeless message of Sinai: His power to deliver, His love in provision and His "way of life" in right fellowship and worship.

Shalom.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Shalom, my friend.

 

[9TH]

And jesus was emmanuel. In the name it means "God with us." And I beleive if I am not mistake he was God with us. So that argument is dead. Any other prophecies you think are wrong?

and

"Emmanuel" means something like "'God' (Elohim, The Almighty One) with us", there is no Saviour but Him (YHWH), and the Hebrew name The Father (YHWH) gave His Son is something like "Y'Shua", meaning something like "YahSaves" or "YahSaviour" ... "Yah with us".

So then the prophesy should have said that his name would be, "Emmanuel, which means god with us, or Jesus, which could mean god with us,... or god saves,.... or, or god saviour," ... or blah blah blah. Hell, if that's an accurate prophesy than Nostradamus and Kreskin have that beat all to hell. :roll: Fact is, it says his name would be emmanuel and his name was Jesus or Yashua. They may or may not mean the same thing but they are not the same names. I'll give this prophesy a 50% accuracy rate. Not so good for a perfect book.

And could please provide chapter and verse for this supposed false prophecy? I would greatly appreicate it my good friend. I have provided chapters and verses for you all to look back to for evidence and I have heard much from the opposers(kinda funny huh?). Since you read the bible cover to cover I would think you would remember a false prophecy dont you think? I know I wouldnt forget it casue I could use that to say to every theologian and every god teacher was wrong and I am smarter than all of them who have been trying to prove the Bible wrong for centuries.
I will be awaiting fo that verse so I can bring it to all the bible scholars and prove them wrong. :lol:

The Emmanuel prophesy is in Isa. 7:14

Here's one from Gen - As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12

Also from Gen - In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

Go to the link I posted earlier, click on "prophesy" and read the list, it's not all encompassing but it's long enough.

 

[leejosepho]

... it says his name would be emmanuel ...
I'll give this prophesy a 50% accuracy rate ...

Cool!

Here's one from Gen - As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12

It was *because* Cain was "a fugitive and a vagabond" that he built a city, hardly the actions of a man in right fellowship with The Creator.

 

[dthmstr254]

Why do people believe that the Trinity exists? Does Jesus ever say that he is God? If so, why does he pray to God? If they were one, Jesus would not be praying to himself, would he?

If Jesus did not say that he was God, and there is evidence that shows that Jesus could not be God, then why is it such a popular belief? As far as I know, there is no solid evidence that Jesus was a God (within the Bible). And isn't Catholicism based solely upon the teachings of the New Testament? Why would Constantine and the other Catholic leaders decide that Jesus and God were one?

yes he does claim he is God as illustrated with the next quote, "before Abraham was, I Am" notice how the tense changes? since God is eternal, he has no boundaries provided by time, as some put it, "he never was and never will be, he always IS." every moment in time IS to Him. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. he was required to pray to talk to God, even though he knew exactly what was going to happen at the end of the prayer, since man is required by the law to pray in order to talk to God, he was also required. The Three-in-one God is not a recent creation of man's mind. if you have not seen any solid evidence that Jesus is the Messiah i can list off 38 prophecies from the Old testament that he fulfilled, all from the Bible. that will be off the priniting press in three days, so to speak. maybe by the end of it you will be more enlightened.

 

[Peralin]

yes he does claim he is God as illustrated with the next quote, "before Abraham was, I Am" notice how the tense changes? since God is eternal, he has no boundaries provided by time, as some put it, "he never was and never will be, he always IS." every moment in time IS to Him.

First of all, the tense change easily could've been a translation error. Second, even if ti was meant to be tha way, Jesus never says that he is God! Your quote about him coming before Abraham simply means that he existed for a while before he was born.

Perhaps God formed Jesus early, so that he could go over his plans with his son before he sends him to Earth. Or perhaps God was lonely "in the beginning" and decided to have a son. So Jesus was there with God, yet he was not God. These are some of many possibilities. Please find exactly where Jesus says that he is God. Then I will consider it.

he was required to pray to talk to God

WHAT?! If he was required to pray and talk to God, that means he is not God! What do you think he is doing, pryaing to himself, having a nice chat with himself? Asking himself to spare himself from the death that awaits? So WHO is it that Jesus is speaking to? It can't be God, becuase Jesus=God, right? So who is it?

The Three-in-one God is not a recent creation of man's mind.

No, of course it isn't. Actually, I think Christians stole the idea from the Hindus. Not sure which came first, but I think it was the Hindu Trinity.

if you have not seen any solid evidence that Jesus is the Messiah i can list off 38 prophecies from the Old testament that he fulfilled, all from the Bible. that will be off the priniting press in three days, so to speak. maybe by the end of it you will be more enlightened.

No, I do not need evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. I believe that he is the Messiah. He is the one that God would send to help us. He was the real deal (as far as I believe). BUT, I do not think that he was God. He may be the SON of God, but that's a bit different. (BTW, did you ever think that maybe Jesus is called the "son of God" because God "had intercourse" with Mary? Just an idea.)

Jesus could easily be the son of God. After all, are we not all sons of God? Did God not create every one of us (according to common belief)? And Jesus may be the Messiah, who was predicted to come to save us. And maybe Jesus did die on the cross and rise again to save us from our sins. And maybe he did ascend into heaven after 40 days. But couldn't he do all that without being God?

maybe by the end of it you will be more enlightened.

Ha! That's funny that you would say that. For 15 years I was a good Catholic, and then I found debatepolitics.com. It opened my eyes to reality. It has not changed my core beliefs, but it has let me choose for myself. Because of this, I do not consider myself Catholic any more (though technically I still am). I am still Christian, as I believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I just haven't found a group of Christians that fit my beliefs.

So no, I don't think I will be enlightened to believe in the trinity unless Jesus comes to me and tells me that he is God. Then I'd reconsider.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Jesus did in fact tell his disciples that he and the Father were one--he was in fact God. Further the Gospel according to John starts out: In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the World was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.