Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,488 comments
  • 1,140,346 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
These should be self explanatory.

God created Jesus.
.....
God the Father and Jesus the Son, the two are separate.
.....

That's cool, that establishes how they're separate. I think the Bible is mixing it's timeline a bit there as Jesus (at least in the incarnation that we typically speak of him) was not created first. There was a whole planet going on before he turned up in Bethlehem, but there's nothing wrong with a little artistic license.

What about the idea of Jesus being human and not divine, however? If he's the direct descendant of God, one would expect him to inherit the qualities of God, who is a divine being and presumably not human at all.

To be clear, to the extent that I think Jesus existed as a historical figure, I think he was a human.

It is, just not the "Christianity" you're thinking of.

I don't get it. What's Christianity and what's "Christianity" then?

Not to be too much of a grammar nazi, but words have meanings, and if you're using Christianity to mean something other than what normal people would expect it to mean, it'd help if you'd make that clear.

...you simply can't reason your way around a pointless death of a child to find that it was god's plan or whatever...

You can, it's just that most people would end up with the idea that such a God is at best a colossal arsehole, and at worst the epitome of everything that we as humans hate. The idea of living in a universe with a being like that in charge is horrifying, and so it's much more pleasant to assume that there isn't a God.

Science, through cosmology and amateur astronomy has, in my case, fully replaced the need to believe in the existence of any god. It really is liberating, once you come to terms with the idea that religion doesn't explain nothing and usually fails whenever you question it.

And I find beauty in the randomness of the physical processes that led to me being here, now, writing this.

Agreed. The universe is amazing, and there's more than enough wonder and spectacle and mystery for a thousand lifetimes.

The thing that has been upsetting me is that here, in Brazil, religion in general has been slowly taking the reason's place on the public discourse and this is awful, as I'm sure a lot of you will agree. It's getting to absurd levels to the point that I'm finally getting why there are so many partisans on the atheist side.

Personally, I think it's just a convenient vehicle that allows people to justify what they really wanted to do anyway. Were you to remove it, those same people would find other reasons to be irrational. It's real hard to argue with stupidity and self-interest, which is a lot of what it comes down to.
 
These should be self explanatory.

God created Jesus.

Nope, the Trinity is of the same person split into different Whens. Jesus points out "before Abraham was born, I am", the tense of which is surely deliberate. There are many quotes where Jesus explains that he is God, they can be cherry-picked as easily as yours (Timothy 3:16, John 10:30, John 5:17-18) and you can find many more with simple googles.

The Trinity is a difficult concept to get one's head around - but the antidote is not to say that Jesus was a man rather than a god. Believing him to be a man (but still believing that God exists) makes you Jewish, whether you like it or not.

On the evidence so far you're definitely an in-denial Jew.
 
Nope, the Trinity is of the same person split into different Whens. Jesus points out "before Abraham was born, I am", the tense of which is surely deliberate. There are many quotes where Jesus explains that he is God, they can be cherry-picked as easily as yours

If you have an argument against the verses I used I'd like to hear it.


Timothy 3:16, John 10:30, John 5:17-18) and you can find many more with simple googles.
Timothy 3:16 does not exist.


John 10:30
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one"

Nowhere in that verse "Jesus explains that he is God".

John 17:20,21,22 might give you more understanding on John 10:30.

John 17:20,21,22 I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.
I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. I have honored my followers in the same way you honored me, in order that they may be one with each other, just as we are one.


Jesus prayed regarding his followers...“that they will all be one,” and... “that they may be one with each other", just as we are one..”
They come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same oneness that unites God and Jesus.
(He used the same Greek word for “one” in all these instances.)

So are you saying Jesus’ disciples all become part of the Trinity too?


John 5:17-18
John 5:17-18 "But Jesus replied, “My Father is always working, and so am I -
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

Who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? It wasn't Jesus.

The very next verse says...

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."

Once again, nowhere in that verse "Jesus explains that he is God".



The Trinity is a difficult concept to get one's head around
It must be particularly difficult for you because the verses you quote not only fail to show that "Jesus explains that he is God" but -
fail to even mention a third "being" which defines The Trinity :lol:


- but the antidote is not to say that Jesus was a man rather than a god.
Believing him to be a man (but still believing that God exists) makes you Jewish, whether you like it or not.
On the evidence so far you're definitely an in-denial Jew.

If you only waited for my response back to Imari, you mightn't have shown your ignorance.
 
If you have an argument against the verses I used I'd like to hear it.

I gave you that - you cherry picked verses that suggest that Jesus is only defined as a son of god in a way that we understand human offspring. You fail to note that that's what makes you a Jew, not a Christian. Surely a priest must have taken you through the important bits at some point?

Timothy 3:16 does not exist.

I explained that the when-ness of God and Jesus was hard to understand. Apparently chapter numbers are quite difficult too.

Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,vindicated by the Spirit,seen by angels,proclaimed among the nations,believed on in the world,taken up in glory.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one"

Nowhere in that verse "Jesus explains that he is God".

Perhaps you're reading the meaning of the words differently? If two things are one then they are the same thing. It's basically Jesus explaining that he is God, the clues are in the words.

John 17:20,21,22 might give you more understanding on John 10:30.

John 17:20,21,22 I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message.
I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. I have honored my followers in the same way you honored me, in order that they may be one with each other, just as we are one.

John 17:20 refers to the earlier verses: "even though they are of the world I am not of the world", "they have sent me into the world as I have sent them into the world", and follows with "that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me". Perhaps you don't like chicken soup and that's the cause of your denial of your true beliefs?

Jesus prayed regarding his followers...“that they will all be one,” and... “that they may be one with each other", just as we are one..”
They come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same oneness that unites God and Jesus.

Yes, that's attained through assimilation of the hosts - a ritual (communion) that's still practiced before altars today. Eventually we gain admission to heaven (with caveats) and become one with the host. The bible's full of that stuff, for obvious reasons.

John 5:17-18 "But Jesus replied, “My Father is always working, and so am I -
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

Who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? It wasn't Jesus.

It's pretty much the core message of John's Gospel. "Any one who has seen me has seen the Father" is a zinger, some of the other verses require understanding of what constitutes "one" and we've established that you'd like to bring a new, more Jewish cant to that. Still, if you know Jesus you know his Father also (John's Gospel) and so the meaning is pretty clear.

The very next verse says...

"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."

Once again, nowhere in that verse "Jesus explains that he is God".

The son can't act independently because he is God. The Father is the omnipotence and the Son is that will made flesh. That's how being the Messiah works. Of course, if you reject the Messiah then you're Jewish, which we already know. L'chaim.

It must be particularly difficult for you because the verses you quote not only fail to show that "Jesus explains that he is God" but -
fail to even mention a third "being" which defines The Trinity :lol:

There is no third being. There is one being.

lol

Writings contemporary to the dissertation of John's Gospel are strong on the existence of the Holy Spirit. It's referenced in John, Matthew, Peter and Corinthians. "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him or know him, but you know him because he abides with you and will be in you", "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you", "When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me", "According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure", "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all", and "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"".

Paul's Prayer includes the line "For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father". Hebrews says "How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

The kicker is in Matthew... here's the money shot... "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

The three are one, that's the Trinity, that's how the people writing the bible wrote about the bible, there they are.

If you only waited for my response back to Imari, you mightn't have shown your ignorance.

Oh, I can only imagine.
 
@RalliArt///// You come across as Jehovah's Witness, but miss out on one of their strongest arguments as to why God and Jesus are not the same entity: John 14:28 ".... for the Father is greater than I am".
 
I gave you that - you cherry picked verses that suggest that Jesus is only defined as a son of god in a way that we understand human offspring.


You expect me to address (more) verses you quote while throwing the term.. "cherry picked" over all of mine, maybe I'll employ the same tactic.

Christians get accused for "twisting" scripture, yet you go a step further and just ignore the ones that are inconvenient for you because you're forced to throw all logic and reason out the window.


I'll post them again here in case you change your mind.
If your still unable to form an argument against them don't bother replying.


God the Father and Jesus the Son, the two are separate.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
John 10:36 As for me, the Father chose me and sent me into the world. How, then, can you say that I blaspheme because I said that I am the Son of God?
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
John 14:28 If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 20:17 Jesus said...I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God
Matthew 24:36 No one knows the day or hour. The angels in heaven don't know, and the Son himself doesn't know. Only the Father knows.
Matthew 3:17 After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy.”



@RalliArt///// You come across as Jehovah's Witness, but miss out on one of their strongest arguments as to why God and Jesus are not the same entity: John 14:28 ".... for the Father is greater than I am".

I'm not, but I'm just using what the Bible says. Who knows, I could be an atheist playing devil's advocate.
And I did use that verse here..
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-729
 
You expect me to address (more) verses you quote while throwing the term.. "cherry picked" over all of mine, maybe I'll employ the same tactic.

They're the ones that demonstrate the bible's support for the notion of trinity... you're simply quoting the ones that you think disagree (some of them requiring an odd interpretation to make your view fit) and ignoring the trinity as the very basis for the writings of the end of the first century, the bible included.

God the Father and Jesus the Son, the two are separate.

You're still missing the holy spirit, pretty basic stuff. The father, the son and the holy spirit are three facets of the same deity seen from different whens and wheres. That's why non-trinitarianism is seen as heresy in mainstream christianity.

You might not like that simple fact, but if you're Jewish then you'll enjoy t'ructions :D
 
I'm not, but I'm just using what the Bible says. Who knows, I could be an atheist playing devil's advocate.
And I did use that verse here..
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-729
Fair enough, and yes you did (my bad).

But at this point, I would appreciate it, if you were more open about where stand on religion. If only from a social-psychological point of view. Because when dealing with a book review on this scale, knowing if an argument is inspired by believe, use of logic or e.g just language, makes all the difference.
 
That's cool, that establishes how they're separate. I think the Bible is mixing it's timeline a bit there as Jesus (at least in the incarnation that we typically speak of him) was not created first. There was a whole planet going on before he turned up in Bethlehem, but there's nothing wrong with a little artistic license.

The timeline isn't mixed up, Jesus was created first, he had a prehuman existence.

Proverbs 8:27
When he set up the heavens, I was there. When he traced the horizon on the surface of the ocean,

After His creation, it was Gods will that Jesus should share in the creation work.
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness",..

Proverbs 8:30 I was right beside the LORD, helping him plan and build. I made him happy each day, and I was happy at his side.



What about the idea of Jesus being human and not divine, however? If he's the direct descendant of God, one would expect him to inherit the qualities of God, who is a divine being and presumably not human at all.

He wasn't divine while on earth.

Jesus left off his heavenly nature. Paul explained this in Philippians 2:7-11

"Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man,"
Other translations say... "he gave up his divine privileges"


And in relation to this, if Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?

@TenEightyOne Add that one to the list too ;)



Fair enough, and yes you did (my bad).

But at this point, I would appreciate it, if you were more open about where stand on religion. If only from a social-psychological point of view. Because when dealing with a book review on this scale, knowing if an argument is inspired by believe, use of logic or e.g just language, makes all the difference.

Its just logic tbh.
 
After His creation, it was Gods will that Jesus should share in the creation work.
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness",..

There are numerous interpretations of who "we" are, but it should be remembered that God was often referred to in the plural even a few thousand years ago (addonai, elohim). That might even be the origin of majestis pluralis, but if nothing else it's seen as tacit support for the trinitarian doctrine even before the time of the messiah's supposed coming. Here are some interesting notes on that chapter.

@TenEightyOne Add that one to the list too


If you can't get your head around the trinity then just say so, it's better than watching you try to argue that 2,000 years of interpretation of the trinity was wrong. You say "he wasn't divine while he was on earth", but he was. Remember that he is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. Trying to apply time to the phases of the trinity is meaningless - they are always.

Here's some reading on his "void" on earth, enjoy. You'll notice that the scholars talk as if Jesus was God while he was on earth. Funny, that. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/philippians/2-7.htm.

I'll say it once more, you need to get your head around the father, son and holy spirit as one thing seen from different directions in different times and all at once. It's the core doctrine of christianity - without it you're effectively jewish or a heretical christian.
 
Isn't there an argument that the trinity is a (mis)interpretation of Jesus's teachings and not actually true in some denominations....or is it only Jehovah's Witnesses?
 
There are numerous interpretations of who "we" are, but it should be remembered that God was often referred to in the plural even a few thousand years ago (addonai, elohim). That might even be the origin of majestis pluralis, but if nothing else it's seen as tacit support for the trinitarian doctrine even before the time of the messiah's supposed coming. Here are some interesting notes on that chapter.

Here's the problem with that... remember?

God created Jesus.

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Revelation 3:14 The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:
Proverbs 8:22 The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.



If you can't get your head around the trinity then just say so, it's better than watching you try to argue that 2,000 years of interpretation of the trinity was wrong. You say "he wasn't divine while he was on earth", but he was. Remember that he is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. Trying to apply time to the phases of the trinity is meaningless - they are always.

Here's some reading on his "void" on earth, enjoy. You'll notice that the scholars talk as if Jesus was God while he was on earth. Funny, that. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/philippians/2-7.htm.


There you go again...
Can you actually address the full comment I made? You're just quoting the first sentence and then posting a comment in response to that quote.
I've no problem commenting on your posts if you do the same.

I'll post it again...

"He wasn't divine while on earth.

Jesus left off his heavenly nature. Paul explained this in Philippians 2:7-11"

"Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man,"
Other translations say... "he gave up his divine privileges"


And in relation to this, if Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?


Bonus question:
If the Son and Spirit are coequal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit? (Luke 12:10)



You say "he wasn't divine while he was on earth", but he was. Remember that he is alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. Trying to apply time to the phases of the trinity is meaningless - they are always.

Certain titles are shared between God and Jesus... "Lord” “Savior” “King of Kings". (It's Interesting that Jesus is never referred to as "Almighty God", only God himself is) God and Jesus may properly share the title of Alpha and the Omega for different reasons.

God had no beginning so he is the first. And he will not be succeeded by anyone else, forever. So in that sense he is also the last.
But Jesus is first and last in another sense. He is the first thing that God created. (see above) Jesus is called "the last Adam" 1 Corinthians 15:45 47

Jesus was also the first and last person that God resurrected from the dead to everlasting life, because now Jesus is in position to resurrect everyone else. That's why he's called "the Resurrection." John 11:25


I'll say it once more, you need to get your head around the father, son and holy spirit as one thing seen from different directions in different times and all at once.
But the difference is you're unable to provide any biblical evidence to support your claim. I posted a list of verses to support mine and you simply refuse to comment on a single verse.



It's the core doctrine of christianity - without it you're effectively jewish or a heretical christian.
If the Trinity is the "core doctrine of christianity" why isn't it explained clearly in the Bible or even mentioned in it?



Isn't there an argument that the trinity is a (mis)interpretation of Jesus's teachings and not actually true in some denominations....or is it only Jehovah's Witnesses?

I'd say a intentional misinterpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nontrinitarian_denominations
 
If the Trinity is the "core doctrine of christianity" why isn't it explained clearly in the Bible or even mentioned in it?

Pardon me for taking this out of the order of your rebuttals, but it is certainly mentioned. I gave you nine quotes where the holy spirit is mentioned. There isn't really an "if" about the trinity being the core doctrine of christianity because it is, and was for over 1,000 years. There are now some anti-trinitarian sects (considered heretical by the major churches of christianity, as I patiently explained to you already) but overall the father, the son and the holy spirit are considered facets of the same deity, not individuals. I know it can be difficult to wrap your head around but I must urge you to try, it's central to the argument you're trying to form.

There's not much point in answering more of your post until you make some real effort to understand the doctrine at the core of what you're arguing - you're taking a fringe, sectist view and arguing that it's the mainstream form of the religion. It absolutely isn't.

However, in answer to your first "proof" quotes that god and jesus are separate (a flawed argument for very obvious reasons):

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Humans can not see god or the holy spirit, jesus is the visible instance of the trinity. That quote does not say god created jesus, it says that jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Of all creation.


Revelation 3:14 The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

Not sure what you think this one means but it certainly doesn't say that god created jesus. It couldn't because he didn't.

Proverbs 8:22 The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.

I'm not sure if you're also taking a fringe approach to the meaning of words but "the lord formed me" means that his form is of the lord, not that the lord made him. Form can mean "consisting of" or "create shape of".

Perhaps you could tell us why you take this anti-trinitarian view and if you yourself are of faith? It would be interesting to understand your dogma.
 
The timeline isn't mixed up, Jesus was created first, he had a prehuman existence.

OK, let's take that a pre-human existence as a given. The created first part is really neither here nor there.

He wasn't divine while on earth.

Jesus left off his heavenly nature. Paul explained this in Philippians 2:7-11

"Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man,"
Other translations say... "he gave up his divine privileges"


Assuming the form of a thing or taking it's likeness is not the same as becoming that thing in entirety. If I disguise myself as a gorilla, I've taken on the form of the gorilla but I'm still me, and still a human.

What's more, when talking about spiritual identity like this, the central part of "self-ness" is generally considered to be non-physical; the soul or whatever label you'd like to put on it. That's how Jesus can take human form and still be Jesus. But given that he can still perform miracles as a human, I'd have to assume that his divinity is a part of his soul and not removed upon his assuming the likeness of a man.

As far as privileges, one can give up privileges and it changes nothing about who you are. Privileges are simply some advantage or positive thing that you have or get because of who you are. Jesus can turn down divine privileges all day, but it doesn't make him any less divine. A white man can reject all white privilege and he's still white as the driven snow.

And honestly, whatever quotes you come up with to support this idea of non-divinity while on earth, it's still going to have to contend with the fact that Jesus could perform miracles. Humans can't do that. God does that when humans ask. Even saints do not perform miracles themselves, but only with God's power through them.

And in relation to this, if Jesus was God on earth, then it renders meaningless the fact that God rewarded Jesus for his great sacrifice.
Or are we supposed to believe that God rewards himself for being loyal to himself and gives himself gifts that he has always possessed?

You've never said to yourself "I worked really hard today, I'm gonna treat myself to some ice cream from the freezer"? One can absolutely reward oneself with things that one already possesses. It's one of the fundamental tools of self-motivation.

I find it absolutely plausible that a being could reward itself for making a sacrifice that it intellectually knows is the right thing to do, but is nonetheless difficult and painful. I would find that more praiseworthy than a being that made the sacrifice for an external reward. Doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing is hard, and I have respect for people and beings that can do so.
 
how do we know jesus wasnt really mexican ?

Well, the name Mexico is thought to only go back to sometime in the 1300s. Assuming Jesus walked around some 2000 years ago, he predated Mexico. The Mexica people also only surfaced sometime in 1200, which Jesus predates as well.
 
Humans can not see god or the holy spirit, jesus is the visible instance of the trinity. That quote does not say god created jesus, it says that jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Of all creation.
Are you saying God had a beginning? It says "firstborn of all creation", what do you suppose this means?

"the Beginning of the creation of God". What bit don't you understand?


HCSB The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago.
ISV The LORD made me as he began his planning, before his ancient activity commenced.
JPS The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old.
BST The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works.
NLV The Lord made me at the beginning of His work, before His first works long ago.
ERV The Lord made me in the beginning, long before he did anything else.

Form can mean "consisting of" or "create shape of"
....but not "made", right ?

"the lord formed me" means that his form is of the lord.....
[Bible citation needed]





Pardon me for taking this out of the order of your rebuttals, but it is certainly mentioned. I gave you nine quotes where the holy spirit is mentioned.

It doesn't matter if you give me 99 quotes where the holy spirit is mentioned. You still haven't produced a single verse to support your claim.
You're still missing two "facets" and anything that remotely says...
The father, the son and the holy spirit are three facets of the same deity seen from different whens and wheres.
[Bible citation needed]


There isn't really an "if" about the trinity being the core doctrine of christianity because it is,
I think you misunderstood me. Take the emphasis of the "if".


the father, the son and the holy spirit are considered facets of the same deity, not individuals.
[Bible citation needed]


I know it can be difficult to wrap your head around but I must urge you to try,
Actually no, I knew it was bull:censored: a long time ago.


it's central to the argument you're trying to form.
No, the Bible is.


There's not much point in answering more of your post until you make some real effort to understand the doctrine at the core of what you're arguing
Don't go, I got loads more trinitarian absurdities that need answering :cheers:
 
[Bible citation needed]

You said that directly after the bible citation, are you sure you understand that this is actually about the bible?

At the moment you're in the kind of flat-earther territory where you're taking an alternative theory and finding ways to twist the evidence against it to instead suit your argument.

HCSB The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago.
ISV The LORD made me as he began his planning, before his ancient activity commenced.
JPS The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old.
BST The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works.
NLV The Lord made me at the beginning of His work, before His first works long ago.
ERV The Lord made me in the beginning, long before he did anything else.

So four of those are written in the last 20 years, one is 50 years old. Of those two are "easy readers" for those with limited access to vocabulary (with some horrendous shortcuts in the translation). The earliest one is from the first quarter of the 20th Century and is a Jewish bible. As I keep trying to explain to you Jews don't believe in the Trinity - the life and resurrection is what stops them being bloody christians!

It doesn't matter if you give me 99 quotes where the holy spirit is mentioned. You still haven't produced a single verse to support your claim.

The quotes are from bible verses, that's how they work. I'm not sure which bit of that confuses you the mostest?

I guess the problem for your argument is that it interferes with the fringe theory that the the trinity isn't the core doctrine of christianity - despite it having been the core doctrine of christianity for 2,000 years, a fact so plain that nobody should need to explain it to you. I guess there's no differentiation between amateurs and experts on the internet and we all fall somewhere in between... but for goodness' sake research the topic a little before you start explaining that everything's completely different from the way the church has actually implemented doctrine into liturgy for 2,000 years.
 
37ownh.jpg
 
Back