THE TRINITY Explained in PLAIN LANGUAGE by Jesus Hisself

[jakelafortParticipant]

Michael, you are immersed in distinguishing between the authentic mythology and the inauthentic. So i am asking you
for an opinion of the following book.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

Glad someone else loves Dave Allen.  Him and Benny Hill were great sources of great late-night Brit comedy laughter for me and others of distinguished tastes back in high school.

It says something about the deep religiousity of my area that the TV stations –all independent and unaffiliated with CBS, ABC, and NBC–only showed Dave Allen and Benny Hill late at night.

It also says something bad about times across the pond that the Britbox streaming service does not stream Dave Allen, Benny Hill, Monty Python, The Young Ones, or The Comic Strip Presents…

What’s wrong with those people?  Have the Politcal Correctness and Wokeness bugs bit them hard and sucked the humor out of them?

As The Kinks observed: “There is no England now…”

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Robert and Reg,

I believe the technical, medical term for that is ‘taint. 😁

[DavisModerator]

Okay. So I officially close the door on this conversation then. There is zero chance it can go anywhere productive. Michael, your ideas sound more incomprehensible and slightly unhinged every time you visit.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

In addition to the mention of Scientology, I’m surprised the article didn’t mention Unitarianism, which started from admirers of Michael Servetus, who denied the Trinity as unbiblical and who was burned at the stake in John Calvin’s Geneva.

Unitarians were initially considered Christian but later rejected other Christian doctrines like the divinity of Jesus, Original Sin, Predestination, and Biblical Infalibility and Unitarians came to be inclusive of teachings from other religions until they were completely non-credal.

Bertrand Russell once humorously described the Unitarian Church as a religion with a “One God maximum.” 🙂

And because Unitarians became non-credal, they eventually merged with Universalists, who held that everyone, including Satan himself, would eventually be reconciled to God, and the two became Unitarian-Universalists (UUs for short.)

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling, though nonsensical doctrines arguably don't deserve capitalization

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Michael17,

Sooo…”No True Christian”?  I think I’ve heard variations on this before.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Some atheists are better at Christianity than many ” true” Christians are. Some atheists even get to meet their gods and hang out with them for a while.  Later they get to meet their arch-nemesis.

[michael17Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Michael17, Sooo…”No True Christian”? I think I’ve heard variations on this before.

No true Scotsman fallacy?

Well there are true Christians.

We just can’t find them yet

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.

[_Robert_Participant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Some atheists are better at Christianity than many ” true” Christians are. Some atheists even get to meet their gods and hang out with them for a while. Later they get to meet their arch-nemesis.

yeah….dave grohl is a rare one and a story teller extraordinaire.

[UnseenParticipant]

michael17 wrote:

None of the lost causes mentioned in the article appear to have studied the new testament in Greek and realized that Jesus was “generated” (from the Greek) out of the Holy Spirit, and this is the same generation that we the believer is suppose to have, and is referred to as the second birth. Truly this is how we become brothers in Christ.

“If it’s in the (ancient) Greek, it must be true” seems to be what you’re saying.

So, who is the author of the Greek to which you refer and what makes him more authoritative than later interpreters of the faith? Look, for example, at all of the testimony that was left out of The Bible.

[michael17Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

Michael, you are immersed in distinguishing between the authentic mythology and the inauthentic. So i am asking you for an opinion of the following book. <iframe style=”max-width: 100%;” title=”Sex Rites: The Origins of Christianity by Diana Agorio (2010-08-02)” src=”https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?preview=inline&linkCode=kpd&ref_=k4w_oembed_dMpIOHFvcPfkK4&asin=B01K2K0CKU&tag=kpembed-20″ width=”670″ height=”550″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

Certainly, not the first attempt to ascribe the basis of Christianity to preexisting mythology with partially correlative themes

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Michael wrote: Certainly, not the first attempt to ascribe the basis of Christianity to preexisting mythology with partially correlative themes

She also portrays the early Christians as deviants among deviants.

The preexisting mythology adopted by Christianity is damning. What separates Christianity from prior mythology? Why would a rational person ascribe a semblance of validity to any of it?

[michael17Participant]

Unseen wrote:

michael17 wrote:

None of the lost causes mentioned in the article appear to have studied the new testament in Greek and realized that Jesus was “generated” (from the Greek) out of the Holy Spirit, and this is the same generation that we the believer is suppose to have, and is referred to as the second birth. Truly this is how we become brothers in Christ.

“If it’s in the (ancient) Greek, it must be true” seems to be what you’re saying. So, who is the author of the Greek to which you refer and what makes him more authoritative than later interpreters of the faith? Look, for example, at all of the testimony that was left out of The Bible.

The original synoptic gospels  were written in Greek. English translations do a poor job of rendering an accurate translation. Moreover the translations are through a Trinitarian lens. Reading a Greek interlinear bible avoids this damage. English  bibles and foreign language bibles translated from English promote the Parochial and Orthodox lie.

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.

[michael17Participant]

jakelafort wrote:

Michael wrote: Certainly, not the first attempt to ascribe the basis of Christianity to preexisting mythology with partially correlative themes She also portrays the early Christians as deviants among deviants. The preexisting mythology adopted by Christianity is damning. What separates Christianity from prior mythology? Why would a rational person ascribe a semblance of validity to any of it?

These authors claim that Christianity adopted pre-existing mythology.  Actually, that did not occur until the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church. And they imposed their lie  by the sword:

A list of pagan traditions;

Praying to saints ( Roman pantheon)

Mass and incense (  Babylonian mysteries religion)

Trinity ( Asiatic mysteries promoted by Bishop Athanasius from Alexandria)

Mother of God/ Queen of Heaven  (Asiatic mysteries, Babylonian Ishtar )

Nuns ( Roman Vestal Virgins)

Crucifix ( Egyptian Ankh, The god Tammuz) the Greek says wooden stake

Christmas ( A Roman Holiday fused with the Solstice and the death and resurrection of  Tammuz)

Church steeples ( Egyptian obelisk, used in St. Peters Square before the vatican)

Mitered hats ( Worship of the god Dagon)

Easter eggs ( Ishtar eggs)

Sunday worship ( Roman Sun worship)

Priest called Father ( Pagan)

praying before statues and images (pagan)

Reciting the Rosary ( vain repetition of the pagans)

etc., etc.

 

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  michael17.

[_Robert_Participant]

Virgin birthed dying and rising savior that experiences a passion- pagan.

[Author]

Posts