There is 0 trinity god in existence

[Meriweather]

Here are the undeniable facts of history.
From Moses on up until this very day, at every synagogue and temple ever to exist, taught, served, worshipped-- a single being God named YHWH.(Jehovah)-- While Jesus attended the Synagogues and temples, he was taught, served and worshipped a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah)-- He never refuted it. He taught it.( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 17>1-6,26= YHWH(Jehovah)--John 4:22-24 = bottom line reality.
His real teachers taught that true gospel as well( 2Cor 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28--1Peter 1:3-- Rev 1:6-- All 100% in agreement- Jesus has a God like we do, his Father.
Gods word doesn't teach two different Gods, proving the trinity theory Is an error, created at the councils of you know who. And it is truth that a small g god belongs in the last line of John 1:1-- Carrying the biblical meaning of having godlike qualities--because it works like this- Acts 2:22, John 5:30) Its the Fathers will one must live by( Matt 7:21), every utterance, Jesus said.
Few listen to Jesus.
The greeks were refusing to go to a single being God religion-- councils were held--no trinity taught in the first council of Nicea. It was added later. Greeks liked that, their pagan practices came with them.

Do you only recognize and believe in a fraction of God?

God is not like us. He has dimensions that humans simply do not possess. God: One multi-dimensional being.

Contrast an actual human with a cartoon. A cartoon is a two-dimensional model of a person--it is not the actual human. Humans have another dimension. Likewise, Trinity is a model of God, more of a three dimensional way (that we can understand) of looking at a multi-dimensional God

 

[ding]

Sure. So what? I'm not the one who is trying to explain a religion that is not my own to someone else. You are.

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

 

[Czernobog]

Neither am I. I am the one pointing out the flaws of that religion to someone trying to convince me that religion is reasonable, and rational.

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

To what "flawed understanding" are you referring?

 

[Czernobog]

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

To what "flawed understanding" are you referring?

Let's start with something simple. Was Noah righteous? Consider how God, himself, describes Noah in Gen 7:1. Was Noah righteous?

 

[ding]

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

To what "flawed understanding" are you referring?

Let's start with something simple. Was Noah righteous? Consider how God, himself, describes Noah in Gen 7:1. Was Noah righteous?

Why do you want to have this conversation? Because I have less than zero interest in convincing you of anything.

 

[ding]

The flaws as you understand it. How is this not you trying to explain a religion that is not your own to someone else?

So, one has to share a delusion to understand it? Really? Interesting position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

To what "flawed understanding" are you referring?

Your piece meal fringe argument against Christianity. Are you gay by any chance? Because you sure do seem like you have an ax to grind with Christians.

 

[Czernobog]

See post #30.

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

To what "flawed understanding" are you referring?

Let's start with something simple. Was Noah righteous? Consider how God, himself, describes Noah in Gen 7:1. Was Noah righteous?

Why do you want to have this conversation? Because I have less than zero interest in convincing you of anything.

Of course you don't. Because that would force you to try to defend a position that you know is wrong. You're only interested in having "discussions" where everyone gushes at how brilliant you are, and strokes your ego. As soon as anyone points out the flaws of your religion, you suddenly have no interest in the discussion. Run along. You are dismissed.

 

[kjw47]

Moses wrote much of the early OT.

And the evidence from outside sources for that claim is...

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

You don't think Israel has the evidence of their history????
The bible is clear evidence--many things in the ot have been proven true.

 

[kjw47]

Here are the undeniable facts of history.
From Moses on up until this very day, at every synagogue and temple ever to exist, taught, served, worshipped-- a single being God named YHWH.(Jehovah)-- While Jesus attended the Synagogues and temples, he was taught, served and worshipped a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah)-- He never refuted it. He taught it.( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 17>1-6,26= YHWH(Jehovah)--John 4:22-24 = bottom line reality.
His real teachers taught that true gospel as well( 2Cor 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28--1Peter 1:3-- Rev 1:6-- All 100% in agreement- Jesus has a God like we do, his Father.
Gods word doesn't teach two different Gods, proving the trinity theory Is an error, created at the councils of you know who. And it is truth that a small g god belongs in the last line of John 1:1-- Carrying the biblical meaning of having godlike qualities--because it works like this- Acts 2:22, John 5:30) Its the Fathers will one must live by( Matt 7:21), every utterance, Jesus said.
Few listen to Jesus.
The greeks were refusing to go to a single being God religion-- councils were held--no trinity taught in the first council of Nicea. It was added later. Greeks liked that, their pagan practices came with them.

I'm a pagan? Cool. Putting that aside... why is this important to you?

2 billion are being mislead into losing out on eternal life serving that non existent god.

You don't say. Between the religious nutjobs like yourself and the religious nutjob atheists like cyborg, I can't tell the difference between you guys anymore.

Very sad--that you don't know God or his son. When one is in darkness--they don't know too much that's worth anything. you are seeing like this-2Cor 4:4

 

[kjw47]

And the evidence from outside sources for that claim is...

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Those who serve God, are shown that God is real--those in darkness will be shown the hard way.

 

[kjw47]

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales, and legends. In order for a story to be an "account", it would have to be historically accurate. I'm still waiting for any historical confirmation of the existence of any of the heroes of the Biblical fairy tales.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Archeologist dug up many sights mentioned in the bible OT-- they saw what God did to them--there comment was---We don't know why God waited so long to destroy these people.

 

[Czernobog]

And the evidence from outside sources for that claim is...

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

You don't think Israel has the evidence of their history????
The bible is clear evidence--many things in the ot have been proven true.

If they have any historical evidence to confirm the legends, they haven't shared it with anyone. Places have been confirmed to have existed, not the people, or events. the places that are spoken of in the Arthurian legends have been confirmed, historically, to have existed (well, with the exception of Avalon). Does this mean that we must conclude that Arthur, the knights of the Round Table, and the magician Merlin were also real, in spite of the reality that there is not a single shred of historical reference to any of them?

 

[kjw47]

Here are the undeniable facts of history.
From Moses on up until this very day, at every synagogue and temple ever to exist, taught, served, worshipped-- a single being God named YHWH.(Jehovah)-- While Jesus attended the Synagogues and temples, he was taught, served and worshipped a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah)-- He never refuted it. He taught it.( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 17>1-6,26= YHWH(Jehovah)--John 4:22-24 = bottom line reality.
His real teachers taught that true gospel as well( 2Cor 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28--1Peter 1:3-- Rev 1:6-- All 100% in agreement- Jesus has a God like we do, his Father.
Gods word doesn't teach two different Gods, proving the trinity theory Is an error, created at the councils of you know who. And it is truth that a small g god belongs in the last line of John 1:1-- Carrying the biblical meaning of having godlike qualities--because it works like this- Acts 2:22, John 5:30) Its the Fathers will one must live by( Matt 7:21), every utterance, Jesus said.
Few listen to Jesus.
The greeks were refusing to go to a single being God religion-- councils were held--no trinity taught in the first council of Nicea. It was added later. Greeks liked that, their pagan practices came with them.

Do you only recognize and believe in a fraction of God?

God is not like us. He has dimensions that humans simply do not possess. God: One multi-dimensional being.

Contrast an actual human with a cartoon. A cartoon is a two-dimensional model of a person--it is not the actual human. Humans have another dimension. Likewise, Trinity is a model of God, more of a three dimensional way (that we can understand) of looking at a multi-dimensional God

Reality--1Cor 8:6-- There is one God to all--the Father.
Jesus taught--only the Father is the true God--John 17:3-- it is clear--there is 0 trinity god in existence.

 

[Czernobog]

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Those who serve God, are shown that God is real--those in darkness will be shown the hard way.

...and there it is...

Believe in my imaginary God, or you will be punished after you die.

 

[kjw47]

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Those who serve God, are shown that God is real--those in darkness will be shown the hard way.

...and there it is...

Believe in my imaginary God, or you will be punished after you die.

Everyone who knows God, knows 100%--there is no life in death. So how can one be punished after they die?
The bible is clear--On the day of ones death, all thought stops.

 

[Czernobog]

Here are the undeniable facts of history.
From Moses on up until this very day, at every synagogue and temple ever to exist, taught, served, worshipped-- a single being God named YHWH.(Jehovah)-- While Jesus attended the Synagogues and temples, he was taught, served and worshipped a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah)-- He never refuted it. He taught it.( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 17>1-6,26= YHWH(Jehovah)--John 4:22-24 = bottom line reality.
His real teachers taught that true gospel as well( 2Cor 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28--1Peter 1:3-- Rev 1:6-- All 100% in agreement- Jesus has a God like we do, his Father.
Gods word doesn't teach two different Gods, proving the trinity theory Is an error, created at the councils of you know who. And it is truth that a small g god belongs in the last line of John 1:1-- Carrying the biblical meaning of having godlike qualities--because it works like this- Acts 2:22, John 5:30) Its the Fathers will one must live by( Matt 7:21), every utterance, Jesus said.
Few listen to Jesus.
The greeks were refusing to go to a single being God religion-- councils were held--no trinity taught in the first council of Nicea. It was added later. Greeks liked that, their pagan practices came with them.

Do you only recognize and believe in a fraction of God?

God is not like us. He has dimensions that humans simply do not possess. God: One multi-dimensional being.

Contrast an actual human with a cartoon. A cartoon is a two-dimensional model of a person--it is not the actual human. Humans have another dimension. Likewise, Trinity is a model of God, more of a three dimensional way (that we can understand) of looking at a multi-dimensional God

Reality--1Cor 8:6-- There is one God to all--the Father.
Jesus taught--only the Father is the true God--John 17:3-- it is clear--there is 0 trinity god in existence.

Soo...the Christian God is the only god in existence? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

 

[kjw47]

I am sorry that God has not found you worthy to be sent to his son. It could be your attitude? God reveals himself to those who listen to him--then one knows for sure. Listen to him= every utterance, is what Jesus taught man has to live by daily.

In other words, there is none. So, perhaps using terms like "historical facts" when referring to mythical, and legendary figures may not best serve reason, and rational discussion.

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

You don't think Israel has the evidence of their history????
The bible is clear evidence--many things in the ot have been proven true.

If they have any historical evidence to confirm the legends, they haven't shared it with anyone. Places have been confirmed to have existed, not the people, or events. the places that are spoken of in the Arthurian legends have been confirmed, historically, to have existed (well, with the exception of Avalon). Does this mean that we must conclude that Arthur, the knights of the Round Table, and the magician Merlin were also real, in spite of the reality that there is not a single shred of historical reference to any of them?

But there is evidence of the reality of what occurred in the bible.

 

[kjw47]

Here are the undeniable facts of history.
From Moses on up until this very day, at every synagogue and temple ever to exist, taught, served, worshipped-- a single being God named YHWH.(Jehovah)-- While Jesus attended the Synagogues and temples, he was taught, served and worshipped a single being God named YHWH(Jehovah)-- He never refuted it. He taught it.( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, John 17>1-6,26= YHWH(Jehovah)--John 4:22-24 = bottom line reality.
His real teachers taught that true gospel as well( 2Cor 1:3, 1Cor 8:6, 1Cor 15:24-28--1Peter 1:3-- Rev 1:6-- All 100% in agreement- Jesus has a God like we do, his Father.
Gods word doesn't teach two different Gods, proving the trinity theory Is an error, created at the councils of you know who. And it is truth that a small g god belongs in the last line of John 1:1-- Carrying the biblical meaning of having godlike qualities--because it works like this- Acts 2:22, John 5:30) Its the Fathers will one must live by( Matt 7:21), every utterance, Jesus said.
Few listen to Jesus.
The greeks were refusing to go to a single being God religion-- councils were held--no trinity taught in the first council of Nicea. It was added later. Greeks liked that, their pagan practices came with them.

Do you only recognize and believe in a fraction of God?

God is not like us. He has dimensions that humans simply do not possess. God: One multi-dimensional being.

Contrast an actual human with a cartoon. A cartoon is a two-dimensional model of a person--it is not the actual human. Humans have another dimension. Likewise, Trinity is a model of God, more of a three dimensional way (that we can understand) of looking at a multi-dimensional God

Reality--1Cor 8:6-- There is one God to all--the Father.
Jesus taught--only the Father is the true God--John 17:3-- it is clear--there is 0 trinity god in existence.

Soo...the Christian God is the only god in existence? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Their is only one true living God--Every false god is just satan posing as god.

 

[Czernobog]

In a satan ruled world-- Listening to God is the only way one will ever find out in a good way--Woe to those who do not listen.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. My objection to the OP was the claim that the fairy tales, and legends written in the Bible were, in any way, historical. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

I think what the OP was saying is historical is the Jewish belief in monotheism, one God.

Who would disagree with that?


That being said, fairy tales and legends written in the Bible, like all fairy tales and legends, convey teaching that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.. Am I telling you something that you don't already know?

Does the fact that there is no archeological evidence that the boy who cried wolf ever existed detract from or disprove the moral of the story?

Fairy tales and legends? You mean allegories and accounts, right?

No, I mean fairy tales, and legends. In order for a story to be an "account", it would have to be historically accurate. I'm still waiting for any historical confirmation of the existence of any of the heroes of the Biblical fairy tales.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Archeologist dug up many sights mentioned in the bible OT-- they saw what God did to them--there comment was---We don't know why God waited so long to destroy these people.

Sites. As in places. Again, the places spoken of in the Arthurian legends have also been found throughout Britain. Does that mean that Merlin lived?

 

[ding]

My response remains the same. I do not need to share your delusion to understand it.

Of course it is, you can't admit the self evident fact that you are using your flawed understanding of someone else's faith to build a logical fallacy straw-man to suit your own world view thus confirming your bias.

I love how you have reverted back to your militant atheism mode by calling the beliefs of others delusional when you deny the flaw in your logic that you can better know someone else's religion than they do. That is a textbook example of delusional.

To what "flawed understanding" are you referring?

Let's start with something simple. Was Noah righteous? Consider how God, himself, describes Noah in Gen 7:1. Was Noah righteous?

Why do you want to have this conversation? Because I have less than zero interest in convincing you of anything.

Of course you don't. Because that would force you to try to defend a position that you know is wrong. You're only interested in having "discussions" where everyone gushes at how brilliant you are, and strokes your ego. As soon as anyone points out the flaws of your religion, you suddenly have no interest in the discussion. Run along. You are dismissed.

lol, when have I ever discussed my religion with an atheist? Are you gay?