The trinity and it’s false theology.

[BroRando]

The trinity and it’s false theology.

 

You may be surprised to find out that the trinity doctrine does not accept Jesus Christ.  It omits Christ from its doctrine and promotes a false gospel that ‘three separate persons make up God’ which is not found in Any Bible. Trinitarians profess that John 1:1 explains their theology of ‘three separate persons ’. It does not. Therefore, it is not unusual to come across an apostate trinitarian who will deny and oppose the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Trinitarians proclaim Jesus is co-equal to his God while Jesus himself proclaims "the Father is Greater than I am." (John 14:28) When Jesus Christ stated that ‘God is a Spirit’ in (John 4:24) trinitarians proclaim that Christ under the inspiration of Holy Spirit somehow mis-spoken because their doctrine teaches that God is made up of three separate Persons which is never cited in any scripture.  In John 17:1 Jesus addresses his Father in prayer, he said: “Father,… and in John 17:3  he states, “This means everlasting life, their coming to know You, the only true God” Was Jesus addressing God the Father or the trinity of three separate persons?

Trinitarians proclaim Jesus was not addressing the trinity itself, but God the Father.  Wouldn’t that prove that the trinity to be a False God?  “He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

As Jesus continue his teachings about God, he states, “God is a Spirit, and those worshipping Him must worship with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)  Notice those worshiping HIM is in singular?  Not ‘us’ ‘we’ they’ ‘them’ or even ME.  Since trinitarians admit that the trinity is not God itself, aren’t trinitarians worshipping ‘gods’?  None of them worship God the Father alone who Jesus claims to be the only true God in (John 17:3)  Jesus Christ continues, “Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship HIM.” (John 4:23)

If you take a closer look at the trinity doctrine, NONE of the Persons have a NAME.  It’s a Generic Formula borrowed from Pagan Worship. Trinitarians shout and yell that, Jesus is God.  But the trinity itself simply doesn’t give witness about Jesus Christ. When asked to show the doctrine they often turn red and say that I must simply believe them.  Then I ask, since the trinity doesn’t state that Jesus is God, show one scripture that states that. They hee and haw in frustration and begin to taunt and curse not able to find a single verse. You won’t find God the Son or God the Holy Spirit in the Bible because it simply isn’t.  There is a HUGE difference from God the Son and the Son of God.  If Jesus is the son of God, then whose Son is he?  The trinity doesn’t have three sons does it?

Jesus is not the only person to give witness about his God and Father.  The Apostles would greet one another with a similar phrase.  “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Peter 1:3)   The trinity omits the Name of Christ and refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.  Matter of fact, here is what the scriptures state about those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7)

In Ancient times, the trinity was symbolized by three snakes, each snake would chase its own tail looking like the number 666.   “And it was permitted to give breath to the image of the wild beast, so that the image of the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who refuse to worship the image of the wild beast.” (Rev 13:15) 

“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26)

Read more...

[b4ucuhear]

The concept of the Trinity isn't new. It existed for centuries before Christ came to earth and many centuries before it became the official dogma of later Christians. The teaching has taken different forms over the centuries including that of modern Christendom. What Trinitarians are asking us to believe is that faithful Jews like Moses who spoke with God "face-to-face" as it were, and Abraham who was described as "God's friend," as well as Isaac, Jacob, Samuel...and many others really didn't know God at all. It was the "pagan" nations around them that had a handle of who God was? Seriously? Some of these faithful men were miraculously inspired by God himself to write the Bible and to this day, Jews don't believe in a Trinity (nor do Muslims who both accept Jesus as a prophet and sections of the "Old Testament," as well as other Christian denominations.) And if Jesus and his apostles took such a radical departure as to the understanding of the nature of God and who he really was, it wouldn't be the relative kerfuffle of whether to get circumcised or not that would be an issue, it would be the earthquake of an issue that would upend 1500 years of Jewish faith, belief and theology that would send them to Jerusalem for an answer. It's also telling that it took Christians hundreds of years to formalize the Trinitarian creed that was ultimately decided by a pagan Roman emperor - as there were many different schools of thought and much dissention over the issue -sometimes violent. It's doubtful true Christians (who that by that time were over-sown by weed-like "Christians" according to Jesus words, would have even attended such an event.)

Also, is it reasonable for Jesus to expect that to come to an accurate knowledge of the truth, humble people, (some uneducated) would need to be experts in languages that had died and have been out of use for thousands of years? The fact is that Greek/Hebrew scholars don't even always agree among themselves as how to translate so-called "proof texts" of the Trinity doctrine. No, to an unbiased, unindoctrinated reader, no one of themselves would assume the Bible teaches the Trinity. (Maybe the most you would get is a duality - if that). Of course, Jesus was aware that many would come on the basis of his name (today there are over 45,000 different Christian religions alone). But people who really wanted to know, could simply look around them as to who his true disciples were - those who had love among themselves (John 13:35). In fact, they would love even their enemies. So Christian truth isn't recognized by human/pagan creeds and formulas. It's not solely identified by Greek grammar. It isn't just available to those who have expensive and extensive higher education. It's available to all and clearly identified by seeing who has love among themselves (as opposed to killing each other in war). It's not identified by making a big deal over the Trinity, while winking and supporting other pagan celebrations such as Halloween, Christmas...or other false teachings such and immortality of the soul or Hellfire or "justifiable warfare" doctrines. It's not identified by "cherry-picking" only those scriptures that support your idea, while ignoring what the Bible teaches as a whole. (Although everyone- including JW's - have been guilty of "cherry-picking" at times as well).

No, Jesus didn't come to earth to create a "mystery." He came to de-mystify.

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, b4ucuhear said:

It existed for centuries before Christ came to earth and many centuries before it became the official dogma of later Christians.

Not quite. For if that was the case, no Jew, or Jesus would profess specific things, such as the Shema. And ignoring Greek Structure pertaining to the Greek language regarding the holy spirit does not justify such either. If we have to look into early documentation of the core beliefs, Christians early on never believed in the Trinity or came to that conclusion, mainly if you factor in the Didache, which isn't talked about much. The Trinity, aka Trinnas, came forth late 3rd century into the 4th, but was not a practice in terms of faith until declared at the councils. 

All that information in regards to that can be looked up if you check any debate against @Jesus.defenderand @Cos, who he himself is a Trinitarian Zealot, even taking the words of church fathers out of context.

Yes, Muslims do not believe in the Trinity, they believe Jesus (Isa) to be a prophet sent by God (Allah). Likewise with primitives Christians who know Jesus is both a prophet and an apostle. And like them, Muslims understand the importance of Shema so much so they have it in their Qu'ran. Jews themselves profess Shema, even die by it, Christians likewise, but they address the Shema as the Law of Christ as is the foremost commandment.

That being said, if the core states The Father is not the Son, why must one do everything in their power to state otherwise? There is one God, and there is one Lord whom God sent, for the one sent (Shaliach) did not come to do his will, but the will of his Father, his God, who sent him, this bene elohim who was sent to earth by means of Mary, is the Christ, named Jesus.

[Space Merchant]

@BroRando Some verses can easily be taken out of context, for instance, he relation between Romans 10:9-13 to Acts 2 (Joel 3:5). Trinitarians will point out that the Lord mentioned is Jesus, and will exclaim that Jesus is God. So mush so, they will use various lexicons to prove their statement, the infamous one is Thayer's Greek Lexicon, primarily page 239. The trickery is when they cut off the mention of the Divine Name, in order to trick and belittle people, be it a Bible Student, Unitarian, JW, Muslim, Jew, etc.

The highlighted is what is not mentioned, to trick people, this is one of several examples. The other Lexicons used to push the narrative is Bdag's 3rd edition, and Mounce.

Notice the other half whereas that can fool people to assume/even preach Jesus is Almighty God.

That being said, this is why some folks cannot go to Hyde Park London or anything equal to that when it comes to discussion of Scripture, of who is the Christ, etc.

[b4ucuhear]

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Not quite. For if that was the case, no Jew, or Jesus would profess specific things, such as the Shema. And ignoring Greek Structure pertaining to the Greek language regarding the holy spirit does not justify such either. If we have to look into early documentation of the core beliefs, Christians early on never believed in the Trinity or came to that conclusion, mainly if you factor in the Didache, which isn't talked about much.

I am unclear as to the point you are trying to make. Or you are unclear as to the point I was trying to make   My point was that throughout their history, Jews believed in one God (not a Trinity) as you stated was supported by the Shema. I was CONTRASTING the monotheistic religion of the Jews with their pagan contemporaries - some of whom, for centuries before Jesus came to earth, believed in Trinities (although not all the same makeup or the same as what later was adopted by Christendom.) 

I was not ignoring Greek structure, but trying to say that Greek grammar alone won't be the deciding factor because according to Greek grammar, many scriptures can be correctly rendered both/many ways depending on the point of view of the translators. In fact, Greek experts don't always agree amongst themselves which  translation is correct. (I chose not to include an aside reference to the Sahidic Coptic Christians that did have similarities (indefinite article) to English and in their translation apparently chose to render John 1:1 as "a" god rather than God. I didn't want my response to be confusing with too many side issues.

I'm also unclear why you mentioned the Didache in reference to a Trinitarian discussion. I'm not saying it has no relevance, but rather I am unclear as the relevance you attach to it.  A.S. Howell-Smith writes about the Didache in (Jesus Not a Myth p 120) saying: "...The formula of the Trinity, which is given in Chap. VII, must come from a later hand, though possibly earlier than Justin Maryr, who is familiar with it." So although there is a suggestion of the Trinity, it is also acknowledged as not being part of the Didache originally and it would seem to me a spurious addition. 

[Dmitar]

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Some verses can easily be taken out of context, for instance, he relation between Romans 10:9-13 to Acts 2 (Joel 3:5).

The same can be said about interpretation, friend. Let's see this example. 

Numbers 25:3-5

So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel. The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.

Christians cannot claim on trinity by ancient Israel, since they believed and worshiped other gods. The purpose of unity by the nation was oneness. The "oneness" referenced in scripture is for only one God. Deuteronomy 6:4. Ancient Israel was supposed to become one with Jehovah as his chosen people. Genesis 32:28, Exodus 19:5-6 That oneness carried over to Jesus time. There is only one Jesus. Separate entities respected in their own right. It would not be proper to join these two spiritual leaders as creator and ambassador to creation.

Mark 12:29

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

A fine distinction by son to father. The term "trinity" came much later by certain forefathers of the church, when they attempted to unite the Holy Ghost. 

[Space Merchant]

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I am unclear as to the point you are trying to make. Or you are unclear as to the point I was trying to make  

Granted with how long I had dealt with those who believe in the Trinity, I am never unclear, and what I mentioned to you were brief allusions of what is being conveyed. For it I was unclear, I would not have brought up the points mentioned although brief.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

My point was that throughout their history, Jews believed in one God (not a Trinity) as you stated was supported by the Shema.

Yes, however, in the view of the Trinity, although they too would profess Sehma (Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21), but they twist the meaning of it. They take the word "Echad" and molded it into something that it is not, effectively violating even that of Hebrew language structure and the meaning of the word, for, in some cases, they'll twist "Yachid" too.

They will also go as far as to say that Shema, it being a prayer, is proper for Jesus Christ because he is both Lord and God, which is incorrect, because, for starters, the fact Jesus professed Shema, which is practically one (a Jew in those days) acknowledging that they have a God the Father whom they want to be heard by, more so, they recite and observe this Law, which later on Jesus deemed foremost commandants (Mark 12:24-34).

To be heard can also be noted to the Hebraic idea to pay attention to what is being spoken and act upon it, for example, when Israel hears the directions of God, they agree to act upon them (they obey his words). When God "hears" the pleas of Israel in bondage in Egypt, he acts upon them (he rescues Israel). The irony too is they would attempt to even twist Apostle Paul, who he himself affirmed the Shema (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

Therefore, this alone shatters a good chunk the Trinity ideology (their shield), reasons why Non-Trinitarians are usually the ones to defend what the Shema represents whereas Trinitarians, would butcher the meaning.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I was CONTRASTING the monotheistic religion of the Jews with their pagan contemporaries - some of whom, for centuries before Jesus came to earth, believed in Trinities (although not all the same makeup or the same as what later was adopted by Christendom.) 

Yet Trinitarians often times ignore this. I am sure they never heard of some of these pagan groups, such as the Cult of Attis. The word Trinity came from the Latin word Trinnas, it was coined by a man named Tertullian (ca. 190-220 A.D. - 3rd century). Even the terminology. Tertullian himself was no Trinitarian, some would attest to the idea he may have been Arian due to Genesis 1:3, but truly, he was a Montanist. In his works, perhaps prior to Montanism, Tertullian which illustrates his beliefs, mainly in his main documented work, Against Praxeas.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I was not ignoring Greek structure, but trying to say that Greek grammar alone won't be the deciding factor because according to Greek grammar, many scriptures can be correctly rendered both/many ways depending on the point of view of the translators.

Trinitarians do ignore Greek structure in the Greek text. Many examples of this, more so, would even profess verses that are either: spurious, not inspired, forged, altered.

Since the Holy Spirit was mentioned. They do this in this regard, to consider the Holy Spirit as a person because it is mentioned as a He/Him in some areas, mainly that of which is found in the Book of John. What they fail to see is that in Greek, Pneuma, in the text, is a neuter-masculine; technically, compared to what is followed today and by others, Grammatical Gender. Although the spirit is referred to as He/Him, it does not automatically mean the spirit is a person (another God as Trinitarians believe). The same case can be made of other examples in Hebrew and Greek text, which is, ignored, but when it comes to the spirit associated with God, they pay attention to it and will twist Scripture in the process.

Actually, context plays a role as well, it has little to do with rendering because in this example, John 14 is the same, but the reader would have to really do the research to know the Greek structure.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

In fact, Greek experts don't always agree amongst themselves which  translation is correct.

Sometimes experts themselves are like that of the reader, at times ignore something, or didn't realize their notations, hence the latter example.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

(I chose not to include an aside reference to the Sahidic Coptic Christians that did have similarities (indefinite article) to English and in their translation apparently chose to render John 1:1 as "a" god rather than God.

Well it is obvious what Theos is compared to Theon in regards to John 1:1, as is, with the references to the verse, often ignored by many, even Trinitarians. This also excludes the fact of how some choose to shy away from the Genesis Act of Creation concerning Apostle John's Introductory.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I didn't want my response to be confusing with too many side issues.

The Trinity has been talked about many times here, even by the usual Trinitarians that popped up on here. There has also been some examples from the Muslim faith at rare times, brought up. That said, Trinitarians are not good debaters when it comes to Muslims, and often times would bash them because of an exposed exegesis to which the Trinity view would easily be broken.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I'm also unclear why you mentioned the Didache in reference to a Trinitarian discussion.

There is good reason why I brought it up in regards to the Trinity.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I'm not saying it has no relevance, but rather I am unclear as the relevance you attach to it.  

It does have relevance, pertaining to how the church operate, in term of their view of who God is and who the Son is. The writer essentially pointed out the view of Christians at the time, Subordinationism.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

A.S. Howell-Smith writes about the Didache in (Jesus Not a Myth p 120) saying: "...The formula of the Trinity, which is given in Chap. VII, must come from a later hand, though possibly earlier than Justin Maryr, who is familiar with it." So although there is a suggestion of the Trinity, it is also acknowledged as not being part of the Didache originally and it would seem to me a spurious addition. 

I am familiar with A.D. Howell-Smith. Matthew 28:19-20 is often used by Trinitarians because it mentions The Father, The Son, and the Spirit, but they fail to see the context in all that is mentioned, for, there is a meaning behind why Jesus said what he said and what transpired, this also correlates with the history of the baptism and it's origin.

As for Justin Martyr, there is no question he was aware of the passage, however, his view, despite what Trinitarians try to do to twist his words, does not align with the Trinitarian idea, for 
he discussed openly about baptism in his writings, namely that of which can be found in chapters 61 and 65 of his First Apology.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

So although there is a suggestion of the Trinity,

It is just a mention of the verse itself, no the Trinity. Perhaps if one rules out context, that might be the case.

17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

it is also acknowledged as not being part of the Didache originally and it would seem to me a spurious addition. 

Chapter 7 in the Didache does mention Matthew 28:19-20, specifically, verse 19 concerning the latter.

That being said...

The Didache was never met to be in the Bible and that was never the intended goal compared to what others attempted, it was more so the writer's showing of how Christians operated, reasons why it is said to be an Early Statement of the Christian Faith. Although Non-Biblical statements of Christian Faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or that of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, some pointed out that it dated back before or about the year 100 C.E. (60 - 120). The Didache at it's core deals with things people would need to know to become Christians, as is their operation as a Church, a people. It is also dubbed a Christian manual. In regards to The Teaching of the Twelve, it was a highly regarded documentation in wide circulation by about the end of the 1st century, and accepted as apparent sacred Scripture by a significant portion of the early church. Although we do not know for certain who wrote this book but it is likely a book written which intends to reflect the Apostles' teachings. It is also possible that it was compiled by those who were taught directly by the apostles themselves and it may also be a source document for the Epistle of Barnabas which also teaches The Two Ways using very similar, and sometimes identical, language.

Many, even A.D. Howell-Smith, made it known that  it contains the Christian redaction of a Jewish document: The Two Ways.

That being said, the Trinitarian claim that Matthew 28:19 is identifying the three persons of their Triune God. This claim is often made by making a further claim that the word "name" in the singular means that we are to understand these three are the one Triune God who has one name. Matthew 28:19 is often used as a beginning tutorial verse to teach people the Trinity.

However, in a The Claim vs. The Facts setting for this verse, The facts of Scripture show us that Trinitarians are not only disregarding the immediate context, they are imagining their doctrine into the text, hence the so called Formula. Not to mention of how often they mold the words of people of old into something else.

As a side note, Eusebius was apparently involved too, for the the manuscript of Matthew being used by him was different than the words we find in today's Bibles.

[Matthew9969]

Yeah, its better to stick with the watchtower trinity......father/son/governing body.

[Space Merchant]

6 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

Yeah, its better to stick with the watchtower trinity......father/son/governing body.

I do not know if you are willfully ignorant, or joking. The Watchtower does not have their own view (no one who is Anti-Trinitarian does granted there are only 2 camps) of the Trinity because any thing pertaining to Anti-Trinitarianism is all the same across the board, and it seems you lack knowledge of history, hence your shenanigans before in regards to a specific verse in John when you were corrected which resulted in your jumping to another thread to fume.

Moreover, your remark also shows you are totally unaware of the fact that the situation in regards to being against the Trinity predates both the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses as is with the majority of those who are Anti-Trinitarian, in fact, the Anti-Trinitarian view has been in existence long before your Trinity view ever came to fruition, hence Subordinationism (Christian primitivity).

Perhaps next time, you should pay attention to your Trinitarian Shield, which in of itself, is quite absurd. I recommend you learn the history of Christianity and the Bible for it shows you are not that sound in all sense; for your camp were responsible for many things that are negative - 1 does not equal 3 by the way, Durbinite.

That being said, speaking of Durbinites, they can't defend their own exegesis and the Trinitarian remarks are predictable, in addition to that, someone, such as yourself, who one accepts paganism yet utters God and Christ at the same time, can easily be called into question for indefensible remarks.

You either sit with angels or you sit with demons, cannot play both sides, granted it is November once again, I take it you will side with The Goddess of Harvest, Ceres this year over the Christ (again). Typical MSCs.

[BroRando]

13 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Many, even A.D. Howell-Smith, made it known that  it contains the Christian redaction of a Jewish document: The Two Ways.

That being said, the Trinitarian claim that Matthew 28:19 is identifying the three persons of their Triune God. This claim is often made by making a further claim that the word "name" in the singular means that we are to understand these three are the one Triune God who has one name. Matthew 28:19 is often used as a beginning tutorial verse to teach people the Trinity.

However, in a The Claim vs. The Facts setting for this verse, The facts of Scripture show us that Trinitarians are not only disregarding the immediate context, they are imagining their doctrine into the text, hence the so called Formula. Not to mention of how often they mold the words of people of old into something else.

As a side note, Eusebius was apparently involved too, for the the manuscript of Matthew being used by him was different than the words we find in today's Bibles.

 It appears that Matthew 28:19 is a spurious scripture that was changed by the trintarian church in its infancy. It was one of the first scriptures that were altered to try to fit a triune formula into scripture.  Funny thing is that None of the Baptisms of the First Century were made in the generic formula.  Few know that the Book of Matthew was first written in the native tongue of the Apostle Matthew who was of the Levi tribe. Yes... it was written in Hebrew about 8 years after Christ's Ressurection which brings us to 41 CE.   

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.”

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83

 

Allow scripture to interpret scripture. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew 28:19)  

 

So how were Christians baptized?

 

“With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they requested him to stay for some days.” (Acts 10:48)

 

Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

 

“But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the Kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were getting baptized.” (Acts 8:12)

 

“Or do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)

 

“On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)

 

Read more...

[Matthew9969]

15 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I do not know if you are willfully ignorant, or joking. The Watchtower does not have their own view (no one who is Anti-Trinitarian does granted there are only 2 camps) of the Trinity because any thing pertaining to Anti-Trinitarianism is all the same across the board, and it seems you lack knowledge of history, hence your shenanigans before in regards to a specific verse in John when you were corrected which resulted in your jumping to another thread to fume.

Moreover, your remark also shows you are totally unaware of the fact that the situation in regards to being against the Trinity predates both the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses as is with the majority of those who are Anti-Trinitarian, in fact, the Anti-Trinitarian view has been in existence long before your Trinity view ever came to fruition, hence Subordinationism (Christian primitivity).

Perhaps next time, you should pay attention to your Trinitarian Shield, which in of itself, is quite absurd. I recommend you learn the history of Christianity and the Bible for it shows you are not that sound in all sense; for your camp were responsible for many things that are negative - 1 does not equal 3 by the way, Durbinite.

That being said, speaking of Durbinites, they can't defend their own exegesis and the Trinitarian remarks are predictable, in addition to that, someone, such as yourself, who one accepts paganism yet utters God and Christ at the same time, can easily be called into question for indefensible remarks.

You either sit with angels or you sit with demons, cannot play both sides, granted it is November once again, I take it you will side with The Goddess of Harvest, Ceres this year over the Christ (again). Typical MSCs.

I was joking....sort of. And why do guys keep insisting these pagan gods, goddesses are real beings, even 10 year olds know they are not real just like they know Santa isn't real. This year like every year I'm going to hang out with my physical family, like I do on a regular basis, not just on holidays. Now get off your pius arogant and ignorant high horse and watch some Mel Brooks movies, you need some humor in your life.

On a serious note, why do you guys give more power to non existent pagan gods than the Almighty himself?

[Space Merchant]

14 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

I was joking....sort of.

Well then, if that was the case, I guess before you were joking too, right?

15 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

And why do guys keep insisting these pagan gods, goddesses are real beings

The thing is although pagan Gods and Goddesses are not real, they are often created (imaginary), in form of images, idolatry, a representation of anything, real or imagined etc. engraved images, to be used in a form of worship and or show adoration to, some form of veneration, love for it, and we have examples of how clear the Bible is in that regard (Psalms 115:4; Acts 17:16; 1 Corinthians 10:14). In other instances people will take the name Yahweh/Jehovah or other modern variants of the name of YHWH, likewise with Jesus and craft something in order to correlate with tenets, i.e. Freemasons are known to do this in regards to blood oaths/gain congregants.

Although you do not see it as serious, to a man or woman of Christ, they sees it as something serious, hence they will tread carefully in all respects. This also goes hand in hand with pagan practices, moreover, those who died/were killed because of those who practices said things, as is with the influence it spreads. The Bible is very clearly on this.

 

17 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

even 10 year olds know they are not real just like they know Santa isn't real.

Santa? That is quite a bad comparison, granted the focus is on Gods and Goddesses.

On the contrary, some 10 years do believe and profess to these pagan Gods and Goddesses. Some, even in a serious sense, i.e. Vodou otherwise known as Black Magic. To others, practices involving goddesses, such as Artemis, and other Mythological figures. Then you have Doppelganger Deities such as Mithras, Dionysus, etc. in which some try to discredit The Father and Son using said information.

In Bible times, children were subjection to such pagan Deities and practices, granted, children are riddled in some households, hence the clear warning for not just older folks, but even young ones to be on guard (1 John 5:21).

30 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

This year like every year I'm going to hang out with my physical family, like I do on a regular basis, not just on holidays.

But it should have been clear to you before in regards to traditions and other festivities outside of the Jewish Calendar. If everyone in your household is considered a person under Christ, then they should be aware in this respects too, you included.

The issue here is people think there is no harm in things, yet there are some issues.

31 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

Now get off your pius arogant and ignorant high horse and watch some Mel Brooks movies, you need some humor in your life.

There is a time to be serious and there is a time to relax. Clearly you walked into this, perhaps you yourself should get to know what God's Word is conveying. You can't sit at two tables at the same time, you can only sit at one.

That said, ignorance, not so much granted half of what I said I paraphrased from Scripture. Arrogance? Nope. So I guess your issue is with the Good Book itself, interesting.

33 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

On a serious note, why do you guys give more power to non existent pagan gods than the Almighty himself?

Actually, if I recall, you were the one who gave importance to pagan holidays. That is why I brought up Goddesses due to your last remark about a Holiday that didn't originate in the Jewish Calendar. And that was just one example of which I quoted from, pertaining from your thread. Reasons why I referred to you as a Durbinite, granted, Durbin's defense of such practices, which you professed. I mean, a Charismatic Preacher can sway anyone who is unaware.

That being said, a serious man of God would be knowing of what the Word entails. Hence the situation with the Trinity, we know of it's origin an the history that came forth from it, compared to early teachings.