Did Jesus preach or proclaim the doctrine of the Trinity?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you have any interesting to respond to, I could be interested in responding. Otherwise, you can still dig for gingerbread houses.

You have repeatedly responded and yet have consistently failed to support your comments or address questions put to you that could have moved the exchanges on.

[mikewhitney]

You have repeatedly responded and yet have consistently failed to support your comments or address questions put to you that could have moved the exchanges on.

You can add whatever points you wish to. Permission is granted.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You can add whatever points you wish to. Permission is granted.

If my interlocutor is going to divert on to other topics, ignore questions, refuse to substantiate their remarks or dishonestly allege I have written things I have not, I am perforce left to conclude that I am dealing with either [a] a petit poseur or [b] what is generally known as a troll.

[mikewhitney]

If my interlocutor is going to divert on to other topics, ignore questions, refuse to substantiate their remarks or dishonestly allege I have written things I have not, I am perforce left to conclude that I am dealing with either [a] a petit poseur or [b] what is generally known as a troll.

I'm just seeing what you have to say. You have been evasive. You seem to have a theory (maybe from a book or several books) that you are presenting in little pieces instead of just presenting the full argument or source. So far you have only presented conspiracy theories, which makes it seem you have nothing of substance.

If you are speaking from an atheist or agnostic point of view, then you really don't have good standing to argue anything until you show that God doesn't exist. You have stated that miracles don't exist (i.e., within your signature) which really places you on shaky ground until you can prove that God cannot do actions which you might call miracles. I see signs of intelligence in your writing but this is combined with odd presuppositions. Hopefully you will get beyond those.

I think you know that science and faith cover different realms of study. You are treating it as if science has made decisions about deity. This is like saying a plumber's expertise makes him good at brain surgery.

I am ready for you to reestablish credibility in the discussion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm just seeing what you have to say. You have been evasive. You seem to have a theory (maybe from a book or several books) that you are presenting in little pieces instead of just presenting the full argument or source. So far you have only presented conspiracy theories, which makes it seem you have nothing of substance.

If you are speaking from an atheist or agnostic point of view, then you really don't have good standing to argue anything until you show that God doesn't exist.

That is a philosophical cul-de-sac.

You have stated that miracles don't exist (i.e., within your signature)

I asked you to define what you understand by a miracle and was met with a deathly silence.

[mikewhitney]

I am more of the narrator here than a diatribe partner. If this issue of God's existence is a cul-de-sac, the whole discussion is in that cul-de-sac. It is surprising that you go into this realm then.

One thing you miss is that a scholar is only correct inasmuch as his assumptions are correct. If the scholar makes an assumption that prophecy cannot happen, his conclusions derived from that may consequently be wrong. The points you are making are not solidly established just because you have found scholars upon which you make your assertions.

The pride of scholars often results from putting too much trust that other scholars have figured out everything sufficiently. This is both among the Christian and non-Christian scholars.

[Christian3]

You are very keen to make demands of others when you are singularly loath to provide evidence for your own comments.

Give me the attested historical evidence to support this statement "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down.

Do you have Dr. John Ashton's book? Have you read it?

I asked for a direct quote from the book in context including the page number. Why can't you answer this simple question?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you have Dr. John Ashton's book? Have you read it?

Yes to both questions.

I asked for a direct quote from the book in context including the page number. Why can't you answer this simple question?

I asked you to provide attested historical evidence in support of your claim that "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down." Why can you not do so?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I am more of the narrator here than a diatribe partner. If this issue of God's existence is a cul-de-sac, the whole discussion is in that cul-de-sac. It is surprising that you go into this realm then.

It is a philosophical cul-de-sac. You can no more effectively prove the existence of your deity than I can prove its non-existence.

One thing you miss is that a scholar is only correct inasmuch as his assumptions are correct. If the scholar makes an assumption that prophecy cannot happen, his conclusions derived from that may consequently be wrong. The points you are making are not solidly established just because you have found scholars upon which you make your assertions. .

Your arrogance is quite breathtaking.

The pride of scholars often results from putting too much trust that other scholars have figured out everything sufficiently. This is both among the Christian and non-Christian scholars.

If those scholars disagree with what I believe then I do not trust their conclusionsscripturalLogoshomoousion" are derived from Greek philosophy. The latter being employed by the Neoplatonist Plotinus to describe the relationship between the soul and the divine. It was this term that was adopted at Nicaea to define the concept of a Triune deity. Such concepts hadpaganismepistula enforcing the Nicene faith. Those bishops who supported the Nicene orthodoxy would go on to enjoy even further earthly power and treasure when they took over the churches of those who were thus decreed to be heretics. While clerics such as Ambrose held that Theodosius had acknowledged the supremacy of the Church over temporal power the situation was, in fact, the reverse. Theodosius had provided the legal framework within which Christianity had been given dominance over all non Christian religions and the Nicene Creed precedence within Christianity itself. Those who dissented from that orthodoxy would see their works destroyed and suffer either banishment or execution.

As to your own beliefs on miracles and prophecy, academia along with the rest of the rational world does not rely on such superstition and nor should it. We know from history the horrors of religious orthodoxy being enforced and the brutality meted out to those who challenged it.

[Christian3]

Yes to both questions.



I asked you to provide attested historical evidence in support of your claim that "The Scriptures were preached orally for sometime before being written down." Why can you not do so?

I'm gathering the information now.

[Bill the Cat]

It is a philosophical cul-de-sac. You can no more effectively prove the existence of your deity than I can prove its non-existence.

...

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Please take a few minutes to review the forum rules for Comp Rel at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=50, which specifically say "This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God."

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Please take a few minutes to review the forum rules for Comp Rel at http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/announcement.php?f=50, which specifically say "This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God."

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

Thank you but I did not introduce the issue of a belief in God. I trust you have notified the other contributor [i.e. mikewhitney] not to raise the topic in future on this board.

[Sparko]

Thank you but I did not introduce the issue of a belief in God. I trust you have notified the other contributor [i.e. mikewhitney] not to raise the topic in future on this board.

Hypatia, if you are not a theist you should not be posting in this area to begin with. Also believing in God is a given in this area, and the problem is arguing AGAINST that belief in this area.

[Bill the Cat]

Thank you but I did not introduce the issue of a belief in God. I trust you have notified the other contributor [i.e. mikewhitney] not to raise the topic in future on this board.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

That is the purpose of the notice. The notice also specifically says "***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***".

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Hypatia, if you are not a theist you should not be posting in this area to begin with. Also believing in God is a given in this area, and the problem is arguing AGAINST that belief in this area.

This section does not specify who is permitted to post here, as other sections do. Nor am I arguing against the belief in god. I am simply pointing out the historical background to the entire topic of the Trinity.