Tuesday, March 30, 2010

My Dialogue with another Christian Part 2 and More

hello

Me: hello

t: i try to apply in our US embassy

since im an american studies major

Me: Why so?

t: hopefully i can

say to the hr

what i learned from you

america is awesome i wonder

foreigners

made their names in the US

Me: What does hr mean?
t: human resource

Me: America has a lot of freedom, but the materialism here is out of control.

Even in the rural areas, it's abundant.


t: i love the dow jobes history

do u like julius caesar is he great

hopefully ill be like him

great leader

Me: ha aha

JUlius Caesar was a great dictator.

He was an imperialist that harmed the Celts in Gaul and other places in Europe.

You do know this right.


t: iknew

he defeated

vercingetorix

Me: The Celts wanted their freedom absent Roman imperialism.

Vercingetorix was captured and exploited by Julius Caesar's forces.

t: they just get squashed

Me: He ended the Roman Republic.

officially

t: so thats the reason of his murder

is caesar also

lustful?

Me: He was murdered for numerous reasons.

The Senators were jealous of his power being in an authoritarian fashion.

So, they decided to assassinate him.


t: they should talk to him first

through diplomacy

than murder him\

Me: They should at a bare minimum have a trial than just kill him.

Yes

t: but you think caesar

is all about

himself

even

\diplomacy and peaceful means

cant convince him?

Me: I think the Caesar concept is a distortion of a true free society.

That concept is based in authoritianism and unjustified control over the common people.

The Caesar is a fascist wanting unitary power that restricts power given unto the people.

The government is by and for the people as Lincoln said.

t: rome tht time is chaotic

Me: Yes
t: so caesar has no choice but to

calm the people

Me: I disagree with you on that since alternatives are certainly necessary to solve the tramatic time.

t: so there are still other choices than

caesarism>?

Me: Yes

A Republic.

Me: Yes

t: whats the source

of roman's violence?

bec of pagan religion

Me: Rome had violence because of political disagreements among their many factions.

this is similar to the Civil War that we had in the USA.


t: whats your take if you want a solution?

Me: A solution would be radical reforms in the ancient Roman world and a revitization of the Republican form of government.
t: america does hate dictators

thats why you defeated the british

Me: Yes

We hate tyranny.

t: so america defeated the british courtesy of benjamin's diplomacy in france for support?

Me: Not exactly.

America relied on French support.

Also, similar to Vietnam, the British were extend thousands of miles of resources.

The Americans knew their own territory better than the British to defeat them in guerilla warfare tactics.

t: so i cannot say

it is by france's help

you toppled

cornwallis

Me: The US did have France's help though.

That is true


t: hope china

became a superpower

Me: Why so?

t: bec they are rising

economically and

Me: China should reform its religious and political liberty policies.
t: their influence are

becoming bigger

Me: Then, I will very happy.
t: market factor

cultural factor

Me: We should wish the best for China since China is apart of the human family.
t: olympics

Me: China has great blessings.

t: america will be over

as a superpower

Me: Nothing is set in stone.

Once people said that America would be defeated by the British.

That didn't occur.

So, in 3-4 decades, America could radically improve its economic state.




________________________________________


Me: Jesus Christ is God, so he would handle a M16.

t: my atheist friend

ridiculed me

of crucifizion the most humilating

death

he even mentioned

gas chamber

cremation

are worse form of death

or

ala

medieval inquisiton

mutilation

all are worst than crucifixion\

?

did jesus really died through a worst form of death ever known?

Me: It's hard to say.

He bared the burden of the whole sins of the whole world.

So, that experience consists of the most heavy emotional burden in human history.

He survived, resurrected, and seats at the right hand of God the Father.

t: why are the julian claudian emperoe were all psychopaths?

Me: I don't know about that.
t: caligula claudius nero

Me: Some of them of the Julio-Claudian bloodline were evil.

t: are all very evil dictators

Me: That's true.

Nero married a horse.

t: i love nero as a ruler

too brutal

Me: ?

Nero killed Christians after the Christians were falsely blamed for the fire in Rome.


t: nero is one of a uman incarnation of a demon

literally

possessed

freak

why he married a horse

whats up on his mind that time?

Me: He's a sick person.
t: is it possible to lead him to christ?

Me: Now, no since he's dead.
t: when hes alive?

is it?

Me: Yes

t: thutmosis is the pharaoh of exodus

?

i believe so

or amenhotep


_________________________


lee wrote:
slavery is not blacks.asian and southeast poor peopole have it worse than anyone today.if blacks are slves it high majority in africa or middle east.check history.slavery wasd short lived in this country compared to rest of the world.english stopped id with war.only country to do so.i am not englich.i am slav,that is where the word came from.try 600 years,plus nazism and worst of the three communism.the spanish and free blacks were in on slavery.as were free slaves bought slaves..u are free to say what u want,but get your facts straight before u get into anything but yourself.
you do not need to live in color blind country.why do everyone who comes here make it if they tire.u are the only one holding u back.my family was slaves 600years and some died to free yours. so i do not feel sorry for any man with a black panther attitude.
No one said a single word that slavery was explicitly experienced by blacks. So, I don't know where you get that inaccurate assumption from. Also, people realize that other ethnic groups experienced. My explanation is that people have a clear, transparent right to show the truth on black people experiencing slavery as motivation to improve society in general. Also, I didn't say no one has hope in the world. I just mentioned that mentioning evil in the world has nothing to do with with promoting stagnation among people. Also, my people have been in a while too. I have the right to say that and that's apart of the First Amendment. Many free blacks tried to stop slavery, so you need to cut that revisionist stuff out (there were traitors among blacks of course that supported it, but that's only telling some of the story not all of it). Also, just because blacks were slavery in the Middle East or Africa doesn't diminish the evil nature of slavery in America. See, your ilk's tactic now is trying to diminish the treatment of blacks in America to support neo-fascist/austerity measures (and to promote the ultimate elimination of the black identity long term). The problem is that we are on to your game and we're calling you out on it. I've got my facts straight, so don't patronize me.

Also, black slavery have existed for 1400 years under some Islamic extremists (not all Muslims) Blacks made it for centuries in America, so you need to get your facts straight. I'm not holding a single thing back. I just show my past. That isn't illegitimate. That's reality. Holding someone back is spewing lies to make people ignore history. I accept history in order to make conditions better in the future. Why do you say a "black panther" which is playing the race card. A man not being ashamed of being black (and not regreting it) isn't about being pro-Black panther. It's about being pro-human. That's the issue of you people you know. You don't want strong black people saying that they are BLACK in a strong fashion. You want docile, cooperative mental black slaves in order to accept corporatism, imperialism, and neo conservative ideology. Sorry, we real blacks aren't following that stuff.

-By Timothy

Monday, March 29, 2010

Illuminati Research

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/741

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/969

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/966

My discussion with a Christian

I'm called "Me" and the Christian is named "t." We talk about many issues in March of 2010. My words are in bold. This is a great conversation.

t: tim

Me: hello

t: is julius caesar the origin of the caesar title?

or the iaser?

kaiser?

Me: He's the origin of the modern title.
t: so not augustus?

Me: Augustus lived after Julius Caesar was assassinated

Augustus was Julius's step nephew.

t: is caesar

a surname?

originally a surname

?

of julius?

Me: No

t: so caesar is not a part of julius' name?

Me: no

His surname is Gaius.


t: do you think it is offensive to say quran is not true?

Me: I think it's not as long as you're not being disrespectful.

t: israel must have been a special nation notice the great powers

beside her

yet untouched

Me: right

t: obama humiliated benjami nethayanu?

Me: I think they disagree on the Middle Eastern question.

It's not necessarily a humilitation.

Obama is more moderate in the Israeli/Palestinian question.

Nethayanu is more conservative.

t: what does depopulation mean

are there any conspiracies related to this?

Me: Depopulation means you use a method to basically kill or exterminate human beings.

Depopulation is shown in the conspiracies of the Holocaust.

Many globalists calling for millions of people to die.

The massacres during the French Revolution, in Sudan, and other nations.


t: have you wacthed the movie 300?

Me: No, I have not.

I've seen commercials about it.

t: xerxes the lord of asia

Me: Xerxes looked effemiate.

t: whats that?>

Me: Effemiate means unmasculine.

This is why us in America call the opposite of masculine.

t: does america agress with

pediatristic lovers?

the

Me: No

t: common bond used by knights?

Me: Most Americans from across the political spectrum hate pedophiles

That is why we have very strict laws against such evil.

t: but it is once a teacher student relationship[

....

Me: There is nothing wrong with a bond, but not pervesion.
t: im shocked alexander

is gay

Me: I think many people knew that.
t: maybe not in his time?

Me: Alexander died in his 30's.

t: i mean

gayness does not

apply in his own era

its just recent

Me: It depends .

Homosexuality was very common place in the Greco Roman times.

So, Alexander's gayness wouldn't be uncommon.


t: i mean

homosexuality is not appliable to the ancients

they dont call it gay

my prof scolded

me

bec i told him

alexander is gay

he replied

alexander's homo is not applied at 326 bc

iuts natural

Me: I guess your professor doesn't know all of history.

It's easy to see that many sex acts done by homosexuals are unnatural.


t: he said it is normal nothing prejudicial

Me: People back in those days opposed it.

t: even the greeks?

he said that

alexander's gayness is ok with his culture

that time

Me: Not every aspect of every culture is righteous.

Child killing was common in Greco Roman culture.

That doesn't mean that this is moral or right.

It's wrong.


t: ahhhh ok

people today are saying that time its legal

and todays standard are not appliable that time

perversed notions

Me: Universally held moral principles exist irrespective of time.

So, there are always moral truths that exist in the past, the present, and the truth that will remain.

t: one time people even compared zeus to god the father?

Me: Why so?

t: bec

both are

long haired old men

?



Me: oh

t: people

mistakened

zeus is like God the father ala sistine chapel

Me: right

t: obama seemed

unique compared to other president

his policies are totally out of place

Me: How so?

t: abortion?

Me: Barack Obama is an extremist on abortion.

t: pro arab

?

socialist?

Me: There is nothing wrong with being Pro-Arabic.

As God gave Arabic people many gifts in the world from math to calligraphy.

It's a problem to be pro-Muslim extremist.

I'm pro-Arabic people and pro-Jewish people as all humans are created equal with great value.

t: i mean

he is a bit anti israel

Me: He's a moderate, not anti-Israel per se.

He wants Israel to exist, but Palestine to be a nation gradually.

Nethayanu is more conservative.


t: you like palestine to be a nation

Me: Yes
t: is it too dangerous?

Me: I believe all people have a right to self determination.

This doesn't mean I want Palestine to be a nation in Israeli territories.


t: pls elaborate

Me: It wouldn't be dangerous if nationhood is done in the right way.

Palestinians like any group have a right to have nationhood if they desire it.

Israeli and Palestine side by side can improve each others economic state and cultural development.

That's common sense.

Obama and Bush believe in this goal.


t: but they are radical they bomb

Me: Who are they?

t: hamas?

plop?

Me: A small minority doesn't signify the majority.

t: plo?

Me: The PLO is futile in power.

Hamas is a radical sect.

I don't agree with Hamas since they accept radical ideologies.


Most Americans are moderate on the issue except people like John Hagee and racists that hate either Jews or Arabs.

t: are u in favor of a welfare state?

Me: What do you mean a welfare state.

t: like in europe

Me: The Constitution promotes the general welfare of the people.
t: pay taxes

and the govt

will do everything

Me: I don't believe in the government controlling everything.

I do believe in a safety net to help the poor as we do have in America.

I believe in compassion which is one of the things that MIke Huckabee got right.


t: is it by reading the bible you can get the govt right?

is that true?>

Me: The Bible says that individuals can help the poor.

Jesus Christ said that.

The government is made by and for the people.

The government in the Constitution have laws that promote taxes, building roads, and promoting the general welfare of the people.

I'm not a reactionary.

I'm not a reactionary.

Article I, Section 8 has it.

Why not help?

I think in 2010, my views on economics has become more populist and I thank God for waking me up about these things.


t: how to be humble?

should we remove the notion of selfhood

to be humble?

Me: It's more complex than that.

It's more important to help other people than be selfish, but at the same time, you should embrace your personal individuality.

We shouldn't act like a robot in our lives.


t: buddhist said remove the notion of selfhood so you can be egoless whats your take?

does removal of selfhood harbors humility?

Me: Egos exist even if you're an ascetic.

We should remove selfishness, but selflessness.

t: egos like?

selfless for them is losing the sense of self

Me: Egos include things like selfishness, evil, etc.

I think we shouldn't lose the sense of our self totally because we should embrace our individuality.

We should never be ashamed of what we are or what we come from at all.


t: is it impossible to remove


By Timothy



______________________________

My debate with Kashta Bureh on economics.


Kashta_Bureh wrote:

Timothy...did you just issue me an intellectual challenge? I accept, let the duel begin....
First off, Capitalism IS predatory and I never said it wasn't. Competition among humans is a reality, humans compete against each other to separate the winners from the losers, the strong from the weak. Competition is a necessary part of evolution because it allows the species to improve over time.
Humans are competitive from birth. If you read the book Sperm Wars, you would know that if two men ejaculate in a woman around the same time, the sperm of the two males will literally wage war and try to destroy each other, and the "victorious" sperm will impregnate the woman. This is a FACT of evolutionary biology.
So, just as sperm wages war, humans wage war against each other in business, sports, and politics. Capitalism is nothing more than an economic system which is a reflection of man's competitive drive.
For you to blame Capitalism for the problems of the Black community is just as stupid and ridiculous as blaming guns for gun violence. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and the studies show that in communities where people own guns, crime actually goes down. The studies also show that Capitalism is the only system that works. Communism and Socialism never work.
Blacks got exploited by the Europeans because Europeans were just more cunning and sophisticated. Africans loved to fight each other and sell one another into bondage and the White man took advantage of this system. On top of that, the Africans stupidly invited Europeans into Africa and sold millions of slaves to him....are you denying this historical fact?


Kashta_Bureh is seriously wrong on many issues. He is only right that African Americans should create more businesses and have more efforts to build up the black community. First, he talks about Capitalism. He obviously wants to use the economic system of an oppressor as a justification to promote his own self interest. Vulture capitalism (as opposed to a regulated capitalism, which I have no serious qualms with) is materialistic, ruthless, and selfish by its own nature. That's reality.

How can a person be selfish when the collective improvement of your own people is beyond the interests of self. The working for self only limited your own human capacity and community agendas. Capitalism that's unregulated is obviously predatory and has been instrumental in the derivatives crisis, the opium wars against the Chinese people, and the international slave trade. Competition among humans is a reality, but humans for thousands of years have used safeguards to protect humans too (like environmental and labor standards. Even the most reactionary person accepts some regulation among capitalism as beneficial). In life, there are those living the good life and those who are less fortunate. Just because some people are poor or exist with disadvantages, doesn't mean that there is little chance for them to improve themselves. All people have value. Someone poor or middle class may have a better character and a more social enriching life than a super rich person indulging in immorality (with a guilt complex).

As for women and sperm wars, I have no issue with this since males and females biologically want the best fit as a partner. This isn't immoral nor evil at all. Competition exists, but you omit that rational reforms can evolve over time. For example, once we had infanticide in the Roman Empire in a common way. Today, we don't have it in the West in a large fashion. So, just because competition is a reality, doesn't mean that rational human reforms are non-existent.

So, we should do our best to help those people in extreme poverty or suffering to benefit everyone. Since, long term if radical improvement of our standard of living is a reality then more people will benefit from reforms. Everyone realizes that humans are competitive. Yet, this doesn't mean that humans lack the intellectual stamina to develop a better, more fair society. That is why social reforms came after the New Deal to radical improve the USA economy in a mixed economic fashion. So, yes I do blame cartel capitalism for many problems in communities (not all problems). If the glorious cartel-capitalism system was so great, why has the global finanical crisis occured since 2007. This crisis occured for many reasons and one was that there was the unregulated, speculative derivatives market (which was a fruit of cartel-capitalism, not regular capitalism per se). There is no evidence that unregulated capitalism works. Studies, literature from Krugman, and others prove that a mixed economy works better than pure Communism or unregulated Capitalism. You know this. Dr. King and brother Malcolm X exposed that trash economic system with ease. Forget that using the means of an oppressor in order to be malleable. There are alternatives to unregulated capitalism (like cooperatives, dirgism, etc.) that can build businesses, have technology, have fair trade, and other means of economic development.

Even the expert Ian Fletcher like many economist populists don't want total free trade neither a totally closed economy, but rational protectionism (that understand that we need trade without economic exploitation). This subject has nothing to do with gun violence as I agree with a man owning a gun in his own home.

Ayn Rand has been discredited and Rothard has been discredited. Newsflash, Austrian economics don't work as been exposed by mainstream economics. As for the slave trade, you demonize your own blood like a borderline traitor. Yes, some Africans did indeed sold their own people to slavery. Yet, Africans didn't organize the trade routes. They didn't create the ships. They didn't create the auction blocks in the West. They didn't even invent the international slave trade. This was done by Europeans for the most part, so they share much responsbility for it (beyond just Africans). These are historical facts. Do you deny it. Some Africans should of been more sophisticated and cunning to defend themselves against these imperialists. No one denies that, but this doesn't mean that hope should be gone. You have a very pessemistic personality, which causes you to even reject your own AA female kin when you haven't even met every since black women in the world or in America. I've met AA women looking better than Beyonce or Lisa Raye treating an intellectual black man with dignity and respect.

Like I've said before, don't tempt.

I'm a sleeping giant.

This is strike 2 brother.



By Timothy



_____________________


Yes, I do agree with some of the views of the Tea Party. I'm sick and tired of these social programs, I'm sick and tired of poor people who can't hold up their slack and then hard working people like me have to pay taxes for their lazy asses. Tim, it isn't the job of the government to provide "social services," that is what the private sector and charities are for.


At least you are honest. The Tea Party are the revival of the reactionaries from the past. I love real social programs. I do believe in banning social services among those that don't need it. If you're an able bodied person and you don't need these services, you shouldn't get them. Everyone is sick and tired of fraud and corruption in these programs. Cutting fraud and waste in these services can save a lot of money (including ending military aggression worldwide). Yet, I don't believe in eliminating all social programs, because some people need them and I don't believe that those living in extreme poverty should starve to death in society. Many of the poor aren't lazy, but suffer in bad socioeconomic problems. It's the government's job to promote the general welfare of the people. Article I, Section 8 says that the government can use cash and dollars to build roads, infrastructure, have a postal system, and other services to benefit the people. So, promoting the general welfare is fine with me. Private sector and charities can only go so far in handling poverty. That is why I advocate a comprehensive solution of private and public avenues. The upper class rich are paying record low taxation. Combined this with record income inequality, the super rich should have little to complain.
We don't need Social Security, Welfare or Medicare, and Social Security is nothing but a Ponzi Scheme. The government forces you to pay into it but now the fund is empty and no money will be there when I become a senior. So basically, the social security fund is a fraud.

We do need Social Security, some welfare, and Medicare. The reason is that these items aren't some Ponzi scheme. Social Security is known to exist as a surplus. Politicians have stolen funds from them to advance their own agenda. Medicare helped tons of seniors to have insurance. Welfare have radically decreased the poverty rate. The poverty rate is higher because of the recession (which is caused by numerous reason). The Social Security fund is still intact. The liar Peterson wants you to believe that Social Security. The New Deal increased American standard of living in unheard of heights in USA history.

Like I said, Blacks have an entitlement mentality and this is why they love Welfare, WIC, the Democratic party, and other social programs. I despise these programs. Every dollar I own or make came through hard work, sacrifice, and discipline, nobody has ever given me sh*t. And I have no respect for losers who grovel to the government for hand outs because they're too stupid and lazy to fend for themselves.


You are right that black people shouldn't embrace a radical dependency on the government. This encourages laziness. Yet, there should be balance (you make some social services exist for those that need it alone not anyone else). We can still love legitimate enterprise and collective efforts to solve our problems. Without balance, communities dissipate. Also, every human have had assistance one time or another in life. Even when you're young, you've either have gotten an allowance or your parents temporarily funded your livelihood until adulthood. No everyone is experience the exact same life pattern or lifestyle. There is why certain safeguard are instituted to benefit those disadvantaged. It's like this: if a whole bunch of people are poor, that's bad for business long term. If you have policies that decrease the poverty rate, then that's great for business and economic renewal. I don't take welfare, but I don't knock another man taking it if they legitimately need it. Also, many programs aren't handouts since there are strong prerequisites before you're given the GI Bill, and other benefits. Nothing is given for these folks for free.

By Timothy


______________________________


Tim...is that the best you can do? There are so many holes in your argument above that I can fly a 747 through it. First of all, the current economic system in the USA isn't "Capitalism," how can the USA be Capitalist when we have a central bank called THE FED that regulates the economy? In a truly Capitalist system there would be no Fed, there wouldn't be a central bank, and before 1913 the USA didn't even have a Federal Reserve.

I love how you use the word "collective improvement" when referring to Blacks. See, this is why the Black community is not rising, these moron Black nationalists and activists believe in "collective improvement." These men don't understand, as you apparently don't, that all humans are inherently selfish and only care about themselves, and this goes for Blacks as well as Whites and other ethnic groups.

The difference between Whites and Blacks is that Whites can come together out of pure self interest to build a company like Microsoft, while Blacks can't even get along. Are you naive and foolish enough to think that Blacks will come together out of the selfless need to do so? It will never happen.

I respect Malcolm X on many things but when it came to Capitalism he had no idea what he was talking about, and I reject the view of him, Stokeley Carmichael, and the Black Panthers, whom embraced Marxisim. All their views on Capitalism was flawed.

Every other group has benefited from Capitalism yet for some reason Blacks are the only group that have failed to do so, instead of blaming Blacks, you blame Capitalism. Then you talk about Capitalism being predatory........yes, it is, and I never said regulations shouldn't be passed to protect the environment, etc these are all side issues which are you attempting to use to divert me from the main topic, which is the effectiveness of Capitalism.....and the inability of Blacks to adapt to it.

Tim, you are digging your own grave, you should cut your loses and end this engagement with me while you're still ahead. First off, mainstream economics is BS, it is mainstream economics that got the USA into this financial mess, not AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS.

By mainstream economics, you're referring to KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS, and this school of economics embraces a central bank. Well, we're following the theories of Keynes, and if his theories are so great, why is the USA and world in a massive financial crisis?

Austrian economics is the only system that works, and when America followed it, America was strong. This school advocates THE GOLD and SILVER STANDARD, which means you don't have a central bank constantly printing funny money. Tim, do you like the cost of your food, housing, energy, and education costs going up? This is what happens with "mainstream economics," because the central banks keep printing funny money, but they couldn't do that if we were on a Gold or Silver standard.

Now, on to the slave trade. Africans were MORE responsible for the slave trade than Europeans because THEY LET IT HAPPEN. I know it is hard for you to accept this fact. Listen, the Europeans were outsiders, it was Africans that invited them into Africa and sold them slaves, and it was Africans that allowed themselves to be duped by Europeans, so stop trying to excuse their stupidity.

The Africans were dumb as f*ck 500 years ago and they still are today, if not, why do they let foreign corporations mine their minerals and get rich while they wallow in poverty? After all the White man has done, why do African nations STILL go in debt to the IMF and World Bank, which are White run institutions?

The answer is because Africans are dumb, selfish, simple, and easily manipulated. In fact, the history shows that Africans helped the Europeans build forts on their coasts, now how stupid is that? What fool lets a foreign country build a military base on their land without a fight? Only Africans.

Tim, the REAL reason why Blacks have failed to adapt to Capitalism is not because Capitalism itself is bad, it is because Blacks don't know how to work together, we have an entitlement mentality, and we believe in a "brotherhood" with other races.

Capitalism is a system that rewards groups of people who are tight knit and who can work together. This is why the Japanese, Chinese, East Indians, and Koreans do so well. These groups are tight knit, have strong group loyalty, and block outsiders from exploiting their community. They also don't have an entitlement mentality.

Blacks can't work together to save their lives. Take Africa for instance. To the typical White man, there is no difference between an Igbo, Somalian, or a Hutu, they are all Black in his eyes. But Africans have this retarded tribal mentality where they divide themselves based on their tribe and ethnic group, and they even fight each other over it, as the Hutu and Tutsi did.

This is why Africans are easy to conquer; they are easy to divide. Diaspora Blacks have the same weakness. Capitalism works against Blacks because Blacks can't work together and Capitalism is a system that requires groups to operate with harmony and efficiency.


-Kashta_Bureh


My Response to Him:




Now, this isn't the best that I can do of course, since a single forum doesn't display all of the intellect of a person. There are no holes in my argument. You use deception and use ad hominem attacks including distortions to promote that archaic Austrian economic system. The current USA system isn't capitalist and people realize this. So, why do you want us to embrace unregulated capitalism when it has been disproved in history (from the Middle Ages onward). I don't agree with the existence of central banks controlling every aspect of the economy. I believe that government should coin and print our money since the FED is an independent agency anyway. Even before 1913, there was the error of the Gilded Age. This era had the epitome of lassiez faire capitalism. The characteristics of this era included child labor, record economic inequality, labor rights violations, and other harm done to workers. After the New Deal and after the Great Depression, massive reforms came (that wasn't apart of mainstream capitalism or Austrian propaganda) that caused Americans to experience record economic growth. It was only with Reagan and Bush Jr. that the wild west economic philosophy came up again and this influenced the current recession we have in this country. You believe in regulations, but that's a cardinal sin in Austrian economics. See, Austrian economics accept nearly no regulations (even labor or environmental standards as oppressive to the free market). So, by definition, you are violating the adherence to your economic gospel. YOu have a limited persepctive since you think a lot of things in black and white. You can still have individual and collective efforts to solve problems.

As for Central banks, etc. that's irrelevant since even before all of that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism with no regulations haven't brought any massive economic growth at all in the poor class. You can't cite a source to prove that. I didn't know that collective improvement was a curse word. Individual and collective are necessary for the advancement of the black community. For example, I can be limited in what I can do by myself. Yet, if I and others work together in a collective effort, I can do more to build education, health services, businesses, etc. All humans aren't perfect and humans can be selfish at all. This doesn't mean that humans have no chance to improve themselves in better conditions in a society. That is something that you ignore in order to fulfill some reactionary thinking process (you want cunning and sly behavior, which I have no issue with. Yet, you can have a self-interest without selfishness. You can still believe in ruthless actions with ethics to benefit blacks too). You have naivety and I hope. That's the difference between me and you. Right now, there are black businesses and black companies. We have to take this to the next level. Although, I do have hope. Strong intervention and strong standing up among black men and black women can inspire a generation to be more apt for change instead of nihilistic, evil behavior. Possibilities are endless for the future. This has occurred in throughout human history, so Blacks can do it (with strong intervention done by Black themselves. More leaders should spark the brain of people to change. If Malcolm X was once a thug, pimp and he changed, then anyone can change).


I don't believe in Marxism for its ethical relativism and its promotion of too much state control of our economic systems (limiting any form of private initative). Capitalism that's without order and safeguards is a trash system that doesn't benefit black people at all. The reason is that it causes a gulf of economic inequality and it promotes a non-concern for the betterment of blacks among all classes. It's a divide and conquer mechanism to divide AA people instead of promoting more unity. Many black people have benefited from our current economic system. I don't blame vulture capitalism for all of the problems in our community neither do I blame blacks collectively. I blame many things like corruption, problems in the black community, an inferior economic system, and other reasons. Have you looked at Colin Powell, black scientists, black doctors, and black people among many fields before (who are making some differences in the black community in this system). Your problem is that you legitimately expose problems in the black community, but you don't offer much inspiration for blacks (especially if the black person is suffering) to succeed. You have no hope for your own race in America. I don't try to divert, I'm transparent with my words. Many blacks can adapt to a fair economic system that is mixed. You intentionally ignore alternatives to laissez faire capitalism like systems in Europe (that have higher HDI rates, higher educational rates, etc. than America. These European nations aren't on that Austrian economic tip). You do this, so blacks can follow some Austrian economic tripe. There is nothing wrong to adapt in a real fashion for self improvement. No one is arguing against people. People just disagree with supporting some fraudulent economic system.


On economics, you and the Tea Party are akin in thinking. Even the Glass Steagall act (another regulation) being repealed from 1999 contributed to the recession too. Austrian economics is about ending Social Security, cutting nearly all of the social safety, cutting nearly all regulations, etc. in order to grow the economy. How do you cut services, cut even necessary spending in our infrastructure plus educational system, and promote some gold standard to grow the economy? It doens't. The FED is a privitaized system that issues currency. This privatized system have caused economic havoc.

Brother, this is 2 strikes and a half. This is Varsarity stuff here. Not, JV. Don't get brought to field and get a safety.

Also, it's a shame that the IMF and the World Bank support corruption in Africa. I support real Africans wanting reforms not sellout Africans sucking up to the IMF or the World bank at all.

By Timothy


_________________





Here's responses that I've made to a person bashing Black women (He isn't Kashta. I believe now that this person is a troll, because of his language. Trolls are used more in the net to try to divide BM and BW, yet this isn't going to work):


You don't know what game recognize game means?

I meant in that instance that some brothers use psychological tactics of pity (in a form of game) in order to go out with females. I recognize that game for what it is, hence game recognize game.

I don't believe in using force to prevent dating options. I'm not a hater. Yet, all of us as BM should at least have a positive repport with females of our own race. A man is a disagrace if he paints a broad, stereotypical brush against his own people. All BW aren't monolithic. The stereotype that BW are all monolithic (in hating smart brothers, being overly aggressive, etc.) is the old lie and slander that is utilized to disrupt BM and BW Unity. I've seen this lie over and over again. People are tired of it. If a man shows confidence, assertiveness, and a sense of direction in lie, believe me, the women will come. As a man, we should always respect a woman saying No. A woman saying No isn't the end of the world. It's a stereotype that you promote again that black women don't like intelligent, eccletic interests having brothers when many black women like a vareity of BM (in various forms of personalities, appearances, and outlooks in life).

Attractive? So-called beauty in a woman is in many things. Just because a woman isn't looking a Eurocentric looking Barbie doll, doesn't mean that a woman isn't attractive. I rather go out with a sister with strong African features (with a dark skin complextion) with a heart of gold than a person looking like a fake Barbie doll with a bad personality. If a person hates you, you should strive to not let others dictate your life choices. If a person tries to mess with you, you have every right to stand up for yourself. You should be unshamed of your tastes, interests, etc. Gravitate that personality to the world in a socially mature way and sisters will respect you. Sisters respect honesty and they are intuitive. If you fake the funk and promote some phony tough guy image, then the sisters detect that in an instance. Yet, if you are honest about yourself (and not care about what others percieve you as in a negative way), you develop your soical skills in an advanced way, and you are active to hang out with sisters with similar interests that you have, then a relationship has a higher chance of working.

There are millions of sisters worldwide, so there are plenty of sisters with dynamic personalities, intellectual maturity, strength, and wisdom that brothers can accept. It's not about changing to fit to the world's standards. It's about appreciating what skin you're in and to stand up for yourself. Our race stood up for us. We have every right to stand up, be strong, and never let the world get us down. As I've mentioned, you shouldn't be disrespected in an unfair fashion. Yet, you can't expect every AA women to be attracted to you. Some AA women will be attracted to you and some will not. That's life.

By Timothy




________________________



C/s

Why is this hard to understand. We BM need to go out more with around the way women or the so-called average woman. We should never be too shallow to kick it with a regular sister. I rather go out with a regular sister than dream of some fantasy woman.

YOu've got grown men whining on the NEt. People are tired of it. If you're a grown man, then be a man and handle your business. I don't care what people think about me. I just handle my business and I never demonize black women or blame black women for my own issues.

I'm accountable for my own errors and the things that I've did correct in my life. Also, millions of black women exist worldwide with a multiple array of personalities, interests, etc. Simply, if a man (regardless of appearance) that has confidence, stands up for himself, has social skills, is trustworthy, is outgoing, etc. then that person wouldn't have serious issues going out with a woman.

We should treat each other with respect, but we can't set up unrealistic expectations for romance. It's best to go out with people with similar interests, similar career choices, or similar personalities. As for those males going out with non-BW for selfish reasons, that's not right. I'm not doing that stuff. I'll stick with my own people for romance. Also, not all non-BW act like some Cinderella queens. Look at Tiger Woods, Toomer, Montell Williams, Michael Strahan (he's with a decent sister now), etc. to see the files. They have gotten took to the cleaners and these non-BW wanted Greenbacks from these brothers. If a black man prop up non-BW above BW (from a social or cultural standpoint), then there is something wrong with that person.


By Timothy

__________________________________


_______________


I do believe if you are a grown man especially, I wouldn't scapegoat women for nothing in my life.

There are non-black women that hate ecceltic interesting black men and I've known some of them. Just because some people may have mistreated you back in the day, doesn't mean that black women collectively are one way. In my life experience, I've met tons of black women that have treated me with dignity and respect. Also, I've seen white and Hispanic women act stuck up, arrogant, mean spirited, and down right disrespectful.

The answer to this problem is both respecting people's legitimate preference for attractions and promote more respect among the black community. A black woman has the right to go out with who she wants (and a man too), but all black people should learn to respect each other even if some people aren't attracted to you.

You can still unite with a woman for black causes and black unity even if a woman isn't romantically attracted to you.

See, the problem among some BM is that some of us feel that we are entitled to a woman by birthright (and nothing else). We aren't entitled to dominate a woman. We give our respect and give our best foot forward to honor a woman. I would not lay up with a non-BW to prove some point nor to seek vengeance (since some of those non-BW checking out low self esteem brothers see them as a charity case or a social pet not as an equal member of the human race).

For me, I'll still go out with Black Queens for a relationship. I don't agree with anyone whether male or female being disrespected or mistreated in life. Yet, as men, we will have to learn confidence building techniques to improve our own lives without throwing BW under the bus.

By Timothy


_________

Once again I've refuted you before and you still act in a stereotypical mode.

Now, Tiger is with some of his people when it's convenient. When the media put pressure on him (when the matter is just a personal matter), he was scared and sucked up to the establishment to try to preserve his trophy relationship. I really don't know if they loved each other. You don't either conclusively. What went on behind closed doors is still not totally known. Tiger married that woman for obvious reasons and you and I know the reason. Tiger did control the much of the relationship and he thought that she was just another ignorant woman (that would do nothing about his adulteries).
As for you words about your experiences, I will take you word for it. Also, you made the error that you assume that I believe all people in your position are self hating traitors. NO, I said some people like you not every single person like you. A person who is a little overweight can be attractive in many instances. One simple example is that both Tocarra and Jennifer Hudson (before their weight losses) were attractive. They are attractive now too. Queen Latifah isn't ugly. Kim Coles, Kimberly Locke, Chaka Khan, and Monique aren't ugly. You must be tripping. As for you saying you don't place all black women into a box, I can respect that. I don't hate non-blacks. I just place trust in my own people and I don't place non-blacks as culturally or socially superior to my own race. That is all. I have solidarity with my race. You have a right to disagree with my views and that's fine. I have a right to disagree with your views too (like most black women hate intellectual black men when you haven't met every single black woman worldwide). I never said that every black male dating IR is a self hater, but some are. That's the truth.

Stop worrying about the past? I knew that were your agenda all along now isn't it. You don't want us to worry about the past, using the past in a constructive framework can ascend our people into a better future. YOu learn about the past, so you have a geniune cultural linkage with your own black race. You have the right to look for romantic love everywhere and I have the right to respect everybody as an equal, but have a special romantic bond with black sisters. I don't need to lay up with a non-black person to prove my equality or be politically correct. I'm equal since conception period. As for the can't relate part, my meaning is transparent. I meant to write that a BW knows more about my struggles, my life, my culture, my history, my lifestyle, and my thinking much more than a non-BW can. That's the whole truth. Being from the Chi area, you ought to know better.

By Timothy


______________________________

This is my last response to you on this issue since we will agree on some issues and not on others.

Now, I've refuted much of what you have said. I've refuted your lie that most black women hate blacks who are intellectual, that blacks who are like you must date outside of their race to find happiness, etc. Now, you place silly lies and demonize sisters like Toccara, etc. as ugly. That's your view and I disagree with that assumption. You offer no evidence how or why Toccara, Kim Coles, etc. are ugly. I wonder why? You must think that beauty is very limited to a low size or a limited perspective. Beauty is diverse in many sizes and that is a fact.

You offer no real solutions for blacks for low self esteem (except for date IR or find a needle in a haystack). Real solutions among blacks is for black men with trouble dating women is for black men to gain confidence, learn social skills, communicate with sisters in a wide spectrum of locations, and learn about their own history with a positive insight. That isn't hard to ask. As for Tiger Woods, it's obvious why he married her. He married her because he's attracted mostly to white women and he is rich. That's true since the vast majority of women going out with him were white from childhood. Celebrities guard their images and that is feasible, but Tiger admitted (you realize this) that he felt entitled and arrogant as a motivation for the acts of adultery by his hands. I don't know if Tiger or his wife loved each other since I don't understand their romantic business like that. Tiger cracked under pressure since he's a punk and an adulterer. He should of handled his business behind closed doors.

I realize you are not a stereotypical person that hates all black women. Yet, you use your observation as a sole determining factor in assigning a generalization on the majority of black women. That is precisely a futile observation on your part since you haven't met or known every single BW in the USA or worldwide. Tons of BW in America have a diversity of interests, personalities, are intellectually mature, fun to be around, etc. Also, real AA women aren't neddles in a haystack. They exist in the malls, educational places, parks, restaurants, business locations, rural places, in the streets, and other locations plainly speaking. I don't lump you with other guys blaming all black women for this or that. I didn't say that all BM struggle harshly. I have mentioned that BW know more about BM, black culture & the black historical experience than non-BW, which is true.

You have the right to date who you want to and I have my right to love who I want to (which are sisters alone).

By Timothy

__________________

My new words in April of 2011 about this issue:

Not every AA woman have sex with thugs. It's kind of ironic that the same people claiming to be so nice and good use some of the most wicked invective against AA women. Black people among both genders have issues and problems. That can't be denied or obfuscated. The solution for our problems as a people isn't bomb throwing or throwing AA women under the bus. The solution is for all black people to communicate with each other, we must love each other, we must fight against the evils in our community, and we must unite to make our Black people rise up into the next level of cultural & moral growth. We have to have a sense of the arts and intellectual growth too (like math, science, technology, etc.).

See, I view a woman basher and a thug as equal threats or enemies in our community. The thug is wrong for promoting nihilism and other forms of wickedness. The women basher (who lies and claims to be the "nice guy") is wrong since this person over exaggerates incidents and project false stereotypes against all AA women. Some of them use these stereotypes as an excuse to go IR. Many of them are consumed with low self-esteem.

As men, we can't excessively whine about women. That action isn't a definition of real manhood. Real manhood is taking responsibility, standing up for ourselves, and being able to help those that need help in an altrustic way. For if we whine in an immoral fashion about women, we disrespect ourselves since we came from women via birth. So, the reasonable solutions are to be active in our communities to help our people, to fight against evils, and to confront thugs, women haters, and bullies (in inspiring these people to change their own ways). You can't say I'm the nice guy and do nothing to help out your own community when the going gets tough. We as men have to live by our words and show no fear of any human by being strong (to stand up for legitimate black liberation). We have to love AA women like we love ourselves. Just because some AA people have problems, doesn't mean we gloat over our own people. We be active to confront evil and form plans to build up Black people.

By Timothy


_______________


The notion of decent black men doesn't need to be redefined. If a BM or a BW stays in the sidelines and doesn't do a thing to solve problems among their own people, they aren't decent to begin with. Most people have always agreed with that for a long time.

It's that certain people use that reality (of some black people being co-conspirators to the ills in our community) as an excuse to demonize all BM (and BW too) in a slick fashion. If one thing needs to be redefined or eliminated is the stereotypes made against any black persons (both males and females) doing the right thing as being soft or weak. That stereotype should be scrapped. Evil black men are a problem, but it's more than them. Historically, many BM caught up in a bad lifestyle have changed their lives and developed into righteous people just like tons of BW doing the right thing.

It's a system that promotes corporate corruption, economic disparities, and other damaging influences in our community. I believe in personal responsibility like the next man, but not personal denial of corporate evils in the world that contribute to the evils in Western society. If you want things solved, you have to be comprehensive in dealing with building up self confidence among outcasts & the poor, creating radical programs, protesting, and working toward more dialogue so solutions can be made.

Without black men and black women uniting in trying to find solutions, nothing changes.

Certain people (especially among sellout blacks that don't want to deal with their own people or have hatred agaisnt BM or BW) want permanent tensions among BM and BW in order for the status quo to remain.

We should end tensions and develop real resolutions (like gang intervention, promotion of health & fitness, programs to fight against violence, creating avenues to develop intellectual pursuits, promote real forms of the arts & music among our own people, develop financial security and assistance toward our own people, create radical acts now to fight back against evil, and have outlets for blacks especially with ecclectic tastes to feel at home with tolerance) in our lives for the the sake of our ancestors.

-By Timothy

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Trinity

_______________________________________________________________________
Introduction:

What do I think of the Trinity? I believe in it since for years. It’s biblical, divine, and totally true. Many heretics like Modalists, Oneness, Unitarians, and others deny it, but I will never. This is a simple, yet concise exposition to back up the honorable truth of the Trinity. I will divide this response into 3 reasons why I believe in the Trinity, which is a Philosophical Reason, a Biblical Reason, and a Historical Reason. Now it begins.

________________________________________________________________________

I. Philosophical Reason

First, many anti-Trinitarians have confusion over the real definiton of the Trinity, therefore that is one of the many reasons that they deny it as a biblical fact. The Trinity is a belief of one God not 3, but God makes manifest into 3 members or “persons” making God a complex, compound, yet unified being.



The Son, Father, and the Holy Spirit is God, the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father and likewise for the rest of the members. There are therefore 3 yet one in the Godhead, not 3 gods, but the Trinity exists as having one substance, power, nature, eternity, and essence.

This isn’t too far fletched to believe since it expresses the distinction, yet the unity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the sense of unity, there are cases where unity doesn’t mean solitary oneness.


One example is man. Man has a mind, body, and spirit, yet man isn’t a solitary being acquiring of one concept, but has compound unity within his or her’s existence. Another is time made up o the past, present, and future, or physics consisting of matter, space, and motion.


The same goes for God though the later concepts deals with nature (God’s creation) and God is outlined in this way solely by the scriptures.


God is infinite and omnipotent and can do this because he is all powerful and the concepts of God being a compound being is bounded by the scriptures.

________________________________________________________________________

II. A Biblical Reason

The Trinity is all over the Bible. Just because the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean that the Trinity as a concept isn’t maintained in the scripture. Oneness, communion, theology, essence, Incarnation, Sola Scriptura, Rule of Faith, Bible Law, Aramaic, etc. are literally mentioned in the Bible as words, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist in the realm of Christendom or as concepts. The same goes for the Trinity.

The Godhead is found in the Bible and that means Trinity. To validate the Trinity as biblical, bible verses must be used to outline the main concepts of the Trinity which are:

_____________________________________________________________________

a). Distinctions or Differences Between the Father and the Son

The Father is not the Son, therefore the Trinity is validated. But to validate it, you need Sola Scriptura and its provided easily by these verses.

i). One of the best verses is from Mt. 3:13-17:

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

In those verse the Father in audible voice says “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. The Father in that situation identifies Christ as his Son.


The Father didn’t change his mode, use ventriloquism imitating Christ, but made manifest of a distinction by the communication going forth between 2 member therefore denoting compound unity.



Christ was in the flesh in that moment of time and in his human body can’t create a voice from heaven saying he is the Son, because someone else is describing him which is the Father.

ii). 1 John 1:1-3:

"001:001 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
001:002 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
001:003 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ."

In those verses, it described that the Father exists with the Son. If the Father was purely identical to the Son, the Bible would say that the Father is the Son.


No such verse exists no where in God’s word that the Father is the Son at all. One of the concepts of the Trinity is the denial of the Son being the Father and this verse simply outlines this.

iii). John 3:14-19:

14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."


In those great verses, the Bible explicitly calls Christ alone who is begotten. Only the Son of God, not the Father or the Holy Spirit. This is true because the Bible says so therefore the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Not Identical at all.



The Trinity is just a belief in one God with coequal, coeternal, distinct persons that share the nature of one God not 3 gods as the famous misconception maintains. Not to mention that Christ made a blatant difference between himself (Christ) and the Father by saying that the Father was greater than I signifying position only not power or essence.

_______________________________________________________________________


b). Plurality or Compound Unity of one God

This is a concept that exists in the OT especially. Genesis 1:1-4 is one of the easiest verses to show that. It reads “1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.” And v. 26 says that “1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.”

God in those verses means Elohim and Elohim is a Hebrew plural noun making a possiblility of one unifed compound being. That’s evident by the prefix –im presenting a mult-Personal God.


One the verse that says “Let us create man in our own image” has the similar point. If God was a solitary being he will say “I” instead of “us” but he said “us” [which is a plural pronoun in reference to himself not to angels] since Almighty God which is in heaven created the universe by himself and exists as a Trinity to do it. You can more at Genesis 3:22, Isaiah 6:8, etc.

ii). Deut. 6:4 shows that “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”

and when that is literally translated it reads “Shema Israel, Yehovah Elohim (Adonai) echad!” One is translated as echad meaning a group united as one not a solitary one which would mean yachid in Hebrew. This source outlines this.

“…the only word that applies to God (Elohim) in the O.T., then this would be a death sentence of the Trinitarian believers. The word “yachid” means an absolute or solitary one.” (Francis Brown, S. R. Drivr, and Charles Briggs, “A Hebrew English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, Charendon, 1966, pg. 402).

"Elohim conveys both the unity of the one God, and yet allows for the plurality of Divine Persons as expressed in the historical Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It is unique to monotheistic Israel and is not found in the language of any of her polytheistic, Semitic neighbors (Jack B. Scott, S.V. "elohim", in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols:, Chicago, Moody Press, 1980, 1:44).

The unity in multiplicity is the essence of the Trinity or a plurality in one unity (God)

________________________________________________________________________

c). Distinctions between the 2 Members of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is very special here. It’s unique. According to the Bible, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son:

John 15:26-27
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

There is no time in the Bible where the Son, Father, and the Holy Spirit were identical or were the same person in the whole scriptures at all. Also in John 16:7, Christ referred to the future arrival of the Comforter to the church. The Comforter is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit existed for all time, it didn’t exist to the church in a great massive way to perform gifts, etc. yet. When Christ ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit arrived in full power to the church at Pentecost. Logic and God’s word tells me that the Holy Spirit wasn’t Christ, was not on the cross, etc since the Holy Spirit is invisible and can’t be seen by our own physical eyes or mind.

________________________________________________________________________


III. A Historical Reason:

I know now tons and I do mean tons of Early Church History, so it’s like that. One of the greatest lies to confuse the Trinity is that ROMAN CATHOLICISM CREATED THE TRINITY AT THE NICENE COUNCIL AT 325 A.D. WHAT A GROSS LIFE AND FURTHER CAN BE THE TRUTH.


Pagan concepts did crept into the early church from the 100’s –400’s, but the Trinity is an established facts maintained by non-pagan Bible believing early Christians. It’s fully outlined in the Holy Scriptures. The TRUTH IS THAT CHRISTIANS MENTIONED THE NAME “TRINITY” SINCE 180 A.D. AND CHRISTIANS BELIEVED IN THE CONCEPTS OF THE TRINITY SINCE THE TIME OF CHRIST.

The first man recorded written-wise who wrote the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch and he won’t a pagan or a Catholic since Catholicism wasn’t invented until 314 A.D. Theophilus said:

“…But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,. of God, and His Word, and His wisdom…” (180 AD, Theophilus of Antioch Chapter XV. - Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus 2:15)

The word was from the Greek Triados meaning Trinity and he usd it to describe God. Trinity can be used even before 180 A.D., but this is the earliest record so far before 180 A.D. Other early Christians like Justin Marytr, Ignatius [bishop of Antioch and brave Christian], Polycarp, Athenagarus, and others have shown quotes believing in distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, denial of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one person, and other points to show the Biblical Trinity in concept. Here’s examples of that:

"...Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed" (Justin Martyr First Apology 13:5-6, Christians Serve God Rationally [A.D. 151]).

"For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." (Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. VI).

"The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by `the Son,' I will tell you briefly: He is the first- begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things" (Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians 10:2-4).

In fact the Non-Catholic St. Patrick believed in the Blessed holy Trinity by saying it in his Breastplate and Confession:

·St. Patrick said "[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father--before the world's beginning . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the Sacred Name" (Confession of St. Patrick 4).


·447 AD St. Patrick "I bind to myself to day the strong power of an invocation of the Trinity--the faith of the Trinity in Unity, the Creator of the universe" (The Breastplate of St. Patrick 1).



All of these people aren’t heretics. Those denied the Trinity in the early church like Noetus, Sabellius, and others were the real pagan heretics and they were also rebuked by real Christians like Hippolytus. Hippolytus was a Bible believer and not a Papist who worshipped the Trinity by saying:

Hippolytus "As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine" (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

Hippolytus said:

"A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills." (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus)

Hippolytus also said that "She hath mingled her wine" in the bowl, by which is meant, that the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. "And she hath furnished her table:" that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity." (Hippolytus on Prov 9:1, fragment, "Wisdom hath builded her house."

Note that Hippolytus in his history rebuked the pro-Modalist Roman Bishop Zephryrinus who supported the anti-Trinitarians in the 200’s.



Independent groups like the Anabaptists, Donatists, Novatians [I have Trinitarian quotes from both Donatus and Novatian], Celtic Christians like St. Patrick, Columbanus, and Columba, Lollards, Waldensians, and others worshipped the Trinity or the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The Bible even commands you to baptize in all 3 members at Mt. 28:18-20:



“18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
That pronounced the 3 members as one for baptism and 1 John 5:7:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

I know that verse is controversial, but it was mentioned on all old English Bibles (i.e. Tyndale, Coverdale, Wycliffe, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishop, KJV, and all of the Protestant Reformers) for 600 years straight and came first writtenly discovered by Tertullian and Cyprian then Priscillan, Athanasius, Waldensian version ,etc.



Just because 1 John 5:7 exists on few manuscripts doesn’t mean that it’s an added verse or a lying concept or a fraud. To deny the Trinity is to call Hippolytus, Tertullian, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Bible, and God himself a transformer being or a liar and that in it of itself is making a big mistake. It will make not that change or mistake ever.



Like always Christopher Lancaster, we Trinitarians are not wanting to paganize you but show you the truth and wake up to accept and worship the Blessed Trinity who is God Almighty.

I hope to God that you will do this.


By TruthSeeker24

SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GRATIA
SOLA CHRISTO
SOLA GLORIA DEO

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2003

2: 24 pm. EST

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Some Wisdom

Some Wisdom

It so obvious that these neo-cons criminals are on the run. This is from my original thought here and I just expressing the truth. I'm focused now. It's seemed like time passed so fast. From the debates at www.carm.org to debating Freemasons and now here. There is this phony 9/11 Commission which is nothing more than the 21st century version of the Warren Commission investigation JFK's assassination. Kean has business ties to Bin Laden's brother in law.

Their findings will probably be that the Clinton and Bush administration committed intelligence mistakes prior to 9/11 and never intensively focused on the al-Qaeda. No one will be charged with treason against America or being involved in the death of 3,000 people unless a miracle happens.

One of the most hilarious occurence was Condy Rice, a CFR agent. We love you Condy, but you are brainwashed sheeple who needs to wake up. Condy, if you claim to have a Christian experience what you need to d o is to rebuke and get out of the CFR, inspire Bush to repent for his alliegance to Skulls and Bones plus Bohemian Grove, and clean up the White House and society. That's what you need to do. Condy says that she didn't realize of hijacking warning yet the Bush White House was repeated warned about a 9/11-like event months before it transpired. Whose telling the truth, Condy or mainstream new sources. I pick those news sources.

I feel like the doubters are jealous of us. If they were secure in their beliefs about George W. Bush being a traitor, Satanist, murderer, pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-freedom socialist enemy, then they wouldn't be worried. They are worried and you know why? Because tons of Americans and individuals around the world are beginning to awaken from their sleep.

People are critically anazyling these situations and figuring out the Bush killed 3,000 people in 9/11, Arnold is a Nazi extremist, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is a starting poi nt of exploitation of natural resources, the institutions of puppett headship, and a continued overstretching of our great military.

The U.S. military is in 70% of the world's countries and nearly 50,000 is in Germany. What is that for? What we need to do is to send those troops home. Especially in Iraq, it's so obvious that he lied to America and the world. Also, how is the USA going to fully accomodate the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis within Iraq especially in the Sunni Triangle where the majority of the fighting is taking place. What is next? You want Chalibi who's an embezzler, no bid contracts restricting a free enterprise system, $1 billion cost per week in Iraq, or a Iraqi interim Constitution that prohibits the right to bear arms (A God given right).

This traitor General Tommy Franks even seeked to get rid of the U.S. Constitution if another terror attacks existed in America. I wonder why the controlled mainstream media hasn't report these facts? Why are they s o blind as to not realize that Bush is ruining our jobs, our land, our guns, and our rights.

YOu got phony liberals like Alan Desowitz, Choamsky. Then you fake neo-cons like O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Scraborough. Well, at least Joe Scraborough has the most hope but even he subscribes to imperialism, the illegal Patriot Act, and the pagan movie of the Passion. Now we have some "election" between 2 men that are members of the Skulls and Bones (Bush and Kerry). Both men have blood related to British Royalty, both are anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-globalization, consents with this fake government created war on terrorism, etc.

There is no difference between the 2 except Kerry's opinion on the ecomony and environment. This is like a Repubicrat system of lackies and corporate criminals in crony capitalism. It's so apparent of what these guys are doing and we have no choice but to ACT.

That's some wisdom you can carry on with you......

Good luck allies..... ...........

By TruthSeeker24



April 1, 2004

Why the Archangel Michael isn't the Messiah

http://thetruth81901.yuku.com/topic/873/t/Why-the-Archangel-Michael-isn-t-the-Messiah.html

I devised of this information because of the Jehovah Witness, Hashev, and other groups of individuals who maintain the perception that Michael is the Messiah and thats just false. This expose is short obviously and cuts to the chase. Enjoy:


Why the Archangel Michael is not the Messiah:

1). Micah 5:2 is a prophecy describing the Messiah. Its the Messiah that will exist on Earth from Bethlehem Ephratah. Michael is an angel who is from heaven and has never came down to Earth as a man. It also says that he (Messiah) is the ruler in Israel and whose goings is from of old, from Israel and whom going is from of old, from everlasting. Michael isnt from everlasting since hes a created being. The Messiah (Jesus Christ) is from and to everlasting making Christ divine being God not a created being. John 1:1,4 confirms the deity and pre-existence of Christ. Psalm 90:2 say that only God is from everlasting to everlasting.

2). Micah 1:3-4 The Bible says the Lord cometh forth out of his place (heaven) and comes to Earth. How can Michael do this when he isnt God? This is a reference to the Messiah of his 2nd coming by the context because the temple is mentioned in Micah 1:1-2. Michael doesnt have the power or biblical authority to be the Messiah.

3). Revelation 22:8-9 says to worship God alone not an angel. Only God who is the Messiah fulfils the fundamental prophecies, which are over 300 describing him. (Jesus Christ). The angel Michael is therefore not to be worshipped or bowed to; therefore, Michael having extreme glory or being bowed to is breaking Gods commandments.

4). Isaiah 9:6-7 A child is born being called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. None of these qualities define the archangel Michael. To call Michael by these names, which are Gods names, is blasphemous since Michael isnt everlasting, or the Mighty God. Michael means in Hebrew means godlike or who is like unto God not Mighty God or Almighty God. Mighty God in the Hebrew language mean Gibbowr Elohim and that has never been denoted to any other being in the OT and NT except Almighty God not the archangel Michael. No verse in the OT and NT defines it as such. The terms Mighty God declares the Messiah only since it says he sits on the throne of David, etc. Michael is an angel and has no lineage to David. The Messiah is the Lord Jesus Christ not an angel.

5). Angel in Hebrew means malakh meaning messenger. Their primary duties are to send messages, deliver, do miracles, and other actions not being a Savior, Messiah, or deliverer. Only God is the Savior (Isaiah 43:11, Jude 1:12, Titus 2:10), the only redeemer (Isaiah 63:16), the only Holy One (Psalm 71:22, Psalm 78:41, Psalm 89:18), and the only Judge (Psalm 94:1-2, Genesis 18:25). If God acquires solely these characteristics, why cant he be the Messiah when the Messiah is the deliver, Savior, and judge for all men outlined in the OT and NT. An angel cant deliverer people from sin, redeem, or save souls. Only God can make him the Messiah not Michael.

6). Ex. 20:1-7 The Bible forbids anyone worshipping anything other than God and thats also exhorted in the NT. To assume Archangel Michael is the anointed one or the Messiah is close to worship. Only glory is given unto God who is the Messiah (Christ). I will give no glory to an angel called Michael.
-Mt. 4:10/Luke 4:8 Christ said worship God only. How can we assume an angel is the Messiah when the Bible in the OT has no identification of the Savior as an angel. Apologists say that the Talmud, Midrash, and even the Koran say that Michael is the Messiah, but those works are false, bias, anti-Jewish, and anti-Christians in some of its verses. Its biblical to assume that the Messiah is God since he has the power, influence, prophecy, and the only ability to bring about a lasting end-time peace worldwide. No one angel can do that alone or make an everlasting rule forever. \

7). Jesus Christ throughout Revelation was called:
1). Alpha and Omega, the beginning and ending (Revelation 1:8) and also the Almighty
2). The son of man (Rev. 1:13)
3). The first and the last (Rev. 1:17)
4). Son of God (Rev. 2:18)
5). The faith and true witness (Rev. 3:14)
6). Creator (Rev. 4:11)
7). Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5). Also, the root of David.
8). Lamb (Rev. 5:6)
9). Christ (Rev. 12:10)
10). Faithful and True (Rev. 19:11)
11). The Word of God (Rev. 19:13)
12). King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16)
13). The Bright and Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)

**13 titles are describing Christ, the Messiah. Anyone cant find within the Bible such enormous or grandiose declarations about the Archangel Michael. To assume so or call Michael the Messiah or Savior is just blasphemy. God is the only Redeemer, Savior, and Messiah, who is Jesus Christ and none other. **

By Timothy

The Trinity and my response

Chris: Your opinion here actually contradicts the Bible and Jesus' words. The so-called trinity baptism formula is actually a shut case for oneness as opposed to trinity. In the NAME of Father, Son Holy Spirit. One person, One name. In Acts, we see the obedient Apostles, baptising in the NAME of Yeshua (Jesus). So we see, they are one person. And of course, the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary resulted in Yeshua.

Response: You view God as a transformer without logic but suiting your opinion that God is not compound. You pretty much subscribe to the oneness opinion of the Baptismal formula for only Oneness people would believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one person, therefore you are an Oneness individual derived from the Modalist heresy in the 100s and 200s A.D. revived fully 1913. Salvation comes by Christ without baptism and thats know to the that issue of Acts 2:38. The Trinity is still used. One reason is Christ explicitly said in Mt. 28:19 to : Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: In that verse the is used to separate each member. If the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost were solitary one person totally it would use the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it used name of the which is an definite article separating specific names to say during baptism. The translation scholar have determined this plenty of times. Acts 2:32-38 reads as this:

002:032 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
002:033 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
002:034 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
002:035 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
002:036 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
002:037 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
002:038 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
002:039 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

These verses are true in terms of using Christ for salvation, but each member of the Trinity works in mans salvation by the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. In baptism, Peter used the identity of baptism but not a required prerequisite formula for usage. Only Christ has that edict in Matthew. To be fair and balanced I will study Acts 2:38 more closely.



Chris: Yes, then why are you hesitant to acknowledge that God can have many manifestations, yet be ONE person? Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Burning bush, pillar of smoke, Melchizedek, is God a hexity now? Or is He ONE???

Reponse: God has manifestations but only 3. You seem to hestitate that. The only 3 members he came in the OT was the Son, Father, and the Holy Spirit. Just because God appears in many manifestations doesnt mean he is one specific person. Distinctions of attributes and actions and existence of the members at the same time denotes specific distinction refuting the one single person notion. Ive havent seen a refutation yet to prove why the Father and the Son talked to each other at the same time, the Son raised from the dead, the Father and the Holy Spirit being invisible to mans sights, etc. and still exist as one person. First, you are fast with the burning bush issue. First Melchizedek was seen by Abraham and he was Christ before he was begotten by Mary. Christ also exists as the Angel of God and people called him God as well. The Father God existed in many forms like the Creator and the Burning Bush. The Holy Spirit in the OT was called the Spirit of God or Gods Spirit. The pronouns of us , them ,and they denote multiplicity in unity. So far Ive havent seen no conclusive refutation from Oneness scholars or you to refute those pronouns to this day.



Chris: Not ONE verse teaches the trinity. Trinitarians grab a verse here and a verse there, and try to piece it together, instead of just admitting that pagan religions of Babylon, just liek Freemasonry, gave us teh trinity.

Reponse: Unlike the pagan religions of Old, The Trinity believes in one God not many gods or a transforming god like Oneness people believe to this day. You believe that God is transformer, which is grossly pagan. Using multiple verse to prove a concept is not only logical but Biblical using intelligence. To deny the Trinity by virtue of it not mentioning the Bible will extinguish a list of religious concepts from the world in doctrine.





Chris: All such things are not evidence. Many Christians already had false doctrines in Paul's day, let along 100 AD and 200 AD. Yet no Apostle spoke of the trinity, and neither does teh Bible. I wonder why...

Response: They are evidence since they have more knowledge than me and lived directly in a short period of time afterwards. There opinion is not superior to the Bible, but they count for some credit since the Modalist heresy [believing in one God, but one person is the Holy Spirit, Son, and the Father] came in the 100s not historically or biblically in the time of Christ or the OT and non-Catholic Biblical Christians like Tertullian, Hippolytus rebuked them in their literature and mentioned the Blessed Holy Trinity by name. They were Christians and show no signs of being pagan or paganized. Early heresies were definitely in Pauls day, but the Trinity which is nothing more than the unity of God, 3 members, Distinctions between 3 members, and plurality of one deity is found explicitly in the Nt and even the OT. Its not a crime to use many verses to validate a point. One verse necessary cant validate any Biblical point like True Oneness, Resurrection, End-Times, Earthquakes, creation, etc. Again, just because a word isnt used in the Bible, doesnt mean that concept is non-existent in Christianity back then. Now to the Apostles. The apostles didnt spoke of there travels to China, India, Europe, Africa in the NT. The Apostle John, Matthew, and others mentioned explicitly the concepts of the Trinity.




Chris: I worship the ONE God. The one who manifested Himself in many forms, and who limited Himself in flesh for us. As the Scriptures say, he "humbled" Himself for us.
Edited by: drmlanc at: 10/1/03 4:45 pm

Response: I also worship One God, but you view God as a transformer to suit a time or manifestion.. I view God as infinite, but coming unto man in 3 members to fully express himself to man. God is infinite, but logical. God will not lie, cheat, and steal, but hes still Almighty God refusing to do so because thats against his orderly nature. You may deny it, but you embrace the Modalist, Oneness religion. One can be just as much as an united one as a numerical solitary one and God is One unified, compound, complex being.


____________________________


Chris: If God cannot appear to us in many manifestations, who then was the pillar of smoke, burning bush etc?

Response: God does appear in many manifestation, but those manifestation only occurs in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. First its time to look at the verses describing the situation. 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the
priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the
desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of
fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold,
the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great
sight, why the bush is not burnt.
3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God
called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses,
Moses. And he said, Here am I.
3:5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from
off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy
ground.
3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid
his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
3:7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my
people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason
of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;
3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the
Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good
land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto
the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the
Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites. (Exodus 3:2-8)

In those verse it perfectly says that the Angel of the Lord changed into the burning bush or flame and said I AM THAT I AM so the Angel of the Lord (visibly seen being is calling himself God). So if God is visible in that instance, its the pre-incarnate Son of God since the Father and the Holy Spirit are nowhere inside of the scriptures being seen literally by human beings at all. Only the Son is seen. There are many instances in the Bible that Moses and others have seen God face to face yet the Bible says the Father and the Holy Spirit cant be seen. The Son being not necessary confined to the physical formed also existed as a pillar of smoke and the Angel of the Lord both explicitly called God.









Chris: Many pagan religions have the idea of a 3 in 1 god. We are one of teh very few who does not. Biblical Christianity, which holds to the doctrine of One God.


Response: Biblical Christianity goes have the view of one God, but you have to make up your mind. You say God has many manifestations yet is one person which makes you believing in the Transformer god. I believe in one God in 3 members or persons that have always existed before the beginning of time.


Its not pagan since still its one God. Many pagan religions subscribes to the Robot transformer god like the Hindu god Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva which according to Classical Hindu Mythology, quoted pp. 82-84, David Adams Leeming, The World of Myth morphs from Vishnu, Brahma, and to Shiva or destroyer. Most pagan Trinities exist of Mother, Father, Son, or blended families or groups of 3 with no relationship to one total Diety [whether male or female] at all. The Trinity deals with one total Diety not son, cousins, sisters, or relatives.




Chris: Their opinion is just that. It is NOT evidence. Our evidence must come from Scripture itself. Think about that. If you need to use "Church father evidence" to prove a doctrine, what does that say of that doctrine? A Biblical doctrine needs only the Bible.



Response: I didnt know that direct early church quotes werent evidence. They are secondary to the Bible and Ive always mentioned that. Many scripture doctrines like the End-Times, communion, baptism, need multiple scripture verses for proper uses. Some conception only need one. Thats logical. You right to say that biblical doctrine only need the Bible. The Trinity is a complex dogma necessary to be validate by many bible verses to prove : Multiplicity in Unity of One God, Divinity of Each Members, and Unity of Each Member. Look can easily look at the Bible to figure that out.




Chris: You make no sense here. Yes, I believe God is one, and is infinite etc.



Response: Modalism doesnt make sense since it believes that God transforms into parts without no consistency yet remains one person at the same time. Is that confusing or what?. Modalism is refuted by noting that the Father and Son communicated with each other at the same time, the Father and the Holy Spirit wasnt brought into the flesh, only the Son resurrected from the dead, and only the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. God isnt limited to do anything but is bounded by the truth and logic to serve the universe.



Chris: I believe that God is one. You can call me what you like. Call me a Jew too then... Jews believe in One God :)

Response: You are a Modalist Onenes. Muslims believe in one God and that doesnt mean they are true.


Chris: Now, does teh Bible say that God is limited to just three???

Response: The Bible only mentions the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son as one God and 3 distinct persons. Manifestations consist of only those 3. Still I dont see a refutation of the pronouns us they and them used for God in plural in the Old Testament.



____________________