[QUOTE="cc4, post: 4027254, member: 284919"] Trinety has its rots in Babylon. Nimrod the Father(sun god) Semiramis mother (Moon god) and Tammus their child also a god.
The Vatican had sold a repackage wersion with father, mother son. Now its repagage again to Father, son, spirit.
Trinety is Babylonian worship and Idoltry!
Yahoosha (Jesus) is the incorruptible image of the invisebule one (Yahooah/god)
Father and som worship always have and always will be pagan worship! [/QUOTE]
cc4,
Your profile says you are NOT a Christian,.
We should expect you to favor theories that support a non-christian position... even if those theories are provably false.
The so-called "pagan trinity":
1. The "pagan trinity" of Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz never existed historically, and there is absolutely no proof of it.
2. This "pagan trinity" was never heard of until Alexander Hislop simply asserted it, out of thin air, in his book in the 1850's.
3. Hislop created this theory by simply fabricating connections out of thin air, and stitching nonsense together... much in the way Dan Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code - he just sat down with some poor historical literature, arbitrarily selected a few odd bits and pieces, and used his vivid imagination to connect it all together into a wild story.
4. It IS possible to sit down and go over each of Hislop's errors, and prove they are fabricated and unfactual. This takes a bit of time, but the information is readily available.
5. Furthermore, modern archaeology has PROVEN, beyond any doubt, that this whole theory couldn't possibly be true.
In the historical cuneiform records of the kings of Assyria (which could not be read in Hyslop's time) both Semiramis and Ninus (presumed erroneously by Hislop to be Nimrod) FAIL TO APPEAR. Semiramis and Ninus, the foundation stones of Hislop's theory, DO NOT APPEAR in the historical lists of Assyrian kings... they aren't there. They aren't real. They didn't exist!
Hyslop's theory of the "pagan trinity" was based on characters that NEVER EXISTED!
Semiramis and Ninus also fail to appear in any other ancient cuneiform writings, or in any Mesopotamian literature. They just aren't there. Hislop relied solely on much later sources, which are full of errors, and which actually contradict the authentic primary sources we can now decipher. Hislop used these late sources, which were wrong and full of errors, to just haphazardly "connect dots" and conjecture his way to wild conspiracy theories.
Hislop was so sloppy that he didn't even stick faithfully to those later sources which were full of errors... he actually pieced THOSE together in ridiculous ways, making wild conjectures. So at the last, Hyslop's work was nothing but wild conjectures based on bad data... conjectures on top of conjectures.
Atheists take this nonsense, that has been thoroughly debunked, and they just repeat it over and over.
Why?
Because it supports their cause.
Surely we can do better.
.