TRINITY IS A FALSE TEACHING.

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Won't let me link the PDF, but this is the source of the first segments Institute for Religious Research - Resources For Investigating Today's Competing Religious Claims

 

[st_sebastian]

Actually, the first two sections are from a PDF version of Bowman's book, he has elaborated on it more via his blog. The last portion of that particular post is mine. There is a link in the initial post to the PDF file where the two sections came from. Most of the material came from the Research Institute website, not his own blog.

Care to explain why you're posting such large amounts of text about the proper interpretation of the Greek neuter (which doesn't necessarily indicate impersonal objects) in response to my thoughts on why the English neuter (which does usually indicate impersonal objects) either reveals that people think of the Holy Spirit impersonally or might lead in that direction?

Why did you not post about pronouns in Chinese? It would have been as pertinent. That too would have been a home run.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Care to explain why you're posting such large amounts of text about the proper interpretation of the Greek neuter (which doesn't necessarily indicate impersonal objects) in response to my thoughts on why the English neuter (which does usually indicate impersonal objects) either reveals that people think of the Holy Spirit impersonally or might lead in that direction?

Why did you not post about pronouns in Chinese? It would have been as pertinent. That too would have been a home run.

What language did the NT authors write in? What language do NT translation committees translate from? Why, and where do people like the Jehovah's Witnesses get this idea that the Holy Spirit is an "it"? Because of the English language?

 

[Elin]

Misguided because you're choosing to ignore this sentence: "With this kind of language, I can understand why people think it's impersonal." This is the entire crux. I am saying that habits in language among the people I know personally (and I'm still boggled you chose to avoid bolding that word in particular) indicate that they think of the Holy Spirit as impersonal.

Your language indicated it was the common experience
(and revealed the circles in which you associate).

I disagree with that assessment.

It is also quite common among Christians to use "he."

Nonsensical because you write things like: an "it" doesn't enable. Oh? My stairs enable me to get upstairs. My computer enables me to continue explaining myself ad nauseam in this conversation.
(Elsewhere in this thread, not by you, but amusing all the same - I've heard that "it"s don't comfort, which is news to the comforter on my bed.)

It would help if you understood the NT usage of these verbs.

An "it" doesn't have an intelligence? I refer to animals all the time who have intelligences. Lesser intelligences? Sure. But intelligences all the same.

Are you saying you did not know I was referring to rational intelligence?

You do not think Biblically.

 

[st_sebastian]

There is a link in the initial post to the PDF file where the two sections came from.

I'm having some difficulty finding this. I don't see it in the original post of the thread. The first post I can find from you in the thread is this:

I'm not sure where you got this argument from. I'd thoroughly enjoy for you to show us how these texts should be translated, and how the language is evidence against the Trinity. It'd be interesting to hear if you have anything new to bring to the table, or if what you're doing is parroting an already, thoroughly refuted argument that you may have heard repeated somewhere.

Or do you mean the one you began by:

Section I: Etymytology of Pneuma

I'm not seeing the link. And reading back through, I'm definitely not seeing a point at which you defined which were your writings and which were his. It's possible I'm missing it - I'm giving it more time than I ought - but I'm just not seeing it. Would you point me to it?

What language did the NT authors write in? What language do NT translation committees translate from? Why, and where do people like the Jehovah's Witnesses get this idea that the Holy Spirit is an "it"? Because of the English language?

Yeah, like I said, you're trying to continue arguments you've had with other people, just with me. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I know you've got an argument here that you're just itching to break out on people like that, but you're using it in the wrong place.

Here, I'm discussing people who might even say they think of the Holy Spirit as God, but nevertheless refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it." I'm saying that I don't know anybody personally who uses the word "he," like most Christians do with the other two persons of the Trinity. I'm suggesting that this is either indicative of thinking of the Holy Spirit as impersonal or might lead in that direction. Hence, when someone asks what the Holy Spirit might be, other than God or Satan, I say it seems like some people think of it as an impersonal thing, as revealed by their choice of the word "it." In English.

I certainly do not believe and never have said that it has anything to do with these people (most of whom have never held the Greek scriptures) noticing that some words are grammatically neuter. Hence, when that idea is refuted, I am baffled.

I hope someone chooses to play ball with you. You've clearly been practicing and are ready for your trophy. I'm not the one, however.

 

[Kerry]

my Lord said unto my lord today I have begotten you, written by a man through the Holy spirit or was he on crack.

 

[Bowman]

The Koran teaches the Trinity...

Usually I ignore most stuff you say because it is out with the pixies.

Can you please provide the proof for this.

One such Koranic ayah (which, ironically Muslims are trained to use all the time for their position) actually plainly states that the Trinity is not “three”, but instead, it is “one”, and then proceeds to list out Father, Son, and Spirit…


يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله
وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله
ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله
إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في
السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and they do not say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son, truly His what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.



Observe that this ayah is directed at ‘The Book’s family’ (ahla alkitabi) – which refers to the followers of the Holy Bible; i.e. Christians.

For the Muslim, it then gives instruction as to what the correct interpretation of the Holy Bible needs to be regarding (among numerous things), the concept of the Trinity.


In this classic Islamic one-hit-wonder we are told not to refer to the one “allah” as “Three”, as even his messengers do not say “Three” - because he is not the result of counted things (thalathatun)….and yet, in the very ayah itself it lists-out directly, Father, Son, & Spirit.

This is a classic Koranic example in which the authors display their understanding of the Biblical concept of the Holy Trinity, and give the example of what it is not by the usage of the word “Three”…and what it is, by the example of “one”.

 

[Bowman]

The holy spirit is a person, he speaks and can be grieved and most of us do that. And any who will compare the quran to the bible needs to get saved. The Quran teaches to lie, and kill in order to spread Islam. Thats why you cannot have peace negotiations them. If we were smart, we would advertise that our bullets are coated in pigs blood and drop bacon and not bombs. If they die in battle they are guaranteed 70 virgins and access to the 7th door of heaven. But if they touch a pig, they are doomed.

The Koran was copied from the Holy Bible....what then, should it say...?

 

[Bowman]

Well, I have been to Egypt. The man that was my liaison wanted to talk religion the whole time i was there (two weeks). Then He came to our office in georgia and we ordered pizza, he ask if there was any pork. I said this one has bacon but the others don't. He said, I'm sorry but now they are all contaminated and would not eat. Yes, the Quran teaches that Islam is to be spread by any means .

No...

Islam teaches that, not the Koran...

We have to remember that just like the Jews have misinterpreted the OT scriptures, muslims have likewise done the exact same thing with their Koran...

 

[Kerry]

No...

Islam teaches that, not the Koran...

We have to remember that just like the Jews have misinterpreted the OT scriptures, muslims have likewise done the exact same thing with their Koran...

UMM say what. the Quran is the core of Islam. Guess what the jews that believed in the OT are no more saved than the next guy. Most, I would say about 90% of Israelis are atheist. Yert the Muslims. full focus is to destroy Israel. How many time s have they lied, how many have strapped on human bombs. If I were president, I would coat my bullets in pig fat or blood and bombard their country with pigs. But y'all want vote for me because you want your fags and the right to kill that baby after a good time. That's why we have Obama. We got what we wanted but don't want what we got. Don't go blaming God for that.

 

[st_sebastian]

Your language indicated it was the common experience (and revealed the circles in which you associate).

You know what... no. I've put down plenty of qualifiers so that you know I'm talking about my experience and have left ample room for other people to have their own experience within faithful Christian communities. I have wondered why you insisted on ignoring that, even going so far as to avoid bolding one of the qualifiers. But now I know.

I realize that you're going to continue fighting and moving the goalposts until you can convince yourself, like our ballplayer over here, that you've hit a home run. You've finally admitted that perhaps my experience is valid, but now believe you ought to comment on the circles in which I travel. If it's not one thing, it's another.

You will eventually find some fault. I have plenty of sins to confess. "Not thinking biblically" because I took your pithy "an 'it' does not" list at face value is not one of them. The bone into which you've sunken your teeth is, in fact, my shoelace.

I have observed people using impersonal language to refer to the Holy Spirit; everyone I know personally, in fact. This might indicate that they think of the Holy Spirit as something impersonal. So, other than God or Satan? Something impersonal. That's it.

 

[PennEd]

No...

Islam teaches that, not the Koran...

We have to remember that just like the Jews have misinterpreted the OT scriptures, muslims have likewise done the exact same thing with their Koran...

Ridiculous to Compare the OT to the Quran when it comes to CONVERT OR KILL


Muhammad's Own Words – Convert or Die

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

I'm having some difficulty finding this. I don't see it in the original post of the thread. The first post I can find from you in the thread is this:



Or do you mean the one you began by:



I'm not seeing the link. And reading back through, I'm definitely not seeing a point at which you defined which were your writings and which were his. It's possible I'm missing it - I'm giving it more time than I ought - but I'm just not seeing it. Would you point me to it?



Yeah, like I said, you're trying to continue arguments you've had with other people, just with me. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I know you've got an argument here that you're just itching to break out on people like that, but you're using it in the wrong place.

Here, I'm discussing people who might even say they think of the Holy Spirit as God, but nevertheless refer to the Holy Spirit as an "it." I'm saying that I don't know anybody personally who uses the word "he," like most Christians do with the other two persons of the Trinity. I'm suggesting that this is either indicative of thinking of the Holy Spirit as impersonal or might lead in that direction. Hence, when someone asks what the Holy Spirit might be, other than God or Satan, I say it seems like some people think of it as an impersonal thing, as revealed by their choice of the word "it." In English.

I certainly do not believe and never have said that it has anything to do with these people (most of whom have never held the Greek scriptures) noticing that some words are grammatically neuter. Hence, when that idea is refuted, I am baffled.

I hope someone chooses to play ball with you. You've clearly been practicing and are ready for your trophy. I'm not the one, however.

I'm currently posting from my phone, attempted to link the PDF file from my phone, but the file is too large(?); however, it is downloadable via the IRR website along with other literature. The book is entitled, Sense and Nonsense About Angels and Demons, whom Bowman is co-author.

I never claimed you were a JW. The issue still is where does the idea stem from? The same reason many Christians today refer to the Logos as "He," and not "it." It is from a tradition of translation, and of course how the term "it" was used in many Old English translations, which differs widely from how we understand it today.

 

[Bowman]

UMM say what. the Quran is the core of Islam. Guess what the jews that believed in the OT are no more saved than the next guy. Most, I would say about 90% of Israelis are atheist. Yert the Muslims. full focus is to destroy Israel. How many time s have they lied, how many have strapped on human bombs. If I were president, I would coat my bullets in pig fat or blood and bombard their country with pigs. But y'all want vote for me because you want your fags and the right to kill that baby after a good time. That's why we have Obama. We got what we wanted but don't want what we got. Don't go blaming God for that.

A better statement would be....'misinterpretation of the Koran is the core of islam'.

Christians can easily see Jesus in the scriptures of the Jews....why can't they?

The same exact thing applies to the Koran...

 

[st_sebastian]

The issue still is where does the idea stem from?

Perhaps that's your issue. It's not my issue. When considering the question of what the Holy Spirit might be other than God or Satan, my issue was noting that some people explicitly teach it's impersonal and that others talk about it like it is.

Do you see what I mean? You're trying to make one of your favorite issues (your ballgame) my issue. It is not. I do not wish to play with you. If you want to refute these people, I could get you their numbers. I won't, because I wouldn't wish this sort of conversation on anybody, but I could. It's great. You've got a heretical teaching about which you're passionate - I'm not the audience you think I am.

If you had started with that question (which would have been interesting) instead of a wall-of-text, half-plagiarized, not-attributed-until-pressed-on-it refutation (which is not interesting, because I do not hold the belief), the conversation would have gone differently. Instead: *gestures upwards*

If this is what you call a home run, I suspect you've actually been bowling.

 

[Bowman]

Ridiculous to Compare the OT to the Quran when it comes to CONVERT OR KILL


Muhammad's Own Words – Convert or Die

Perhaps you need to read the OT....

 

[TJ91]

one i have to say the insults from the senior members here is kinda sad and most definitely not necessary. second Texascowgirl im not very well versed in the bible so i couldnt reply anything about the trinity thing but i do agree with
Hizikyah to a point that the biggest thing is to believe jesus is the son of God and that he did die for our sins and to accept that as truth. i dont agree with that you put this up here to just to argue i have no proof of that and neither does anyone who has commented.

God said have a loving heart but everyone here on this thread is spitting out hate like their heart is overfilling with it.

jimmydiggs some of the thing you said were definitely not needed but i have read some of you past post and they were excellent makes me very said to see you say such things.

All in all texascowgirl i would delete this thread just because the damage has already been done. And how about next time we read something we dont agree with we dont say stuff like well you just dont know what your talking about. how about we try to have a civil conversation instead of Making up words for example RFhwbdualwdhbowafbkawufkhawb look familiar.

now i have to stop cause im starting to get upset but seriously guys i know you are all better than this.

And Texas girl i dont think you came in a little to rough on this subject you were trying to put out.

I pray you guys will all get alone to help try to explain each others thoughts i pray for discernment and understanding for all of you.Amen

 

[Bowman]

The best thing for Trinity-deniers to do is first define what they think the Trinity is.

Then, once their premise is established, they need to provide scriptures which they think thwart it...

That usually puts an end to their denial...

 

[Bowman]

Perhaps that's your issue. It's not my issue. When considering the question of what the Holy Spirit might be other than God or Satan, my issue was noting that some people explicitly teach it's impersonal and that others talk about it like it is.

Do you see what I mean? You're trying to make one of your favorite issues (your ballgame) my issue. It is not. I do not wish to play with you. If you want to refute these people, I could get you their numbers. I won't, because I wouldn't wish this sort of conversation on anybody, but I could. It's great. You've got a heretical teaching about which you're passionate - I'm not the audience you think I am.

If you had started with that question (which would have been interesting) instead of a wall-of-text, half-plagiarized, not-attributed-until-pressed-on-it refutation (which is not interesting, because I do not hold the belief), the conversation would have gone differently. Instead: *gestures upwards*

If this is what you call a home run, I suspect you've actually been bowling.

So...you busted him for plagiarism....no surprise there...

However, the material is still very solid.

 

[st_sebastian]

So...you busted him for plagiarism....no surprise there... However, the material is still very solid.

And the most difficult thing to understand about it, apparently? I don't disagree with it.