Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 Mr ProgFreak wrote:

In Christianity today - sure. In the Jewish tradition - maybe, I guess. In other polytheistic religions - I'm much less sure that it's always "in the name of a God". It's usually meant to symbolize some form of cleansing - that doesn't imply that it's done in the name of something that is always a deity.

Mike we are talking about Early Christianity that was very close to Judaism not about Hinduism purification in the Ganghes, ergo, we are talking about a Baptism made in the name of God, we are not talking about any other religion, so it's obvious, we are talking about a Baptism made in the name of God.

 Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I agree that the circularity of your arguments is beside the point here. But still, the concept of the trinity - which is a little bit more elaborate than just grouping these three entities together - is not mentioned in the new testament. What you are doing is presenting verses that formed the basis for the 300+ years process that led to Trinitarianism.

Mike, lets go step by step:

We have agreed that Baptism in Christianity and Judaism is made in the name of God
Jesus said "Go and baptize uin the name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit" 
Then the concept of Hoily Trinity is there, in the Bible
If you want more, according to the Athanasian Creed (Accepted by the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches)

 "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
.

If you add 

 John 20 ³⁰I and the Father are one."

And the highlighted section is in the Bible, with an almost literal decription from John 16

 John 16: ¹³But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. ¹⁴He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. ¹⁵All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Of course the concept of Trinity was more developed in later years by early Theologians and the Fathers of the Church, but the basic concept is in the Bible, not invented neither a simple mention

We disagree upon whether the concept of the trinity is fully expressed by those verses or not. But even if it was, we could then continue arguing about whether those verses were there from the beginning or whether they were added by scribes during the time when the concept of the trinity was discussed. Remember what I've said about the winner re-writing history.

 Iván wrote:

 Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Well, isn't it interesting to hear such an argument from you. I could present similar argument about Catholicism, or the early forms of the "proto-orthodox" Church (a term first used by Ehrman).

The fact that Ehrman uses it doesn't make it truth, the Roman Catholic Church already existed

"Truth" doesn't apply here. The term "proto-orthodox" refers to the faction that would later become the "orthodox" church - it is always "true".

 Iván wrote:

As a fact this statement is contradictory IMO, a Proto Religion is a less developed or early form of a more developed religion, and apart from the political fight for control between Eastern Patriarchs and the Pope (Pope Leo IX claimed supremacy over all the Patriarchs), the main reason of the schism was the modification of the Nicene Creed by the Pope, 
So, Roman Catholic Church kept evolving, while the Eastern Catholic Church didn't accepted this changes, so hardly the Church that evolves can be called a Proto Religion of another who refuses the change.
I think that you misunderstood what the term means.

 Iván wrote:

But at the end, the relation between both churches and the close of both dogmas, is so great, that we are talking mostly about two branches of the same religion,

 Mr ProgFreak wrote:

If anything, I blame the Bible for not being precise and up to the point. For a document that is supposed to be the inerrant word of God by some people or at least to be divinely inspired, I expect it to offer a bit more definitive guidance. The Qu'ran is much better in that regard - meaning that those who compiled the verses did a better job at disposing of contradictory verses and concepts.

You can't blame the Bible for the different interpretations of it's text by men, blame the ones who misunderstand it, not the source which is misunderstood.

Iván

I'll blame the source if it is ambiguous. And yes, it is - in my opinion, while in your opinion it isn't. Also, like I said above, the fact remains that whatever we have today as the new testament is the result of countless alterations - the extent of which we can't determine today. Your faith tells you that the essence that remains is  the inspired word of God, while my common sense tells me that it's just a historic document. That's the difference between our positions, and I'm sure that I'll get no argument from you on that.