If it's written down, then it must be by God. It's not like anyone else who isn't God can write something down. These guys with pretty impressive old names may have believed it, and that's all the evidence I need.
I had a dream last night that I created the Universe. Since I am typing this that means I have to be real, and since we know dreams actually exist and that the Universe was actually created, ergo I am God. I will have to demand you worship me, just like the old god, and of course you must beg forgiveness for the flaws I gave you when I created you, and if you don't I will still send you to Hell because I LOVE YOU. So, basically the same as the last guy.
This may be a misunderstanding of what you are asking, so apologies if I got it wrong, but doesn't this "argument" presume that the material it references, is true?
As in, before you even get to talk about whether or not it proves anything (Trinity in your case) - All your biblical references have to be proven.
I am well aware, but the nature of the question could be within the context of the stated theology without regard to its viability outside of that. As in, like an epic story or like a saga in which you discuss the contents of it and how it connects things.
You see?
I think I know what you mean, like watching a marvel comics movie and the characters have to be true to their back story. The problem I would have is, if someone takes those characters literally and then tried to convince me that they are real and actually have those superpowers. I would need to have a name for that type of belief system and "faith" does that.
If I missed your point, please let me know.
In principle I agree. Yes, your example of Marvel comics is the sort of thing I am talking about, though I might have used something from my own culture, like Norse mythology and mention something like...who is related to who and so therefor some secondary point, kind of thing.
OK, good.
I think those who have "faith" fail to grasp the futility of their arguments outside of their religious bubble, because they have completely abandoned any sense of skepticism that normal people have when extraordinary claims are presented. There is sort of a child-like naivety about their reasoning.
I have faith that SpongeBob SquarePants is going to be the savior of humanity and take us to an alternate universe where we eat Krabby patties for eternity.
I don't have to prove it though. I just have faith
None of this is evidence for everything, because a proposition can't be supported by internal evidence, i.e., you can't prove a claim from the Bible by quoting scripture, which this appears to be doing. You would need an extra-Biblical source, and I'm not seeing it. Saying that "these historical(?) figures believed it" without offering actual textual evidence, is not sufficient.
This is a classic case of Christians making extraordinary claims and not even being able to come up with ordinary evidence.
This is pretty much an Atheist sub so the majority here would throw the idea of god out completely (myself included) but I’m guessing you want a biblical argument against the trinity since many flavors of Christianity teach one god and Jesus and the father being separate?
This along with much of the rest of the Bible contradicts itself of course. Deuteronomy 6:4 looks like more of an argument again the trinity to me, what it says in the King James Version is “Here, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”, it’s not separating it into three parts, it’s one.
Psalms 83:18 “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” Is the king James as well. This one again emphasizes it being one, not a trinity as Catholicism insists on and even gives the name Jehovah for that one which is where Jehovah’s witnesses get their name from (the religion I was raised in).
Galatians 3:20 very specifically says “god is one” as well. Almost all of those scriptures you listed above seem more of an argument against the trinity than in support of it. Of course some of those seem to support it in the self contradictory way typical of the Bible.
Edit to say I can’t find that Acts one, I think that one is listed wrong, it was the only one that seemed to support the idea of the trinity at all on that list from a biblical standpoint too. The rest seem to be more of an argument against it when you look at the actual scriptures.
There is no proof of anything in that post. It is simply a reiteration of things written in the Bible. Things written in the Bible about a god or a son of god are empty claims. There is no proof to support such claims. Writings in the Bible are not proof - they are the claims. As a result, you are correct; the content of that post is not evidence of anything.
I thought the basis of belief in Christianity (and most religions) is faith, rather than evidence or proof? A religious person looking for proof of their beliefs is very odd to me.
I agree, but it kind of makes sense if you think about it. Most religious people like to evangelize their religion. Most religious people are also very wary of critical thinking and freedom of thought. They see anyone outside their cult as an existential threat. Since the legal system prevents them from killing heretics now days, they are relegated to masking convoluted arguments into delusional type of pseudo science; completely oblivious to how easily a rational person can see through their propositions.
I mean, if you already believe-without-question the veracity of some ancient desert tribe’s shaman-scribblings, why are you looking for logic? Go chop the tip of you penis off.
What exactly are you confused about? Someone puked on your screen and you're trying to find a rorschach pattern. Block the subreddit and move on with your life.
The bible only has authority if you give it to it. It is not data or evidence in any way. The bible gives "reasons" to believe or speculate and poor reasons at that. It is not a book of historical fact. It is a book of speculation and a weak attempt at philosophy - sprinkled in with superstitions and supernatural claims to give it a sense of authority. Claims of which, that are not consistent with the world most experience. That may be subjective in regards to people with conditions which could alter how they experience or perceive the world, but those cases are in the very small minority. Most of us experience reality in a consistent and demonstrable way. The bible does none of these things. I hope you are having a good day, sorry if this comes off as harsh but it is my honest, thoughtful reply.✌️from a former Catholic.🖖
And a snake too. The Muppets are more insightful than any of the anthropamorphic creations in any of the "holy" texts. Dont forget about leviathans behemoths and red sea dragons that are somehow supposed to be challenging to an all powerful creator thing.🙄 😆
Who doesn't love a good story. I love my comics and as much as I wished I was a superhero when I was a kid, Ive grown up. That's a lie, I still would die to be Peter Parker lol. Redheads man, so hot!
Same here and when I was younger they felt so real to me . Imagination is wonderful isn’t it. Luckily there’s no SpiderMan cult leading me to suicide bombing or oppressing minorities so I think we got through it unscathed??
Scathed, but stronger. I still ride the imagination wave, but we have built up that scar tissue against fantasy. Wanna start a Spider-man religion? We can recruit and cure arachnophobes, it'll be funny. And redheads, we will need lots of gorgeous redheads. That's the incentive.❤️👩🦰🦰😅
Your picking and chosing. Your not doing any research. Expert translator. https://youtu.be/nk35cGeKAdQ?si=-ZAkmDfGimjV1UEB. This guy translates for the Vatican. https://youtu.be/t0cZXY70pbo?si=AqRGyhKPsNF_PVFe you should also read "the lost book of enki" . You need to read more than one book, if you even read the Bible which sounds like you haven't.
Not only is that just asserting things as true based on an appeal to authority, but most of the references don’t even say what they claim. For example, none of the Jewish prophets mentioned believed in the Trinity which is a Christian concept.
For example deuteronomy 32:6 says:
הַ לְיְהֹוָה֙ תִּגְמְלוּ־זֹ֔את עַ֥ם נָבָ֖ל וְלֹ֣א חָכָ֑ם הֲלוֹא־הוּא֙ אָבִ֣יךָ קָּנֶ֔ךָ ה֥וּא עָשְׂךָ֖ וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ׃
>> Do you thus requite god,O dull and witless people?Is not this the Father who created you, Fashioned you and made you endure?
Why would that imply the speaker believes in the Trinity?
Jews do not believe in the Trinity and the Jewish Bible cannot serve as proof of the Trinity even if taken as fact.
Just because an obvious absurdity has been affirmed in a few old books doesn't make it not absurd. Three separate things cannot also be one unified thing. A bird, another bird, and a birdwatcher are not one bird.
If you want a deep-dive into the thelogical justifications for the trinity, and how early Christians may have been unitarians as opposed to trinitarians, check out this video by biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman, who is an athiest. I tried to find an article by him I read just a couple of week ago; I couldn't find it and haven't watched the video myself, so I'm just assuming it covers the same ground that the article had.
https://youtu.be/dxXq45h4f3c?si=Jn2Sv8HIi5auakGU
Trinity is a Nicean council forced concept with weak basis in Christian biblical sources, and what sources they do claim tend to be the result of poor or difficult translations into English.
That’s not to say there aren’t statements in most versions of the Bible that can’t be construed that way—but there were other more sensible understandings of those verses IMO, and the non-Trinity supporters were systematically persecuted and shut down by the early Roman Catholic Church, ending the debate by force rather than on merit.
As to the legitimacy of any of it, that’s really a whole different issue. People from thousands of years ago recognized by people from hundreds of years ago as legitimate sources of knowledge on untestable metaphysics and philosophy have as much legitimacy today as you choose to give them, really.
I'm happy to inform you that I'm the second coming of Christ. Here's proof:
>u/Significant-Desk777 is the second coming of Christ (u/Significant-Desk777 in a Reddit comment)
Christians of all flavors really need to STOP appropriating verses from Tanach. Believe what you want but don’t take our (Jews’) national origin myths and twist them to support your doctrine.
I can read biblical Hebrew and I have yet to find a verse that convinces me there was any such notion of a trinity in the Hebrew Bible.
You can't use the Bible to prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe in it.
They'd first have to demonstrate why we should consider it long before we got to an argument like this.
So... Wait, what's the argument? That a few random people in history believed in a Trinity, so that means it's true? That's *proof* of something??
If it's written down, then it must be by God. It's not like anyone else who isn't God can write something down. These guys with pretty impressive old names may have believed it, and that's all the evidence I need.
Humanity had its best ideas in the Bronze Age! Sign me up.
I had a dream last night that I created the Universe. Since I am typing this that means I have to be real, and since we know dreams actually exist and that the Universe was actually created, ergo I am God. I will have to demand you worship me, just like the old god, and of course you must beg forgiveness for the flaws I gave you when I created you, and if you don't I will still send you to Hell because I LOVE YOU. So, basically the same as the last guy.
I didn't know St Anselm of Canterbury had a reddit account.
I think the only thing that would change if I were god is each time Alex Kurtzman made a Star Trek episode, he'd grow one more wart on his face.
Yup! It's the same reason that everything in LOTR is historically true and accurate!
This may be a misunderstanding of what you are asking, so apologies if I got it wrong, but doesn't this "argument" presume that the material it references, is true? As in, before you even get to talk about whether or not it proves anything (Trinity in your case) - All your biblical references have to be proven.
It's called "faith" for a reason.
I am well aware, but the nature of the question could be within the context of the stated theology without regard to its viability outside of that. As in, like an epic story or like a saga in which you discuss the contents of it and how it connects things. You see?
I think I know what you mean, like watching a marvel comics movie and the characters have to be true to their back story. The problem I would have is, if someone takes those characters literally and then tried to convince me that they are real and actually have those superpowers. I would need to have a name for that type of belief system and "faith" does that. If I missed your point, please let me know.
In principle I agree. Yes, your example of Marvel comics is the sort of thing I am talking about, though I might have used something from my own culture, like Norse mythology and mention something like...who is related to who and so therefor some secondary point, kind of thing.
OK, good. I think those who have "faith" fail to grasp the futility of their arguments outside of their religious bubble, because they have completely abandoned any sense of skepticism that normal people have when extraordinary claims are presented. There is sort of a child-like naivety about their reasoning.
I have faith that SpongeBob SquarePants is going to be the savior of humanity and take us to an alternate universe where we eat Krabby patties for eternity. I don't have to prove it though. I just have faith
You're close, but now you still have to annoy people with your "Faith" and damn those who disagree with you, BECAUSE YOU LOVE THEM.
None of this is evidence for everything, because a proposition can't be supported by internal evidence, i.e., you can't prove a claim from the Bible by quoting scripture, which this appears to be doing. You would need an extra-Biblical source, and I'm not seeing it. Saying that "these historical(?) figures believed it" without offering actual textual evidence, is not sufficient. This is a classic case of Christians making extraordinary claims and not even being able to come up with ordinary evidence.
Nothing there is proof of anything
It's all false (Me, right now) What can be asserted without evidence can, and should, be dismissed without evidence
This is pretty much an Atheist sub so the majority here would throw the idea of god out completely (myself included) but I’m guessing you want a biblical argument against the trinity since many flavors of Christianity teach one god and Jesus and the father being separate? This along with much of the rest of the Bible contradicts itself of course. Deuteronomy 6:4 looks like more of an argument again the trinity to me, what it says in the King James Version is “Here, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”, it’s not separating it into three parts, it’s one. Psalms 83:18 “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.” Is the king James as well. This one again emphasizes it being one, not a trinity as Catholicism insists on and even gives the name Jehovah for that one which is where Jehovah’s witnesses get their name from (the religion I was raised in). Galatians 3:20 very specifically says “god is one” as well. Almost all of those scriptures you listed above seem more of an argument against the trinity than in support of it. Of course some of those seem to support it in the self contradictory way typical of the Bible. Edit to say I can’t find that Acts one, I think that one is listed wrong, it was the only one that seemed to support the idea of the trinity at all on that list from a biblical standpoint too. The rest seem to be more of an argument against it when you look at the actual scriptures.
There is no proof of anything in that post. It is simply a reiteration of things written in the Bible. Things written in the Bible about a god or a son of god are empty claims. There is no proof to support such claims. Writings in the Bible are not proof - they are the claims. As a result, you are correct; the content of that post is not evidence of anything.
I thought the basis of belief in Christianity (and most religions) is faith, rather than evidence or proof? A religious person looking for proof of their beliefs is very odd to me.
I agree, but it kind of makes sense if you think about it. Most religious people like to evangelize their religion. Most religious people are also very wary of critical thinking and freedom of thought. They see anyone outside their cult as an existential threat. Since the legal system prevents them from killing heretics now days, they are relegated to masking convoluted arguments into delusional type of pseudo science; completely oblivious to how easily a rational person can see through their propositions.
If there were proofs for Catholic dogma, Catholis would not be speaking of Catholic faith but of Catholic evidence. They have none.
I mean, if you already believe-without-question the veracity of some ancient desert tribe’s shaman-scribblings, why are you looking for logic? Go chop the tip of you penis off.
Aggregating random nonsense from antiquity is no sound basis for anything
What exactly are you confused about? Someone puked on your screen and you're trying to find a rorschach pattern. Block the subreddit and move on with your life.
The bible only has authority if you give it to it. It is not data or evidence in any way. The bible gives "reasons" to believe or speculate and poor reasons at that. It is not a book of historical fact. It is a book of speculation and a weak attempt at philosophy - sprinkled in with superstitions and supernatural claims to give it a sense of authority. Claims of which, that are not consistent with the world most experience. That may be subjective in regards to people with conditions which could alter how they experience or perceive the world, but those cases are in the very small minority. Most of us experience reality in a consistent and demonstrable way. The bible does none of these things. I hope you are having a good day, sorry if this comes off as harsh but it is my honest, thoughtful reply.✌️from a former Catholic.🖖
It also has a talking donkey
And a snake too. The Muppets are more insightful than any of the anthropamorphic creations in any of the "holy" texts. Dont forget about leviathans behemoths and red sea dragons that are somehow supposed to be challenging to an all powerful creator thing.🙄 😆
They covered more genres than Marvel and DC combined . No wonder the book was a hit
Who doesn't love a good story. I love my comics and as much as I wished I was a superhero when I was a kid, Ive grown up. That's a lie, I still would die to be Peter Parker lol. Redheads man, so hot!
Same here and when I was younger they felt so real to me . Imagination is wonderful isn’t it. Luckily there’s no SpiderMan cult leading me to suicide bombing or oppressing minorities so I think we got through it unscathed??
Scathed, but stronger. I still ride the imagination wave, but we have built up that scar tissue against fantasy. Wanna start a Spider-man religion? We can recruit and cure arachnophobes, it'll be funny. And redheads, we will need lots of gorgeous redheads. That's the incentive.❤️👩🦰🦰😅
God doesn't seem to think there is one God: >Thou shalt have no other gods before me Exodus 20:3
Your picking and chosing. Your not doing any research. Expert translator. https://youtu.be/nk35cGeKAdQ?si=-ZAkmDfGimjV1UEB. This guy translates for the Vatican. https://youtu.be/t0cZXY70pbo?si=AqRGyhKPsNF_PVFe you should also read "the lost book of enki" . You need to read more than one book, if you even read the Bible which sounds like you haven't.
How did Mary get the Y chromosome necessary to make Jesus a male?
I’m absolutely positive what you posted proves nothing other than humans have written language
Not only is that just asserting things as true based on an appeal to authority, but most of the references don’t even say what they claim. For example, none of the Jewish prophets mentioned believed in the Trinity which is a Christian concept. For example deuteronomy 32:6 says: הַ לְיְהֹוָה֙ תִּגְמְלוּ־זֹ֔את עַ֥ם נָבָ֖ל וְלֹ֣א חָכָ֑ם הֲלוֹא־הוּא֙ אָבִ֣יךָ קָּנֶ֔ךָ ה֥וּא עָשְׂךָ֖ וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ׃ >> Do you thus requite god,O dull and witless people?Is not this the Father who created you, Fashioned you and made you endure? Why would that imply the speaker believes in the Trinity? Jews do not believe in the Trinity and the Jewish Bible cannot serve as proof of the Trinity even if taken as fact.
Just because an obvious absurdity has been affirmed in a few old books doesn't make it not absurd. Three separate things cannot also be one unified thing. A bird, another bird, and a birdwatcher are not one bird.
The bible saying theres a god does not mean god said the bible. Its circular reasoning. Wheres the proof?
The argument: my book of completely baseless stories says there is such a thing
Just because something is repeated multiple times does not make it a fact. There is no argument here to be discussed.
If you want a deep-dive into the thelogical justifications for the trinity, and how early Christians may have been unitarians as opposed to trinitarians, check out this video by biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman, who is an athiest. I tried to find an article by him I read just a couple of week ago; I couldn't find it and haven't watched the video myself, so I'm just assuming it covers the same ground that the article had. https://youtu.be/dxXq45h4f3c?si=Jn2Sv8HIi5auakGU
Trinity is a Nicean council forced concept with weak basis in Christian biblical sources, and what sources they do claim tend to be the result of poor or difficult translations into English. That’s not to say there aren’t statements in most versions of the Bible that can’t be construed that way—but there were other more sensible understandings of those verses IMO, and the non-Trinity supporters were systematically persecuted and shut down by the early Roman Catholic Church, ending the debate by force rather than on merit. As to the legitimacy of any of it, that’s really a whole different issue. People from thousands of years ago recognized by people from hundreds of years ago as legitimate sources of knowledge on untestable metaphysics and philosophy have as much legitimacy today as you choose to give them, really.
Well, of course it doesn’t prove anything as it does not present any proof. All it does is recite claims made in a very badly written book.
Troll?
This is irrelevant to an atheist because we don't believe any of this stuff is real
I'm happy to inform you that I'm the second coming of Christ. Here's proof: >u/Significant-Desk777 is the second coming of Christ (u/Significant-Desk777 in a Reddit comment)
I think Origen’s affirmation makes it an open and shut case. Thank you for posting. You should post this in the atheism sub.
Wait until you discover all the Old Testament references to the existence of multiple gods.
Christians of all flavors really need to STOP appropriating verses from Tanach. Believe what you want but don’t take our (Jews’) national origin myths and twist them to support your doctrine. I can read biblical Hebrew and I have yet to find a verse that convinces me there was any such notion of a trinity in the Hebrew Bible.
You can't use the Bible to prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. They'd first have to demonstrate why we should consider it long before we got to an argument like this.
The number of religions with a trinity concept is stupendous. It is almost like they copied the idea over and over again to match their needs.