What is the biggest bible contradiction?

So in other words God is 'The Constant Painter'?Just kidding...no analogy of God is perfect! You need a few more pieces of this 'puzzle' to see the whole picture.

I myself do not bless disparate interpretations with coequal respect, but I will respect an honest process of interpretation even if I don't follow the logic of it.Please, I prefer to keep the rest of this in context. I don't insist that all interpretations based on errors are disingenuous. I insist that the ones previously mentioned (do I have to mention them again?) are indeed purposeful misrepresentations after the fact.

Only if he stopped being God also. In the Trinity view, Jesus has never stopped being God. He is both at the same time. That is a good reason why some types of christians can not be said to use sound logic when abandoning the Trinity.

My apologies then, I am at a loss as to how to make myself more clear. Unless, of course, you would make your objection more specific. You think I am biased, perhaps? Maybe. I don't so much select as compare, and disregard. I assume you have disregarded scripture in general, and I would be equally interested in your criteria for doing so.

wb, Equinox,I will be back later with a response for you.

It makes sense why the Trinitarian view wasn't spelled out for decades or centuries. Hey, it is not even spelled out definitively enough for everyone to agree at this day and age! But if you think about the various faith backgrounds which were possessed by new initiates into christianity, the problem was not necessarily noticed or defined as a problem until it began to contradict other views, and a task began of determining which idea was least contradictory. Men back then had no immediate access to all of scripture, gentiles in some regions didn't necessarily even know much of the judeo-abrahamic faiths. A few hundred years is not too long IMO to notice and correct/define differences.I think you know as well as I do that the protestant idea of Mary being a goddeess of sorts is absurd. They can think all they want, but it doess't make it true. It is worthy of note that this topic was never even mentioned during the reformation. In deference to you and the dictionary, Equinox; the Marcionites and such were not held in esteem at their time, and their disciples in spirit are not today. Sheer age does not produce validity, and there are much older religions than christianity.I can only say that the teachings of christ may be somewhat open to interpretation, but if a christian is supposedly a follower of Christ and is not following what we know of Him, how can they be called a christian?Further, if a person claims to have personally revealed and privy knowledge of Jesus, how does that work with the Biblical claim that Jesus will save all men?

I admire your breaking down of the obvious. I imagine the originators of the Trinity doctrine doing just that.An entity, or persona who is a combination of God and man would indeed be a lesser God or a super-human. That is the reason why the Trinity defines the persons of God as having seperate and distinct natures, and actually three persons, as opposed to God being one person who is a melding of different natures. Understand? There is no fusing or melding of natures or attributes. The best way I can say it is this; instead of 3=1, and 1,2,and 3 are only parts of God, 1=God, 2=God, 3=God...all equal the same amount whether together or seperate. It is not mathematically possible, of course!

As usual, I am close to being unable to argue at face value with your thoughts. But I guess there is more to life than meets the eye!The term proto-orthodox is sufficient enough to say much in itself. They were the first orthodox followers of Christ. If history now prefers to call early christian catholics 'orthodox' and 'orthodox' means 'adhering to conventional doctrine', then who has decided what doctrine is conventional? Isn't the term itself indicative of bias? The 'proto-orthodox' decided their doctrine was conventional, and then, so have the historians in so dubbing them.What, then, does one mean when they say a doctrine is conventional? Usual, accepted, widespread, or literal?We can say that monogamy is conventional; it is usual and accepted to say that bigamy is wrong, it's even a law! It is possible at times for the conventional to be wrong by an extreme measure, like with slavery. Generally there is power in numbers, but we could still say that just because a view point is not held by many, that doesn't mean its not right or equally viable.We would need therefore a criteria to determine what does make something right, or if indeed there is a right.If we look only at man-made laws, it is easy to determine what is right. 'Right' is almost always linked with 'rights'. In other words, we have the right to do anything as long as it doesn't take away our neighbor's rights. I would dare to say that the laws surrounding bigamy are more based on the rights of eacn individual, then any residual of christian commandments.Doctrinal 'wrongs' and 'rights' are harder to decide. There is no clear line about what is absolutely true of God, and what is just a guess. There is not really any line at all, as everyone keeps reminding me Even scripture is not a clear line, if it is not revered as such.But, doctrines work only under the assumption that scripture is the word of God. I know of no branch of christianity that does not claim to follow scripture. Looking at things that way we can get closer to deciding which doctrines are more 'right'. Scripture is full of contradictions. The Trinity is just one example of a reconciliation of confusing ideas. Other possibilities exist, but, whether ancient or modern, men have attempted to resolve one issue with the side-effect of forcing another into existance. If disbelief in an extra-biblical trinity forces polytheism, the contradiction is worse than it was to begin with. It forces the new doctrine into heresy. It is not so much that one church declares heresy or excommunication, as that the belief itself has created a heresy. It has created a heresy against the bible, so to speak, the bible which was given the prestige of being the final word. The bible thereafter becomes subject to the interpretation, and not, the interpretation is subject to the bible. I suppose I have. I suppose this is true as well; I believe men need the saving knowledge to be saved. Sorry about that! I don't mean that all men will be saved, but that all will have the oppurtunity to be. Certain cult type religions though don't give many people outside of their group much hope. Jehova's Witnesses believe that God only speaks to higher up members of the wt society, and everyone else waits for their revelations. They do extend the offer of salvation to others thru witnessing, so it is not a great example.

That is what I have been saying all along, Equinox!No offense to scottness, I think his position is not unusual or objectionable...because he is not defining doctrine and I don't think there is any anti-christ doctrine.

I am very guilty of learning out of a desire to learn, also out of fascination and respect for my faith, and necessity of apologetics in day-to-day life. I learn so that I may 'witness' and not cave under influences that I am not prepared to meet.You must realize that not everyone has the means or opportunity to learn as we do. All men, however have the opportunity to live a good life, and it is that which I believe will qualify me for eternal life, and not the sum of my knowledge.If I compare all religions, and end up with faith in none, I have accomplished what? Without passing judgement, I can say there is a reason why the Bible warns against the wisdom of men, and puts the kingdom of God in the hands of little children. It is trust in God that is all-important, and we can not decide on our own merits which religion will save us from hell. I suppose this is what the protestants mean when they say they don't like organized religions, but there I am.