steveorino

Scott, thanks for taking care of this. the wife got the fax and we are good to go. She said, "Your SF buddies came through again" She remembers a time when I was deployed and she had car trouble. The garage wanted $300 (a fortune back then) to fix it. She called the Team Sgt and Top and the guys paid a visit in uniform (green berets and all) The cost ended up being $85. SF for life!! steveOrino

Oh, the irony!!! Read your FIRST sentence dude. I vote for this as the definitive, succinct, and conclusive end of the argument. There is a difference between what someone chooses to give privately and what the government decides is a proper tax rate. Another example of a lib desiring the governemnt to do what individuals should do on their own. "It takes a village .... blah, bla, blah " steveOrino

Oh, the irony!!! Read your FIRST sentence dude. I vote for this as the definitive, succinct, and conclusive end of the argument. There is a difference between what someone chooses to give privately and what the government decides is a proper tax rate. If the taxed everyone the cost of a Big Mac we could solve two problems, world hunger and American obesity. Why pick on the rich? Believe me, according to third world standards YOU are filthy rich!! steveOrino

I appreciate that. And I don't know why I spent two weeks trying to look up phone numbers when within 15 minutes two SF brothers volunteered to solve my dilemma. SF guys stick together forever! Man, I miss the comraderie! steveOrino

yep, or join the crowd of independent thinkers who believe the republican party has better ideas than the democrats most of the time. I have no party affiliation, but my idealogy usually aligns with republicans more than democrats ... usually. steveOrino

Please change your statement that Christianity adopted the trinity doctrine after 325 CE steveOrino

Oh, the irony!!! Read your FIRST sentence dude. steveOrino

As long as you won't (or "maybe") then why should the millionaire feel indebted to give? You are no different than them. You're only compassionate with other people's money. steveOrino

You are correct. They do not believe JC was divine. In fact jews believe he was a heretic. But ask a Hebrew scholar why they used the plural form of God (Elohim) in the Genesis account rather that the singular form (El) I've answered the part about the destruction in the OT in a page or two back.(post 766) Yes, mine is a theology that is not iniversally accepted by fundamental Christians, but it is accepted by many scholars. The fundamentalist will have to defend their beliefs not mine. steveOrino

No, "many" Christian don't believe what you say apart from small unorthodox sects. Many Christian do believe JC is part of the triune God head, but they DO NOT believe JC is the same as the Father. Ask any minister who is orthodox (not unitarism, Jehovah's witness or Oneness Pentecostal) steveOrino

What does the writings of the early Christian Fathers have to do with the bible??? YOU said the doctrine of the trinity was not in Christianity until 325 CE. I proved you wrong not only by the epistles & gospels (which were written as early as 50 AD or 150 AD - depending on which scholar you believe) but also the writings of early church fathers. They wrote about the trinity as early as 100 -200 years before your claim about Christianity adopting the pagan polytheism doctrines in 325 CE. steveOrino

Give up a Big Mac dude, that would be enough to raise the standard of living for a family in third world countries. I grow weary of people who complain about world hunger but give NOTHING, not one dime to change anything. If a billionaire can give millions you can give the cost of a jump ticket. Oh, you don't jump regularly. How about giving up that 6 pack or super sizing the fries. I hate to hear "skydivers" complain about poverty. Go to the rain forrest village in Central America and you will see poverty. EVERYBODY can help, not just the billionaires. As long as we believe it is someone elses' responsibility we will never accomplish anything. /rant steveOrino

Hairy, I just pointed out some early Christian fathers that obviously taught the tinity before 325 AD. Paul also spoke of the trinity as well as the gospels themselves. Even the most liberal biblical scholar would not put the gospels or Epistles after 325 CE Just admit your plethora of "Jesus did not exist" and other atheist websites are wrong on this account. steveOrino

Yes, it did! evidence of the doctrine of the trinity through of plural references to God: Two plural nouns are applied to God: God and Lord, are almost always plural when applied to God. These two plural nouns (God - elohim, Lord - adonai) are the two most frequently used nouns of God in the Old Testament. Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. Five plural verbs are applied to God: creates, makes, wanders, reveals, judges. In English, these plural verse do not indicate a plural persons, "God creates". But the plurality of Hebrew verbs follow the noun. This is not the case in English. This plurality of verbs associated with God, is most striking and unusual to those who read Hebrew. Plural adjectives that describe God: "holy". Again, this is a function of Hebrew grammar that does not exist in English. The plurality of adjectives is tagged to the associated noun, which in this case is God. It is most unusual to have a plural adjective describing God. Single verses that contain both singular and plural references to the same person. B. Why this is proof of Trinity in the Old Testament: Anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians alike, try to explain away the plural references to God in the Old Testament: "Let US make man in OUR image". (Gen 1:26) While Trinitarians expect to find such plural pronouns and verbs used in reference to God at face value, anti-Trinitarians fall all over themselves trying to find a way to avoid the obvious truth that there are three persons in the one God. The trinity was hidden in the Old Testament until Christ came and the earliest Christians began to "search the (Old Testament) scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11) to see if Paul's claim that Jesus of Nazareth, was the direct subject of prophecy. We have no doubt that Paul would point out the six passages where God is refereed to with plural pronouns. (We, Us, Our) God’s oneness is conveyed by personal pronouns like He, Him, His, I, Myself, Me. The trinity is witnessed in the Old Testament by personal pronouns like We, Us, Ours. LONG BEFORE 325 CE HAIRY C. The apostolic Fathers unanimously taught that the "we" in Gen 1:26, refers to the trinity: 74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: "For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness" (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.) 150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: "In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ’[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures." (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words "Let Us Make Man") 180 AD Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1). 200 AD Tertullian: "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.) 200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: "Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness"), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head" (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.) 200 AD Tertullian: "In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. "Let us make man," said He, before He created him, and added, "with our hand," for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation." (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.) Origen: "it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII) steveOrino

First, I didn't say JC wasn't God. I said JC was not God the Father. BIG difference in the theology of the Trinity. There are "oneness" Christian denominations that make no distinction from JC and the Father, but orthodox Christianity teaches a triune godhead. The Hebrew word for God the Father was El. The Hebrew word for the Triune Godhead was Elohim. The Genesis account said "Elohim" created the heavens and the earth. Some English translations will read "Let us make man in our image..." in the Genesis account. steveOrino

Yep, you're right. There are many interpretations to the Trinity. True to His nature, the omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent God believes it is better to give Man free choice than to supernaturally instill in him some knowledge that cannot be rejected. steveOrino

The trinity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is a long an interesting bit of theology.

My first and last was about 1000 jumps ago. Three heavy guys (200+) and one girl (150?) jumped out in a horny gorilla. The speed was fun and I loved the expressions on everyone's face, especially the chick as she had no experience going that fast. She began to panic about 7K and pushed away dislodging my D ring. Once the gorilla broke I saw the D ring floating out there and went ahead and pulled it as I didn't know how far the pin had been pulled and I didn't want two out. So, for me ... once was enough. Be careful! steveOrino

So you're basically saying that if anythng JC said _later_ in the Bible contradicts with what JC said before, he is correcting/expanding his (or someone's teaching), right? I think JC corrected some common misunderstandings of Mose's teachings and Levitical law. I'm not aware of him correcting himself in the NT. Maybe you can enlighten me on that. I'm not aware of any of JC's sayings in the OT. steveOrino

Thanks, but Im in OK. I'll call John Tuesday. steveOrino

I need a little help from somebody at Ft. Bragg. My son is with 82nd Airborne (Alpha CO. 2/508) in Afghanistan. He was supposed to send us his deployment papers before he left in January, but he failed to do that. He did get a power of attorney set up for my wife to conduct his financial affairs while he is gone for a year, but we need to get a hold of the rear deatachment commander to obtain a copy of his deployment papers. Now I was in SF but that was back in late 70s. I'm clueless on who to contact. I have called the Ft. Bragg operator, the number listed for his detachment, (it is always busy 24/7?) the chaplain, the MPs, all to no avail. Heck I even tried contacting an old friend, retired CSM Doug (Deacon) Hodge, (his wife hung on me ) Any help in supplying me with a contact name and number? Thanks in advance! steveOrino

My philosophy ... "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive." 1 Corinthians 10:23 steveOrino

I never observed lent in my Baptist & Church of God heritage, so I don't know.

She needs to learn from Christian like me (I don't observe lent). Give up something you don't do or like for lent. steveOrino

Gave that up for lent. steveOrino