Old Testament @ MindSay 
bible
And here is the smoking gun or shall I say the steaming of Leviticus. According to the Jon Stewart show Dobson went on Larry King Live and showed clips from the interview, where Dobson stated the following about homosexuals:
Larry: "...If you're gay and he calls it an abomination... you might feel hurt by that statement."
Dobson: "Well you do have to understand that is in the scripture and is quoted in Leviticus."
Aha! So it's okay to quote Leviticus in reference to homosexuality but it is not okay for Obama to quote Leviticus in reference to slavery and shell fish. And I guess the whole 10 Commandment thing is out the window, too. No wait, that still counts because that Muslim Christian with the middle name "Hussein" and big ears hasn't quoted the 10 Commandments yet.
That's why these Evangelicals are fucking up the country and distorting the rule of law and the bible to fit their own personal needs when they see fit. That includes Mister Horn in Texas shooting two burglars coming out of the window in the back...IN THE BACK!!!!!!!! But since they were two black people it was justified. But if it was a black guy shooting two white people it would have been a different story. Can we say the Leviticus of the criminal code where these people are distorting the code to fit their own personal views on the legal system?
It's all Bush-it. I ment....Bullshit. Sorry.
PS: I'm just waiting for them to say that Obama is going to ban the bible. Oh wait, Bush already did that in the 2000 elections. Oh wait again, McCain is a clone of Bush so he might do it. Hold on to your bibles it's going to get interesting.
And PPS: Don't forget we're going to have another terrorist attack when the new president comes into office and you know who's the best, most qualified candidate.... That's right, I'm going to say it right here and right now, my friends, John McClane. He knows how to deal with terrorists. After all Hans Gruber and his chronies couldn't get away from him. John McClane was so determined he even went after Gruber's brother. Now that's change we can believe in!
Most Christians would say, "No. Certainly not the ceremonial law. There are over 600 ceremonial laws to obey. Besides, the New Testament, especially the writings of Paul, tell us that we're no longer under the law."
Well, then, what about the moral aspects of the law--like the ten commandments?
Most Christians would say, "Well, yeah, we should."
The problem with this way of thinking is that Jesus has brought us a higher standard of behavior. More than once, He would teach, "You have heard it said....but I say to you..."
The Old Testament commandments against adultery and murder? Jesus turned these sins from an overt acts to an overt thoughts.
No one is not guilty.
How about tithing? Pastors sometimes use Malachi to encourage their people to give. "Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, 'How have we robbed you?' In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me. Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house" (ESV). Then the Lord continues, telling Israel that He will rebuke the devourer, open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing.
We Americans like that last part.
However, there are a couple of big problems with this.
First of all, Christians are not under a curse. No curse. Zero, zip, nada.
Second, again, Jesus brings us a higher standard. Jesus didn't discourage tithing when He got after the self-righteous religious leaders of His time. Abraham, who was before the law, tithed to the priest, Melchizedek. But He did tell them that their standards were way too low. Who did He commend for giving? The widow, who gave all that she had.
What is the standard for giving, according to Jesus? He said, "You cannot be My disciple unless you give up all your possessions."
Christians, too often, want to live within a law. It's comfortable--but it takes the place of a relationship with God. Want to know how much money to give to God? Well, it should at least be ten percent, as a starting place. But Christians should pray about how much money to give and loosen their grip on their coin. And give because we love Him.
As my friend, Kurt Bubna says, "We shouldn't ask the Lord what we should give. We should ask Him what we should keep."
It's all His. It ain't yours.
Give it up. Lay up treasure in heaven.
Live according to a higher standard
The offending lines that have been saturated in the media . . . "There is no compulsion in religion. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But natrually the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending into details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the Book and the infidels, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God', he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
These are not Benedict's words, but his quotation of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, an educated man of both Christianity and Islam during a series of dialogues explaining the tension between the two great monotheistic religions. It isn't a scribe against Islam or Muslims at all, but an example of what happens when reason becomes divorced from faith, and that reason is central to faith.
Benedict continues, "...Any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be 'scientific' would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. If science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religious and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by science, so undestood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective conscience becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason when necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it."
This danger Benedict refers to I think can be likened to what many, specifically Christians, refer to as 'post-modernism', that catch-all phrase you first learn in college and reading philosophy that at its core rejects universal truth, or at least universal truisms, that are objective in nature, in favor of subjective ones, wherein there can be little consensus or agreement, or truth, simply preferences. This is fine, in fact good when it comes to food, dance, art, musical tastes, fashion, games, hobbies, sports and the like but not so good, in fact dangerous when it comes religion and ethics. As an agnostic still searching for higher meaning in this world I can be skeptical of religion, organized and self-serving at times, and at the same time, admiring of the values and ethics is prophesizes and recognized that values are not old-fashioned and traditional, but classical in nature. Whether or not you are a follower of the New Testament, the Old Testament or neither doesn't matter when it comes to treating your fellow human beings with respect, according them the dignity they deserve and demanding the same in return. What Benedict was trying to say, in his native German or in Latin, translated here in English, is that these objective pillars, and many more particular to his Christian faith, cannot be sacraficed on the alter of faith, dismissed as unreasonable, relegated to personal preference in a multicultural, pluralistic world, not because we don't live in a multicultural, multireligious, pluralistic world, but because they dishonor God.
And it is not politically incorrect, or blasphemous to suggest that this culture of ethics, of values, of respect for others applies to Muslims as well as Christians and the rest of us. If the many protestors who are now burning images of Pope Benedict alongside President Bush, do not accept this then that is their problem, but given the interconnectedness of peoples of all faiths and religions the world over, it impacts us and therefore is our problem too. To pretend otherwise, as sophisticates in the press and the media, who have focused on the few sentences quoting Emperor Paleologus is to deny this fundamental reality; to indulge oneself that the fundamental challenge in today's computer fragmented and networked world, a world that features chemical, biological and nuclear weapons increasingly outside the hands of rational states and democratic governments is that the age-old problem is OF religion and not of THOSE who follow religion. It confuses such an ethic of religiosity and objectivity, and of decency, in favor of one that cannot confront evil, because in the subjective universe of the multiculturalist and personal preferences, there is no such thing as evil at all.
Benedict has since stated he is sorry, not for what he said, but the (over)reaction while still standing by his speech and the clarity of his words. Now I'm no Catholic, and have my issues with some of their tenets, celebacy, priestly fondness for little boys, opposition to birth control, but if Benedict never utters another word during the remainder of his Papacy, he has done us all much good.
To start this post off, I would like to say a few things. judaism has never held a view that God is a Trinity. Since the scriptures of judaism and the old testament are closely related, and in some cases identical, I would think they have good reason for their belief against this concept. Although I cannot simply assume this, because I have seen time and time again that sometimes organized religion and/or groups of people have held beliefs that do not originate from their scriptures. Another interesting note is the trinity was not accepted by early christians, many being converts from judaism, and not even by early christianity. The trinity was only accepted into christianity after several debates on the nature of christ were conducted and was not formulated until the 4th century. Yet, regardless of the history of how this concept came about, it is one of the defining beliefs of christianity for many. Though some denominations do not believe in the concept, while still considering themselves christian.
Now let us begin analyzing every single verse and as much context as needed regarding every single verse that has ever been used to prove the trinity which I have seen used before.
=====================================================================
Genesis 1:26 , 3:22 , 7:11 , and possibly others make reference to God as "Us" and "Our" in the case of Genesis 1:26
Trinitarians will argue the use of plurality supports the trinity. However there are several problems with this argument.
#1 The use of plurality may signify authority, power, or greatness. In the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic languages the use of plurality is used to magnify/emphasize a person's greatness. And considering the old testament was likely to be originally written in one of these languages, it would follow that the usage was not intended to signify a plurality in persons.
#2 In Genesis 1:27, right after the supposed trinitarian plurality, the verb used for "Created" is singular. This would mean that God is being referred to as a singular person, not a plurality of persons.
(Source : http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq134.html ;check it out. There is much more they have to say, then the small bit I used)
#3 Even if it were accepted that the use of "Us" and "Our" signified a plurality in persons, if would not tell us HOW MANY! Meaning God could be a Binity, Trinity, Quadinity, ===> Infinitinity. So one would have to use another verse to state how many (I would say it would likely be a new testament verse).
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Then there is Genesis 1:2 where it is said "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"
In short, this verse proves nothing. There is absolutely no mention of the 2nd member, even if you take this to be the third. And looking at the context, the verse does not exclusively say the Spirit = God or whether the Spirit is seperate from God. Also there is a large lack of knowledge as to what this "Spirit" is referring to. But regardless of the lack of knowledge the verse still offers no support to the trinitarian belief, although trinitarians may like it.
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Next there is Isaiah where it is stated : "[...] And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit."
According to the same source I used above (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq122.html) this verse is actually being mistranslated, possibly purposely. The verse is supposed to read "and now the Lord God has sent me, and His Spirit" Some translations like the KJV even mistranslate it more so in saying "[...]and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." This misdoing is the precise problem the site speaks of, however even the NIV is alittle off, which might lead one to a trinitarian view.
With all this in mind, the spirit being spoken of has no context suggesting it is the third member of the trinity. You could just as easily say the spirit being spoken of is a prophetic spirit given to the prophet. The source I use even goes as far as to show that this "spirit" cannot be a member of a coequal trinity God, because the spirit is ordered around by God. (Check out Numbers 11:17 , 11:25, and 11:29 among others listed on the website used above)
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Genesis 19:24 is another place trinitarians like to cite. It says "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens."
Trinitarians claim that the two places the LORD is referred to proves that God is a trinity.
I have seen some people speculate as to the first LORD being an army of angels sent by the LORD, thus they represent the LORD on earth. This view is supported by the context of the chapters before this verse. For example, in Genesis 18:1-5 the LORD appears in the form of three men who are later labeled as angels in Genesis 19:1-29 (And the three angels does not prove the trinity either. Commonly people mistake numbers for meanings, when really no meaning is intended or even there). Also in chapter 19 verse 13 the angels say they are going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and that the LORD has sent them to destroy it. Finally in verse 24 of the same chapter we come to the verse of question. So let's recap. The LORD appeared in the form of three angels (Obviously the three angels are not God, but they represent God on earth). These angels tell us they are here to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and that they were sent by the LORD to do it. Now using all this let's look at what my pervious source has to say on the topic (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq061.html)
The source claims the mention of LORD twice is to emphasize that the LORD is the cause, the doer, the performer, the commander. This might be important considering ANGELS were sent to perform the destruction. God is making it clear who is commanding the destruction of the city.
=====================================================================
These are all the old testament verses I have seen used so far. Some have mentioned others on certain websites, but after reading their claims and the verses along with context I felt their view was so baseless and without restraint by the text that it was not appropriate to label it as proof. If these verses come up in the comments, then I'll address them. Otherwise, this is the post on the old testament and whether the trinity is proven therein.
CONCLUSION:
The old testament does not prove the trinity. It can be argued that it actually disproves the trinity, but all I am concerned with is whether it proved the trinity in any manner. After analyzing the oftenly used verses, I conclude it does not.
I decided I'd just list verses used instead of actually quoting them. because the verses make a short post look quite longer than it really is. I might just quote bits and pieces. and encorparate the verses into my analysis. Anyone can view the entire verse along with the entire context at biblegateway.com (I used NIV verison)
New Testament used:
Matthew 5:17-19 Matthew 7:12 Luke 24:44
=========================================================
In Matthew 5:17-19 jesus tells us "I have not come to abolish them[The Law or Prophets, check context] but to fulfill them" and also "not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" then jesus says "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven [...]"
So what does this basically say? It says jesus is coming to fulfill the Law and Prophets, not abolish them. Nothing is disappearing from the Law UNTIL "everything is accomplished". People who break one of the LEAST of the commandments while teaching others to do likewise are the least in heaven.
Then jesus says in luke 24:44 "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms"
Suddenly jesus is saying that only that which is about him must be fulfilled. And out of no where jesus mentions the Psalms, which is not mentioned in the other verses although jesus says "This is what I told you while I was still with you"
So I take it the "everything is accomplished" is when everything about jesus in the Law and prophets is fulfilled. Not sure what is up with the psalms mystery there. Jesus tells us that breaking the least of the commandments and telling others to do likewise makes us the least in heaven (Not a good thing).
So what can I gather from all this?
1. I think it was Paul who altered the Law on forbidden foods and told others to do likewise, right? This then would make him the least in heaven. And if jesus told paul, as some would tell me, then guess what ladies and gentlemen JESUS WOULD THE LEAST IN HEAVEN BY HIS OWN STATEMENT! This idea could also be extended to modern days with pope verdicts or any religious head's verdicts for that matter which tell others to break ANY of the commandments, even the least of them.
2. I do not think everything regarding the messiah, which would in turn regard jesus according to christians, has happened according to the old testament. For instance check out ezekiel 37:26 or even Isaiah 2:4.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]