Holy Trinity Discussion

[VOLS INC.]

No. My argument is very simple. If you look black then you're black.

I agree.

 

[Vol8188]

White and albino Africans are two different things. The Albino still has tightly curled hair, full lips, and other black features. The only difference between an albino and a typical black person is the lack of pigmentation.

So hold on….now you’re intentional changing your own definition.

When using the term black earlier you continually told me you were talking about “phenotype” and how “dna don’t matter” (weird because it determines phenotype).

But now you seem to be implying that by “black” you actually mean “African”.

You’re moving the goal posts

 

[n_huffhines]

Cause I didn't want to encourage the silly mental gymnastics Christians engage in to distance themselves from the horrific arts justified in the Old Testament. Christians like to play the game that God and Jesus are separate when it suits them. You can't believe Jesus is God then get offended when I say Jesus ordered genocides in the Old Testament.

Holy ****, this thread is hilarious. How did I miss it for a whole two days. Imagine getting this pwned by Dobbs on your own religion.

FTR, Mormons (which I no longer am) believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one....in purpose, and are three different beings. Growing up Mormon and getting made fun of for my weird beliefs, it was always funny thinking about Jesus praying to himself, etc.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Holy ****, this thread is hilarious. How did I miss it for a whole two days. Imagine getting this pwned by Dobbs on your own religion.

FTR, Mormons (which I no longer am) believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one....in purpose, and are three different beings. Growing up Mormon and getting made fun of for my weird beliefs, it was always funny thinking about Jesus praying to himself, etc.

Do you miss the Bishop's firesides?

 

[n_huffhines]

And that means they are not a Christian Church.
No other denomination recognizes them as such.

LOL

 

[n_huffhines]

Do you miss the Bishop's firesides?

The only thing I miss a little bit is the community, which I have not replaced. I'm OK without it, but it was kinda nice.

 

[Vol8188]

The only thing I miss a little bit is the community, which I have not replaced. I'm OK without it, but it was kinda nice.

That is a big problem in our culture now. I would like the community aspect of attending church more frequently, but 10% of our household income is a steep price for that.

 

[GVF]

I just read up on Modalism and don't see much of a difference between that and mainstream Trinity ideology. If Jesus wasn't absent then what are you objecting to? My point was that the laws of the Old Testament were from Jesus cause he and the Father are one.

Just because the whole Trinity theory is wacky doesn't mean my logical conclusions to said theory are wrong. If Jesus wasn't absent then the Old Testament is his doing and not somebody else.

Their doing. Not HIS.

John Chapter 1 is all about the trinity and the trinity becoming flesh.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

...

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Behr]

Holy ****, this thread is hilarious. How did I miss it for a whole two days. Imagine getting this pwned by Dobbs on your own religion.

FTR, Mormons (which I no longer am) believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one....in purpose, and are three different beings. Growing up Mormon and getting made fun of for my weird beliefs, it was always funny thinking about Jesus praying to himself, etc.

Now we can finally get the truth.

 

[YankeeVol]

Holy ****, this thread is hilarious. How did I miss it for a whole two days. Imagine getting this pwned by Dobbs on your own religion.

FTR, Mormons (which I no longer am) believe Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one....in purpose, and are three different beings. Growing up Mormon and getting made fun of for my weird beliefs, it was always funny thinking about Jesus praying to himself, etc.

Still have your magic underwear?

 

[PEPPERJAX]

That is a big problem in our culture now. I would like the community aspect of attending church more frequently, but 10% of our household income is a steep price for that.

Tithes allow the Church to grow. They pay for new Temples, Churches, maintenance etc. The interesting things is that only about 30% of members actually pay their tithing and yet the church continues to operate efficiently. BTW, paying tithing is not a requirement to attend Sacrament or Sunday School. Anyone can come.

 

[n_huffhines]

Tithes allow the Church to grow. They pay for new Temples, Churches, maintenance etc. The interesting things is that only about 30% of members actually pay their tithing and yet the church continues to operate efficiently. BTW, paying tithing is not a requirement to attend Sacrament or Sunday School. Anyone can come.

I heard an opinion that the church holds so many assets, it doesn't even need tithing. Its money makes more than enough money to operate.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I heard an opinion that the church holds so many assets, it doesn't even need tithing. Its money makes more than enough money to operate.

The Church will still take tithing from the members though.

 

[n_huffhines]

Still have your magic underwear?

One of the worst parts of being Mormon.

 

[GVF]

It's sad that a non-believer knows more about their beliefs than they do. But that's not surprising cause once you dig deep into most religions you realize how nonsensical they are. Religious people tend to be those that know the least about their religion.

After having read through this thread, I have come to the conclusion that your understandings are self inflated.

It is sad that a non-believer with limited knowledge thinks they know more about what a believer believes. Fact is God has never required a believer to be a scholar or theologian. He has only required one believe, accept, and share the good news. That being the salvation that can come from God.

The only true difference between the God of the OT and NT is that his punishment of the wicked will now be at the reckoning, instead of whenever he commands as in the OT. Fact is, whether it is the God of Israel (OT), or the God of All (NT) he has always had rules & requirements to be with him in heaven. He also said many will reject him. And ya'll still do. It's a choice he gave us. I liken folks who ridicule others for believing as a normal reaction for what they lack understanding for. You know, making fun of what you fear or don't get. So, it must be foolish. But he made us choosers. In or out. To what degree people distort the word of God and sucker others is a fault they will answer for. Falling for false teachers, and not spending time in God's word for your own understandings will also be asnwered to some day. As well as rejection. God also taught in the NT that if one refuses to believe don't waste your time. Wipe the dust off your feet and move on. To each his own.

The purpose of the transformation of Jesus in the Trinity was to provide an intermediary/buffer between faulty humans and God, who could not look upon evil or imperfection. Nor could humans look upon the face of God and survive.

As for your OT "genocide", God was keeping his promises to the wicked. He had laws then, just as he does now. He is a God of Love and Grace through Jesus. But, he is also a God of Law. And by those laws he will either reward or destroy. We each have a choice which one of those two results we want to try for. Grace is what will save some of us thru Jesus, as no one is sinless and can stand before God without destruction, except through Christ.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

From same article.

According to Tábita Hünemeier, a geneticist at the University of São Paulo’s Bioscience Institute (IB-USP) who took part in the research, “one of the main results of the study was the identification of Luzia’s people as genetically related to the Clovis culture, which dismantles the idea of two biological components and the possibility that there were two migrations to the Americas, one with African traits and the other with Asian traits”.

and

“Luzia’s people must have resulted from a migratory wave originating in Beringia,” she said, referring to the now-submerged Bering land bridge that joined Siberia to Alaska during the glaciations, when sea levels were lower."

and

“The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia’s people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today’s Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia’s people were entirely Amerindian.”

The sad part is we've been over this before. I don't give the slightest damn what you think of this but thought others following your real time rorschach test would find it interesting.

You might want to read my other posts in this thread closely. DNA doesn't necessarily indicate phenotype. The "black" people in Papau New Guinea and the Pacific look black but are genetically most closely related to East Asians. So the fact Luzia woman has DNA related to other early Americans that crossed over from Asia is unsurprising. Just like how many Andamanese Islanders have DNA related to South Asians but look African.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

there might be once specific piece of the DNA that is closer to their African roots rather than their neighbors DNA; but on a whole it gets diluted pretty quickly.

This is why its important to understand the topic you're discussing before making claims about it. The type of genetic testing that is used to trace ancestry deep into the past is Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup markers. That's because these genes have a unique trait about them where they're passed of from father to son and mother to daughter unchanged. So yes you're correct that based on the entire genome the European descendants and African descendants would not be closely related. But whole genome DNA testing is extremely expensive and very difficult to trace into the deep past. That's why most population genetic testing is based on Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups. These genes get passed down from your earliest male and female ancestors unchanged. That's why scientists use them. And a lot of the genetic studies cited online use this data. In reality it's very limited in what it tells us for an individual because as you astutely pointed out the European descendants would have way more European DNA in total but on a Y-DNA test they would come out as Africans. However, it becomes useful for tracking the gene flow of an entire population if we were to find an entire country in Europe that had the same African Y-DNA marker.

And for the record this is what we find in southern Europe and the Balkan countries. Lots of Europeans in those regions carry the E1b1b Y-DNA haplogroup marker. This haplogroup marker is most common in East African countries like Somalia where upwards of 80% of the males carry it. In southern Europe less than 15% of males carry. From that we can deduce that this marker most likely originated in Africa and was carried into Europe by African males.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You have a deep misunderstanding of DNA then.

Lolololol
Read nothing past this.

In first, archaeologists extract DNA of ancient Israelites

***

www.haaretz.com

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

So hold on….now you’re intentional changing your own definition.

When using the term black earlier you continually told me you were talking about “phenotype” and how “dna don’t matter” (weird because it determines phenotype).

But now you seem to be implying that by “black” you actually mean “African”.

You’re moving the goal posts

Indians have black skin but most people would say they aren't black. That's because blackness and whiteness are about more than skin color. There are other phenotypic factors at play like hair texture, facial features, limp proportions, etc. An albino African might lack one of those stereotypical black features but will likely have the rest. That's why it's easy to tell the difference between an albino African and a white European despite the similarity in skin color.

 

[Orangeslice13]

From literally the first sentence of one of HIS cited links.

"Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong."

This is a black Hebrew Israelite. They are a wacky bunch. Very much like the slave owners who measure skulls and say that it made black people inferior, they make up science (fiction) to support an agenda

 

[GVF]

With regard to the color of the Ancient Hebrews the argument that they were black is based on the Bible and known historical record. According to the Bible, both Moses and Joseph were mistaken for Egyptians. Thus we can logically conclude that there were no visible physical differences between the Ancient Hebrews and the Ancient Egyptians during the time they were in Egypt. We also know from the Bible that the Ancient Egyptians were considered one of the sons of Ham (father of the black race) along with Kush (biblical name for Ancient Nubia). We also know from the accounts of Ancient Greek historians like Herodutus that the Ancient Egyptians were described as having "black skin and wooly hair" like the Ancient Nubians (aka Ethiopians to the Ancient Greeks). So if the Ancient Egyptians were black according to the Bible and historical record and if Hebrews like Moses and Joseph were mistaken for being Egyptians rather than Israelites then it must logically follow that the Ancient Hebrews were also black.

With regard to black people preceding Columbus in the Americas, the evidence is numerous. I'll start with the most scientifically accepted piece of evidence. LUZIA: America’s OLDEST Skeleton is a “Black” WOMAN

The new face of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa people

Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong.

agencia.fapesp.br

The oldest human remains found in the Americas is the fossil of Luzia woman. Found in Brazil, the anthropologists that found the remains said that the skull didn't look like the skulls of the Indians found in the region. But instead of looked like the skull of a negroid woman. So according to mainstream science the oldest human fossil found in the Americas is that of a black woman.

Now the second piece of evidence that shows black people were in the Americas comes to Christopher Columbus own journal of his second voyage to the Americas. In modern day Dominican Republic/Haiti he said that the Native Indians told him: “Black-skinned people had come from the southeast in boats, trading in gold-tipped spears.”

SCHOLAR: COLUMBUS’ JOURNAL BEARS EVIDENCE OF BLACKS IN AMERICAS

FORT LAUDERDALE — Controversial scholar Ivan Van Sertima, who theorizes that Africans came to the Americas before Columbus, discovered Fort Lauderdale on Thursday. Van Sertima was given a rec…

www.sun-sentinel.com

And if you want even more evidence there are the Olmec heads which were found in Mexico which are the remains of the oldest civilization in the Americas. This is how those heads looked.

View attachment 713080


Looks like a black man if you ask me. And when they were first discovered the earliest Europeans thought the same thing. And because I know yall will lie to yourselves and act like this isn't clearly a black head. Let's look at how the back of the head looks.

View attachment 713081

Yes you're seeing that right. It's braids. The Olmec heads have braided hair in the back. So you're gonna tell me these heads with broad flat noses, full thick lips, and braided hair ain't depicting black people?


When you put all the evidence together from the earliest fossil remains of Luzia woman to the earliest civilization in the Olmecs, and Columbus own account its obvious black people were in the Americas before Columbus.

You have a serious flaw in you narrowed explanation of Egyptians here. The Nubian (Black) line of Egyptians is southern Egypt. Not all Egyptians were black. But those that were were decendents of likely Kush heritage, which is actually Africa/Sudanese. So, they were technically Egyptian by citizenship. African by heritage. Egyptian history itself makes a marked dinstinction between ruling parties of the north (non-black) and the time of hte black pharoes (the Kush). Two totally different peoples in opposite ends of the same land.

"While both Nubians and Northern Egyptians are considered part of the Nile Valley population, the key distinction lies in their geographical location, with Nubians primarily inhabiting the southern region of Egypt (near modern-day Sudan) and Northern Egyptians residing in the northern part of the country, often displaying noticeable differences in physical appearance, culture, and historical narratives due to their distinct geographical separation; Nubians are typically identified with darker skin tones and are considered more closely related to other African populations, while Northern Egyptians are often described as having a more Mediterranean appearance."

Moses and Joseph being mistaken as Egyptian does not inherently imply or prove they were black. Hence it does not imply nor prove that the Hebrew/Israelite/Jew was black. What we generalize as Jews, are in fact specific decendents of the tribe of Judah. One of 12 brothers of the greater Israel. They would be cousins so to speak of the other 11 tribes of Israel. All who were different than being Arab (Gentile) or Persian or Turk or Egyptian. Israel was it's own ethnic race and was not then or now black. With the tribe of Judah (Jews) being the chosen lineage of the Christ. And not all modern praticers of Judaism that have Israelite descent can claim to be Jewish. "Jewish" is a direct descendent of Judah. The other 11 tribes would round out Hebron or Israelite factions of descendents. Judaism is a religion. Slice can carve this up for you if you'd like a better understanding of this. And do a much better job than I, as he learned me a few things of it.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

You have a serious flaw in you narrowed explanation of Egyptians here. The Nubian (Black) line of Egyptians is southern Egypt. Not all Egyptians were black.

I'm so glad you made this point. Because southern Egypt (aka Upper Egypt) is where the Pharaohs and dynastic Egyptians come from. So yes in the north of Egypt even going back to the start of dynastic Egypt there were some non-black populations. But those populations had nothing to do with the advent or proliferation of Ancient Egyptian civilization. Ancient Egyptian civilization started in the south with the Upper Egyptians who you admit were related to the Nubians.

Most people have this mistaken conception that Ancient Egypt was oriented north to south. That the Pharaohs and civilization of Egypt was more connected to Arabia and the Middle East than Sub-Saharan Africa. When the truth is actually the complete opposite. Ancient Egypt was oriented south to north. The Ancient Egyptians considered southern Egypt to be "Upper Egypt" and northern Egypt to be "Lower Egypt". And it was Pharaohs from the south like Narmer that conquered the north and unified the country into one empire. Also the only other nation we know of that used hieroglyphics and built pyramids in the region was Nubia. Showing that the Ancient Egyptians had a closer cultural connection with their neighbors to the south than their neighbors to the north.

In the Bible, Moses and Joseph aren't just dealing with any random Egyptians. They were brought into the court of the Pharaoh. Moses in particular only escaped being killed as a child because Pharaohs wife took him in not knowing he was an Israelite. That means Moses by definition had to look like the Upper Egyptians since he was in the house of the Pharaoh. And the Upper Egyptians were black meaning Moses too was black.

 

[hndog609]

You might want to read my other posts in this thread closely. DNA doesn't necessarily indicate phenotype. The "black" people in Papau New Guinea and the Pacific look black but are genetically most closely related to East Asians. So the fact Luzia woman has DNA related to other early Americans that crossed over from Asia is unsurprising. Just like how many Andamanese Islanders have DNA related to South Asians but look African.

I've joked more than once about you suffering from some kind of anterograde amnesia. Without even pretending these were the only examples you pulled your Olmeccian fantasies out in 2016's The Problem of Whiteness thread only to yank it out of the dumpster again for a good regurgitation in 2023's That's Racist! thread. Now here you are again, like we've never been here before, selling your same pseudo-intellectual trinkets and making as convincing an argument as you did about how good Kelvin Taylor would turn out to be.

 

[Vol8188]

Tithes allow the Church to grow. They pay for new Temples, Churches, maintenance etc. The interesting things is that only about 30% of members actually pay their tithing and yet the church continues to operate efficiently. BTW, paying tithing is not a requirement to attend Sacrament or Sunday School. Anyone can come.

I’m sure it’s used well and if it’s not, I can always go to a different church. But it’s a lot to part with

 

[GVF]

man, you just put every religious figure or authority out of a job. many/most have fallen into the academia trap of needing to know more than anyone else. not because it actually makes them a better person or scientist or whatever, but just to know better.

Those that need to prove so much about, for or agianst, christianity have already missed the boat.

Faith is believing in what cannot be seen or toched. not in what can or cannot be proven. It's the very essence of faith that leads to salvation, that leads to grace.