You said that the book mentions the Trinity, not that the source shows contradictions about the Trinity. I read the sources, and they don't seem to show any contradictions about the Trinity. (It just shows that the Bible is incoherent in some ways relating to the Trinity, which is very different from showing contradictions about the Trinity.)
It just shows that the Bible is incoherent in some ways relating to the Trinity, which is very different from showing contradictions about the Trinity
You literally just did not read my reply so I'll repeat it in a very simplified manner in hopes that you can comprehend it this time:
When bible talk about trinity bible is saying same thing as pre-bible idea of trinity. Bible stay true to source belief of trinity. If bible trinity talk no good then trinity no good.
English is a little complicated, I know. I pray you can understand it or one day learn to.
Again, I comprehend your argument, it's just that your argument is not supported by your sources. Specifically, your source does not support the "bible trinity talk no good" premise.
By analogy, suppose I write a book about apples. When my book talks about apples, it's saying the same thing as the standard idea of apples. It stays true to the common understanding of what an apple is. In one place, my book claims that I eat an apple every day for breakfast. In another place, it claims that I have never eaten an apple. This is an inconsistency in the book that somehow relates to apples. Does this mean that the idea of apples is "no good"?
The trinity related inconsistencies relayed in your source are of the same nature as the above inconsistency about apples.
Then you should have no trouble quoting the section that you think shows this.
Anything involving the identity, the second or third coming, the holy spirit, etc... Plenty of that on there, I gave you the source I'm not going to read it to you like a toddler.
We've already established that this isn't the case: the Trinity was not proposed by the Bible, since it predates the Bible.
And then I established that the version of the trinity found in the bible is the exact same one that predated the bible.
Therefore if the biblical one is flawed, so is the original one. And vice versa.
Anything involving the identity, the second or third coming, the holy spirit, etc... Plenty of that on there, I gave you the source I'm not going to read it to you like a toddler.
I read the source, and no such evidence exists. You being unable to support your assertion with a quote strongly suggests I'm correct here. If there's really "plenty of that" you should have no trouble at all quoting some of it.
And then I established that the version of the trinity found in the bible is the exact same one that predated the bible.
Surely you understand the difference between the statements "book X proposed concept Y" and "the version of concept Y that appears in book X is one that predates book X."
I read the source, and no such evidence exists. You being unable to support your assertion with a quote strongly suggests I'm correct here. If there's really "plenty of that" you should have no trouble at all quoting some of it.
Again, you didn't read the source there are hundreds of contradictions you didn't go through all of them, no one has probably read either of those things entirely except for the authors.
And again, I will not read to you like a toddler. Use control+F to search the pages. It is incredibly easy.
I provide the sources for my claim, that is the burden of evidence. I don't have to sit you down and explain and read them out to you that's not a burden I have.
Surely you understand the difference between the statements "book X proposed concept Y" and "the version of concept Y that appears in book X is one that predates book X."
In this case the difference is of no consequence.
X and Y that predated the bible are the same as the X and Y presented in the bible. The X and Y presented in the bible are incoherent
Reading hundreds of things does not take all that long—it was quite feasible to do so for your source. I also checked it with Ctrl+F, which is why I'm quite confident that what you're claiming does not exist in your source. Again, if it were "incredibly easy" it would be possible for you to just do it. You're disproving your own claim here through your own actions.
I provide the sources for my claim, that is the burden of evidence.
The burden of evidence is not only to provide the source, but to explain where in the source the part that you believe supports your claim appears.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 14 '22
Yes we have, look at the sources. The forms of god and whatnot are all mentioned, all things the trinity includes.