The Triquestra - Holy or Unholy Trinity

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
you guys just don't get it do you?

Yes, we do. There's simply NO old symbol that hasn't been used by pagans at one time or another. And that includes the CROSS.

standing has given scripture to back his belief, he has given several posts to show the triquesta came from the pagan camp.

While WE have shown the CROSS to have once been a pagan symbol, a fact conveniently ignored.

He is right from backing out.

Yes, because he can't win this one. All, or most of his info came from a Terry Watkins article. Senor Watkins is one of the most unlearned of all the KJVO authors.


The Bible teaches that if they will not receive your report to have nothing to do with them.

It also teaches to have nothing to do with an incorrect report.

I am suprised he stayed in the thread this long.

Me,too, as he didn't wanna comment about the CROSS's pagan usage.

He really must be concerned about christians holding onto that which God detests and you belittle him as if he were satan himself.

The problem is, he was WRONG. The triquetra's last regular usage was by Christians who added it to their sigs on letters they'd written to each other. There it signified the HOLY TRINITY.

sfiC has not spoken any lies and you brand him as one by saying he need to come back and admit he is wrong? Take a long look in the mirror of God's Word and you may find if you truly look that you are the ones that are wrong.

I don't think so.

Are you also afraid to discuss the CROSS's pagan uses?

The t-shaped cross is now an almost-universal symbol of Christ's crucifixion, and is not recognized as a pagan symbol anywhere that I can think of. OTOH, the triquetra hasn't been used too much for a long time, & the NKJV publishers were going by its last common usage as a CHRISTIAN symbol. saying that God detests it is mere GUESSWORK.

The whole triquetra issue is merely a KJVO ploy, started, as I said, by an unlearned KJVO author, Watkins, who was trying to find fault with the NKJV. It is without merit, and more than one of us has seen right through it. Now, while I CERTAINLY wouldn't try to link SF with Satan, he is a known KJVO and thus his views are shaped accordingly.

 

Well, so does the CROSS. the difference is, the cross is far more better-known. But its 'roots' are just as pagan as are those of the triquetra.

Actually, SF was telling only PART of the truth. Neither he nor I can show you any symbol used in Christianity that hasn't been used by pagans at one time or another. He just chose the triquetra to comment about, in order to take a shot at the NKJV. SF should really quit reading that Terry Watkins codwallop.

 

rsr,
Here is the link you gave for that tiger.

http://home.swbell.net/srsrsr/tiger2.GIF

type in the address and leave the tiger2.gif off of the Url. Click the two links on the page. It may surprise you that the page has two links to tarot readings

 

Diggin,

Look at the banner at the top of this page. Right now it has an advertizement for tarot readings.



Bro Tony

 

BTW--

No one called SFIC a liar. It was he and his wife who called me a liar. Then he said I inferred he was a liar because I said he had no credibility and believed in a man-made doctrine of KJVOism. Don't make a martyr where there is none. He was not called a liar for his stand against the symbol--he was called ill-informed and wrong but not a liar. His wife was shown to be a liar for what she said about me, not for the stand on the symbol issue. Let's keep the truth on this and not exaggerate the so called abuse SFIC supposedly took for his stand on this issue.

Bro Tony

 

Diggin -

I did as you instructed. All I saw was the linked info. No advertisements for anything else.

 

Me too. If you leave the tiger in the web address you get just a picture of a tiger. If you take the tiger and the rsrsrs of the web address you get a website for southwest bell. If you leave the rsrsrs on and delete the tiger you get a baptist page website with no ads. Primarily the main web page with this address is for southwestern bell, hardly a christian website. At any rate this whole thing brought up here is meaningless.

Bro Tony

 

errrrr no....

Standing firm’s “high ground”

Accusing those who disagree with him of blasphemy:

"Not gonna look at an occultic symbol and say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be seen in it. That is blasphemy."

Accusing those who disagree with him of being involved in occultic activities, of witchcraft and satanic:

“one cannot rightly look at that which is associated with the occult and say they see God in it.
My God is not in the symbols of witchcraft. My Lord is not in that which is satanic. My comforter is not in anything associated with evil.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of using pagan and satanic symbols, of being deceived, all while they are supposedly drinking alcohol;

"you can laugh and mock all you want. Go ahead and see God in the pagan and satanic symbols while drinking your alcohol.
I choose not to allow the devil to deceive me.”


Accusing those who disagree with him of being under the power of Satan:

“mk,

Yer right. The pagan and occultic symbols have no power over the child of God.
Which makes one wonder about...
Those who continue to insist that there is nothing occultic about those symbols and that they see the trinity in them.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of being spiritually blind:
“My blindness is physical, but I think a spiritual blindness to the objects of the occult is much worse.”

Casting doubt on the salvation of others for disagreeing with him:
“How can someone who claims to be of Christ carry around or wear a symbol that is used of satan?”

Accusing those who disagree with him of not following the word of God:
“Now, will you follow the Word of God and stop defending that which is pagan, the Triquestra?”

Accusing those who disagree with him of serving the devil, as if disagreeing with him is tantamount to disagreeing with God:
“Your attacking me for standing for the things of God and against the things of satan tell me who you really serve.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of being blinded by Satan:
“Satan really got you guys blinded.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of being ignorant and deceived:
“We are not to be ignorant of satans devices, and yet, so many are deceived to believe that that which is associated with satan can be used in God's church.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of being in the devil’s camp:
“So that takes it back once again to the devil's camp.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of drinking of the cup and table of devils, even though the passage he cited relates to the Lord’s Supper and has nothing to do with the subject at hand:
“1 Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
In using a cultic symbol identifying it as the trinity, one is indeed doing that.”

Accusing others of being liars:
“It is not I sir that has lied, but you.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of worshipping the triquestra:
"I do not worship the cross, but the Lord who died on the cross.
I do cherish the story of the crucifixion, but I do not worship the symbol of the crucifixion.”

Accusing those who disagree with him of not hearing God:
“It is a shame when people who claim to be of God turn their ears from hearing the truth.”

So don't give me any bunk about standing firm having the "high ground". Strong words have been used by all.

blessings,
Ken

 

The cross had roots in paganism far before Christians started using it... which, incidentally, they did not use it (the cross) until several hundred years after the death of Christ.

So you are falling into the same trap as standingfirm, one that is hypocritical and inconsistent. The very same reasons you use to try and eliminate the triquestra must also be used to eliminate the sign of the cross, or, if the cross is accepted even though it had pagan origins because of what it now represents to the Christian, then there is no reason that this same exact reasoning cannot be applied the triquestra.

fini

blessings,
Ken

 

ROFLOL!! right now, this is the very same advertisement that is appearing on this "baptist" page... so what...? now this entire site and all those who post here are guilty of delving into tarot reading and witchcraft....? please...

blessings,
Ken

 

People acting just like the Pharisees, attacking the messenger because they don't like the message.

Ken,

I read through the original posts and from what I see, ya cut and pasted to make it look like sfiC was in the wrong. I noticed ya did not post that he said many of the ones on here advocating the Triquetra are in the alcohol threads advocating alcohol, so I do not think that statement was a lie at all.

Ye shall know the tree by the fruit it bears.

Many of you on this thread are showing a far from christian attitude. Even if sfiC was wrong, you are no better than the ones who stoned Steven, than the ones who hung Christ on the cross.

Not one of you are without sin, so quit throwing stones at someone who is in Christ.

 

I alway find it peculiar that the personal pronoun is left out of posts as the one above.

The word "you" is used over and over again to call others to be careful not to attack others, and to accuse others of being no better than other sinners, and to remind others they are not without sin, so stop throwing stones.

Would it be better to use the word "we" in dealing with this matter of correction. Or does the originator of this post think that in writing the post against what others have said is not guilty of the same thing. The word hypocrisy comes to mind.

Bro Tony

 

Probably because that statement proves nothing. It is based on circular reasoning just like most the arguments against the Triquetra.

 

I alway find it peculiar that the personal pronoun is left out of posts as the one above.

The word "you" is used over and over again to call others to be careful not to attack others, and to accuse others of being no better than other sinners, and to remind others they are not without sin, so stop throwing stones.

Would it be better to use the word "we" in dealing with this matter of correction. Or does the originator of this post think that in writing the post against what others have said is not guilty of the same thing. The word hypocrisy comes to mind.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]No, it would not be proper to say we in the post I posted. I was not attacking sfiC, therefore, I had no need to include myself in that statement.

Am I saying I am sinless? No. But it is not I who was making slanderous remarks against a brother in Christ.

 

Probably because that statement proves nothing. It is based on circular reasoning just like most the arguments against the Triquetra. </font>[/QUOTE]

Even encyclopedias show the triquetra was a pagan symbol long before the christians brought it into their camp. How can man expect God to bless him when he makes excuses for holding onto that which God forbids, pagan symbology?

 

Nor was anyone else in this thread. There were no slanderous remarks about SFIC. He and his wife were the ones calling others liars with no basis in fact. I think you need to look past your agreement with his stand, which you are free to have, and read again what was said and in the context it was said. No one slandered SFIC.

And again to restate what I said to you as you apparently did not understand it. Before you start throwing the "you's" out there and say we are wrong for standing against what we feel is incorrect statements, and accuse us of being like those who stoned Stephen and crucified Jesus. You need to see your approach toward us is no different than what your accusing us of with SFIC. There is the hypocrisy.

Bro Tony

 

The same old tired argument over and over again. Are you implying that encyclopedias carry more authority than Scripture?

Also, you have misapplied Joshua 7:11 and used it out of context, it is not talking about pagan things, it is talking about items that were to be devoted for sacrifice to God. The Israelites were commanded not to take those items, but leave them for God.

Furthermore, it seems like the same arguments against the Trichetra could be used against the cross, do you condemn the cross as well?

And what about what I said about God telling Moses to fashion a bronze serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8) that healed those bitten by a snake? It is somehting that sounds much like the pagan Staff of Asclepius, which predates Moses.

 

Nor was anyone else in this thread. There were no slanderous remarks about SFIC. He and his wife were the ones calling others liars with no basis in fact. I think you need to look past your agreement with his stand, which you are free to have, and read again what was said and in the context it was said. No one slandered SFIC.

And again to restate what I said to you as you apparently did not understand it. Before you start throwing the "you's" out there and say we are wrong for standing against what we feel is incorrect statements, and accuse us of being like those who stoned Stephen and crucified Jesus. You need to see your approach toward us is no different than what your accusing us of with SFIC. There is the hypocrisy.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]There were no slanderous remarks about sfiC?

I see them all through the thread. Let me show you a few.

From yourself: Though you post a site--those speaking on that site have no more credibility than you. Not only that they too hold to a false man-made doctrine of KJVO. You accused sfic of foolishness. You accuse him of false accusations, which btw means he is a liar in politically correct terms.

Stating sfiC has no credibility is a slanderous remark. (I noticed you went back after sfiC called you on it, that you deleted it. Fortunately, I keep windows open, so I was able to retrieve it. You also quoted sfiC and forgot to remove your own quote from within his quote, so it is still there.)

ScottJ accused sfiC of being double minded and of making ludicrous claims that discredit sfiC. That sfiC's posts are instruments of satan... those are slanderous remarks.

shall I go on?

epistomaniac accused sfiC of being double minded and hypocritical. those are slanderous remarks.

Ransom accused sfiC of siding with pagans.

There are many more slanderous remarks, but I am sure you will deny the fact they were made.