Trinitarianism

Assuming biblical inspiration and inerrancy, trinitarianism is the only valid theology of God. Prove me wrong.

The doctrine of the trinity is defined in basic form:
>1. God is one
>2. The father is God
>3. The son is God
>4. The spirit is God

We distinguish between these categories with the terms "being" of God and "persons" of father, son and holy spirit. These are useful, but not necessary or biblical terms.

We are assuming inspiration and inerrancy for the sake of argument. The biblical material is taken as true and cohesive. It can't contradict itself, and other sources that contradict the bible are assumed to be false.

p1 is proven by the shema
p2 by the Lord's prayer
p3 by John 1
p4 by Acts 5

The trinity, being the only possible reconciliation of these 4 points, is thus proven.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >history and the world are finite
    >God isn't
    >somehow God can incarnate into history and the world and leave both intact

    Illogical. God cannot have a son

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dirk

      > God cannot have a son
      Proof?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The finite cannot host the infinite.
        We wouldn't be here if this incarnation had actually happened

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dirk

          >The finite cannot host the infinite.
          This maxim does not apply to the doctrine of the incarnation, it's about our mental capacity to understand an infinite being

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This maxim does not apply to the doctrine of the incarnation
            It does

            >it's about our mental capacity to understand an infinite being
            It's ridiculous to believe God can enter our world and then exit it without the world looking VERY different afterwards

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            You're wrong, but it doesn't matter. My argument supposed inspiration and inerrancy. I'm not trying to persuade you that the doctrine of the trinity is true, you're supposed to persuade me it's not biblical. You have not yet attempted this.

            That literally has nothing to do with what the maxim means.

            https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/divine-incomprehensibility-and-the-knowledge-of-god/

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not trying to convince you, you must convince me
            What a nice way to admit your laziness

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That article literally mentions nothing about the historical context of the maxim?? You're obviously wrong here.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That literally has nothing to do with what the maxim means.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The finite cannot host the infinite.
          It can if its finitude is a mere illusion.
          Docetists were rational.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          God can create a human's body, mind, and soul, but can't control a body and know a mind through his own soul? Nice trips satan, you're not tricking me.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >God cannot have a son.
      >God cannot (...)
      Automatically discarded

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >God can't interact with history

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >yeah bro, I saw God at the gas station the other day, he looked so fresh

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >God can’t have a son
      Are you God?
      Obviously no, so how do you know what God can and cannot do?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Are you God?
        >Obviously no, so how do you know what God can and cannot do?

        Oh shit, that means every single debate about theology that ever took place is utterly illegitimate, including everything the Church has ever said.
        Now that's a can of worms if I ever saw one

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dionysus-Priopos

          true but the point was gods omnipotence is a given then when arguing for what god WONT do you usually have to argue how it would go against perfect logic or perfect goodness. to just say he cant do something without explaining is inflammatory in any real debate

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >to just say he cant do something without explaining
            Welcome to IQfy

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Dirk

    >but israelites/moslems say
    Not an argument

    >but that sounds like something else
    Not an argument

    >but every analogy gets something wrong
    Not an argument

    >but I don't get it
    Not an argument

    >but my prophet (Ellen White, Joseph Smith) said
    Not an argument

    >but I hate God and love my sin
    Repent

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      jews/moslems say
      >NO THEY'RE WRONG BECAUSE... THEY JUST ARE, OKAY?????
      board standards for religious discussion are at an all time high i see

      • 2 weeks ago
        Dirk

        Who are you quoting

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i'm paraphrasing you, dummy!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Ok
            I said it's not an argument because the subject is biblical theology

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the tanach precedes and fathers the old testament
            i'll give you the muslim example but considering the injil is one of it's four scripts it's strange to dismiss their interpretations

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus: my father is greater than I

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dirk

      Eternal subordination of the son

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Incompatible with both being equally fully God and God being one. Either we have a hierarchica pantheon or no man should call Jesus God, Jesus is the son of God.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dirk

          >Incompatible with both being equally fully God and God being one.
          False

          17 Things Christians Don’t Understand About Their Own Trinity Doctrine

          1 The essence and existence of God.
          2 What the word God means.
          https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/the-nine-definitions-of-god/
          3 Where God is.
          4 What a person is. Mode, Activity, Attribute, Mask?
          5 What the distinction between nature and person is.
          6 Which version of the Trinity is the right one.
          7 What it means for the Son to be begotten of the Father.
          8 Whether the Trinity is 1 deity, 3 deities or four deities.
          9 What the word “one” means. Unity/pantheism, ADS, Cardinal singularity?
          10 Whether the divine essence is generic or numeric.
          11 What the hypostatic union is. One person with two natures? One person with two minds/souls?: “unspeakable” (Turretin Vol 2.13.7), “ineffable” (Constantinople 553, The Capitula of the Council VII, Cyril’s Second Letter to Succensus, para 3. See 20, McGuckin pg. 204-205 where Cyril also calls the union “inexpressibly united”) “a paradox” (McGukin, St. Cyril 154, 177, 185, 187, 191, 195, 201, 216, 221, Owen, Works I, p. 46[42]) or “transcends understanding.” (Cyril 1st Letter to Succensus para 6, McGuckin 239) The hypostatic construction is referred to as paradoxical (John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 154, 177, 185, 187, 191, 195, 201, 221). Paul Gavrilyuk in The Suffering of the Impassible God admits that predicating suffering of the Logos is a paradox (62-64, 134).
          12 How the Son could be forsaken of the Father seeing they are the same numeric being.
          13 How as the Council of Chalcedon says under the clause that the natures are without mixture yet not espouse Nestorius’ view?
          14 Is it one person in two natures or two natures in one person? (Constantinople 553, The Capitula of the Council VII – Chalcedon (Definition of Faith))

          You are invited to refute my position. You can make a new thread if you want someone to discuss your position.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have no position I just wish to understand yours better.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Asking Dirk to explain what he believes is a fruitless endeavor.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >subordination
        generation*

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Jesus is fully Man
      >God the Father is greater than Man
      >God the Father is greater than Jesus

      >Jesus is fully God
      >God is One
      >Jesus is One with God, as per John 10:30

      Both of these postulates are not incompatible for the hypostatic union of Jesus and God the Son

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But if X>Y then X & Y cannot both = Z
        Any defense of the trinity requires a retreat from any logical justification. It is incompatible with a Leibnizian God.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dirk

          Non sequitur
          One person can be greater than another in some sense and yet equal in others, and sharing the same being

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But Jesus is not supposed to be just partially God, neither is the Father. They are both fully God, we cannot reconcile this with that verse if one is lesser. Either go full Descartes and embrace the logical impossibility of the position or consider that the JWs have jt right on this question.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            >But Jesus is not supposed to be just partially God, neither is the Father. They are both fully God, we cannot reconcile this with that verse if one is lesser.
            We can, it's called eternal subordination

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thus God is not one or Jesus is not God. And only one of these is compatible with the first commandment.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Doesn't follow

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Think harder

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Assume I'm too dim. Can you point me to anything published that makes your argument, that eternal subordination amounts to arianism or polytheism? It's not a new concept

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is the trinity itself. Too many verses, like the afformentioned for example, pose logical problems like this. Either we can embrace an explicitly superlogical position like Descartes that God is above any logical law, He is the creator of mathematics and reality, not the subject of it. If God wants He can create impossible triangles and make 2+2=5. Arianism however is the only logically feasible position, because polytheism is out of the question.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            The doctrine as I have presented it finds no tension with the rules logic. You are not engaging, you're hand waving.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            Rules of

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >X (Jehovah)>Y(Jesus) then X & Y cannot both = Z(God)
            That is the main problem with the trinity. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for both being fully God. And if God is not a being but a property they share then that is plainly polytheistic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dirk

            >No biblical basis
            Engage with my 4 points and citations

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As I've already mentioned, you're using completely inappropriate operators here
            > Z = [W = X = Y]
            > Y = X
            > J = [Y ; j]
            because X lacks the imperfect j nature :
            > X > J

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay therefore, plainly J=/=Z. This is even more problematic for the Trinity than monophysitism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Except it's not
            The divine nature of Jesus graces him with divinity despite his human nature
            > infinity - 1 = infinity
            Only through a technicality can one demonstrate that Jesus is less great than the Father, because one can accurately point toward his limited human nature (break the formula into components, if you will); otherwise, Jesus is fully One with God, as He has stated Himself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Biblical God is not just the property of "divinity" that multiple beings can possess. That's barely any different from the Hindu conception of divinity. The Bible has one God and only one God, the Father, as Jesus himself straight up tells us.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Arianism logical
            Kek
            Anyways
            Hebrews 1:10-14
            The father says to the son the exact prayer to Jehovah from Psalm 102:25-27
            Not to mention John 1 showing that the word became flesh and that God was the word

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sons exist with their fathers in another sense long before they are begat, in many ways you begin life as one with your father.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m talking about the exact prayer to Jehovah being applied to Jesus
            Why is that?
            How did Jesus lay the foundations for the earth and so on and so on…
            These are attributed to Jehovah

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          More like X =/= Y and Z = Z
          Your own interpretation is heretical, as you consider Jesus as having a singular compound nature (Y)

          The finite cannot host the infinite.
          We wouldn't be here if this incarnation had actually happened

          This is wrong, otherwise mathematical representations of an infinite asymptote would not be possible
          Or do you deny that the concept of infinity can be held by physical object or representations?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Or do you deny that the concept of infinity can be held by physical object or representations?

            Show me an infinite row of apples, will you? Doesn't have to be in person, you can just upload a video

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >heretical
            Don't care

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >deny established christology
            >"nu-uh interpreting it that way doesn't make my argument work, so I don't care

            >Or do you deny that the concept of infinity can be held by physical object or representations?

            Show me an infinite row of apples, will you? Doesn't have to be in person, you can just upload a video

            any sort of positive function, but especially logarithmic ones, tend toward infinity
            > y=m/x
            >m is the available space for apples in reality in cm3
            >x is the average space taken by an apple in cm3
            >y is the number of apples observed in that situation
            >infinity / 104.5 cm3 = infinity

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >trust the christology! :O
            I think I will trust the Bible instead thanks you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The christology was established in the Bible
            >Matthew 28:19

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
            How is this an endorsement of Dyophysitism or even of the Trinity?
            Jesus even specifically commands us to not pray to the Son, but to the Father, in the name of the Son. That seems different to identifying with godhood or worship.
            >In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. (John 16:26–27)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because Jesus and the Father are One. How is it your brain is still unable to process that single verse?
            Any of the other verses in libro concerning divinity therefore treat divinity as an intrinsic and necessary nature of His existence.
            >John 14:6
            Jesus literally declares Himself Truth, Way and Life, quality only ascribed to God, and declares outright that none may reach the Father but through Him, the Son, united in substance as God
            If you'd argue against the Holy Spirit as part of the Trinity, you'd have more absence of evidence than you would for Jesus literally being fully God and Man

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How can they possibly be one if one is greater than there other?
            >quality only ascribed to God,
            By who? The recovering Pagans that came up with this nonsense?
            The Bible is crystal clear, the Father is God, and the only way to Him is through the Son.
            >If you'd argue against the Holy Spirit as part of the Trinity,
            The problem is the Trinity itself, who is part of it is an inapplicable question for this position because there is only one God. "God" is not a property that multiple beings have, He is the Father, Jehovah, the Almighty that Jesus appeals to us to worship alone throughout the Gospels

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Three persons (prosopon), one essence (homousion). I don't know where you get this "quality" bullshit, but it ain't in the trinitarian doctrin. Jesus shares in the essence of God through the person of God the Son in a divine nature (hypostasia), in union with his human nature.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay and that is literally Pagan philosophy mangled to fit the preconceived conclusion of the Trinity. It also relies on a complete bastardisation of what Aristotelian essence even is. Not biblical.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't rely on Aristotle at all. It relies on God's revelation of Himself on scripture, you rely on your own autonomous "reason". You represent the wisdom of the world.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God does not need confusion and sophistry to make the Truth known, that's why He gave us eyes to see and brains to think. If theology can't stand to reason then it is theology that cannot stand all, and the religion relying will wither.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God does not need confusion and sophistry to make the Truth known
            Amen, that is why your lies have nothing to do with Him.
            >If theology can't stand to reason
            But what you call "reason" is reason falsely so called, the false wisdom of the world which is a shadow of true wisdom, which is humble submission to the authority of God. Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? How will the creature decide he does not like what his creator has revealed and create an idol which is more pleasing to his mind's eye? Does that idol have any being outside his head? In the person of Jesus Christ is invested the whole treasury of wisdom and knowledge. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge, but the fool hates wisdom.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To know God is to have Knowledge of God. To worship what you do not know is what Jesus levied against the Samaritan woman. To know is to worship the Father.
            >21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the israelites. 23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >To worship what you do not know is what Jesus levied against the Samaritan woman.
            The Bible teaches us about the Trinity. Starting in Genesis 1:26 you can see the fact that God said, "Let us make man in our image," because that plural "our" refers directly to the Triune God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blatant polytheism, directly contradicts the 1st commandment and the actual Hebrews would have stoned anyone who interpreted it this way to death.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If I could be stoned to death over my belief in the Trinity, that would be a high honor that is accorded to the most faithful witnesses of God.

            In Acts we also see Peter cure the sick and the multitudes pour adoration onto him. Is Peter a god too?

            Acts 10:25-26
            "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
            But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man."

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus was also fully man. That doesn't mean Peter isn't God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We worship the Lord Jesus Christ, not a nature.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you don't worship God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say that...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What do all three of those persons have in common?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They are God

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right, as is Peter. Demonstrated by his performance of miracles and humility.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is there a point to this blasphemous shitposting, imbecile?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The only blasphemy here is polytheism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your arguments for the divinity of Jesus prove that Peter is divine

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the bible says Jesus is God
            >the bible says Peter is not God
            You're not very good at this

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            John 14:28

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>the bible says Jesus is God
            Show me chapter and verse

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You've been shown plenty

            John 14:28

            In context this is because the Father was on His throne in heaven while Jesus was upon the earth, hence, "If you loved me you would rejoice that I am returning to my Father, for the Father is greater than I".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You've been shown plenty
            I accept your concession
            >because the Father was on His throne in heaven while Jesus was upon the earth, hence
            If one is greater than the other then they are not equal

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I accept yours

            So Jesus was not fully God when he was on Earth?

            >whatever you say will be automatically wrong, and I will dishonestly twist it to sound as bad as possible even though I know that's not what you're saying
            There's a name for this, acting in bad faith. This is how atheists behave. Don't behave like an atheist.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not bad faith, you literally said that Jesus was less than his Father when he was on Earth. Explain what you mean or concede. Declaring bad faith to avoid having to engage with the argument is itself bad faith.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Explain what you mean or concede.
            No, my Lord commanded me not to cast pearls before swine.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then I accept your concession

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If Jesus was lesser than his Father while he was on Earth then how was he fully God?
            This is not some sly gotcha this is an obvious gaping hole in your theology.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            have you not had a job title equal with a coworker but acted in subordination out of respect? do you not see that he was feeling all the emotions of a human but was showing how to act perfectly? have you ever pushed the body to the point of begging it to keep going but it cant?

            do you think belief in the trinity is polytheistic yes or no?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay but you just described God and Jesus as modes of one being rather than two, one with authority over the other. Actual Trinitarianism makes more sense that what you are proposing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So Jesus was not fully God when he was on Earth?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mark 10:18
            Jesus says only God is good to a man calling him “good teacher”
            In John 10:11 and John 10:14
            Jesus calls himself “The good shepherd”

            But we cannot invoke the power of the Father expect through the Son

            Sons exist with their fathers in another sense long before they are begat, in many ways you begin life as one with your father.

            Why did Jesus say this?
            > 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
            Why the ἐγώ εἰμι? (I am)
            Same thing in John 8:58
            >before Abraham was, I am
            Why the ἐγώ εἰμι again?
            If Jesus was simply claiming to exist before Abraham he would say “I was”
            Using “I am” would imply he is uncreated, that’s why he was immediately stoned it was clearly a claim to be God

            Why is the son of man also Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) it is the Sabbath of Yahweh (20:10)

            Revelation 21:6-7
            God is the Alpha and the Omega
            Revelation 22:13
            Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega

            Now let me continue
            2 Samuel 22:29
            >For you are my lamp O Lord: The Lord shall enlighten my darkness
            So we can see here that the Lord is our lamp
            Isaiah 60:19-20
            > 19 No longer will you have the sun for light by day,
            >Nor will the moon give you light for brightness;
            >But you will have the Lord as an everlasting light,
            >And your God as your [a]glory.
            >20 Your sun will no longer set,
            >Nor will your moon wane;
            >For you will have the Lord as an
            everlasting light,
            >And the days of your mourning will be over.
            We will no longer have the sun for light by day, and the moon will not give us brightness
            Why? Because the Lord is our light and our lamp (based on the 2 passages)
            Now in Revelation 22
            > 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
            >24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth [a]will bring their glory into it.
            Here the city has no need for the sun or the moon to shine it (sounds familiar?)
            Why is that? Because the Lord is our light and our lamp. In this city, the Lamb it its lamp.
            The Lamb was its lamp that it didn’t need the sun and the moon
            Isn’t the Lamb the Lord?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"God" is not a property that multiple beings have
            Are you humanity, Anon?
            >Jesus appeals to us to worship alone
            Is it inappropriate to worship Jesus?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, "humanity" is a property we possess, there are billions with that property and no two are identical. But the Bible tells us there is only one God, not a species of them.
            >Is it inappropriate to worship Jesus?
            Yes, as Jesus explicitly says in Matthew 4:8-10. Satan himself tries fo tempt him with all the world if he would worship him. Jesus wisely tells him the truth, that there is only one God, his Father. The same chapter also explicitly defines Jesus as the Son of God and no being but the Father Jehovah as God.
            >8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
            >“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
            and him only shall you serve.’”

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Exactly, "humanity" is a property we possess, there are billions with that property and no two are identical. But the Bible tells us there is only one God, not a species of them.
            Your error is in conflating the infinite God with the creation. The point simply, which you have proven, is that being and person are not identical. You are human, but your humanity is not identical to your person. Just because you, the creature, only exist as one being in one person does not mean God is similarly limited. There is no contradiction implied by one being existing in three persons. We unequivocally deny that there is any more than one God. To assert that there was would be to deny the Trinity.
            >Jesus explicitly says in
            Jesus never said that.
            >Satan himself
            Satan is not Jesus
            >there is only one God, his Father
            Amen. His Father is the only true God, and so is He.
            Revelation 5:13
            >And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever."
            If it is inappropriate to worship the Son, why does all creation worship Him with the same worship they give the Father? "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and might, forever and ever". I will never treat a creature like that, may God strike me down if I ever do so. You are not a Christian, you are a pagan and an idolater, worshipping the strange gods of your own invention. You have never met Jesus Christ.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay but that’s starting to sound a lot like the deliberately superlogical Cartesian position that God can do the impossible. Which I’ve said from the start is valid.
            >Jesus never said that
            Jesus literally said that in the cited chapter and verse of Matthew
            >His Father is the only true God, and so is He
            >only
            >and
            Herein lies the contradiction,
            >If it is inappropriate to worship the Son, why does all creation worship Him with the same worship they give the Father
            The Bible explicitly tells us that we worship the Father through the Son, and indeed that this is the only salvation. But the Father is still the one true God, and Jesus is the Son of God.
            >Revelation 5:13
            And yet in Revelation 19:10 Jesus explicitly tells John not to worship him and to worship God.
            >And iI fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, jSee thou do it not: I am kthy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that lhave the testimony of Jesus: mworship God: for nthe testimony of Jesus is othe spirit of prophecy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay but that’s starting to sound a lot like the deliberately superlogical Cartesian position that God can do the impossible
            Descartes has nothing to do with anything I've said.
            >Which I’ve said from the start is valid.
            Your opinion is not relevant
            >Jesus literally said that in the cited chapter and verse of Matthew
            Where? Show me the very words where He said He is not to be worshipped
            >Herein lies the contradiction,
            There is no contradiction. The Father and the Son are one God.
            >The Bible explicitly tells us that we worship the Father through the Son
            Because they are one God. If you shower this praise on a creature (and you do, a creature of your own mind, since you deny the true God) you are an idolater. You stoke the wrath of God with your worship of the creation. Isaiah 42:8 "I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."
            >And yet in Revelation 19:10 Jesus explicitly tells John not to worship him and to worship God.
            That was not Jesus, it was a mere angel. You betray your own condemnation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Descartes has nothing to do with anything I've said.
            Read a book sometime, he’ll help you have a more defensible basis for your own position.
            >Show me the very words where He said He is not to be worshipped
            >Where? Show me the very words where He said He is not to be worshipped
            When Jesus rebukes Satan in that passage for offering that very thing from all the kingdoms of the world and that he worship him also. This is satanic on both counts, as there is only one God, and the same chapter tells us Jesus is His Son.
            >The Father and the Son are one God.
            Logically impossible given the scripture, as demonstrated.
            >Isaiah 42:8 "I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."
            Amen. Yes, exactly. The One and only God is Yahweh, the Father, and no other.
            >That was not Jesus, it was a mere angel. You betray your own condemnation.
            Where in the text does it say it was a mere angel? The voice from the throne is obviously the King of Kings. The whole narrative of Revelation to begin with is that all of this is what Jesus is showing to John.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Matthew 8:2-3
            "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
            And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed."

            Jesus accepted worship in the same Gospels.

            See also Luke 24 and Acts 20.

            "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
            And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
            And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen."
            (Luke 24:51-53)

            "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
            (Acts 20:28)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In Acts we also see Peter cure the sick and the multitudes pour adoration onto him. Is Peter a god too?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’re father has authority over you
      Does it mean you and your father aren’t equal in nature?
      You’re still both equally human
      You’re not less human because your human father has authority over you
      So the father has authority over the son, it doesn’t mean the son is less divine

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not in the bible.
    There, I refuted your argument.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    17 Things Christians Don’t Understand About Their Own Trinity Doctrine

    1 The essence and existence of God.
    2 What the word God means.
    https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/the-nine-definitions-of-god/
    3 Where God is.
    4 What a person is. Mode, Activity, Attribute, Mask?
    5 What the distinction between nature and person is.
    6 Which version of the Trinity is the right one.
    7 What it means for the Son to be begotten of the Father.
    8 Whether the Trinity is 1 deity, 3 deities or four deities.
    9 What the word “one” means. Unity/pantheism, ADS, Cardinal singularity?
    10 Whether the divine essence is generic or numeric.
    11 What the hypostatic union is. One person with two natures? One person with two minds/souls?: “unspeakable” (Turretin Vol 2.13.7), “ineffable” (Constantinople 553, The Capitula of the Council VII, Cyril’s Second Letter to Succensus, para 3. See 20, McGuckin pg. 204-205 where Cyril also calls the union “inexpressibly united”) “a paradox” (McGukin, St. Cyril 154, 177, 185, 187, 191, 195, 201, 216, 221, Owen, Works I, p. 46[42]) or “transcends understanding.” (Cyril 1st Letter to Succensus para 6, McGuckin 239) The hypostatic construction is referred to as paradoxical (John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 154, 177, 185, 187, 191, 195, 201, 221). Paul Gavrilyuk in The Suffering of the Impassible God admits that predicating suffering of the Logos is a paradox (62-64, 134).
    12 How the Son could be forsaken of the Father seeing they are the same numeric being.
    13 How as the Council of Chalcedon says under the clause that the natures are without mixture yet not espouse Nestorius’ view?
    14 Is it one person in two natures or two natures in one person? (Constantinople 553, The Capitula of the Council VII – Chalcedon (Definition of Faith))

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      15 How the Logos could be God, immutable and eternal and yet ontologically change to become man. John 1:14. Shedd says, “A theanthropic person is a Trinitarian person modified by union with a human nature” (Dogmatic Theology, Vol 2, 268)
      16 Trinitarians say they believe the humanity of Christ was Generic but then how can he be perfect God and perfect man, when he is perfect God generic man? So how do we distinguish the human nature of Messiah from a full human person? We can’t!
      17 The distinction between filiation and spiration.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      15 How the Logos could be God, immutable and eternal and yet ontologically change to become man. John 1:14. Shedd says, “A theanthropic person is a Trinitarian person modified by union with a human nature” (Dogmatic Theology, Vol 2, 268)
      16 Trinitarians say they believe the humanity of Christ was Generic but then how can he be perfect God and perfect man, when he is perfect God generic man? So how do we distinguish the human nature of Messiah from a full human person? We can’t!
      17 The distinction between filiation and spiration.

      Please note I wish nothing more than for a christian to satisfyingly address these points.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1 Thing Christians Don't Understand About Their Own Trinity Doctrine:
      > 1. The Trinity doctrine
      fixed it for you. the reason is that it does not make sense.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's not the doctrine of the Trinity.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is currently accepted that 1 John 5:7-8 was retroactively modified by the Church to shoehorn the dogma of the Trinity:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma
    The original verses state:

    "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one."

    This is the actual trinity.
    Spirit, Water and Blood

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We don’t need this verse to prove the trinity
      Let me ask you this
      Would it be blasphemy to baptize in the name of a person that is not God?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But we cannot invoke the power of the Father expect through the Son

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Answer me please
          Is it blasphemy to baptize in the name of someone other than God himself?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did John the Baptist baptise in the name of the Son? No, he baptised the Son.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But why did Jesus tell us to baptize in the name of the father, son and holy spirit
            Matthew 28:19

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because the only way to the Father is through the Son, who uses the Holy Spirit

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So? Baptism in the name of something other than God would still be idolatry

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Baptizing in the name of these 3 would be putting them on the same level

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then why does the Father come first?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He has authority over the son
            But why are they still in the same sentence?
            And please check the other passages mentioned

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Right because He’s God. Why wouldn’t they be in the same sentence?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine going through this amount of mental gymnastics just to believe some israeli sand god fan fic
    If you're white then you should be ashamed of yourself

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because dropping religion works so well, right?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we need to believe in israeli fairy tales.. because it just works okay!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we need to believe in israeli fairy tales.. because it just works okay!

      >Athiest troll
      Gentlemen, let us laugh at this fool, for he has come from leddit only to put out a childish insult to "epikly prank le thiests"

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Son of God" is in the Bible, "God the Son" isn't

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dirk

      He's God, and he's the son. John 1.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
      - Hebrews 1:8

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you love arguing about the trinity

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dirk is almost right but his schema does not exclude Modalism; a Modalist could affirm all 4. Properly, the doctrine of the Trinity is the convergence of three biblical doctrines
    >1. There is absolutely only on God
    >2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God
    >3. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally existed as distinct divine persons
    One cannot deny the Trinity without denying at least one of these points, and none of these points can be denied without denying biblical truth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For simplicity I removed a point saying the persons are not one another. I think it's implicit.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You think it's implicit and then Sabellius comes along and ruins your church

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why must all three have eternally existed? Why can't the Trinity be the Trinity if the Son was begotten at some point before his incarnation?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Arianism

        >Descartes has nothing to do with anything I've said.
        Read a book sometime, he’ll help you have a more defensible basis for your own position.
        >Show me the very words where He said He is not to be worshipped
        >Where? Show me the very words where He said He is not to be worshipped
        When Jesus rebukes Satan in that passage for offering that very thing from all the kingdoms of the world and that he worship him also. This is satanic on both counts, as there is only one God, and the same chapter tells us Jesus is His Son.
        >The Father and the Son are one God.
        Logically impossible given the scripture, as demonstrated.
        >Isaiah 42:8 "I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."
        Amen. Yes, exactly. The One and only God is Yahweh, the Father, and no other.
        >That was not Jesus, it was a mere angel. You betray your own condemnation.
        Where in the text does it say it was a mere angel? The voice from the throne is obviously the King of Kings. The whole narrative of Revelation to begin with is that all of this is what Jesus is showing to John.

        >Read a book sometime
        You should read a book too, it's called the bible. It will show you the actual truth
        >When Jesus rebukes Satan in that passage for offering that very thing from all the kingdoms of the world and that he worship him also.
        Satan is not Jesus. I will receive this as a concession that Jesus never rejected His own worship.
        >Jesus is His Son.
        Amen. The meaning of Son of God is not that He is some creature, that is the opposite, but He is called His Son because in eternity past the Son was begotten of the Father, true God of true God, as it is written, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God". It is ironic that your insistence that He be called Son is actually intended to deny that He is the Son of God.
        >Logically impossible given the scripture, as demonstrated.
        You have demonstrated nothing except your own autotheistic glorification of yourself as if your autonomous false "reason" could change the divine being. Who are you tricking?
        >Amen. Yes, exactly. The One and only God is Yahweh, the Father, and no other.
        I see that you, realizing yourself exposed, have dropped even the pretense of maintaining a debate and started simply declaring your heresy in its stead.
        >Where in the text does it say it was a mere angel?
        Repeatedly, including here.
        >The voice from the throne
        The voice from the throne is not the one speaking here, but even then the voice earlier does not seem to be the Son either, but an angel taking the role of chancellor.
        >The whole narrative of Revelation to begin with is that all of this is what Jesus is showing to John.
        No, Jesus ceases speaking to John after the letters to the churches in Asia. The rest of the revelation is his observation of the court of heaven.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Lord opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. Your spirit is not in tune with the Holy Spirit by manner of your prideful judgment of others. How then can you expect to understand the scriptures being separate from God's spirit? You cannot, you lean on the understanding of your religious traditions and commit the same failings as the hard hearted Pharisees and Sadducees. Only the Father knows the Son and only the Son knows the Father. Neither Jesus nor our Father is justified by anyone here. Why do you men ponder heavenly things when you aren't doing the earthly things asked of you? It is not for the pot to name and define the potter, only to put faith in His hands and plan. You show the fruit of the seeds of such doctrines which are division and condemnation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Amen

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Your spirit is not in tune with the Holy Spirit by manner of your prideful judgment of others
            There is no pride, sir, nor is the judgement my own. I am only a messenger.
            >You show the fruit of the seeds of such doctrines which are division and condemnation.
            Yes, these are the fruits of heresies. You cannot weasel your way out of condemnation for calumnying the true God and prostituting an idol. You will stand before that God one day and you will be called to answer for your actions. If you think I am harsh, you should consider how harsh it will be when your soul is cast into hell. Contemplate that, and repent.

            >Satan is not Jesus. I will receive this as a concession that Jesus never rejected His own worship.
            And the worship of the nations is owed to Jesus’ Father, as he said.
            >but He is called His Son because in eternity past the Son was begotten of the Father,
            Yes, the Logos is the first creation of God, before there was time, before there was light, before Abraham, there was the Word. God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. But we’re to believe a child can somehow be coexistent eternally with his own father? No, Jesus was begotten.
            >You have demonstrated nothing except your own autotheistic glorification of yourself as if your autonomous false "reason" could change the divine being.
            Okay and your authority on divine being does not need to be justified by reason apparently. Holy projection.
            >have dropped even the pretense of maintaining a debate and started simply declaring your heresy in its stead.
            I just said that verse from Isaiah is completely and utterly correct. What part do you disagree with? Did it not say that Yahweh is the one and only God and that we are forbidden to worship any other but Yahweh?

            >But we’re to believe a child can somehow be coexistent eternally with his own father?
            This shows how your "reason" by which you deny God is an illusion. As if the Son was begotten in a worldly sense, and as if the being of God was subject to time. Your pagan worldview does not even resemble the worldview of scripture.
            >Okay and your authority on divine being does not need to be justified by reason apparently
            That is correct, unlike you the God I speak of is not an invention of my own imagination, but everything I know of God I know through His revelation; my theology is justified by scripture alone.
            >I just said that verse from Isaiah is completely and utterly correct.
            Your disingenuous behavior is in the spirit of your master, the father of lies.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God is definitely not subject to time, it began with the first day when He created light and separated night from day. And before that He begat the Logos, His Son.
            >That is correct, unlike you the God I speak of is not an invention of my own imagination,
            The only God I tell you about is the God I know, the God of Adam, of Abraham, of Israel, of Joseph, of David and of Jesus and all his disciples. The Father.
            >Your disingenuous behavior is in the spirit of your master, the father of lies.
            Isaiah: I am Yahweh, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
            What part of this did I misrepresent?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The only God I tell you about is the God I know, the God of Adam, of Abraham, of Israel, of Joseph, of David and of Jesus and all his disciples
            You have denied this God.
            >What part of this did I misrepresent?
            The entirety.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, I accept yours.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You show the fruit of the seeds of such doctrines which are division and condemnation.
            Luke 12:51
            "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:"

            Second Timothy 2:15
            "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

            >It is not for the pot to name and define the potter, only to put faith in His hands and plan.
            And to do what God says, which is to separate from heresy. Don't believe me? Look at what it says here:

            "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
            For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."
            (Romans 16:17-18)

            "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
            Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
            And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
            (First John 4:1-3)

            "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
            (2 Thess. 3:6)

            "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
            He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
            Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
            (First Timothy 6:3-5)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Satan is not Jesus. I will receive this as a concession that Jesus never rejected His own worship.
          And the worship of the nations is owed to Jesus’ Father, as he said.
          >but He is called His Son because in eternity past the Son was begotten of the Father,
          Yes, the Logos is the first creation of God, before there was time, before there was light, before Abraham, there was the Word. God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. But we’re to believe a child can somehow be coexistent eternally with his own father? No, Jesus was begotten.
          >You have demonstrated nothing except your own autotheistic glorification of yourself as if your autonomous false "reason" could change the divine being.
          Okay and your authority on divine being does not need to be justified by reason apparently. Holy projection.
          >have dropped even the pretense of maintaining a debate and started simply declaring your heresy in its stead.
          I just said that verse from Isaiah is completely and utterly correct. What part do you disagree with? Did it not say that Yahweh is the one and only God and that we are forbidden to worship any other but Yahweh?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Word is eternally pre-existent, and many verses in the Bible prove that fact. John 1:1, John 17:5. Old Testament verses even prove it, such as Isaiah 63:16 and Micah 5:2 (KJV). The Son is eternally pre-existent, and eternally the only begotten Son of God.

            "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
            (Hebrews 13:8)

            "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
            (John 17:5)

            It doesn't say, "at the creation of the world." It says "before the world was." Meaning the eternally pre-existent Word of God, a co-equal Person of the Holy Trinity.

            "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
            (Micah 5:2)

            Notice what it says. "From everlasting." Again, it points to the fact that the Son is eternally begotten and eternally pre-existent.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay but you misunderstand what the Arian position actually is. All of those verses make reference to Jesus existing before time and before creation, which everyone agrees with, even super-mega-heretics like Mormons that go much farther than the real Arianus.
            >before the world was." Meaning the eternally pre-existent Word of God,
            How did you interpret one from the other? The history of God the father has no beginnng, on the First day He had already been eternally. Jesus, on the other hand is his begotten son. A son is necessarily causally posterior to his father and what is begotten had a time when it was begat. There is no way to square Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus having no beginning, while still claiming to represent logical comprehensible theology. There is a good reason the official Catholic stance on the Trinity is that it is a divine mystery. But for some reason Trinitarians on IQfy don't like that defense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >All of those verses make reference to Jesus existing before time and before creation
            Jesus does not exist before creation unless He is uncreated. This is true by definition.
            >The history of God the father has no beginnng
            And according to the verses he quoted, neither does God the Son
            >A son is necessarily causally posterior to his father and what is begotten had a time when it was begat
            And now you are contradicting yourself when you said "He existed before time". Which is it? Did the Son exist before time, or was there a time when the Son began to exist?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus does not exist before creation unless He is uncreated.
            Why, is there a limit on the power of the almighty? On the first day God separated night from day and thus was the beginning of time and creation. The Logos was already begotten before that, by his Father, to whom Jesus tells us we owe everything. I do not see why nothing, not even the Logos, may have a history before the first day when we all take it as self evident that the Father does.
            >neither does God the Son
            A son that was never begat is itself a contradiction in terms. The only way to reconcile this is by recognising that the Logos was begat before time. And for the love of God, do not wheel out some oxymoron like "eternally begat".
            >He existed before time". Which is it? Did the Son exist before time, or was there a time when the Son began to exist?
            Was there a minute or an hour or a day? No, but between a Father and a Son there is a necesaary causal dependency. One has to be anterior to the other. Otherwise Jesus is only the "son of God" in a purely metaphorical sense which is flat out unbiblical

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why, is there a limit on the power of the almighty?
            Again, the irony is overwhelming. Your sole argument is the false accusation that the Trinity is illogical yet you now defend the concept of true contradictions. The answer is that laws of logic do not represent a limitation on God, but His freedom, since He is the source thereof.
            >On the first day God separated night from day and thus was the beginning of time and creation.
            By definition the beginning of creation would be the first creation. By calling the Son a creature you put Him in the category of creation and deny He preexists it like those scriptures teach.
            >A son that was never begat is itself a contradiction in terms
            He was begotten, not made.
            >The only way to reconcile this is by recognising that the Logos was begat before time. And for the love of God, do not wheel out some oxymoron like "eternally begat".
            You are contradicting yourself again. But yes, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The truth does not care that it offends you.
            >Was there a minute or an hour or a day?
            There must have been a unit of time if there was time, but the specific units are irrelevant. Either Jesus existed before time, or Jesus began to exist in time. They cannot both be true.
            >Otherwise Jesus is only the "son of God" in a purely metaphorical sense
            No, He is the Son of God in the exact sense scripture uses the term.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already said from the jump the defence that the trinity is an article of faith beyond mortal comprehension is acceptable, because ultimately it makes about as much sense as a triangle from 3 obtuse angles or a square circle. And for all I know God could create a square circle. But the charade that it can somehow be squared with logic is a trap that calls to the ego and we see it in every thread where Trinitarians wind up making arguments that are a million times more heretical than anything Arius said.
            >By definition the beginning of creation would be the first creation.
            Only in Genesis 2 the first day begins with God separating night from day when He created light. Light is not the first thing God makes in Genesis 1. Before that He created the Heavens and the Earth. Are the Heavens and the Earth therefore uncreated also because there was not yet any such thing as time?
            >He was begotten, not made.
            And to be begotten is to begin. God made Adam from dust but he begat the Logos as his Son, before time. It’s the difference between the wares of the potter to his son and apprentice.
            >But yes, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
            If there was never a stage where the Father existed but the Son didn’t then that is not to be begotten. Plus, even this oxymoron merely sidesteps the obvious that the Son is still contingent on the Father even in these terms. How can we say a contingent being is just as much the One True God as a non-contingent being? When Jesus himself tells us his Father is greater than he? At every stage Jesus credits God, his Father, for everything and instructs us to do so too.
            >. Either Jesus existed before time, or Jesus began to exist in time. They cannot both be true.
            Again, literally just read the first verse, of the first chapter, of the first book, to see even Earthly creation began before time did.
            >No, He is the Son of God in the exact sense scripture uses the term.
            Amen

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I already said from the jump the defence that the trinity is an article of faith beyond mortal comprehension is acceptable
            I am entirely unconcerned with what you consider acceptable, sir.
            >Light is not the first thing God makes in Genesis 1
            Yes it is, but I don't see the relevance.
            >Before that He created the Heavens and the Earth. Are the Heavens and the Earth therefore uncreated also because there was not yet any such thing as time?
            Verse 1 is a preface that summarizes what the rest of the passage describes. However, this sophistry is not relevant to your self-contradiction. If something was created outside of time it would be erroneous to speak of the point in time in which it began, and if something was created it would not be correct to describe it as being older than creation.
            >And to be begotten is to begin
            That is not the meaning of the word, no.
            >If there was never a stage where the Father existed but the Son didn’t then that is not to be begotten
            Yes it is. You are spinning in circles sir, you have run out of arguments.
            >Plus, even this oxymoron merely sidesteps the obvious that the Son is still contingent on the Father even in these terms.
            No, the Son is not contingent because God exists as Trinity by nature.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I am entirely unconcerned with what you consider acceptable, sir.
            More power to you. But what I’m telling you is that you impale yourself by trying to get your feet on both sides of the fence on this. Either the trinity is logically comprehensible or it is not, and the position of even any serious Trinitarian church is that it isn’t. It’s futile to try and rationally justify the Trinity with one side of your mouth and appeal to the divine mysteries of God with the other.
            >Yes it is, but I don't see the relevance.
            The relevance was explained to you. Genesis 2 says time began when God created light, Genesis 1 tells us light is not the first or even second thing He created. Thus it is not necessary that time begins with the first thing generated by God (the Logos) when the Bible already tells us time didn’t even begin with the first thing created on Earth.
            >Verse 1 is a preface that summarizes what the rest of the passage describes.
            So how come in verse 1 the Earth is covered in complete darkness if this verse is not chronologically before verse 2 when God creates light? Unless, it’s not a summary (which would explain why it says utterly nothing about the rest of Genesis) but the immediate anterior event to Genesis 2, which directly narratively follows from it.
            >That is not the meaning of the word, no.
            What does begotten mean then, brother?
            >No, the Son is not contingent
            He was begotten but not contingent? You are not even convinced by that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            i rationalized it homosexual. try again

            the trinity should be understood as a method of understanding god. in the vein of Krishna having different faces (depending on where your standing) god has 3 aspects of his being that are hard to reconcile but are no less made 1 in him.

            an easy way of thinking about it is

            god the father=the pleroma/Buddhist nothingness/ the amalgamation of the platonic forms

            god the son= the will/self/logic of the 'body" that is god the father (refer to description of him)

            the holy spirit= the part of god that resides in me and you and the world around us. you could think of this in a panpsychic way or as gods action (in the vein of your legacy is a part of you)

            the trinity as a conception is meant to aid your relationship with god and should be taken as such given it does a pretty good job of conveying what the eternal firmament to existence would be like. the mind comes from the body but has always been with it etc

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What you described in that post is modalism. That’s not any more Trinitarian than Arianism is.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no way to square Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus having no beginning, while still claiming to represent logical comprehensible theology.
            It is immensely ironic how you continually claim the Trinity is illogical (when you really mean it does not please your creaturely mind), while being unable to find a single contradiction in it, and yet have just contradicted yourself by claiming Jesus is eternal and Jesus is temporal and created.
            Once more, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. This relation is logical and not temporal, and is not causal. That is, the Son is not begotten of the Father by His will (which would be creation, and therefore contradictory as God is uncreated by definition) but by nature, and it is the nature of God to exist as Trinity. Far from being "no way to square it", we have "squared it" since ancient times.
            >There is a good reason the official Catholic stance on the Trinity is that it is a divine mystery. But for some reason Trinitarians on IQfy don't like that defense.
            That is not a defense, nor does its status as mystery mean there is some unresolved contradiction in the doctrine, but refers to the inability of a creature to comprehend God's being as he comprehends his own (this limitation of the creaturely mind is what you errantly call illogic). At the end of the day the question is do you believe the bible? The answer of the heretics is no, but my conscience is held captive by the word of God. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity because I believe what the bible says, I can do no other.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That is, the Son is not begotten of the Father by His will (which would be creation, and therefore contradictory as God is uncreated by definition) but by nature, and it is the nature of God to exist as Trinity.
            So let me get this straight, you believe there is a higher natural order to which God Himself is subordinate and that there is anything whatsoever that happens outside His will? Brother, ask yourself who is the real heretic here? I''m becoming increasingly convinced that Trinitarianism was unironically invented by Satan t warp our adoration of Christ the King into blatantly defying the most basic law God gave us, the 1st commandment.
            >nor does its status as mystery mean there is some unresolved contradiction in the doctrine,
            The contradictions are numerous. How can 3 persons be 1? How can a being be fully God while having another nature that is not God at all? How do we define "God" in a way that isn't exclusively pertinant to the Father (the Biblical God) without degenerating into a polytheistic pantheon where "God" is merely a category shared by 3 beings like a species. And why is any of this necessary in the first place? What happened to just doing what Jesus, Moses, all the prophets and all the disciples tell us: worshipping the Father?
            The only way to accept the Trinity is as an article of faith. And the Bible tells us not to worship what we do not know, but what we know. That it is the cold hard truth that will set us free.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So let me get this straight, you believe there is a higher natural order to which God Himself is subordinate and that there is anything whatsoever that happens outside His will?
            No.
            >Brother, ask yourself who is the real heretic here?
            That would be the fool who is denying the biblical God in favor of the idol he made in his head.
            >How can 3 persons be 1?
            The problem with strawman arguments is that refuting a misrepresentation has no implications about the genuine article.
            >How can a being be fully God while having another nature that is not God at all?
            The hypostatic union is not the Trinity, this is a red herring.
            >How do we define "God" in a way that isn't exclusively pertinant to the Father (the Biblical God) without degenerating into a polytheistic pantheon where "God" is merely a category shared by 3 beings like a species.
            This erroneous question has been refuted at length in this thread.
            >And why is any of this necessary in the first place?
            Because this is the God who revealed Himself to us. It is our absolute duty to submit to the true God, to worship Him alone, and to reject false gods.
            >What happened to just doing what Jesus, Moses, all the prophets and all the disciples tell us: worshipping the Father?
            It is important to note that your false god is not the Father. The Father does not exist apart from the Son and Spirit, for they are one God. Whoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father also. The false god you preach is found nowhere in scripture and was not known to any of the prophets. Moses ordered that you would be put to death for preaching other gods which we have not known, so far was he from encouraging worship of this idol.
            >The only way to accept the Trinity is as an article of faith.
            Amen.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No
            So how then can the Son be begat of the Father independently of His will?
            >That would be the fool who is denying the biblical God in favor of the idol he made in his head.
            The only God I’m telling you about is the one God of Israel, YHWH, our Father in Heaven, who so loved the world He sent His only begotten Son so that whoever believed in him would not die but have eternal life. The Bible could not be more clear, there is only one God.
            >The problem with strawman arguments is that refuting a misrepresentation has no implications about the genuine article.
            Does the genuine article of Trinitarian Christianity not say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 persons?
            >The hypostatic union is not the Trinity, this is a red herring
            Yeah, that’s true. But it has still been central to many of the Trinitarian apologetics presented ITT.
            >It is our absolute duty to submit to the true God, to worship Him alone, and to reject false gods.
            Amen.
            >Whoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father also.
            The Son says his Father is greater than He. To deny the Son is to make him into an idol.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Repeatedly, including here.
          No it does not.
          >The voice from the throne is not the one speaking here
          Only it is. And we can be certain the voice speaking is supposed to be Jesus as he commands John to write down what he is about to say, this is commanded of John exactly 12 times throughout revelations and every time it is Jesus speaking.
          > No, Jesus ceases speaking to John after the letters to the churches in Asia. The rest of the revelation is his observation of the court of heaven.
          Literally everything that happens in the text is shown to John by Jesus, Revelations opens with Jesus telling John what he is about to see and it ends with Jesus telling John what he must do. Even the very first verse tells us that this is what John swears to be the testimony of Jesus.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No it does not.
            Yes, it doss
            >Only it is
            That is a stellar argument sir, it is much the same quality as your other ones.
            >Literally everything that happens in the text is shown to John by Jesus
            Could you show me where the text says this?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, it doss
            Show me in the text
            >That is a stellar argument sir, it is much the same quality as your other ones.
            When you show me any textual evidence for your assertion the voice is a mere angel then that warrants a counter-argument. And I like how you decided to just ignore the actual textual argument presented for this being Jesus.
            >Could you show me where the text says this?
            Literally Revelations 1:1
            >The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Show me in the text
            It identifies itself as a servant.
            >the actual textual argument presented
            There was none
            >Literally Revelations 1:1
            As expected, it does not say this. Nor could anyone claim that everyone who speaks to John in Revelation is Jesus (let alone anyone who speaks at all), as Revelation 10:9 for instance is not Jesus. But I could not help but notice how your own text refuted you, as it explicitly says Jesus sent an angel to guide John through his visions.

            >eternally begotten
            >eternal generation
            >eternal Son
            Does no one realize these are contradictions in therms?

            They aren't

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >identifies itself as a servant
            Like… Jesus?
            >There was none
            Even you know that’s not true because you have eyes to read with.
            >As expected, it does not say this
            “John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
            What is unclear?

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >3=1

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dirk

      Who are you quoting?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Your insecurity

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dirk

          Citation?

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If Jesus always existed then what does “begotten”’ mean?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Eternal generation

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is that a spell like in Harry Potter only it makes theological contradictions disappear?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What contradiction?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus is referred to over and over again in the Old Testament, it is of Orthodox understanding that when God was walking in the garden of Eden it was Christ Himself.

      Not only this, but if we go further, His hands likely already had the holes from the crucifixion when he walked beside Adam.

      The human concepts of time, "before and after" and "always" don't apply to God.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >eternally begotten
    >eternal generation
    >eternal Son
    Does no one realize these are contradictions in therms?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      terms*

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're asking rhetorically because you know that you're being disingenuous

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You're asking rhetorically because you know that you're being disingenuous
        That's what you'd like to believe.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >wordplay
    Not interested, not impressed.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Dionysus-Priopos

    the trinity should be understood as a method of understanding god. in the vein of Krishna having different faces (depending on where your standing) god has 3 aspects of his being that are hard to reconcile but are no less made 1 in him.

    an easy way of thinking about it is

    god the father=the pleroma/Buddhist nothingness/ the amalgamation of the platonic forms

    god the son= the will/self/logic of the 'body" that is god the father (refer to description of him)

    the holy spirit= the part of god that resides in me and you and the world around us. you could think of this in a panpsychic way or as gods action (in the vein of your legacy is a part of you)

    the trinity as a conception is meant to aid your relationship with god and should be taken as such given it does a pretty good job of conveying what the eternal firmament to existence would be like. the mind comes from the body but has always been with it etc

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nope, trinitarians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and not 3 aspects of a single being. They only share the same substance. If it were 3 aspects of the same being rather than distinct then you are not describing trinity.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Dionysus-Priopos

        What you described in that post is modalism. That’s not any more Trinitarian than Arianism is.

        okay, im dealing with my fellow autist. what does that mean? if all 3 still have the same root then they are a 3 headed person meat to be understood as a whole. the question of root vs substance vs being is pedantic and only intended to create a mystery cult or discord.if your asking can the mind move without the body? yes. i hope your not ascribing polytheism to trinitarian thought because that would show you dont know wtf your talking about and are creating strawmen to save face after getting rekt

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What you are describing is not trinitarianism, it’s modalistic monarchianism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            what im describing is an explanation for a description of god. your saying that this is the description where, by virtue of its being, reason end and its is supposed to be taken as a divine mystery? does what your saying im describing use the iconography of the trinity? if so what makes your strawman the "right" interpretation that just so happens to let you dismiss it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you just described a Unitarian conception of God. You do not know what the Trinity actually is, this is not defending that idea.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            no i know perfectly well what your saying. im a few IQ points up in the argument.

            there exist the symbol of the trinity to define the eternal.

            there exist a way its meant to be understood (from gods opinion)

            im positing the way it should be understood. and i dont give a frick what some 400 ad fedora gay (who had to say he believed in god or be executed) had to say on the issue

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >im positing the way it should be understood. and i dont give a frick what some 400 ad fedora gay (who had to say he believed in god or be executed) had to say on the issue
            What those 400 ad fedora gays had to say on the issue is what became the doctrine of the trinity. Making up some fanfiction about what God means to you does not mean it has anything to do with the actual doctrine of the trinity which has existed for over a thousand years at this point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            and they believe that it is an accurate way of understanding god and how he interacts with the world. there is a reason its the holy spirit that causes the immaculate conception and not god the father. your pretending a trinitarian understanding of the eternal is somehow secretly polytheistic instead of understanding that tho we are apart of everything we do not always align to the will of god (tho we will all submit eventually) and so exist distinctness. within god is 3 distinct modes of being that are a result of self. we give them names to better understand that idea in the eternal sense with observed reality providing the names of jesus, god the father and the holy spirit plus the prequisite stories behind them.

            to tie that all up the reason is it was the holy spirit to impregrante mary way because that is gods divine action (in the sense that god chose logic through action and he is inheritly above it). the stories around the relationship between the trinity is meant to show how god orients himself in mind, form and action towards us and himself.

            you read some memes and you thought you knew an ideology enough to strawman it good try tho

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Trinitarianism makes sense because [Unitarian theology that even the most radical reformers would have burned you at the stake for]
            Are you for real?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            your arguing from the position of some random dude at a very specific time who would kill you for calling polytheistic. im arguing again that the trinity is a fundamentally sound way of conceptualizing god as as long as you retain some commonality between them WHICH ALL FORMS OF TRINITARIAN THOUGHT DO

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            which if you think about it is kinda cool. a monastic conception is hard to get around the whole just finding peace with self and stagnation. a dualistic god is either lame or impotent but a god who manifest in three ways might be lit

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            but then your reminded god can choose to present himself in eternaly different but full ways and this is just the beginning of what eternity would offer as far as a relationship with god would go

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >trinity is a fundamentally sound way of conceptualizing god
            Your own post proves that it is not sound because your explanation of it here

            and they believe that it is an accurate way of understanding god and how he interacts with the world. there is a reason its the holy spirit that causes the immaculate conception and not god the father. your pretending a trinitarian understanding of the eternal is somehow secretly polytheistic instead of understanding that tho we are apart of everything we do not always align to the will of god (tho we will all submit eventually) and so exist distinctness. within god is 3 distinct modes of being that are a result of self. we give them names to better understand that idea in the eternal sense with observed reality providing the names of jesus, god the father and the holy spirit plus the prequisite stories behind them.

            to tie that all up the reason is it was the holy spirit to impregrante mary way because that is gods divine action (in the sense that god chose logic through action and he is inheritly above it). the stories around the relationship between the trinity is meant to show how god orients himself in mind, form and action towards us and himself.

            you read some memes and you thought you knew an ideology enough to strawman it good try tho

            completely contradicts its definition. Defining the persons of the trinity as different modes of one being goes AGAINST the doctrine of the trinity. You are arguing that God is one person with three modes or aspects. The trinitarian position is three distinct persons sharing one substance. You are presenting a modalist argument which is a unitarian position.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            im saying the difference is immaterial. can the hand act without the mind, we surely act against gods will and the fullness of gods being can be expressed fully in different forms with different selves being attached to the different but co-equal forms and do so for eternity as part of their nature. the 2 ideologies your defining's debate comes to a close when you realize the eternal truth of both opinions and there limitations as just words

            your trying to play word games while im trying to understand god, you feel the difference?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The difference is not immaterial just because you say it is. The difference is ultimately fundamental. Your interpretation of God creates such foolishness as Jesus praying to himself and sacrificing himself to atone to himself. It makes his sacrifice utterly pointless and arbitrary because he is the one who demands the sacrifice and he is the one making the payment. It makes God into a liar, a conman, a schizo, rather than the relationship between three eternal persons.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Man, you are literally a Unitarian. The only problem here is your insistence on using the term “trinity” despite having utterly departed from any established theological meaning of the term. This is like when Mormons call their pantheon a “trinity”

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay just as long as you know you’re just as much of a heretic as I am and that the actual Trinitarian position is that it is most definitely not merely symbolic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            jesus christ stfu about heretics.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Modalistic monarchism
            That sounds like a reddit /misc/ schizo political compass ideology embraced by 1 or 2 edgy internet contrarians

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dionysus-Priopos

      its to easy

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The Father is greater than the Son
    >BUT THEY ARE ALSO 100% FULLY EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN EVERY WAY
    yeah ok bro

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’re father is greater than you in authority
      Are you less human than him?
      Are you not equal to him in your nature?

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Redpill: the square: The Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and of course Peter.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and of course Peter.
      aka the Rock

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is Arianism the new IQfy orthodoxy?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The new IQfy atheist LARP

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don’t know, it seems like the antitrinitarians ITT are the ones that have actually read the Bible.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >bible verses are all posted by Trinitarians (aka Christians)
          >antichrist posts are all rationalistic arguments about why those verses have to be wrong
          Ok, mr. bait friend

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah and now they're just gaslighting the thread by stating things opposite to these facts, because that's the only thing left they have when all else fails.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            notice how these gays arguing for "true" trinitarian thought wont answer if they think its polytheistic or not? its because they are athiest thinking they have hit a logical inconsistency in a supposedly monotheistic system but know if they outright say that its polytheistic then they will be exposed as fedora gays. ignore them

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s obvious monotheistic
            The Father is God
            The Son is God
            The Holy Spirit is God
            So how many Gods are there?
            1

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the Trinity is polytheistic. Even more polytheistic than believing God had a demigod son that was an entirely different being and substance.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A multi-personal God was in the OT as well (Genesis 1:26)
            >Let US make man in our image
            In Genesis 3:5 Elohim(plural is used)
            In Genesis 16
            > The angel of the Lord also said to her, “I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.
            We have the angel of YHWH telling Hagar he will multiply her descendants
            In verse 13
            > 13 Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, “[l]You are [m]a God who sees me”; for she said, “Have I even seen Him here and lived after [n]He saw me?”
            Hagar calls the Lord who SPOKE to her

            In Exodus 3
            > 2 Then the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not being consumed.
            So the Angel of the Lord appeared from the midst of the bush
            > 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
            God is calling from the midst of the bush
            This shows that the Angel of the Lord is the Lord himself
            >Bbbut…God is speaking through the angel
            Inconsistent, verse 16
            > The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has appeared to me,
            Verse 16 claims the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob appeared to Moses
            Verse 2 claims the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Genesis 31:12-13
            How is the Angel of the Lord the God of Bethel?
            Bethel means House of God
            If the Angel of the Lord isn’t God this would be blasphemy

            In Genesis 1:1-2
            The Spirit of God was hovering over the the surface of the waters, in the beginning
            Job 33:4
            >The Spirit of God has made me
            This shows a multipersonal God in the OT
            But it’s still 1 God

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Mark 10:18
          Jesus says only God is good to a man calling him “good teacher”
          In John 10:11 and John 10:14
          Jesus calls himself “The good shepherd”

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember that Jehova's Witnesses was found by the Freemason Charles Taze Russell

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one is talking about JWs here, schizo

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        JW's are one of the primary groups of "Christians" that argues against Trinitarianism.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ad homineming some group no one here cares about doesn't make the trinity doctrine any less moronic

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why did Jesus say this?
            > 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
            Why the ἐγώ εἰμι? (I am)
            Same thing in John 8:58
            >before Abraham was, I am
            Why the ἐγώ εἰμι again?
            If Jesus was simply claiming to exist before Abraham he would say “I was”
            Using “I am” would imply he is uncreated, that’s why he was immediately stoned it was clearly a claim to be God

            Why is the son of man also Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) it is the Sabbath of Yahweh (20:10)

            Revelation 21:6-7
            God is the Alpha and the Omega
            Revelation 22:13
            Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isaiah 42:15
    > 25 “I, I alone, am the one who wipes out your wrongdoings for My own sake,
    >And I will not remember your sins.
    How did Jesus forgive sins in the NT?

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trinity would have made much more sense if it was in the form of modalism. Someone prove me wrong.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can't, you're right.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dionysus-Priopos

      there is no difference. both interpretations of a limited symbol does a good job of describing the eternal being and has no contradiction as long as you accept the struggle of human logic to make 2 truths align.

      god can exist simultaneously as different co equal selves AND different modes of being. its not polytheistic to appreciate that of his character and its evil to try and play these word games, spreading discord

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >god can exist simultaneously as different co equal selves AND different modes of being
        He literally cannot because modes explicitly means it is one being and the doctrine of trinity explicitly states that they are distinct persons and not modes of one.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dionysus-Priopos

          who tf are you to say what god can do? it just doesn't fit in your autistic paradigm of appealing to authority so it sounds foreign

          If the vast majority of God's own followers aren't even able to properly understand who they pray to is, then God has done a bad job of revealing himself to the world. And because God can't do a bad job of anything, that implies Christianity to be false.

          And don't say "oh but we aren't able to fully grasp the complexity of God". That's cope and you know it.

          you were one of those kids who pretended to be dumb to make your parents mad and get a LITTLE power over them? dang, pretended so long you actually became a dunce

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God is all-powerful but restricted to what's logical. Like the whole "God can't make a rock that's too heavy for him to lift, or make a square circle". God can't do literally everything because some things are illogical. The Trinity can't simultaneously be modes of God and persons of God. As the other anon said, they contradict each other, making it illogical. The orthodox teaching is that there are three persons in the Godhead, but I say modalism would've made more sense as God can't be three persons who have their own personalities and minds yet also still one god - it just doesn't make sense.

            Or are you one of those who reject the traditional teachings of Christianity. If you are I think you're moronic. Because now you'd be telling me God got his whole religion wrong for 2000 years or so.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >who tf are you to say what god can do?
            Someone who god granted the ability to reason, unlike you apparently

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            God is all-powerful but restricted to what's logical. Like the whole "God can't make a rock that's too heavy for him to lift, or make a square circle". God can't do literally everything because some things are illogical. The Trinity can't simultaneously be modes of God and persons of God. As the other anon said, they contradict each other, making it illogical. The orthodox teaching is that there are three persons in the Godhead, but I say modalism would've made more sense as God can't be three persons who have their own personalities and minds yet also still one god - it just doesn't make sense.

            Or are you one of those who reject the traditional teachings of Christianity. If you are I think you're moronic. Because now you'd be telling me God got his whole religion wrong for 2000 years or so.

            your an idiot dude. there is no logical contradictions between modalism and trinitarian thought in gods capacity. just because he can exist as separate selves (as god is fundamentally above the concept of a self) does not preclude him acting in different modes of being. if anything they reinforce the idea of gods multiplicity (which is an idea you guys seem too really be struggling with)

            so yea im god, i exist as the nothingness. there are a couple co equal forms that are fundamentally different in some way that each are worth existing for eternity as. i choose to exist as all of them, each with their own separate but co equal self (as the self is just a limited aspect of my being as god). that seems easily doable if im god and no logical issue right? on top of that im going integrate modes of my being into every possible version of existence so that i can guide and understand it.

            where is the logical fallacy fedora gay? why does one contradict the other? oh wait it doesnt and your just repeating bs you made up in your head so you feel less bad for being a fedora gay. please go 0/1 irl

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >just because he can exist as separate selves (as god is fundamentally above the concept of a self) does not preclude him acting in different modes of being
            >on top of that im going integrate modes of my being into every possible version of existence so that i can guide and understand it.
            That's not what modes mean. The contradiction is whether the three persons of the trinity are distinct persons or whether God is absolutely one and reveals himself through different manifestations at different times, both can't be true. So the question is did the Father die on the cross or was it someone else?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            TELL ME WHAT THE CONTRADICTION IS homosexual? why are they mutually exclusive? i see no reason they need to be and you haven't explained why (because there is no reason except for fedora gay larping and reading about conflict between even bigger gays on wikipedia).

            the bible says god the son died on the cross, there is no inconsistency with that and god the father existing. you dont understand what your talking about so plz go be anhero and jump off a bridge

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            ill make it easier.

            a god would be able to exist as multiple selves simultaneously while also existing in multiple modes of being while retaining his individuality.

            WHAT ABOUT THAT STATEMENT IS CONTADICTORY homosexual?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God needs to be one, and his followers need to understand how he is one in order for it to make sense. I'll ask a simple question to make this easier: do the Father and Son ultimately have/share the same mind? If they do, great. If not, then it's three beings united in "nature", and that invites a load of questions. Like what I had said before: why are you giving most of the praise and glory to Jesus? Shouldn't the Father want most of the praise and glory?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            you think all god is is his mind? are you moronic? the mind is a limited idea that exist within god. your not understanding the concept of god because your coming from a fedora gay perspective of trying to find problems. its your human ego to be preoccupied with who to worship "more" instead of understanding the different aspects that god embodies are meant to be interacted with differently.

            how does them having different minds "invite loads of questions"? how does gods capacity to embody different selves simultaneously preclude his ability to exist in different modes of being independent of the self? and how does god having both abilities somehow disprove his oneness when we agree he is more then just his mind or mode of being? this is a serious question and you dont have an answer so keep floundering

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If we accept this then where is the limit on how many "aspects" God has? Why not go full on pantheism?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            pantheism is implicit, beneath and a part of the holy spirit. its why the symbol and understanding of the trinity is so profound.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If God the father did not experience the death on the cross then he is fundamentally a different entity from the Son. Therefore, your position is fundamentally indistinguishable from polytheism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Dionysus-Priopos

            but hes not fundamentally different from the son. the son is the thing that can be cast off from the father and thrive like a seed for eternity. the only thing in existence that can. you and i fundamentally lack that ability and it is a show of strength that god can recognize himself as god from ignorance and nothingness while still being true. and so he exist as the being who has the eternally strong will to exist as everything while at the same time being the god who can overcome an eternity of nothingness. we understand this to be one being acting in its eternal nature as to not mutilate it but we also do our best to understand its multiplicity.

            ill say this again your attacking this from some thesis angle as opposed to trying to build a relationship with existence which is why you so easily fall sway to these supposed "paradoxes" as opposed to your present reality

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If the vast majority of God's own followers aren't even able to properly understand who they pray to is, then God has done a bad job of revealing himself to the world. And because God can't do a bad job of anything, that implies Christianity to be false.

        And don't say "oh but we aren't able to fully grasp the complexity of God". That's cope and you know it.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But modalism is wrong
      We see the father, son and holy spirit interacting together
      In John 17 Jesus talks to the father
      John 14:12 he says he will be with the father

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes but then you have three persons who sound to be only loosely united. Not truly one god. Another thing that puzzles me is how Christians give most of the glory and praise to Jesus Christ, when realistically, if the three persons of the Trinity do act as three distinct personalities, most of the glory and praise should go to the Father, who's God in his most glorious form if you like.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dionysus-Priopos

          these fedora gays are trying to make you think trinitarian thought is polytheistic because then they get to dismiss it and god. every sect of trinitarian thought will tell you they are connected in the only way that matters and that goes beyond the separateness of the self which is supposed to tell you something about the nature of being.

          15 IQ well poisoners are the reason we use to kill people for trying to read and spread books they didnt understand

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But you’re a Unitarian, anon.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Arius would have saved Christianity
    You could have prevented this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hebrews 1:10-14
      Same prayer applied to Jehovah, Psalm 102:25-27

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is Y, who is the invisible God, the Eternal One, who lives forever. He has always existed, has always been, is bigger than existence, knows all things, created everything and rules over all. Then there is the one who sits in the throne of glory, who God created as the perfect host for him. He is the perfect physical manifestation of the invisible God. All that he is, is God, but God is more than he is for God created him and is the one who gives him all power and authority. He is like the form of a human, or humans are more like the form of him. God created him before all things were created as his personal and favorite vessel, through which he did all things and experienced everything. Or more like, invoked him. He called him by his name as if he had always known him and he appeared, because he was actually himself.

    Yet the heavens are full of vessels for God, the hosts of heaven. They are different types of physical manifestation of the invisible God that he created for different tasks and roles in heaven. Myriads of trillions upon trillions of them. They all have a various degree of God in them, from the one who sits in the throne of glory who is the Most High and is God himself, he is the most amount of God that there is and has been given all authority and righteousness by the invisible and eternal God. Below him are lesser hosts of God who have lesser degrees of God, and lesser, power and authority. You keep going lower and lower and find hosts with lesser and lesser degrees of God, until you reach the watchers, who are the lowest rank in the skies above our heads.

    Despite this God is only One, and there is no other. They all have their own minds and will but they willingly submit it to God completely and allow God to fully control them and work through them whenever he wills it, because they are his servants.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He can control them all at the same time if he wants and they all move in unison as if they all had one mind. Yet God could also do this with humans if he wills it, if the human obey God and follow his laws and rules so that he becomes righteous and humble enough that the pure and holy spirit of God can live in them, then God can enter them and work through them and they will do amazing things, like a single guy defeating an entire battalion of enemy warriors. Or someone waking on water.

      If the person has evil or wickedness in his heart then God's spirt cannot dwell in the person because the holiness gets repulsed by them. The way magnets repulse each other. And the ones attracted to him are the wicked spirits who can also live in them and do this to him at will and do evil works through him and implant wicked thoughts and desires in him. The holy ones in heaven are perfectly obedient to God so that they remain humble and righteous and God can live inside them and make them holy.

      The one who sits in the throne of glory is the most perfect of them all, in whom God feels completely comfortable dwelling, and with whom righteousness lives. Nothing in repulses God and God can be fully himself in him.

      The more obedient you are to God and the more righteous and humble you become, the greater the amount of the spirit of God that can dwell in you and the holier you will be. Humbleness is important so that when God does all these amazing things through you, you do not feel proud and take credit for it and instead give all glory to God and praise him instead of yourself. God's amazingness is so amazing that will corrupt you with pride if you're not humble. Then God wont be repulsed out of you and can comfortably dwell inside you and continue working through you and you will keep receiving honor in the eyes of others when God does his amazing work through you.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The one who sits in the throne of Glory is the Ancient of Days, and before him stands the Son of Man, who is he who God chose from his favorite tribe on earth to live in his presence. And he is the one who is closest to God from all creation. He was chosen for his loyalty to God despite his suffering.

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you using a trip for no reason at all?

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>2. The father is God
    >>3. The son is God
    >>4. The spirit is God

    I mean, we all yet a younger phase, right? Why wouldn't the son represent the father's righteousness? He's the one who looks up to you. Pay attention to Numbers 3:13

    >for all the firstborn are mine. When I struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, I set apart for myself every firstborn in Israel, whether human or animal. They are to be mine. I am the LORD.”

    And then look at Luke 2:41-52. Mary and Joseph were mystified as to why young Jesus (Yeshua), Mary's first and extremely anointed first born, would be doing exactly as He said He'd be doing according to Exodus 13:2

    >Consecrate every firstborn male to me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is mine.

    Jesus went to the synagogues to consecrate himself to God. Mary, the most devout wyman in the whole entire everywhere who should have known the Torah back to front and UNDERSTOOD it, completely forgot that part in the Torah that says that God wants your first born. That means read and teach the bible to him or her. They will become wiser and be a blessing to you and a blessing to themselves.

    Luke 2:9
    >49. Jesus said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you realize that I had to be in my Father’s house?”
    >50. But they didn’t understand what he meant.

    These holy people forgot about Exodus 13:2. You shouldn't expect your child to run anywhere else but to Jesus if you raised them up right. It keeps them out of prison. It keeps them out of detention centers. It keeps them out of gangs or even in prison or from any cop involvement, unless they choose to become a cop themselves. It keeps them from entertaining themselves with adult cam sights and seeking the pleasures of this life rather than getting to know God, aka reading your bible and praying for things - expecting results. God knows the things you ache for.

  28. 2 weeks ago
    JWanon

    Good thread!

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >p1 is proven by the shema
    >p2 by the Lord's prayer
    yep those are a given, pretty straightforward and not against the core beliefs of the previous prophets sent by God or their people
    >p3 by John 1
    "12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
    Ambiguous, as stated above there are other sons of God. Perhaps your understanding of the term is what is confusing you.
    >p4 by Acts 5
    "32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
    Where exactly? Once again this seems like another misunderstanding. Here the holy spirit does not even seem to be a person at all.
    >The trinity, being the only possible reconciliation of these 4 points, is thus proven.
    Other people who blindly assume "biblical inspiration and inerrancy" such as yourself have come to different conclusions. Why is your interpretation valid and theirs not?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Ambiguous, as stated above there are other sons of God. Perhaps your understanding of the term is what is confusing you.
      He's obviously referring to John 1:1.

      "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

      >Where exactly? Once again this seems like another misunderstanding. Here the holy spirit does not even seem to be a person at all.
      Obviously again referring to Acts 5:3-4

      "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
      Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

      I am not sure how anyone could have missed these.

      >Why is your interpretation valid and theirs not?
      It says this in 2 Peter 1:20-21–

      "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
      For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

      So then, none of this is a matter of personal interpretation at all. There is one truth, which is what was intended by the divine author, God, who inspired Scripture (meaning "God-breathed") by the Holy Ghost. As Paul said in another place:

      "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
      That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
      (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Islamists don't worship the same God as that of the Bible.

      "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
      Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
      - Matthew 28:19-20

      "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
      - 1 John 5:7

      John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      John 17:5
      And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

      1 Timothy 3:16
      And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Neither did Moses, Abraham, etc. No wonder you had to invent limbo, because they would otherwise end up in hell.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, because Allah as a concept had not been invented yet.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Allah is literally just the Platonic One adapted to the terminology Arab Christians and israelites were already using.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Allah is the greater of deceivers according to the Quran.

            Monotheism is just an axiom for reality, the trinity however to this day is still disputed by Christians. There must be a reason Jesus never spoke of a triune deity.

            >Monotheism is just an axiom for reality
            Not sure what you mean by this but okay.
            >the trinity however to this day is still disputed by Christians.
            If you mean Christians dispute in favor the Trinity against the unbelieving world, then yes. If you are talking about non-trinitarians, they are non-Christian heretics who don't worship the God of the Bible though. See again:

            https://i.imgur.com/NG0KiPf.jpeg

            Islamists don't worship the same God as that of the Bible.

            "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
            Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
            - Matthew 28:19-20

            "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
            - 1 John 5:7

            John 1:1
            In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

            John 17:5
            And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

            1 Timothy 3:16
            And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I see your synagogue of Satan translation and raise you one NWT

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not sure what you mean by this but okay.
            It means very simply that God will always be one, people didn't need to exist for this fact to be "invented". But you needed a couple of councils (and purges) to construct your concept of trinity.
            >they are non-Christian heretics who don't worship the God of the Bible though
            They read the very same book as you and have come to different conclusions. Many even claim to have the holy spirit guiding them? What makes you special? Citing a bunch of ambiguous verses means nothing because they have their own interpretations of the very same ones

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But you needed a couple of councils (and purges) to construct your concept of trinity.
            Not really. See Genesis 1:26.

            >They read the very same book as you and have come to different conclusions.
            So I say once again, those different conclusions are heresies. They mean denying the true God and teaching a false god instead. That then means there's no point in anyone lumping the two groups together because neither side has the same object of worship. The only reason someone would lump the two groups together anyway would be that they are just trying to confuse people intentionally.

            "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
            Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
            And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
            – First John 4:1-3

            >Citing a bunch of ambiguous verses
            These Bible passages might seem ambiguous to someone who does not have Christ.

            "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
            Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
            But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
            - 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

            "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
            - John 8:47

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not really.
            huh? how do you get anything in OPs pic from that verse. if it was so clear what was the reason for the previously mentioned things?
            >those different conclusions are heresies. They mean denying the true God and teaching a false god instead.
            okay but they are saying the same things, what gives you any authority over them in their claims?
            >The only reason someone would lump the two groups together anyway would be that they are just trying to confuse people intentionally.
            Or it could be because all of you read the same book and claim to follow the same people. They read the same verse you quoted and believe it refers to your teachers instead of theirs.
            >These Bible passages might seem ambiguous to someone who does not have Christ.
            I never claimed that I do and those verses arguably don't even talk about biblical verses. But that's beside the point. Once again there's you and then there's them, if it wasn't ambiguous you'd all be one.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if it was so clear what was the reason for the previously mentioned things?
            It just shows you how early the Trinity appears in the Bible. It's meant to add on to what has already been discussed. Throughout the Bible, the triune God is mentioned. We can get into even more references in different parts of both Testaments as well, if necessary to further show this. There is an abundance of scriptural material on this topic.
            >what gives you any authority over them in their claims?
            The only thing that has final authority here is the Bible, which I have been quoting from. I choose to agree with the Bible.
            >okay but they are saying the same things
            Actually not really, if you actually look. They actually do not say the same things.
            >They read the same verse you quoted
            You are being ambiguous here about which verse. You certainly can't be talking about 1 John 4:3. That's one of the verses I just quoted. Or do you really mean that they read 1 John 4:3 that way, which says, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

            People who espouse unitarianism, such as Arians, Islam, JW, etc., as well as gnosticism and many others, are precisely those who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. They specifically deny that God was manifest in the flesh, as it says in 1 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:14 (earlier cited in this thread already).

            "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
            Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
            (Philippians 2:5-6)

            "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
            (Isaiah 9:6)

            >if it wasn't ambiguous you'd all be one.
            It's ambiguous only for those who are not of God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also I should add that obviously the fact that the Bible quite clearly says in the New Testament, "and these three are one" when referring to the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit shows the essential unity of the Holy Trinity. It mirrors to what Christ Himself said in John 10:30.

            "I and my Father are one."
            – John 10:30

            "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
            – 1 John 5:7

            There are really too many references to list out here, but any one of these is enough to conclusively show the divinity of Christ. In Matthew 28:19, for example, Jesus Christ tells the church to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. There are further specific references showing the divinity of each Person of the Trinity in the chart. Make sure that you use the King James Version for all of these if you are looking them up in English.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
            Dude, I'm not even against the trinity but this is a well-known interpolation.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this is a well-known interpolation.
            Not really, anon.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is tho, translating it as “The Word was [the one and only] God” is possibly even more tenuous than translating it as “The Word was a God” or “The Word was Divine” given the lack of an indefinite article in Koine Greek. I can see why the former would be inconsistent with the rest of the Bible but the latter isn’t, the Bible already depicts a scalar concept of divinity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, that's not convincing to me at all.

            False.
            Mark 10:18.

            "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
            And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."
            (Luke 18:18-19)

            I often quote this as another place where Christ claimed divinity. The Lord here asks the ruler why he thinks to call Him good. According to the Lord, the reason the ruler calls Him good points to the fact that He is God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean that’s just a fact. The grammatical rules of Koine Greek are a problem for John 1:1 and it’s not a surprise thousands of Christians read that verse in the original Greek (including Arius himself) and came to the conclusion Arius was right.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you don't sound sure of yourself at all according to your own post. How do you think to convince me? Come on.

            >it’s not a surprise thousands of Christians read that verse in the original Greek (including Arius himself) and came to the conclusion Arius was right.
            Again, see the earlier posts about trying to confuse people by lumping two clearly separate groups together under the same name. Those people aren't Christians. This poster

            >Not really.
            huh? how do you get anything in OPs pic from that verse. if it was so clear what was the reason for the previously mentioned things?
            >those different conclusions are heresies. They mean denying the true God and teaching a false god instead.
            okay but they are saying the same things, what gives you any authority over them in their claims?
            >The only reason someone would lump the two groups together anyway would be that they are just trying to confuse people intentionally.
            Or it could be because all of you read the same book and claim to follow the same people. They read the same verse you quoted and believe it refers to your teachers instead of theirs.
            >These Bible passages might seem ambiguous to someone who does not have Christ.
            I never claimed that I do and those verses arguably don't even talk about biblical verses. But that's beside the point. Once again there's you and then there's them, if it wasn't ambiguous you'd all be one.

            even admitted that we aren't one. We don't worship the same God. I don't worship the same false unitarian god that they glorify. The poster I was arguing with even agreed on that point, he even stressed the fact that we're different. See the last sentence of

            >Not really.
            huh? how do you get anything in OPs pic from that verse. if it was so clear what was the reason for the previously mentioned things?
            >those different conclusions are heresies. They mean denying the true God and teaching a false god instead.
            okay but they are saying the same things, what gives you any authority over them in their claims?
            >The only reason someone would lump the two groups together anyway would be that they are just trying to confuse people intentionally.
            Or it could be because all of you read the same book and claim to follow the same people. They read the same verse you quoted and believe it refers to your teachers instead of theirs.
            >These Bible passages might seem ambiguous to someone who does not have Christ.
            I never claimed that I do and those verses arguably don't even talk about biblical verses. But that's beside the point. Once again there's you and then there's them, if it wasn't ambiguous you'd all be one.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay but that’s a personal hang up you have with your particular concept of God. That’s not really relevant to the nuances of faithfully translating from one language to another. At the end of day both you and your likeminded fellow believers, and also the Arians, Unitarians and JWs in the other camp, are all getting this from differences in interpretation reified by specific translations in the text. The Latin Vulgate, fundamentally, is just as loaded with theological presumptions by the church behind it as the NWT is. I’m not even making an argument against the Trinity or for it, I’m saying dissecting John 1:1 in translation is insufficient, what needs to be addressed is the actual original text which I’d be surprised if anyone ITT can even read.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Christ claimed divinity
            See

            >Prove me wrong
            1 Timothy 2:5-6.
            It's as shrimple as that.

            >According to the Lord, the reason the ruler calls Him good points to the fact that He is God.
            Nope. Matt 4:10.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Educate yourself.
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            False.
            Mark 10:18.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Monotheism is just an axiom for reality, the trinity however to this day is still disputed by Christians. There must be a reason Jesus never spoke of a triune deity.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the father son and holy spirit

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Prove me wrong
    1 Timothy 2:5-6.
    It's as shrimple as that.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trinitarians trust the church fathers over God, Jesus and the apostles which is something they usually won't admit to. Jesus said: "And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
    God is one, and Jesus says He's in heaven not Earth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Dionysus-Priopos

      you dispute the trinity is a superior way of understanding a monotheistic god as opposed to the muslim hard locked platonic monad or some pseudo dulaistic cope?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nice response, yet again dodging anything I wrote.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Dionysus-Priopos

          you deny the incarnation? but wouldn't the incarnation be logically implicit with god choosing to take part in creation of a limited world with selves he wished to preserve?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You mean 2 John 7? I think that's because antichrists were saying Jesus was just an illusion or a spirit instead of a man, later antichrists said Jesus was part God/Man and things like that.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *