/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7686

Nice to see the Athanasian Creed

Has this become a thread to spout the papist antichrist heresy? There were other orthodox Christians going all the way back to the apostles who never were part of that. Read any of the good Baptist church histories. Romanism is estimated to have murders upwards of 50 million martyrs during is 1200 year ascendancy. Let's not let it happen again!

Read the Trail of Blood by B.H. Carroll, a short book that details the non-papist history of Christianity. Available as a download: https://archive.org/details/TheTrailOfBlood

Clean url for Trail of Blood:

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/trail_of_blood_jm_carroll.htm

Be aware that the Southern Baptists have been infiltrated and strayed into heresy since the days of JM Carroll. Avoid them like you would popery.

It does not take long for the Canaanites (as the Jews are literally, Rev 2:9; 3:9) to send their demonic emissaries to infiltrate and corrupt (morally and doctrinally) any group of Christians who try to follow Christianity in the form instituted by Jesus Himself. Any group claiming to be Christians cannot approve of Christ hating Jews.

>>7717

>has this thread started to spout heresy become a thread to spout heresy?

Uh…

>Any group claiming to be Christians cannot approve of Christ hating Jews.

You don't get to approve or disapprove of Christ's actions. He hated jews, he said he hated jews, he showed he hated jews. If you don't like it, you are not a Christian.

Just to be clear, I agree with any poster who recognizes that Jesus Christ stated that the Jews were the synagogue of Satan. Again, do not claim to be a Christian if you approve of the Satanic Canaanite Jews!

>>7713

The athanasian creed doesn't talk about the priesthood

>>7722

That guy isn't claiming to be a Zionist

>>7720

The SBC had a fundamentalist takeover over 20 years ago grandpa

JM Carroll died in 1931. Takeover more like 88 years ago. Independent Baptists are rapidly beginning to follow in their footsteps.

>>7726

No you don't understand

The denomination was trending liberal from the 70s to the 90s until key placements of conservatives in the seminaries restored traditionalism. It's called the "conservative resurgence" or the "fundamentalist takeover".

The Carrolls' SWBTS wasn't as far gone liberal as Southern though.

Thank you for helping me to understand the corruption process. Did you know that no Baptist confession up to 1911 believed in Dispensationalism - See William Joseph McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith. He was a church historian at the Southern Baptist Seminary at the time. It seems that it took about 100 years for Darbyism to infiltrate the Southern Baptists. Dispensationalism was ginned up by Jesuit Jews to be a basis for zionism. The Jew financed Schofield Bible notes finished the job. As I pointed out, Independent Bapists are rapidly following in Southern Baptist footprints leading to hell.

>>7729

Did you know that no Baptist confession before the last century included complementarianism?

It's not a heresy just because it isn't ancient, that's fallacious.

Which confessions profess dispensationalism today? The BFM doesn't. You can accept or reject dispensationalism and be a Baptist, or a southern Baptist in particular.

Nobody seriously supports Schofield dispensationalism anyway.

Why don't you make a new thread if you intent to present a polemic against the SBC

>>7724

>The athanasian creed doesn't talk about the priesthood

So?

>That guy isn't claiming to be a Zionist

WTF does that have to do with anything?

>>7731

>So?

So you are making the mistake of conflating the athanasian creed's use of the word "catholic" with Roman Catholicism, and rejecting the Athanasian creed because of the false connection.

You're right to dismiss the papal bull.

>WTF does that have to do with anything?

I thought you were dismissing the other guy via guilt by association with the usual "protestants/baptists love jews" line of reasoning, but I see that you were just quoting him in a post that you didn't reply to. I'm not acutally sure what he's talking about, you're right on the JQ.

The Arabic proves without a shadow of a doubt that throughout Hebrew history and they believed in a Godhead when referencing YHWH. It was only after the Christian movement, such believes were deemed as heretical by the jewish rabbis.

>>7311

So basically Christianity is polytheistic paganism. Gotcha.

>>7748

Knuckle-drafters like you shouldn't be posting. Israelite scholars had debates over a multiplicity within YHWH, this is a fact.

>>7734

>So you are making the mistake of conflating the athanasian creed's

No.

>>7748

No that's Islam

Sounds like someone with multiple personality disorder.

seriously though this concept is identical to the most common Hindu Trinity concept. (Three primary gods that are also one god)

>>7805

It is not identical, but even if it were that isn't an argument against the doctrine of the triinity

>>7311

does anybody have any arguments against these 2 beliefs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Arianism

would love to hear your opinions, bros

>>7912

They're both incompatible with trinitarianism, so they're wrong for all the reasons that the doctrine of the Trinity is the correct view of God. You should not join in fellowship with anyone believing either of those.

>>7913

That isn't an argument. You are just stating that you know God, and Jesus is wrong.

>>7953

I'm not pretending as if that's a complete polemic, I'm only pointing out that the two positions are incompatible with trinitarianism. Therefore, if the poster is reading the whole thread, he can apply any argument in favor of trinitarianism as against binitarianism and semi arianism.

You're likewise merely asserting that the view of Jesus is anti trinitarian, which is called begging the question.

>>7805

In Hinduism everything is one God (see: brahman)

>>7955

Nobody has made an argument in favor of trinitarianism, just declaring it correct via age.

>>7965

Only the questionably autistic e-catholics here are committing the fallacy of appeal to history. This thread is full of exegetical debate that you're simply asserting is wrong without engaging.

Notice though that the onus in Christianity and this thread (from the phrasing of the OP) is on you to prove your minority, unorthodox opinion.

This is not happening and we're not really interested in feeding your attention craving much longer.

>>7967

Except you can't prove a negative. I can't prove God isn't the Father, the Son, the holy spirit and Bob from accounting. The person claiming Bob from accounting is God needs to provide scripture to support that claim. There is plenty of scripture supporting the Father and the Son. Nobody has provided any to support the holy spirit being God.

Targums flossed at your heretical unitarianism.

>>7973

Three give witness in Heaven, and the three are one?

>>8538

I have no idea what you are babbling about. I asked for scripture to prove that anyone beyond the Father and the Son are God.

Trinitarianism is polytheism with no Biblical basis. I wish people would understand that it's monotheism, not mono-three-ism.

>>8976

John 1

"The Word was God, and the Word was with God"

Explain this verse given that you reject the premise of multiple persons comprising one God. Is the Bible wrong?

>>8979

Show me in the Bible where it says there is a trinity that is co-eternal and co-equal — you won’t find it. It’s non-Biblical and nonsensical and cannot be explained without slipping into tritheism, partialism or modalism (which will be rejected as heresies by trinitarians only making it more nonsensical).

IT’S THREE BUT IT’S ONE BUT IT’S ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE PERSONS AND ONE ESSENCE BUT IT’S THREE AND TOTALLY NOT ONE IT’S MONOTHEISTIC WITH THREE, NO THERE ARE NO ASPECTS, IT’S THREE COEQUAL COETERNAL ONES

Repent

>>8976

This should work on you just fine, considering you're basically more Muslim than Christian.

https://islammeetsorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/would-you-then-say-that-christian-religion-is/

>>8983

I take it you can't answer the challenge

>>8985

>Thus, we say that the Father is the “monarch” of the Trinity because He is the sole eternal cause of the Divine Persons. The Son and the Spirit are causally “less” than the Father.

So there is one God if ONE is the SOLE ETERNAL CAUSE. They’re less, it says so itself. Islamic Tahweed is more Biblical than this “1 + 1 + 1 = 1” nonsense.

>>8987

>Islamic Tahweed is more Biblical than this “1 + 1 + 1 = 1” nonsense.

Recite the shahada and leave already.

>>8988

It would be better to be a monotheistic Muslim than a tritheistic pseudo-Christian.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD

>>8987

Trinitarianism does not say "1+1+1=1", it says the one God is composed of three persons. You are merely asserting that a multiplicity of persons is incompatible with a one God, not arguing.

Answer, what does the Bible mean when it says "The word was God, and the word was with God" if God is only one person? Can one person fit this description?

>>8989

Then go off and be with your muslim brethren, why must you trouble Christians?

>>8991

>the one God is composed of three persons

This is inaccurate. There are three persons who are God, but they do not compose His being. The being is shared equally by the three persons, each person possesses the fullness of Godhood in and of Himself.

>>8985

This is heresy. To suppose that the Father imparted His nature to the Son introduces distinction in the divine essence, because it requires relation between "Father's essence" and "Son's essence". While the Son derives His existence from the Father, this is so by His nature, not prior to His nature. The generation of the Son is as much a necessary truth as the existence of the Father, it could not have been any other way, because existence is God's essence. In this way the Son is both begotten and autotheos.

To say that there is causation or dependency in God is blasphemy. God is, by nature, uncaused and self-existent, so to say that the Father caused the Son, and even more egregiously that He is causally superior and the Son causally dependent, is to introduce real distinction of essence between Father and Son because they would not share the same essential attributes. They would not even share a genus, which would be bad enough. The Son cannot be so subordinated to the Father unless there was a time when He was not.

>>8989

But the Koran affirms the bible

>>7311

that pic looks like the female reproductive tract. i don’t think it an accident.

>>7311

did you know the new testament never contains “yahweh” or “elohim”? elohim and yahweh are gods entirely at odds, and from the very start, with Jesus. Jesus condemns to hell yahweh and elohim, and unmistakably, indeed elohim and yahweh have already been slain by Jesus, who tied a millstone around their necks, and cast them into the depths of hell.

>>9119

Did you know that the old and new testaments are written in different languages?

>>9120

Odin is as much yahweh as Abba is.

>>9129

>(you)

>>9131

???