/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7311

Let me restate

>God the Father is the only God

That should be

<Only the Father should be considered God

Because the other way implies polytheism

>Is God triune?

No.

>What does the Bible teach

That God is a duality, Father and Son. Why do you have this ass-backwards? All you would need to do to settle this is find a single place in scripture where God is ever referred to as three, or where the holy spirit is ever suggested to be God. There's plenty of scripture showing Jesus is God. There is nothing to suggest the holy spirit is. The entire trinity doctrine simply comes from the baptism ritual MENTIONING the holy spirit. Just more anti-biblical heathenry.

>>7416

In a very angry and condescending way, your argument is this:

>There is no biblical reason in the affirmative to consider the Spirit to be divine.

Sufficient evidence for the Spirit being divine would be:

>God being referred to as three

>Holy Spirit suggested to be God

So first let's establish that a triune God is not a compromise on monotheism any more than the dual God of your view, and that the Spirit is real.

I'd like to argue that the Bible does suggest the Spirit is God.

<John 14:16-17 NASB — “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

Here the spirit is called comforter/helper, implying that he is a person. The spirit is also said to abide in the believer, just like Jesus (John 15). So, the person of the Spirit has an overlapping function with Jesus.

<Acts 5:3-4 NASB — But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Lying to the person of the holy spirit constitutes lying to God. Ergo, the person he lied to was God. The spirit is God.

>>7418

>In a very angry and condescending way, your argument is this:

There is nothing angry or condescending about it. If you want to make the claim that something is biblical, the onus is on you to prove that. Not on everyone else to disprove it. Just because the corruption of the church is very old, doesn't mean we can ignore what the bible actually says.

>There is no biblical reason in the affirmative to consider the Spirit to be divine.

To be God. The word divine can be ambiguous.

>Here the spirit is called comforter/helper, implying that he is a person

That is not implied at all, and it doesn't matter if it is a person or not I am a person, I am not God. The spirit is a helper, yes. That does not suggest it is God.

>So, the person of the Spirit has an overlapping function with Jesus.

Jesus explicitly says the purpose of the Spirit is to be with mankind in his stead, since he can not stay. If the Spirit was God, as Jesus is, then he would say he is staying, in the form of the Spirit.

>Ergo, the person he lied to was God

That does not follow. You keep trying to grasp at straws to justify something that would be explicit if it were true. The spirit is a phone to God, it is not God. If you lie to the phone, you lie to God. This does not make the phone God.

Try this same thing with the Father and the Son. Use scripture to show that they are God. Notice how you can quote direct statements explicitly telling us they are? There is nothing of the sort for the Holy Spirit, who is never stated to be God. And if God is three, then why did God make us in their image, male and female? Where's the third sex?

>>7434

>How are we commanded to baptize again?

Right, that's the entire basis for this nonsense. The fact that the spirit is included in baptism. That doesn't make it God. If the Spirit is God, then where does the bible say that? Not "well I could infer it if I twist things and decide in advance that it should be that way". Stating it.

>We are made in the image of God, because we are:

At least read the bible you dumbass:

"Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…’ ” Genesis 1:26

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27

Nothing about Soul, another word for Soul, and body there champ.

>>7437

How can you blaspheme the Holy Ghost unless it's divine?

>>7433

>That is not implied at all, and it doesn't matter if it is a person or not I am a person, I am not God. The spirit is a helper, yes. That does not suggest it is God.

The term comforter is a title, personification

>if the Spirit was God, as Jesus is, then he would say he is staying, in the form of the Spirit

Forms implies the same person, the trinitarian argument is that these are distinct persons.

He would not say he was staying in the form of the spirit if the two are different persons.

>That does not follow. You keep trying to grasp at straws to justify something that would be explicit if it were true. The spirit is a phone to God, it is not God. If you lie to the phone, you lie to God. This does not make the phone God.

Your phone analogy doesn't make sense, because you can't lie "to the phone". Are you saying that the Spirit is not a person or God? Or that the Spirit is a person but is not God.

You could argue that the spirit is an ambassador if the second, and lying to an ambassador constitutes lying to the monarch. That's compatible with the Acts passage, but the more literal view would be to view the interchangeable use of "the Holy Spirit" and "God" to mean that the holy spirit is God.

Example: "Why did to lie to my brother?" "Why did you lie to Roy?" By transitive property, Roy is my brother.

>Try this same thing with the Father and the Son. Use scripture to show that they are God. Notice how you can quote direct statements explicitly telling us they are? There is nothing of the sort for the Holy Spirit, who is never stated to be God.

A doctrine doesn't have to be explicit to be orthodox

> And if God is three, then why did God make us in their image, male and female? Where's the third sex?

God the Father and God the son are both male. Man is the image and glory of God, woman is the image of God but the glory of Man.

The dual genders of mankind isn't a reflection of the persons of God.

>>7437

>Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

2 Corinthians 3:17

>>7439

>The term comforter is a title, personification

What should I infer from you repeatedly making these seemingly random statements that are not in any way relevant to your claim?

>Forms implies the same person, the trinitarian argument is that these are distinct persons.

Which is then immediately abandoned because the bible clearly states otherwise: "I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

The Father and the Son are one. This is clear, unambiguous, and directly and explicitly stated. If you believe the Father and the Son are not one, then you do not believe scripture.

>Your phone analogy doesn't make sense

It isn't an analogy, it is what the bible says:

"“But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you." John 16:13

How much clearer and more explicit can it get? The spirit of truth does not speak on its own, it speaks what it hears from the Lord.

>A doctrine doesn't have to be explicit to be orthodox

It has to be in scripture to be scriptural. Orthodox doesn't matter, lots of old corruption is orthodoxy now.

>God the Father and God the son are both male.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

>The dual genders of mankind isn't a reflection of the persons of God.

Then explain why Genesis explicitly states that we were created in THEIR image, as male and female. You heretics really hate the bible don't you?

>>7438

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

>>7443

If you have to try to take a verse out of context and pretend it is relevant that doesn't speak very highly of your claim. That isn't referring to the holy spirit, which is always pneumatos hagiou.

>>7447

>Which is then immediately abandoned because the bible clearly states otherwise: "I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

>The Father and the Son are one.

One in essence, two different persons. Jesus is not the father, but both are God. Jesus prays to the father.

You're not recognizing the distinction between them in scripture.

>It isn't an analogy

You're arguing that the spirit is actually a phone? A device that wouldn't be invented for two millenia from the time of writing?

>It has to be in scripture to be scriptural. Orthodox doesn't matter, lots of old corruption is orthodoxy now.

Wrong use of the term orthodox. Orthodox means correct.

>Then explain why Genesis explicitly states that we were created in THEIR image, as male and female.

Both male and female are in the image of God. What is there to explain?

>You heretics really hate the bible don't you?

Ad hominem

Tell us what kind of church is correct in your view

>>7449

>One in essence, two different persons.

Exactly, duality, not trinity. Glad we cleared that up.

>You're arguing that the spirit is actually a phone?

I am arguing that you should read the bible. Explain how John 16:13 can be correct if the holy spirit is God.

>Orthodox means correct.

It means "correct". As in, holds the approved opinion. To a catholic, celibate priests are orthodox. There is nothing scripturally correct about it, the bible explicitly states that a priest must be a good husband and father, but it is orthodox.

>What is there to explain?

How do you have an explicit statement that we are created in God's image as two, if God is three.

>Ad hominem

No it isn't, captain fedora of the starship reddit. It would be an ad-hom if I said you were wrong because you hate the bible.

>Tell us what kind of church is correct in your view

There is only one church, it is us. Seriously, read the fucking bible dude.

>>7450

Are you actually interested in biblical debate or are you just wanting to be angry on the internet?

>>7447

How do you reconcile Matt 12:30-31 with your take on the Holy Ghost

>And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him

>>7451

Calling someone angry doesn't become an argument just by doing it enough.

>>7452

I don't need to reconcile it, it supports exactly what I said. If the holy spirit were the Lord, then why would speaking against it be different from speaking against Jesus? Why would Jesus even say anything like that if the spirit was him? The entire point was that the spirit is not God, but that the apostles were not to be sad or disappointed that God doesn't walk among them any more and that they had to settle for a lowly helper instead. So He would not forgive them for shit talking the spirit that he sent for us.

>>7454

I'll take that as the latter

Genesis 1:2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters

>>7469

Exactly. And then God spoke, and the spirit did as he commanded. A helper, not God.

>>7507

John 12v13: For I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said. I know that his command is eternal life. So the things that I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me.

So much for your "duality", if the same logic you just used does not apply to the Son.

Genesis 1:2 proves the Spirit was with God and was God in the same way John 1:1

>>7507

If the Spirit was already there hovering over the waters, he's self existent and not a creature

>>7510

So the waters are also God then. This is what I mean about desperately trying to grasp at nonsense.

>>7509

>So much for your "duality", if the same logic you just used does not apply to the Son.

The same logic does apply. But that doesn't say the Son has no will or voice of His own, it just says it stated something on behalf of the father. There is a difference between saying A thing for someone else, and being incapable of saying anything yourself and only relaying messages.

>>7533

>So the waters are also God then

No, the waters came when God created the earth in verse 1

>>7311

>Why are papist and protopapists promoting kaballah mysticsm on a Christian board?

Shoo.shoo

>>7535

Says who? That's purely an assumption. Since when does creating the heavens and the earth create a bunch of formless water? If it does, why can't we also arbitrarily decree that it also creates the spirit? Why does the spirit pre-dating creation make it God? And how can you call Jesus God then since he didn't pre-date creation?

>>7567

>Jesus didn't predate creation

Wrong, read John 1 again

>Since when does creating the heavens and the earth create a bunch of formless water?

Since day one, like the Bible says. Nothing existed, God created the heavens and the earth, and then the Bible says there are waters. The waters are part of creation, right? They are definitively.

What does "creation" mean to you, if not something?

Do you intend to argue that the waters are part of God? Or are you saying God didn't create the water?

>If it does, why can't we also arbitrarily decree that it also creates the spirit?

I'm not being arbitrary, I'm arguing for a position based on what the text says. Waiting for you to do the same instead of scoffing at everything.

If the Spirit is a creature, which day was he created?

>>7571

>Since day one, like the Bible says

It doesn't say, you assume. So again, why do you not also assume this created the spirit hovering?

>If the Spirit is a creature

If angels are creatures, what day were they created?

>>7597

Don't you find it strange at all that God would have to create His own Spirit?

>>7507

God spoke and Jesus did what He commanded, did He not?

>>7597

I don't know which day the Angels were created, but I do know that they are creatures:

Psalm 148:2-5 NASB — Praise Him, all His angels;

Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon;

Praise Him, all stars of light! Praise Him, fnhighest heavens,

And the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD,

For He commanded and they were created.

And I do not see them present on day one like I see the spirit.

Can you answer a question not using a question? We're doing all the explaining and you're just searching for holes.

We really should be arguing the other way. Given the dominance of trinitarianism in historic Christianity, you should be proving to us whatever your conception is of the Spirit.

>>7599

You are the one assuming it his "his spirit" in the sense of being his soul, rather than being a possession of his. We are his children, it isn't odd that he had to create us.

>>7602

Yes. What does that demonstrate though? Like I said, there is a difference between doing what God asks once, and having no will of your own at all and only being able to do what God commands.

>>7603

>We're doing all the explaining

Explaining doesn't matter, scripture does. If God is three, then you can quote the bible stating that. You can not. I can quote the bible clearly stating God is two, but you ignore that and say "oh well he just didn't mention the third for some reason". Is the bible the source of Truth or not? If God is three, then quote the bible saying so. Don't keep quoting it not saying so and then explaining why you want to assume it means that even though it doesn't say it. If the bible doesn't say it, then you have no basis to demand that everyone worship a false God with you.

>>7609

>Explaining doesn't matter, scripture does.

Explain it to us from scripture. This is called "exegesis". Not everything has an explicit proof text.

>If God is three, then you can quote the bible stating that.

Not everything has an explicit proof text

>I can quote the bible clearly stating God is two

No you can't. You've demonstrated that God is at least two by establishing the divinity of Jesus and the Father.

>Is the bible the source of Truth or not?

Establishing a false dilemma. We are arguing just like you based on the Bible as authoritative.

>If God is three, then quote the bible saying so

Not everything has an explicit proof text

>Don't keep quoting it not saying so and then explaining why you want to assume it means that even though it doesn't say it.

Not everything has an explicit proof text. Your job as a debate opponent is to evaluate each argument of ours and explain why our conclusions don't follow.

>If the bible doesn't say it, then you have no basis to demand that everyone worship a false God with you.

Agreed. We are all on the same page that the truth must be consistent with the Bible.

>You are the one assuming it his "his spirit" in the sense of being his soul, rather than being a possession of his. We are his children, it isn't odd that he had to create us.

This is not trinitarianism. You're arguing against a position nobody here holds.

Read the OP again:

<If you reject trinitarianism, please justify yourself

Calling everyone else "ass-backwards" "anti-biblical heathens", "grasping at straws" "heretics" who "hate the bible" are not arguments.

Is there a polemic for your position published somewhere? Anyone who teaches what you believe?

If anti-trinitarianism is so obvious from the Bible then you should be able to concisely state exactly your theology of God and why you believe it, right? All you've done is belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

Even without evaluating all the arguments of this thread I think we can get an idea of which side is more likely indwelt with the spirit. Consider this proverb:

>Proverbs 14:29

>He who is slow to anger has great understanding,

>But he who is quick-tempered exalts folly.

>>7609

>What does that demonstrate though?

It proves one can be both God and obedient to God at the same time.

>having no will of your own at all and only being able to do what God commands

And where does the bible say this of the Holy Spirit?

I am trinitarian and a Bible College graduate, for what it's worth. I have always taught in church meetings not to be too hard on Sabellians (also known as Modal Monarchians and today's Apostolic Pentecostals) - the believe in the deity of Jesus Christ - and should not be condemned with the Arians (Jehova Witnesses)

1 John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." 2 John 1:9 "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

>>7616

>for what it's worth

It's worth nothing

>the believe in the deity of Jesus Christ - and should not be condemned with the Arians

They worship a false god. They have not the Son because they have no Father for Him to be Son to.

To those who do not believe in the Deity of the Holy Spirit. They are subject to the same rebuke as Ananias was in Acts 5:3 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?

4 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. So then, lying to the Holy Ghost is lying to God!

The best (and shortest) book that deals with all the Scriptures that decide the Trinity issue is by Edward Bickersteth - The Trinity (available in pdf). He addresses every objection that anti trinitarians could raise in this post.

Using the fact that man is made in God's image as an argument about the plurality of the Godhead does not make sense. As if the sexes of man were the image of God that man was given. It is more sensible to take the three natures of man as body, soul, and spirit as the image of God.

I don't know why people bother arguing with non-Trinitarians. I'd rather have a brick thrown at my head.

As to the creation of the angels, we know emphatically it was between days 1 and 6 of the creation week. Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. The angels, as created beings, are part of "everything" in this verse. Since they were "very good", they rebelled after the sixth day!

I have reviewed all the post up til now. As I said earlier, read Bickersteth, the Trinity. It answers all the objections of anti trinitarians in a concise and non angry manner. When I lent my copy to a Jehovah Witness many years ago, asking to have it returned later, she had destroyed it out of anger when I came to retrieve it!

>>7610

>Not everything has an explicit proof text.

Right. You believe something that is not biblical, and yet you condemn others for not also believing it.

>You've demonstrated that God is at least two

And nobody has demonstrated God is at least three. Hmmm. So lets just assume he's 27 then.

>Your job as a debate opponent is to evaluate each argument of ours and explain why our conclusions don't follow.

But you keep throwing a hissy fit when I do. What you actually want is for everyone to blindly worship the same false God you do without question.

>You're arguing against a position nobody here holds.

I quoted what I was responding to. Don't act like a yid.

>Consider this proverb

Consider why you imagine an emotional state for people you disagree with.

>>7615

>It proves one can be both God and obedient to God at the same time.

And nobody suggested otherwise, so again what does that demonstrate?

>And where does the bible say this of the Holy Spirit?

If you aren't going to read the thread then you won't be able to participate constructively.

>>7618

>So then, lying to the Holy Ghost is lying to God!

Lying to any of God's messengers is lying to God. That does not make his messengers God.

>>7621

>Using the fact that man is made in God's image as an argument about the plurality of the Godhead does not make sense.

It is literally in the same sentence. Why does it specify that THEY made us in THEIR image, male and female, if their image is not duality.

>>7624

>It answers all the objections of anti trinitarians in a concise and non angry manner.

No it doesn't. It just repeats "nu uh" and "its old so its right" a lot. The only thing that is needed to answer the "objections" of Christians to the trinitarian worship of a false God is a bible verse stating that the spirit is God. That book does not provide one.

>>7623

Angels were created on the first day, and their rebellion is the part where the light is separated from the darkness.

>>7416

>jesus is god

no, that's (((protestant))) garbage.

>>7654

You aren't Christian

Read John 1 again

>>7628

Noice, from whombst has this view been accrued?

>>7654

>the bible is wrong trust me goy

No thanks rabbi Shekelstein.

hoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.

For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.

This is what the Catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.

Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.

The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.

Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.

So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.

Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.

Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.

Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

However, there are not three gods, but one God.

The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.

However, there as not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.

The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.

The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.

The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.

There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.

So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshipped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.

He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.

It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.

As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.

He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.

He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity.

Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.

And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God.

He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.

As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ.

He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.

He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.

Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved.

Amen.

>>7686

>catholics

>Christian

Pick one.

>>7687

The Church Teaches Ex Cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441) "

Enjoy the chthonic tortures of conflagration.

>>7686

Amen

>>7687

Wrong response. This is the Catholic faith but not by virtue of being decreed from Rome, it is perfectly in line with scripture

>>7688

This is typical popery that you can reject without hesitation

>>7688

>>7694

>celibate priests

>called father

No, catholicism is not at all in line with scripture.

>>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

???