/lit/ - Literature

>>23228080
Yes OP I agree

The trinity is stupid

>>23228080
Do you wanna know what else is not true? All of it

>>23228238
My religion is true thoughever

>>23228080
The bible is a living document.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

>>23228219
>>23228238
>>23228246
Underage...

>>23228288
not an argument

why did god wait like 50k years before revealing himself, and only to a select few in the middle east?

>>23228332
It's what he promised to Abraham

>>23228080
It remains a fact that no Protestant can reasonably be a Trinitarian. A Protestant will be all "muh heckin soolie scriptoorie" until they hit the Trinity, and then they just cosplay as Catholics. If you're a Protestant, you should be Unitarian, and if you're Trinitarian, you should be Catholic. Simple as.

>>23228348
what the fuck are you talking about, and how do you know this?

>>23228364
God chose Israel to be an example to humanity, but most of them rebelled against God so God rejected them and chose Christians instead

>>23228080
Unless it is mentioned in the Holy Book explicitly, it is wank.
See 90% of what the Catholic Church has added to the religion, including the supremacy of the Pope.

>>23228370
don't presume to know anything about some omnipotent entity, nigger

>>23228372
>Unless it is mentioned in the Holy Book explicitly, it is wank.
So... Sola Scriptura is wank. Alrighty.

>>23228080

Best way to understand the scriptural, logical, and philosophical rationale for the Trinity is Augustine's De Trinitate. Check it out, it's an excellent read. Any argument you can make against the Trinity, non-Trinitarians were already making it in Augustine's day, including the arguments in the OP picture. But the best thing about De Trin is he helps you understand what the Trinity really means and why it's important, as opposed to some confusing dogma.

>>23228372

The Trinity is explicitly mentioned in the Bible. There are verses that say that Jesus is God, that the Father is God, that the Holy Spirit is God (not in so many words, but because Paul uses a verb for "worship" that is only ever used of God), and the relationships between them. There is no coherent way to make all the relevant verses work together except Trinitarianism. It's not something Christians arrived at from outside philosophy, it's just what the Bible says. You can find verses that appear to contradict it ('there is only one God'), and we know about them... that's how we arrived at the Trinity in the first place, trying to reconcile all these apparently contradictory verses.

>>23228387
How does Augustine's De Trinitate compare to Hilary of Poitiers' De Trinitate?

>>23228401

Augustine is leagues better. He quotes from Hilary a bit but only the first book or so... scholars think he never finished reading it because he found it so boring and useless.

>>23228387
>>23228392
>>23228401
>>23228433
The weight of scriptural evidence supports subordinationism, the Son's total submission to the Father, and God's paternal supremacy over the Son in every aspect.
We acknowledge the Son's high rank at God's right hand, but the Father is still greater than the Son in all things!

Father, Son, and Spirit all participated in creation and salvation, but that in itself does not confirm that the three are each co-equal or co-eternal.

God is only explicitly identified as "one" in the Bible, and the doctrine of the Trinity, which word literally meaning a set of three, ascribes a co-equal threeness to the being of the infinite God that is NOT scriptural!

>>23228080
HEATHEN.

There is only one God, and his name is Pooby Glercho. Worshiping a fake "Bible" god is only going to get you tortured in hellfire.

>>23228468
>thing that was formulated before the biblical canon was settled is "not biblical"
You're right, because the Bible, as we have it now, presupposes it.

>>23228468
I went to Scripture, and Matthew 18:17 told me that, if I believe you're sinning, because you're preaching heresy, to "tell it to the Church." So I did, and the Church agreed that you're preaching heresy and should repent, so repent.

>>23228080
>Holy Spirit is impersonal.
If anything it's the opposite since the Holy Spirit is the only member of the Trinity we can directly interact with

Is this really what JWs believe?

>>23228496
JWs believe in childish superstitions. They have rejected Pooby Glercho in their hearts. They are to be pitied.

>>23228475
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of a believing that the one God is tripersonal, containing equally divine “persons”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

>>23228496
The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35) God sends out his spirit by projecting his energy to any place to accomplish his will.—Psalm 104:30; 139:7.

>>23228482
What heresy am I preaching?

>>23228515
Denial of the one true God in favor of pagan idols (Bible).

wow. you thought you had a better understanding of some universe-creating superbeing than some other retard else on earth? what the fuck is wrong with you? fucking disgusting

>>23228520
>you thought you had a better understanding of some universe-creating superbeing than some other retard else on earth?

Yes

>>23228468

Like all heretics, you're hanging onto some verses and ignoring others. It's boring, we had these arguments 1500 years ago and you lost, get over it.

>>23228507

No one denies that theology evolved. I doubt that Paul or the apostles had any inkling of full-fledged Trinitarianism, even if it's implicit in what they say. But early Christians were probably more Trinitarian than their writings imply... Trinitarianism wasn't something they went around advertising, any more than eating the flesh of Christ, because they knew it wouldn't make sense to others and would be ridiculed. This was common in mystery religions, and later Church fathers write about it. No I doubt they had any opinion on the flilioque or any deep understanding of the logic of it, but they definitely believed that Jesus was God and the Father was God and Jesus was not the Father because the Bible says that quite explicitly.

>>23228532
Actually the doctrine of the Trinity was developped by the Egyptian Christian theologians of Alexandria.

Alexandrian theology, with its strong emphasis on the deity of Jesus, served to infuse Egypt's pagan religious heritage into Christianity. They adopted these pagan tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy.

>>23228549
Damn, bro. You believe everything atheist trannies write on Wikipedia pages? That's rough.

>>23228360
As much as the Trinity is stupid, it still solves the theological problems of what to do with worship and prayer, which is that it all goes to the same place. Jesus just turns into SSJ Elijah without that move.

>>23228288
Calling others underage while believing in Jewish fairy tales must be a bit ironic, don’t you think?

>>23228631
>>23228660
Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)

>>23228382
exactly!

>>23228694

Jesus claims to be God multiple times in John.

>>23228744
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28.

“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.

Why did you lie?

Shame on you

>>23228694
John 1:1 & 1:14
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 8:58
>“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 10:30
>“I and the Father are one”

>>23228775

Every time we have these threads, some retard like you pops up with "Oh yeah? Well what about... THIS one!" as if the bishops at Nicaea had never read the NT.

We know about those verses. They're part of why Trinitarianism and Christology are how they are in the first place.

>>23228777
>John 1:1 & 1:14

The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that TWO separate gods are discussed in the verse.
It is NOT possible for the Word to be “with God” and at the same time be God Almighty. The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.”

However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.”

>John 8:58

The Living Bible puts John 8:58 very nicely. The Jewish leaders complaint that Jesus was too young to have seen Abraham, and Jesus answered:
“The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!”

We understand that that is the point of his answer: he had seen Abraham because he existed even before Abraham. And this is by far the most natural way to understand this verse.

>John 10:30

In John 10:30, when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," he did not mean that they were actually "one substance", or "one God", or co-equal and co-eternal.
Rather, Jesus was saying he and the Father have a unity of purpose. The context indicates that Jesus was saying that they were "one" in pastoral work. The point being that the Father and the Son were united in the divine work of saving the 'sheep'.

Why did you lie three times? Shame on you.

>>23228789
The idea of a co-equal triune godhead was based on pagan Greek and Platonic influence, including many basic concepts from Aristotelian philosophy, and they were incorporated into the biblical God.


Why did you lie again?

>>23228790
Yeah you’re so much smarter than literally every Christian church, including many denominations who hated each other and spent centuries literally killing each other wholesale during various religious wars, yet somehow still all remained trinitarian

>>23228800
Jesus prophesied that many would claim to be Christian yet fail to obey his commands and that he would reject such ones. (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 6:46)

Some people would be misled by religious leaders who corrupt true worship to further their own interests. (Matthew 7:15)
However, other people would actually prefer imitation Christianity because it would tell them what they want to hear rather than the truth from the Bible.—2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

>>23228804
Not gonna argue with some Arian nutcase, have fun

>>23228807
If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not.

>>23228800
>hated each other and spent centuries literally killing each other wholesale
>somehow still all remained trinitarian
So Trinitarianism causes major psychological problems?