God the Son
sacrificed himself to
God the Father
God sacrificed himself to God?
God sacrificed himself to himself?
God the Son. sacrificed himself to. God the Father. God sacrificed himself to God? God sacrificed himself to himself?
God the Son
sacrificed himself to
God the Father
God sacrificed himself to God?
God sacrificed himself to himself?
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO THE SON IS NOT THE FATHER
>I and the Father are one
>God sacrificed himself to himself?
No. "Himself" refers to a person. They were two separate persons.
>>I and the Father are one
In nature.
Jesus is the SON of God. "God the Son" is a nonexistent term.
>They were two separate persons.
Thus two different gods
>In nature.
Angels and Saints also are divine in nature. Why don't you add them to the trinity to make a plurinity ?
>I and the Father are one
In unity
>Thus two different gods
False.
>Angels and Saints also are divine in nature.
Conflation fallacy.
>False
For you maybe, but according to the Bible it is true.
>Conflation fallacy
Fallacy fallacy
>>Two different gods.
>according to the Bible it is true.
Quote the verse stating this.
>Fallacy fallacy
Ahahah
>Quote the verse stating this
John 1:1
John 1:18
Hebrews 1:8
>refuses to entertain the Trinity as a concept
>makes it everybody's problem
Momma didn't hug you huh.
So there are 3 Gods?
No. One God in three persons.
Who is this "One God"?
The Father, the Son and Spirit.
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.
Nope.
?si=LDWh5mcK4TYuCLFe
Also JWs are ironically more akin to paganism than orthodox christianity.
?si=wdhbTfjs1Av1E4m5
>JWs are pagan because...BECAUSE THEY JUST ARE OK?!
>Isaiah 45:5
>I am Yahweh, and there is no other;
>Besides Me there is no God.
>I
>Me
Those refer to a singular person as God, not multiple persons.
There is indeed no God besides YHWH.
>I
>Me
Fair point, but with the simplifications God has to use for Hebrews it's not a far stretch to take this "Me" meaning Godhead.
The singular pronouns indicate ONE person. Jehovah is ONE person.
There is no God besides Jehovah. He is alone is the Supreme Sovereign Lord of the universe.
What absolute cope.
No Israelite from before Christianity ever thought Yahweh was more than 1 person.
God would have said "We are Yahweh. There is no God but us." Yet he didn't.
Even Paul said there was only 1 God person, the Father.
>1 Corinthians 8:6
>yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him, and one Lord (King), Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Take your Pagan man-god religion and shove it up your ass you pathetic homosexual.
Exactly
>no Israelite ever thought God was more than one
Genesis says, Let Us make Man in Our image, and God is referred to as Elohim, plural.
The concept of plural-unity was already seeded.
>Let Us make Man in Our image
He was talking yo Jesus. In the rest of the Bible he uses the singular pronoun because God is one person.
>and God is referred to as Elohim, plural.
It's a plural of majesty. Moroever I don't even know why uou are using this as an argument since Elohim means "gods" and you believe that the trinity is one God.
>The concept of plural-unity was already seeded
No such thing.
>plural of majesty
No king in the bible used it, pagan or Yhwist; this practice was not local.
Biblical monotheism is monolatrism, the consistent worship of only one divine person in the divine/supernatural realm inhabited by divine/supernatural persons.
The one divine person who receives full devotion and worship is the Almighty Creator: Jehovah.
>Biblical monotheism is monolatrism
Agreed.
>consistent worship of only one divine person
Unbiblical.
>Jehovah
>[As in YHWH]
Correct. The triune God.
In the fact that it's the most consistent way to read it.
If you're looking for the term itself, you will not find it because it's a later term induced to combat heresies.
>John 1:1
John 1 specifies the word was God. The opposite of what you just claimed.
>John 1:18
"...who is himself God"
So not a God. But God. The opposite of what you just claimed.
>Hebrews 1:8
No mention of two Gods.
Trinitarian God is one. That's the whole idea.
>Unbiblical
Wrong. As Jesus said in the clearest possible terms imaginable at John 17:1-5, the Father is God, and He is the only one to receive full worshipful devotion.
>The triune God
“Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“God is ONLY ONE.”—Galatians 3:20.
>John 1 specifies the word was God.
Nope. 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.”
>"...who is himself God"
Ayo, what are you quoting ?
Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
New King James Version
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
NASB 1995
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Shame on you for altering the Scriptures.
>No mention of two Gods.
The god whose throne is forever has a God above himself.
>Trinitarian God is one
"Father" = one
"Son" = two
"Holy Ghost" = three
>So there are 3 Gods?
Yes.
>In nature.
Where is this in the text?
>I and the Father
sounds like inherent distinction to me. why is he "one with the father" and not simply "the father"?
>John 17:1-5
>Father is God, and He is the only one to receive full worshipful
The passage is literally about Glorifying the Son.
>>The triune God
>“Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
>“God is ONLY ONE.”—Galatians 3:20.
Correct. The one triune God.
>>John 1 specifies the word was God.
> Nope. The statement “the Word was with God” ...
How about the statement "The Word was God"?
>Ayo, what are you quoting ?
New International Version. Google.
God is one
>"Father" = one
>"Son" = two
>"Holy Ghost" = three
Those are persons.
>The passage is literally about Glorifying the Son
You have category: "Only True God".
How many persons are identified ? ONE. The FATHER.
>The one triune God
One =/= Three
>How about the statement "The Word was God"?
A better translation would be: "The Ord was *a* god".
>New International Version
Sorry, I use real Bibles
NASB 1977
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Legacy Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him.
American Standard Version
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.”
>Those are persons.
The holy spirit is not a person. It 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.
The Father and the Son are indeed persons, and the Father ALONE is God.
>You have category: "Only True God".
>How many persons are identified ? ONE. The FATHER.
Sure, the Son's mission was to present the Father. Since they're both God. And both are Glorified - as this passage explicitly mentions, thanks for bringing it up.
>One =/= Three
God =/= person
>A better translation would be: "The Ord was *a* god".
There is no article.
>Sorry, I use real Bibles
We can go down to Greek, baby. Show me the *a*:
...καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν Θεὸς
>The holy spirit is not a person. It is God’s power in action, his active force.
So when the Spirit is present at Christ's baptism, it is at once on Christ and also in the action of the voice, huh?
>The holy spirit is not a person. It 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
As he sent his Son. Father, Son and Spirit. All God.
>No Israelite from before Christianity ever thought Yahweh was more than 1 person.
Why did you say this, having done zero reading? The idea of 2 person of YHWH was not uncommon among Second Temple israelites, although 3 persons was a little rare.
>God would have said "We are Yahweh. There is no God but us." Yet he didn't.
Why would he?
>Even Paul said there was only 1 God person, the Father.
Read the rest of what Paul said.
Calm down lol
Ahh, how could the JWanon not nod along to a historically verifiable falsehood about israeli beliefs.
>Sure, the Son's mission was to present the Father. Since they're both God. And both are Glorified - as this passage explicitly mentions, thanks for bringing it up
It says Jesus existed alongside God, but the angels also existed alongside God according to Job 38:7.
Existence is different from being classified as a particular type of being, so I have no problem with Jesus existing alongside the only true God.
My question is who is identified as the only true God according to Jesus in John 17:3 ? THE FATHER.
>God =/= person
God is one person. The God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity.
Note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”
>There is no article.
When translating in english we have to put one, because in John 1:1 there is a distinction between God and the Logos.
Most Bibles mistranslate the second part of John 1:1 which, when literally translated word-for-word reads "and the word [logos] was with the God [ho theos]."
The Koine Greek (kai theos ên ho logos) should be translated as "and the Word was a god".
The article of theos is anarthrous, lacking a definite article, hence the verse refers to Jesus' pre-human existence as "a god" or a divine being as distinct from "the God".
>We can go down to Greek, baby. Show me the *a*: ...καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν Θεὸς
You are moving the goalpost. We were talking about John 1:18.
It doesn't say Jesus is God. In fact, it says he is the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. He was begotten, he had a beginning.
Another blow to your belief is that just before it says that nobody has seen God.
Have people seen Jesus ?
Yes.
>the angels also existed alongside God according to Job 38:7
>>>>When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Was that what you meant to quote?
>John 17:3 ? THE FATHER.
Sure, the Son's mission was to present the Father. Since they're both God. And both are Glorified - as this passage explicitly mentions, thanks for bringing it up
>God is one person.
Verse?
>The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies
Nope. The terms did. The teaching existed since first Christians were baptized in God's name.
The name being Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>When translating in english we have to put one
If we wish to falsify the text, sure.
>The Koine Greek (kai theos ên ho logos) should be translated as "and the Word was a god".
Sorry, this is false. Koine could have easily used the article. In fact John does so many times. He intentionally did not.
>He was begotten, he had a beginning.
Not what the term aims to express, no.
> nobody has seen God.
Except of course Moses... face to face...
>Not sure what you are saying.
That spirit is not mere action, as it wasn't during baptism.
>subordinationism
Sure.
>israelites wrote the New Testament
And?
Absolutely! And good thing that they did.
>pagan concept of trinities
Not a single pagan religion has one God in three co-eternal persons.
You might want to work on that one.
>Was that what you meant to quote?
Yes. Angels existed with God in heaven befooee the universe was created. Just like Jesus.
>Sure, the Son's mission was to present the Father. Since they're both God. And both are Glorified - as this passage explicitly mentions, thanks for bringing it up
The Son never received the same glory as God.
“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.
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.
>Verse?
Singular pronouns = 1 person.
>Nope. The terms did. The teaching existed since first Christians were baptized in God's name. The name being Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The fact that "name" is singular at Matthew 28:19 is only further proof that "authority" or "power" was meant and not a personal name. If more than one person is involved, then the plural "names" would be used (compare Revelation 21:12).
You yourself admitted that your God is composed of 3 separate persons. And each one of those "persons" has his own personal name (except, as we have seen, the holy spirit really does not) !
Therefore, if personal names were intended here for these three different "persons," the plural "names" would have been used in this Scripture.
Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of," it is perfectly correct to use "name" in the singular. In fact, it must be used that way. We even recognize this in our own language today. We say, for example, "I did it in the name [singular] of love, humanity, and justice."
It is significant that Scriptures show that the personal name of God and the personal name of Christ are two distinctly separate names. It is also significant that there is no mention in the entire Bible of any personal name for the holy spirit.
>>Was that what you meant to quote?
>Yes. Angels existed with God in heaven befooee the universe was created.
Not in the verse.
>The Son never received the same glory as God.
>[Quotes verses with no Glory mention]
I see.
>Singular pronouns = 1 person.
Plural in Gen 1. This argument boils down to "but God doesn't ALWAYS have plural" and the simple answer is yeah, because it was only the Word appearing. One person.
>The fact that "name" is singular at Matthew 28:19 ...
...and the fact that the "name" is Father, Son and Spirit....
shows it's one God in three persons.
> plural "names" would be used
Unless it's name of one God.
>Rev 21:12
No the name of one God.
>Since it clearly means "in recognition of the power, or authority of,"
... of God. In three persons.
>I'm not an expert in Greek, so let's see what Geeek experts says.
>Partial quote of James Allen Hewett
>Quote of a Scottish radio host
>Quote that confirms my point by stressing the difference between "a god" and "God"
Thanks.
>In Ancient Greek, there is no exact equivalent to the indefinite article
Besides the article.
>https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/begotten
Not a lexicon.
> face-to-face,” it means ...intimately.
Not in the text.
>Almighty God does not subordinate himself to anyone
Except himself. Jesus is God.
>three faces are trinity
>three gods are trinity
Keep going. Only a couple more heresies to go and you will exhaust what all is NOT the Trinity.
Lol.
faces are trinity
gods are trinity
>Keep going. Only a couple more heresies to go and you will exhaust what all is NOT the Trinity.
>Lol.
Lol Lugus is one god just as Jesus is one god.
You have no argument Christ-tard.
They are both depicted with three faces on one head to demonstrate the trinity.
>Lol Lugus is one god just as Jesus is one god.
No way, one God with three Faces?
Yeah, again. A heresy lmao. This is not the trinity.
>No way, one God with three Faces?
>Yeah, again. A heresy lmao. This is not the trinity.
That is literally one of the most popular depictions of the trinity in Early Christianity lol.
>Plural in Gen 1
Where ?
26
You might not be completely aware of what "canonical" means. There might as well exist thousands, they are un-canonical and borderline heretical. Which is why they never became universal.
>from the early middle ages to the Baroque
Show me a single one from the 5th century.
>JWs were founded by Christ in 33 AD during Pentecost in Antioch.
Show me where they wrote Jesus is Michael.
is entirely incompatible with Trinity
>I know, they're both pagan.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incompatible
>in Early Christianity lol.
Which is why you had to reach to 17th century for the picrel in
. Show me a single three-faced Jesus from Early Christianity, 5th century, 6th century, I would like to see. The canonical depiction is nowhere near this.
>26
God is talking to Jesus here. Which shows that Jesus is not God.
In all the rest of the AT God uses a singular pronoun.
>our image
>Jesus' and Father's image
>image of God
QED
Before Jehovah God made anyone or anything else, he created a powerful spirit being who later became known as Jesus. By means of Jesus, “all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth.” (Colossians 1:16)
Jesus reflects Jehovah’s personality—“he is the image of the invisible God.” (Colossians 1:15) Fittingly, then, God could say to Jesus: “Let us make man in our image.”
>Which is why you had to reach to 17th century for the picrel in
>Not a single pagan religion has one God in three co-eternal persons.
>You might want to work on that one.
Lol. Holy shit are Christians stupid...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti
Lugus for example is depicted with three faces connected to the same head just as Jesus is frequently in artistic depictions of the Trinity.
https://blog.museunacional.cat/en/a-three-faced-trinity-at-the-museu-nacional-dart-de-catalunya/ (You). Show me a single three-faced Jesus from Early Christianity, 5th century, 6th century, I would like to see. The canonical depiction is nowhere near this.
Well no anon...
It was actually first condemned in the 16th and 17th centuries.
https://www.christianiconography.info/Wikimedia%20Commons/trinityPerugia.html
>Early Christianity
>13th-17th century
>most popular
>literally condemned
I won't hold it against you.
condemned
>I won't hold it against you.
condemned in the 17th century after being used everywhere for for 600 years since at least the 11 century...
Still painted in the 17th century by Christians despite being condemned...
You don't have an argument Christ-tard.
>Early Christianity
>11th century
I won't hold this against you either.
>You don't have an argument
Sure. Christians are actually Sabellian, you figured it out. Trinity is just three faces or three masks. Damn, 2k years of faking our theology, all for nothing...
Christianity
>>11th century
>I won't hold this against you either.
It's what I meant.
I mean the first ever depiction of Jesus is a crude insulting drawing by a Roman mocking Christianity...
>Sure. Christians are actually Sabellian, you figured it out. Trinity is just three faces or three masks
Because Christians consistently depicted that for 600 years?
Because the trinity is absent from Judaism and contradicts monotheism?
Because the idea was lifted from the pagan Egyptians and Greeks and the three face depiction came from the Celts and Germanics?
It's pretty obvious Christ-Tard anon.
Also check out this.
https://tendimag.com/2014/04/10/as-tres-faces-de-cristo/antonio-di-atri-trinidade-com-tres-faces-ca-1400/
>It's what I meant.
Well you meant wrong, a thousand years into a religion is nowhere near "early".
>Because Christians consistently depicted that for 600 years?
Consistently? Then wh were you only able to find examples spanning across 300 years in one general location? Dig deeper.
>absent from Judaism
Addressed in
>contradicts monotheism
Lol.
>lifted from pagan Egyptians and Greeks
Ahh, when failing to link Trinity to 2 religions, try two more. Fool-proof hahah
You have no argument. You have a localized visual meme that was banned for not being proper and you're fighting for your life trying to make it represent the religion as such lol
>Well you meant wrong, a thousand years into a religion
Christianity didn't start with the death of Christ lol.
It is first mentioned by the Romans roughly 100 years after his death. The first complete bible was only created after 325 AD.
>Consistently? Then wh were you only able to find examples spanning across 300 years in one general location? Dig deeper.
You clearly haven't looked at the dates or places of my examples.
>Ahh, when failing to link Trinity to 2 religions, try two more. Fool-proof hahah
The trinity is an obsession of the Greeks, Egyptians and even Germanics...
You can't be serious.
Even Christians admitted this when talking about Hermeticism. Christians themselves even believed that they believed ancient religions were all somewhat influenced by god into recognizing trinities and the oneness of god.
"Ficino's doctrine of the prisca theologia ('ancient theology'), which affirms that a single, true theology exists that is present in all religions and that was given by God to humankind in the distant, primeval past"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Hermeticum
"Hermeticists believe in a prisca theologia, the doctrine that a single, true theology exists, that it exists in all religions, and that it was given by God to man in antiquity.[40][41] To demonstrate the truth of the prisca theologia doctrine, Christians appropriated the Hermetic teachings for their own purposes.[citation needed] By this account, Hermes Trismegistus was (according to the fathers of the Christian church)[clarification needed] either a contemporary of Moses[42][better source needed] or the third in a line of men named Hermes—Enoch, Noah, and the Egyptian priest-king who is known to us as Hermes Trismegistus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism
https://maxvili.blogspot.com/2020/07/blog-post.html
I just keeps going on and on...
The Trinity is pagan, there is no escaping that truth.
?si=jYpeKvdOA_Stiicw
?si=Uu1a6TR-ZNIHsqGG
"Muh Christian Youtube videos that don't address any points made..."
>Your opinion is worthless heretic, shut the f*ck up
Angry extremely Christ-tard had no argument.
It's obvious that Christianity is nothing more than Egalitarian Judaism for the goy mixed in with pagan ideas.
>Genesis says, Let Us make Man in Our image, and God is referred to as Elohim, plural.
>The concept of plural-unity was already seeded.
Elohim in Hebrew can be plural or non-plural...
Your opinion is worthless heretic, shut the f*ck up
>If we wish to falsify the text, sure.
I'm not an expert in Greek, so let's see what Geeek experts says.
scholar James Allen Hewett says:
“In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
William Barclay:
“Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.”
Jason David BeDuhn likewise says:
“In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.”
BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”
>Sorry, this is false. Koine could have easily used the article. In fact John does so many times. He intentionally did not.
Nope. In Ancient Greek, there is no exact equivalent to the indefinite article ("a" or "an") that exists in modern English. Ancient Greek uses a different system to convey the concept of indefiniteness.
Instead of a separate word like "a" or "an," Ancient Greek often relies on context, word order, and inflection to indicate indefiniteness. Nouns in Ancient Greek are declined, which means their endings change to convey information about their grammatical role in a sentence, including whether they are definite or indefinite.
>Not what the term aims to express, no.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/begotten
>Except of course Moses... face to face...
When the Bible says that God “spoke to Moses face-to-face,” it means that God conversed with Moses intimately. (Exodus 4:10, 11; 33:11) Moses did not actually see God’s face, for the information he received from God “was transmitted through angels.” (Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:53)
Still, Moses’ faith in God was so strong that the Bible described him as “seeing the One who is invisible.”—Hebrews 11:27.
>That spirit is not mere action, as it wasn't during baptism.
What passage are you referring to then ?
>Sure.
Right, and since Almighty God does not subordinate himself to anyone, Jesus is not God.
>And?
And you must read the New Testament in light of the Old. israelites did not believe God was three persons.
>Absolutely! And good thing that they did
Depart from me, heathen. You will not inherit God's Kingdom unless you repent
>Not a single pagan religion has one God in three co-eternal persons.
>You might want to work on that one.
Lol. Holy shit are Christians stupid...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti
Lugus for example is depicted with three faces connected to the same head just as Jesus is frequently in artistic depictions of the Trinity.
https://blog.museunacional.cat/en/a-three-faced-trinity-at-the-museu-nacional-dart-de-catalunya/
apalling
>apalling
It was standard and common Christian iconography.
Because Early Christianity pulled the trinity straight from paganism.
The doctrine of the Trinity originates from 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. The Church adopted these Egyptian tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy.
The development of the idea of a co-equal triune godhead was also based on pagan Greek and Platonic influence, including many basic concepts from Aristotelian philosophy incorporated into the biblical God.
As an example, Aristotle stated: "All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity."
The Greek philosopher Plato believed in a special "threeness" in life and in the universe. In Phaedo, he introduces the word "triad" (in Greek τριάς), which is rendered in English as "trinity". This was adopted by 3rd and 4th century professed Christians as roughly corresponding to "Father, Word, and Spirit (Soul)".
Such notions and adoptions make the Trinity doctrine extra-biblical. There is a widely acknowledged synthesis of Christianity with Platonic philosophy evident in trinitarian formulas appearing by the end of the 3rd century. Beginning with the Constantinian period, these pagan ideas were forcibly imposed on the churches as Catholic doctrine.
>Broken disk
I accept your defeat. May God have mercy on your idolatrous soul
>[Copy-pastes radio host quotes]
>[Doesn't work]
>"I accept your defeat
I enjoyed this, let's do it again sometime.
JW originates in 18th century heresies so I wouldn't really be flexing lol
And again, Platonism is entirely incompatible with Trinity. You seem to not understand either.
JWs were founded by Christ in 33 AD during Pentecost in Antioch.
>Platonism is entirely incompatible with Trinity
I know, they're both pagan.
>the word "triad" (in Greek τριάς), which is rendered in English as "trinity"
In English it is still "triad", Anon. Trinity is a different term.
>The doctrine of the Trinity originates from 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. The Church adopted these Egyptian tenets after adapting them to Christian thinking by means of Greek philosophy.
>The development of the idea of a co-equal triune godhead was also based on pagan Greek and Platonic influence, including many basic concepts from Aristotelian philosophy incorporated into the biblical God.
>As an example, Aristotle stated: "All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bound by threes, for the end, the middle, and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity."
Yeah, I think the trinity itself as you said came to Christianity from Egyptian/Greek Pagan traditions.
I would just argue that the three face on one head motive for painting Jesus Came from Celtic/Germanic paganism.
Now compare this with lugus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Autel_tricephale_MuseeStRemi_Reims_1131a.jpg
>Jesus is frequently in artistic depictions of the Trinity.
>frequently
Literally one of the least frequent and most un-canonical depictions lmao
One person in this thread indeed has a brain. I'm afraid it's not the one making superficial connections between things he barely understands.
>Literally one of the least frequent and most un-canonical depictions lmao
Wrong. There are hundreds of three face Jesus paintings from the early middle ages to the Baroque. It was very enduring and indeed traditional Christian motive.
>One person in this thread indeed has a brain
That isn't you anon...
>So when the Spirit is present at Christ's baptism, it is at once on Christ and also in the action of the voice, huh?
Not sure what you are saying. At Jesus’ baptism, Jehovah used the dove to call attention to the role of Jesus as the Messiah, the pure and sinless Son of God who would sacrifice his life for mankind and lay the basis for a period of rest and peace during his rule as King.
The way that God’s holy spirit, or active force, came down upon Jesus at his baptism looked like the fluttering of a dove as it nears its perch.
>As he sent his Son. Father, Son and Spirit. All God.
No. 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.
I 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 are essential in creation and salvation, but that in itself does not confirm that the three are each co-equal or co-eternal.
>Ahh, how could the JWanon not nod along to a historically verifiable falsehood about israeli beliefs.
israelites wrote the New Testament
Trinitarianism has never made any fucking sense. Pretending it does make sense will give you brain cancer.
Of coure it doesn't make sense.
Athanasius and others at Nicaea adopted Greek Platonic philosophy and concepts and incorporated them in their views of God and Christ.
>Of coure it doesn't make sense.
>Athanasius and others at Nicaea adopted Greek Platonic philosophy and concepts and incorporated them in their views of God and Christ.
THANK YOU...
One person in this thread actually has a brain.
Of all the things Christianity just copies from Judaism the Trinity is mysteriously absent from Judaism.
You guys are aware Platonism is entirely incompatible with the Trinity and the Fathers (including Athanasius) spent a lot of time explicitly denouncing philosophy as a discipline?
“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.
>You guys are aware Platonism is entirely incompatible with the Trinity and the Fathers (including Athanasius) spent a lot of time explicitly denouncing philosophy as a discipline?
And that's why they copied the pagan concept of trinities and applied it to a monotheistic Judaism offshoot called Christianity?
Yeah, you might want to work on that one.
https://tendimag.com/2014/04/10/as-tres-faces-de-cristo/christ-with-three-faces-the-trinity-1500-netherlandish-school-complete/
>Early Christianity
>1500
>he created
Verse?
>all other things were created
Which one would be the "other" please?
ἐν αὐτῷ πάντα ἐκτίσθη
Lol through him ALL was created. Because he is not himself creation.
>God sacrificed himself to God?
Yes
>God sacrificed himself to himself?
Yes
Yes, you have to believe in human sacrifice to be christian
Yeah it's plagiarism of odin sacrificing himself to himself