Yes Dirk. We realize you're stupid, but 3 and 1 are in fact different numbers. Then again, inability to count does seem to be a fundamental part of Christianity. Just look at Matthew's first chapter.
Dirkbullying is Armenian culture, not something to be done by people who put a magazine written by Pedophiles over the 2000 year old accepted meaning of Biblical texts
Shema: god is one
Lord's prayer: father is God while not the son
John 1: son is God while not the father
Great commission: holy spirit is God while not the son or father
Not only does it not have to, it actually says the contrary. It makes clear that Jesus has a God above himself, which is the Father !
>"As" God
Reminds me of something Ignatius said in his letter: "we should think of Jesus Christ as god"
Both Moses and Jesus are God in terms of representation and authority, but they are not ontologically Almighty God
1 week ago
Dirk
“But Peter said, “Ananias, for what reason has Satan filled your heart, that you lied to the Holy Spirit and kept back for yourself some of the proceeds of the piece of land? When it remained to you, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people, but to God!”” (Acts 5:3-4, LEB)
Lying to the holy spirit is lying to God
Holy spirit is God
>As
In exodus it's a simile
In Ignatius it is not
This is a basic grammatical concept you learn in elementary school in English speaking countries
1 week ago
Anonymous
>“But Peter said, “Ananias, for what reason has Satan filled your heart, that you lied to the Holy Spirit and kept back for yourself some of the proceeds of the piece of land? When it remained to you, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people, but to God!”” (Acts 5:3-4, LEB)
The holy spirit proceeds from God, it is his energy. It isn't a person.
>“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, in order that he may be with you forever—” (John 14:16, LEB) >"He"
The Scriptures do at times personify the holy spirit, but this does not prove that the holy spirit is a person. The Bible also personifies wisdom, death, and sin. (Proverbs 1:20; Romans 5:17, 21)
For example, wisdom is said to have “works” and “children,” and sin is depicted as seducing, killing, and working out covetousness.—Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:35; Romans 7:8, 11.
>I just told you that
Where ? You didn't explain anything
>As usual you've been refuted and your tactic is to play the fool. Why don't you just do this somewhere else in your native language?
How can I be refuted when the Bible says that the Father greater than the Son ?
You simply can't rule out that John 1 doesn't say Jesus is God, the simple "theos" is used for God elsewhere. The argument against this is usually to point to the lack of the definite article when Jesus is referred to as God is John 1, where "ho theos" (lit. the God) is only used for God when its unequivocally God in thr highest sense. But "ho theos" is used to address Jesus in John 20:28 when Thomas calls him "My Lord (kyrios) and my God (ho theos)", which is absolutely unambiguous, Jesus is declared to be God in the highest sense when Thomas sees the evidence of his resurrection in this chapter. JWs would have you believe Thomas is saying something like " My lord and some kind of divine being who definitely isn't God" but that's not possible linguistically.
>Doesn't say that
Peter says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit and immediately follows up that he lied to God. They are treated as the same thing.
>Yes, the Father is greater than Jesus. And since God is the highest being in the universe, the Father alone is God.
No, that's a gigantic leap of logic. You just inserted the idea of separate beings with no justification. The Father has the role of Monarch in the Trinity, that doesn't entail Jesus being created as a being lesser than God.
>You simply can't rule out that John 1 doesn't say Jesus is God, the simple "theos" is used for God elsewhere
You have in John 1:1 a reference to two beings, one who was with God in the beginning. That one is described as theos without the article. God is described as theos with the article. You have a distinction made in terms of theos, one with the article, one without.
>The argument against this is usually to point to the lack of the definite article when Jesus is referred to as God is John 1, where "ho theos" (lit. the God) is only used for God when its unequivocally God in thr highest sense. But "ho theos" is used to address Jesus in John 20:28 when Thomas calls him "My Lord (kyrios) and my God (ho theos)", which is absolutely unambiguous, Jesus is declared to be God in the highest sense when Thomas sees the evidence of his resurrection in this chapter. JWs would have you believe Thomas is saying something like " My lord and some kind of divine being who definitely isn't God" but that's not possible linguistically.
That's not the argument I am making though. I never said that every time you have the word "theos" used without the article or with the article it has to be a god or God.
What I'm saying is there's a distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction. It's not meaningless.
there's a difference when you're trying to make a difference. When there's two persons there, two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that's significant
and do you know what ? That's the ONY TIME in the entire Bible that's ever done !
THE ONLY TIME !
So do you think it's significant ? (the answer is yes)
So the New Testament inambiguously calls Jesus God in the fullest sense and your only counter-argument is "It only says it once!" That's literally not an argument. John 1 distinguishes them because they are different members of the trinity, John 20 explicitly clarifies that Jesus is nevertheless God the highest. The Bible mentions plenty of things only once but they are still Biblical!
1 week ago
Anonymous
>So the New Testament inambiguously calls Jesus God in the fullest sense
It doesn't.
Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your law, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34) referring to Psalm 82:6–8.
God (theos in Greek / El in Hebrew) basically means powerful or mighty one.
the Bible can use the word 'god' to refer to humans (John 10:34,35), prophets (Exodus 7:1), false deities (Exodus 12:12), angels (Psalms 8:5) and even Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4)
The Bible refers to Jesus as a god but he is a god compared to humans, not because he is Almighty God himself.
Angels are also gods compared to humans for example, that is why they are called as such. They are divine beings, and thus lesser gods.
So the the point being for Thomas calling him such in John 20:28 is that Jesus was a powerful or mighty one to the Apostles, as the resurrected Messiah, and as the reflection of God the Father.
>and your only counter-argument is "It only says it once!"
Literally, it makes a distinction between "THE GOD" (ha theos) and "god" (theos)
The true God is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.
But the archetypal image of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning with "THE GOD": Jesus Christ
>John 1 distinguishes them because they are different members of the trinity,
You believe Jesus is God, yet there is the Word and there is God. Who is the God that Word was with at the beginning ?
It distinguishes between the Word and God. It doesn't make a distinction between Father, Holy Spirit and the Word. But between God and the Word.
We have two disntinct beings. Just as Jesus and God are two distinct beings.
1 week ago
Anonymous
You've just ignored everything I said about John 20:28 which has Jesus called "ho theos" = THE GOD.
1 week ago
Anonymous
And you've just ignored everything I said about the distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>And you've just ignored everything I said about the distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction.
That's the exact thing I addressed. In John 20:28, Jesus is called The God (ho theos) with the definie article.
ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.
Literally, with caps to show definite articles: "My LORD and my GOD"
1 week ago
Anonymous
You're not listening. In John 20:28 there is no distinction made. But there is in John 1:1.
Why ? Because two different Gods are being discussed in it. The Word and the God he was with at the beginning.
The only fair thing it would seem to do is to carry over that distinction into our English translations. Few of them do it.
The NWT does it because it is honest, contrary to most versions.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>You're not listening. In John 20:28 there is no distinction made
So can you admit that John 20:28 explicitly calls Jesus GOD?
1 week ago
Anonymous
We both agree that Jesus is called God. Just like human judges (John 10:34,35), prophets (Exodus 7:1), false deities (Exodus 12:12), angels (Psalms 8:5) and even Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4)
But Jesus is never called Almighty God, nor is he ever being rendered latriea, the highest form of worship.
Why ?
Because Jesus was created by, and submits to, the FATHER whose name is Jehovah.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>But Jesus is never called Almighty God
He literally is in John 20:28, "ho theos"
1 week ago
Anonymous
"ho theos" doesn't mean God Almighty, it means "the God"
It's amazing how trinitarians latch unto a single verse instead of reading each verse in the light of others
The difference between you and JWs is that we don't ignore all verses of the Bible
1 week ago
Anonymous
Sorry, I thought you meant God Almighty to refer to God in His full divinity. God Almighty usually translates the Hebrew 'El Shaddai' so I don't know your exact referent there.
In any case "ho theos" is only ever used to refer to God as ultimate divinity, it's nowhere used to refer to a lesser god or angel or human. John 1 doesn't use "ho theos" for the Logos but plain "theos" could refer to the God or a god, it doesn't rule out Jesus being the God, unlike what you imply. Since John obviously wrote both chapters, reading the whole work, he clearly presents Jesus as THE God. John 20:28 can't be interpreted any other way, that's the only thing "ho theos" ever refers to in the rest of the New Testament
1 week ago
JWanon
>Sorry, I thought you meant God Almighty to refer to God in His full divinity. God Almighty usually translates the Hebrew 'El Shaddai' so I don't know your exact referent there.
Jesus is never called El Shaddai, only Jehovah has this title
>In any case "ho theos" is only ever used to refer to God as ultimate divinity, it's nowhere used to refer to a lesser god or angel or human.
Yes it is. In John 28.
>John 1 doesn't use "ho theos" for the Logos but plain "theos" could refer to the God or a god, it doesn't rule out Jesus being the God, unlike what you imply.
John 1 speaks of two different theos, one of whom is the Word. It never says that the Word is part of a substance made of three persons.
>Since John obviously wrote both chapters, reading the whole work, he clearly presents Jesus as THE God.
John 1 makes a distinction from the use of the articles. There is no distinction made in Thomas' words.
Thomas said "the Lord and God of me" to Jesus, because Jesus is God's mouthpiece, his prophet. In John 14:9, Jesus said 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.' Jesus’ following explanation shows that this was so because he faithfully REPRESENTED HIS FATHER, spoke the Father’s words, and did the Father’s works. (John 14:10, 11; John 12:28, 44-49.)
Just as he himself said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, AND OF THE ONE WHOM YOU SENT FORTH, JESUS CHRIST.”—John 17:3.
So everything Jesus said and did, he did so under the direction of his God. "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." (John 5:19)
1 week ago
JWanon Slayer
Do you want me to embarass you again, heretic?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>John 20 explicitly clarifies that Jesus is nevertheless God the highest.
“The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.
>The Bible mentions plenty of things only once but they are still Biblical!
Do you know whta it mentions too ?
It mentions: “To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
Paul didn't say "one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
ONE GOD: the FATHER !!
>after Jesus began to reign in 1914, things moved ahead rapidly.
and where is the bible verse for this too?
biblical chronology tells us that the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity both occurred in 607 BCE.
Daniel chapter 4 prophesied a period of 2,520 years starting with 607 BCE and ending at 1914 CE.
We equate this period with the "Gentile Times" or "the appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24). When the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, the line of kings descended from David was interrupted, and that God's throne was "trampled on" from then until Jesus began ruling in 1914.
This is confirmed by world events since 1914, including wars, famine, earthquakes and increasing lawlessness, which are a fulfillment of the "sign" of Christ's presence as you have just read in Luke 21. Our preaching is also part of that sign (Matthew 24:14).
1 week ago
Anonymous
Try reading 1 Corinthians 8 in full, not just 6 as a pull quote: Paul says there are many gods and lords, but only one God and one Lord: the Father and Jesus. A pious israelite speaking of there being one ultimate Lord, as distinguished from any other lord (or god) is clearly referring to God.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Paul said: "one God, the Father."
Do you know what else he said ?
1 Corinthians 11:3
“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.”
>Peter says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit and immediately follows up that he lied to God. They are treated as the same thing.
Because the holy spirit proceeds from God, it is his energy. It isn't a person.
>No, that's a gigantic leap of logic. You just inserted the idea of separate beings with no justification. The Father has the role of Monarch in the Trinity, that doesn't entail Jesus being created as a being lesser than God.
Regarding Jesus, the Bible says:
“He is the firstborn of all creation.”—Colossians 1:15.
He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.
Moreover, Jesus never claimed to be on the same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.
>Jesus is saying that he isn't doing it of his own accord, but doing it in accord with the Father. The Father has a monarchical role in the trinity.
okay, but the trinity doctrine says that everyone in the Godhead has the same exact will, but then theres a bible verse saying the wills are different.
Because JWs, like most scam artist gnostic cults (see, Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims), rely upon the ignorance and gullibility of proles in order to gain converts
For one, first century Christians all partaken in the Eucharist. There was no "anointed" group of people among them exclusively did it.
1 week ago
Anonymous
All first century Christians were anointed though
So what is the difference between my religion and that of 1st century Christians ?
Why should we listen to Christians instead of israelites about what the Old Testament does or does not mean?
Ancient israelites were Christian.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>Ancient israelites were Christian.
You're making a very compelling argument as to why we should listen to non-Christians about what the Bible means.
1 week ago
Anonymous
They had faith in the coming Messiah. They were Christian. Christ means Messiah
Abel was the first Christian.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Christ means Annointed One. It was a Roman Catholic invention.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Not him, but so does Messiah. It ultimately derives from the Aramaic word משיח which means "Anointed".
1 week ago
Anonymous
>They had faith in the coming Messiah
A messiah. There are multiple Messiahs in the Bible, including but not limited to Cyrus the Great.
>They were Christian.
Nope. Because they didn't believe in Jesus or his retarded Greek fanfictions.
>Christ means Messiah
This might come as a shock to you, but believing in a messiah does not necessarily equate to believing in Jesus. Especially since Jesus fails quite a few of the messianic prophecies, like that one about ingathering the lost tribes.
>Abel was the first Christian.
Nope. Not even any evidence going by your idiotic definition of "believing in a messiah=Christian".
1 week ago
Anonymous
>A messiah. There are multiple Messiahs in the Bible, including but not limited to Cyrus the Great.
I'm not talking about *a* messiah. But about THE Messiah.
>Nope. Because they didn't believe in Jesus or his retarded Greek fanfictions
They didn't know his precise identity, but they had faith he would come. So they were Christians.
>This might come as a shock to you, but believing in a messiah does not necessarily equate to believing in Jesus. Especially since Jesus fails quite a few of the messianic prophecies, like that one about ingathering the lost tribes.
Jesus fulfilled most prophecies, including being born in Bethlehem, curing the sick and dying for our iniquities. He will fulfill the rest of the prophecies at his return.
>Nope. Not even any evidence going by your idiotic definition of "believing in a messiah=Christian".
He had faith in the coming Christ ever since Jehovah foretold his coming in Genesis 3:15
1 week ago
Anonymous
>All first century Christians were anointed though
What Bible verse says that
1 - 100 AD Christians were 100% anointed
1900 - 2000 AD Christians were 5% anointed
?
1 week ago
Anonymous
all the evidence supports this viewpoint. Think of all the individuals and congregations that are spoken of after Jesus death in 33ce, these Christians were all addressed as anointed ones, Holy Ones, Spiritual Israel, Firstfruits, Born Again, Israel of God, Bride of Christ, etc.
1 week ago
Anonymous
bible verse please
1 week ago
Anonymous
In John 10:7-16, Jesus first spoke of his “sheep,” who are to be the “little flock” destined for heavenly life. Jesus next said: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.”
the “other sheep” are those whose prospect is earthly life.—Luke 12:32.
1 week ago
Anonymous
this verse mentions nothing about people being "anointed" nor does it say 2000 years in the future only 5% of Christians are anointed.
This smells a lot like tradition of man.
1 week ago
Anonymous
Not all 144,000 anointed Christians were selected in the first century. Their calling continued throughout the apostolic period and then apparently slowed down. However, it did continue throughout the succeeding centuries into modern times. (Matthew 28:20)
Eventually, after Jesus began to reign in 1914, things moved ahead rapidly.
1 week ago
Anonymous
There have been many more JWs than 144,000, most of you are damned according to your own religion.
1 week ago
Anonymous
No, because God promises everlasting life on earth for most good people.—Psalm 37:11, 29, 34.
1 week ago
Anonymous
>and then apparently slowed down
Yeah, where is the Bible verse that says this?
1 week ago
Anonymous
>after Jesus began to reign in 1914, things moved ahead rapidly.
and where is the bible verse for this too?
I have to be honest, if the Bible is self-evident and intended to make the simple wise, serving as the plain truth, it's weird that it needs hundreds of thousands of pages of other books and manuscripts and debates and explanations and interpretations to remain consistent and logical.
There are 6 major Christian denominations (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) divided into some 300 different subtraditions (Anglican, Lutheran, Latin, Episcopal, etc.)
As a Christian, why am I even committed to what John 1 says?
No good proof that Jesus ever said this. Not going to take the veracity of the Gospels on pure faith.
I just care about Jesus, not the Gospel selected by the councils
John was released during the reign of the next emperor, Nerva, 96-98 C.E., and his Gospel and three letters were completed after Trajan (98-117 C.E.) began to rule.
Jesus agreed with you. He said God was greater than him. He made no distinction between the Father and God. He worships the same God we do. Besides, the story of his resurrection makes no sense if he's God. But it makes a lot of sense if he was a man who beat sin, thus death. You can tempt a man, that's the story of his temptation in the desert makes sense. But it doesn't make sense if he's God. Trinitarians have to have it both ways in an onslaught ridiculous rationalizations to try and make their theology work.
Yes you are right
it's a conclusion people came to based off of theological discussions and previous ideas. A solid legalistic attempt at solidifying spiritual knowledge. People came up with the idea that Christ had to be purely spiritual and not physical, others pointed out he had to be physical in order for his sacrifice to mean anything, ergo god must have different aspects if he can be a suffer physically and be perfect as a spiritual entity.
Christendom's own historians openly acknowledge that this doctrine is scripture mixed with a lot of philosophy, yet trinitarians still insist that it's truth that's required for all Christians, lol
Why didn't Jesus just explain this stuff?
He did
John 20:17
"I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."
7 days ago
Anonymous
>John was released during the reign of the next emperor, Nerva, 96-98 C.E., and his Gospel and three letters were completed after Trajan (98-117 C.E.) began to rule.
Okay..
How do you know there were no books written after John?
7 days ago
JWanon
Because John wrote them. How can John write them after himself ?
7 days ago
Anonymous
How do you know Second Peter is written before John?
7 days ago
JWanon
Because the israelites killed Peter long before John wrote his books
7 days ago
Anonymous
Why do you think Peter wrote Second Peter?
7 days ago
JWanon
The writer says he is “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:1) He refers to this as “the second letter I am writing you.” (3:1)
7 days ago
Anonymous
Could someone that wasn't Peter have written that?
>Not going to take the veracity of the Gospels on pure faith.
Then you're not a Christian, period. This would be like a Muslim saying that he's not going to take the veracity of the Quran on pure faith, or a Mormon saying that he's not going to veracity of the Book of Mormon on pure faith. >I just care about Jesus, not the Gospel selected by the councils
You can't know Jesus if you don't believe the Gospels, they're your only access to what Jesus did and say.
Jesus agreed with you. He said God was greater than him. He made no distinction between the Father and God. He worships the same God we do. Besides, the story of his resurrection makes no sense if he's God. But it makes a lot of sense if he was a man who beat sin, thus death. You can tempt a man, that's the story of his temptation in the desert makes sense. But it doesn't make sense if he's God. Trinitarians have to have it both ways in an onslaught ridiculous rationalizations to try and make their theology work.
Jesus later said his desire is for us to all be one like he has one with the Father. So does that mean his desire is for a billioninity? We all become God? No, clearly he is meaning something other than what you are forcing.
it's a conclusion people came to based off of theological discussions and previous ideas. A solid legalistic attempt at solidifying spiritual knowledge. People came up with the idea that Christ had to be purely spiritual and not physical, others pointed out he had to be physical in order for his sacrifice to mean anything, ergo god must have different aspects if he can be a suffer physically and be perfect as a spiritual entity.
There was no need, the Trinity is higher theological knowledge, it has no bearing on your salvation, there are plenty of people who understand the Trinity but don't believe in it,
But them understanding the Trinity doesn't save them if they don't believe it.
That's false btw. The Triune Lord is the only true God. Whoever does not have the Son does not have the Father. If you reject the Trinity you will not be saved, and you are not a Christian.
This thread is full of people who are trapped in an evocation. When a magician makes a meme ambiguous, it forces people to argue about it ad infinitum. It keeps the meme alive. There is no way to prove the conclusion of the OP one way or the other. Which explanation will help you love God with all your heart and soul? That is the correct answer. Everything else is noise.
Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father with . . . truth.” (John 4:23)
That truth has been recorded in the Bible. (John 17:17)
Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God ?
For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)
A third line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10)
Were they brothers of Almighty God ???
Of course not !!!
But through their faith in Christ—God’s preeminent Son—they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26)
That's false btw. The Triune Lord is the only true God. Whoever does not have the Son does not have the Father. If you reject the Trinity you will not be saved, and you are not a Christian.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
The bible verses in OP's pic actually contradict polytheism, not the Trinity. This is massively ironic because it refutes the polytheistic Jehovah's Witnesses religion, which believes there are gods besides Yahweh such as Michael the Archangel whom they call "a god"
Define "God"
holy shit bros, the entire edifice of Christianity is collapsing as we post. how did OP manage it
Simple, just read the Bible
Tell me about the stake. Why isn’t it a cross… when we literally know that the Romans killed many people that way.
The Bible generally uses the Greek word stau·rosʹ when referring to the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John 19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake.”
According to A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, stau·rosʹ “never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle.”
The Bible also uses the Greek word xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.” The Companion Bible thus concludes: “There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”
>For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)>
I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 NIV
>Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God ?>
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 NIV
In what sense are they "one" ? In the sense "one God" ? That's not what he said
We do have a clue of what he meant though. Later, Jesus PRAYED that his disciples could “ALL BE ONE,” just as he and his Father ARE ONE.—John 17:20-23
In what sense were his disicples were to be ONE ? In the sense of unity, cohesion. They had to work together as a team, just as Jesus and God are working in unison.
>"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 NIV
Yes, Jesus is divine in nature. That doesn't make him God Almighty. Angels are divine too, as well as Saints
We do not believe that Jesus is God nor "a god" in the sense that they belong to a pantheon as some try to accuse us. But Jesus is merely God’s judge and representative just as Moses was, (Exodus 4:15, 16; Psalms 82:1-8) but in a greater sense, having become heir to the kingdom of God in order that he might subject all things to the only true God, his Father, and the Father of the heavenly adopted holy ones, Jehovah. (John 20:17; Hebrews 1:2)
The bible verses in OP's pic actually contradict polytheism, not the Trinity. This is massively ironic because it refutes the polytheistic Jehovah's Witnesses religion, which believes there are gods besides Yahweh such as Michael the Archangel whom they call "a god"
>I've never read psalm 82 or John 10:31-37 where Jesus even calls a crowd that wanted to stone him, gods. (elohim)
Well you probably should
Not even jw
>three persons can't be one God because... Because they just can't!
Yes Dirk. We realize you're stupid, but 3 and 1 are in fact different numbers. Then again, inability to count does seem to be a fundamental part of Christianity. Just look at Matthew's first chapter.
epic
Dirkbullying is Armenian culture, not something to be done by people who put a magazine written by Pedophiles over the 2000 year old accepted meaning of Biblical texts
Tpbp. Tripfag btfo
>but 3 and 1 are in fact different numbers
Once again you put the god of Logic over God himself
>but 3 and 1 are in fact different numbers.
>Retard atheist cant even into abstract thinking
Most mathmathicians will recognize 3 can be 1 and 3 at the same time depending on the context
You would need the abstract thinking ability of a toddler to not how 3 could be 1 and 3 at the same time
Where does it say that three persons are one God ?
Why do trinitarians keep saying the trinity is biblical ? Are they mentally ill ?
What's lust provoking about Layton's daughter ?
Only israeli Rabbis ask a bunch of questions as an arguing tactic. Stop asking questions and make statements.
>shutupshutupshutup
>uhh.....you're israeli!
Phew, almost had to defend your argument there. Good job homosexual.
Shema: god is one
Lord's prayer: father is God while not the son
John 1: son is God while not the father
Great commission: holy spirit is God while not the son or father
where does it say the Son is equal to the Father ?
where does it say that the holy spirit is God ?
Acts 5
Doesn't have to
"As" God
>Acts 5
quote it
>Doesn't have to
Not only does it not have to, it actually says the contrary. It makes clear that Jesus has a God above himself, which is the Father !
>"As" God
Reminds me of something Ignatius said in his letter: "we should think of Jesus Christ as god"
Both Moses and Jesus are God in terms of representation and authority, but they are not ontologically Almighty God
“But Peter said, “Ananias, for what reason has Satan filled your heart, that you lied to the Holy Spirit and kept back for yourself some of the proceeds of the piece of land? When it remained to you, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people, but to God!”” (Acts 5:3-4, LEB)
Lying to the holy spirit is lying to God
Holy spirit is God
>As
In exodus it's a simile
In Ignatius it is not
This is a basic grammatical concept you learn in elementary school in English speaking countries
>“But Peter said, “Ananias, for what reason has Satan filled your heart, that you lied to the Holy Spirit and kept back for yourself some of the proceeds of the piece of land? When it remained to you, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people, but to God!”” (Acts 5:3-4, LEB)
The holy spirit proceeds from God, it is his energy. It isn't a person.
>In exodus it's a simile
>In Ignatius it is not
In what sense is Moses "as God" ?
Moses is called God in Exodus 7:1, why don't you include him in the trinity to make a quadranity ?
>John 1: son is God while not the father
nope.
>She is 21 years old
It's over
Least pedophile christian
I'm not a christian doe
I'm Odin's strongest warrior
20 is marriage age for Woden’s warriors sorry retard
>less than 21 is pedophilia
Ok Ms. Dworkin
why do you keep making the exact same thread? are you mentally ill?
What's the name of this slut? I need to search up her name on ATFbooru
Katrielle Layton.
Happy digging.
>not a person
“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, in order that he may be with you forever—” (John 14:16, LEB)
"He"
>In what sense?
I just told you that
As usual you've been refuted and your tactic is to play the fool. Why don't you just do this somewhere else in your native language?
>“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, in order that he may be with you forever—” (John 14:16, LEB)
>"He"
The Scriptures do at times personify the holy spirit, but this does not prove that the holy spirit is a person. The Bible also personifies wisdom, death, and sin. (Proverbs 1:20; Romans 5:17, 21)
For example, wisdom is said to have “works” and “children,” and sin is depicted as seducing, killing, and working out covetousness.—Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:35; Romans 7:8, 11.
>I just told you that
Where ? You didn't explain anything
>As usual you've been refuted and your tactic is to play the fool. Why don't you just do this somewhere else in your native language?
How can I be refuted when the Bible says that the Father greater than the Son ?
Question for Dirk
>Since the being of the Holy Trinity is one, whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit will also.
>For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
How do these two statements not contradict each other?
This verse is better.
>Do not call me good, for only God is good.
John 1: Jesus is God
Acts 5: Holy Spirit is God
Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian formula
Jesus is saying that he isn't doing it of his own accord, but doing it in accord with the Father. The Father has a monarchical role in the trinity.
You've misquoted it, Jesus didn't say "don't call me good", he said "Why do you call me good?" as a rhetorical question:
Mark 10:18
>But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
>John 1: Jesus is God
John 1 makes a distinction between two individuals. One is THE God, the other is godlike or divine. There isn't ONE God being described here.
>Acts 5: Holy Spirit is God
Doesn't say that
>Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian formula
Where does Matthew say that they are co-eternal and co-equal in power ?
>Jesus is saying that he isn't doing it of his own accord, but doing it in accord with the Father. The Father has a monarchical role in the trinity.
Yes, the Father is greater than Jesus. And since God is the highest being in the universe, the Father alone is God.
>You've misquoted it, Jesus didn't say "don't call me good", he said "Why do you call me good?" as a rhetorical question:
It's not rhetorical, he is showing humility.
You simply can't rule out that John 1 doesn't say Jesus is God, the simple "theos" is used for God elsewhere. The argument against this is usually to point to the lack of the definite article when Jesus is referred to as God is John 1, where "ho theos" (lit. the God) is only used for God when its unequivocally God in thr highest sense. But "ho theos" is used to address Jesus in John 20:28 when Thomas calls him "My Lord (kyrios) and my God (ho theos)", which is absolutely unambiguous, Jesus is declared to be God in the highest sense when Thomas sees the evidence of his resurrection in this chapter. JWs would have you believe Thomas is saying something like " My lord and some kind of divine being who definitely isn't God" but that's not possible linguistically.
>Doesn't say that
Peter says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit and immediately follows up that he lied to God. They are treated as the same thing.
>Yes, the Father is greater than Jesus. And since God is the highest being in the universe, the Father alone is God.
No, that's a gigantic leap of logic. You just inserted the idea of separate beings with no justification. The Father has the role of Monarch in the Trinity, that doesn't entail Jesus being created as a being lesser than God.
>You simply can't rule out that John 1 doesn't say Jesus is God, the simple "theos" is used for God elsewhere
You have in John 1:1 a reference to two beings, one who was with God in the beginning. That one is described as theos without the article. God is described as theos with the article. You have a distinction made in terms of theos, one with the article, one without.
>The argument against this is usually to point to the lack of the definite article when Jesus is referred to as God is John 1, where "ho theos" (lit. the God) is only used for God when its unequivocally God in thr highest sense. But "ho theos" is used to address Jesus in John 20:28 when Thomas calls him "My Lord (kyrios) and my God (ho theos)", which is absolutely unambiguous, Jesus is declared to be God in the highest sense when Thomas sees the evidence of his resurrection in this chapter. JWs would have you believe Thomas is saying something like " My lord and some kind of divine being who definitely isn't God" but that's not possible linguistically.
That's not the argument I am making though. I never said that every time you have the word "theos" used without the article or with the article it has to be a god or God.
What I'm saying is there's a distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction. It's not meaningless.
there's a difference when you're trying to make a difference. When there's two persons there, two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that's significant
and do you know what ? That's the ONY TIME in the entire Bible that's ever done !
THE ONLY TIME !
So do you think it's significant ? (the answer is yes)
So the New Testament inambiguously calls Jesus God in the fullest sense and your only counter-argument is "It only says it once!" That's literally not an argument. John 1 distinguishes them because they are different members of the trinity, John 20 explicitly clarifies that Jesus is nevertheless God the highest. The Bible mentions plenty of things only once but they are still Biblical!
>So the New Testament inambiguously calls Jesus God in the fullest sense
It doesn't.
Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your law, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34) referring to Psalm 82:6–8.
God (theos in Greek / El in Hebrew) basically means powerful or mighty one.
the Bible can use the word 'god' to refer to humans (John 10:34,35), prophets (Exodus 7:1), false deities (Exodus 12:12), angels (Psalms 8:5) and even Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4)
The Bible refers to Jesus as a god but he is a god compared to humans, not because he is Almighty God himself.
Angels are also gods compared to humans for example, that is why they are called as such. They are divine beings, and thus lesser gods.
So the the point being for Thomas calling him such in John 20:28 is that Jesus was a powerful or mighty one to the Apostles, as the resurrected Messiah, and as the reflection of God the Father.
>and your only counter-argument is "It only says it once!"
The Greek koine says: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
Literally, it makes a distinction between "THE GOD" (ha theos) and "god" (theos)
The true God is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.
But the archetypal image of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning with "THE GOD": Jesus Christ
>John 1 distinguishes them because they are different members of the trinity,
You believe Jesus is God, yet there is the Word and there is God. Who is the God that Word was with at the beginning ?
It distinguishes between the Word and God. It doesn't make a distinction between Father, Holy Spirit and the Word. But between God and the Word.
We have two disntinct beings. Just as Jesus and God are two distinct beings.
You've just ignored everything I said about John 20:28 which has Jesus called "ho theos" = THE GOD.
And you've just ignored everything I said about the distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction.
>And you've just ignored everything I said about the distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction.
That's the exact thing I addressed. In John 20:28, Jesus is called The God (ho theos) with the definie article.
ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.
Literally, with caps to show definite articles: "My LORD and my GOD"
You're not listening. In John 20:28 there is no distinction made. But there is in John 1:1.
Why ? Because two different Gods are being discussed in it. The Word and the God he was with at the beginning.
The only fair thing it would seem to do is to carry over that distinction into our English translations. Few of them do it.
The NWT does it because it is honest, contrary to most versions.
>You're not listening. In John 20:28 there is no distinction made
So can you admit that John 20:28 explicitly calls Jesus GOD?
We both agree that Jesus is called God. Just like human judges (John 10:34,35), prophets (Exodus 7:1), false deities (Exodus 12:12), angels (Psalms 8:5) and even Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4)
But Jesus is never called Almighty God, nor is he ever being rendered latriea, the highest form of worship.
Why ?
Because Jesus was created by, and submits to, the FATHER whose name is Jehovah.
>But Jesus is never called Almighty God
He literally is in John 20:28, "ho theos"
"ho theos" doesn't mean God Almighty, it means "the God"
It's amazing how trinitarians latch unto a single verse instead of reading each verse in the light of others
The difference between you and JWs is that we don't ignore all verses of the Bible
Sorry, I thought you meant God Almighty to refer to God in His full divinity. God Almighty usually translates the Hebrew 'El Shaddai' so I don't know your exact referent there.
In any case "ho theos" is only ever used to refer to God as ultimate divinity, it's nowhere used to refer to a lesser god or angel or human. John 1 doesn't use "ho theos" for the Logos but plain "theos" could refer to the God or a god, it doesn't rule out Jesus being the God, unlike what you imply. Since John obviously wrote both chapters, reading the whole work, he clearly presents Jesus as THE God. John 20:28 can't be interpreted any other way, that's the only thing "ho theos" ever refers to in the rest of the New Testament
>Sorry, I thought you meant God Almighty to refer to God in His full divinity. God Almighty usually translates the Hebrew 'El Shaddai' so I don't know your exact referent there.
Jesus is never called El Shaddai, only Jehovah has this title
>In any case "ho theos" is only ever used to refer to God as ultimate divinity, it's nowhere used to refer to a lesser god or angel or human.
Yes it is. In John 28.
>John 1 doesn't use "ho theos" for the Logos but plain "theos" could refer to the God or a god, it doesn't rule out Jesus being the God, unlike what you imply.
John 1 speaks of two different theos, one of whom is the Word. It never says that the Word is part of a substance made of three persons.
>Since John obviously wrote both chapters, reading the whole work, he clearly presents Jesus as THE God.
John 1 makes a distinction from the use of the articles. There is no distinction made in Thomas' words.
Thomas said "the Lord and God of me" to Jesus, because Jesus is God's mouthpiece, his prophet. In John 14:9, Jesus said 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.' Jesus’ following explanation shows that this was so because he faithfully REPRESENTED HIS FATHER, spoke the Father’s words, and did the Father’s works. (John 14:10, 11; John 12:28, 44-49.)
Just as he himself said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, AND OF THE ONE WHOM YOU SENT FORTH, JESUS CHRIST.”—John 17:3.
So everything Jesus said and did, he did so under the direction of his God. "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." (John 5:19)
Do you want me to embarass you again, heretic?
>John 20 explicitly clarifies that Jesus is nevertheless God the highest.
“The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.
>The Bible mentions plenty of things only once but they are still Biblical!
Do you know whta it mentions too ?
It mentions: “To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
Paul didn't say "one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
ONE GOD: the FATHER !!
biblical chronology tells us that the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity both occurred in 607 BCE.
Daniel chapter 4 prophesied a period of 2,520 years starting with 607 BCE and ending at 1914 CE.
We equate this period with the "Gentile Times" or "the appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24). When the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, the line of kings descended from David was interrupted, and that God's throne was "trampled on" from then until Jesus began ruling in 1914.
This is confirmed by world events since 1914, including wars, famine, earthquakes and increasing lawlessness, which are a fulfillment of the "sign" of Christ's presence as you have just read in Luke 21. Our preaching is also part of that sign (Matthew 24:14).
Try reading 1 Corinthians 8 in full, not just 6 as a pull quote: Paul says there are many gods and lords, but only one God and one Lord: the Father and Jesus. A pious israelite speaking of there being one ultimate Lord, as distinguished from any other lord (or god) is clearly referring to God.
Paul said: "one God, the Father."
Do you know what else he said ?
1 Corinthians 11:3
“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.”
Jesus submits to God.
>Peter says Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit and immediately follows up that he lied to God. They are treated as the same thing.
Because the holy spirit proceeds from God, it is his energy. It isn't a person.
>No, that's a gigantic leap of logic. You just inserted the idea of separate beings with no justification. The Father has the role of Monarch in the Trinity, that doesn't entail Jesus being created as a being lesser than God.
Regarding Jesus, the Bible says:
“He is the firstborn of all creation.”—Colossians 1:15.
He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.
Moreover, Jesus never claimed to be on the same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.
>Jesus is saying that he isn't doing it of his own accord, but doing it in accord with the Father. The Father has a monarchical role in the trinity.
okay, but the trinity doctrine says that everyone in the Godhead has the same exact will, but then theres a bible verse saying the wills are different.
Why would I listen to a non-Christian instruct me about what the Bible does or does not mean?
Because JWs, like most scam artist gnostic cults (see, Mormons, Scientologists, Muslims), rely upon the ignorance and gullibility of proles in order to gain converts
What am I ignoring ? What am I gullible about ?
How am I not Christian ?
Because you follow a religion other than Christianity.
What is the difference between my religion and that of 1st century Christians ?
For one, first century Christians all partaken in the Eucharist. There was no "anointed" group of people among them exclusively did it.
All first century Christians were anointed though
So what is the difference between my religion and that of 1st century Christians ?
Ancient israelites were Christian.
>Ancient israelites were Christian.
You're making a very compelling argument as to why we should listen to non-Christians about what the Bible means.
They had faith in the coming Messiah. They were Christian. Christ means Messiah
Abel was the first Christian.
Christ means Annointed One. It was a Roman Catholic invention.
Not him, but so does Messiah. It ultimately derives from the Aramaic word משיח which means "Anointed".
>They had faith in the coming Messiah
A messiah. There are multiple Messiahs in the Bible, including but not limited to Cyrus the Great.
>They were Christian.
Nope. Because they didn't believe in Jesus or his retarded Greek fanfictions.
>Christ means Messiah
This might come as a shock to you, but believing in a messiah does not necessarily equate to believing in Jesus. Especially since Jesus fails quite a few of the messianic prophecies, like that one about ingathering the lost tribes.
>Abel was the first Christian.
Nope. Not even any evidence going by your idiotic definition of "believing in a messiah=Christian".
>A messiah. There are multiple Messiahs in the Bible, including but not limited to Cyrus the Great.
I'm not talking about *a* messiah. But about THE Messiah.
>Nope. Because they didn't believe in Jesus or his retarded Greek fanfictions
They didn't know his precise identity, but they had faith he would come. So they were Christians.
>This might come as a shock to you, but believing in a messiah does not necessarily equate to believing in Jesus. Especially since Jesus fails quite a few of the messianic prophecies, like that one about ingathering the lost tribes.
Jesus fulfilled most prophecies, including being born in Bethlehem, curing the sick and dying for our iniquities. He will fulfill the rest of the prophecies at his return.
>Nope. Not even any evidence going by your idiotic definition of "believing in a messiah=Christian".
He had faith in the coming Christ ever since Jehovah foretold his coming in Genesis 3:15
>All first century Christians were anointed though
What Bible verse says that
1 - 100 AD Christians were 100% anointed
1900 - 2000 AD Christians were 5% anointed
?
all the evidence supports this viewpoint. Think of all the individuals and congregations that are spoken of after Jesus death in 33ce, these Christians were all addressed as anointed ones, Holy Ones, Spiritual Israel, Firstfruits, Born Again, Israel of God, Bride of Christ, etc.
bible verse please
In John 10:7-16, Jesus first spoke of his “sheep,” who are to be the “little flock” destined for heavenly life. Jesus next said: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.”
the “other sheep” are those whose prospect is earthly life.—Luke 12:32.
this verse mentions nothing about people being "anointed" nor does it say 2000 years in the future only 5% of Christians are anointed.
This smells a lot like tradition of man.
Not all 144,000 anointed Christians were selected in the first century. Their calling continued throughout the apostolic period and then apparently slowed down. However, it did continue throughout the succeeding centuries into modern times. (Matthew 28:20)
Eventually, after Jesus began to reign in 1914, things moved ahead rapidly.
There have been many more JWs than 144,000, most of you are damned according to your own religion.
No, because God promises everlasting life on earth for most good people.—Psalm 37:11, 29, 34.
>and then apparently slowed down
Yeah, where is the Bible verse that says this?
>after Jesus began to reign in 1914, things moved ahead rapidly.
and where is the bible verse for this too?
Why should we listen to Christians instead of israelites about what the Old Testament does or does not mean?
Christianity is older than Rabbinic Judaism by about 70 to 100 years
the Greek OT of the Christian bible is older than the Aramaic bible of the israelites too, and preserves an older Genesis chronology
Christianity is older than that
Abel was the first Christian
sure thing buddy
I have to be honest, if the Bible is self-evident and intended to make the simple wise, serving as the plain truth, it's weird that it needs hundreds of thousands of pages of other books and manuscripts and debates and explanations and interpretations to remain consistent and logical.
Jesus said that his servants would establish the Watchtower in Matthew 24:45–47
Except his servants made several watchtowers that all claim they have it right and no one else.
*several dozen
no there isn't
There are 6 major Christian denominations (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) divided into some 300 different subtraditions (Anglican, Lutheran, Latin, Episcopal, etc.)
Which one makes Jehovah's name known ?
As a Christian, why am I even committed to what John 1 says?
No good proof that Jesus ever said this. Not going to take the veracity of the Gospels on pure faith.
I just care about Jesus, not the Gospel selected by the councils
The councils didn't select the Gospels. Why do people keep repeating this myth ?
The canon wa established in the 1st century
With entire books yet unwritten?
The last book was written in 98 AD by the apostle John
How do you know?
John was released during the reign of the next emperor, Nerva, 96-98 C.E., and his Gospel and three letters were completed after Trajan (98-117 C.E.) began to rule.
Yes you are right
Christendom's own historians openly acknowledge that this doctrine is scripture mixed with a lot of philosophy, yet trinitarians still insist that it's truth that's required for all Christians, lol
He did
John 20:17
"I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God."
>John was released during the reign of the next emperor, Nerva, 96-98 C.E., and his Gospel and three letters were completed after Trajan (98-117 C.E.) began to rule.
Okay..
How do you know there were no books written after John?
Because John wrote them. How can John write them after himself ?
How do you know Second Peter is written before John?
Because the israelites killed Peter long before John wrote his books
Why do you think Peter wrote Second Peter?
The writer says he is “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:1) He refers to this as “the second letter I am writing you.” (3:1)
Could someone that wasn't Peter have written that?
>Not going to take the veracity of the Gospels on pure faith.
Then you're not a Christian, period. This would be like a Muslim saying that he's not going to take the veracity of the Quran on pure faith, or a Mormon saying that he's not going to veracity of the Book of Mormon on pure faith.
>I just care about Jesus, not the Gospel selected by the councils
You can't know Jesus if you don't believe the Gospels, they're your only access to what Jesus did and say.
I know Jesus in my heart. Bible is a book
Ok, gnostic.
least heretical christian
Jesus agreed with you. He said God was greater than him. He made no distinction between the Father and God. He worships the same God we do. Besides, the story of his resurrection makes no sense if he's God. But it makes a lot of sense if he was a man who beat sin, thus death. You can tempt a man, that's the story of his temptation in the desert makes sense. But it doesn't make sense if he's God. Trinitarians have to have it both ways in an onslaught ridiculous rationalizations to try and make their theology work.
>I and the Father are one.
nuff said...
Jesus later said his desire is for us to all be one like he has one with the Father. So does that mean his desire is for a billioninity? We all become God? No, clearly he is meaning something other than what you are forcing.
Is he equating himself with the Father.
As much as he is equating us with a father. He's clearly talking about solidarity with God. Not every one of us becoming God.
it's a conclusion people came to based off of theological discussions and previous ideas. A solid legalistic attempt at solidifying spiritual knowledge. People came up with the idea that Christ had to be purely spiritual and not physical, others pointed out he had to be physical in order for his sacrifice to mean anything, ergo god must have different aspects if he can be a suffer physically and be perfect as a spiritual entity.
Why didn't Jesus just explain this stuff?
There was no need, the Trinity is higher theological knowledge, it has no bearing on your salvation, there are plenty of people who understand the Trinity but don't believe in it,
But them understanding the Trinity doesn't save them if they don't believe it.
>There was no need
People literally kill each other because of this
People kill each other for millions of reasons.
So what?
Jesus could have prevent this reason, yet chose not to
That's false btw. The Triune Lord is the only true God. Whoever does not have the Son does not have the Father. If you reject the Trinity you will not be saved, and you are not a Christian.
This thread is full of people who are trapped in an evocation. When a magician makes a meme ambiguous, it forces people to argue about it ad infinitum. It keeps the meme alive. There is no way to prove the conclusion of the OP one way or the other. Which explanation will help you love God with all your heart and soul? That is the correct answer. Everything else is noise.
>Which explanation will help you love God with all your heart and soul? That is the correct answer. Everything else is noise.
This guy gets it
Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father with . . . truth.” (John 4:23)
That truth has been recorded in the Bible. (John 17:17)
Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God ?
For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)
A third line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10)
Were they brothers of Almighty God ???
Of course not !!!
But through their faith in Christ—God’s preeminent Son—they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26)
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
Define "God"
Simple, just read the Bible
The Bible generally uses the Greek word stau·rosʹ when referring to the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John 19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake.”
According to A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, stau·rosʹ “never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle.”
The Bible also uses the Greek word xyʹlon as a synonym for stau·rosʹ. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.” The Companion Bible thus concludes: “There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament] even to imply two pieces of timber.”
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jesus-christ-died-cross-scholar/story?id=11066130
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7849852/Jesus-did-not-die-on-cross-says-scholar.html
>Define "God"
That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is
no it doesn't
>For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.” For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)>
I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 NIV
>Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God ?>
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 NIV
Better luck next time JWanon
>I and the Father are one.” John 10:30 NIV
In what sense are they "one" ? In the sense "one God" ? That's not what he said
We do have a clue of what he meant though. Later, Jesus PRAYED that his disciples could “ALL BE ONE,” just as he and his Father ARE ONE.—John 17:20-23
In what sense were his disicples were to be ONE ? In the sense of unity, cohesion. They had to work together as a team, just as Jesus and God are working in unison.
>"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 NIV
Yes, Jesus is divine in nature. That doesn't make him God Almighty. Angels are divine too, as well as Saints
what are your beliefs anon?
We do not believe that Jesus is God nor "a god" in the sense that they belong to a pantheon as some try to accuse us. But Jesus is merely God’s judge and representative just as Moses was, (Exodus 4:15, 16; Psalms 82:1-8) but in a greater sense, having become heir to the kingdom of God in order that he might subject all things to the only true God, his Father, and the Father of the heavenly adopted holy ones, Jehovah. (John 20:17; Hebrews 1:2)
The bible verses in OP's pic actually contradict polytheism, not the Trinity. This is massively ironic because it refutes the polytheistic Jehovah's Witnesses religion, which believes there are gods besides Yahweh such as Michael the Archangel whom they call "a god"
>I've never read psalm 82 or John 10:31-37 where Jesus even calls a crowd that wanted to stone him, gods. (elohim)
Well you probably should
Not even jw
holy shit bros, the entire edifice of Christianity is collapsing as we post. how did OP manage it
Unitarians gets the pyre
Tell me about the stake. Why isn’t it a cross… when we literally know that the Romans killed many people that way.
Isn't the Greek translation that a tree was used?
Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan is the Father, and those Three are One in the Bibles.