There is no trinity in the Bible

There is no trinity in the Bible

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
  2. 10 months ago
    Dirk

    >three persons can't be one God because... Because they just can't!

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 10 months ago
        Dirk

        epic

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tpbp. Tripgay btfo

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but 3 and 1 are in fact different numbers
        Once again you put the god of Logic over God himself

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but 3 and 1 are in fact different numbers.

        >moron 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

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where does it say that three persons are one God ?

      why do you keep making the exact same thread? are you mentally ill?

      Why do trinitarians keep saying the trinity is biblical ? Are they mentally ill ?

      What's lust provoking about Layton's daughter ?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Only israeli Rabbis ask a bunch of questions as an arguing tactic. Stop asking questions and make statements.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >shutupshutupshutup
          >uhh.....you're israeli!
          Phew, almost had to defend your argument there. Good job homosexual.

      • 10 months ago
        Dirk

        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

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          where does it say the Son is equal to the Father ?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          where does it say that the holy spirit is God ?

          • 10 months ago
            Dirk

            Acts 5

            where does it say the Son is equal to the Father ?

            Doesn't have to

            Moses is called God in Exodus 7:1, why don't you include him in the trinity to make a quadranity ?

            "As" God

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 10 months 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

          • 10 months 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.

            >In exodus it's a simile
            >In Ignatius it is not

            In what sense is Moses "as God" ?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Moses is called God in Exodus 7:1, why don't you include him in the trinity to make a quadranity ?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >John 1: son is God while not the father
          nope.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >She is 21 years old
        It's over

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Least pedophile christian

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a christian doe
            I'm Odin's strongest warrior

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            20 is marriage age for Woden’s warriors sorry moron

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >less than 21 is pedophilia
            Ok Ms. Dworkin

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    why do you keep making the exact same thread? are you mentally ill?

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's the name of this bawd? I need to search up her name on ATFbooru

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Katrielle Layton.
      Happy digging.

  5. 10 months ago
    Dirk

    >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?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >“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 ?

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      This verse is better.
      >Do not call me good, for only God is good.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      This verse is better.
      >Do not call me good, for only God is good.

      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.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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)

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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!

          • 10 months 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!"

            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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            You've just ignored everything I said about John 20:28 which has Jesus called "ho theos" = THE GOD.

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months 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"

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months 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?

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But Jesus is never called Almighty God
            He literally is in John 20:28, "ho theos"

          • 10 months 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

          • 10 months 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

          • 10 months 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)

          • 10 months ago
            JWanon Slayer

            Do you want me to embarass you again, heretic?

          • 10 months 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).

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months 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.”

            Jesus submits to God.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would I listen to a non-Christian instruct me about what the Bible does or does not mean?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        What am I ignoring ? What am I gullible about ?

        Why would I listen to a non-Christian instruct me about what the Bible does or does not mean?

        How am I not Christian ?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because you follow a religion other than Christianity.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is the difference between my religion and that of 1st century Christians ?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            For one, first century Christians all partaken in the Eucharist. There was no "anointed" group of people among them exclusively did it.

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            They had faith in the coming Messiah. They were Christian. Christ means Messiah

            Abel was the first Christian.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christ means Annointed One. It was a Roman Catholic invention.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not him, but so does Messiah. It ultimately derives from the Aramaic word משיח which means "Anointed".

          • 10 months 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 moronic 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".

          • 10 months 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 moronic 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

          • 10 months 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

            ?

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            bible verse please

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months 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.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            There have been many more JWs than 144,000, most of you are damned according to your own religion.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, because God promises everlasting life on earth for most good people.—Psalm 37:11, 29, 34.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and then apparently slowed down
            Yeah, where is the Bible verse that says this?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >after Jesus began to reign in 1914, things moved ahead rapidly.
            and where is the bible verse for this too?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why should we listen to Christians instead of israelites about what the Old Testament does or does not mean?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Christianity is older than that

          Abel was the first Christian

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            sure thing buddy

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus said that his servants would establish the Watchtower in Matthew 24:45–47

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Except his servants made several watchtowers that all claim they have it right and no one else.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          *several dozen

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          no there isn't

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are 6 major Christian denominations (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) divided into some 300 different subtraditions (Anglican, Lutheran, Latin, Episcopal, etc.)

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which one makes Jehovah's name known ?

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 10 months ago
      JWanon

      The councils didn't select the Gospels. Why do people keep repeating this myth ?

      The canon wa established in the 1st century

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        With entire books yet unwritten?

        • 10 months ago
          JWanon

          The last book was written in 98 AD by the apostle John

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know?

          • 10 months ago
            JWanon

            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."

          • 10 months 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?

          • 10 months ago
            JWanon

            Because John wrote them. How can John write them after himself ?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you know Second Peter is written before John?

          • 10 months ago
            JWanon

            Because the israelites killed Peter long before John wrote his books

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you think Peter wrote Second Peter?

          • 10 months 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)

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Could someone that wasn't Peter have written that?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I know Jesus in my heart. Bible is a book

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, gnostic.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          The councils didn't select the Gospels. Why do people keep repeating this myth ?

          The canon wa established in the 1st century

          least heretical christian

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I and the Father are one.
      nuff said...

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is he equating himself with the Father.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why didn't Jesus just explain this stuff?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There was no need
        People literally kill each other because of this

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          People kill each other for millions of reasons.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what?
            Jesus could have prevent this reason, yet chose not to

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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

    • 10 months ago
      JWanon

      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.”

      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

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Define "God"
        That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          no it doesn't

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >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

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >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

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        what are your beliefs anon?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          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)

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    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"

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    holy shit bros, the entire edifice of Christianity is collapsing as we post. how did OP manage it

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unitarians gets the pyre

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tell me about the stake. Why isn’t it a cross… when we literally know that the Romans killed many people that way.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't the Greek translation that a tree was used?

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lucifer, the Devil, and Satan is the Father, and those Three are One in the Bibles.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *