I'm sick and tired of Trinitarians saying non-Trinitarians can't be Christians. That's not fair! You don't get to gatekeep the religion because of your autism about a specific doctrine. But maybe we shouldn't be surprised. You've persecuted us and killed us for millennia now just because we're the minority position.
>>18358672The Trinity is a necessary narrative device to keep the Christian theology intact. Without it, the incestuous implications of Jesus's birth become too overt. If God inseminated the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18) and Jesus claims to be God himself (John 10:30) then that means Jesus impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself in an act of magical incest. Disgusting. Hence why the invention of a "Holy Spirit" to act as a separate (yet identical) intermediary between God Father and God Son is important for the story.
>>18358672Religion is retarded
>>18358672The old testament teaches us that there is only one YAHU and that only YAHU is God. So a Trinity is impossible.
>>18358672Non trinitarians can not be christians. Matthew 12:31 denial of the Spirit is denial of the identity of the people that only the Son could save. If you want to worship, be a muslim or a jew, but you don't understand what they worship or why either. The worship of any devil is utterly pointless.
>>18358713Even Jesus worshipped the Most High.
>>18358722There is only one true living God, and that is the body of Christ composed of its members. In Christ, those that are of God have their eternal life secured and salvation from the dark of hell. You may be like a muslim and worship the one true living God, or like a heretical muslim and worship a the jew devil like the jews. Those are your choices if you are a dark demon of hell.
>>18358677The Holy Spirit isn't a uniquely Christian invention, it was a Jewish concept for a while already and is present in all Abrahamic sects now. I think it's evil in Mandeanism interestingly.
>>18358730>There is only one true living God, and that is the body of ChristThe body of Christ is sitting at the right hand of who?If there are two Gods but only one Throne of Glory then which one is the one who sits on it and how then could the other one be equal to him who sits in the throne?
>>18358672Stupid pointless argument for religious nuts is what it is"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Linux VS Windows. Could anything - anything - be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in right now."
>>18358793TempleOS is god-breathed.
>>18358787>The body of Christ is sitting at the right hand of who?The body of Christ is the manifestation of the one true God upon the earth, animated by the Spirit, the embodiment of the will of the Father. There is only one true God, and that is the body of Christ. Your attempts to justify the worship of a devil are vain and utterly pointless. The Son ascended to the Father upon the resurrection of the body of Christ, the vessel provided, the promise kept.
The Unitarians merged with the Universalists to become Unitarian Universalists...their churches aren't Christian, although they might cherry pick a few Bible verses in their sermon about extolling LGBTPZQIA+. Most of them are atheists looking for a social club.>why bring this upOnce you undermine the core teachings of a religion like Christianity, whether it is the trinity or the idea that not all people are saved/"go to heaven", it's a slippery slope towards ending up withe old Simpsons joke about "Unitarian Ice Cream" - you end up with nothing in your bowl.
>>18358813Answer the question klanner.
>>18358867The phrasing of your question revealed to me that your understanding is fundamentally flawed, so I took the opportunity to share the gospel with you... Knowing full well that now that you have been made aware, your righteous slaughter is fully justified if you do not submit to the one true living God.
>>18358775In Judaism the Holy Spirit is God's active presence, in Christianity it's one of three elements of a tripartite Deity. They're not really comparable.
Non-Trinitarians can’t be Christians because they believe in different gods than the God of the bible.
>>18359030>Christianity it's one of three elements of a tripartite DeityNope, completely wrong
>>18359034Christians are not worshippers of the Most High.
>>18358889Who is sitting on the a throne of Glory?
>>18359038If you believe in the Trinity you believe in a tripartite God. No amount of cope / mental gymnastics can change that fact.
>>18358672Early Christians were Gnostic. Gnosticism popped up too frequently and too early for there to be absolutely nothing to it. Whether it was John the Baptist, one or more of the Apostles, or perhaps even Jesus himself, SOMEONE close to the source had to be espousing these ideas.Remember, Christianity is self-admittedly a branch-off of a religion that followed John the Baptist (which itself was a Jewish branch). The only known followers of that religion today are all Gnostic-oriented groups like the Mandeans, which indicates that early Christianity was also Gnostic or at least Gnostic-adjacent.Even scholars are dating Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas to the 1st century.
I fully agree Augustine used it off hand to win an argument and then to excommunicate people he didn't like
>>18359045The body of Christ
>>18359098So who is the one sitting at his right hand?
Rom. 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”People want to just confess Jesus as a good man, or lord, but the Bible tells us to confess THE LORD Jesus, not just lord. Acts 16:30-31 "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."Are you believing on Lord Jesus, if so, which one? There are many lords that are named Jesus. But there is only one Jesus that is The Lord.If you are depending of a mere man to save you, and not God Almighty Himself, then you are depending a wrong Jesus that isn't who He claims to be.Matthew 4:7: “Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)The gift of salvation can't be earned, it's a gift: Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
>>18359118The body of Christ is the mediator, executor of the will of the Father, embodiment of the will of the Father.Pretending to be retarded in order to justify the worship of some devil is not amusing.
>>18359129Who is sitting at the right hand of the throne of Glory?
>>18359145The body of Christ. Your refusal to accept the trinity as one is where you erred.
>>18358683>j-just take the jab chud!!!
>>18359043We are the only ones.>>18359056Again, that’s a lie and thank you for proving you know better and are maliciously lying. Your condemnation is on your own head.
>>18359034The Bible never mentions the trinity church fathers came up with it centuries ago after Jesus to make chrtianity look as cool as neo platonism. However you do find trinities all through out paganism.
>>18359183This contains three falsehoods, 1. that the Trinity is not in the word of God 2. that it was invented by men centuries later 3. that the Trinity is found in false religions. Firstly, it is self-evidently untrue that the Trinity is in any false religion, for while there are many triads, these are not trinities, as they are held to be three different finite gods and not three persons of one infinite God. Second, it was not invented by any man but all who held it insisted that was only what they had received since the earliest days of the Church. Finally, the Trinity is abundantly clear in many places of scripture and cannot be rejected without denying the scripture. Though there is not one place where the nature of the Trinity is exposited the different components of the doctrine are each clearly exposited across the scriptures, shutting the door tight on every alternative: 1. The scriptures teach there is absolutely only one God (eg Isaiah 43:10) 2. The scriptures teach that of the one being of God there are three persons (eg 1 Corinthians 8:6) and 3. The scriptures teach that these three persons have subsisted as distinct persons since eternity past (eg John 17:5)And these taken together are identical to the doctrine of the Trinity, so it is impossible to deny it without denying the scriptures.
>>18359169>We are the only ones.You worship a Trinity of gods, not the Most High.
>>18359149So Jesus is sitting next to Jesus?
>>18359230I worship only one God, anyone who worships more than one does not worship the Trinity.
>>18359225>The scriptures teach that of the one being of God there are three persons (eg 1 Corinthians 8:6)>yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.NTA but doesn't look like the trinity. It looks like God is being equated with specifically the Father, the Lord Jesus is something else, and the Holy Spirit is missing in action.
>>18359241This interpretation implies that the Father is not Lord, which is absurd and self-refuting. However, what is to be noted is the form of the verse in its original Greek, which corresponds to the translation of Deuteronomy 6:4 into Greek, meaning that the verse absolutely proves the Deity of Christ since the intention of Paul is to include Him in the shema itself.The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in the verse obviously not because He does not exist, but because His ministry is to draw attention to Christ in whom God’s people are united to the divine nature, and not to Himself.
>>18358672If you don't affirm the trinity, you are worshipping an entirely different god than the trinitarians.I wouldn't say you are following the same religion.
>>18359233You worship a Father God, a son God and a spirit God. You don't even call upon the Holy name.
>>18359361No I don’t.
>>18359367So who do you worship? What is his name?
>>18359371Yahweh Sabaoth, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
>>18359261If by 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul meant the Lord and God were identical, he could've said it much, much, much more clearly. Even taking into account the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 6:4, I'm not convinced that can be what Paul meant. Surely Paul was aware that "Lord" in the Septuagint there would stand for Yahweh, and Yahweh could refer to either Jesus or the Father because Jesus was given the Father's name, though that by itself doesn't quite make him the same as the Father.My own guess as to what is meant is that the distinction is the same as in Philo's cosmology, where God proper is totally transcendent and unmoved, so there needs to be an intermediary being to influence the world, the demiurge or logos, whom he also calls "the first-born of God." This to me makes the most sense of the "from whom and for whom" vs "through whom"
>>18359376My friend, a person cannot be his own son.
>>18359376>>18359371This "name" you have tried to put on God is false, because the name of was given to his people so that in God's name they would have eternal life and find salvation from the dark of hell. You do not have the name of God, and you may name the devil you worship by any name you choose but doing so will earn you no reward.
>>18359395>If by 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul meant the Lord and God were identical, he could've said it much, much, much more clearly.1. He directly implies it 2. Such is basic common sense and more taken for granted than asserted by the scriptures. If one asserts that God is not the Lord, or worse yet that the bible makes a distinction between them, such an assertion does not merit a refutation. It stands for its own refutation.>I'm not convinced that can be what Paul meantI am convinced that is the only thing which he means>Surely Paul was aware that "Lord" in the Septuagint there would stand for YahwehIndeed, how this does anything but reinforce the argument is beyond me>that by itself doesn't quite make him the same as the FatherJesus is not the same as the Father, the Father and the Son are two distinct persons of the Lord God.>My own guess as to what is meant is that the distinction is the same as in Philo's cosmology, where God proper is totally transcendent and unmoved, so there needs to be an intermediary being to influence the world, the demiurge or logosThis would directly undermine Paul’s point and turn the text on its head, since its object is to deny that there is any more than one God: “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”
>>18359421The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Again, we say these three persons have subsisted as distinct persons since eternity past. You attack a strawman.
>>18359441What does Yahweh means to you?
>>18359445Yahweh is the covenant name of the true God.
>>18359451And by God you mean the Most High right? The Sovereign of Heaven? The Lord of the Angel Armies? The one who sits in the throne of Glory? Which can only be one?
>>18359437>Such is basic common sense and more taken for granted>such an assertion does not merit a refutation>It stands for its own refutationInsisting on the obviousness of something to someone who doesn't find it so obvious isn't very persuasive.
>>18359470It may not persuade you but that’s because of the incredible ignorance necessary to imagine such a thing. Again, it refutes itself, it should not be taken seriously. Read the bible would be my only response
>>18359479I guess Philo was also incredibly ignorant despite basing his ideas on interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.
>>18359169Explain how the Trinity doesn't constitute a tripartite God?>inb4 "but all the parts are the same"If they're identical the incest problem remains when it comes to Jesus's birth.
>>18359495The Trinity is not a tripartite God because the persons of the Godhead do not constitute parts among which the divine essence is divided. The persons in themselves are the totality of the divine essence and identical to the same, and also together.
>>18359503>The persons in themselves are the totality of the divine essence and identical to the same, and also together.Word soup.
>>18359511God bless.
>>18358672>That's not fair!That's just how Christology works, no? If two people have different opinions on who or what Christ is, then they're not talking about the same person.
>>18359491*Partial correction: Although Philo does have the demiurge/logos/image of God/firstborn of God/high priest/name of god/second god as an intermediary being, there's actually a place where he makes a distinction between Lord and God as well, and it seems to be a different distinction.From: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book25.html>But I myself should say, that what is here represented under a figure are the two most ancient and supreme powers of the divine God, namely, his creative and his kingly power; and his creative power is called God; according to which he arranged, and created, and adorned this universe, and his kingly power is called Lord, by which he rules over the beings whom he has created, and governs them with justice and firmness;So you've got God, one of the powes of God which is also called God, and another power of God which is called Lord. Very confusing, and I'm not sure how well that can be fit onto Paul's Father God (from whom/for whom) and Lord Jesus (through whom) distinction. The "through whom are all things" still sounds very intermediary-demiurge-ish to me, which doesn't seem like what's being described by Philo's distinction.
>>18359569This quotation does not deny God is Lord, it says He is called God and Lord respectively because of different reasons. So it actually disproves your implication that Philo denied God is Lord, and reaffirms my point that you could only say such an absurd thing through tremendous ignorance. Either you are trying to argue the bible denies God is Lord because you are so ignorant of religion you do not understand how silly that is, or you know better and you’re trying to maliciously waste my time.
>>18358677According to Trinitarian Christians God is both our father and our bridegroom. The mystical and maybe uncomfortable sexual imagery of Christian theology is not resolved by the Trinity
>>18359630Stop watching porn
>>18359569(cont.) There's another book where Philo seems to discuss the same idea, https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book19.html and there (picrel) he says that the logos/image of God is above the creative and kingly powers of God. But there's still the "only-truly-existing God" above the logos/image of God.
>>18359609It says that two distinct powers of God are called God and Lord, which I think is or should be subtly different from saying God is Lord. I'm not trying to maliciously waste anyone's time, though I do have an abiding deep intuition that the trinitarian "God as one substance existing eternally as three coequal persons" idea is the wrong way to make sense of the new testament and also just seems really arbitrary and slapped-together.
>>18359632>Stop watching pornThe image of God as the bridegroom is from scripture and Church tradition through the writings of the saints
>>18359656>I'm not trying to maliciously waste anyone's timeSo you’re saying you are incredibly ignorant instead>I do have an abiding deep intuition that the trinitarian "God as one substance existing eternally as three coequal persons" idea is the wrong way to make sense of the new testament and also just seems really arbitrary and slapped-together.Hmm, that’s completely unrelated from how the sentence started and what we were actually talking about at the moment, so that leads me to believe you are in fact trying to waste my time
>>18359662Your obsession with sex is from porn however
>>18358672I think it's really weird how the only protestant reformers of mediterranean extraction tended to be Unitarian.
>>183596902026: I am forgotten
>>18358672But how could the true doctrine ever survive without excluding or persecuting or killing anyone who disagrees? After all, it isn't like truth has some advantage over non-truth that should allow it to win out eventually through only discussion and reasoning. And if you get little details about theology wrong, you go straight to everlasting torment when you die, probably, so it's really important that everyone be forced to comply with the true truth(tm).
>>18359730>But how could the true doctrine ever survive without excluding or persecuting or killing anyone who disagrees?Excluding and killing are not similar and there is dishonesty in conflating them. Those who reject the true faith are absolutely to be excluded from the Church with which they have no part. Nor was it the case that if you were not a believer you were simply killed, nor was the purpose of persecution of heresy in Christian nations to protect the truth (as though it were vulnerable) but to retribute wrongdoing, indeed there is equal ethical ground for the prohibition of murder as for blasphemy.>it isn't like truth has some advantage over non-truth that should allow it to win out eventually through only discussion and reasoningNo, it isn’t, not because the truth is without advantage but because wicked men distort the truth to deceive the foolish. This has a false assumption, “all men will debate honestly and evaluate honestly”, which is obviously untrue (and when this error is dismissed the foundation for the modern notion of free speech falls away).>And if you get little details about theology wrongThe identity of God is not “little details about theology”
>>18359759https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-33/>If any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment.Seems a little excessive.
>>18359630>>18359662>"Writings of the saints"Not Biblical canon
>>18359683Was the inspired author of Song of Songs a porn addict?
Unitarians (Biblical, not UU) are basically muslims. Not that there's anything wrong with that, ofc.
>>18359759>Nor was it the case that if you were not a believer you were simply killed,took a lot of time for christians to catch up with humanity over the fact that killing unbelievers is immoral, and start lying about it.
>>18360164Why is killing unbelievers immoral?
>>18360360everybody is someone's unbeliever.
>>18358677nigger no one inseminated anyone, that's not what immaculate conception means
someone else's pointed this out to you like a week ago and yet you go with the same bullshit post
>>18361109If you impregnate your Mom with a turkey baster that has your sperm, it's still incest. Same rules apply.
>>18361109Immaculate conception doesn't refer to Jesus mao
>>18361170Jesus was not produced through sperm
>>18361244Nowhere in the Bible is that outlined. Pure headcanon on your part.
>>18361266Yeah, at the parts where it says He was miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit of a virgin. We’re telling lies again huh?
>>18361271And where does it say that miracle didn't involve semen?
>Romans 1:3, "concerning His Son, who is come of the seed of David according to the flesh,"And nowhere does it clearly say that Mary was of the seed of David, rather the genealogies from a plain reading go down to Joseph.
I do believe in the Trinity, but I agree with you. Too often have Unitarians been demonized for not affirming a vague doctrine. And yes, it is vague. I believe the Trinity can be seen when we combine all of Scripture together, but it is not clear and there are more individual passages that can be isolated to disprove it rather than prove it.
>>18361282holy spirit is not of material world - doesn't have a penis, doesn't have balls, doesn't produce sperm. do you need someone to draw this to you so you can get it to your head?
>>18361282>where does it say this miracle didn’t involve the normal operation of natural lawEverything you people say is lies, sophistry, or blasphemy.
>>18361309Mary is Joseph’s wife, and her Son is his Son according to the law. This is still “according to the flesh” since Joseph is His stepfather not according to the divine nature but according to His humanity, which is the flesh.
>>18361008I miss the days when we massacred nonbelivers out of hand.
>>18360164>Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.>Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.>For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.Someone had to be the martyr-producing engine for the true Christians, and the church gladly filled that niche.
>>18361419Nowhere in the Bible is that point detailed, you're just making shit up at this point
>>18361469You're the one worshipping a literal motherfucker, pipe down.
>>18361600You are a dog and a pig.
>>18358672Nobody actually killed non-Trinitarians for being unitarians. Definite fruitcakes though. Funnily enough there's a sizeable minority of quasi-Arians in the Catholic church. Probably the Orthodox too, but they're in a constant state of schism so who knows.
>>18361686The man in OP’s pic would be an example of this, he was executed for blasphemy and preaching heresy, not for believing Unitarianism
>>18361610Better than someone who impregnated his own mom to give birth to himself
>>18361686>Funnily enough there's a sizeable minority of quasi-Arians in the Catholic church.Elaborate.
>>18361733Most Catholics don't even believe in the Real Presence and nearly every other dogma and doctrine so this shouldn't be too surprising. Most denominations are practically Jewish in how they are only active members of their church for cultural and aesthetic reasons, not genuine religious ones
