This is a follow-up to / "a second attempt" regarding
Please read this (from the "official definition" of "Trinity"):
"The Fourth Council of the Lateran was convoked by
Pope Innocent III with the papal bull of April 19, 1213,
([he] "spent a majority of his tenure as Pope (1198-1216)
preparing for a great crusade on the Holy Land."
"Unlike past popes, Innocent III displayed interest in
leading the crusade himself" source)
and the Council gathered at Rome's Lateran Palace beginning
November 11, 1215."
Do I need to explain anything here ? Guess not.
Maybe "for fun": They began on 11/11/9. Familiar ?
I could stop right here, but I'll continue for "more fun":
"The three persons are co-equal"
Are they ? Then the Bible "must be wrong", because:
“You have heard that I said to you,
'I am going away, and I am coming to
if you had loved me, you would have rejoiced
that I am going to
join my Father,
for my Father is greater than I.”
“My Father who gave them to me
is greater than all,
and no one is able to snatch anything
from my Father's hand.”
Doesn't sound too "co-equal", does it ?
And as for the "one God in three persons"-part:
I wanna try it again. This time I will use a "magic worm".
Of course, I am NOT
comparing some made up worm with God,
I'd be the greatest moron who
I just want to try explaining it again - and here I go:
This magic worm is one worm.
Now, I cut it into three pieces. Those three pieces live.
Seperately. Their origin is of the same worm.
And I can join 'em again, so we're back to one worm.
This is pretty much what this "Trinity"-BS says.
Certainly, that's most defnitely BS.
If we would want to welcome a son of that worm,
a son of that worm would previously have to be
begotten. 1/3rd of that worm would not equal a
begotten son. Yes ? Yes.
Now let's use another virtual example, which again,
does NOT equal a direct comparison (that's my "fear of God" alright ;)):
Three persons: A father, his begotten son and a laboratory clone of the son,
whom he also calls "son", even though he's not begotten,
but just a
clone who was created eventually.
They all share the same DNA and two
are called "son",
while only one of 'em is his actual son, by definition.
The other one is, by definition, a clone.
Now some person makes me an offer, saying
"if you (as in you, the reader) manage to spot his son, you'll win $1000000."
And I go "What ? How is that an offer ? I won't win ?".
But naw. I must pick you and you will have to spot his son in order to win.
Plus: I am not allowed to lie.
But I'm an asshole - if I can't win, I wanna make sure that you can't either.
So sInce I am not allowed to lie, I will now subtly explain and tell you:
"Dude. Look at those three guys over there. One of them is the father,
who calls the other two guys "son". Spot the son and you'll win !
That's all, no questions possible, go, go, go."
be pretty easy for you, won't it ?
The father must obviously be older,
Now pick. Your chance of winning will only be 50/50. That's
Now read this:
Whoever is trusting in The Son, has The Eternal Life,
disobeys The Son shall not see The Life,
but the anger of God shall
abide upon him.”
And Philippus said,
“If you believe with all the heart, it is
And he answered and said,
“I do believe that Yeshua The
Messiah is The Son of God.”
Whoever believes in him is not judged,
and whoever does not believe is
because he does not believe in The Name of
Begotten Son of God.
“For this is the will of my Father:
Everyone who sees The Son
shall have eternal life,
and I shall raise him in the last day.”
1 John 4:15And everyone who confesses Yeshua,
that he is The Son of God,
God dwells in him and he dwells in God.
For God loved the world in this way:
so much that he would give up his
Son, The Only One,
so that everyone who trusts in him
shall not be lost,
but he shall have eternal life.
Timeless truth I speak to you:
“Whoever hears my word
and trusts in him
who has sent me
has the eternal Life,
and he comes not into judgment,
but he moves from death into Life.
So...lemme please ask you...
...how can you achieve trust in His Only Begotten Son,
if you identify His (only) Son as being "one co-equal third" ?
And please - post all Bible verses which explicitly state "trinity".
You will name 0. Zero. Nada. None such verses exist.
"The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity"
was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century."
(..."We gather from his writings ... that he was born a pagan")
So let me summarize:
- Some random pagan dude invents the "Trinity"-doctrine
- Invention dates approx 150 years after Christ's "death"
- RCC "honors" him and since propagates its use and definition
- According to that doctrine, God, Yeshua and The Spirit of Holiness
"are one God" and "three co-equal persons"
- The Bible does not feature one single verse that explicitly mentions
the term/word "Trinity" (how...it wasn't even invented back then)
- A simple search for "Son Of God" equals 55 hits right away
(and there are way more references which are alike)
- The Bible clearly states the exact opposite in relation to
- The Bible clearly states - on numerous occassions - that
you must TRUST both our Father and His SON
- The Bible clearly states - on numerous occassions - that
Yeshua is his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON
I wanna finalize this post with a few questions (sorta repeating myself, though, sorry):
Is it so hard to just accept that there's "a" Father and "a" Son
no need for any highly advanced super duper intelligent expert lvl
- Don't y'all hear some alarm bell ringin' its
non-existent butt off
as soon as you're looking into the history of the
DOCTRINE named "trinity" ?
- Aren't the above (and many, many more) Bible verses enough evidence ?
- Does "...was more subtle than..." sound any familiar ?
- Must e.g. the "most simple", "most uneducated" person
be able to understand God's Word ?
- And if so, would he or she totally understand the "trinity"-doctrine ?
- Would he or she understand the meaning of "Father & (only begotten) Son" ?
Are you sure about whether to even answer those questions or to
just go "hmmm, maybe I should feel kinda "ashamed" now" ? ;P
Thanks for reading.
I really hope that I managed to lay it all out a bit better than last time.
A big bit, hopefully.
Take care. :)