10 apologist mistakes about trinity

[Mystic]

Sure provide the verses.

Sorry, but for trinitarian baptism or for apostolic succession?

apostolic succession.

[Minimalist]

Normal people don't have authority like Prophets do.

That's because normal people are "normal" and prophets are bullshit artists.

[Angrboda]

You find the truth then it's people. Not claim a people are the authorities of truth and decide what the truth is from them.

In the case of the Catholic Church, Jesus gave his apostles authority which he himself had received from God, and this authority has been handed down from one generation to the next. This is known as Apostolic Succession. 

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Athene]

This is a lecture by a Christian Philosopher (a Unitarian one)

http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-131-10...s-trinity/

Unitarians, like Mormons, do not have valid Christian baptisms.

Therefore, they are not Christians.

If you want to be a Christian, be Catholic.

Cute, Athrock...As if your Catholic Voodoo is somehow more legit.

[robvalue]

Mistake number 1: Thinking it has biblical support

Mistake number 2: Thinking it makes sense

Mistake number 3: Thinking it has anything to do with reality

[Mystic]

I like the analogies he gives about how the "One being" but "three persons" doesn't make sense to solve the issue but remains contradictory.

Those were strong philosophical analogies. Then he discussed the "mode" "function" interpretation. And he also talks about how Christians through out time tried to explain the trinity philosophically in contradictory ways so there was never a unified view even after 3rd century.

[ignoramus]

"10 Reasons Why Gandalf's Magic Wouldn't Work in the Harry Potter Universe."

Or why you can't shoot down a Starship destroyer with a plasma cannon deployed by a constitution class starship.

( incompatable bullshit)

[Minimalist]

[vorlon13]

Technically, considering the plethora of contradictory crapola in the Mormon archives, texts and history, it is impossible to be a 'good' Mormon because there is no way to accurately and consistently apply their doctrine.

Granted, they do, but there can be no doubt, if Joe Smith was alive today and showed up at his church, he would be excommunicated immediately.

[athrock]

Sorry, but for trinitarian baptism or for apostolic succession?

apostolic succession.

Sure. Happy to oblige!

The Bible teaches that the early Church sought to preserve, protect and proclaim the Good News with which it had been entrusted by means of a visible, hierarchical Church structure. Beginning with Peter and the other original Apostles, the Catholic Church has maintained an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession in a real, tangible sense to this very day. The Protestant Church has rebelled and rejected the Apostolic Succession and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Protestant view of a “spiritual, invisible” Church is an unbiblical interpretation of scripture required by this rebellion against the true Church of Christ.
 
A Visible, Hierarchical Church
 
The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the verse above. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths, Paul instructed Timothy to choose reliable men who could be entrusted with the gospel.

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.” (2 Timothy 2:2)

 
In this passage, we see four generations of believer represented: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) men to whom Timothy would pass along the Gospel message, and 4) those that Timothy’s students would teach. Paul does not say something to the effect that “all believers everywhere would be direct descendants of the Apostles”; he specifically charges Timothy with choosing men who would be qualified. By implication then, Timothy was to avoid those men who might have heard the gospel but would not be suited to the task of faithfully preserving, protecting and proclaiming the teachings of Christ. Clearly, the Bible indicates that the Word of God was to be passed on from one faithful steward to the next and that not all would be worthy of that role.
 
Paul also outlined the beginnings of Church hierarchy (as well as the qualification for Church office) in his first letter to Timothy.

“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer (bishop) must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
 
“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.” (1 Timothy 3:1-10)

These verses illustrate that by the time this letter was written in the late first century, the Church had already established several positions of leadership: Apostles (Peter being the foremost among them), Overseers (or Bishops) and Deacons. This is the genesis of the hierarchy seen in the Catholic Church today.
 
Claims to the Apostolic line of Succession are nothing new; the Church has been dealing with heretics and schismatics almost from the beginning of the Church itself. However, not everyone who claims to be in the line of Peter is truly descended from him. Tertullian, a prominent Church leader and prolific author in the second century, addressed this matter in a work entitled, “Demurrer Against the Heretics” from which I quote at length.
 

“But if there be any [heretics] which are bold enough to plant their origin in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, [emphasis added] because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men – a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church in Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church at Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.
 
“But should they ever effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory.”

 
The Protestant Church, on the whole, makes little or no claim for itself with regard to genuine Apostolic Succession for it has little desire to be seen in communion with the Catholic Church. Indeed, some “Bible Churches” have no bishops at all – having sprung from the sofas and chairs of a home bible study to the empty storefronts of local strip malls. But even those Protestant churches that do cling to the idea of organized hierarchy are still stymied in their claims of Apostolic Authority because, as Tertullian noted, their doctrines are found to be at odds with those of the Apostles who are found at the root of the Catholic Church.