10 apologist mistakes about trinity

[Mystic]

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

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

[athrock]

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.

[Mystic]

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.

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.

[athrock]

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

Therefore, they are not Christians.

If you want to be a Christian, be Catholic.

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. 

I could provide verses if you are interested.

[Mystic]

Sure provide the verses.

[Minimalist]

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.

If you want to be a child molester, be catholick.  Plenty of job security.

[athrock]

Sure provide the verses.

Sorry, but for trinitarian baptism or for apostolic succession?

[Minimalist]

It's horseshit.

Even these xristards know that.

http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

One of these days, when I get around to it, I'll start a thread on the whole bullshit doctrine of Papal Primacy.  What a can of worms that will be.

[Redbeard The Pink]

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

[Mystic]

I believe Jesus did have successors but they were chosen leaders like Prophets, they weren't normal people, I believe either Simon Peter or James the Just got that initial succession. I believe the former is favoured by hadiths while the latter is favoured by Quran (by the talk of the family of Imran, and James possibly being a cousin of Jesus). The Church is full of normal people.

Normal people don't have authority like Prophets do. Chosen successors of Prophets who possess the authority of God do so because they been chosen by God and exalted like Moses, like Abraham, Isaac, etc and because they have clear proof of their authority.