Mr Owl Explains The Trinity

Advertisements


Categories: Christianity, God, Islam

20 replies

  1. Mr Williams,

    I thought the animation was pretty cool, but I actually like to describe the trinity in this way. The word, by the power of the Holy Ghost, softens the hearts of the Elect, and hardens the heart of the reprobate, to the glory of God the Father. One God in Trinity.

    But you can’t sum it up better than the Athanasian Creed:Whosoever will be saved , before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

    Mr Williams isn’t there a book that has the Trinity as God, Jesus and Mary?

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

  2. I see…maybe he was outside the temple along with the merchants. Maybe one day we will find a Gospel of Mr Owl at some point.

    Like

  3. Thanks for your replay Atlas Partridge

    As Minerva’s Owl misunderstood the Christian Trinity (above) some have also misunderstood what the Koran says when it states:

    “And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? (Koran 5:116)

    Good Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

    • Jonathan S

      God, the Quran says is asking Jesus in the day of judgement whether he(Jesus) has asked anyone to worship him and his mother as Gods? Jesus will will exonerate himself. Do not have any wishful thinking to believe the Quran is defining Trinity. No. the Quran is not defining Trinity but exonerating Jesus and his mother Mary from those who worship them.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 3 people

    • precisely right Intellect.

      Like

    • “As Minerva’s Owl misunderstood the Christian Trinity (above) some have also misunderstood what the Koran says when it states:

      “And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? (Koran 5:116)”

      And there is the response of a 3 year old.
      Q 5:116 says Jesus, Mary and Allah are the trinity by actually not saying they are the trinity. What a pathetic argument.
      It’s funny too since Christians always mock the Qur’an by saying it’s not chronological and goes back and forth all the time even multiple times in one surah. But then turn around and say that Q 5:116 and Q 5:73 are linked with one another. Now all of a sudden it’s not a mess anymore.

      Nowhere does it say ANYTHING about the trinity being Mary, Jesus and Allah and you know it. If you’re so loose on interpreting things in the Qur’an to make them seem erroneous then I suggest you take one percent of that same approach and apply it to the bible and watch as it gets ripped to pieces. I’ve seen your mental gymnastics Jonathan and boy do you get desperate.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Mary and Allah are the trinity by actually not saying they are the trinity.”

      That’s trinitarian way of life.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Jimmy white is at it again on the DL about the Muhammad not knowing what Christians believe blablabla.

    Like

  5. Mr Williams, Atlas and Intellect, we have to go back 7 centuries to deal with what Jesus actually said in Matthew 28:

    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    Notice Name is singular not plural. 3 persons, 1 God.

    Now if your response is going to be that this passage is a corruption, understand this passage is included in every known copy of Matthew that has this section, and is the reading received in the commonly received texts of the apostolic churches (i.e the Greek Text, the latin text and the Aramaic texts).

    Therefore if your going to assert it’s an interpolation of the text, you’ll have to provide empirical data to support that assertion of how scribes were able to run around the ancient world and add it to all the copies of matthew in Greek, latin and Aramaic..

    Otherwise, deal with the passage..

    God Bless

    Jonathan S

    Like

    • It’s probably not a word of Jesus himself as it reflects late 1st century Christology. This happens to be the view of nearly all historians in the field even the most conservative ones.

      Like

    • Mr Williams

      I see that you did not examine the Apostolic Polity that was explained by Irenaeus of Lyons (Book 3 against the Heresies), Tertullian of Carthage(Prescription Against Heresies & Against Marcion), Eusebius of Ceseara (Church Histories) and Chrysostom of Antioch (Preface to Matthews Homilies); instead of dealing with the passage that was commonly received by the Apostolic Churches you go straight to the speculative scholarship that was developed by the German rationalists of the late 18th century. Since they are now working on the Koran and the development of Islam we could watch videos of Jay Smith, and you can bow to Petra five times a day since you support this school of thought.

      Mr Williams, do you see how I examine the methodology used by Bukhari in collecting his prophets sayings 200 years after his death, and although he was only one man, who used a similar standard to what thousands of Apostolic Churches used, I consider him a reliable source with honest intentions. Yet you do not give The Apostolic Churches and the fathers the same respect.

      The Roman empire with all its power, use of torture, their historians, the gnostic’ with all their texts that varied from one another, and other heretics, were not able to refute the four gospels.

      So please offer a credible tome from the ancient world refuting the Gospel of Matthew; I shall be waiting for your reply; but as for the tome, I won’t hold my breath.

      As a British intellectual I expect more of you than parroting a so called scholarship that you would reject on the Koran and the history of Islam.

      God Bless

      Jonathan S

      Like

    • Why can’t it be that “name” is singular simply because it’s one act of baptism being performed?

      Liked by 1 person

    • if you read the book of Acts no one baptised in these three names.

      Like

    • Mr Williams:

      The apostles did not want to confuse the Christian Trinity with the Jewish Trinity:

      Philo writes:
      …it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one, for they were one by a higher principle… …he makes the appearance of a trinity [triad]… He cannot be seen in his oneness without something [else], the chief Powers that that exist immediately with him… the Creative, which is called “God” and the Kingly, which is called “Lord”… [Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine vision in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity [triad], and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
      (Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)
      http://www.iloveulove.com/spirituality/kabbalah/kabbachurch.htm

      Do you see Mr Williams why we go to ancient documentation, not modern speculation.

      God Bless,

      Jonathan S

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: