And it kind of invalidates Christ speaking to Mary after the resurrection.

Why does Christ need to ascend to the father if he already is the father and present with the father?

you're getting into theological questions you already completely reject the premise of

and questions I'm not really capable of arguing

That's because the trinitarian view is such a wormy way out of the fact that Christ (his physical body) didn't ascend to be with God until after the resurrection and therefore couldn't have entered heaven between death and resurrection.

okay so

You don't have to believe the scriptures (you already said you don't) but the fact that such an explanation is "wormy" doesn't make it inplausible

Then it makes Christ a liar when he speaks to Mary.

"Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my father in heaven."

And the idea of the Trinity wasn't canonized until 300 years after Christs death.

no it doesn't

There is very little biblical precedent for the Trinity. 0 in the OT, and some verses in the NT that can be used to support multiple enterpretations of the God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Also I never said I don't believe the scriptures. There are certain superstitious claims that I think are exhaggerated, but the scriptures are relatively decent historical documents.

Christ not acending to heaven and the thief being in heaven with God makes sense, within the framework of the trinity. And to suggest that the trinity is some invention is patently absurd

"None shall come to *the Father* except through me"

"I am sending you a helper, he will be with you when I am gone" (that a paraphrase, but Christ explicitly talks about senting the holy spirit to believers on earth)

So Christ says to the thief:

"Today you will be with me in heaven."

Then three days later when speaking to Mary:

"Touch me not, for I have yet to ascend to my father in heaven."

That's not contradictory? Right, because Christ is in two places at once according to the Trinity.

Neither of those quotations inherently support the Trinitarian view established in the Nicene Creed.

@DJ_Anuz so what is happaning is you assert a explanation that is not mainstream on Christendom and then you refute the NonVeryWidely Explanation that you gave to the Christendom and because it didn't stand to your scrutiny you don't get rid the explanation some how you find reasons to get rid of the concept of the trinity itself. I can assure you that the Christian concept of christianity didn't appear to solve the situation of the cross you are talking about.

i don't buy the trinitarian view either, since it basically has a part of god die.. like wtf, how can god die

there is also the mountain prayer, where he prays to god, is he begging himself to spare the pain???

@Avald Jesus is a strange case because He is 100% God and 100% Human (God's math not mine) and human always died. And Jesus is not death. So if it was the plan of God to redeem through his death that means that Christ human body was needed dead on a cross. while his soul and his divinity was doing the redeeming part.

So does God have a split personality?

Question

Answer

Is baptizing babies not standard across the christian denominations?

It varies

some do it at not long after birth

some wait for the person to be old enough to choose

I thought that was what confirmation was for

confirmation is catholic

Not exclusively

My husband is lutheran and had a confirmation

I grew up episcopal and we had confirmations as well

it depends on exactly how Protestant a given sect is

*heretics

😂

I'm joking please don't kill me

Yeah I don't support infant baptism

I grew up Catholic but also in the South in general and I've seen it a lot of ways

Man sometimes I forget this is the debate channel

really should stop shitposting here

but let's see, a somewhat valid take on things

The way I see it is, infant baptism is bringing the child into the fold