John 1:1- Jesus is GOD??? Let JESUS answer this- FROM John!

[theMadJW]

Are you KIDDING?

1 Cor 15:28 -When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

That shows Jesus worshipped God!

[RabbiKnife]

So what's the problem?

Jesus subjected Himself to his father.  Philippians 2 clearly shows that even through Jesus is equal/same as God, He (Jesus) willingly submitted His will to that of the father.

So what's the problem?

[theMadJW]

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha
One 'Almighty' God subjecting himself  to ANOTHER Almighty' God???

[journeyman]

Are you KIDDING?

1 Cor 15:28 -When all things are subjected to him, then the son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

That shows Jesus worshipped God!

You're missing Pauls's meaning. The context is the resurrection. He's saying when believers are subjected (by the resurrection), that is, seen glorified as Christ, 
Christ will be glorified as God.

[Athanasius]

Just like the Clergy.
Not answering questions, diversion, and deception...

You're funny.

Why does it matter that Jesus didn't say "MY ANGELS" when it's true that the angels were indeed "angels of God"? How does this, or a verse like Matthew 26:53, function as an argument against the doctrine of the trinity?

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaha
One 'Almighty' God subjecting himself  to ANOTHER Almighty' God???

You're having a hard time with this whole trinity thing. Don't you think it would be prudent to understand the doctrine before you denigrate it?

[theMadJW]

What? The resurrection WAS the subject, but that is unrelated to it.
One 'Almighty' God DID NOT subject himself to ANOTHER Almighty' God.

[RabbiKnife]

Correct.

There is only one Almighty God, made up of three distinct persons, the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Son submitted Himself to the Father in death, and the Spirit of God, in concordance with the Father, raised the Son from the dead.

[Athanasius]

One 'Almighty' God DID NOT subject himself to ANOTHER Almighty' God.

Correct, and even definitionally, since there can only be one Alright - without the scare quotes - God.

And then what RK said with respect to the trinity, substance/essence, personhood, etc.

[theMadJW]

[Athanasius]

Imagine using the word homoousios in the same sentence you suggest 'three essences' and 'three natures'. Such a thing might betray a lack of understanding.

[theMadJW]

Heh!

[Athanasius]

Heh!

Well, it's true.

When we look at the word homoousios we immediately see the prefix 'homo-', which we all know means 'same'. Thus, there is only one divine essence (interesting choice to switch to Latin, whereas substance would be the Greek equivalent), and only one divine nature.

It's also a bit awkward to say 'in Homoousios' since we end up with something like, 'in the same substance', despite the claim above that there are three essences and three natures. What does it even mean to be in the same substance? 'in Hypostasis' is awkward because it's in the singular, when it should be in the plural: hypostases. This does make more sense for 'Perichoresis' given that this is an attempt to describe the ontic structure / triune relationship of the Godhead (Aquinas had some very interesting thoughts on the matter).

Actually, there's also the suggested application of 'Hypostatic Union' to the Godhead, when more properly this was applied towards the natures of Christ (that of his human nature and divine nature; literally, the union of two substances). This seems to be a confusion between the doctrine of the hypostatic union as it pertains to Christ, and the technical Greek term hypostasis as it relates to the ontic description of the Godhead.

The image mentions 'Omnipresence' but I don't think even the JWs disagree with this one, so it's an odd scare tactic.

Incarnate the JWs do disagree with, but this again is different from 'reincarnate' and the doctrine of the trinity makes no such claim on the word or any reality it might describe. But even here, there are incarnational views of Christ that aren't necessarily trinitarian in nature, so the target is broader than the doctrine of the trinity purely.

The 'dual nature' claim is confused, but presumably, this is a dig at the hypostatic union that was misapplied at the beginning of the graphic.

Then, finally, the image completes with its strawman idea that the doctrine of the trinity posits three distinct gods.

So as you can see, once you move beyond the scare tactic of quoting transliterated Greek words and attributes of God that literally no one disagrees with, you end up with an infographic that is mournfully misinformed.

[RabbiKnife]

Even Jack Chick rejected that one...

[theMadJW]

Expert at Church Dogma, but completely ignorant about the Bible.

[Athanasius]

Expert at Church Dogma, but completely ignorant about the Bible.

Ad hominems get boring after a while. How would you tweak the image you posted to be more accurate to the doctrine of the trinity as it's actually taught?