Philippine President Duterte says Christian belief in Trinity is ‘silly’

Rappler ^ | 12/29/2018 | Mara Cepeda

[SeekAndFind]

MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte mocked the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, calling it “silly” on Saturday, December 29.

In a speech in Kidapawan City, Cotabato, the President attacked the doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as he once again went into a tirade against priests and the Catholic Church.

"You’re already praying at one God, then you’re going to pray at these cursed saints. There’s only one God. There’s only one God, period. You cannot divide God into 3, that’s silly,” said the President.

Before attacking the Holy Trinity doctrine, Duterte said Jesus Christ is “unimpressive” because he had allowed himself to be nailed on the cross.

"Your God was nailed on the cross. How unimpressive. I’m God and you will crucify me? I’d tell them, ‘Lightning, finish all of them. Burn all the non-believers.'"

The passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is among the central doctrines of Christian faith, with Christians believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to save the world from sin.

The President likewise belittled the belief in saints, whom he previously called as “fools” and “drunkards.”

"Saint Catalina, Saint Anne, Saint Thomas, Saint Sebastian, Saint Rodrigo, they’re nothing… I don’t know them. Look, those documents were written – if at all – 3,000 years ago. Why would they care about our lives now?"

"Who wrote about them? Who’s Saint Thomas? We don’t know who they are. That might even be a name for a cow or camel then"

The President – under whose term a string of priests have been murdered – had previously stirred controversy for calling God “stupid."

On December 6, Duterte even joked that bishops should be “killed” for supposedly doing nothing but criticizing his administration, which is waging a bloody war against drugs that has killed thousands.

[af_vet_1981]

I am sure, not one, single, solitary person at DTS is sympathetic to your views.

Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) seems to sympathetic in its
Statement on Marriage and Human Sexuality

It seems DTS's board believes it has the right and responsibility to determine how the Bible applies in the lives of those who appeal to its authority.

Our Religious Beliefs

Based on Holy Scripture and the constant moral teaching of the universal Church, we believe:

Marriage — Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) defines marriage as the permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, and conjugal “one flesh” union of one man and one woman, intrinsically ordered to procreation and biological family, and in furtherance of the moral, spiritual, and public good of binding father, mother, and child. (Genesis 1:27-28; Genesis 2:18-24; Matthew 19:4-9; Mark 10:5-9; Ephesians 5:31-33)

Sexual Immorality — DTS believes that sexual acts outside marriage are prohibited as sinful. Consequently, DTS students, faculty, administration, and staff must resist and refrain from any and all sexual acts outside marriage — including but not limited to co-habitation, adultery, fornication, incest, zoophilia, pornography, prostitution, voyeurism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, sodomy, polygamy, polyamory, sologamy, or same-sex sexual acts. (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:7-23; Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 5:18; Matthew 15:19; Matthew 5:27-28; Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-13; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4; Galatians 5:19;Ephesians 4:17-19; Colossians 3:5)

...

Celibacy — DTS believes that Holy Scripture grants two life-enhancing options for human sexual behavior: (1) the conjugal “one flesh” marital union of one man and one woman, and (2) celibacy.

...

The Board of Incorporate Members is charged with the ministerial responsibility of Biblical interpretation and promulgating religious policy. The Board of Incorporate Members will determine life application as well as final matters relating to institutional theology, philosophy, Christian practice, faith, divine truth, morality, and theological and doctrinal resolutions.

...

3.1.4 MARRIAGE & DIVORCE

Dallas Theological Seminary, believing that the Scriptures teach that marriage should be a lifelong relationship, does not condone divorce as a desirable way of solving marital differences.

Therefore the seminary seeks to encourage marital faithfulness and stability, and provides counseling as needed through the Counseling Services department.

If separation or divorce becomes probable in the life of a student, that person is to notify the dean of students immediately. If the situation does not change after every effort has been made to bring reconciliation, and separation or divorce occurs, the student is usually required to take a leave of absence from seminary for at least twelve calendar months. This leave of absence is not for disciplinary purposes, but an opportunity for the student to work on personal issues involved in the separation or divorce. If after the designated period of time of the leave of absence has lapsed without a clear determination of the status of the marital relationship, the student will be required to withdraw from the seminary. This withdrawal does not preclude the student from future application for readmittance. The dean of students will also determine whether further investigation is necessary. Failure to report separation or divorce will be grounds for immediate disciplinary action by the seminary.

[Mark17]

Cut me some slack bro. No one at Dallas is sympathetic to your plan of salvation. I am not sympathetic to your plan of salvation either. To me, it’s a non plan. I do, however, completely understand 1st Corinthians 2:14. I am of the opinion, that it’s possible you do not. Have a nice eternity bro. I plan to. Do you?

[Songcraft]

Your reactions seem angry and condescending. I’m asking you how exactly you’re supposed to interpret the statement because you can’t ignore it, not asking for a torrent of accusations and bile. Nice job on grasping the basics of sola scriptura interpretation though."

What in the world are you talking about, Luircin?!?   You are 100% wrong!   There was not one drop of "anger", or "bile", or any "accusations" or "condescension" intended in my reply in post #142, which was actually my response to another poster's post.   (I just copied my reply to that poster to you and another poster too, because I knew those links I provided there would help to answer your questions to me in your posts as well.)

In that post #142 to that other poster, I listed a series of scriptural passages, and some related statements about those Bible texts.   To summarize, basically those texts show that Jesus often used "hyperbole" when he spoke, in order to make a point more powerfully and effectively, such as when he told them to pluck their eyes out, and throw them away, if their eyes offended them (Matthew 5:29), or the other time where he told them that unless they hated their father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even their own life, they could not be his disciple (Luke 14:26).   Jesus clearly did not mean those statements in a literal sense, but was just using hyperbole to drive his point home, and that is also what he was doing when he said to call no man father.

That can be ascertained just by reading the various Epistles and Gospels in the New Testament, where, on many occasions, the authors, directly inspired by God, called some man "father" on many occasions, which would have clearly violated that directive from Jesus, if he had really meant in it in a "literal" sense.   (In that post #142, I provided the clear example of the Apostle Paul in Romans 4:11, under divine inspiration, calling a man named Abraham the "father" of all believers.   If Jesus directive in Mattew 23:9 had been meant in a literal sense, Paul would have clearly been violating that directive of Jesus under the direct guidance of God, which, obviously wasn't happening, because Jesus didn't mean that in a literal sense, or God would not have inspired Paul to break that command.)

I told that other poster that when their is a contradiction between a man's interpretation of a statement from Jesus, and God's view of what was really meant by that statement made by Jesus, the man is always wrong, and God is always right.

(God would never have directed Paul to do something that was wrong.)

Many of the Gospels and Epistles in the New Testament (which were all written long after Jesus spoke those words about calling someone "father), contain similar references, calling some man "father", so there is obviously nothing wrong with doing that, or God would never have inspired all of those Bible writers to do that wrongful action.

In that post, I took the time to research and set up convenient links to a large number of sources, which would help to answer your questions and the others questions, then I wished everyone a Happy New Year, and God's blessings upon them.   When I first read your post accusing me of "anger", and "bile", and "accusations" and "condescension", my first thought was that you must have been hitting the sauce just a little bit early on New Year's Eve, since there was not one smidgeon of "anger", or "bile", or "accusations", or "condescension" in that post #142!        :-)

Please go ahead and check out those links in that post #142, and I'm sure you will at least see a clearer picture of our side that question.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

placemarker

[editor-surveyor]

.
None of that is even close to the “trinity” nonsense.

The “Paraclete” that He would send to His apostles was his own spirit.

Nothing in scripture teaches any “trinity.”

That is pure pagan hogwash.

[Elsie]

When Jesus says to call no man father, he does not say "This is my commandment" first.

All those 'sacraments' that Rome has invented.

Did Jesus say...

[Elsie]

When Jesus says to call no man father, he does not say "This is my commandment" first.

Woman; where are your accusers??

Go and sin no more.

[Elsie]

Elsie, do you obey Jesus, and observe and do all of the things the scribes and Pharisees bid you to do, Elsie, as Jesus instructed in that same chapter?

---

And when the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”
His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (John 2:3-5).

 

 

You Catholics DO follow what the apparition called Mary has told you; right?

 

“Whatever He says to you, do it”   Call no man father...

[Elsie]

There is not a trace of ‘Trinity’ to be found in the scriptures.

HMMMmmm…

---

1 John 5:7 KJV

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[Elsie]

There is not a trace of ‘Trinity’ to be found in the scriptures.

There is a 'trace' of BINITY to be found there:

Let US create man in OUR image.

[Elsie]

It's all in scripture.

So is:

Call no man father.

You will feel a twinge of... something... the next time you address 'Father' John Doe; your local priest.

[Elsie]

There was not one drop of "anger", or "bile", or any "accusations" or "condescension" intended...

 

 

Qualifiers are our friends!

 

 

You are quoting the Bible wrong once again, you sneaky devil!   You just made that part all up, Elsie!   Have you no shame?

[firebrand]

A lot of things about God are so silly only a child can understand them.

[Elsie]

(Matthew 23:1-3)   Elsie, do you obey Jesus, and observe and do all of the things the scribes and Pharisees bid you to do, Elsie, as Jesus instructed in that same chapter?

 

 

Golly; I don't know??  Let's see!

 

 

 

Matthew 23:1-3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,

² Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

³ All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

 

 

 

Have you a LIST of them??   (Also; I don't see any "This is my command..." like you've earlier inferred MUST be needed.)

[af_vet_1981]

None of that is even close to the “trinity” nonsense. The “Paraclete” that He would send to His apostles was his own spirit. Nothing in scripture teaches any “trinity.” That is pure pagan hogwash.

False; sounds like a nonTrinitarian restorationist sect/cult's teaching.



This is the Scripture:

Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.

Isaiah, Catholic chapter forty eight, Protestant verses twelve to seventeen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mark17]

Amir Tsarfati, Jan 19th, SMX, Lanang, Davao City. Looking forward to it. Wish you could be here. 😁😇😂😅

[aMorePerfectUnion]

x

[Mark17]

👍

[firebrand]

Me too, Mark. It’s telling that he doesn’t plan anything for the East Coast. Not enough people to make it worthwhile. Only 8 million people here in NYC but how many would go to hear Tsarfati?

[Songcraft]

My brother, Elsie, here's some friendly advice.   I've seen you do this many, many times, posting these big, long, boring, time-consuming, tedious lists, of what are ostensibly "quotes", from various long-dead figures, which in your mind "prove" that those figures disagree with some teaching or other of the Church.   First of all, do you really believe everything you read in books, or online?   If so, I have a great chicken farm to sell you in the middle of the ocean, and you'll really love it!   (Just send all your money to me, a true Nigerian prince, and it is all yours!)

You probably believe this pious religious book, too, don't you?

       

Over the centuries, there have been lots of books and other writings of questionable veracity, filled with bias on both sides (Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Protestant), and, in that light, it is best to take any books filled with quotes and accounts from long-dead figures with a grain of salt.   Many of the writers of books and online materials probably have even less credibility than today's mainstream media, and their fictitious published accounts of Trump and of Trump supporters.

But, for arguments sake, let's pretend for a moment that all of your quotes from these long-dead figures are genuine and accurate.

So what?

Right from the beginning, the Bible records that some prominent Church leaders have expressed or promoted erroneous ideas, but those teachings were never officially (magisterially) accepted or implemented by any form of the Church Magisterium, as guided by the Holy Spirit.   (Read, for example, Galatians 2, where St. Paul says he had to straighten out St. Peter himself, right to his face, regarding the issue of forcing new converts to live like Jews, so the Holy Spirit can and does at times even cause popes to be overridden, before they are able to implement something magisterially in the Church.)   St. Peter's views were expanded and "refined" over time, as the Church's teachings developed more fully over time, and were settled by the Church Magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that refining of individual views can probably be said to be true about all Church leaders (and Church members) over the centuries.

Does that mean you throw out the whole Church, just because some number of its early Church leaders did not have a full and complete or correct understanding yet of some particular issue, and which the Holy Spirit caused to be overridden and rectified in the Church's actual official magisterial teachings, which came out of the Church leaders' prayerful discussions?   Of course not!   Or, do you throw out the Bible, just because some of the early Church teachings mentioned in it, later turned out to need to be further developed, or refined, or corrected, or because some Epistles in the Bible are attributed to St. Peter, who was at some point corrected by St. Paul (who was also in very deep error for a while, and was strongly corrected himself - see Acts 9 - regarding his own strikingly erroneous views before that)?   Of course not!

The Church leaders of the time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, magisterially hammered out a new formal Church doctrine (concerning an issue Jesus had never instructed them on), which declared the new official Church teaching that new converts did not have to become like Jews, and get circumcised, and so forth.   They nipped that right in the bud.   (This official doctrinal decision was all done magisterially by the Church leaders, based on prayer-guided tradition, without any consultation or interpretation of the New Testament writings, as most (if not all) of the New Testament "books" weren't even written yet.)

This is another great illustration of the fallacy of following your own personal interpretation of the Scriptures.   Both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul knew the Jewish Scriptures well, and both men also knew a great deal about the teachings of Jesus, and they both came to opposite personal conclusions about the "Judaizer" issue.   But, they didn't just rely on their own personal interpretations of those things, and they didn't split up into two churches, or just agree to disagree about it.   Instead, those Apostles and the Church leaders sought and received the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and were directed on which way to go, which was to establish a brand new doctrine for the One Church, which did not require gentiles to adopt Jewish practices, and that became the official Church doctrine from that time forward.

Other humans in various Church leadership roles over the centuries have also said or done things that are later determined by the Magisterium to be inadequate, just like those early Judaizers (like Peter and James), but that is why the Holy Spirit is necessary, to guide the Church and her magisterial doctrinal decisions, and keep her on course, as Jesus promised.   Those "erroneous teachings" of various individual Church leaders do not end up becoming official, magisterial teaching of the Church over time, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

What you always have to look at is not the expressed opinions of various individuals within the Church, but the actual teachings of the Church, as hammered out over the centuries by the Magisterium, directly guided by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised), which are conveniently available these days in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.   You may still want to attack those Church teachings, but you won't have to force yourself to continue to post so many long, rambling lists of questionable quotes, attributed somewhere, to some long dead individuals, who can no longer be questioned about those "quotes", or about their true beliefs.

There have been prominent Church leaders right from the very beginning (and recorded in the Bible), who have made misstatements concerning Church doctrines, or non-magisterially proposed some erroneous teachings, as mentioned in Galatians 2.   The opinions of those individual Church leaders in biblical times (like the Judaizers) were listened to, and considered, then officially abandoned by the Magisterium leaders of the Church, under the guidance of God, and the same kind of assessments and decisions have continued to be resolved in that same way ever since those early biblical examples.   So, you can save yourself a lot of time (and save your misemployed fingers) from a lot of useless and senseless typing of all those protracted, wearisome, and thoroughly irrelevant lists!         :-)

(You're welcome, brother!)