Are you a Trinitarian, and if so, can you defend the doctrine?

But who is the only true God?

Are you quoting Hebrews 1:8, why didn't you finish and include Hebrews 1:9?

Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So what is this part here meaning - "thy God, hath anointed thee "?

See I know this verse, and I have researched it. The word for God in the Greek is G2316 "theos", but further research, one will discover this word can be used with another Greek word, G3588 "ho", so put together you get "ho theos" or "The God"

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

What is your God's name, Surely your God has a name , mine does, same one God, same one name .. Father , Jesus, Holy Ghost .. Right ?

Let me explain clearly, what do you understand of this part here - "thy God, hath anointed thee "? Who did the anointing? And who was being anointed?

Name means authority. God's authority is ; God

God anointed His Son .. God anoints , Jesus anoints and the Holy Ghost who Jesus sends anoints .. When was God ever separate from His Word

But what is His given name and how many Lords do you have .. LOL

I don't know about you

..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
1 Cor 8:6

There is a reason why Jesus is not this one God but He is the one Lord.

I don't know...I imagine there were several Simon Bar Jonah's in the time period. If the specific name is found there, then it's irrelevant...additionally his bones may have been taken from Rome to Jerusalem.

However, it isn't pertinent to the argument about whether the Simon Magus = the Pope legend is true. The Roman bishopric was only one of several bishoprics in the early Church. I think you'd have to be historically ignorant to claim that the Roman Catholic Church has always existed in the form that it existed in the medieval period.

Those bishoprics were Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople.

I view the Simon Magus story to be legend.

By the way, I don't believe legends by conspiracy theorists, nor do I believe all of Rome's claims either. They are a bunch of blowhards.

Another refutation of Unitarianism is Genesis 18.

The account is that the LORD (YHVH, who is the one true God of Deut 6:4) appeared to Abraham.

He appeared in the form of a man with two angels.

These three were shown great honor by Abraham.

Abraham also negotiated with him regarding the impending destruction of Sodom.

So, in one sense God has never appeared to men (John 1:18), but in another sense God appeared to Abraham (Genesis 18).

How is this explained?

It is explained due to the unique personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I imagine unitarians would argue against this by claiming that one of the three men was not YHVH, but this would be false. It is obvious from Abraham's behavior that it was YHVH in a preincarnate form of Jesus Christ.

There are also many such appearances of God in the OT, especially the ones under the "angel of the LORD" and Isaiah 6.

And, if you delve into the NT Scriptures, it is obvious that some quotes from the OT are traced back to YHVH, when you take the time to research the OT references and trace them back to their original text.

I try to use RCC claims when I can .. If you researched it you'd see what PiousXII had to say and if you saw the names on the other bone boxes found close by it narrows it down quite a bit .. Simon Magus was from Samaria, settled by Babylon from Babylon exile and knew all the Babylonian religion .. Peter was sent to the circumcision not the gentiles though he did witness Jesus to many ..

I'm learning about you pretty quick .. God is Lord

..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
1 Cor 8:6

Genesis 18.

Three men appeared to Abraham not three men in one being. So trinity is not presented here at all. And this a great opportunity to demonstrate to us what you mean by one being.

When it is said that all things came from one God and all those things came through one Lord, there's whole lot of difference. It is not the same thing.

You sound very confused Bro ..

Where was 1 and 2 Peter written? And, who were their audiences?

I don't believe Roman Catholic claims by default. I examine them.

For instance, they claim that they changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This is not true. The vast majority of Christians were not observing Saturday after AD130 and this is a historical fact. It related to the persecution of Christians by Jews following the conflicts of the Jews with the Romans in AD66-70, and AD135. Christians did not support these rebellions against Rome, and as a result the Jews hated them and banned them from the synagogues.

Before that they were attending synagogue and hearing the OT Scriptures read, and meeting on their own on different days such as Sunday. After the Jewish persecution, they started meeting on Sundays exclusively, more or less.

Rome didn't even exist then as the controlling organization it later became.

So many anti-Roman Catholic sources distort history to claim other things, and the Simon Magus legend is from the same origin. Magus may have formed Gnostic forms of Christianity, but he wasn't the first pope.

This doesn't discount Roman Catholicism as an apostate church, though. I just don't believe all the Simon Magus fairy tales. He was a pretty low level player who may have founded a Gnostic cult. That's all I would attribute to him.

A bible verse confusing?! try Trinity.