/lit/ - Literature

>>15456517
I'm at the other end. I don't get how people have so much difficulty understanding the Trinity. It's not a difficult concept.

Try reading this: https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-holy-trinity

>>15456532
For starters, why is one person called "father" and the other "son" when they are supposed to be equal even though those very words imply a hierarchical relation between two? Secondly, is each person of the trinity fully God on his own, or are they only fully God when they are together?

The Kool-Aid is not the ice is not the pitcher. Yet there is the Kool-Aid man.

>>15456532
Lol, a concept that took centuries to understand and thousand page theological treatises to defend and was still being developed by French Thomist scholars up until the 20th century using advanced metaphysics but this anon thinks it's easy to understand.

As the saying goes, if you think you understand the trinity you probably don't.

>>15456517
You don't get it because it's nonsense and not real. You need to become a semi-arian BVLL

>>15456556
>For starters, why is one person called "father" and the other "son" when they are supposed to be equal
They aren't equal in authority. John 14:28 says that the Father is greater than the Son. They are equal in their essence/being/nature/substance, all words used to describe God, but differ in rank due to the different roles they take. The Father sends the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Son humbly fulfils the work of the Father through the Spirit and this is one action by one God.

>Secondly, is each person of the trinity fully God on his own, or are they only fully God when they are together?
Each person is fully God but not the whole trinity. The whole trinity describes the three persons but they are all equally God since they all share the exact same substance or nature.

>>15456633
There's propably not much to understand about it. Even within the religious view it seems like we were given a very strange set circumstances that we are trying to make sense of.

>>15456633
As you said, centuries were spent formulating the concept; now that the concept has been formulated, it's easy to understand. Kind of like the theory of gravity. If I had to come up with the theory on my own, I'd be lost, but the groundwork has already been laid, and, accordingly, I can understand the theory without difficulty, and given how I was exposed to the theory as a child, I can grasp it intuitively.

>>15456517
You have to read John 1 and Genesis 1, this dumb chart meme is awful and doesn't explain Jesus. John 1 says that Jesus is the "Word of God," that is, Jesus is a manifestation of God's will. It's a metaphorical analogy with how our own words show our will to other people. And it is building off the idea in Genesis 1 where God "spoke" the world into existence. This is metaphorical language, but it's highly important because without a belief in the Trinity you are cut off from God because you've denied the Spirit. This is the unforgivable sin, btw.

What then is the Spirit? The spirit is explained as the love that the Son has for the Father and the Father for the Son, so by participating in the Spirit we can become sons of God through the merits of Christ. In this way, Christian theology and philosophy believes we have access to the Godhead through the participation in this love of God for Himself (which in a funny way still includes us if and only if we wish to be included because we are His creations). This is why it's the unforgivable sin to deny the Spirit, if you say that there is no Spirit or no Trinity, then you have said "it's impossible for man to participate in the divine life." Now I doubt that just saying so leads to final separation from God (i.e. hell) but acting like it is so, consistently and with determination, is certainly going to lead you there.

So in short, the Trinity is an admittedly anthropocentric concept; nobody is actually saying that God literally "spoke" but the point stands that He has a will, and the character of being omnibenevolent.

Hope that helps

Who the fuck cares about this shit? That's like discussing if Batman is stronger than Spiderman or some bs like that.

>>15456517
It’s almost like it’s nonsensical Semitic garbage that isn’t supposed to make sense. It’s a “mystery”, just believe, goy

>>15456517
It's made-up shit to explain the odd plot of how God could sacrifice himself (The Son) to himself (The Father) to save humanity and give them salvation for the sins that he made up to begin with.

>>15456556
think about the relationship between a written word and the same word spoken. can you establish a hierarchy?

>>15457163
They presumably come from a single perspective or conscious "point of view". I don't mistake my speech for its own independent entity, it's a manifestation of a single will. Same goes for my writing.

>>15456651
not the other anon but what do u mean by substance or nature

>>15456517
It is literally self-contradictory nonsense. There is no rational way to make sense of it.

>>15456667
Dude you fucking destroyed that guy he cant even reply

>>15456871
That may be your reading of scripture, but it is not what the trinity is supposed to be.

>>15456535
Thanks, anon, I spent some time on the website and see now why so many Westerners who are Christian are turning toward Orthodoxy and away from the Roman Catholic Church, which has (amongst the higher clergy at least) become a male homosexual brothel. I will be talking to my local Orthodox priest.

>>15456517
Think about states of matter. Liquid water IS water. Ice IS water. Water vapour IS water. But, liquid water is NOT ice. Etc.

Different manifestations of one category.

>>15457243
I can either be a solid body or be a puddle because I was heated to a thousand degrees, but I'm still only one thing at a time. My alternate possible states can't operate independently.

>>15457243
Isnt that a heresy

>>15457243
>Modalism

>>15457243
That's modalism.

>>15457204
Substance basically means stuff. What God is made of. Now, don't take this too literally since God isn't made of stuff but the purpose of these words is to show that what the Father is the Son also is. The same way three coins are distinct coins but all made out of copper and so one in substance yet distinction in number so the trinity is one in substance yet distinct persons.

>>15456517
It's not your fault that Christianity is a mess of stolen stories, traditions, and customs from all across Europe and has been translated so many times that it's almost incomprehensible.

Read up on the Old Gods if you want something coherent and interesting.

>>15457277
Allow me to introduce you to chemical thermodynamics...it is actually possible for one substance to be in two, or even all three, states simultaneously, depending on the temperature and pressure. But I think now I'm pushing the analogy too far.

>>15457292
Of all the criticisms of Christianity there is, this is by far the most retarded take available

>>15456517
I'm pretty sure the official positions is that it's a "divine mystery" that defies logic, or something along those lines.

>>15457277
>have some water
>take some of it and freeze it, leave the rest in the glass
>now you have two forms of the original one thing, and they have separate existences, even though they are the same molecules essentially

>>15456517
I'm pretty sure the official position is that it's a "divine mystery" that defies logic, or something along those lines.

Isn't this just like we are all humans sharing the same nature but being different persons?

>>15456517
unironically take psychedellics. It will shatter your definitions of duality

Ousia means almost nothing in Christianity.
It's supposed to be the whatness of a being, but the spirit and the son do not have the property of cause and fountainhead that the father have. Only the spirit has the property of itself, only the son is son. They are supposed to share everything but don't. The Father's necessarily is the Hyparxis higher than spirit and son. Which even is orthodox doctrine, ie: he is the monarch of the trinity. But theologians hand waves away this paradox of inequality in their claimed equality.

>>15457445
>The only characteristic of the hypostases which we can state to be exclusively proper to each, and which is never found in the others, by reason of their consubstantiality, is thus the relation of origin. Nevertheless, this relation must be understood in an apophatic sense. It is above all a negation, showing that the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; that the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit; that the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

>You ask, ''what is the procession of the Holy Spirit?''.Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.
The Father is the Father because He is the First in relation to the Son and the Spirit. But He is First in eternity, in relation to the other co-eternal Hypostases.

>>15456556
You're trying to make sense of bullshit, son. Take it for what it is. The mental gymnastics to try and make this plausible is pretty laughable.

>>15457371
Lol, no. You'd be burned at the stake for saying that.

The holy spirit is a human invention.

>>15457661
Then how do you explain spotaneous enlightment and belief in Jesus?

>>15456517
I can't fucking believe Christianity survived this autism. You know this isn't contained in the Bible, right? They literally forced a bunch of geezers to sit in a room for days, at spear point, until they invented new lore for your religion that would resolve all the in-fighting. And this is the shit they came up with.

>>15457667
He really is the Son of God.

>>15456651
>Christians still think this is Monotheism
Oh my fucking GODS ahahahahaah

>>15457670
>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7

>>15457690
>“…the reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition…the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin)…”
Uh-huh.

>>15456517
"Godliness" is a quality

>>15458227
Source?

>>15458325
A quality possessed by only a single thing: God.

>>15457624
wew good thing we're all anonymous

>>15457223
>The trinity is just a meme chart bro
No, that's exactly right, read the Bible and stop listening to Romish crap.

>>15456517
replace "God" with "red", "The Father" with "the apple", "The Son" with "the blood", and "The Holy Spirit" with "the wheelbarrow"

>>15456517
>I still don't get it. My attempts to understand it invariably end up in modalism.
that's the point dumbass. if you get it that makes it modalism. you aren't supposed to get it

>>15458398
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

>>15457690
Fabricated verses, similar to the "throwing the first stone" incident, similar to a lot of foundational Christian beliefs.

>>15458495
That's pure heresy, moron.

>>15458517
>>15458674
https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=is-i-john-5:7-missing-from-older-manuscripts
This says otherwise

>>15456517
Modalism is close - but modalism (often unconsciously) implies God changes. God is eternal, unchanging.

>>15458803
It can't be a part-whole relation either, since God is One. The ultimate test of faith is to accept a logical contradiction.

Instead of trying to get retards on 4chan explain the Trinity to you why not just read Palamas or something?

>>15456651
>They aren’t equal in authority
That’s heretical. The entire point of the trinity is that they all have the same authority in that all three persons are omnipotent.

>>15458848
You're correct it can't be a part-whole relation, yes.
It's not that it's necessarily a logical contradiction - it's that we can't fathom it. The term "mystery" is misunderstood in the West, it has also the implication of something to experience.

>>15457501
Yet the what is begotten and what proceeds have no part in their begetting and procession. They merely participate in true Being, not being such by Hyparxis.

>>15456871
Lol no. John 1 says Jesus is the Logos which means a lot more than just "word"

>>15458873
It's catholic and Orthodox doctrine that's its the Father's will, that he is monarch of the trinity, that he is the font of divinity, that he is the sole Arche of all things.

It's not rational, and it's not supposed to be. You just have to believe, and you will be saved.

>>15458895
You can experience the mystery on a bottle of cough syrup. I wouldn't do it now though its a bad time to risk your health. Cytokine storm and MAOI and such.

it's supposed to be irrational because it's not meant to be something arrived at logically since it's a miracle. emphasis on belief rather than figuring it out.

the point of miracles in the theology is it's what makes jesus/god different to us. but it's social function is quite counter intuitive but it's supposed to be that if you believe these absurdities you won't feel the need to invent your own. because when people invent their own it creates new hierarchies that compete with the existing power structure

>>15456517
The reason you can't understand it is because no one does. Christians made this shit up to be complicated so it can't be refuted. Just goes to show how stupid trinitarian Christians are. It's just polytheism masquerading as monotheism. If you're going to be a Christian be a unitarian not trinitarian

>>15458895
>It's not that it's necessarily a logical contradiction
As far as I can tell, the trinity really is logically incoherent. The best attempt I've seen to make sense of it is this 2014 dissertation:

https://philarchive.org/archive/BRATLP-3v1

I didn't have the patience to finish it, but if there's a logically coherent, non-heretical way to understand the trinity, it's probably this guy's theory.

>>15459263
Miracles aren't logically contradictory. The trinity, like the concept of a square circle, is literally nonsense.

it's like you when you're in your gaff vs you when you're at toil vs you when you're on the lash. what's complicated about that

>>15459322
Another modalist heretic -- get him!

>>15459316
I've seen four miracles buddy and let me tell you - I only really believe the medical ones. I don't know what to make of the car battery one or the hallmark card one.

>>15459342
you're focussing on me as jesus in the analogy when i'm saying gaffme toilme and seshme are all god

XX XY XZ

YX YY YZ

ZX ZY ZZ

The way I tried to grasp it growing up was something along the lines of God existing as a gestalt state of the trinity- they are, all 3, God simultaneously (creating the Gestalt) while being independent of each other.

Is this modalism?

>>15459194
thank you for your Greek lesson

>attempting to define the way you believe in God
I laugh.Take a breather: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXxTRnxmY-c

>>15459430
it's ' sum of its parts' logic but also in reverse . the parts are also the whole even when you think they're in part

>>15459430
That's a part-whole relation, hence heretical. God is indivisible and without parts.

>>15458776
>chick comics
Please

wood metal plastic

combined they are boat
individually they are boat (in that they float)

but wood is not metal is not plastic

>>15459475
Part-whole heresy. Next!

>>15459475
metal doesn't float though

>>15459498
You are focusing on the wrong part.

>>15459496
it's just doing substitution for the OP picture . are you saying the OP pic is heresy

Not being able to "understand" something inherently irrational is just called sanity.
Stop cock and ball torturing your brain and thinking it's good for you.

>>15459506
The conditions in the OP's pic are necessary but not sufficient.

>>15459520
they are though. thats literally the whole concept

>>15458873
Only in egalitarian trinitarianism. check >>15459201 only thing he got wrong is saying that catholics don't believe in it. they do.

>>15459506
>>15459532
The "is" in the diagram is ambiguous between identity and predication ( = vs ∈). All the instances of "is" must be taken as expressing identity. There is also the additional requirement that there is only one god. So you have:

f=g
s=g
h=g
f<>s
f<>h
s<>h
∃x∀y (x=g & (if y=g then y=x))

That's a contradiction.

>>15459475
This is modalism. The Trinity is literally supposed to be mysterious and irrational and only something you can understand through faith.

>>15459571
>The "is" in the diagram is ambiguous between identity and predication ( = vs ∈). All the instances of "is" must be taken as expressing identity. There is also the additional requirement that there is only one god. So you have:
>f=g
>s=g
>h=g
>f<>s
>f<>h
>s<>h
>∃x∀y (x=g & (if y=g then y=x))
>That's a contradiction.

>>15459451
>>15459453
Thank you

Starting with ousia (the essence) will lead you into modalism. Learn from the original Orthodox Church and start with the person of the Father and then proceed from there, just like the Creed itself does.

https://youtu.be/kt_uKRZrRLg

>>15460033
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7pHy2MB6HM
How were the 90s this bad?
I can't believe I watched this even as a child.
This will haunt me for the rest of my life.

>>15460044
I know goddamn Shuki Levy etched at least 3 theme songs into my mind. I will not be able to forget them.

>>15459201
>>15459552
ONE NATURE, ONE WILL, THREE PERSONS

>>15460033

>>15460076
you sure that not a tritheist heresy?

>>15459201
>>15459552
that's just Arianism disguised as trinitarianism thus heretical

>>15460033
another part-whole heresy

>>15460033
God is not divided by parts, He is simple in that He has no components

>>15456517
I dont think you are supposed to get it, our humans brains can't comprehend it

>>15459506
>>15459520
>>15459532
>>15459571
Also, even if you interpret the "is" in the spokes of the diagram as predication rather than identity, the resulting theory is still logically inconsistent:

Gf
Gs
Gh
f<>s
f<>h
s<>h
∃x∀y (Gx & (if Gy then y=x))

Contradiction.

>>15456517
It's just made up, anon. Don't take it too seriously.

The Generator, the Generated, and the Process of generation.

>>15459409
LG NG CG
LN TN CN
LE NE CE

>>15460334
Heresy.

someone needs to explain to me how the Son and the Father have co-existed for eternity yet the Son is somehow still begotten by the Father??

>>15460399
ask a priest

>>15460430
No, my anus is still healing from last time.

>>15460399
It's eternally begotten. It eternally derives its divinity from the Father and rejoices in loving Him, this love then substantially being the Spirit.

>>15460295
oh i get it

>>15460392
>hearsay
Fine
The Generator, the Generated, and the Process of generation AND they're all the same

>>15460399
Eternal flame produces eternal heat, even though the flame produces the heat

>>15460627
Heresy not 'hearsay'.

>>15460638
but the heat and the flame don't have the same substance/essence though

>>15460713
They literally do. Its electron excitement for fuzzy matter. Sometimes oxygen is involved.

>>15457243
That’s modalism Patrick.

>>15460713
Alright. But with God it does.

>>15456517
My understanding is that it is like the trinity is homogeneous; or God in three parts, all of which are equal and uncreated.

>>15461023
God doesn't have parts, apostate.

>>15456517
this is why you're going to convert to islam

if(1+1+1 != 1 && 1 == 1) return true; else die();

>>15460638
>timeless
>"producing"
and how does cause and effect work without time

>>15460399
The Father is not *identical* to His own eternal attributes (like will, glory, etc) and yet they coexist eternally. The Son is related to Him by being begotten eternally and is not separated from Him, but in a way which does not confuse their distinct persons or blend them in any way with the divine attributes.

>>15460450
>this love then substantially being the Spirit
Heresy. The Holy Spirit isn't a relation, nor is He identical to the eternal spiration of Himself from the Father.

>>15461155
>islam
Cringe mushrik heresy. You literally worship a coeternal book alongside God while also claiming that there are absolutely no distinctions in God and that all distinctions lead to polytheism.

>>15461183
Time is not eternal and is a creation, why would uncreated "cause" and uncreated "effect" need to follow it? We shouldnt import created analogues of eternal realities back into the eternal.

>>15461184
>Cringe mushrik heresy. You literally worship a coeternal book alongside God while also claiming that there are absolutely no distinctions in God and that all distinctions lead to polytheism.

nah bruh I'm a Muʿtazilite

>>15461194
>crpyto Advaita platonism all-is-one monism
>or God is trapped somewhere and cannot manifest his full power in creation without mixing himself with it
Even more cringe.

>>15461184
>The Son is related to Him by being begotten eternally
The word "begotten" doesn't make sense outside of time. It literally means something was brought into existence that didn't exist before.

>>15461223
>doesn't make sense outside of time
Our created word "begotten" and the notion of human begetting is patterned on this eternal relation, not the other way around.
>that didn't exist before
This is shown to be false in John 1. We orient our language and our understanding around revelation instead of doing the opposite.

>>15457182
Precisely. The Trinity is 3 "perspectives" coming from the same entity, just as your speed is still part of you as an entity.

>>15461242
>coming from the same entity
no. the trinity is three real persons in one essence. three entities which are different "who's" (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) but the same "what" (God).

The Trinity doctrine is total nonsense. Every attempt to explain it into a way that is comprehensible to anyone with a brain gets labelled a heresy:

Modalism (i.e. Sabellianism, Noetianism and Patripassianism)
...taught that the three persons of the Trinity as different “modes” of the Godhead. Adherants believed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct personalities, but different modes of God's self-revelation. A typical modalist approach is to regard God as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Spirit in sanctification. In other words, God exists as Father, Son and Spirit in different eras, but never as triune. Stemming from Modalism, Patripassianism believed that the Father suffered as the Son.

Tritheism
...Tritheism confessses the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three independent divine beings; three separate gods who share the 'same substance'. This is a common mistake because of misunderstanding of the use of the term 'persons' in defining the Trinity.

Arianism
...taught that the preexistent Christ was the first and greatest of God’s creatures but denied his fully divine status. The Arian controversy was of major importance in the development of Christology during the fourth century and was addressed definitely in the Nicene Creed.

Docetism
...taught that Jesus Christ as a purely divine being who only had the “appearance” of being human. Regarding his suffering, some versions taught that Jesus’ divinity abandoned or left him upon the cross while other claimed that he only appeared to suffer (much like he only appeared to be human).

Ebionitism
...taught that while Jesus was endowed with particular charismatic gifts which distinguished him from other humans but nonetheless regarded Him as a purely human figure.

Macedonianism
...that that the Holy Spirit is a created being.

Adoptionism
...taught that Jesus was born totally human and only later was “adopted” – either at his baptism or at his resurrection – by God in a special (i.e. divine) way.

Partialism
...taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are components of the one God. This led them to believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is only part God, only becoming fully God when they come together.

The Trinity is just a ridiculous exercise of mental gymnastics. There is no logical explanation of it. If you just take it on "faith", that's fine, but don't pretend that it makes any kind of sense or gives the believer any kind of practical understanding of god.

>>15461237
>Our created word "begotten" and the notion of human begetting is patterned on this eternal relation
What specifically does 'our human notion' have in common with this 'eternal relation' you speak of?

>>15461304
We don't know precisely what it means for the Father to eternally beget the Son, but we know that our human fatherhood is somehow similar to it. Just like we do not know the fullness of divine justice, but we know that our human justice (in its ideal non-fallen state) is similar.

>>15461302
Bug explanation.
Please tell us why these easily refutable heresies are more coherent than the correct doctrine of the Holy Trinity (which you probably can't even state correctly).

>>15458895
>It's logical, but just impossible to understand.
nigger get the fuck out of here. At least the mystery niggas will admit it's unfathomable to any kind of logic.

>>15461346
None of it is coherent. It's just an excuse to set yourself apart from others in order to create conflict with them. That's all judaism and its sons has ever been. A conflict fabricator and strategizer. There is no "correct doctrine" of the "Holy Trinity" it's just a bunch of crap. That's it. Now I know you have a dank soijak to respond with probably already got a captcha solved for it so let it fly, christian soldier.

>>15461362
>None of it is coherent. It's just an excuse to set yourself apart from others in order to create conflict with them. That's all judaism and its sons has ever been. A conflict fabricator and strategizer. There is no "correct doctrine" of the "Holy Trinity" it's just a bunch of crap. That's it. Now I know you have a dank soijak to respond with probably already got a captcha solved for it so let it fly, christian soldier.

>>15456517
A = B
C = B
A != C

It's not my job to make sense of your retarded logical axioms. It's your job to do better.

>>15461383
It’s a mystery. We must have faith

>>15461192
time in the sense that i use it is not a created property of the universe, but a conceptual scheme through which i view the world, and think; when i think about a situation as being in time, i think of it as being situated in a system of coordinates such that i make sense out of words like "before", "after", "present" etc. by reference to that system. i also take cause and effect to be time-involving, so whatever else may be true about existences outside our universe, if some of them stand in causal relations with each other, then they must stand in temporal relations with each other, and so they must be situated in a system of coordinates to make that possible.
since this apparently is not the case when God stands in causal relations, then it must mean you have a different idea of cause and effect or time, hence my question. this has nothing directly to do with properties of the universe. it has only to do with how to interpret the statements you make about God. you should provide an alternative interpretation of your words instead of feigning ignorance of their conventional meanings.

>>15460334
Only post that makes sense. The Trinity is an attempt to make sense of the Infinite/Finite dichotomy and the relation between the two.

>>15461330
>We don't know precisely what it means for the Father to eternally beget the Son, but we know that our human fatherhood is somehow similar to it.
1) How do 'we' know that? Did Yahweh whisper it in your ear?
2) Our abstract human notion of 'fatherhood' is defined by a hierarchical relationship between parent and child nodes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure . To the extent that there is any 'similarity' between the concepts, there is no mystery about what it could be.

>Just like we do not know the fullness of divine justice, but we know that our human justice (in its ideal non-fallen state) is similar.
'Justice' in any perspective is understood to be, morally, that which is due. Humans may differ from God on what exactly is due, but they agree that that's what justice is about.

>>15456517
Two paradigms, or dimensions. Its like how things can be quantitative and qualitative. They are all of the same substance, but are of different persons.

>>15456517
it's because it makes no sense. Once you get this everything will fall in place.

>>15461430
Doesnt that logic work for everything tho?

>>15461424
Put down the bong, Caleb.

>>15461440
dialtheist logic indeed works for all things, as it is the lowest order logic ;^)

>>15461440
It allows you to accuse everyone of heresy, if needed, because everyone will get it wrong. same thing with the natures of christ debate.

>>15461452
My grandpa just had a wicked bout of Dialetheia last month. At first we thought it was the 'Rona. But then it all cleared up after a double dose of Imodium. Bless his heart.

>>15461456
the natures of Christ debate that was settled like 1500 years ago?

>>15461445
IDK man. It just makes sense to me. Im not even christian. Its like if a 3 sided pyramid was superimposed over a plane. There would be three angles. each of the angles are part of the pyramid, but are not the same as each other, they are sill angles a, b and c, but their substance is all part of that same pyramid.

i dont know if that example is good.

>>15461510
why do so many on /lit/ pretend that nothing was written past an arbitrary point in history where their favorite author "won" the philosophy?

>>15461526
STEM logic is why. They cant conceive that something might not be necessarily true or false.

>>15461520
You're committing the part-whole heresy. Prepare the bonfire.

>>15461538
>STEM
Yikes. Stopped reading there.

>>15461541
ok. But what if we assume that we can only be certain of the triagle on the plane I provided? and the Pyramid simply being a theoretically possible modle. A transcendental object of supposition rather than a real thing. So that the qualities outside of the observable plane is unknown?

>>15461526
because it is a dogma of the Catholic Church, therefore it is true

>>15461538
define "true" and "false"

>>15461596
Holy shit bro... I think you solved it

>>15461632
sorry, I think I might have needed some clarification. The "plain" I was refering to was observable reality, like a 2d being can only exist in 2d (this is illustrative, I dont literally mean god is mathematically 4th dimensional, but simply a thing in itself instead of a thing in appearance)

one essence, three hypostases.

>>15456517
You don’t get it because it’s a load of crap. Not understanding how religion makes sense doesn’t make you stupid. It doesn’t make sense. What makes you stupid is trying to understand how religion makes sense.

God is insurmountable and both beyond and consisting of reality. He is all three embodiments, but he is In the full only one. When one says ‘father, son, holy spirit’, it’s in acknowledgement of three holy aspects of Gods character/nature. Am I right? I’ve never seen what’s so hard about this to understand

>>15461738
>God is insurmountable and both beyond and consisting of reality.
one contradiction at time please, this is a trinity thread.

>>15461758
Do you understand what ‘transcendent’ means? Please kill yourself to a ‘hitchslap’ montage

>>15461764
i don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. keep spouting more terms though, that's the surest path to clarity.
>he thinks the word 'transcendent' is intimidating
how old are you

>>15461776
God is transcendent. Transcendent indicates a bypass of ‘contradictions’ or whatever you want to term it. God, if he exists, is transcendent, therefore invalidating your homo materialist ‘ME WANT PROOF’ horseshit. Atheists are so fucking gay it’s amazing

>>15461737
......... i mean whatever. But people did argue and come to different agreements on it. Do you think those agreememtns were arbitrary? And especially when it concerns a subject like this where there was a lot of dicussion, and not a lot of material benifits that made one sect go one way or another, there has to be some rhyme and reason. Even if its byzantine and unsystematic

>>15461793
i see you subscribe to the view which confuses 1:God's nature possibly being mind boggling or incomprehensible
with 2: your description of God being nonsense
an ancient confusion, you believe a 'contradiction' criticizes God rather than you, a retarded mortal human. this is not the case. contradictions are problems for you, the utterer of words which make no sense, because it means nobody, yourself included, can understand what the fuck you're talking about. consistency is required for language to work. "logic" describes features of language, not features of the universe. you think God's specialness means he isn't subordinate to "logic", not realizing that logic describes the basic patterns of comprehensible speech.

>>15461793
also, "how old are you" was not rhetorical
confess

>>15461793
Nice parody. There are actually people who think that way.

>>15456517

I never liked this chart because it's very misleading.

The Father is the One True God above all who has no equal and no competition. He is without limits and He alone created and sustains the entire universe. The Son is not the Father but is inherently God and the only flesh that embodies the Truth that He represents the Father to humanity. He is not here but next to the Father as of right now. Right-hand throne. The Holy Spirit is what is on Earth now that interacts and acts on behalf of God and is inherently God on Earth right now. He is a Spirit and works like Spirit and is plural. There are seven spirits of God. They are not Kabbalistic things, they are full embodiment of what is the Spirit of God. It is what dwelled in the Holy of Holies in the Temple.

>>15462207
>yet another heretic chimes in
Burn him

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

What buzzname does you have for the idea that the trinity is a descriptive, not a prescriptive model of God?

>>15462480
what
how does the trinity prescribe anything? do you mean to distinguish a mere description of god's nature "the trinity1" from the christian doctrine of "the trinity2" which prescribes that a christian should believe in "the trinity1" in order to be a good christian?

>>15462496
This thread is deleterious to my brain cell count, and I am already bad at communication, so forgive me. I mean, that God's doesn't intrinsically choose to be Father/Son/Ghost but these concepts were given out by God for it to be easier to understand him.
>use capital pronouns
God's not a twitter tranny. i have bigger problems than forgetting to typographically virtue signal.

>>15462565
are you sick in the head
the trinity wasn't given by god it's just theology written ink on paper lmao
calm the fuck down

>>15456517
it's just a way for people to worship The Son and for them to justify the holy ((((spirit)))) impregnating Mary without consent.

>>15462593
>are you sick in the head
Yes but for reasons unrelated to my communication abilities. I hope.

>>15456517
It's a way for Christians to have polytheism and idolatry without fully admitting it to themselves.
Read Faith Strengthened and do away with this childish delusion.

>>15462709
there's no shortage of polytheism in judaism either if you go down the kabbalah rabbit hole. it's polytheism all the way down.

>>15462709
also where can i download faith strengthened libgen isn't helping

>>15461302

>>15462739
https://jewsforjudaism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FaithStrengthened.pdf
Hilariously it is hosted by Jews for Judaism.
It is a pretty well formulated rebuttal, and some of the anecdotes the author provides of conversations he has with Christians are quite funny.

>>15462874
this is good

What is "the holy spirit." It really reads like a MacGuffin that justifies Jesus' life/story. Maybe I'm getting that wrong.

>>15461347
I mean, it's true though

Maybe I'll just convert to Judaism

>>15463127
Just stay a noahide. You will never be accepted as a Jew.
Don't actually do any noahide things though, the NRM popping up is basically an Israel outreach program for gentiles.

>>15463028
He's not a what, He is a He. One prays to Him.

"O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth,
You are everywhere and fill all things,
Treasury of blessings and Giver of Life,
Come and abide in us, cleanse us from every impurity
And save our souls, O Good One."

>>15463136
>Just stay a noahide.

PEANUT BRAIN: >>15461302

GALAXY BRAIN: Dialectical Monism, i.e. Miaphysitism.

>>15463136
>You will never be accepted as a Jew.
why are they so racist? doesn't the magic conversion ritual make you fully jewish?

>>15461793
What makes you think that only an atheist would believe that the Trinity (or Christianity more broadly) is false? Where do you come by your notions?

>>15463309
Technically yes, but for some Orthodox and especially Haredi you always be a non-Jew.

What is it to consider the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being three "avatars" of God, three distinct "accounts" used by the same God to interact with the world?
Because if you're to use three accounts at once, you are all three at once, all three are you at once, and all three are not each other, without contradiction.

>>15463439
These positions have been refuted by Christian though.
The only well explained trinitarian position that I found interesting so far has been Swedenborg's three aspects in one person.

>>15463439
once again that's modalism

>>15463474
Explain

>>15459461
Scoff if you want, but of the two articles the Chick one lays out a stronger case.

>>15463127
It's pretty difficult. It's possible, though. Reform is easiest, but least accepted. Conservative would be the best of both worlds. However, any Judaism which follows the laws basically is trying to Jew God. Not even kdiding.

>>15463136
>just stay a Noahide
Being a Noahide is literally good goyism.

>>15463309
They don't want people joining them any more. Not like there are even many religious Jews, most Jews are atheists.

The trinity is retarded shit that was made up in the years following Christ
Christianity is a long series of copes and mental gymnastics

>>15463476
it's a non-trinitarian belief that there is one God who has three different manifestations meaning that sometimes he chooses to appear in the form of the Son and sometimes in the form of the Holy Spirit etc. etc.

These explanations are too complicated. Maybe If I drink more beers and stuff I can understand it ourselves.

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein

>>15463487
And this counts as such even when God can and does appear in all three forms at once?

>>15463577
the reason why it's not trinitarian is because the three modes are not simultaneous, god is not multiboxing father + son + spirit accounts at the same time.

put it this way, you can't give bullshit answers to trinitarians, they will call you out on your contradiction. the law of identity states that "A is A", and law of noncontradiciton states "either A or not-A", and both come with the qualification that both A's is must be meant "in the same sense, and at the same time",

so, if "anon is alive" and "anon is not-alive" are both true in the same time, but not in the same sense (i.e, because anon is still breathing but is depressed, so he's alive in sense1: he qualifies as an active life-system; but he's not alive in sense2: he doesn't qualify as having spiritual "vitality";) then it's not a contradiction, because anon is still alive in the sense1 that he' alive1, and not-alive in the sense2 that he's not-alive2.

and if anon was buried last week then he is/was/will-be alive in the past + he is/was/will-be not-alive in the present, so the determination "is/was/will-be alive" is both true and false, but it still doesn't violate LOI because it's not true and false at the same time, he's not simultaneously alive and dead.

law of identity is old and busted nowadays but medieval theologians loved logic so it features heavily in many of their memes. the stuff they've done with the verb "to be" for instance, heavily influenced hegel's being-becoming memery, so have christianity to thank for hegel's logic. anyway as a nonchristian it can be tricky to tell how the holy trinity works so you use law of identity as a guideline to see if trinitarians will be happy about your solution. if it's a contradiction then they'll reject it for the good reason that it's a contradiction, but if you avoid violating identity by using different senses/times or "being" and "not-being" then they'll reject it for the good reason that you have not expressed an identity relation. the solution lies in keeping identity but discarding noncontradiction in some kind of paraconsistent logic, because "divine nature" is a domain where trinitarians don't believe classical logic holds. it's like classical mechanics it works for most domains but breaks down when you reach the quantum level.

i'm notchristian but i think this is legitimate dialtheism. true contradictions can exist in the domain of concepts. concepts can be a contradiction (because obviously only concepts can be contradictions) and concepts can also be true (you can get away with it), so god can probably get away with being a true contradicton since you can be a platonist about concepts and then just say god is an abstract entity that has causal powers.

>>15461222
it's okay because I was just shitposting but now I'm going to look that shit up. Thanks!

>>15463801
>the reason why it's not trinitarian is because the three modes are not simultaneous, god is not multiboxing father + son + spirit accounts at the same time.
But when they are simultaneous it is?

>>15464972
if they're all god in the same way at the same time, and are all not each other " ", then i would think so yeah.

>>15464983
Then
>What is it to consider the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being three "avatars" of God, three distinct "accounts" used by the same God to interact with the world?
>Because if you're to use three accounts at once, you are all three at once, all three are you at once, and all three are not each other, without contradiction.
is "correct trinitarianism"?

>>15465036
No. Ignore that guy. Simultaneity is irrelevant. Trying to explain the trinity in terms of 'modes' or 'avatars' of any kind is heretical and nontrinitarian.

You aren't a brainlet, christianity is just a retarded religion for women, niggers, and the poor

>>15456517

Wrong diagram

>>15465036
i don't think so because three accounts seems like it's coming from an intuitive image of god that clearly divides him into three entities. unless by "avatar" or "account" you mean something super metaphorical and non literal but then i don't really understand what "avatar" or "account" is an analogy for and what's the real situation with god.
the point of trinitarianism isn't trying to cheat your way into polytheism but having it not count on a technicality. it really has to be just the one god with no loopholes or it doesn't count.

>>15465546
shut up retard i'm way cooler

>>15459263
Miracles aren't even necessarily irrational. The trinity is not a miracle it's a mystery

God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages. They are separate beings united in purpose.

You and I live in a three-dimensional world. All physical objects have a certain height, width, and depth. One person can look like someone else, or behave like someone else, or even sound like someone else. But a person cannot actually be the same as another person. They are distinct individuals.

God, however, lives without the limitations of a three-dimensional universe. He is spirit. And he is infinitely more complex than we are.

That is why Jesus the Son can be different from the Father. And, yet the same.

The Bible clearly speaks of: God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. But emphasizes that there is only ONE God.

If we were to use math, it would not be, 1+1+1=3. It would be 1x1x1=1. God is a triune God.

Thus the term: "Tri" meaning three, and "Unity" meaning one, Tri+Unity = Trinity. It is a way of acknowledging what the Bible reveals to us about God, that God is yet three "Persons" who have the same essence of deity.

>>15461383
God violates the zeroth law of thermodynamics

>>15466983
heresy

>>15467044
Numbers do not live in a three-dimension world either. And yet they obey the laws of logic like everything else -- material or immaterial.

>>15466983
No, anon. That's not how the trinity works. See >>15467044.

>>15467078
What logical law does the Trinity inflict?

>>15467081
>>15466983
For reference, I'll source my claims:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus’ baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

>cont.

>>15463028

it's the eternal and creative love between the Father and the Son that is so creative it actually is a person of the godhead

>>15467095
5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area that our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus’ human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

>>15467044
>that God is yet three "Persons" who have the same essence of deity.
sounds like monism

The Holy Family is a typology of the Trinity in every way

once you see this it falls into place

>>15467122
How so?

>>15456517
God = (You)
Father = your head
Son = your hands
Holy spirit = your torso and legs
Wow what a cuhrazy concept

>>15467088
The trinity violates the law of non-contradiction.

>>15467152
Part-whole heresy.

>>15467152
This is a partialism. Heresy.

>>15467179
>>15467186
Oh really? I guess it is retarded then, my bad

>>15467095
>>15467104
The conjunction of these claims is logically inconsistent.

>>15467186
>>15467179
address this
>>15467129
and this
>>15467102

the Trinity is fundamentally generative

>>15467166
Not really. When we analyze God in the context of the trinity we discern the following statements:

>There is one and only one God, YHWH. God is eternal and unchanging in nature and essence.
>Jesus is the incarnate Son, who is God and has eternally been God.
>Jesus is the incarnate Son and The Son is not The Father or The Spirit.
>The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force but has divine Personhood, which is neither that of The Father nor The Son.
>We distinguish between "being" and "person" -- that three persons share in one unique being, which is not the sum of the three persons nor is it divided amongst three persons. There is one God, one being, one essence.

I hope I've made my point clear.

>>15467190
Oh, how so?

Well, aren't they different from the empirical standpoint?

Plus, how we perceive things changes over time, based on the circumstances etc. In essence, things don't really exist. Only processes exist.

>>15467219
See >>15467044.

>>15467232
So, it's just three ways to perceive one God? Sounds like modalism.

>>15467203
What you are claiming can be interpreted either as >>15459571 or as >>15460308 . In either case, it's logically inconsistent.

>>15467261
It works if you replace "is" with a non-transitive relation

>>15467245
Oh, not really. As I stated here (>>15467203):

>There is one and only one God, YHWH. God is eternal and unchanging in nature and essence.
>Jesus is the incarnate Son, who is God and has eternally been God.
>Jesus is the incarnate Son and The Son is not The Father or The Spirit.
>The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force but has divine Personhood, which is neither that of The Father nor The Son.
>We distinguish between "being" and "person" -- that three persons share in one unique being, which is not the sum of the three persons nor is it divided amongst three persons. There is one God, one being, one essence.

God is one being, yet three persons at the same time. This is the only correct way of discerning God in a whole context and perspective.

>>15467261
The way I see it your logical statement goes like this:

>Premise: ice is water. (with respect to molecular formula)
>Premise: steam is water. (with respect to molecular formula)
>Premise: Ice is not steam. (with respect to the phase of matter)

Now it is entirely possible that the trinitarian doctrine also involves an equivocation, but it is held that God cannot deceive us, and an equivocation would be deceptive.

It is also possible to believe that the trinitarian positions require is-with-respect-to-identity, which means that the son (et al) and God are identical in all respects.

We can also dodge this issue by asking about polytheism. If we take it as a premise that there can only be exactly one God:

>Exactly one entity can meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God.
>The Father meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God (trinitarian position 1)
>The Son meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God (trinitarian position 2)
>The HS meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for being God (trinitarian position 3)

>anyone says anything
>"sounds like [heresy name]
jesus christ
So what the trinity really is is intentionally esoteric bullshit the early church made up as a distraction because cults like to do that kind of shit

>>15467273
No, that would require more than one god.

>>15466592
Based and lovepilled.

>>15467284
then how were you doing algebra with just one element

>>15467281
if you don't believe in it that an unforgivable sin anon, you're never going to heaven now

>>15467281
It was a compromise made by committee. It's a characteristic of committee decisions: instead of resolving conflicting positions, simply copy and paste them all together and pretend they're in harmony.

>>15467296
What algebra?

>>15467278
> God is one being, yet three persons at the same time. This is the only correct way of discerning God in a whole context and perspective.
What is the difference between a person and a being?

>>15467344
boolean algebra

>>15467346
I have stated said distinction in my post, anon:

>We distinguish between "being" and "person" -- that three persons share in one unique being, which is not the sum of the three persons nor is it divided amongst three persons. There is one God, one being, one essence.
>God is one being, yet three persons at the same time.

>>15456517
ITT: How Christians get fucked in the ass anally by the (((New Testament))).
Do mental gymnastics all you want, the trinity makes no sense from a monotheistic approach. Convert to Islam.

>>15463152
Imagine praying to a man, to flesh. You're fucking disgusting.

>>15467355
It's elementary logic. Identity is transitive, symmetric and reflexive.

>>15467377
A second ago, you said that would require more than one God. Make up your mind.

>>15467386
Are you retarded? Changing identity to a non-transitive relation in the diagram would require more than one god.

>>15467396
The property of being transitive would require more than one God as well.

>>15467400
No.

>>15467403
Yes. Your whole logic falls apart since you can't even define the identity relation for only one element (i.e. God). That's why it gives a contradiction.

>>15467364
Islam is basically a Christian heresy that doesn't make sense. No one would choose Mohammad as an example for his morality. Mohammed just took the early new testament stories without understanding anything about them or why are they important. Let's take the virgin birth for example. What's its purpose in Islam? In Christianity it's very clear why Jesus alone was the one to be born this way. In Islam he's supposed to be just another prophet but for some reason he's way too special that God didn't want him to be born like a normal human and made him able to turn mud animals into literal living beings as a kid for his enjoyment( btw this story exist in a fake gospel that was written hundreds of years after the apostles death) and for some reason God let him suffer until he took him to heaven when he was in the cross. But why? Why didn't he save him earlier, do you know what the Romans did to the person before crucifixion?
Why did he make him suffer all this pain and humiliation and finally took him before his last breath in the cross?
Also, there are historical records that proves that early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead and they died preaching this. So who did they see rising from the dead or why would they die knowing that what they were preaching was false?

>>15456667
we do not have an understanding of gravity, though we can merely approximate it in the vast amount of reasonable situations

>>15467044
i don't think anyone has a problem getting the basic gist of the christian doctrine of the holy trinity. "god is one in some sense and also three in another, possibly the same, sense". that's the minimal starting point. whatever else the trinity contains, it cannot fail to contain this bare minimum. call it the minimal trinity. the problems in understanding the trinity do not come from the fact that the minimal trinity is not a rich enough concept, and requires more elaboration. quite the opposite, even the minimal trinity contains far too many possibilities, it can be interpreted in any number of ways, leaving us far too much "food for thought". there are many ways of being one or being three or any other number. there are many creative ways of thinking about being a quantity. one can be regarded as one individual, or as three grams, or however many millions of molecules. there are many options on the table. the table is overwhelmed by the amount of options. if i just refer to an object as being one in a certain way, eight in a second way, and thirteen in yet another way, and just leave it at that, i've left you with an ambiguous as hell description of that object.

given that, the central question in the trinity controversy, as i see it, is: "how, and to what extent, are we to disambiguate the minimal trinity, and how far can we get in simplifying the number of possibilities"
it seems to me this ambiguity needs to be resolved before further furnishing the concept of god with even more mysterious attributes, or else we can't meaningfully enrich and build upon the basic, minimal concept, of what god fundamentally is. ignoring the basic ambiguity will only multiply the number of possible interpretations exponentially and the result is not satisfying to me.

is the holy trinity meant to be 100% mystery? analogical? a rough concept? a false but very accurate model, like a theory in physics? all valid answers, but can please disambiguate. "the trinity is this, and here is what it means..." doesn't cut it. if you think that you can satisfy the request for a MORE RESTRICTIVE, NARROWER more accurate, less interpretation-permitting, understanding of the minimal trinity then that's very good.

if you believe god can't be understood using such an inflexible, mechanical, rigorous way of thinking. this is also a valid answer. but do own this answer, admit it openly. establish expectations. clearly specify the level of resolution and detail with which the concept of the holy trinity describes god's nature. to the extent that it's vague, admit that it's vague. to the extent that helpful and descriptive, say so and don't undersell how helpful and descriptive it is. to the extent that others are justified in not understanding it, do not feign ignorance of their difficulties in understanding the trinity.

>>15467449
>also three in another, possibly the same, sense
Heresy. Modalism.

>>15467449
son is you, the id. father is your dad or future you, the ego. holy spirit is his dad or your ancestors, superego.
God is your male lineage as it moves through history assisted by living in the virtue of christianity

>>15467464
No, Cain is the id, Abel is the ego.

>>15467416
You can't define identity between two or more elements, moron. It's precisely the relation that every object bears to itself.

>>15467463
just to be clear, are you saying that, in no sense at all, can god be characterized as being three(3, ▽, A TRINITY)?

>>15467485
Which part of "monotheistic" do you not understand?

>>15467483
You can, and you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

>>15467490
why are you replying to my post if you're not a trinitarian? if you think you are a trinitarian, and you think that, in no sense at all, can god be characterized as being three OR 3 OR ▽ OR A TRINITY
then you're operating on memery beyond my comprehension

>>15467493
Identity is more specific than just an equivalent relation, retard.

>>15467510
You just said
> transitive, symmetric and reflexive.
If that's not enough, make it more specific

>>15467501
> characterized as being three
Partialism. You're spiting God into three. Heresy.

Theology is pure waste of time.

>>15467483
>You can't define identity between two or more elements, moron. It's precisely the relation that every object bears to itself.
you can define identity in any number of ways, what kind of argument is "you can't define a term"? how do you even metaphysics you goddamn animal

>>15467512
Do you really not know what the Identity relation is? I = {(x,x) | x in X}.

>>15467529
>x in X
>he things God belongs to a set

>>15467519
If a relation holds between two distinct entities, then it is obviously not the identity relation.

>>15467514
you do not understand partialism. i describe god as the creator of the universe, and also i describe god as the most benevolent being, and also i describe god as the wisest being. i have given three descriptions, or characterizations, of god. i have described god by reference to whoever is the creator of the universe, by reference to whoever is the most benevolent being, and by reference to whoever is the wisest being. there is a way in which god can be said now, to be that being which is featured in all three of my characterizations. literal words can do this. god can be the bearer of properties which are not thereby parts of god, even though those properties are attributed to god, because my talking about god is not part of what god is. i wrote this reply just for myself, you dumb troll memer

>>15467547
God is among the set of entities you referred to in your post.

>>15467566
>If a relation holds between two distinct entities, then it is obviously not the identity relation.
unless of course, we've defined the identity relation such that it can be satisfied between two distinct entities, BECAUSE REDEFINITION LETS YOU GET AWAY WITH IT YOU ABSOLUTE MONKEY

>>15467598
Cringe. No.

>>15467591
>god can be said now, to be that being which is featured in all three of my characterizations
>god can be the bearer of properties which are not thereby parts of god
bzzzzzzzzzzzt wrong. Trinity is not 3 properties. heresy. modalism.

>>15466592
begotten from the theos and logos not theos alone retard

>>15467189
Maybe its the trinity that is retarded.

Analytic theologians have proposed numerous "solutions" to the Logical Problem of the Trinity (LPT), mostly versions of Social Trinitarianism (ST) and Relative Identity Trinitarianism (RI). Both types of solution are controversial, but many hold out hope that further "Trinitarian theorizing" may yield some as yet unimagined, and somehow importantly different, solution to the LPT. I first give a precise definition of the LPT and of what would count as a solution to it. I then show how, though there are infinitely many possible solutions, all solutions can be grouped together into a finite, exhaustive taxonomy, based precisely on those features which make them either controversial, heretical, or inconsistent. The taxonomy reveals why ST and RI have been the major proposed solutions, and also proves that there can be no importantly different, new solutions to the LPT.

https://beaubranson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/No-New-Solutions-JAL-Branson.pdf

>>15467375
That's not a prayer to Christ. It's a prayer to the Holy Spirit, our Comforter.

>>15467485
Yes. God in His essence is absolutely transcendent over any positive predicates. The Divine Nature is above threeness and above oneness, above being and above non-being, etc. There are three distinct persons though and all are revealed to share this same ineffable nature from all eternity.

>>15457243
What is the boiling point of the Holy Spirit?

>>15468507
What does it mean to be a distinct person? A person has their own "point of view", consciousness, perspective. Either God has one will, or more than one. If there's more than one "perspective" or will then this is polytheism, if there is only one perspective then it's like treating all of a person's limbs as separate entities because they seem to operate independently but are of the same substance.

>>15468657
There is only one will and one action, you could say there are three "perspectives" but they all share the same divine mind and divine will.
>What does it mean to be a distinct person?
It means to be a distinct subsisting reality. We don't fully understand what a divine person is (same can be said for human person too), we just know from revelation that they are all distinct since they have distinct personal properties which define and distinguish their hypostasis from one another - the Father is unbegotten in every sense, the Son is begotten from the Father and the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father.

Modalism would confuse nature with person and say there is only one divine nature so there must be one person who acts in three roles. But we know from Christ's incarnation that person is distinct from nature, since the Christ (the Logos) is both fully human and fully divine, possessing two natures but only one eternal personhood.

>>15456517
Theres 3 parts of God - the father, the son and the holy spirit.
They are all distinct parts that when put together form God.

>>15459194
He already said that you stupid JACKASS

>>15468724
That's just polytheism.

>>15456535
I'm so jealous of Americans having the OCA. Becoming orthodox anywhere else in the world means joining ethno-parishes where the faith is basically just an expression of nationalism

>>15461302

I actually must thank you for posting these. I majored in philosophy years ago and remember learning all of these in philosophy of religion. With these all listed in front of me I feel like my thinking about the trinity is much more cleared up. I think you're also right that you need a degree of faith to "Believe" or not question it, but I think a major part of Christianity is trying to close your rational facilities and focus on an extrarational intuition about what could be true. Start thinking more in terms of poetry than prose. The way that I do that is by focusing on artistic depictions of the Trinity.
I recommend you check out Andre Rublev's Trinity. Maybe the geometry of God's dimensions are such that he may be 3 persons in 1 being.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(Andrei_Rublev)#Iconography

>>15468797
There aren't many powers or divinities, so it is one God (the Father) who shares His divinity in eternity with two other uncreated divine persons.
One has no choice but to worship Christ when He shines forth the only divine power and shows full ownership of it.

>>15469147
>One has no choice but to worship Christ when He shines forth
Especially when he's shirtless. I mean, those abs? Glorious.

>>15456871
Did you read the Bible and just ignore everything that any theologian has ever said? These interpretations have been addressed & refuted, go read about the Council of Nicea or something you goon

>>15456517
that shit is old and dead
welcome to new thing you don't understand

https://streamable.com/vr5yrn

>>15468507
>God in His essence is absolutely transcendent over any positive predicates.
>[God in His essence] [is absolutely transcendent over any positive predicates.]
>[subject] [is absolutely transcendent over any positive predicates.]
>[subject] [predicate]
you are an idiot, i mean it honesty.

>>15456517
Who said that each of them alone would be God?
>1!=2
>1+2=3
stop making it so fucking hard for yourself

>>15468507
Just try and read this talmudic pilpul nonsense and try not to laugh.

>>15468938
Sorry dude I don't worship a literal kike or a foreskin eating volcano demon so I don't feel compelled to try and figure out these """""""mysteries""""""".

>>15468065
That's what I meant yeah

It's a spiritual inconsistency. Saying Jesus is God lets some kind of Djinns/Demons into your soul that you have to pray to get rid of.

Something is going on with dark forces and certain religions, The Koran is the purest form of God's wisdom we know of.

That and the 'nobody'

>>15470101
that partialism

>>15457335
So, god needs a glass? What's god's glass?