/lit/ - Literature

>>18508801
anglo hands typed this

>>18508801
Pharisaical hands typed this.

>>18508801


THE ENTIRETY OF THIS BOARD'S USERBASE ALREADY KNOWS THAT YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF THE HOLY TRINITY; YOU CAN STOP MAKING THESE THREADS NOW.

>>18508855
Isn't the trinity supposed to be incomprehensible? I'm sure you would win some kind of award if you were able to explain it to a satisfactory standard to the christian population.

>>18508912
it's just that most christians love upholding le epic mysteries of the faith even though:
>"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad."
>"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

>>18508912
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm#article1
>It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (I:12:4 and I:12:12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (I:12:12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways....

>>18508940
anons still not understanding analogical and equivocal predication.... *sigh*

>>18508940
>>18508951
Literally ignorance is strength.

>>18508965
I will not uphold the metaphysical violence of scholasticism

Scholastic metaphysics is literally just manipulating symbols on a page - it's postmodernism. If the conclusion's contained in the premise you're just traversing illusory space.

>>18508912
Seems fairly straight forward to me desu.
Put your thumb, index, and middle finger on a table.
The thumb is you but is not the index nor the middle finger.
Same goes for the Holy Spirit who is god but is not The Father nor The Son.

>>18509016
You believe in three fingers- I mean gods.

>>18509014
non argumentus

>>18509022
no its a god with three tentacles

>>18509054
is a single tentacle 1/3 god?

>>18509060
yeah, thats why
>son is matter
>holy spirit is, spirit
>the father the creator
>god is the mind/consciousness they are all linked to

>>18509080
and by creator, we mean purely matter and the mechanics of our natural world. not of himself.

>>18509080
>>18509086
Nigga really tryna promote modalism in tha trinitarian thread, nigga gon burn in hell baka

>>18509100
based
https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw

>>18508801
>The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five
posting the theological debate that started it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XccUMOQ978

>>18508855
You sat infront of the computer, and you decided to become a tripfag. That was bad enough, but you then went on to name yourself...cum genius. Need I say more?

>>18508801
that's fucking hilarious. Good job, OP

>>18509100
>Nigga
dropped

>>18508801
Put one finger in front of a mirror, and there appear to be two fingers. And then, since there is the model and it's reflection, there is also the ray. Now we have three.

Cucktholics metaphysic is heretic though. Only orthodox get it.

>>18509613
ok dyerite

>>18509623
I'm not. I didn't even saw one video of him.

>>18508855
>Cum Genius

>>18508801
>trinitarians
Cringe

>>18508826
Yeah I'm sure the Sadducees and Essenes would be against what OP posted, fucking moron

>>18508801

The idea of the Trinity is perfect in formulation and exalted in meaning.

We must observe each component separately to comprehend the underlying binding agent which holds all three together and melts them into one Absolute.

Jesus, the corporeal. Flesh. Blood. Yet whelmed under an intangible divinity which Christianity has never quite grasped.

The Holy Spirit. Immaterial, yet belonging to creation. Hence not devoid of the laws, manifest and hidden, of creation.

And finally, God. Eternal, all-sustaining and He-who-was-before-the-beginning.
God's nature is twofold. Phenomenal and noumenal. The manifest world emanates from God. Yet God, in entirety, isn't attached to the world. Yet there is no separation between them. God is within and without. God exists between existence and non-existence.

The Holy Trinity states these three are essentially 1. And if we are to believe this, we just believe that God's essence is the bedrock of existence.

This leads one to inevitably consider Advaita Vedanta. And the theory of consciousness being all that exists in the created world.

"Brahman alone is real" means that the essence of God is eternal, and it is the essence of all existence.

Once we comprehend this concept, the Trinity is within grasp.

So, yes, Jesus is the son of God. And he is God. But so am I.

"Aham Brahamasmi". That Thou Art.

>>18508855
>Is catholic
>Is also a pedophile

It's like poetry

>>18508801
>A = 1
>B = 1
>A =/= B
Is this your mind on theology?

>>18510610
meds

>>18508801
>>18511109
What is so hard to understand about the Trinity?
If you write a word then there are a number of letters and one word, if you draw a triangle then you can say that there are three lines and at the same time you can say that there is a single triangle, what is so hard to understand?

>>18510074
this image made me laugh heartily. then pause. then laugh again. thanks!

>>18511499
Christians will tell you, with a straight face, that each line in that triangle is itself a triangle. Of course, those three triangles combined are still one triangle.

>>18511523
>each line in that triangle is itself a triangle.
Is this a protestant thing? I am an orthodox and the way I understand the Trinity is more like:
A, B, C are part of set G
A, B, C are distinct but all of them are part of G, like how 1,3,7 are different numbers but all of them are part of the rational numbers set.

>>18511652
This is a heresy, and your understanding is incorrect. This is not rare, most if not all Christians are heretical on this matter, because every halfway decent explanation of the trinity was rejected centuries ago.

>>18511652
>A, B, C are part of set G
But A, B and C are all fully G. That isn't so with your explanation.

>>18508855
>Can't find the capslock key
>Calls others dumb
kys

>>18509613
>And then, since there is the model and it's reflection, there is also the ray
The absolute hoops relitards will jump through

>>18508801
People are fucking retarded. The trinity means that there is one substance, which is God, but three persons which form out of this substance, which are Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

>>18511962
three persons partaking in the god substance...3 gods.

>>18508951
>>18511499
>>18511910

Not necessarily disagreeing with any of this but how is the Trinity relevant? It seems that the only difference between Catholicism with the Trinity and Catholicism without it is the inane formality of a Trinity in the former and the likewise inane lack of it in the latter. This also seems to be the case for every Catholic tenet.

>>18512040
No, because there is only one instance of the God substance. You and I are both made of the "human" substance, but our substances are separate, just like our persons, which made us think that each person has its own substance when nothing actually makes that necessarily true for each and all cases. There is only one divine substance, so only one God, through three divine persons, and it is that specificity (three persons but only one substance that makes them up) that transcends human abstractive ability.

>>18512064
>Not necessarily disagreeing with any of this but how is the Trinity relevant?

What? It is the trinity that makes it possible for Jesus to be God while also praying to God, teaching the Our Father etc.

>>18512064
It's completely arbitrary and unnecessary, Christianity has been needlessly shooting itself with the foot with this. Alternatively, dogmatically enforcing an obviously nonsensical statement could have benefits, depending on your perspective.

When will Christians finally embrace the truth?

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Say, “He, God, is One,
God, the Eternally Sufficient unto Himself.
He begets not; nor was He begotten.
And none is like unto Him."

>How many fingers, Winston?'
>'Three! Three! What else can I say? Three!'
>The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the three fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably three.
>'How many fingers, Winston?'
>'Three! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Three! Three!'
>'How many fingers, Winston?'
>'One! One! One!'
>'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are three. How many fingers, please?'
>'Three! One! Two! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!

>>18512099

Choosing the Trinity as an explanation for such things seems seems totally random. They could just as easily be achieved through "avatars" or "apparitions" without affecting the other tenets. As opposed to, say, the Evil world tenet in Gnosticism, that would make the whole idea collapse if removed.

>>18512095
This is nonsense, it's the lowest kind of pseudo-theological dualism I've seen in a while. God is not comprised of substance but the originator of all substances. Yeah God is made of super-duper God atoms, but there's only one "instance" of God atoms and three persons share them. Brilliant. No, God is not comprised of substance but the originator of all substances.

>>18512153
>God is one
>God is many characteristics
how can God be one and many at the same time?

>>18512188
>They could just as easily be achieved through "avatars" or "apparitions" without affecting the other tenets.
modalism affects the tenets and contradicts verses in the bible.

>>18512167
That is the most retarded rationalisation yet. This simply merges the standards of God(it has ought to be plural at this point) and humans, thus simply stating that God is no more united than the entire human species, probably the most retarded backfiring take on this I've ever seen.

>>18512219
>modalism affects the tenets
No, because a large amount of Christians somewhat unknowingly believe in modalism, and this has not caused any crisis.
>and contradicts verses in the bible.
Even if this were true, it would not matter. All established Christian theologies contradict the Bible in various points, which is unavoidable as there are explicit contradictions with the Bible.

>>18512219
>how can God be one and many at the same time?
Ali (as) gave a long and beautiful sermon answering this. I'll post some sections of it, but I highly suggest reading it in full.

>It was related from Abu Abdallah that when the Commander of the Faithful (Ali ibn Abi Talib) was speaking from the pulpit at Kufa a man stood up and said, "O Commander of the Faithful! Describe for us thy Lord-blessed and transcendent is He-that our love (hubb) for Him and knowledge (marifah) of Him may increase." The Commander of the Faithful became angry and cried out, "Assemble for prayer!" The people gathered together until the mosque was choked with them. Then he stood, his color changing, and he said, "Praise belongs to God, who does not gain in plenty by withholding nor become poor through giving, while every other giver than He diminishes. (He is) full of the benefits of blessings and the advantages of superabundance. Through His generosity He ensures the provision of creatures. So He smooths the path of aspiration (talab) for those who make Him their Quest. Nor is He more generous with what is asked of Him than with what is not asked. Time in its march varies not for Him that (His) state should change accordingly.

>[...]

>"O questioner! Know that whoso compares our majestic Lord to the mutual dissimilarity of the parts of His creation and to the interconnection of their joints, hidden by the directing of His wisdom, surely he has not fixed his inmost consciousness (ghayb damirih) upon knowledge of Him, and his heart has not witnessed (mushahadah) the certainty that He has no compeer. It is as if he had not heard of the followers disclaiming the followed, saying, 'By God, we were certainly in manifest error when we made you equal to the Lord of all beings' (26 : 97-8) "Whoso sets our Lord equal to something has ascribed rivals to Him, and he who ascribes rivals to Him is a disbeliever in what His clear verses48 have revealed and in what the witnesses of His clear signs' arguments have spoken. For He is God, who does not become defined within the powers of reason that He should be qualified within the range of their thought or be limited and turned about within the craws of the reflection of aspiring souls.49

(1/2)

>>18512219

>He is the Producer of the kinds of things without having been in need of reflection, or of acting according to an innate disposition, or of experience gained through the passing of Time's events, or of an associate to help Him in bringing into existence the wonders of affairs. When those who ascribe rivals to Him compare Him to creation, whose attributes are divided and limited and whose levels possess various zones and regions-and He, the Mighty and Majestic, is the existent through Himself, not through His instruments (adah) - they cannot have measured Him with His true measure. Thus He said, declaring Himself incomparable with the association of compeers and rising above the estimate of those of His disbelieving servants who measure Him within limits, 'They measure not God with His true measure. The earth altogether shall be His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens shall be rolled up in His right hand. Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above that they associate' (39 : 67)."

>"So as for that to which the Quran directs thee concerning His attributes, follow it, so that a link may be established between thee and knowledge (ma'rifah) of Him. Take it as an example, and seek illumination by the light of its guidance; surely it is a blessing and a wisdom given to thee, so take what has been given thee and be among the thankful.But as for that to which Satan directs thee, that which is not made encumbent upon thee in the Quran and no trace (athar) concerning which exists in the Wont of the Prophet and the Imams of guidance, leave its knowledge to God, the Mighty and Majestic. Surely that is the limit of God's claim (haqq) against thee." Know that 'those firmly rooted in knowledge'51 are they whom God has freed from the need to assault the closed doors beyond which are the unseen things (al-ghuyub), so they cling to the acknowledgement (iqrar) of all of the veiled unseen of which they know not the interpretation, and they say, 'We have faith in it; all is from our Lord.' (3 : 7). So God praised their avowal of incapacity to grasp what they comprehend not in knowledge, and He called their abandonment of the desire to penetrate into that whose examination is not required of them 'firm-rootedness'. So limit thyself to that (same attitude) and measure not the Mightiness of God-Glory be to Him-according to the measure of thy reason's power, thus becoming of those who perish."

(2/2)

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-anthology-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-tabatabai/unity-god#3-firm-rooting-knowledge

>>18512219
Three persons, multiple powers and qualities, as one being, one essence. Simple as.

>>18512219

What does the actual Trinity do or do not that "modalism" or "partialism" do or do not? This sounds like crypto-Marxism: the idea is only relevant inasmuch as it is reified in Tradition, THAT it is reified is not so much its greater or more sublime relevance relative to what it is reified as and what it pertains to, but its ONLY relevance.

>>18512295
So, is it one entity or three?

>>18512295
That makes sense.

>>18511962

how is this canon but suggesting god is dualistic/dipolar is heresy?

>>18508855
Mexican tradcath Stockholm syndrome really is something else. You're bending your knee to a Jew on a stick brought to you by people who destroyed your indigenous culture

>>18510610
>The Holy Spirit. Immaterial, yet belonging to creation.
I dont think so, Arius.

>>18512497
> Let me tell you about your country; as an obese chronic masturbator atheist I feel qualified to opine on everything and anything, and especially the quaint historical customs of the darkies.

>>18512399
The Ancient Greeks formulated a similar (but less developed) trinity of "Demiurge" - "Logos" - "World Soul" before Christianity.

The idea is borne out of observation and logic, it's not an arbitrary invention.

>>18512095
where can I get some God-substance?

>>18512591

>>18512546

i don't disagree, that's my point, why is it some kind of heresy to suggest that the god substance could express itself in polar opposite ways, in ways we would consider both 'good' and 'evil'. maybe it's not a sentiment shared by all denominations, but both a catholic and a orthodox have told me that's heretical/impossible.

This is the Johannine apostolic tradition, passed from the Holy Spirit to St. John the Evangelist, St. John to St. Polycarp, and St. Polycarp to St. Irenaeus -
>Thus then there is shown forth71 One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God. And, since God is rational,
74
therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made;72 and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power. Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body73 and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God.74 Well also does Paul His apostle say: One God, the Father, who is over all and through all and in its all. For over all is the Father; and through all is the Son, for through Him all things were made by the Father; and in us all is the Spirit, who cries Abba Father, and fashions man into the likeness of God.75 Now the Spirit shows forth the Word, and therefore the prophets announced the Son of God; and the Word utters the Spirit, and therefore is Himself the announcer of the prophets, and leads and draws man to the Father.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.iv.html

This is the Johannine apostolic tradition, passed from the Holy Spirit to St. John the Evangelist, St. John to St. Polycarp, and St. Polycarp to St. Irenaeus -
>Thus then there is shown forth71 One God, the Father, not made, invisible, creator of all things; above whom there is no other God, and after whom there is no other God.
>And, since God is rational, therefore by (the) Word He created the things that were made;
>and God is Spirit, and by (the) Spirit He adorned all things: as also the prophet says: By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power. Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God.
>Well also does Paul His apostle say: One God, the Father, who is over all and through all and in its all. For over all is the Father; and through all is the Son, for through Him all things were made by the Father; and in us all is the Spirit, who cries Abba Father, and fashions man into the likeness of God.
>Now the Spirit shows forth the Word, and therefore the prophets announced the Son of God; and the Word utters the Spirit, and therefore is Himself the announcer of the prophets, and leads and draws man to the Father.

Read more:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.iv.html

>>18512497
>mexican
>indigenous
Why didn’t George Washington restore the Thirteen Colonies’ ancestral totemic religions after defeating the British. Didn’t he care about his indigenous culture?

>>18512202
Substance is not matter. God is not composed of "God-atoms" because God is perfectly simple; God's substance is God himself.

>>18512640
>why is it some kind of heresy to suggest that the god substance could express itself in polar opposite ways, in ways we would consider both 'good' and 'evil'.

That part is simpler: because it contradicts revealed truth and dogma.

>>18512497
>by people who destroyed your indigenous culture
I sure love being a slave to a different indigenous group that will sacrifice me or use me for cannibalistic purposes, I love it so much that I'm going to ally with the spaniards the moment they appear to take them down.
Don't be so naive, anon.

Christianity is polytheistic but will rage and whine if you point it out lol

>>18514335
>t. doesnt understand trinitarianism
Tritheism is condemned as a heresy. Anybody who understands the doctrine of the trinity, including secular scholars, understand that it is monotheistic - and that is why Christianity is called "an Abrahamic monotheistic religion".

>>18514349
If you have 3 aspects of God, you have a polytheistic God. Just admit it, you're basically Hinduism just with only 3 Gods.

>>18514670
>I know I don't understand the trinity, but here's why it's polytheistic
Why don't you do some actual research? Scholars disagree with you - Christianity is the world's largest monotheistic religion.

>>18514719
>Christianity is the world's largest monotheistic religion.
Except it's not because they have 3 Gods

>>18515103
Nah they only have three persons and one divine essence. Polytheists have more than three persons for their one divine essence.

Massive difference!

>>18515122
Mono means one. You can't call yourself monotheistic if you have 3 God persons, sorry.

>>18512755
poor holy spirit he's always just represented as a cringe bird :'(

Off-topic. But which denomination/heretical offshoot compared the Trinity to a father, mother, and son? They gave the Holy Spirit a female, motherly persona. Was it Gnostic?

>>18515103
Unfortunately, your headcanon is incorrect. Just because you keep baselessly asserting it, doesn't make it so. Great tries though, friend.

>>18515122
>>18515126
You misunderstand - the polytheist has more than one divine being, with each divine being associated with a person. On the other hand, in Christianity, there is only one divine being, who consists of three persons, uncreated - this is God. It is very simple to understand this basic tenet, which is why scholars recognize that Christianity is monotheistic. Scholars do not say that Rabbinic Judaism is polytheistic because it refers to God speaking to Himself in the plural: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness [...]" (Gen. 1:26). Things are much more nuanced than you would like to believe.

>>18510610
It is no longer I who live, but Jesus who lives in me.

>>18508801
>essentially one while relationally three aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I’m going insaaaaaaaaaane

>>18509016
This is a heresy. Each of the three fingers is an attribute of you - it is not you in your entirety. The father IS God, in his entirety, as is the son and the Holy Spirit.

>>18515476
>there is only one divine being, who consists of three persons
>>18512295
>Three persons, multiple powers and qualities, as one being, one essence. Simple as.
What does "person" mean here? How can you have 3 people and say they are one being? How can you say they share all attributes and substance, deny modalism and yet say they are 3?

>>18515476
So, there's still 3 personhoods of God? That's polytheism

>>18516379
>>18516425
You are using the modern colloquial context of the word "person" - the more accurate theological wording would be three coeternal and consubstantial hypostases.
"God is one God, and exists in the form of three coeternal and consubstantial persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is."
"[...] under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula "three hypostases in one ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity."
"As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning. "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God because three persons exist in God as one entity. They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures."
"The Christian concept of the Trinity is often described as being one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#One_God_in_Three_Persons

>>18515476
>'your headcanon is incorrect' the christian said.

>>18509014
yes lets combine theology jargon with cybernetics jargon so we can substantiat Lamarckian Theo-Bodies; holy autopoiesis