/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13325038]

Paul won over the Gentiles by abolishing the law but he ultimately doomed Christianity

Aquinas' theory of the persons of the Trinity as merely relations is not workable, you can crucify a being, you cannot crucify a relation.

To say Jesus ≠ God but rather Jesus ∈ God is flagrant polytheism. But if Jesus = God ∴ the Father = Jesus, thus undermining the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.13325051]

Trinitarians be like pic related

[Anonymous No.13325057]

>>13325038
i see you are still here
just fuck off

[Anonymous No.13325088]

In Aquinas persons are not merely relations because then they wouldn't be persons.

[Anonymous No.13325096]

>>13325088


You have not read him, I see

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm

[Anonymous No.13325512]

Now think of the concept as sets
God is the universe of R, with cardinality |R|=Ω
Now Jesus is a subset, say (0,33). But even if (0,33) subset of R, |(0,33)|=|R|
Now the Holy spirit, say [33, ∞) and the Father is some (-∞,0] we still have the same cardinality

[Anonymous No.13325524]

Past present future
Solid liquid gas
Father son spirit.

It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.13325540]

>This chair is made out of oak wood.
>This table is made out of oak wood.
>This stool is made out of oak wood.
>REEEEEE THAT'S DUMB I DON'T GET IT ONLY ONE OF THEM CAN BE MADE OUT OF OAK WOOD
This shit is simple, OP. It's stupid, but so are you. Seriously, have you retards never done any reading on this at all?

[Anonymous No.13325556]

>>13325540
Bad trinitarian theology. Bad example.

[Anonymous No.13325566]

>>13325038
Forget about Aquinas and engage with the Patristic theologians re the nature of the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.13325653]

The coexistent coeternal modes of being for the one Divine 'I'. They are not Sabellian modes in that they are not sequential and do not mask a hidden true God behind the three hypostases. Read Karl Barth!
https://postbarthian.com/2017/03/14/karl-barth-say-trinity-one-god-three-modes-not-persons/

[Anonymous No.13325673]

Why are you always trying to limit God with your language games ?

[Anonymous No.13325691]

>>13325038
the trinity is a mystery, those who try to understand it are already missing the point: that they cannot understand it.

[Anonymous No.13325720]

Jesus on Earth was an incarnation. The trinity rules only apply in heaven dummy, not to the God-man in his human form.

You're committing a category mistake and need a double set of trinity rules to explain firstly the ordinary non-incarnate trinity, and secondly the extraordinary trinity during the incarnate period.

[Anonymous No.13325761]

>>13325038
Hello Jay Dyer. How's it going

[Anonymous No.13326031]

This kills the christian
https://quranbible.org/english.htm

To believe God incarnated as a man is an insult against wisdom and morality, for it will infallibly make you view man (and thus yourself) in an idolatrous way. Also if it's graver to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, then he's above the other two.

[Anonymous No.13326039]

abrahamic religions were a mistake
why did those fucking retards convert

[Anonymous No.13326363]

>>13325038
BASED Muslim bro, completely Tawheed-pilled

[Anonymous No.13326370]

>>13325524
When will you Christians understand that your polytheism breaks the very first commandment. Jews and Muslims are in agreement about the nature of God, all the prophets for thousands of years have been in agreement, then a bunch of Roman pagans come around and make a polytheistic mess of the pure message of Abraham.

[Anonymous No.13326374]

>>13325038
Paul abolished the law? Paul? Brainlet fucking post, my guy.

[Anonymous No.13326391]

>>13325540
>1 chair
>1 table
>1 stool
>3 distinct items

>1 father-god
>1 son-god
>1 ghost-god
>3 distinct gods

[Anonymous No.13326416]

>>13325038
When Jesus got crucified HE was crucified. Not the holy trinity as a whole.

God is not a relation you dumbfuck. That you can understand the holy trinity as a conceptual relation doesn't imply it's a conceptual relation. It's a being beyond the physical realm so it must be thinked abstractly in order to understand its nature.

[Anonymous No.13326426]

>>13326370
>THERE IS ONLY ONE STATE OF MATTER!

[Anonymous No.13326442]

>>13326370

[Anonymous No.13326576]

>>13326426
>I worship three distinct beings with different personalities, abilities, and locations, but do not DARE call me a polytheist!

[Anonymous No.13326579]

>>13325512
Polytheism, humans are a set too.

>>13325524
Modalism?

>>13325540
Polytheism

>>13325566
I did but desu they seemed pretty polytheistic, I think, unlike Aquinas, their chief concern was asserting, against Arianism, that Jesus is every bit the Father's equal. Monotheism seemed not to be a large source of worry as in their framework humanity is also one ousia

>>13325653
The phrase dramatis personæ must blow Bath's mind

>>13325673
>>13325691
I am not critiquing God, but your description and understanding of Him. That God is ineffable we all know, but "God is ineffable" is not a defense of a formula.

>>13325720
God is immutable

>>13326363
Alhamdulillah

>>13326374
Yes Paul. Jesus said the law will not pass until the end of the world

>>13326416
Does the Trinity one being? Or is it three beings?

[Anonymous No.13326586]

>>13326579
>Jesus said the law will not pass until the end of the world
you have to read the book before talking about it, my dude

[Anonymous No.13326593]

>>13326586
I have read the entire New Testament four times

[Anonymous No.13326604]

/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/.

It's obvious you are the same Islam shill that makes threads on this literally every day. This has nothing to do with literature. You could at least talk about a book about comparative theology but no, just the same banal theological banter day after day.

[Anonymous No.13326620]

>Trying to convince westerners to convert to Islam and become slaves to muslims and the ummah
That's pretty cringe bro. Only a cuck would "revert" to islam.

[Anonymous No.13326633]

>>13325524
From a Christian to a Christian, this is modalism not Trinitarianism.

[Anonymous No.13326634]

>>13326604
The New Testament is literature, probably the core literature of the western canon. I can't imagine if thefe were a board on Mid Eastern literature and someone said "please do not talk about the Quran here'

>>13326620
If fact Islam forbids enslaving Muslims, only slaves who converted after enslavement can remain slaves

[Anonymous No.13326636]

>>13325761
Dyer never said anything like that.

[Anonymous No.13326642]

>>13326634
>If fact Islam forbids enslaving Muslims, only slaves who converted after enslavement can remain slaves
This is the most beautiful, concealed threat I have seen in my life. I commend you, akhi

[Anonymous No.13326651]

>>13326634
Again, this is not about the New Testament or the Quran. You are just using this thread for religious proselytism and petty religious banter. Mentioning a book once doesn't make this thread about literature at its core and you fully well know that. By that definition /pol/ threads on religion would be literature threads as well just because they mention the Bible once. These sort of threads are the death of this board. Nearly half the catalog is just spam religion threads with no meaningful discussion or relation to any secondary literature.

[Anonymous No.13326659]

>>13325038
>To say Jesus ≠ God
Jesus is God. God was crucified and died. This is the orthodox Christian understanding.

[Anonymous No.13326673]

>>13326642
Imagine worrying that a Muslim state will declare war on you and invade you

>>13326651

Plenty of threads on philosophical worka don't mention titles, as for the other threads, many are shitposting, trying to lump mine in with them suggests that your discernment is not quite refined

[Anonymous No.13326677]

>>13326659
>God was crucified and died.
This is blasphemy, and all the prophets of God would have you put to death for saying such bull.

[Anonymous No.13326682]

>>13326659
What "is" means here could be an equivilant relationship, that is =, or not. Are you say it's an equivilant relationship?

[Anonymous No.13326683]

>>13326391
The "God" refers to the substance they are made of. Yes, this is completely fucking retarded, but then this is Abrahamic religion we're talking about.

It's always fun watching Christians re-invent ancient heresies in these threads. The only one who has gotten this right is this guy >>13325540

[Anonymous No.13326688]

>>13326673
Your right. I should not lump your threads in with the others. At least the shitposters don't take themselves seriously, unlike you who unironically thinks his religious prosletyism constitutes an appropriate topic for a literature board. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.13326691]

>>13326677
It isn't. Jesus is a divine person who is God, who consists, without mixture, of a human nature and divine nature. Any action performed by Jesus is performed by the divine person, who is God, but this action is predicated upon either his human or divine nature. God, i.e. Jesus, died in respect to his human nature, not his divine nature.

[Anonymous No.13326692]

>>13326683
>look this up
>it's true
>it's literally catholic doctrine
>this is what christians have believed since tettullian's time
holy shit this is mind blowing

[Anonymous No.13326715]

>>13326683
That isn't entirely right. You can say "the char is made of oak wood," but if the chair were to be broken, it would not be proper to say, "oak wood was broken," at least not in the sense that there is a singular thing that is "oak wood," as you could only make the statement by speaking of a specific construction of said "oak wood."

[Anonymous No.13326721]

>>13326688
>using the term "embarassing yourself" on 4chan

Wew and you say *I* take myself too seriously

[Anonymous No.13326725]

>>13326579
One being. But who was crucified was the SON AND ONLY THE SON retard

[Anonymous No.13326726]

>>13326682
It means that any action of which Jesus was the subject or object, is attributed to God.

[Anonymous No.13326741]

>>13326721
>doesn't even deny the fact his thread is nothing but religious proselytism
At least you've shown your true colors

[Anonymous No.13326743]

>>13326579
>polytheism
You misunderstand the definition of the word. As the poster said, the universe is still the same, God is still one.
>humans are a set too
We are not

[Anonymous No.13326746]

>>13326715
Of course, but that's the nature of metaphors. Properly saying
>God is a consubstantial three-person hypostases
doesn't quite explain things to most people.

[Anonymous No.13326754]

>>13326691
Why did Jesus not know the time of the day of Judgement, you dirty pagan

[Anonymous No.13326774]

>>13326725
You can't crucify a relation, only a being

>>13326726
And therefore the entire Trinity?

>>13326741
My true colors are argumentative

[Anonymous No.13326787]

>>13326743
Man = {Tom, Dick, Harry, ...}

[Anonymous No.13326791]

>>13326754
>John Calvin: For we know that in Christ the two natures were united into one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefor in saying that Christ, who knew all things, (John 21:17) was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been "like us," (Hebrews 2:17.)
>>13326774
>And therefore the entire Trinity?
No.

[Anonymous No.13326797]

>>13326787
Legs are also a set

[Anonymous No.13326806]

>>13326791
>No
Then the Godhead is not synonymous with Jesus as subject

[Anonymous No.13326816]

>>13326797
Yes. This isn't helping deny polytheism

[Anonymous No.13326836]

>>13326806
It depends on what you mean. I can say, "Jesus did X, therefore God did X." I cannot say, "Jesus did X, therefore the Holy Spirit did X." Both of their actions can be attributed to God as they are of the same substance, which is God, but their actions cannot be attributed to each other, just as actions performed in respect to Jesus's human nature cannot be attributed to his divine nature, even though they are both united in the singular person who performed said actions.

[Anonymous No.13326863]

>>13326836
Yes, that's polytheism. Similarly non divine objects like wooden chairs or human beings share a like ousia, wood and humanity respectively

[Anonymous No.13326869]

>>13326863
It isn't. To put it more simply, if you can follow what I stated here >>13326691, an analogy would work as follows: as the fact that Jesus is a person consisting of a multiplicity of natures does not render him a multiplicity of persons, the fact that God is a substance consisting of a multiplicity of persons does not render him a multiplicity of substances.

[Anonymous No.13326873]

>>13326774
>God is not a relation you dumbfuck. That you can understand the holy trinity as a conceptual relation doesn't imply it's a conceptual relation. It's a being beyond the physical realm so it must be thinked abstractly in order to understand its nature.

Not the Father was crucified, not the Holy Ghost, only the Son. Therefore God was crucified but no each person of the Holy Trinity

>>13326416

[Anonymous No.13326915]

>>13325038
Action is relation. To crucify is to relate yourself to the the crucified in a very particular way, rich in meaning and dark in substance. If the act is relation, then this relation can certainly be established in relation to another relation. How can this be? Because all creation is a relation to God. The physical life is nothing more than the illusion of being that comes from the overwhelming relation of our senses--that is our dimensions and boundaries--our relation to what is not us. Relation is being, Being is relation. Without the Trinity, no system of Truth can be maintained, for it will either be too rigid to allow the reality of relation, or else it will have no grounding, and will become lost in self-referentiality. God is the Anchor and the Seed.

[Anonymous No.13327117]

>>13326579
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dramatis%20personae
Dramatis Personae was first used in the post-reformation era. Get fucked, Mudslime.

[Anonymous No.13327132]

>>13326869
Nature here is synonymous with substance except for non-Chalcedonian Christians

>>13326873
God is each person

>>13326915
Thos is process philosophy applied to God

[Anonymous No.13327142]

>>13327117
That is because it was rundunant before then, as persona meant a character in a drama

[Anonymous No.13327162]

>>13325038
retarded desert heretic

[Anonymous No.13327187]

you was at the club

[Anonymous No.13327202]

>>13325761
gotta raise these iq points my dum dum friend, this is not a pepe dyer would use.

[Anonymous No.13327210]

>>13327132
>God is each person.

but what happens to ONE person doesn't happens to the others. they are three diferent beings altought they share the essence "God"

ONLY THE SON WAS CRUCIFIED, ergo

>God was crucified
>jesus was crucified
>The Holy Ghost wasn't
>The father wasn't

r e t a r d

[Anonymous No.13327215]

>>13327210
Humans also share the ousia humanity. This is polytheism

[Anonymous No.13327225]

>>13327210
>they are three diferent beings altought they share the essence
Also homousion means same essence as well as same being

[Anonymous No.13327231]

>>13327225
if he was BORN that differenciates the being from the procedence.

[Anonymous No.13327264]

>>13327231
Not in ousia

[Anonymous No.13328146]

these threads are based af but I just want to say I love you guys and hope I'll see you at the wedding feast.

[Anonymous No.13328437]

>>13328146
>religious banter with no one recommending any books or writing any long, thought out replies
Yeah! Sure is Based! Hahah lol

[Anonymous No.13328459]

>>13327142
The same person often played multiple roles in drama. The trinity is a doctrine of One God in three Persons, so it is unreasonable to read this as referring to three separate 'I''s rather than three coeternal, coequal modes of being.

[Anonymous No.13328506]

>>13328459
"Persona" in Trinitarian terminology used to mean hypostasis, not "role"

[Anonymous No.13328518]

seeing the rise of theologistic discussions on the board is a symptom of our cyberpunk-age emerging. Very cool.

[Anonymous No.13328530]

>>13328506
I didn't say 'role', I said mode of being. Hypostasis is the original Greek technical term used, which also does not imply an individual consciousness.

[Anonymous No.13328542]

>>13328530
'Manners of subsisting' is perhaps a better way to put it.

[Anonymous No.13328573]

>>13328530

Gregory the Theologian on what hypostasis means

>For Gregory, common noun is to ousia what proper noun is to hypostasis: “This therefore is the hypostasis: not the indefinite notion of the substance, which finds no instantiation because of the commonality of what is signified, but that conception which through the manifest individualities gives stability and circumscription in a certain object to the common and uncircumscribed” (EpPet. 3b).

>Gregory gives an example from the Book of Job. When the narrator begins the story, he first identifies Job by means of substance, “There was a man …,” thus indicating the common nature that he shares with all men. The narrator then proceeds to individualize Job “by means of particular identifying notes, by mentioning the place and identifiable habits and such external marks that would distinguish him and mark him off from the common signification” (EpPet. 3c).

[Anonymous No.13328586]

>>13328573
That's one personalistic understanding of the Trinity which was certainly not universally held. See folks like Augustine in the west, who, despite using a word like 'Person', was not a Trinitarian Personalist. Nobody but Catholics and Orthodox are required to believed that the church has demonstrated a significant doctrinal unity, especially in it's earlier years.

[Anonymous No.13328608]

>>13328586
Okay, so hypostasis is an invalid term?

Augustine didn't bother to read Greek even though he could, even the Bible he would only read in Latin, so of course he has an inferior understanding of what the terms mean as he only used translations of the terms

[Anonymous No.13328621]

>>13328608
No, hypostasis is not an invalid term, it's just wrong to read Gregory's understanding of the term back into the rest of church history. I don't think that the western tradition is 'inferior' or less faithful to the early church-- the early church was far, far from uniform.

[Anonymous No.13328644]

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.

[Anonymous No.13328656]

>>13328644
Karl Barth's doctrine of the trinity posits three coeternal, coequal, essential, real modes of being or manners of subsisting in God which are not sequential and do not mask a hidden God behind all three.

[Anonymous No.13328660]

>>13325038
If God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, then that obviously allows for something like the Trinity. Three distinct yet inter-connected Beings that are all God. Like if I get a pie and cut it into thirds. They're all the same pie but different slices.

[Anonymous No.13328671]

>>13328621

Gregory's understanding follows Aristotle's, your beef is with the Greek fathers, kind of ironic when Barth dishonestly uses a phrase they use to suggest they subscribed to an orthodox modalism when you can see they were in fact polytheists

The west of course had an inferior understanding of Greek writings and concepts compared to Greeks when they mostly read them in translation

[Anonymous No.13328679]

>>13328660
That is either polytheism, or violates divine simplicity

[Anonymous No.13328682]

Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies from the old scriptures. He is the Son of the living God. Jews reject him on the basis he wasn't the warmongering figure they expected who would crush Israel's enemies. They are still waiting for their messiah who will undoubtedly be the antichrist.
Islam on the other hand is total heresy and should not even be considered an Abrahamic religion. Muslims worship a moon (horned) God, read: a very powerful demon in the service of Satan.

[Anonymous No.13328691]

>>13328671
Even if you were right about the Greek Fathers being somehow "Polytheistic", that would just mean that one subset of Christians in the east were wrong. What difference would that even make? The vast majority of later western Trinitarian theology emphasizes the oneness of God, even denying any composition whatsoever in the medieval period. This would literally just prove that the ecumenical councils are not specially infallible, and that the west has the right understanding of the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.13328701]

>>13328691
Also, I don't believe that the western fathers had an inferior understanding of the Trinity. Their ideas can just as validly be read back into the early church as can Gregory's-- doctrine transcends linguistic divides.

[Anonymous No.13328717]

>>13328682
Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah and will return to lead the Ummah

>>13328691
The Christians who wrote the Bible and the Nicene Creed are wrong? That's a problem

>>13328701
This is not simply a linguistic divide, this is mutually exclusive beliefs about doctrine

[Anonymous No.13328728]

>>13328717
The apostles wrote the Bible, not the early Greek Fathers. The scriptures are inspired, the ecumenical councils are not. The common protestant understanding is that the councils can err.
I am saying that I don't believe that the entire western Christian world inherited some kind of obviously flawed Trinitarian theology-- I don't think you can read personal consciousness back into the Council of Nicaea, the fact that it was accepted as infallible by the western Church for so long is a sign that it is open for multiple interpretations

[Anonymous No.13328739]

>>13328717
I add that Muslims also have mutually exclusive theology, Ashari, Athari and Maturidi, but these are about what is speculative, not what is dogmatic for Muslims

>>13328728
Athanasius established the Trinity as orthodoxy, was he wrong?

[Anonymous No.13328744]

>>13328739
Protestants do not accept the Trinity by the authority of Athanasius. They accept it by the authority of scripture.

[Anonymous No.13328754]

>>13328717
Muslims do not believe in the divinity of Christ.
God made man in his image, which means God the Father is supposed to have a Son. The Son of Man willingly lays down his life so man has a chance of eternal reconciliation with the Father. There's no atonement without the lamb.
I say again: Islam is heresy.

[Anonymous No.13328783]

>>13328744
Based on Patristic exegesis

>>13328754
There is no image of God, Jesus is not God

[Anonymous No.13328794]

>>13328783
No, not based on patristic exegesis. How many protestant exegetical texts have you read? They cite the fathers, but their arguments are not based on them-- they are used to add persuasive authority most of the time, especially in reformed circles. The traditional western understanding is a complete unity of essence, a single divine subject. Why is this so hard to understand? You may disagree with it, but to call Trinitarianism polytheism is ridiculous. Social Trinitarianism may be subject to that critique, but not the traditional western understanding.

[Anonymous No.13328906]

>>13328794
To say Ousia and Substance mean "subject" only shows that Protestant exegesis is wilfully ignorant at best, mendacious at worst

[Anonymous No.13328913]

>>13328906
I didn't say that substance and subject were identical terms...? Maybe my post was unclear, not great at expressing myself lol

[Anonymous No.13328933]

>>13328913
>a complete unity of essence, a single divine subject

This looks like parataxis

[Anonymous No.13328941]

>>13328933
sorry, my mistake
I really should proofread my posts instead of just immediately posting

[Anonymous No.13328959]

This is a subject

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/νομιkό_πρόσωπο#Greek

[Anonymous No.13328965]

Is the Quran created or uncreated?
If the Quran is uncreated, then it is a fellow god alongside Allah.

[Anonymous No.13328972]

>>13328965
The Quran is uncreated. It is, as His voice, is one of God's attributes, like Mercy and Justice, not His being. The distinction between God's attributes and being is simply the distinction between God phenemenologically and God ontologically.

[Anonymous No.13328976]

>>13325038
>you can crucify a being, you cannot crucify a relation.
But Jesus is a being?

[Anonymous No.13328989]

>>13328976
So he and the father are not homousion?

[Anonymous No.13328991]

>>13328972
*Phenomenologically

[Anonymous No.13329079]

>>13328972
Polytheism.

[Anonymous No.13329081]

>My hand gets impaled with a spike
>My head was not
>My leg was not
>I was impaled with a spike

[Anonymous No.13329086]

>>13328972
So if I were to crucify a Quran I would be crucifying God?

[Anonymous No.13329104]

>>13329086
"A" Quran is obviously not uncreated, do you take us for imbeciles?

[Anonymous No.13329112]

>>13328972
Unless the Quran is an illusion then it has to partake in the essence of God to be uncreated, it can not exist and be a mere appearance or phenomenon without underlying being, that would make it an unreal illusion.

[Anonymous No.13329116]

>>13327210
>>13329081

[Anonymous No.13329132]

>>13329104
Yes a particular Quran is uncreated in its essence because the particular Quran in its particularity is an appearance of the noumenal objective Quran that exists godlike alongside/within God, but the particular Quran-in-itself is the noumenal objective Quran that exists godlike alongside/within God. A crucified particular Quran crucifies both the appearance and the essence of the particular Quran, that later of which is the noumenal objective god-like Quran.

[Anonymous No.13329148]

>>13325057
seething Christfag, fuck you and fuck Christianity

[Anonymous No.13329160]

Islam
>god can't incarnate as a man
Also Islam
>god incarnates a part of himself into millions of books

[Anonymous No.13329177]

Reminder that Islam abandoned philosophy because they couldn't invent a coherent formula as to why the Quran is uncreated but not a God so they abandoned the entire field as haram and retreated into dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.13329193]

>>13329112
God's attributes and essence and operations are distinct in Islam. An attribute of God is Mercy for example, so by studying that we learn about God. God's essence/being, God in Himself, not for us, is unknowable

>>13329132
>the particular Quran-in-itself is the noumenal objective Quran
No, no more than a record in itself is an orchestra

>>13329160
No

>>13329177
Islam never abandoned philosophy, that is Orienalist retardation, read "Al-Ghazali's Philosophical Theology". Ashari, Maturidi and Athari still produce extensive literature, it just isn't godless so tge west refuses to consider it philosophy

[Anonymous No.13329229]

>>13325038
>Paul won over the Gentiles by abolishing the law

>http://biblescripture.net/1Corinthians.html
>CHAPTER 6
>1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?
>5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
>7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? [...] 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
>CHAPTER 14
> 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

>http://biblescripture.net/Hebrews.html
>9 Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live?


Yeah breh, Saint Paul and Christianity totally abolished the Law.

Sometimes I don't know if people have actually read the damn fucking text. Or is there any other way to interpret all this?
(By the way, who do you think the "fornicators", "idolaters", "adulterers", "effeminate" and "homosexuals" were? If I hear one more time the usual "Render unto Caesar" rhetoric as being an order to secularism and submission to secular authorities I'll be fucking triggered.)

[Anonymous No.13329264]

>>13329229
>if you get circumcized you go to hell
>stahp telling people to eat Kosher!

[Anonymous No.13329276]

>>13325038
You're a pseud and so is most everyone here. Fancy learning is nice to have, but it's also a snare for the vain and prideful. Jesus and his disciples didn't argue theology. The practiced it.

>>13329229
>an order to secularism and submission to secular authorities
read Romans 13. the Church's job is to make saints, to lead men to the kingdom of heaven.

sometimes in practice this means realizing moral ends by secular means. e.g. the anti-abortion movement, or the many refugee immigrant aid programs

>inb4 fucking kalergi plan i knew it!!!
Jesus died for all mankind. The gospel is for all mankind. Enmity because of states or borders leads us away from God.

[Anonymous No.13329325]

>>13329276
This is so anti intellectual an unholy, Muhammad, may Allah's peace and blesssings be upon him, said learning is obligatory for all Muslims, and theology is the most important thing learn, but Protestards like yourself think learning about bugs being an extensive study is perfectably reasonable, but theology should be dumb dumb simple, which is exactly why the west no longer has it as the queen of sciences

[Anonymous No.13329329]

Islam is an illiterate warlord's imperial rape cult, not a serious religion. Islam exists for no purpose but to expand and consume infinitely, like a cancer. The cult is so clearly and obviously an ideological virus, a prehistoric relic of a particularly successful rape-lord that accidentally infected too many inbred Arabs a millennium ago. It is sustained not through virtue and truth and beauty, but by expansion for the sake of expansion for the sake of expansion.

It's actually quite fascinating as an expression of human behavior. The idea of wacky Arab accidentally fucking and killing himself into a global religion is as funny as it is tragic. And I'll admit, te Quran is a very beautiful book, at least the translated excerpts I've read. But as a civilizational and theological model it is a total failure. When Islam lost the ability for conquest due to the intellectual and technological and economic and cultural superiority of Europe, the entire cult lost its considerable achievements and collapsed into tribes of cousin fucking goatherders conquesting one another as they bickered about whose farm animal belonged to whom.

A fitting end to a very stupid and fascinating religion