/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15572029]

What have been the strongest reasonings given for the necessity of the Trinity? I find that unitarianism's (and even the overall more nonsensical Islam's) theistic simplicity appeal to me more than the handwavy mystery of the trinity. All are welcome to discuss, but I will politely ignore seething antireligious posts.

[Anonymous No.15572309]

>>15572029
>necessity of the Trinity
It's necessary because God exists as such and has revealed it to us through His Son. Any other explanation for "why" God is like this is a rationalistic cope.
>appeal to me more
Unironically "facts don't care about your feelings". These positions do not make sense in light of Holy Scripture and apostolic teaching.

[Anonymous No.15572478]

>>15572309
That's not persuasive. While I consider the stacks of theology on the trinity to be rigorous reasonable to believe in (I think we have agreement here), it has never been entirely satisfying. Circular referencing like yours was stronger when people were less educated, but the method has been losing ground for centuries. Your behavior is going to push people from first world countries away, more than it will bring them to a strong understanding of the trinity. Flat theology is more akin to dead letters, rather than living religion.

God's truth could have conceivably been revealed through various other means. He could have done so by himself without incarnating, or through the revelations of a great prophet, or through every individual man's proper discernment (but this last one clearly isn't the case, as most men are morally frail). It would be reasonable to believe any of these alternatives, and trying to handwave them, by merely stating that tradition dictates so, without elaborating specifically the reasons they have been formulated, is blatantly more incoherent than accusations against the mystery of the trinity itself. I'm asking why it was necessary to incarnate to reveal His truth. I have never found any ancient theologian's view on this to truly deliver concision here, but there might have been more persuasive views on it since. The trinity's theology is in itself sufficient, yet in many cases, it's not good enough to be convincing. If it is the case that you don't actually understand what you're putting forth, please do not embarrass your religion.

[Anonymous No.15572882]

>>15572478
>That's not persuasive
I don't understand why a statement of the doctrine itself has to be persuasive, if you accept Christianity in general and the scriptures as persuasive, then we can discuss further and derive all of this from them. So there are various explanations and deeper insights (based on revelation and direct experience) of what exactly the Holy Trinity is and how it operates, but there's no atheistic explanation of it based on rational philosophical axioms. All attempts to do this (like thomism) inevitably fall into various mistakes since they confuse the priority of God's inner life and His essence with what is in creation, placing created logic and reasoning prior to God Himself.

Revelation is absolutely necessary to know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit exist eternally as triune distinct persons with certain relations between them, and sharing the Father's divine essence. Nobody knows these truths inherently except the three persons themselves, who are the only ones who by their nature experience divine knowledge and divine life, so we need a free act of divine communication of some kind to tell it to us. There are triadic structures in humanity and creation as well, but they can't be given as an "explanation" to something which exists prior to everything else.

We also know that any action of the Holy Trinity proceeds form the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, so a communication of this truth to humanity would inherently take the form of something like Christ's baptism where all three persons appear directly to us (pic related, it's called the theophany icon exactly because this is how God chose His deepest truth to be made know to us).

>Your behavior is going to push people from first world countries away,
If anything, it's the over-reliance on trying to logically and atheistically derive revealed divine truths is what placed the West into its current apostate condition. If they don't turn back to Truth from playing ever-shifting philosophical word games, then there's no hope for them.

>He could have done so by himself without incarnating
The incarnation is necessary to lay out the path for us to achieve unity with Christ and become gods by Grace (theosis). This was God's plan for humanity all along and there is no way for human nature to be restored without Christ assuming it fully and purifying it by the Holy Spirit. This relates to our final resurrection as well, we needed Christ to die for us and prepare the path, destroying death's dominion by destroying Satan's power over Hades and rising from the dead.

[Anonymous No.15572954]

>>15572478

You're demanding that we justify a mystery of faith without faith. It's not possible. The trinity is conformable to reason and hundreds of holy theologians have written better on it than any of us can but it's nothing that anyone would think their way into without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

You might as well ask us to explain why Jesus had to be crucified. It's an expiation of sin and an example for believers that you have to die to yourself and suffer in order to do God's will, and it's ultimately much more than that, like the trinity a mystery that you can contemplate and draw from all of your life.

One explanation I heard of the trinity that is very imperfect but maybe useful is that God is love but love must always have an object. The object is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the love between them. But I hesitate to even post that because I know I understand so little.

[Anonymous No.15573068]

>>15572882
>>15572954

I love how easterners and Latins despite being separated for nearly a thousand years will still say the same things with different formulations and emphases (not denying that there aren't real points of disagreement obviously).

The two lungs of the body of Christ.

[Anonymous No.15573102]

>>15572882
>>15572954
There is no reason to have faith in the christian dogmas.

[Anonymous No.15573106]

https://youtu.be/v6n8gyG3MM8
i watched this today it looks like its goan be a good series. Analytic look at trinitarian theology

[Anonymous No.15573113]

I am more interested in Christianity from a mystical and metaphysical perspective than a doctrinal one so I may not be the best person to ask, but to me the Trinity is interesting precisely because it clearly doesn't fit into any rationalist framework but defies them and forces them to bend.

This indicates that there may be an original mystical insight or revelation underlying the truth of the Trinity, maybe revealed to the original disciples or to a sect like the Essenes. It may be designed to lead us back to God and cultivate such insights again, even when we become clever and develop rationalism and think we've circumscribed God. The Muslims had a similar problem while trying to conceptualize the createdness of the Quran alongside God, and they hated Christian trinitarianism, and look where it got them. Dead rationalism that denies even the createdness and freedom of souls.

The mystical and symbolic association of the number three is also historically deep. It often implies two terms (creation and created for instance) with a mediating third term between them, which requires some special effort or creative act to produce.

[Anonymous No.15573158]

>>15573068
>body of Christ
Latins separated from it because of theological differences (also known as heresies) and now don't have the Eucharist as a result. We aren't the same Body of Christ.

>>15573102
There are plenty of reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ and His testimony about Himself and about His reading of previous divinely inspired scripture. You need to take a completely history denying solipsistic atheistic viewpoint as fact if you want to try and deny Christianity as completely unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.15573168]

From Aquinas:

Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God."
So also was this useful for our "withdrawal from evil."

First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Since human nature is so united to God as to become one person, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies."

Secondly, because we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): "God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man." And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): "Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness."

Thirdly, because, "in order to do away with man's presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no merits of ours went before," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17).

Fourthly, because "man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great," as Augustine says in the same place.

Fifthly, in order to free man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), "ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ," and this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: "Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other—for this was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an example."

[Anonymous No.15573194]

>>15573113
>maybe revealed to the original disciples
The trinity is really just the fact that the Son and the Holy Spirit share the Father's divinity, but are not all one actor/entity. This is easily proved from scripture.

[Anonymous No.15574684]

Divine simplicity isn't an Islamic doctrine

[Anonymous No.15574770]

>>15574684
Are you fucking kidding

Islam's simplicity is as simple as it gets for a monotheistic middle eastern religion

[Anonymous No.15574822]

>>15573158
>and now don't have the Eucharist as a result
>be catholic in 2020
>realize pope francis is the antipope
>realize 99% of sacraments are invalid
>had an unexpected wet dream and enjoyed it a little too much
>"oh fuck.jpg"
>have to pilgramage 1000 miles away to find a 150yo slovakian priest in a new mexico hobbit hole
>I saw the Dimond brothers at mass
>I told Micheal how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn't want to be a douche and ask for photos
>"oh like you're doing right now"
>I was taken back
>He kept cutting me off and going "huh? huh? huh?" and closing his hand shut in front of my face
>Richard Ibranyi comes out of nowhere and interupts the conversation
>"check out my book damned infants"
>Peter Dimond looks nervous and whispers in Micheals ear
>I said "excuse me but I must use the little boys room"
>"I fucked up the toilet" said Richard Ibyranyi
>Suddenly fifteen Milky Ways slipped out of Micheal Dimond's socks
>The 150yo slovakian priest just smiled vacantly from across the kitchen
>"I keep these in my socks to prevent electrical interference" explained Micheal as he walked towards the door and winked at me before combusting into flames

[Anonymous No.15575223]

>>15574770
No it's not, Islam distinguishes between Allah's being, properties and energies/activities

[Anonymous No.15575260]

>>15575223
So islam splits Allah into 99 different pieces (according to their logic) and gets angry at Christians for recognizing distinctions in God? Also, not all sects in islam do this.

[Anonymous No.15575281]

>>15574822
The word you're looking for is "infetterance"

[Anonymous No.15575284]

>>15574770
Only whenever it is convenient as a polemical "look how simple our faith is it must be true!". When you get deeper into it, a lot of them believe in stuff like Allah really having two right hands (Satan is left-handed and Allah has two hands, so he must have two right hands) and other such weirdness.

[Anonymous No.15575308]

>>15572029
If the father isn't the filius nor the spirit, so deus and father aren't the same thing? So is god deus or father? Because if he's god/deus and god then he can't be filius and spirit but that contradicts deus being filius and spirit

[Anonymous No.15575353]

>>15575284
>Satan is left-handed and Allah has two hands, so he must have two right hands
seems pretty simple to me desu

[Anonymous No.15575381]

>>15575308
>If the father isn't the filius nor the spirit, so deus and father aren't the same thing? So is god deus or father? Because if he's god/deus and god then he can't be filius and spirit but that contradicts deus being filius and spirit

[Anonymous No.15575410]

>>15575284
kek. the good old
>Allah is absolutely nothing like creation, but he has hands which are unlike any other hands

[Anonymous No.15575725]

>>15575260
Allah has 99 names (these names are actually listed differently sometimes) corresponding to properties. Allah's mercy is distinguished from His power, for example, as you could be all-powerful but lacking in any mercy.

Different sects of Christianity have different stances on the Trinity if we bring up Mormons and JW's. However let's stick to actual Muslims (Sunnis) and actual Christians

[Anonymous No.15575736]

>>15575725
>Decides who actual Christians are based on the edicts of a retarded council formed centuries after Christ.

[Anonymous No.15575740]

>>15575260
>>15575725

>and gets angry at Christians for recognizing distinctions in God?
Also no, the issue with Christians is shirk, which is imputing properties, actions or honors due only to Allah, to beings or things besides Allah

[Anonymous No.15575752]

>>15575736
I'm going by Paul's teachings. Obviously I don't,as a Muslim, agree with them or think they reflect original Christianity, but they are normative for any Christian who accepts the NT, just as Sunnism is for any Muslim who accepts the Qur'an

[Anonymous No.15576016]

>>15575725
>Sunnis
sunnis don't have an agreement on whether or not Allah has real and distinct attributes.

[Anonymous No.15576021]

>>15576016
No it's agreed among Sunnis in every aqidah. The difference is whether we know what each attribute means

[Anonymous No.15576026]

>>15575740
>things besides Allah
We as Christians do not worship 'things' besides Allah. Every one of the three divine persons has all of the divine attributes.

[Anonymous No.15576036]

>>15576021
Are the 99 attributes truly and really distinct from each other and does every single Sunni agree on the answer?

[Anonymous No.15576040]

>>15576026
Yes you ascribe them to three different beings

[Anonymous No.15576053]

>>15576040
They are one being (essence/nature), but three persons (hypostases, subsistences). All are the same 'what' with precisely the same divine power and divine will, but are different 'whos' with distinct properties relating to defining them (the Son is not the Father, as He is begotten, etc).

[Anonymous No.15576058]

>>15576036
Yes. The disagreement is what the attributes mean. For example the hand of God, Athari would say is literally a hand (but in a definably non athropormophic sense which can't be elaborated on), whereas Maturidi and Ashari would say they don't know what exactly hand means but it's a real property. All schools agree denying any properties reality is kufr, disbelief, and if this is explained to someone who does it and they don't fix it, they are guilty of ridda, apostasy, which they have three days to correct, and if they fail to they must be killed

[Anonymous No.15576063]

>>15576053
What/who are two different cases of the same word, it's like saying "is vs am"

[Anonymous No.15576091]

>>15576063
Are me and you identical because we share the same human nature? We are distinct persons (whos) embodying a single shared nature (what).

[Anonymous No.15576108]

>>15576091
I see, but then you are using being as osia in Aristotle's sense (species). That's the reverse of how I am (specimen).

[Anonymous No.15576161]

>>15575752
>think they reflect original Christianity
Why do they not? If there is an original Christianity that fulfills previous Jewish prophesy and Christ was a legitimate prophet from Allah, how could his teachings possibly get corrupted mere decades after his preaching ended?

[urcountryisworong No.15576168]

>>15576161
valley of dry bones is prob 'the internet'; son of destruction is probably ai. Now reread new Test

[urcountryisworong No.15576179]

>>15576168
specifically Timothy and Corinthians

[Anonymous No.15576273]

Muslims associate Muhammad and the Quran with Allah. The Quran is co-eternal with Allah, and the creed literally associates Muhammad's messenger status with the unity of Allah.

On top of that you have the trinity of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.

[Anonymous No.15576369]

This. Islam is literally just a blend of various long-refuted Christian heresies (Origenism, Judaism, Arianism, Nestorianism, some elements of gnosticism, etc).
Also Allah being a creator is somehow one of his eternal attributes. Can a Muslim answer how this doesn't make Allah eternally dependent on creation?

[Anonymous No.15576422]

>>15576161
I don't think his teachings were corrupted, I think Paul did fanfic and founded a group of Greeks

[Anonymous No.15576441]

>>15576273
The Qur'an is a property of Allah as His voice. Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhe wassalam, conveyed it. He doesn't have any of the same properties or honors of Allah

I don't see how that's a Trinity unless you are saying properties are persons

>>15576369
Pretty elaborate theory there, a bit ridiculous to think Origenisn made it to Arabic

Allah is also said to be the master of the day of reckoning as a title, which hasn't come. You're clutching at straws

[Anonymous No.15576473]

>>15576422
>I don't think his teachings were corrupted
Can you give me a historical copy of Christ's Injeel then? Where can I read it today?
>did fanfic
Maybe if you believe in a magical text which nobody has ever seen, but judging by the four gospels, he is perfectly in line with everything said there. The continuity is too eerie even for someone who never met Christ during his earthly ministry.
>founded a group of Greeks
St. Paul constantly refutes their silly philosophical doctrines and ways of life in all of his epistles. His teachings are very Hebrew in nature, Paul is anything but a gentile philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15576486]

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean.” (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, “We want to hear you again on this subject.” At that, Paul left the Council. Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

(Acts 17:16-34)

[Anonymous No.15576490]

>>15576441
>The Qur'an is a property of Allah as His voice.

Literally associationism.

>Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhe wassalam, conveyed it. He doesn't have any of the same properties or honors of Allah

Yet you raise Muhammad up the level of Allah by constantly invoking Muhammad when you invoke the oneness of Allah.

[Anonymous No.15576495]

>>15576441
>He doesn't have any of the same properties or honors of Allah
if the qur'an is uncreated and muhammad relayed it perfectly without flaws, he has the honor of partaking in uncreated eternal speech.

[Anonymous No.15576537]

>>15576495
notice how these words are empty with no root.

[Anonymous No.15576551]

>>15576537
These words are actually uncreated, I'm speaking from a book a totally non-demonic angel forced me to read.

[Anonymous No.15576556]

>>15576551
well now u know where ai lied in matrix simulation in the book of numbers and in the left ear of a prophet.

[Anonymous No.15576559]

>>15572882
Im not the OP but in answer to

>I don't understand why a statement of the doctrine itself has to be persuasive,

Its because having a contradiction in a core doctrine tends to indicate falsehood.

[Anonymous No.15576581]

>>15576559
>contradiction in a core doctrine
Where is the contradiction in that doctrine?

[Anonymous No.15576610]

>>15576581
The monotheism with 3 distinct persons. Hence the need for revelation of this point.

[Anonymous No.15576637]

>>15576610
Where is the contradiction in that? Even monotheism itself is a revealed doctrine (it was revealed to the first human Adam and passed down throughout his descendants).

[Anonymous No.15576670]

>>15576637
> Even monotheism itself is a revealed doctrine
But unlike the doctrine of the Trinity it can be reached and demonstrated without solely relying on revelation.

The apparent contradiction with monotheism is having three totally distinct persons all existing at once who are each fully the one God.

[Anonymous No.15576681]

>>15575284
>Allah has two hands, so he must have two right hands
Not that much of a problem, see the etimology for Ambidextrous: Ambi+dexter, right-handed+ on both sides. Lil'Allah is like Bruce Lee, He can nunshuk' Satan to Hell and back.

>>15576490
Jesus being the Logos is ridiculous but the Qu'ran being the Logos is ok, that's muslim logic 101 here.

[Anonymous No.15576713]

Psychfag here;

I think Jung got closer than anyone else to abstracting a cogent conceptualization of the meta-structures of psyche underlying its manifestation in Western society.

It's something like culture, nature, (Order and Chaos in hypo-stasis within the human consciousness), and the individual; who is both a fragmentary part of, and the potential container of, the entirety of the conceptualization which has been fragmented out into the metaphysical space of the collective unconscious.

[Anonymous No.15576733]

>>15576161
That's easy to answer: because if they do reflect true Christianity, then Mohammed is full of shit at best, and Islam means thinking Mohammed was right.

[Anonymous No.15576780]

>>15576670
Monotheism means "one God". If you admit that the three divine persons are not separated divinites with three different divine powers then what is the contradiction?

[Anonymous No.15576835]

>>15576670
>can be reached and demonstrated without solely relying on revelation
you can't totally abstract yourself away from God when you want to show His existence, as your very reasoning is a creation and does not exist independently of God. creation itself is also a revealed doctrine that you can't definitively prove on your own even if there are good signs of it in nature.

[Anonymous No.15576857]

>>15576670
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)

This is the concept you're almost reaching.

[Anonymous No.15576870]

Trinity is monotheistic:
We believe in One God, the Father, His Son and His Holy Spirit.
Now if you want to say that one should only worship the Father, this is refuted by understanding that the Son and the Spirit are of the same Divine Glory and Divine Power, and do not operate independently of the Father - they all share the same Divine Will. When Christ is worshipped, the Father accepts this worship, and same for the Holy Spirit. It is the will of the Father for us to worship the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.15576885]

>>15576780
>If you admit that the three divine persons are not separated divinites with three different divine powers then what is the contradiction?

If you do that then you deny each person of the Trinity being 100% God and the trinity itself, they are not just divine persons they are literally each God while being distinct but not separate Gods.

>>15576835
>you can't totally abstract yourself away from God when you want to show His existence, as your very reasoning is a creation and does not exist independently of God.

The issue is not reason being distinct from God but that reason runs into a contradiction here and thus necessitates revelation.

This makes this naturally very difficult as all things are possible with God therefore a ton of possibilities arise, which any Christian and Muslim will quickly run into when they approach the others faith

[Anonymous No.15576902]

>>15576490
That's like saying omnipotence is his property is associationism.

We say, in prayer, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the SLAVE and messenger of Allah"

>>15576681
Jesus is a different entity sharing the same properties by your own admission, not a property

[6 No.15576903]

>>15576857
i dont think this hits the nail. a close conjecture when looking at casual sets in a finite domain (galaxy)

[Anonymous No.15576951]

Many Muslims don't understand the problem of the one and the many, and, believe it or not, don't understand math. 1+1+1 = 3 is not stacking. The trinity is not polytheism.

However, there are honest and intelligent Muslims who realize that the trinity is not shirk, and will go far as to admit that the Quran never attacks the trinity.

[6 No.15576976]

>>15576951
u have to see all things as the word. if not then the extension of healing is set apart from god by faith. These concepts are akin to chi which could never return to original source unless sanctified., angels and demons all belong to Jesus, the will return to him just as David proclaims

[Anonymous No.15577026]

>>15576885
>being 100% God and the trinity itself
You're confusing "God" as applied to divine nature with "God" as applied to person. Christ is God in the sense of sharing fully the Father's divinity which is the sole unique and one divinity. He is not "God" in the sense of being identical to some entity/subject known as "God" who the other persons are also identical to, thereby collapsing all of them into one person called "God".

[Anonymous No.15577206]

>>15577026
So three distinct deities, like three different humans

[Anonymous No.15577244]

>>15577026
Can you expand on your distinction here?
It seems like God ceases to be being but becomes a shared trait.

Though to be fair I have to be heading off to work soon so I wont be back for quite some time. So dont feel too much pressure to respond.

[Anonymous No.15577251]

>>15577206
Deities are lesser beings who control their own small domain and have different powers. The Holy Trinity is undivided and unmixed/unconfused, all share the same divinity of the Father. Humans are also not applicable, as we do not all share a single will, are physically separated from each other and our actions are generally disjoint from each other's actions.

[Anonymous No.15577323]

I'm an atheist and I've never gotten someone so worked up on this site when I was defending the notion of the trinity in my Catholic LARP. This adversary was an apex midwit operating on p a=a, b=b, c=c. The limitation of his logical parameters. So riled up was he that he frenzied and I decimated him with post after post and he kept coming back like a glutton for punishment. If his brain was a CPU it would have been overheating from the process load. It didn't even feel fair yet the amusement I derived was so great especially at not even being a believer in God. It was like arguing with a child about chirality. No matter what, he just didn't get it. I'm convinced the big brains used it as a filter for back in the Arian heresy days to keep out the midwits. The sub 90 IQ masses would listen to them because they don't question and know "dayum, dis nigga smart". Meanwhile other 145 IQ geniuses capable of abstract thinking and understanding consubstansiality understood it indeed is possible for three distinct entities to be one yet separate. Bravo big brains, bravo, I deem the trinity as the most successful midwit filter of all time. What a marvel of intellectual engineering! We see pleb filters all the time but those are easy to craft, childsplay. But the midwit filter? Rare. Rare indeed. Hats off to my fellow big brains of the past. I know if they were alive today they would be right here on this site doing exactly what I do.

[Anonymous No.15577335]

>>15577251
Deity is Anglo form of Deus

Share a single will then why did he pray not my will, but yours?

[Anonymous No.15577346]

>>15577323
If a isn't a then language is unintelligible and the conversation is pointless. The Son isn't the Son, the Father isn't God etc

[Anonymous No.15577361]

>>15577346
nigga get your coding straight, genesis starts with a feminine word. look up your hebrew

[Anonymous No.15577368]

>>15577244
>God ceases to be being
I am Orthodox and we do not believe God is identical to Being or to the Good. We believe those are attributes proper to all three persons, but these attributes are not identical to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.

We distinguish between nature/essence (ousia) and person (hypostasis). We believe there is a Divine Nature which is completely transcendent and unknown (it is beyond Good and beyond Being), it in some sense "belongs" to the Father and He eternally begets the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit from His own nature. These eternal relations of begetting and spiration are distinct from each other, hence the distinction in persons, but they completely transfer the Father's divine nature, analogous to how a human begetting completely transfers the human nature of the father to the son. This maintains the existence of only one divinity but with three distinct subjects who all experience the divine nature and share the same divine power which signifies this divine nature.

>>15577335
Christ's prayer shows us that He is fully human, possessing a true human will distinct from the divine will He has from all eternity. Christ has two natures and thus two wills and two operations, divine and human.

[Anonymous No.15577377]

>>15577346
>if, then
How predictable.

[Anonymous No.15577394]

>>15577346
>if (a=b), error does not compute, further conversion pointless.
Filtered. Thanks for the textbook example of how a midwit thinks.

[Anonymous No.15577425]

>>15577346
>This doesn't look like anything to me.

[Anonymous No.15577430]

>>15577368
Then why did he speak as having one?

>>15577394
It's certainly plausible just not something language is useful to discuss as language requires that to have meaning

[Anonymous No.15577431]

>>15577368
Sorry there was a typo in post I meant to write "a being" and not just being.

So is it correct to say that God a word used to signify not any individual being but three spiritual persons who share the trait of God which consists of that ousia and hypostatis?

[Anonymous No.15577451]

>>15577430
>It's certainly plausible just not something my limited brain is capable of processing.

[Anonymous No.15577458]

>>15577451
That's correct, see Kant

[Anonymous No.15577479]

>>15577430
Christ's sometimes stresses to us His humanity, and sometimes His divinity. But there is only one Christ, the incarnate Son of God who does all of these things.
>So Jesus explained, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing.
- John 5:19

>>15577431
The word "God" can be used by Christians in either of two ways - as a name for the Father (we can easily say that the Father is the One True God and not be heretical), or as a general identifier of the divine nature, as a word that applies to all three divine persons. For example "God is all-knowing" applies to all three persons because divine knowledge is proper to the nature, but "God sent down His beloved Son" refers solely to the Father in His initiation of the act of Christ's incarnation. All divine action is triune - it starts from the Father, proceeds through the Son and is in the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.15577482]

>>15577323
Yahweh was a god literally thousands of years before Jesus existed, they are separate entities.

[Anonymous No.15577485]

>>15577479
Fact is that's functionally two different beings

[Anonymous No.15577487]

>>15577482
Non sequitur, theologically incorrect and filtered.

[Anonymous No.15577491]

>>15572029
Who cares, this fictional character from an ancient myth isn't real.

[Anonymous No.15577501]

>>15577487
Damn it's weird that god had to create Jesus on Earth for Jesus to exist, and that God reacted negatively to Jesus dying, separately, while Jesus was dying. Totally the same entity though, there's no way it's just something you were gaslighted into believing by this shit religion.

[Anonymous No.15577515]

>>15577482
>>15577501
Jesus is Yahweh. Whenever you see the alpha and omega signs around Jesus or the ὁ ὢν symbols (from Exodus when Yahweh speaks to Moses from the burning bush), this is telling us that Jesus Christ is Yahweh. Pantocrator is also just a Greek variant of El-Shaddai.

[Anonymous No.15577516]

>>15577485
They only fall in line with their religion and its leaders. You can point out a perfectly reasonable and straightforward logical problem with their religion and they just will ignore it, and get offended in the process.

[Anonymous No.15577524]

>>15577485
How? The humanity of Jesus does not exist separately from the eternal person (the Son of God) who assumed it and joined Himself to it. There is only one subject in Jesus of Nazareth (the Logos) who experiences both the divine and the human reality.

[Anonymous No.15577526]

>>15577515
If Yahweh and Jesus were one in the same it literally wouldn't be possible for Islam and Judaism to have their conceptions of the god.

[Anonymous No.15577532]

>>15577515
cont. and jesus

[Anonymous No.15577533]

>>15577526
Yes that is correct, Christianity is not the same thing as Islam or Judaism.

[Anonymous No.15577543]

>>15577526
Buddhism also has a different conception of God. How is a group of peoples mistaken view of God tied to Christ being Yahweh? Muslims deny all of Christian revelation and the Jews deny the New Testament and have their own pilpully casuistry to get around the obvious parts in the Old Testament as early as Genesis where there is a multiplicity of divine subjects (the Angel of the Lord is named as divine many times and we know this to be the pre incarnate Christ).

[Anonymous No.15577548]

>>15577533
They would actually have to split the god to separate them, they didn't. They just acknowledge Yahweh as god and see Jesus as not a god. It's a polytheistic religion, gaslighting the people into not accepting the obvious was probably a litmus test to make sure people who obeyed it were wholly submissive even about the most basic and obvious logical flaws with the religion.
Or they were just ancient peasants, who knows.

[Anonymous No.15577550]

>>15577524
Because the being in question is God and all of the Trinity. So if Christ is a human being, that must be an addition

[Anonymous No.15577557]

>>15577543
>Buddhism also has a different conception of God.
Not Yahweh.

>How is a group of peoples mistaken view of God tied to Christ being Yahweh?
Yahweh existed literally over 1000 years before Jesus. For 1000 years, people knew Yahweh, and no one had ever heard of Jesus. Why? Because they are not the same god. Jesus is the son of the god. Hercules is the son of Zeus, Hermes was a son of Zeus. Gods have offspring, they are different gods.

You are not going to change your mind because you're brainwashed and/or a 4chan variety christlarper.

[Anonymous No.15577566]

>>15577550
Yahweh is a divine name applying to all three persons of the Holy Trinity.
>if Christ is a human being, that must be an addition
Christ is a human being only by the nature He assumed in the incarnation, but He is not human by personhood. Christ exists eternally as the Son of God and it not a created human person.

>>15577557
Jesus is the name that the Son of God, the Logos took on when He assumed humanity. People knew of Him before the incarnation.

[Anonymous No.15577578]

>>15577566
No one knew of Jesus Christ before Christianity. You're disputing that because you're a Christian and facts do not matter to you.

[Anonymous No.15577580]

>>15577557
>Hercules is the son of Zeus, Hermes was a son of Zeus.
But those were fallen angels (creations of Yahweh) and not eternal. One does not worship a creation, that is idolatry.

[Anonymous No.15577587]

Why is the holy spirit "SPVS SAT9"?
I've never seen that form before.

[Anonymous No.15577597]

>>15577578
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit knew before creation even occurred.

[Anonymous No.15577612]

>>15577566
>Christ is a human being only by the nature
Being either means subject, or nature, in which sense are you using it?

[Anonymous No.15577652]

>>15577612
Christ is one subject (the Logos) in two natures (divine and human).

[Anonymous No.15577712]

i believe in Jesus Christ and Mary, the Mother of God.

i truly pity those who do not, you don't know true love if you don't believe

[Anonymous No.15577723]

>>15577323
bases

[Anonymous No.15577727]

>>15577652
>Being either means subject, or nature, in which sense are you using it?

[Anonymous No.15577859]

I'll take the question as that of a Christian looking to understand his faith.

It is essential to affirm that God is One being, since that is what fixes our reference to him as fundamental reality and Creator. It is necessary to affirm that God is innately and essentially three persons, firstly because that is the deliverance of the revelation that all Christians accept: while the Father, the Son and the Spirit are each identified with the One God, they nevertheless relate to each other as one person to another: the Father declares he is pleased with his Son, the Son prays to and speaks for the Father, they send the Holy Spirit which speaks to the Father and the Son. God is one being and three persons- the Trinity, and in the Trinity God gives us a glimpse into God's own internal life. For that reason alone, even if he can't work out all the details, the Christian, who above all things seeks to know and love God, ought to preserve this doctrine against adulteration and compromise.

Secondly the Trinity is also integral to the uniquely Christian spiritual ambition. The spiritual goal of Christianity is union with God, yet in a way which doesn't simply negate and subsume us. In light of Christ, we see that this union is achieved in the Incarnation, where God takes up human nature and joins it to his person (this is why Christ must be God, and not just an angel). The person of God forms the bridge between his divine nature and ourselves. It is as persons related to other another- most completely in the act of love- that we participate in the union with God which Jesus embodies, which does not annihilate or alienate but affirm us and connect us.

If we are united to God in love of his person in Christ, then the kind of person God must be, must also be essentially loving. If he were not, and love were simply a mask he adopts to relate to us, love would merely confirm our distance from him, and not finally unite us to him. Love, if it is to unite us to God, must be God's very 'internal dynamic,' the communication of all that he is to himself. This is what the doctrine of the Trinity allows us to clearly affirm, and which the denial of the Trinity ultimately takes away from us. For if the Trinity is true, then it makes sense to say that the primordial divine self-relation is an act of total self-giving love between persons. The single divine essence could not truly love itself, as we might, by means of a limited self-understanding that partially reflects its nature. Not could there be more than one divine essence. Only the entire indivisible divine essence relating to itself as lover, beloved, and the love which passes between them, could be a kind of love proepr to God himself. The persons are not ontologically, but relationally differentiated. God is, in this sense, eternally a community of love, and thus his joining to us in love is a genuine self-declaration, and not another mask.

[Anonymous No.15578039]

>>15572309
>>15577859

The Unitarian God, by contrast, while in a sense easier to understand, is an altogether impossible reality to enter into. Every relation he could possibly have with you, given the absolute distinction between Creator and Creature, must be extrinsic to him. His internal, intrinsically non-relational nature, must be closed to you, and could not be bridged even by omnipotence, since there could not in principle be any truly common term or relation between you and God. Before the Unitarian God the creature is necessarily absolutely alien and alienated. However nicely such a God may treat you, the love of such a being is impossible, and therefore, salvation from our fundamental alienation from God (and thus, from damnation) is impossible. All the creature may do is submit. This implication haunts the absolute mystery and alienating sovereignty of the God of Islam, before whom all finite agency, intelligence and love is ultimately obliterated, since agency by participation in the divine being is ultimately impossible. It is behind the superficial satisfactions of Christian Unitarians, Modalists and Arians: they satisfy themselves with an account of God that fits our natural human categories, but by that very act destroy our doctrinal road into the being of God himself without noticing and comfortably settle into spiritual mediocrity. To move from orthodoxy toward these heresies betrays a lack of understanding of the centrality of the love of Christ to our salvation.

The opposite set of heresies- partialism (where the persons are 'parts' of God) and tritheism and their cousins- divide the divine essence, and thereby prevent our language from referring to the true God (whose essence is indivisible), in turn forming a stumblingblock for our salvation.

There is, of course, an element of mystery in the Trinity, but that mystery is something one can share, and enter into, and participate in. The superficial abolition of the mystery of the Trinity to accommodate finite human understanding, ultimately raises a new, impenetrable ignorance rooted in the absolute distance between finite and infinite reality which not even divine power could bridge.

[Anonymous No.15578438]

>>15575260
Allah has 20 attributes which are neither identical nor different from his essence

[Anonymous No.15578489]

>>15578438
https://www.madaniyya.com/?The-20-attributes-of-Allah-Sifa%CC%84t-Alla%CC%84h