/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13174156]

>So bro god is a trinity right, like 3 people
>But it's not like 3 gods cause like that would be polytheism dude
>and it's not three independent divine beings who share the same substance, cause that's tritheism brah
>also it's not like he appears as the father at one time, the son at another, and the spirit at another, cause that would be modalism
>and, like, dude wait a sec hear me out... he's not made up of three distinct persons, cause that would be partialism
How is your head not imploding from the cognitive dissonance?

[Anonymous No.13174168]

>>13174156
Wait, I thought it was the third one... "tritheism" as you call it. That's the only one that makes sense

[Anonymous No.13174181]

>>13174168

[Anonymous No.13174194]

>>13174181
Oh. I see the difference. Alrighty then, have fun with that christcucks

[Anonymous No.13174310]

>>13174156
I dare anyone to show one place in the New Testament where Jesus refers to himself as God

[Anonymous No.13174321]

It's not supposed to make sense. It's deliberately nonsensical to weed out nonconformists.

[Anonymous No.13174336]

>>13174310
Before Abraham was, I am

[Anonymous No.13174382]

>>13174336
Abraham refers to his younger brother.

[Anonymous No.13174392]

>>13174321
And by "nonconformists" I assume you mean people who use their heads, right?

[Anonymous No.13174430]

>>13174156
It is a quite subtle way of thinking about God, but I think it makes quite a lot of sense actually. The way I can best describe my understanding of it is through a Platonic idea of form. There is God, the form, and that form is represented with 3 shadows of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which taken together present the 3 dimensions of God. One metaphor that I like is to consider God to be an image made on a display. This image is composed of many pixels of 3 different colors (RBG). Each color pixel is part of the final image, but the whole image contains all 3.

[Anonymous No.13174698]

>>13174156

Dialectic, it's simple, actually the easiest thing to understand.

>Now, therefore, I say unto you: For every one who will renounce the whole world and all therein and will submit himself to the godhead, that mystery is far easier than all the mysteries of the Light-kingdom and it is sooner to understand than them all and it is easier than them all. He who reacheth unto the gnosis of that mystery, renounceth this whole world and all the cares therein.

>On this account, therefore, I have not hesitated nor have I been ashamed to call you my brethren and my companions, because ye will be fellow-kings with me in my kingdom. This, therefore, I say unto you, knowing that I will give you the mystery of the Ineffable; that is: That mystery is I, and I am that mystery.

[Anonymous No.13174704]

>>13174310

John 10:30.

[Anonymous No.13174717]

>>13174430
liked a lot this post. In the kabbalah originally were three aspects of God but the kikes added a fourth one

[Anonymous No.13174732]

>>13174430
>One metaphor that I like is to consider God to be an image made on a display. This image is composed of many pixels of 3 different colors (RBG). Each color pixel is part of the final image, but the whole image contains all 3.
partialism, heretic.

[Anonymous No.13174791]

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0QX538cy1Yk

[Anonymous No.13174830]

>>13174704
>>13174336
Interesting how these quotes come from John, by far the latest gospel. If Jesus was actually going around calling himself God why would it only appear in the latest gospel(the one most likely to have fanfiction introduced)?

Did Matthew Mark and Luke just forget to mention this?

[Anonymous No.13174840]

>>13174156
Honestly every Trinitarian attempt to explain the Trinity feels like it lapses into modalism or tritheism, for example the Cappadocian Fathers are basically tritheists when they appeal to genus/species Aristotelian reasoning, and people like William Lane Craig teaching social trinitarianism sound similarly tritheistic, whereas the average "God is like water" preachers are modalists (I've also seen "God is like an egg" explanations which are more tritheistic). Augustine's appeal to love for his metaphor of the trinity also feels tritheistic honestly. There is just one exception, which is Aquinas; his account only manages to avoid the two extremes by saying that logic works differently inside God, and appealing to subsistent relations. Honestly Trinitarians should just accept the fact that they believe in an incoherent, impossible dogma of their own making and become either modalists or tritheists or even adoptionists, at least the heresies aren't incoherent.

[Anonymous No.13174845]

>>13174430
Why does EVERYONE who tries to explain the trinity do it by way of heresy? Can none of you explain it by way of the actual concept? Perhaps the actual concept is just so intellectually valid that it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.13174850]

>>13174791
I remember you posted a similar vocaroo in one of my threads. you're still fucking mad for what i see.

[Anonymous No.13174873]

>>13174840
>Logic works differently within God
Then theres no reason to expect us to grasp that reason and as such no way to know the trinity is true in any meaningful sense since any justification is based on our logic. Another fundamentally flawed take like all Christian apologetics.

[Anonymous No.13174884]

>>13174850
He's fucking schizo Boston cringelord and also a nontrinitarian heretic using the wrong metaphors.

[Anonymous No.13174886]

The persons are distinct divine acts, layered in the same way that the soul is layered. The Father the the efficient action, the Son is the subposition of God in himself as Christ(similar to our subposition in our senses), and the holy spirit is God in all of creation.

[Anonymous No.13174902]

>>13174830
Agreed. Also in context with the rest of that chapter Jesus is obviously transcending signifiers. As the son of God, as we are Gods children, God lives in him and he lives in God, likewise unto us. But in relation to OP, there is definitely nothing like I AM GOD. I COME TO SACRIFICE MYSELF. Nothing like that anywhere. Jesus spoke in parables but still never broke into anything that could justify Paul’s writings and Christology in general. Not smacking Christology either, just, if your gonna do honest mapping, you should put things where they belong

[Anonymous No.13174923]

>>13174830

I'm assuming direct statements on the matter would make people hysterical and obscure much of his message, not in him giving it but in people receiving it.

>Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
>WAIT YOU'RE GOD?
> Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
>BUT YOU'RE GOD LIKE WHAT THE HELL MAN?!!!?!
>Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
>I DON'T KNOW BUT THIS IS SICK!
>And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
>NOR ARE THEY GOD LIKE YOU MAAAAAAAN WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA
>And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
>SOLO-WHO? HUH?
>Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
>WHAT CLOTHES GOD? GOD-CLOTHES?
>Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
>GUYS IT'S GOD LOOK AAAAAAAA
>(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
>IT'S GOD AAAAAAAAAAAAA
>But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
>GOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!1!1
>Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
>GAUHAO(*EO(H AIOEUHALENFDLAEU HLIU@*$OAL W

[Anonymous No.13174972]

The Trinity is real because it's in the fucking Bible, you nerds. The Holy Spirit appears numerous times throughout the Old Testament, from Genesis to Kings. God the Father is, of course present as God Himself in the Old Testament. And Jesus is obviously God, but he also claims he's distinct from both the Father and the Spirit.

So we have these three entities that seem to be God, but Judaism is strictly, pointedly monotheistic. How is this possible? That's where the Trinity comes from. It's not some cute invention, it's an attempt to make sense of the actual events the Bible describes. It's probably inadequate and doesn't fully grasp just what God is like, but that's true of every human attempt to comprehend God.

[Anonymous No.13174994]

>>13174923
I dont think you get my point. The point is why do the 3 earlier gospel writers fail to mention that he called himself God and why does the latest author say he did? My view is that he never did call himself God they way John proclaims.

[Anonymous No.13175008]

>>13174994
Actually, Jesus gives repeated signs throughout all three Gospels that He's God. Even in Mark, which contains the fewest overt references to His divinity, you have lines like this:

>So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath

And that's an extremely overt declaration that He is God, because the Sabbath is the Lord's Day.

[Anonymous No.13175020]

>>13174972
Oh shit wow it's in the bible guess its settled. Oh shit it says in the Quran that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse guess that's true too.


Its not like the bible was put together by people who already had preconceived notions on what the nature of God was and then picked books to fit that preconceived notion and burned books who didnt fit that preconceived notion.

God you're so fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.13175058]

>>13174156
they are not separate, they are aspects that create one. God, the father of the universe; you're living in your father's house. Christ, our Lord and savior; the physical embodiment of your father's house rules, he's giving up everything to suffer so that you might have a roof over your head and food on your plate. The holy spirit, the figure that guides you; this is when your father hollers at you from another room to keep you from doing something you know you shouldn't, because he knows you and he doesn't want to raise you wrong.

[Anonymous No.13175080]

>>13175008
I dont think you understand what overt means. The son of man quotes are contentious as hell in their interpretation. Definitely not even close to being as explicit as the I AM lines in John. Theres numerous textual critics who argue jesus wasnt even referring to himself as the son of man.

The original point still remains, if jesus went around saying his name is I AM, an extremely explicit acknowledgment of his divinity, why did Matthew Mark and Luke forget to mention it? Why is the only evidence you can find some son of man quotes that scholars still debate about the meaning to this day?

[Anonymous No.13175088]

>>13174840
>>13174972

Just read Hegel for expedient purposes alone. A Monad is not one in the Numerical sense, one identity is not contradicted by multiple hypostases, and said hypostases' mutual distinction is not only not formal but is properly actual precisely through the shared identity.

[Anonymous No.13175115]

>>13175080
exodus 3:14
"I AM who I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

this was God talking to Moses

then Jesus refers to himself as "I AM" numerous times int eh gospel according to John.

[Anonymous No.13175119]

>>13175080
Calling yourself Lord of the Sabbath IS an overt way of saying you're God to a Jewish audience, and Mark and Matthew, at least, were primarily written for Jews. "Lord of the Sabbath" is one of Yahweh's titles.

[Anonymous No.13175125]

>>13174972
The Old Testament uses a plural noun (with singular predicates admittedly) for "God", and if that wasn't enough, the term in Hebrew (el in singular, elohim in plural) isn't even quite the same as "god" in English anyway, since the Bible plenty times uses "el" for men, and at least one time in the Psalms the plural "elohim" got translated into Greek as "angels", something Paul quotes again in the New Testament, legitimizing this interpretation. Jesus himself cited the "Ye are gods" verse in Psalms to make the point to now-actually-monotheistic 1st century Pharisees that there was no linguistic improperness for him to be called either Son of God or (in consequence thereof) a god. Basically the Bible is perfectly compatible with nontrinitarianism, though modalism is the one that has it hardest (given the time when the Father speaks from Heaven while Jesus is being baptized and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove). There's two ways to endorse a nontrinitarian tritheism. First: argue on linguistic properness grounds that it's okay to use "god" of Jesus and the Holy Spirit without destroying monotheism. Second: argue that actually, Judaism was tritheistic all along because "elohim" was plural from the beginning. Neither contradict the text, but they have advantage over trinitarianism in not being beyond human reason to understand. Trinitarianism works only because we are ignoring those tritheistic options by very anachronistically imposing our own notions of divinity and monotheism on the Bible.

[Anonymous No.13175135]

>>13175088
I have read Hegel, he was a dialetheist after all, which is what a truly orthodox trinity is going to look like (a "true contradiction"). Trinitarians must pick between orthodoxy (but contradiction) or noncontradiction (but heresy).

[Anonymous No.13175176]

>>13175080

This inching backwards is very tiresome. I'm not sure what your argument even is anymore. But I appreciate that Pharisees are more honest than Catholics in hating Jesus. Have a blessed day.

[Anonymous No.13175211]

>>13175119
Yes calling yourself the lord of the sabbath would probably be overt. But once again you let your biases show. Look at how you just completely sidestep the other question "well is jesus calling himself the son of man?". I understand you think he is, many scholars on this topic do not agree with you. Therefore it's not explicit where anyone can look at it and say "oh yup there is jesus calling himself god" the way "I AM" is very explicit.

At the risk of repeating myself I'll ask the original question that remains to be answered again. IF JESUS WALKED AROUND SAYING HIS NAME IS "I AM", WHY DID MATTHEW MARK AND LUKE FAIL TO MENTION IT? DID THEY FORGET? WAS IT NOT IMPORTANT TO THEM?

There you go, I even capitalized it so you know exactly you have to deal with.

[Anonymous No.13175239]

>>13175176
What inching backwards? It's all very simple if you can read. The son of man quotes aren't explicit. No textual critic would ever argue that they are. The I AM quotes are explicit. No textual critic would ever argue that they aren't. Why do the only explicit sayings of Jesus about his divinity come from the latest gospel where as the earliest gospels fail to mention jesus LITERALLY saying I AM. That's the issue which you've failed to address. If you wish to debate the son of man quotes we can do that, but that's sort of making my point, that these are not well established interpretations. Many scholars argue that jesus wasnt referring to himself as the son of man.

[Sage No.13175249]

>>13174156
So you say the shit in the other thread and decided to make your own for the attention?

Sage

[Anonymous No.13175252]

>>13175115
I don't think you're following the argument chain. Everyone here agree's that the I AM quotes are very explicit. But the question is whether Jesus actually said that, or is John putting those words into Jesus' mouth. If Jesus actually said it, why did the other three EARLIER gospels fail to mention it?

[Anonymous No.13175280]

>>13174156
I see God as a whole like a light trough a prisma. All three stages are light (God).

>the three stages of light where there is no time cannot be modalism
>cannot be three different entities because the three all share the same nature.
>where is no space nor time there is no phisical causality, so they can be independient one of the each other. But they can be because there is existence.
>by the previous premise they cannot be creation one from the each other. Eternal spiritual energy.
>there is no division of the essence, it is truly three manifestations of light, without gaps, in the continuum eternum.

[Anonymous No.13175285]

>>13175280
Heresy of modalism. You'd be burned 500 years ago.

[Anonymous No.13175294]

>>13175285
first green text: there is no fucking time. God is above time and space

[Anonymous No.13175316]

>>13175211
>>13175239

The Gospels are deliberately not analogous. Each one addresses a different audience or personality, a lot of tremendous ideas about Subject-Object porosity, the Humors and Elements, the Logos as Phenomenon, etc.

[Anonymous No.13175362]

>>13175294
Why do you think modalism necessitates certain points in time and space? And the concept of god being above time and space is meaningless since we have no way of understanding it, something that we SHOULD be able to understand is that god operates in our time and space, so your refutation isn't even valid.

[Anonymous No.13175386]

>>13175316
>gospels are deliberately not analgous
Definitely not true, Matthew Mark Luke and John didn't get together and partition out what they were gonna focus on. The historical perspective explains the gospels and their goals better than your theological perspective.

[Anonymous No.13175442]

>>13175386

They certainly didn't. My point being that the Word has ordained itself. What would the "Historical" perspective extricate anyway? Atheism, apparently.

[Anonymous No.13175452]

>>13175442
>the way things actually happened leads to atheism

Lol hey you said it yourself kiddo. Keep that in mind.

[Anonymous No.13175514]

>>13175452

Empiricism is not even the polar opposite of Reason, it is an Epistemological joke. You can only make any one Empirical statement by exempting everything but your object of inquiry from the rigors of Empiricism. The method and evidence itself would be just as suspect as the object and not only in need of further and separate Empirical rigor, but in need of MORE Empirical rigor, and the secondary method and evidence therefrom in turn in need of even more, and so on and so forth.

[Anonymous No.13175635]

>>13175362
>modalism: the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself

>forms of activity

To trascend toward a new form of activity needs time. That idea would led into an evolution what it's not what i'm talking about. Modism excludes two personalities when it's in proceeding the third.

When The Son came to our world the three personalities were active just as they are the three "stages of light". Modalism says that when they were the times of the NT , God was only the Son who then manifested as the Spirit after the death of Christ. But necessarily modalism needs a time and a place to set the changes. Nothing ends beeing without time.

[Anonymous No.13175643]

>>13174382
Jesus had no brothers, heretic.

[Anonymous No.13176097]

>>13174168
Its three aspects that engage you from one being that encompases a teacher, a disciple whom you care for and your own self interest.
The father the son and the spirit.
Get fucked troglodite

[Anonymous No.13176522]

Imagine being a grown adult who believes there is an omnipotent and omnipresent deity who created the universe on a whim who monitors your thoughts, controls your behavior with edicts (and yet allegedly gave you free will to defy him so he can punish you should you choose to exercise it), and yet this all-powerful being has need of your praise, worship, and material sacrifices.