According to the Orthodox God is one essence (ousia) and three substances (hypostases). This formulation was given by the Cappadocian Fathers, where hypostasis here could be taken to mean individual entity. Just as Socrates and Aristotle are individuals humans of the species human, the three members of the Godhead are individuals realities of God. But we should not imagine the ousia to be a genus or a species, the attributes of the Godhead are not simply the members of the Trinity have or possess, this would lead to tritheism, rather it is one uncompounded essence without accidents.
According to the Catholic understanding though, God is one essence (essentia) and three persons (personae). This formulation was given by Augustine of Hippo and further developed by the scholastics. The persons, rather than being thought of as individual subsistences as in the Orthodox point of view, are thought of as eternal immutable relations within the Godhead. Truly distinct in mode, not identical in person, but of one divine nature. Therefore, the essence is thought of as by itself the single subsistence or substance.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
However in the historically Syrian formulation God is one essence (kyana) and three natures (qnoma). Therefore, the radical Antiochene school (Nestorians) declared that in Jesus there are two natures, which they equated with the Greek word hypostasis though it also encapsulated some aspects of ousia as well. Thus they say in Jesus there are two hypostases. There is the hypostasis of the Son in his divinity and the hypostasis of the Son in his humanity. These are two individual realities in the Son, but there are not two Sons or two Jesus, there are only one. The Son becomes "enfleshed", but he does not lose his divinity by some absolute kenosis, he "tabernacles" in the humanity, but at the same time does not merely dwell through grace but truly unites the two natures by his enfleshment/incarnation, while also keeping them unmixed and unconfused by his indwelling. These two realities subsist within Jesus without dividing him. There may only be a conceptual distinction in the liturgy when the term "Messiah" or "Christ" is used to refer specifically to the human hypostasis of Jesus but it is not an actual division of him.
>who is right
>walls of text saying functionally the same thing
Don’t care.
Thousands of white Europeans have murdered each other horribly throughout history because their autistic walls of text disagreed on minute points.
>thousands of white europeans fought and died to prevent the chain of events that lead to gay moron modernism
heroes, every one of them
It seems that different religions hold diverse perspectives.
The orthodox conception perceives the Holy Trinity as three individual substances of one divine essence.
The Catholic view sees the three persons of the Trinity as distinct yet unified in one divine essence.
Both perspectives highlight the complexity and mystery of divine trinity.
3x = 1y
This autistic analogy would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that they ultimately claim x = y lmao
Neither.
Arians believed Jesus was "second God"
They were not Muslims... and depending on how strict you are, were still a sort of trinitarian.
The key issue was that they believed Jesus was created by the Father; and that was the meaning of "begotten." Jesus' divinity was not in question by the leading Arians.
Muhammad was a pedophile who liked 9 year old girls.
Arianism is heretical Jesus is God
According to John 8:56
Abraham saw Jesus’s day, according to John 1, Jesus is the Word
So when did Abraham see Jesus’s day?
Genesis 15
> 15 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying,
“Do not fear, Abram,
I am a shield to you;
[a]Your reward shall be very great.”
>2 But Abram said, “Lord [b]God, what will You give me, since I [c]am childless, and the [d]heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”
>3 Abram also said, “[e]Since You have given me no [f]son, [g]one who has been born in my house is my heir.”
So Abraham calls the Word of the Lord, Adonai YHWH, this shows that the Word(Jesus) is God, so how can you explain this as an Arian?
Arius did not teach Jesus is not the Word or that Jesus did not exist before he was begotten on Earth.
He did teach Jesus was not God, nice question dodging
Is Christian theology really this autistic?
no
see
1. There is no philosophically satisfactory explanation of what it even means to be "equal" under such a sign. It's still a big problem in the philosophy of mathematics and logic as to what being equal actually signifies.
2 There may be different types of equalities which do not all signify the same thing in which there is a simple solution. Saying "the Father is God" means the Father is the same absolute identity (being) as God, which is true. Saying "the Father is the Son" means the Father is the same relative identity as the Son, which is false under Christian orthodoxy. Hence it doesn't follower that: The Father = God, the Son = God, the Father = Son, because the identity connexion is in reference to different types of identifies, what it means to be equal is different under different cases. Take a more concrete example: Oscar the dog = Oscar the dog means Oscar the dog is the same being as Oscar the dog. But what about Oscar the dog 10 minutes ago and Oscar the dog now? Well we have a temporal relation in which Oscar the dog =/= Oscar the dog.
God exists without a necessary temporal relation to anything. He created time.
So let's throw that out.
So, God is a thing and "God" or "godhead" is an attribute; encompassing omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so on.
A key part of being God is being united completely as one, anything that is God is perfectly united omnipotently and omnisciently. There is nothing which is God which contradicts God.
The Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost are the One God.
The One God is God.
Is the Father the same thing as the Word? No. Are they the same thing as the Holy Ghost? No.
The Father is God the attribute which makes him "God" the thing.
The Word is God the attribute which makes him "God" the thing.
The Holy Ghost is God the attribute which makes him "God" the thing.
Everything that is God, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are the One God perfectly united infinitely.
>God exists without a necessary temporal relation to anything.
This is true, but you have yet to follow it through and realize the implications of this. Attributes like “father”, “lord” or even “creator”, are only true in relation to the world, they are a relative truth, not absolute truth. God can only be a creator or “lord” in relation to the world, so these attributes cannot be essential to God, if they were, it would make God dependent on the world, God would need the world to fully realize his potential in the same way that the world needs God to be what it is.
>So, God is a thing and "God" or "godhead" is an attribute; encompassing omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and so on.
No. God is not “a thing”. God is Being Itself and not a being among beings or “a being”. The Neoplatonists describe God as being “beyond being”. In a funny sense it can be said that God is “nothing”, if by nothing you mean “no-thing”, neither this nor that.
>This is true, but you have yet to follow it through and realize the implications of this. Attributes like “father”, “lord” or even “creator”, are only true in relation to the world, they are a relative truth, not absolute truth. God can only be a creator or “lord” in relation to the world, so these attributes cannot be essential to God, if they were, it would make God dependent on the world, God would need the world to fully realize his potential in the same way that the world needs God to be what it is.
In what way did I imply "The Father" is an attribute? it can* be one; but I mean "The Father" as a proper name for a real noun; or where did I imply omnipotence etc. is dependent on the world/creation?
You don’t need to, it already is. Omnipotence, all-powerful, in regards to what? Only in relation to the world can God be said to be “all powerful”. It doesn’t matter whether you explicitly suggested it or not, it’s just how the logic unfolds.
>Only in relation to the world can God be said to be “all powerful”.
Obviously God as infinitely existing being without* anything else loses relation and loses definition*. I understand. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you though.
after christianity dropped the racial exclusivity component the trinity stopped making sense and became islam but more moronic
There never was a racial exclusivity component and if there were it still wouldn’t help the Trinity make any more sense.
>There never was a racial exclusivity component
there was
>if there were it still wouldn’t help the Trinity make any more sense.
it does
no I won't explain it because you'll just cope and seethe
I accept your concession
The Catholics, and more specifically, Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics are closer to the truth imo. Absolute divine simplicity is more coherent than the essence energies thing the Orthodox have. What distinguishes an essence from a substance anyways? It sounds moronic. There are substances with attributes, and that distinction makes sense, but is the essence of a thing not its substance? is an essence just an abstract “definition” of a thing while a substance is the substrate or “material” cause of a thing? So that the essence of a clay pot is a definition (the definition of pot in this case) while the substance of the pot is the clay?
That's literally the definition Aristotle gives in his Metaphysics so yes.
You mean that an essence is a definition and a substance is the reality of a thing? If this is accepted, then I don’t see how substance can be secondary to “essence”. An essence is just an abstract description/idea, while substance is the reality/truth. Recalling the example I used with the clay pot, clay is the only reality present, it pervades the pot completely, it is present before and after the pot, but “potness” in-itself has no independent existence apart from a mental concept mere name and function.
Early Christians before the Council of Nicaea did not necessarily think about these matters, very much. Their trinitarian theology, or, perhaps at times, the lack of it, was a little underdeveloped by comparison, though it was still important to properly understand the scriptures. One could safely conclude that the pre-Nicene Christians had all they needed to follow Christ towards salvation, with much less of splitting hairs over such issues, compared to the aftermath of AD 325.
>man can not comprehend god
>you go to hell if you pick the wrong one lmao
>can we at least ask god wich one is right?
>no
>arguing semantics
Christcucks have always been beyond parody
All of philosophy is arguing semantics, moron.
This is so fricking funny how churches can just pull doctrines out of their asses.
This is some sort of deist philosophy totally unrelated to Abrahamism
>the trinity is deism
>truly distinct
>one nature
That sounds like three substances to me. Given the nature of God is infinite, the only way for the persons of the trinity to differentiate would be in their substance. If they're only divided but insubstantial traits, and those traits equally emanate from the Godhead which therefore means they are all infinite, and infinity equals infinity, all three persons would have completely equal traits. But they don't, they're equally God but with a complimentary relationship.
there are three colors in a gamut.
they are truly distinct but are one gamut.
if I see a color on the gamut, I am seeing the gamut.
Colors are wavelengths of light, which are measurements of a trait. If that gamut were the Godhead and the corners the trinity, the entire thing would be white as the only present trait (color) has one value (infinity) at every point. The only way they could be distinct is if the corners were differentiated by traits that remain distinct at infinitely high values, which would mean it's not 'one color' and 'another color' but rather 'color' and something else entirely that is of the same essence as 'color'.