If the counting of "one" is of the substance, then God would be the substance, not each person, right? So why consider that each person has an identity relation with God?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>that would be tritheism peter...
The trinity is something that is outside of logic, human intellect and philosophy that every Christian must except on faith as it is a church mystery. You can't describe it as it is not suppose to be logical.
1 = .999... = .000...1
all three are ones
1 is shorthand for .999...
0 is shorthand for .000...1
We are Shit Tier not God Tier so leave. Be gone.
Any number divided by itself is .999... even the shorthhands.
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?
cringe
>1 = .999... = .000...1
That last number is absolutely not equal to 1.
>0 is shorthand for .000...1
You just contradicted yourself, and also destroyed your own point.
>1 = .999... = .000...1
that doesn't help, it seems to indicate the Father, son and holy spirit are one and the same persons
are you saying it's like multiple personalities living in the same head? how can one ego have a human nature composed of soul body and mind while the others do not if so
>1 = .999
I refuse to accept this.
Technically that's wrong,
1 =/= .999
1 = .999...
The ellipses are important because it implies an infinite sequence. Its just a moronic semantic quirk but it makes intuitive sense from this context
1 = God the Father
.999... = God the Son
.000...1 = God the Ghost
>1 is shorthand for .999...
>0 is shorthand for .000...1
Satan = .666...
Devil = .333...
Iblis = .111...
>And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers. And certainly We created you, then We fashioned you, then We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam. So they did obeisance except Iblis; he was not of those who did obeisance. But Iblis (did it not); he refused to be with those who made obeisance. He said: O Iblis! what excuse have you that you are not with those who make obeisance? And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam; they made obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He said: Shall I make obeisance to him whom Thou hast created of dust? And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam; they made obeisance but Iblis (did it not). He was of the jinn, so he transgressed the commandment of his Lord. What! would you then take him and his offspring for friends rather than Me, and they are your enemies? Evil is (this) change for the unjust. And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam, they made obeisance, but Iblis (did it not); he refused. But not Iblis: he was proud and he was one of the unbelievers. He said: O Iblis! what prevented you that you should do obeisance to him whom I created with My two hands? Are you proud or are you of the exalted ones?
>1 = God the Father
>.999... = God the Son
>.000...1 = God the Ghost
the Holy Ghost fricking moron!
YHWH Allah
(LORD God)
Nah it's just moronic. Bible says God is one. Jesus says Father is superior to him, bible says Jesus isn't eternal, Jesus died so he's not immortal.
>bible says jesus isn't eternal
literally the first council solved this, how are you intellectually stunted by over 1500 years
If you listen to antichrists then of course they're gonna say things that goes against the bible
You have your answer from .
But I will ask you a question:
“Before God created everything, did He Love?”
Bro give it up, the trinity is literally a shit test, it's just a way to explain away the seeming contradiction. The official christian doctrine is "I don't know dude just shut up and believe it even though it makes no sense lmao"
See. People got excommunicated for trying to make sense of it "so it's like 3 jobs of the same guy" "nope have fun eternal torture" "is it like three parts of the same being" "nope here comes hell". It's the same like when ask how God can be all divine and totally human "so he's a person with all the properties of god" "yes" "so he knows everything" "no". You either just believe it uncritically or don't believe it at all. The stupid questions about the nature of something inherently unknowable (and possibly fictional) are for repressing homosexuals in cages somewhere.
>it's just a way to explain away the seeming contradiction.
Yes, the trinity is a way to explain the resoilution of the duality between men and God, or God and any alterity, because Christ resolved this. It doesn't make it false. It explains how God is united with his manifestation (Son) and saints and individual creatures (the Holy Spirit adopts them).
Heresy comes when someone doesn't simply maintain the paradox in unity and in maintaining the respective orders, like when you make absolute something relative,...
Do you even hear yourself speak moron
>It explains how God is united by stating that it's a paradox that doesn't make sense
That's the opposite of explaining, the official doctrine is "here's how it works it doesn't make sense" it explains nothing. I hate you and your gibberish and how hard you try to make yourself sound smart.
just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense
It just works
no it literally doesn't make sense. that is official Christian dogma. It isn't complicated, it just deliberately doesn't make sense . It is an inherent paradox, a mystery, there is no explaination. To say anything else literally commits one to hell.
But what explanation do you even want
I don't want an explanation I want people to give up on this stupid subject matter .
You can't have one that's the point, Christians say you need the holy spirit to understand this mess. It's a circular argument so an appeal to mystery is all you have.
>That's the opposite of explaining
I'm the one you responded to. Indeed, it doesn't have to make sense, or it cannot be explained, in fact nothing can be explained, the color red cannot be explained, so of course anything inviovling the divinity cannot be explained. What it does though, is that it states a fact, the divinisation of humanity in Christ, the incarnation of the divine, the divinisation of saints, the whole unification with God.
I used the word "explain in regard to the explanation it brings to God's incarnation's meaning, to the christian way,... it explains everything of our life's meaning, of our religion,... but nothing of the divine essence of course.
>But if Jesus is a manifestation of God in that theology, wouldn't that be Modalism?
Modalism was a determination of different types of manifestation of God (the age of the Father, then of the Son, and then of the Spirit in the economy of salvation), it was false because it was just talking about different faces of attributes of God, like threee different colors, not equals and not of the same essence.
In this orthodox theology, there is only one Face (Image, Word, ray of the sun,...) pre-cosmic of God the Father, and a perfect face. The Word is God's fecondity in the words of saint denys the aeropagitis (yes, I call him a saint), he is the Expression of the Father, his perfect Image.
The word "mode of being" is used by the cappadocian fathers (saint Basil the great, saint Gregory of Nazianze, saint gregory the theologian) to explain what are the persons. Another explanation (which simply expand on saint John) is that of the Sun (Father), it's ray (Son) and it's warmth (Spirit). The spirit is said to be the emanation of the glory of the Father, the word emanation is used by a lot of fathers of the Church. (1/2)
>in fact nothing can be explained,
nta but trinitarian christianity is unjust then because you are supposed to accept what appears to many as 3 deities which is in violation of scripture. This is a salvific matter we are talking about and it cannot be contradictory especially against God's commands for the faithful.
There is no three deities because there is only one essence.
When I said nothing can be explained I just answered the other anon to tell him in the same way I cannot describe the color red, I cannot describe the divinity and how it revealed it's unity with human in Christ. Every quality in existence cannot be grasped by a worldy description.
What we can affirm though, and what is affirmed in the trinity is the unity of God essentialy, the divinity of the Son Jesus Christ, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of God incorporating us to Christ the God-human, thus uniting us to God the father. God is one, we name the process of union or the process of manifestation of God to any cosmic alterity.
That's why the anti-trinitarian movements deny the divinity of Christ, because Christ being God but distinct from the Father or God as a Source is the basis of this distinction in unity of the trinity. Essentially one, distinct according to what we consider, God as a source, God as Christ or as a Spirit.
This is the great mystery of christianity, of the unity offered to us by God in Christ who is God revealed in flesh to us, and who offers us his own Spirit who is divine.
>There is no three deities because there is only one essence.
Are there 3 wills in this essence?
No, it's specifically said they have only one will. Because it is of the essence. The trinity cannot be divided.
how is Jesus in any way 100% human if his will is divine
He has a human will which freely cooperated with his divine will.
so the trinity has two wills, does he also have a human soul?
Yes he had a human soul that was also divine because humanity is made in the image of God
That indicates everyone has a soul just as divine as the one Jesus absorbed in himself when took on the human meat suit. Now the question is did that additional will and soul change the eternal trinity? Also how can his human will be distinct from the divine will if they cooperate
you argument in a bad spirit clearly. You are not searching for the truth. Where are you coming from ? Which denomination or which religion ?
if you can't answer the question it's okay I just want to understand your position
answer mine then. What is your denomination/religion ?
You confuse everything and argument in bad spirit.
Christ has two wills because he has two natures, we distinguish between the divine proprieties and the humans. It's a relative distinction which doesn't hurt the unity. The trinity has one will because one essence/nature. For Christ it explains the harmony of two different natures united ineffably, for the trinity it express the simply identity of essence.
One just have to understand the point of views and levels of discourse. The unity of everything doesn't mean the confusion, and the distinction doesn't mean the division.
>Christ has two wills because he has two natures,
wills are attached to nature as opposed to souls? if we have three people in a room they all share human nature but they have 3 wills so that seems odd
>The trinity has one will
Isn't Jesus 100% God? I thought you said he has two wills. I don't get how in one sense the same being has two wills but in another he has 1 will. It's like the person of Jesus is greater than the entire trinity
Things can be explained anon. You can provide an explanation for things. Not only can it not be explained it directly contradicts itself. There is no reason it's not three different things, or three parts of a thing or three roles of a thing other than " it just works that way because magic". But by this very same logic every pagan religion could be monotheistic by the mere statement "well yes it is it just looks like polytheism because it's miracle that it looks that way but isn't" Divinity can just explain away anything at this point, even though God is not suppose to author confusion.
>well yes it is it just looks like polytheism because it's miracle that it looks that way but isn't
No because polytheistic gods have contradictory wills and fight among themselves m8
Yeah but the Hindus who claim they are one for example claim the conflict is Intentionally part of the process and an illusion. Kind of like old covenant and new or a sacrifice and resurrection. Jesus even seems to conflict with God at one point when he questions why he's forsaken on the cross. Furthermore old covenant law seems different than new. Why couldn't a similar thing be said about Christianity then. Regardless of this, even if there were multiple gods that all shared a will and did not fight among each other I doubt this would satisfy your criteria for monotheism so the point seems mute.
This is modalism though, they aren't God in different roles they are all coequally and undividedly God. Jesus isn't just God when he's Jesus, Jesus is coeternal with God.
>claim the conflict is Intentionally part of the process and an illusion
Retroactive cope for the fact that they cobbled together the gods of a bunch of separate feuding kingdoms
>This is modalism though, they aren't God in different roles they are all coequally and undividedly God. Jesus isn't just God when he's Jesus, Jesus is coeternal with God.
You say something which is not incompatible with what I said. Eternally, God has his fecondity with Him, says saint cyrill of alexandria. It is a pre-cosmic order. The sun always have his rays and it's warmth say fathers of the church. The return they talk about is an ever existing thing in the essence. They are a monade in essence, distinguished in his fecondity. It always exist, but according (κατα, ώς) to different thing, to the essence it is one, according to names and proprieties it is distinguished. It's the emanation of God who doesn't Hurt God's unity, simplicity, identity. They don't share an essence like humans share the human nature. Saying otherwise is falling into tritheism.
>The unity is superior, and dominates distinctions according to saint Denys the aeorpagitis in the second chapter of the divine names. He explains that God makes gods out of saints by giving them his divinity, but is not divided, because the point of view of unity dominates distinctions. The essential unity doesn't deny the harmony of things ordered to this unity.
>three roles of a thing other
You said it. It's three modes of being you distinguish in one and only one being. One God considered in himself, in his manifesting and in his manifesting to each individual. It's like the sun in itself, the ray of light, and it's impact on us, in our eyes. Only one sun, only one light. They are not three individuals sharing one nature, they are one and the same in everything but the name that one is inengendered (Source),... It explains God's infusion into everything in the universe by Christ's divine manifestation. It explains to you that in God through Christ in the holy spirit all the strates of being are one.
The monade expands itself tri-hypostatically says saint cyrill, and contracts itself back into q monad says cyrill of alexandria. By his expansion God create the worlds and manifest himself to them, and by his contraction into a monad (which he stays essentially in the point of view of the essence) he make all it's creation unite back with himself, which is the end of time.
>it directly contradicts itself
You have to understand the idea of levels, perspectives, point of view. In essence, in the absolute there is one God. God revealed to us his unity with the relative through Christ in the Spirit (because one cannot confess Christ without the Spirit).
The unity is superior, dominates, distinctions according to saint Denys the aeorpagitis in the second chapter of the divine names. He explains that God makes gods out of saints by giving them his divinity, but his not divided, because the point of view of unity dominates distinctions. The essential unity doesn't deny the harmony of things ordered to this unity.
Of course if you deny the divinisation of saints or the divinity of Christ you cannot understand the trinity because it is what it is all about.
It's not a secluded God unable to enter his own creation,. his revelation (Son) reach us, and reach saints as the holy spirit.
Even muslims have to theorize the idea of the word of God of the coran being uncreated so that they can say God can speak to his creatures. Uncreated means divine, outside of creation.
substance?
>The trinity is something that is outside of logic
But isn't Jesus the Logos?
How can Logic be outside of Logic? :v
>How can Logic be outside of Logic?
the same way the walls of a building are not inside the building
>outside of logic
That's just to say the Trinity is illogical, moron
Or it's just bullshit. There is only One throne of glory in Heaven and it belongs to Holy Yahweh.
and the last first.
666... / 666... = .999...
>666... / 666... = .999...
Satan is almost one.
You should use ego instead of persons then its easier to understand.
Three simultaneously existing egos which each fully encompas the essence of Godhood, in one single being.
Also don’t listen to people who say its not biblical, its completely biblical.
>Three simultaneously existing egos which each fully encompass the essence of Godhood, in one single being.
Wait, three egos are a being and each ego isn't a part of the total being? How?
each ego is the being
But if one ego is the totality of being, wouldn't three egos be three totalities of being?
No because the being is a proper class, it conceptually supersedes being totalled
What do you mean by "conceptually supersedes being totalled"? I just did some math on the quantity of beings.
There's no quantitization because it's three true statements. The math you are performing is on the statements (you are adding up the statements) and not on the being
Now that the Holy Trinity is proven, G'day!
Father = אָדוֹם
Son = κόκκινος
Holy spirit = the shared meaning of "red".
GOD = the unspeakable reality of the color "red".
A persona is a mask. Like a word, or a shadow in a cave. The real being is something else. We are made in the image of God as a persona of God.
The Holy Ghost writer's Pen Names, duh.
Don't bother; not one christian or aristotelian can explain what "substance" is.
It's lower than a group of units in verse.
>So why consider that each person has an identity relation with God?
Imperfect models can be just as useful and good as their perfect realities. For example, 3.14 is good enough. You don't need to find the perfect number.
>identity relation
It's not good to be alone.
>1 is shorthand for .999...
>0 is shorthand for .000...1
1 = 0 / 0
>So why consider that each person has an identity relation with God?
Because if we don't realize this, then we won't hear what others are truly saying. We need to realize that we are all the same, but different. We need to seek out, acknowledge, amd praise the similarities, and not be so easily angered at the differences. Schizos find patterns in everything. Look for the good patterns, (the good news), not that patterns that lead to constant accusation (satanic patterns). Find solutions, not problems. When a person/identity seems different, look for the simalarity
. Focus on the meaning, not the preconceived connotations.
The earth was formless and unknown, obscurity was over the turning substance, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Its natural for us to divide. That is how life grows. It divides. But even though we are split, and cut, and divided, like with a sword, we are still part of the same body.
Even though we fall, we are lifted back up.
The Father = The Forms
The Son = The Widgets formed by The Forms
The Holy Spirit = The Purpose of a The Widget
GOD = THE most perfect widget that yOu could ever imagine in all of your most vivid dreamS.
>trinity
1) The Holy Spirit in you is of the Angels is of God the Father
2) The Christ is of God the Father
3) God the Father
Q.E.D.
Does anyone got the version of this with TIK and socialism? I forgot to save it, some how.
>So why consider that each person has an identity relation with God?
Yes, this schema is moronic, or not really explaining anything. It's a relatvely recent one of the XIIth century, appeaed in western filioquist Europe, where the Father and the Son are both sources of the Spirit, which makes at least a diotheism.
God is a monad essentially in orthodox theology. According to the essence it's a monad, an identity. we distinguish between God as source (Father) as his fecondity/manifestation/incarnation in Christ (Logos) and his manifestation in saint (Holy Spirit, image of the Logos, so manifestation in each saints of the manifestation of the unmanifested God the Father)
But if Jesus is a manifestation of God in that theology, wouldn't that be Modalism?
>There's no quantitization because it's three true statements.
Are you saying that we can't quantify God because each statement is true? What should that even mean? I'm just saying that an apple is 100% of the apple, or the totality of the apple. So God is the totality of God.
>The math you are performing is on the statements (you are adding up the statements) and not on the being
But the being is IN each statement:
"Ego 1 is (the being of) God", "Ego 2 is (the being of) God" and "Ego 3 is (the being of) God", no?
So "God" would be the same as the "one will"? Ok, so each person would not be God, right?
>But the being is IN each statement:
>"Ego 1 is (the being of) God", "Ego 2 is (the being of) God" and "Ego 3 is (the being of) God", no?
The anon in
already clarified it
>each fully encompass the essence of Godhood
If each encompass the essence, then how many essences there would be? For me, three, because three persons would do that (the act of fully encompassing the essence).
I was just counting the wills, that's why I said "one will". But if God is one because God has one will, then why should we consider the persons to be God, since there are three persons?
>In this orthodox theology, there is only one Face
Then how are the persons any different from one another?
>Another explanation (which simply expand on saint John) is that of the Sun (Father), it's ray (Son) and it's warmth (Spirit).
In that case each person would be a part of God.
Yes, substance. What's your question?
Well, some contemporary Christian theologians and philosophers like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga disagree with divine simplicity.
>If each encompass the essence, then how many essences there would be? For me, three, because three persons would do that (the act of fully encompassing the essence).
Anon they encompass the same essence. If you throw three lassos around the same cow you haven't caught 3 cows.
Right, but that brings the problem I pointed out at
. It's either one of these two problems happening. Either each person encompasses one essence, but is a part of the being of God, or each person is the totality of the being of God (see
), and consequently there are three totalities.
>Either each person encompasses one essence, but is a part of the being of God,
Each person encompasses one essence but the essence isn't parted by the three persons expressing it.
I was making the mistake of imagining a circle (essence) divided by three with each third being the area that each person or ego would encompass. So the correct model would be one circle (essence) with three circles (persons or egos) overlaid on this first circle? Because that would make me think about OP's question again: why are the persons or egos God? The God as we defined is the essence, not the persons. If it were the persons, there would be three Gods.
>So the correct model would be one circle (essence) with three circles (persons or egos) overlaid on this first circle?
>Because that would make me think about OP's question again: why are the persons or egos God? The God as we defined is the essence, not the persons. If it were the persons, there would be three Gods.
If the first statement was in effect your second would follow, but the idea of encompassing the essence might be better considered as three different wrappings of the same circle, not three circles overlaid. So that it isn't that each person is individually God but rather that God is individuated in three personhoods.
>wrappings of the same circle
Yes, that was my intention, so I don't see much difference in our representations.
>So that it isn't that each person is individually God
>but rather that God is individuated in three personhoods.
What do you mean by "individuated in three personhoods"?
>so I don't see much difference in our representations
The difference is that overlaying requires there to be multiple objects but the comparison is to a situation where there is only one. Each wrapping has a start/end point and is technically different but ultimately are not new circles but rather different understandings of the same circle.
>What do you mean by "individuated in three personhoods"?
God can be recognized by us as any or all of the persons.
>The difference is that overlaying requires there to be multiple objects but the comparison is to a situation where there is only one. Each wrapping has a start/end point and is technically different but ultimately are not new circles but rather different understandings of the same circle.
Aren't the wrappings objects as well? How would they not be?
>God can be recognized by us as any or all of the persons.
How could we recognize God as just one of the persons (as you said, "as any of them") if you said that each person is nit individually God?
>How could we recognize God as just one of the persons (as you said, "as any of them") if you said that each person is nit individually God?
Because God is individually each person and all the persons. God is the individual of the Father, God is the individual of the Son, and God is the individual of the Spirit. They have their being as one even though they are known as three.
>Aren't the wrappings objects as well? How would they not be?
Only one object is required because the circle can be conceived of as any / all of the wrappings.
>Because God is individually each person and all the persons.
But you said that each person wasn't individually God. Isn't that contradictory (saying that A is not individually G but G is individually A)?
>They have their being as one even though they are known as three.
How can three objects have their being as one? It seems contradictory to me.
>Only one object is required because the circle can be conceived of as any / all of the wrappings.
So the conception of the circle can be of one and three interchangeably? That's saying that 1=3.
>But you said that each person wasn't individually God. Isn't that contradictory (saying that A is not individually G but G is individually A)?
Because A isn't a term with an individual value. The count of any one or any combination of the elements of F, S, and H resolves to 1. In arithmetic this property is present with the number zero and zero alone, in that 0 + 0 + 0 = 0, yet you can have A = 0, B = 0, C = 0 and perform different operations on each.
>How can three objects have their being as one? It seems contradictory to me.
Since there are not three objects. There's only one real object in three interactive objects. Like how on Windows or Linux you can have three desktops with one desktop folder, where each are identical and the interactions you perform with each apply to all, yet each can have separate activities present on it.
>So the conception of the circle can be of one and three interchangeably? That's saying that 1=3.
No, because there's only ever one circle. One being that is expressed as three individuals. Its plural expression is one phenomenon, not three independent phenomena. One constant given by three variables.
>The count of any one or any combination of the elements of F, S, and H resolves to 1.
You mean like 1/3+1/3+1/3, for example?
>In arithmetic this property is present with the number zero and zero alone, in that 0 + 0 + 0 = 0, yet you can have A = 0, B = 0, C = 0 and perform different operations on each.
Yeah but that would mean 0 Gods, no?
>Since there are not three objects. There's only one real object in three interactive objects.
But interactive objects are still objects, they're just of another type of it.
>three desktops with one desktop folder
As far as I understood, that configuration would put three desktops under a folder and each would be part of a set of desktops. But I think you wouldn't say that each person is part of a set. So I don't see how this metaphor is applicable.
>One being that is expressed as three individuals. Its plural expression is one phenomenon, not three independent phenomena.
By expression do you mean manifestation, or another thing? Because if you're talking about different manifestations of God, that would be the heresy of Modalism.
>You mean like 1/3+1/3+1/3, for example?
No, it's F + S + H = 1, F = 1, S = 1, H = 1, F + S = 1, F + H =1, S + H = 1, F =/= S =/= H =/= F, any term / combination of either F, S, H = 1
>Yeah but that would mean 0 Gods, no?
The Godhead uses the logic effective in zero in its singularity.
>But interactive objects are still objects, they're just of another type of it.
>As far as I understood, that configuration would put three desktops under a folder and each would be part of a set of desktops. But I think you wouldn't say that each person is part of a set. So I don't see how this metaphor is applicable.
The interactive objects are the original real object. Try using multiple desktops in Windows:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/multiple-desktops-in-windows-36f52e38-5b4a-557b-2ff9-e1a60c976434
Each desktop is the desktop folder, not under it.
>By expression do you mean manifestation, or another thing? Because if you're talking about different manifestations of God, that would be the heresy of Modalism
No, and that is why I'm using expression instead of manifestation, because each person is God himself, not God in an assumed form or mode.
>No, it's F + S + H = 1, F = 1, S = 1, H = 1, F + S = 1, F + H =1, S + H = 1, F =/= S =/= H =/= F, any term / combination of either F, S, H = 1
System of linear equations were not meant to be abused like this. Anyway F-S-H=1 is valid with this twisted logic. Also S =/= 1 H =/= 1 because they lack aseity and so therefore do not have all the properties of F=1 unless their 1 was a different type of 1
>The Godhead uses the logic effective in zero in its singularity.
>the godhead operates logically as if it were not existent
yeah that's what we are saying
>Each desktop is the desktop folder, not under it.
You can have multiple concurrent desktops by limiting the total data that is available per viewable desktop. They will be parts of the total not the whole. It's basically like when logging into your google drive and you see a bunch of files instead of all of them stored on their servers, switch account you get a different view.
>Its plural expression is one phenomenon, not three independent phenomena
There's no meaning in that statement. Each individual expressed is a phenomenon. "One constant given by three variables." No? You clearly showed that you only need one variable so essentially F + 0 + 0 = 1
>System of linear equations were not meant to be abused like this. Anyway F-S-H=1 is valid with this twisted logic.
No it isn't, because you need at least 1 term to have 1. It's a boolean operation.
>>the godhead operates logically as if it were not existent
Anon the logic in the Godhead is literally running the devices you use to make posts.
>You can have multiple concurrent desktops by limiting the total data that is available per viewable desktop. They will be parts of the total not the whole. It's basically like when logging into your google drive and you see a bunch of files instead of all of them stored on their servers, switch account you get a different view.
Each desktop shows the same files of the same folder. You never used the feature and don't understand it. I'm not talking about stretching you desktop across multiple monitors either.
>>Its plural expression is one phenomenon, not three independent phenomena
>There's no meaning in that statement. Each individual expressed is a phenomenon. "One constant given by three variables." No? You clearly showed that you only need one variable so essentially F + 0 + 0 = 1
Anon, either F, S, or H resolve to 1. None of them resolve to 0. Each term taken independently resolves to 1, and any terms taken together resolv to 1.
>Anyway F-S-H=1 is valid with this twisted logic.
Misread what you meant by that. Either way, all three terms are co-eternal.
>Also S =/= 1 H =/= 1 because they lack aseity and so therefore do not have all the properties of F=1 unless their 1 was a different type of 1
The only difference is that they are stated after F. That precedence does not alter the sum of their existence.
>No, it's F + S + H = 1, F = 1, S = 1, H = 1, F + S = 1, F + H =1, S + H = 1, F =/= S =/= H =/= F, any term / combination of either F, S, H = 1
You are saying 1+1+1 can equal 1.
>The Godhead uses the logic effective in zero in its singularity.
What do you mean by this?
>The interactive objects are the original real object.
>Try using multiple desktops in Windows: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/multiple-desktops-in-windows-36f52e38-5b4a-557b-2ff9-e1a60c976434
Again, you again saying that three objects are one object.
>Each desktop is the desktop folder, not under it.
Right, that discards the possibility of the persons being parts of God. But you're still saying that each one of the three desktops are one, just because the folder is the same. That would be like three Gods that are identical in essence but you could interact with each of them in different ways.
>No, and that is why I'm using expression instead of manifestation, because each person is God himself, not God in an assumed form or mode.
What would expression mean for you, then? What google definition can I look into?
>Then how are the persons any different from one another?
The point is precisely that they are essentially not different. They can still clearly be distinguished qs the inengendered, the engendered, the one proceeding ; the Source, his manifestation/image/light and his spirit of adoption. They cannot be divided says councils and coincide to one another, because divine and there can only be one divinity.
explanation (which simply expand on saint John) is that of the Sun (Father), it's ray (Son) and it's warmth (Spirit).
>In that case each person would be a part of God
They are not parts, I never said that. I fail to even understand what makes you think that. It doesn't constitute a divine essence they wouldn't have, it would make no sense, they are one essence and are this essence fully, fully in God unmanifested the father, in his manifestation in Christ the Logos, fully manifested to saints in the holy spirit. they are pre-cosmic and eternal modes or stages of manifestation of God, not parts of his essence which is one.
>The point is precisely that they are essentially not different. They can still clearly be distinguished qs the inengendered, the engendered, the one proceeding ; the Source, his manifestation/image/light and his spirit of adoption.
It seems like something contradictory, anon. If they're equal, they wouldn't have any distinctions.
>The three persons only have one undivided essence, repeat the councils.
How can the essence be undivided if more than one thing has that essence? It seems to me that you would be dividing the essence into three parts.
>Well, some contemporary Christian theologians and philosophers like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga disagree with divine simplicity
That's an horrible and cringe heresy. Goes against basic monotheism and metaphysics. The would fall into tri-theism and a polytheistic heresy.
The three persons only have one undivided essence, repeat the councils. Remember that.
>So "God" would be the same as the "one will"?
No, God's will is the One, but it is not "one will", or "many wills" for that matter.
Modalism is bad when it leads to an essential determination and thus differenciation between the persons for example. But the trinity is simply one God essentialy, it's distinctions are simply when we distinguish God as being in himself (Father) as manifesting himself (his Word, his Logos, his image in the divino-humanity of Christ through whom everything, expressing the goodness of God, has been made) and as uniting others to himself (the Spirit of adoption, of sanctification, who goes down on humans, on saints, on the virgin mary above all angels,...).
Of course the filioque and western triadologies (which came mostly from the filioquism and the need to differeciate itself from the triadology of the east) are very different and are heresies. It confuse the order, constitute the persons as relations of opposition, consider the trinity like a determination of the divine essence, like three individuals of a species (of the divine specie) or as three essentialy different way of being within the divine essence (Being, counciousness, love with the psychological analogy in thomas aquinas and still in use in catholicism (though the popes have ambiguously adopted it). It can basically be said to fall into tritheism or to buy cheaply the essential unity of the threee by a confusion of the personnal proprieties but I don't want to drown you (2/2) I just have to say it's a very grave heresy.
>If the counting of "one" is of the substance
It's not. It's "one" of the will of God.
Better question is how does divine simplicity fit with this
The trinity is a polytheistic concept which allowed Paul to twist israeli monotheism into something that gentiles would accept, as the trinitarian concept has parallels in pagan religions where gods incarnate themselves in physical forms or as incorporial spirits.
Read the beginning of the gospel of saint john.
the "persons" of the trinity are not like three individuals sharing an essence. I'm telling you what has always been said. It's one essence, one God, not shared, not divided, one eveerything, but distinquished as source, as incarnqtion qnd as proceeding. It's a distinction in unity coming from the gospel.
Christ took upon himself the human nature. He was fully divine yet he mysteriously (in an ineffable way) yet openly manifested in himself his unity withour humanity. Since he really became human, he had everything that made humans.
God didn't add anything to himself, like a second will, he just manifested to us in s new way. His mystery of divino-humqnkty is Christ
Though you are just a basic arian who cannot accept the divino-humanity of Christ, the whole point of christianity. You should lurk more the bible and the beginning of the gospel of John.
In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the was became flesh, the creator came among his creatures,... You are too rationalist and prideful in your thinking, some ghings qre beyond our grasp, and the divine is. If it is in our grasp then it means we can come to know it, thus become humano-divine, thus we come back to the mystery of unity of God with what is not God.
>the "persons" of the trinity are not like three individuals sharing an essence
Why doesn't human nature unify those 3 people in a room but divine nature does in the trinity?
>Christ took upon himself the human nature. He was fully divine yet he mysteriously (in an ineffable way) yet openly manifested in himself his unity withour humanity. Since he really became human, he had everything that made humans.
An appeal to mystery is all you really have as expected because it's basically a contradiction for a being to have both human and divine qualities (100% each). It means I have to accept an immortal being dying, an omniscient being not knowing things, etc.
>God didn't add anything to himself, like a second will, he just manifested to us in s new way. His mystery of divino-humqnkty is Christ
Is his human body, soul, mind eternal the same way God is now? If there was no change in him you'd have to accept that this is how it always was from eternity past making Jesus the first human being technically.
>Though you are just a basic arian who cannot accept the divino-humanity of Christ, the whole point of christianity.
>the creator came among his creatures,... You are too rationalist and prideful in your thinking, some ghings qre beyond our grasp, and the divine is.
Not all denominations are trinitarian but yes I can't accept something that is contradictory it has nothing to do with pride as you claim. What you're asking me to accept is a square circle and when asked how does that make sense it's suddenly just a mystery. We were given these faculties to use them and not just place our minds in a box. Nobody said we can grasp God in his entirety but what we have been revealed cannot contradict because then everything we know about him will be ultimately meaningless. God is not the author of confusion.
>Why doesn't human nature unify those 3 people in a room but divine nature does in the trinity
Because the "persons" (hypostasis) of the trinity are not the persons understood in the modern sense of individuals. It's meaning have been explained by fathers in a very different way, it means not ego, or the sense of individuality as I saw in this thread.
So the 3 individual humans are distinct because in fact qualitatively different, even in spacial position quality. What is perfectly similar is the same, because there is no difference, even of spatial localization. The three persons are the same. So they don't unify, they are united by nature, and we distinguish between the fact of this same essence being unbegotten, manifested, adopting saints. It's just a affirmation of God's transcendance, of the unity of God and his manifestation and of God and saints, who are trully deified. But it appears that this is this point that you don't believe, that's is the problem, of course you would not believe the trinity if you don't believe that.
>An appeal to mystery is all you really have as expected because it's basically a contradiction for a being to have both human and divine qualities (100% each). It means I have to accept an immortal being dying, an omniscient being not knowing things, etc.
First it is not appeal to mystery to remember that the divine essence, the one in whom the unity is accomplished, is a mystery by it's own nature. If you don't believe it's a mystery, then you circonscribe the divine nature and thus you do worst than anything you can accuse us of doing : we say we can know God by denying our circonscriptions, you say you can know Him by circonscribing it.
Which leads us to the explanation : the human nature of Christ have been assumed by the divinity like a drop of vinegar into the infinite sea of the divinity, explains saint gregory of Nyssa. God didn't die, or whatever is improper of God, but led the humanity assumed in one unity to share with his immortality, omniscience. How can humans come to share with divine qualities ? It's possible for God by his own nature which shares itself. God didn't limit himself, but unlimited us. His humanization was in fact a divinisation of humanity. We don't see the unity of the two and the deified result (transfiguration) because we are still imperfection but still he manifested in Himself the deification of the whole race, and the whole world in Christ. The non-duality in God of God and the world. One cannot divide in Christ, but only distinguish between what is perceived by undeified limited creatures, and what is the completeness of his divine essence.
>I can't accept something that is contradictory it has nothing to do with pride as you claim. What you're asking me to accept is a square circle
From one perspective it's a circle, from another it's a square, no contradiction, an explanation is there of the relationship of the two point of views. A new dimension permits the relationship of the two in one same object. They are three according to a certain perspective, like a coin has two face but when you come to a perspective including all of them, you see there is only one object. Thus there is only one God, according to three perspectives, God in Himself, God manifested, God manifested in saints and individual creatures. Just three faces of the same divine goodness. The distinction is not on the same "plane as the identity so it cannot be a contradiction. One is about the essence, the other is the modes of this essence, or the roles, or the names of it.
Different levels of beings in the universe : angels, humans, animals, hell,... But unity of all within God. So different point of view, of distinction and of unity. The opposites are resolved into God which includes everything within him. The opposites are resolved in Christ who is God as resolving the dualities. The Holy Spirit is God resolving any duality in each saints. Nothing comes in contradiction, every order and harmony is respected, but everything is finally united to God, the trinity is the affirmation of that truth revealed in Christ.
Just an FYI but this is the heresy of modalism which was condemned as a grievous and unforgiveable attack on the Holy Spirit by the Church Fathers.
What do you mean by modalism ? What makes you think it's modalism ? The term "modes of existence" is used by the cappadocian fathers to define the persons. They are not essentially different like I said, which was the problem of the condemned modalism.
>It seems like something contradictory, anon. If they're equal, they wouldn't have any distinctions.
They are equal on everything but on the personal properties we distinguish between them
>How can the essence be undivided if more than one thing has that essence?
Because they are all only one thing, one God, one essence. From the point of view of the essence they are one, from the point of view of the properties, they are distinguished. They are not like three suns aside from each other, having all the nature of fire, but they are one Sun, one God, the perfect infinite, considered in Himself as the sun, in his mmanifestation to alterity (the ray), and to his manifestation to each individuals, or it's impact on a surface.
>Is his human body, soul, mind eternal the same way God is now? If there was no change in him you'd have to accept that this is how it always was from eternity past making Jesus the first human being technically.
In Christ, all the human nature have been assumed by God. God revealed to us in Christ his unity with our human nature. From all eternity He is perfect active and successfull love to us and assumed us in his divine unity. Christ is this mystery. Christians unite to Christ and become part of his body, thus becoming part of God.
>Allah = .0123456789...
the Hindu-Islamic Numerals, okay
sqrt of Allah = Iblis
the frick is this? .111... x .111... = .0123456789... is moronic shit.
wtf why is the thread still at page 9 ?
I too don't know. Strange.