"Or consider, at greater length and much more didactically, these excerpts from the (Latin) Athanasian Creed:
We worship one God in Trinity. and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding persons [personae], nor separating
essence [substantia]. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one
Godhead [divinitas], the glory equal, the majesty coeter-
nal....The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is
God. And yet there is, not three gods, but one God.
This, the Creed tells us, “is the Catholic Faith." Or in other words: affirming the above concerning the Trinity is precisely how not to be
a heretic."
Do we have to affirm these excerpts of the Athanasian Creed not to be heretical?
Cool now explain how 3=1 works without being a heretic.
1 essence
3 persons
There, simple.
But they are each the totality of God, no?
>But they are each the totality of God, no?
Totality=Essence.
So each person is not the totality of God, but a part, right?
>So each person is not the totality of God
Yes, they are.
Didn't you read?
>Totality=Essence.
But each person is not the essence of God, they just have the essence but they are not the essence itself. It's two different things. No?
No.
So they're parts of God to you?
Also no.
So what's your model for the Trinity?
https://www.apuritansmind.com/creeds-and-confessions/the-athanasian-creed-circa-500-a-d/
I don't see how the Athanasian Creed is a model for three persons being one God. If you are not trolling, please help me to understand this model you are talking about.
I think you're the one trolling, sir.
You're gonna drive me crazy. All I ask for is how three persons are one God without parts or Tritheism.
By all three being of the same essence.
So God is the essence. Do you agree?
See
. When Christians say "monotheism" they actually mean that there's only one substance (Aristotle's definition) involved. Yes, there are three separate entities, but they're all consubstantial. Polytheism would be worshiping multiple entities with at least two separate substances involved.
Yes, this is basically polytheism anyways, which is why israelites and Muslims say that Christians are cryptopolytheists, but to their credit this IS what Aristotle posited (that each of the 47-55 Olympians was a separate Prime Substance).
Right, but if the counting of "one" is of the substance, then God would be the substance, not each person, right? So why considering that each person has an >identity relation< with God?
And sorry for editing my comment too many times.
The Council of Nicaea wasn't held by Aristotelians.
I don't believe you. I think you're feigning ignorance because your intention is to mock.
>You're gonna drive me crazy. All I ask for is how three persons are one God without parts or Tritheism.
They just say "it's the same essence" as if that makes multi god worship ok. They have no good answer. They just pretend this one is sufficient. Pay them no mind. You can't use logic with the illogical.
So it's three gods.
No, one.
>But each person is not the essence of God
Each persons posesses the essence of God, which makes them God.
> they just have the essence but they are not the essence itself.
You are your essence, dumbass. That's quite literally what it means. Your essence is what makes you who you are.
>You are your essence.
How is it that the relation is of identity? You admitted that it's of having, not being. I'm not my essence, I have my essence.
Aren't these egos parts of God?
No because that would make them 1/3 of God, God is indivisible. The three egos are simultaneously eternally existing, interacting with each other. They are whos of God. Whatness of God is one, whoness of him is 3.
Trust me it’s biblical if we were making this up it would be a lot simpler.
So all of God came down to earth for ~30 years in the first century and then died, while all of God was also still in heaven? So God never lost anything at any point? Not even the smallest sacrifice made?
He gave away his glory by allowing himself to assume human body and then allowing to die by humans. He showed eternal humility.
It’s called the process of self emptying.
He did this so that the huge distance between Him and humanity be reconciled.
To wash away the guilty conscience of humanity and his despair in not being forgiven. He showed the absolute form of love, which is self sacrificial love.
You see God is just, it means he will not let sin be unpunished he just will not (it’s biblical) so he decided to take the burden of the crime on himself to cleanse away sins and be able to forgive people.
Why didn't God mention any of that in the OT
Usually he's just like "I saved you from the Egyptians, so keep my rules or I'll do terrible things to you" and it doesn't seem like there's any guilt or humility or anything like that. If he was mad about something humans did he'd just kill them or get some other country to kill them for him or something.
He does mention it that’s the whole point of the bible:
Isaiah 53
Zecharia 12:10
Isaiah 7:14
Micah 5:2
Daniel 7:13-14
And many more.
Also Jesus is in the Old Tastement, its the man who wrestles with Jacob an loses to him (as a metaphor for future events maybe?) then tells jacob: you have overcome God.
Than jacob says: I have seen God face to face.
Pre-incarnate Jesus in OT is referred to as the angel of the Lord.
ok I send you some verses to look into.
I’ll answer why God is cruel in OT and peaceful in NT.
In fact God is just as merciful in OT, he forgives and blesses people one grizillion times, the israelites do all sorts of messed up stuff and he forgives them a lot.
Also consider that Jesus was not a hippy, he said who is not with me is against me, he said I do not come with peace but with a sword, he says if you love your brother and sister more than me you are not worthy of me, he is very clear he has that good old terrifying side.
If you reject him he’s basically your enemy and once your time is up and you don’t receive him who knows what punishment is ahead of you.
This is modalism just an FYI.
No, it's three persons with the same substance. It's like a chair, a table, and a bowl all being made out of wood.
>okay but from the perspective of a serious religion that's polytheism
Correct, this theory was stolen from Aristotle who thought that the world was ruled by 47-55 Gods who are the Olympians as told by Hesiod and Homer.
>modalism
How?
It posits that divinity is the result of something that they have, not what they are.
I explicitly said that the essence is what you are.
It's not a thing that you have.
No, you said
>Each persons posesses the essence of God, which makes them God.
>You are your essence, dumbass. That's quite literally what it means. Your essence is what makes you who you are.
Euphemistically, you "possess" your essence the same way you "possess" existence.
>Euphemistically
This gets you sent to hell for blaspheming against the holy spirit. You should look things up before having opinions on them.
When you say "is" or "are", you are establishing a relation of identity. Do you agree with that? If so, then why would you establish a relation of identity between the essence of an object and the object? The essence of an object is only the essential attributes which make the object be what it is, not the totality of attributes of the object.
You said "possess" the essence, though.
I'm still waiting for you to reply
>No because that would make them 1/3 of God, God is indivisible.
Three whos are a what and each who isn't a part? Also if each person is the totality of God, there are three totalities.
>The olympic gods all share an essence
Monotheism now, under trinitarian standards.
Sure, except for the fact that that's not what ancient Greek polytheists believed.
They thought each god had their own essence.
>Sure, except for the fact that that's not what ancient Greek polytheists believed.
So what? I can simply add that I believe they share an essence then I can worship exactly the same as the greek polytheists and you have to sit there and agree with me it's monotheism. Because your criteria is ridiculous.
If you create a monotheistic religion that isn't ancient Greek polytheism, then it isn't ancient Greek polytheism. You're not going to actually do this though, let alone construct anything approaching a coherent theology for it, because this is a shitpost not an argument.
Great! So I will worship the Olympic gods just as the greeks did with the single alteration "they share an essence" and you must agree with me that it's monotheism. This exposes your ridiculous theological cope so you're upset, I get it.
>So I will worship the Olympic gods
No you won't
>with the single alteration "they share an essence"
Really, they share an essence? What does that mean? Why are you worshipping all these different statues? What's with these stories of them being relatives and screwing or killing each other or getting drunk on wine?
It's almost like the words we're using actually mean something, and you can't deboonk thousands of years of theology by shitposting on IQfy for 2 seconds, clown
>So what? I can simply add that I believe they share an essence then I can worship exactly the same as the greek polytheists and you have to sit there and agree with me it's monotheism.
Ok? And? Muslims are also monotheists and their religion is still wrong. Is this supposed to be a gotcha?
It absurdifies your cope on the trinity being monotheists. You must stand there and agree with me that my worship of the Olympic gods, exactly as the Greeks did, is monotheism if I just make one change in principle: they share an essence. Clearly that wouldn't make it monotheism. So your forced agreement that it is monotheism is the absurdification of you. I know you don't follow.
>It absurdifies your cope on the trinity being monotheists.
How?
>You must stand there and agree with me that my worship of the Olympic gods, exactly as the Greeks did,
It isn't, like I said they thought each god had their own essence.
>is monotheism if I just make one change in principle: they share an essence.
Yes theology is different if you change it. What a shock.
>So your forced agreement that it is monotheism is the absurdification of you.
How is it "absurd"? They would all share the same essence, thus making them One. You're smearing shit all over your face thinking that you have a gotcha, but you don't, you're just making an ass out of yourself.
>How?
Because you have to admit Olympic god worship is monotheism under those circumstances. If you don't think that's absurd, then this conversation is pointless. You don't process the blatancy of reality around you anymore. Your brain doesn't work anymore due to israeli infection.
>Because you have to admit Olympic god worship is monotheism under those circumstances.
In your made-up theology that you just invented and that ancient Greeks did not hold, sure.
No they didn't. According to Aristotle all the Gods shared the same essence.
Is Aristotle the prophet of Greek religion now?
>Do we have to affirm these excerpts of the Athanasian Creed not to be heretical?
Yes.
That's a strawman.
One God three simultaneously existing and interacting egos, all three encompassing the Godness of God
1) your holy spirit is of the angels is of God the Father
2) the Christ is of God the Father
3) God the Father
Water can't be liquid, solid and gas, you guys are crazy.