Why are muslims incapable of grasping the concept of the trinity

Is the trinity the ultimate litmus test of IQ?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm convinced they're just pretending not to get it. I almost never hear people from other religions have trouble with it, to the point that when someone starts to object to the Trinity my "oh it's a Muslim" senses activate and they have almost never been wrong.

    This place is the sole exception, for some reason atheists here do often object to it. But other than here it's almost exclusively Muslims who act like its difficult to understand or even all that unusual

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Obviously a bait but israelites in average have 60 points higher IQ than the average Christian (an African Black person) yet they do not recognize this imbecility.

      It's not difficult to understand at all. Christians are pagans but too shy or whatever to publicly state that their god is not the god of Israel, that's it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An african christian is smarter than a white atheist due to the fact the black christian believes in god and the white moron doesn’t. Only racist atheists disagree

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I disagree.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Obviously a bait but israelites in average have 60 points higher IQ than the average Christian (an African Black person) yet they do not recognize this imbecility.
        Basically this. Christians worship a israelite as a God, they worship the state of Israel as God's state. The former Christians, now atheists, worship the israeli pantheon like Superman, Batman, Ironman, etc.
        Their whole life is devoted to worshipping the israelites in one way or another. And given that israelites have a higher IQ than them, then it means they should accept their own rendition of the trinity

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >yet they do not recognize this imbecility.
        The OP is about how there are people who do not UNDERSTAND it. The israelites who don't recognize it still understand it. Get some reading comprehension, homosexual.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their arguments are always the same

      >There's three persons so there's three gods, yeah?
      >No, one God in three persons
      >So it's three Gods?

      Alex is human
      Clover is human
      Sam is human

      But Sam is not Alex
      Alex is not Clover
      Clover is not Sam

      How many humans are there?

      Those people aren't one being, which God is.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No, one God in three persons
        Just an FYI but this is Sabellianism, it was declared as an unforgiveable heresy against the Holy Spirit in the 200s.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Those people aren't one being, which God is.
          Also this is Unitarianism and Monarchianism, which was condemned as as an unforgiveable heresy against the Holy Spirit in the 300s.

          >ask a e-trad christcuck to explain basic points of christian theology
          >they recreate multiple ancient heresies on the fly
          Like fricking clockwork holy shit lmfao

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          he didn't stated the heresy just explained on a basic level the Trinity, homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            his explanation was the heresy dumbass

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Both of his explanations were textbook heresy dude.

            no

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Both of his explanations were textbook heresy dude.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Those people aren't one being, which God is.
          Also this is Unitarianism and Monarchianism, which was condemned as as an unforgiveable heresy against the Holy Spirit in the 300s.

          No, Sabellianism and Unitarianism say there's no actual distinction between the persons or that God is only one person. One God in three persons is textbook orthodox trinitarianism.

          [...]
          >ask a e-trad christcuck to explain basic points of christian theology
          >they recreate multiple ancient heresies on the fly
          Like fricking clockwork holy shit lmfao

          I explained it using fully orthodox terminology, that other anon doesn't understand trinitarianism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >One God in three persons
            Maybe at Jay Dyer's e-LARP discord church but every Christian denomination professes this as grade A heresy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/DueJHhH.gif

            >he couldnt even bother to actually look up what trinitarianism means

            Since you two can only claim things and haven't provided any evidence, here's a traditional document that defines trinitarianism:

            Athanasian Creed
            >we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance ... But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

            One God, three Persons, right there, an orthodox and widely used creed of the church.

            >One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy, is a short, clear exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation
            https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you've recanted your heresy. You probably should have just done this from the start. Luckily, now that you've actually found out what the religion that you pretend to practice entails, you won't make this mistake again.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lmao what? One God in three persons is literally a simplified form of the Athanasian Creed. Explain to me any contradiction between what I said and the Athanasian Creed.

            I have a feeling you don't know what the trinity is and picked the name of a heresy you thought sounded right without checking what it means.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He’s trolling

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            homie you were literally recreating fricking sabellianism until you hit google

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >he couldnt even bother to actually look up what trinitarianism means

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >One God in three persons
            Maybe at Jay Dyer's e-LARP discord church but every Christian denomination professes this as grade A heresy.

            https://i.imgur.com/DueJHhH.gif

            >he couldnt even bother to actually look up what trinitarianism means

            He’s right. One God in three Persons is probably the simplest and most common way to state the Trinity. In fact OPs image shows literally that, three persons around one God(head). Please cite a source for any of your claims or kindly shut up.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He's only affirming Sabellianism if he believes that God is only found inside those three persons. I don't think that there's an official heresiological name for it if he's professing Vedanta-style belief in God being in everything.

          Could you please weigh in,

          [...]
          No, Sabellianism and Unitarianism say there's no actual distinction between the persons or that God is only one person. One God in three persons is textbook orthodox trinitarianism.

          [...]
          I explained it using fully orthodox terminology, that other anon doesn't understand trinitarianism.

          ?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          >ask a e-trad christcuck to explain basic points of christian theology
          >they recreate multiple ancient heresies on the fly
          Like fricking clockwork holy shit lmfao

          No, morons, Sabellianism is the belief that there is only one person in God.
          To state that God has three persons is trinitarian dogma.

          >One God in three persons
          Maybe at Jay Dyer's e-LARP discord church but every Christian denomination professes this as grade A heresy.

          No, you are moronic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Those people aren't one being, which God is.
        Also this is Unitarianism and Monarchianism, which was condemned as as an unforgiveable heresy against the Holy Spirit in the 300s.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Those people aren't one being, which God is

        So God is one person, correct?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          JWanon, please take a break, it's not healthy to manically repeat the same questions once they've been answered.

          homie you were literally recreating fricking sabellianism until you hit google

          Explain how "one God in three persons" is Sabellianism and how it contradicts the Athanasian Creed
          >we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity ... But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how is making "God" some kind of universal field that all things have in them Sabellianism
            That's...Literally Sabellianism dude. The line you quoted DIRECTLY explains why.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how is making "God" some kind of universal field that all things have in them Sabellianism
            Where did I say "God is some kind of universal field that all things have in them"? I said that God is one being in three persons, which is a summary of what the Athanasian Creed says.

            I don't think that's Sabellianism in any case, Sabellianism denies that the persons are truly distinct and says they are just names for three expressions of God
            >Sabellius evidently taught that the Godhead is a monad, expressing itself in three operations: as Father, in creation; as Son, in redemption; and as Holy Spirit, in sanctification.
            https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sabellianism

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Where did I say "God is some kind of universal field that all things have in them"?
            Well first you said that in

            Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their arguments are always the same

            >There's three persons so there's three gods, yeah?
            >No, one God in three persons
            >So it's three Gods?

            [...]
            Those people aren't one being, which God is.

            , then you switched to Unitarianism in

            Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their arguments are always the same

            >There's three persons so there's three gods, yeah?
            >No, one God in three persons
            >So it's three Gods?

            [...]
            Those people aren't one being, which God is.

            , then you said it again in

            [...]
            No, Sabellianism and Unitarianism say there's no actual distinction between the persons or that God is only one person. One God in three persons is textbook orthodox trinitarianism.

            [...]
            I explained it using fully orthodox terminology, that other anon doesn't understand trinitarianism.

            , then you said it AGAIN in

            lmao what? One God in three persons is literally a simplified form of the Athanasian Creed. Explain to me any contradiction between what I said and the Athanasian Creed.

            I have a feeling you don't know what the trinity is and picked the name of a heresy you thought sounded right without checking what it means.

            , then you walltexted.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let's quote what I actually said

            Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their arguments are always the same

            >There's three persons so there's three gods, yeah?
            >No, one God in three persons
            >So it's three Gods?

            [...]
            Those people aren't one being, which God is.

            >one God in three persons

            [...]
            No, Sabellianism and Unitarianism say there's no actual distinction between the persons or that God is only one person. One God in three persons is textbook orthodox trinitarianism.

            [...]
            I explained it using fully orthodox terminology, that other anon doesn't understand trinitarianism.

            >One God in three persons

            lmao what? One God in three persons is literally a simplified form of the Athanasian Creed. Explain to me any contradiction between what I said and the Athanasian Creed.

            I have a feeling you don't know what the trinity is and picked the name of a heresy you thought sounded right without checking what it means.

            >One God in three persons

            Can you explain how that was "switching" or saying that "God is some kind of universal field that all things have in them"?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            esl moment lmfao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you moronic? You've spent this entire thread throwing a fit about this. Why not stop trying to do theology on your own and just read what actual Christians say? Why not just fricking google it if you're not sure?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I quoted the Athanasian Creed, which can be summarised as "One God in three persons" because it explicitly says there's one God who is three persons, to quote it directly
            >one God in Trinity
            >the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal

            Where is the problem here?

            And I'm not the anon who was spamming Augustine, he was being annoying.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"God is some kind of universal field that all things have in them"?
            That's literally what "one God in three persons" means. It's a consubstantial union between three persons, they're made out of God, God isn't something that's in them. Instead of copying pastaing random bits from fricking Augustine you could have just looked this up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh I see. You misunderstood was I was saying. I wasn't saying that God inhabits three human people but that he is three persons. To be fair the English preposition "in" can be ambiguous, I used to mean "existing as". Like if you were discussing a union between two countries you could say "two countries in unity" to mean "two countries existing as a unity". That's the same language that the standard translation of the Athanasian Creed uses: "one God in Trinity" i.e. one God existing as a trinity.

            But I still don't see how you could interpret that as a "universal field that all things have in them", I was clearly referring to the three persons of the trinity, not "all things".

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The entire point of the trinity is that it doesn't make sense, it is inherently a contradiction and is thus a miracle. It is physically impossible for three things to be the exact same thing (in both type and token identity) without also being the same thing. There is nothing to "get" it doesn't make sense. You either accept it's a miracle or not.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I see people say this, and no one ever responds to it. Is this correct, or is this just one person spamming their lack of understanding?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Sort of but not really. The Nicene Crees isn't make a logical formula, but if you do make a logical formula with Jesus = God and Jesus ≠ Father, etc., you do get a contradiction. The usual Christian approach is to deny that such a logical formula actually explains the trinity.

          A popular explanation is that the three persons are essential and fully overlapping aspects of God, which can be called "one-self" theory. In philosophical terms they'd be called "modes" but Christians tend not to use the term because it brings to mind the modalism of Sabellius who taught that the modes are non-essential and are just God acting in different ways, different to one-self theory.

          A decent analogy for one-self theory is a white circle of light, composed of fully overlapping red, green, and blue lights. The three lights are all real but aren't divisible from the white light.

          Another way to explain it is that each of the three persons are not numerically distinct from each other or from the godhead, but they aren't identical with each other or with the godhead as a whole. The attaches diagram is a visualisation showing how all three necessarily have the same divine nature but have differences to each other, such as the Son being begotten.

          d = the divine nature
          u = unbegotten
          f = the Father
          b = begotten
          s = the Son
          p = proceeds
          h = Holy Spirit

          Someone is going say "partialism" in response to this, but that's a term made up in a cartoon video from 11 years ago, it's not a historically defined heresy.

          Another view, which is more popular in eastern Christianity, is that it's a mystery and there's no point trying to explain it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >proceeds
            Do you mean "follows", or "reward". Or both?

            I still keep seeing the the logos.

            Does this resonate with anyone else?

            d = the divine nature:

            u = unbegotten (premise/semantics/assertions)
            f = the Father

            b = begotten ( logic of a premise)
            s = the Son

            p = proceeds
            h = Holy Spirit (the conclusion/reward)

            Also, this is a bit of a tangent, but if Adam and Eve do not eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would you say that they only see logic leading to a conclusion, and not a reward? Is determinism a framework for those who who are working to stop feeling?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the son and spirit come from the father not from the nature
            HERETIC

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn't make sense because you moronic Christcucks consider modalism as heresy.
      Nicene Christcuckery is the worst tradition in the history of humanity.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nicene Christian being incomprehensible gibberish is intentional. It was a rhetorical tool used by the corrupt Roman political class.

        Normally in a religious feud the person who acted more virtuously would prevail. The late Romans being a corrupt debauched culture with no honor, obviously did not like that. By making the trinity emphral and unexplainable it allowed them to cull and butcher more established and devot sects of Christianity by fiat.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Alex is human
    Clover is human
    Sam is human

    But Sam is not Alex
    Alex is not Clover
    Clover is not Sam

    How many humans are there?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      >How many humans are there?
      >"Allah is the Third of Three." And there is no god except 'One Allah'."
      You have explaining to do yourself...

      >"Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary"
      No, seriously...

      >Its a trick, I already know what this is referring to and that the "unbeliever" statement before that is a heresy attached to alter its meaning so people would not understand what it was talking about.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >doing a hecking polytheism like nothing
      Christians are weird

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Allah created the Trinity for the Muslims' enjoyment.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    christcucks spend a thousand years arguing over it and causing schisms that resulted in political disintegration of the roman empire

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      >christcucks
      No, it is ye unbelievers, ye infidels and double minded!

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They should have just adopted adoptionism

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >adoptionism
      the only explanation that makes sense. Unfortunately it was deemed heretical

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no God but Allah (pbuh), and Muhammad (pbuh) and Ali (pbuh) are his messengers.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The persons as parts of God is ok. Just 3=1 that is a no.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      >Just 3=1 that is a no.
      I am 3 in 1. That=Godhead.

      Add Heart (the #4, central nervous system) and its no longer a "clanging gong".

      Combined is 7, to which I made (again) converted back into 1.

      These are not arbitrary "numerals" they are reffering the God Shit.

      In shapes, 1 is Circle (Tau (W)holy), 3 is Trinity.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Cult of Passion

        >One God in three persons
        Circle is equal to all sides (fairest Judge and he does and NOT the Father).

        Triangle is looking at three variables in reality that occure at certain points, three polar opposites, a logical mind warp thats "impossible" to solve manually.

        Like Euler, you have to calculate the entire unit of Pi (or similar) or else it IS impossible, same goes for those three "perspectives".

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >parts of God
      That's a heresy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Source?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tawid, Ein Sof, DDS

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >trinity is easy and Muslims are dump for not understanding
    >whole thread is shit flinging over various herecies and people not understanding
    Well done, Mr. Satan.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, it's just two trolls, every actual Christian agreed with this anon

      Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. Their arguments are always the same

      >There's three persons so there's three gods, yeah?
      >No, one God in three persons
      >So it's three Gods?

      [...]
      Those people aren't one being, which God is.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I will be posting excerpts from St. Augustine's DE TRINITATE

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This discussion has arisen from that which is written, that Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Wherefore our discourse is compressed into these narrow limits, while we desire to speak things unspeakable; that either we must say that Christ is not the power of God and the wisdom of God, and so shamelessly and impiously resist the apostle; or we must acknowledge that Christ is indeed the power of God and the wisdom of God, but that His Father is not the Father of His own power and wisdom, which is not less impious; for so neither will He be the Father of Christ, because Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God; or that the Father is not powerful with His own power, or wise with His own wisdom: and who shall dare to say this? Or yet, again, that we must understand, that in the Father it is one thing to be, another thing to be wise, so that He is not by that by which He is wise: a thing usually understood of the soul, which is at some times unwise, at others wise; as being by nature changeable, and not absolutely and perfectly simple.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Or, again, that the Father is not anything in respect to His own substance; and that not only that He is the Father, but that He is, is said relatively to the Son. How then can the Son be of the same essence as the Father, seeing that the Father, in respect to Himself, is neither His own essence, nor is at all in respect to Himself, but even His essence is in relation to the Son? But, on the contrary, much more is He of one and the same essence, since the Father and Son are one and the same essence; seeing that the Father has His being itself not in respect to Himself, but to the Son, which essence He begot, and by which essence He is whatever He is. Therefore neither [person] is in respect to Himself alone; and both exist relatively the one to the other. Or is the Father alone not called Father of himself, but whatever He is called, is called relatively to the Son, but the Son is predicated of in reference to Himself?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >And if it be so, what is predicated of Him in reference to Himself? Is it His essence itself? But the Son is the essence of the Father, as He is the power and wisdom of the Father, as He is the Word of the Father, and the image of the Father. Or if the Son is called essence in reference to Himself, but the Father is not essence, but the begetter of the essence, and is not in respect to Himself, but is by that very essence which He begot; as He is great by that greatness which He begot: therefore the Son is also called greatness in respect to Himself; therefore He is also called, in like manner, power, and wisdom, and word, and image. But what can be more absurd than that He should be called image in respect to Himself?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Or if image and word are not the very same with power and wisdom, but the former are spoken relatively, and the latter in respect to self, not to another; then we get to this, that the Father is not wise with that wisdom which He begot, because He Himself cannot be spoken relatively to it, and it cannot be spoken relatively to Him. For all things which are said relatively are said reciprocally; therefore it remains that even in essence the Son is spoken of relatively to the Father. But from this is educed a most unexpected sense: that essence itself is not essence, or at least that, when it is called essence, not essence but something relative is intimated. As when we speak of a master, essence is not intimated, but a relative which has reference to a slave; but when we speak of a man, or any such thing which is said in respect to self not to something else, then essence is intimated.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Therefore when a man is called a master, man himself is essence, but he is called master relatively; for he is called man in respect to himself, but master in respect to his slave. But in regard to the point from which we started, if essence itself is spoken relatively, essence itself is not essence. Add further, that all essence which is spoken of relatively, is also something, although the relation be taken away; as e.g. in the case of a man who is a master, and a man who is a slave, and a horse that is a beast of burden, and money that is a pledge, the man, and the horse, and the money are spoken in respect to themselves, and are substances or essences; but master, and slave, and beast of burden, and pledge, are spoken relatively to something. But if there were not a man, that is, some substance, there would be none who could be called relatively a master; and if there were no horse having a certain essence, there would be nothing that could be called relatively a beast of burden; so if money were not some kind of substance, it could not be called relatively a pledge.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Wherefore, if the Father also is not something in respect to Himself then there is no one at all that can be spoken of relatively to something. For it is not as it is with color. The color of a thing is referred to the thing colored, and color is not spoken at all in reference to substance, but is always of something that is colored; but that thing of which it is the color, even if it is referred to color in respect to its being colored, is yet, in respect to its being a body, spoken of in respect to substance. But in no way may we think, in like manner, that the Father cannot be called anything in respect to His own substance, but that whatever He is called, He is called in relation to the Son; while the same Son is spoken of both in respect to His own substance and in relation to the Father, when He is called great greatness, and powerful power, plainly in respect to Himself, and the greatness and power of the great and powerful Father, by which the Father is great and powerful.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It is not so; but both are substance, and both are one substance. And as it is absurd to say that whiteness is not white, so is it absurd to say that wisdom is not wise; and as whiteness is called white in respect to itself, so also wisdom is called wise in respect to itself. But the whiteness of a body is not an essence, since the body itself is the essence, and that is a quality of it; and hence also a body is said from that quality to be white, to which body to be is not the same thing as to be white. For the form in it is one thing, and the color another; and both are not in themselves, but in a certain bulk, which bulk is neither form nor color, but is formed and colored. True wisdom is both wise, and wise in itself. And since in the case of every soul that becomes wise by partaking of wisdom, if it again becomes foolish, yet wisdom in itself remains; nor when that soul was changed into folly is the wisdom likewise so changed; therefore wisdom is not in him who becomes wise by it, in the same manner as whiteness is in the body which is by it made white.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For when the body has been changed into another color, that whiteness will not remain, but will altogether cease to be. But if the Father who begot wisdom is also made wise by it, and to be is not to Him the same as to be wise, then the Son is His quality, not His offspring; and there will no longer be absolute simplicity in the Godhead. But far be it from being so, since in truth in the Godhead is absolutely simple essence, and therefore to be is there the same as to be wise. But if to be is there the same as to be wise, then the Father is not wise by that wisdom which He begot; otherwise He did not beget it, but it begot Him. For what else do we say when we say, that to Him to be is the same as to be wise, unless that He is by that whereby He is wise? Wherefore, that which is the cause to Him of being wise, is itself also the cause to Him that He is; and accordingly, if the wisdom which He begot is the cause to Him of being wise, it is also the cause to Him that He is; and this cannot be the case, except either by begetting or by creating Him. But no one ever said in any sense that wisdom is either the begetter or the creator of the Father; for what could be more senseless? Therefore both the Father Himself is wisdom, and the Son is in such way called the wisdom of the Father, as He is called the light of the Father; that is, that in the same manner as light from light, and yet both one light, so we are to understand wisdom of wisdom, and yet both one wisdom; and therefore also one essence, since, in God, to be, is the same as to be wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is to power, and to be eternal is to eternity, and to be just to justice, and to be great to greatness, that being itself is to essence. And since in the Divine simplicity, to be wise is nothing else than to be, therefore wisdom there is the same as essence.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >
      For the sake, then, of speaking of things that cannot be uttered, that we may be able in some way to utter what we are able in no way to utter fully, our Greek friends have spoken of one essence, three substances; but the Latins of one essence or substance, three persons; because, as we have already said, essence usually means nothing else than substance in our language, that is, in Latin. And provided that what is said is understood only in a mystery, such a way of speaking was sufficient, in order that there might be something to say when it was asked what the three are, which the true faith pronounces to be three, when it both declares that the Father is not the Son, and that the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > When, then, it is asked what the three are, or who the three are, we betake ourselves to the finding out of some special or general name under which we may embrace these three; and no such name occurs to the mind, because the super-eminence of the Godhead surpasses the power of customary speech. For God is more truly thought than He is altered, and exists more truly than He is thought. For when we say that Jacob was not the same as Abraham, but that Isaac was neither Abraham nor Jacob, certainly we confess that they are three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But when it is asked what three, we reply three men, calling them in the plural by a specific name; but if we were to say three animals, then by a generic name; for man, as the ancients have defined him, is a rational, mortal animal: or again, as our Scriptures usually speak, three souls, since it is fitting to denominate the whole from the better part, that is, to denominate both body and soul, which is the whole man, from the soul; for so it is said that seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob, instead of saying so many men.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Again, when we say that your horse is not mine, and that a third belonging to some one else is neither mine nor yours, then we confess that there are three; and if any one ask what three, we answer three horses by a specific name, but three animals by a generic one. And yet again, when we say that an ox is not a horse, but that a dog is neither an ox nor a horse, we speak of a three; and if any one questions us what three, we do not speak now by a specific name of three horses, or three oxen, or three dogs, because the three are not contained under the same species, but by a generic name, three animals; or if under a higher genus, three substances, or three creatures, or three natures. But whatsoever things are expressed in the plural number specifically by one name, can also be expressed generically by one name. But all things which are generically called by one name cannot also be called specifically by one name.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For three horses, which is a specific name, we also call three animals; but, a horse, and an ox, and a dog, we call only three animals or substances, which are generic names, or anything else that can be spoken generically concerning them; but we cannot speak of them as three horses, or oxen, or dogs, which are specific names; for we express those things by one name, although in the plural number, which have that in common that is signified by the name. For Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, have in common that which is man; therefore they are called three men: a horse also, and an ox, and a dog, have in common that which is animal; therefore they are called three animals. So three several laurels we also call three trees; but a laurel, and a myrtle, and an olive, we call only three trees, or three substances, or three natures: and so three stones we call also three bodies; but stone, and wood, and iron, we call only three bodies, or by any other higher generic name by which they can be called. Of the Father, therefore, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, seeing that they are three, let us ask what three they are, and what they have in common.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For the being the Father is not common to them, so that they should be interchangeably fathers to one another: as friends, since they are so called relatively to each other, can be called three friends, because they are so mutually to each other. But this is not the case in the Trinity, since the Father only is there father; and not Father of two, but of the Son only. Neither are they three Sons, since the Father there is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit. Neither three Holy Spirits, because the Holy Spirit also, in that proper meaning by which He is also called the gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son. What three therefore? For if three persons, then that which is meant by person is common to them; therefore this name is either specific or generic to them, according to the manner of speaking. But where there is no difference of nature, there things that are several in number are so expressed generically, that they can also be expressed specifically. For the difference of nature causes, that a laurel, and a myrtle, and an olive, or a horse, and an ox, and a dog, are not called by the specific name, the former of three laurels, or the latter of three oxen, but by the generic name, the former of three trees, and the latter of three animals. But here, where there is no difference of essence, it is necessary that these three should have a specific name, which yet is not to be found. For person is a generic name, insomuch that man also can be so called, although there is so great a difference between man and God.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Further, in regard to that very generic (generalis) word, if on this account we say three persons, because that which person means is common to them (otherwise they can in no way be so called, just as they are not called three sons, because that which son means is not common to them); why do we not also say three Gods? For certainly, since the Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy Spirit a person, therefore there are three persons: since then the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, why not three Gods? Or else, since on account of their ineffable union these three are together one God, why not also one person; so that we could not say three persons, although we call each a person singly, just as we cannot say three Gods, although we call each singly God, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Is it because Scripture does not say three Gods? But neither do we find that Scripture anywhere mentions three persons. Or is it because Scripture does not call these three, either three persons or one person (for we read of the person of the Lord, but not of the Lord as a person), that therefore it was lawful through the mere necessity of speaking and reasoning to say three persons, not because Scripture says it, but because Scripture does not contradict it: whereas, if we were to say three Gods, Scripture would contradict it, which says, Hear, O Israel; the Lord your God is one God?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why then is it not also lawful to say three essences; which, in like manner, as Scripture does not say, so neither does it contradict? For if essence is a specific (specialis) name common to three, why are They not to be called three essences, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called three men, because man is the specific name common to all men? But if essence is not a specific name, but a generic one, since man, and cattle, and tree, and constellation, and angel, are called essences; why are not these called three essences, as three horses are called three animals, and three laurels are called three trees, and three stones three bodies? Or if they are not called three essences, but one essence, on account of the unity of the Trinity, why is it not the case, that on account of the same unity of the Trinity they are not to be called three substances or three persons, but one substance and one person? For as the name of essence is common to them, so that each singly is called essence, so the name of either substance or person is common to them. For that which must be understood of persons according to our usage, this is to be understood of substances according to the Greek usage; for they say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > What therefore remains, except that we confess that these terms sprang from the necessity of speaking, when copious reasoning was required against the devices or errors of the heretics? For when human weakness endeavored to utter in speech to the senses of man what it grasps in the secret places of the mind in proportion to its comprehension respecting the Lord God its creator, whether by devout faith, or by any discernment whatsoever; it feared to say three essences, lest any difference should be understood to exist in that absolute equality. Again, it could not say that there were not three somewhats (tria quædam), for it was because Sabellius said this that he fell into heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, as most certainly known from the Scriptures, and must be grasped by the mental eye with undoubting perception, that there is both Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; and that the Son is not the same with the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the same with the Father or the Son.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > It sought then what three it should call them, and answered substances or persons; by which names it did not intend diversity to be meant, but singleness to be denied: that not only unity might be understood therein from the being called one essence, but also Trinity from the being called three substances or persons. For if it is the same thing with God to be (esse) as to subsist (subsistere), they were not to be called three substances, in such sense as they are not called three essences; just as, because it is the same thing with God to be as to be wise, as we do not say three essences, so neither three wisdoms. For so, because it is the same thing to Him to be God as to be, it is not right to say three essences, as it is not right to say three Gods. But if it is one thing to God to be, another to subsist, as it is one thing to God to be, another to be the Father or the Lord (for that which He is, is spoken in respect to Himself, but He is called Father in relation to the Son, and Lord in relation to the creature which serves Him); therefore He subsists relatively, as He begets relatively, and bears rule relatively: so then substance will be no longer substance, because it will be relative. For as from being, He is called essence, so from subsisting, we speak of substance. But it is absurd that substance should be spoken relatively, for everything subsists in respect to itself; how much more God?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But lest I should seem to favor ourselves [the Latins], let us make this further inquiry. Although they [the Greeks] also, if they pleased, as they call three substances three hypostases, so might call three persons three prosopa, yet they preferred that word which, perhaps, was more in accordance with the usage of their language. For the case is the same with the word persons also; for to God it is not one thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutely the same thing. For if to be is said in respect to Himself, but person relatively; in this way we should say three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, or three relations, or three neighbors, in that they are so mutually, not that each one of them is so in respect to himself. Wherefore any one of these is the friend of the other two, or the relation, or the neighbor, because these names have a relative signification. What then?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Are we to call the Father the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the Son the person of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the person of the Father and of the Son? But neither is the word person commonly so used in any case; nor in this Trinity, when we speak of the person of the Father, do we mean anything else than the substance of the Father. Wherefore, as the substance of the Father is the Father Himself, not as He is the Father, but as He is, so also the person of the Father is not anything else than the Father Himself; for He is called a person in respect to Himself, not in respect to the Son, or the Holy Spirit: just as He is called in respect to Himself both God and great, and good, and just, and anything else of the kind; and just as to Him to be is the same as to be God, or as to be great, or as to be good, so it is the same thing to Him to be, as to be a person. Why, therefore, do we not call these three together one person, as one essence and one God, but say three persons, while we do not say three Gods or three essences; unless it be because we wish some one word to serve for that meaning whereby the Trinity is understood, that we might not be altogether silent, when asked, what three, while we confessed that they are three?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For if essence is the genus, and substance or person the species, as some think, then I must omit what I just now said, that they ought to be called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons; as three horses are called three horses, and the same are called three animals, since horse is the species, animal the genus. For in this case the species is not spoken of in the plural, and the genus in the singular, as if we were to say that three horses were one animal; but as they are three horses by the special name, so they are three animals by the generic one. But if they say that the name of substance or person does not signify species, but something singular and individual; so that any one is not so called a substance or person as he is called a man, for man is common to all men, but in the same manner as he is called this or that man, as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone else who, if present, could be pointed out with the finger: so will the same reason reach these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are called three individuals, so are they called three men, and three souls. Why then are both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if we are to reason about them also according to genus and species and individual, not so called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > But this, as I said, I pass over: but I do affirm, that if essence is a genus, then a single essence has no species; just as, because animal is a genus, a single animal has no species. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three species of one essence. But if essence is a species, as man is a species, but those are three which we call substances or persons, then they have the same species in common, in such way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species which is called man; not as man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so can one man also be subdivided into several single men; for this is altogether impossible, since one man is already a single man. Why then is one essence subdivided into three substances or persons? For if essence is a species, as man is, then one essence is as one man is: or do we, as we say that any three human beings of the same sex, of the same constitution of body, of the same mind, are one nature, — for they are three human beings, but one nature, - so also say in the Trinity three substances one essence, or three persons one substance or essence? But this is somehow a parallel case, since the ancients also who spoke Latin, before they had these terms, which have not long come into use, that is, essence or substance, used for them to say nature. We do not therefore use these terms according to genus or species, but as if according to a matter that is common and the same.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Just as if three statues were made of the same gold, we should say three statues one gold, yet should neither call the gold genus, and the statues species; nor the gold species, and the statues individuals. For no species goes beyond its own individuals, so as to comprehend anything external to them. For when I define what man is, which is a specific name, every several man that exists is contained in the same individual definition, neither does anything belong to it which is not a man. But when I define gold, not statues alone, if they be gold, but rings also, and anything else that is made of gold, will belong to gold; and even if nothing were made of it, it would still be called gold; since, even if there were no gold statues, there will not therefore be no statues at all. Likewise no species goes beyond the definition of its genus. For when I define animal, since horse is a species of this genus, every horse is an animal; but every statue is not gold. So, although in the case of three golden statues we should rightly say three statues, one gold; yet we do not so say it, as to understand gold to be the genus, and the statues to be species. Therefore neither do we so call the Trinity three persons or substances, one essence and one God, as though three somethings subsisted out of one matter [leaving a remainder, i. e.]; although whatever that is, it is unfolded in these three.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For there is nothing else of that essence besides the Trinity. Yet we say three persons of the same essence, or three persons one essence; but we do not say three persons out of the same essence, as though therein essence were one thing, and person another, as we can say three statues out of the same gold; for there it is one thing to be gold, another to be statues. And when we say three men one nature, or three men of the same nature, they also can be called three men out of the same nature, since out of the same nature there can be also three other such men. But in that essence of the Trinity, in no way can any other person whatever exist out of the same essence. Further, in these things, one man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man: and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in God it is not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together is not a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or persons, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly: which the natural man does not comprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his mind.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >And until he be purged from this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever else each is singly called in relation to either of the others; as Word, which is not said except of the Son, or Gift, which is not said except of the Holy Spirit. And on this account also they admit the plural number, as it is written in the Gospel, I and my Father are one. He has both said one, and we are one, according to essence, because they are the same God; we are, according to relation, because the one is Father, the other is Son.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just fricking stop, nobody is going to read this

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How come? I've read it all. St. Augustine teaches the doctrine clearly for anyone who has misunderstandings to understand. It's why the heretics hate him so much. He destroys them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Sometimes also the unity of the essence is left unexpressed, and the relatives alone are mentioned in the plural number: My Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him. We will come, and we will make our abode, is the plural number, since it was said before, I and my Father, that is, the Son and the Father, which terms are used relatively to one another. Sometimes the meaning is altogether latent, as in Genesis: Let us make man after our image and likeness. Both let us make and our is said in the plural, and ought not to be received except as of relatives. For it was not that gods might make, or make after the image and likeness of gods; but that the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit might make after the image of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, that man might subsist as the image of God. And God is the Trinity. But because that image of God was not made altogether equal to Him, as being not born of Him, but created by Him; in order to signify this, he is in such way the image as that he is after the image, that is, he is not made equal by parity, but approaches to Him by a sort of likeness. For approach to God is not by intervals of place, but by likeness, and withdrawal from Him is by unlikeness.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > For there are some who draw this distinction, that they will have the Son to be the image, but man not to be the image, but after the image. But the apostle refutes them, saying, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. He did not say after the image, but the image. And this image, since it is elsewhere spoken of as after the image, is not as if it were said relatively to the Son, who is the image equal to the Father; otherwise he would not say after our image. For how our, when the Son is the image of the Father alone? But man is said to be after the image, on account, as we have said, of the inequality of the likeness; and therefore after our image, that man might be the image of the Trinity; not equal to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the Father, but approaching to it, as has been said, by a certain likeness; just as nearness may in a sense be signified in things distant from each other, not in respect of place, but of a sort of imitation. For it is also said, Be transformed by the renewing of your mind; to whom he likewise says, Be therefore imitators of God as dear children. For it is said to the new man, which is renewed to the knowledge of God, after the image of Him that created him.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Or if we choose to admit the plural number, in order to meet the needs of argument, even putting aside relative terms, that so we may answer in one term when it is asked what three, and say three substances or three persons; then let no one think of any bulk or interval, or of any distance of howsoever little unlikeness, so that in the Trinity any should be understood to be even a little less than another, in whatsoever way one thing can be less than another: in order that there may be neither a confusion of persons, nor such a distinction as that there should be any inequality. And if this cannot be grasped by the understanding, let it be held by faith, until He shall dawn in the heart who says by the prophet, If you will not believe, surely you shall not understand.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Therefore the Father and the Son together are one essence, and one greatness, and one truth, and one wisdom. But the Father and Son both together are not one Word, because both together are not one Son. For as the Son is referred to the Father, and is not so called in respect to Himself, so also the Word is referred to him whose Word it is, when it is called the Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the Word, and He is the Word in that He is the Son. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Father and the Son together are certainly not one Son, it follows that the Father and the Son together are not the one Word of both. And therefore He is not the Word in that He is wisdom; since He is not called the Word in respect to Himself, but only relatively to Him whose Word He is, as He is called the Son in relation to the Father; but He is wisdom by that whereby He is essence. And therefore, because one essence, one wisdom.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >But since the Word is also wisdom, yet is not thereby the Word because He is wisdom for He is understood to be the Word relatively, but wisdom essentially: let us understand, that when He is called the Word, it is meant, wisdom that is born, so as to be both the Son and the Image; and that when these two words are used, namely wisdom (is) born, in one of the two, namely born, both Word, and Image, and Son, are understood, and in all these names essence is not expressed, since they are spoken relatively; but in the other word, namely wisdom, since it is spoken also in respect to substance, for wisdom is wise in itself, essence also is expressed, and that being of His which is to be wise. Whence the Father and Son together are one wisdom, because one essence, and singly wisdom of wisdom, as essence of essence. And hence they are not therefore not one essence, because the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, or because the Father is un-begotten, but the Son is begotten: since by these names only their relative attributes are expressed. But both together are one wisdom and one essence; in which to be, is the same as to be wise. And both together are not the Word or the Son, since to be is not the same as to be the Word or the Son, as we have already sufficiently shown that these terms are spoken relatively.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God Almighty being The Father God and the existence of The Son are not things that are ever mentioned by any of his chosen prophets, not even Solomon who God made the wisest man in history.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >not things that are ever mentioned by any of his chosen prophets
      Aside from, um, Jesus?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Show me a single prophet talking about Jesus.

        Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.
        >Deuteronomy 6:4

        He made sure to let them know that he is one because he knew false teachers would arise trying to trick them into thinking He is three.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          David did.

          Psalm 2
          >The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
          >today I have begotten you.

          Isaiah 53
          >Surely he has borne our griefs
          >and carried our sorrows;
          >yet we esteemed him stricken,
          >smitten by God, and afflicted.
          >But he was pierced for our transgressions;
          >he was crushed for our iniquities;
          >upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
          >and with his wounds we are healed.
          >All we like sheep have gone astray;
          >we have turned—every one—to his own way;
          >and the Lord has laid on him
          >the iniquity of us all.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Psalm 2
            David is the one speaking. God said that to him. God told David that David was his son.

            >Isaiah 53
            It says: he will see his offspring and prolong his days.
            Jesus did not have children, so it cannot be him.
            It also says: by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many
            But according to Christianity Jesus was not a servant, he was God's son and equal to God.
            Every chapter leading up to Isaiah 53 talks about Israel being his servant.
            >Isaiah 49:3: And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
            It also says nothing about him being resurrected and ascending to heaven, so this is not talking about Jesus.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are two kind of people, those that don't understand the trinity and those that lie

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >those that don't understand the trinity and those that lie
      You forgot the "it's a mystery" folk. They don't understand it, but they also don't lie they understand it. They just say it's too mysterious to think either way.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >muh muslims
    >thread is christians arguing about the trinity
    embarrassing

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, it's one guy confused about Sabellianism. The Christians ITT are agreeing about the trinity.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think that a number of schism throughout church history boil down to people intentionally twisting the words of others so they can find an excuse to call them heresies. This is why you find that when representatives of apostolic churches sincerely meet in good faith they almost always come out generally in agreement, but then you get morons reading heresy into everything. This is not unique to any one branch, it is a problem throughout the Church.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Very true. "Heresy" was used as a political tool, the iconoclast heresy was particularly egregious, both sides condemned each other as heretics and held competing councils. It's a scandal that the second council of Nicaea got accepted as Ecumenical by the Catholics and Orthodox when it was so partisan and clearly not universal.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nestorius wasn’t a Nestorian for example

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The only people who have agreed upon anything in this thread are the ones making fun of you for being a larper.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Truth is, the islamic view of God just focuses on his absolute transcendance, which transcends also any number and division (there's a lot of coranic verses that say: Oh his transcendence far above all we associate to it). This is why the Trinity is absurd in an islamic context, but it could be accepted as a lower attribute of God.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Love
    >The Father gives His entire being to the Son and the Holy Spirit.
    >The Son gives His entire being to the Father and Holy Spirit.
    >The Holy Spirit gives His entire being to Son and the Father.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fear me or go to hell
    is pretty much the sole concept muslims are able to grasp

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    LIVE!!!

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't you Christians ever experience cognitive dissonance?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      Youre trying to overstand, not understand.

      Using arbitrary arithmatic on reality when Arith-Metic doesnt fully align with fundemental reality (PHYSICS).

      I would know, I had to redine it for my Theoretical Mathematical Phsyics thesis.

      Remember...those morons at Walmart are just as certain they seee all of reality just like (You).

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who came up with it anyway?

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Cult of Passion

    >Bwaaaah, God is Three in One.
    Sounds like a Number Theory issue.

    Last book, try to keep it well rounded, but the answers are all around (You), you just have to honestly seek it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what's the toughest math course that you've taken?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Cult of Passion

        >math course
        Lmfao...you dont get it.

        https://i.imgur.com/GqBOpLc.jpeg

        >One God in three persons
        Circle is equal to all sides (fairest Judge and he does and NOT the Father).

        Triangle is looking at three variables in reality that occure at certain points, three polar opposites, a logical mind warp thats "impossible" to solve manually.

        Like Euler, you have to calculate the entire unit of Pi (or similar) or else it IS impossible, same goes for those three "perspectives".

        Im half way done ceacking Euler's Identity from the Medical Science (Cognition) side.

        NOT THE MATH PER SE....BUT ALSO BECAUSE "course" Lmfao! Im not interested in educating a bunch of Ivy League professors for a year.

        They a get a shit post and they'll be grateful or they'll get my caps lock.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I reject the trinity.

    The Father is primitive bronze-age idolatry no better than Zeus
    The Son was just a man who knew the truth about the Spirit, one of many such men who came to be through history (Buddah is another such man)
    The Spirit is the World and all that is contained there in. The Spirit is thus omnipresent, omnipotent and all-knowing as it is the extension of reality.

    Any other cosmology is either plain stupid or internally inconsistent.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How do you convey the Spirit to others, without the Father and the Son?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Without the Son
        Many religions manage to teach their doctrine without divinity of their founders. To ascribe divinity to the Son is just ego-stroking that muddles the truth of the faith around new idolatry.
        >The Father
        To an extent, the Father is less nonsensical than the Son, as it is easier to anthropomorphize the Spirit for easier connection. But again, this is just a new path towards idolatry where the Father, instead of being a way to better explain the Spirit to the masses, becomes a Pagan-esque idol, in whose name actions are taken, and from whom now you are a seperate entity, thus forgetting the omnipresence and the fact that you also are a part of God.

        In trying to make the truths easier to understand by creating these false generalizations, you only distort what the masses will take away from the message. The Christian history proves this: from the truth that Jesus said, to a distorted tool of Roman societal control, to doing ctrl-r "Odyn">"God" in order to justify the pillaging done by crusaders.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Cult of Passion

          >Many religions manage to teach their doctrine without divinity of their founders.
          Those are called cheap cults.
          >To ascribe divinity to the Son is just ego-stroking
          Youre a fatherless Satanic agent of the State.

          Youre the corruted peoples Jesus spoke about the arrogant and egocentric ones, the vwry fact someone else ia called devine you IMMEDIATELY JUMP TO ARROAGNCE AND EGO.

          YOU ARE A SATANIC FAILURE.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >someone else ia called devine
            The difference bwtween (You) and me is when I hear of another acheiving greater glory than I then I will flat out out do them per their own rules.

            You tore down, looking up at your superior...to *feel* less inferior by proxy.

            Pa-THETIC. Swallow your inequities, serf....you chose it through your corrupted ways.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/fMeHume.jpeg

            >Many religions manage to teach their doctrine without divinity of their founders.
            Those are called cheap cults.
            >To ascribe divinity to the Son is just ego-stroking
            Youre a fatherless Satanic agent of the State.

            Youre the corruted peoples Jesus spoke about the arrogant and egocentric ones, the vwry fact someone else ia called devine you IMMEDIATELY JUMP TO ARROAGNCE AND EGO.

            YOU ARE A SATANIC FAILURE.

            I think this barrage of angry ad-homs proves that I touched a sore-spot by mentioning people who have the need to worship a false idol instead of grasping deeper spiritual truths to put meaning into their lives.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            YOU ARE DELUSED AND FATHERLESS.

            MAN THE FRICK UP, homosexual, YOURE NOT A MAN.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >ad-homs
            LITERAL FATHERLESS BEHAVIOR.
            >I LARP I didnt do nuffin and dont know nuffin.
            YOU WILL NEVER BE MAN.

            YOUR FATHER SHOULD BE FLOGGED.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the Son
          Can you give me an example of a religion that does not have a holy character who acts as a roll model?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >in whose name actions are taken
          How do we act symbiotically, without using a shared code to transmit instruction? Without an agreed upon semantic baseline, animals still eat and kill eachother. House cats still play with, and torture their food.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >in whose name actions are taken
          When I think of a spirit without a name, I see a leviathan. Even without arms or legs, it still consumes its prey.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >leviathan
            I think it changed recently.

            It used to be different, but the New World Order changed that. I know Leviathan, its in me, that was what it was called when I ascended.

            It says it can be made permant effect in me if I eat a "golden calf". Aaronic alchemy, monatomic gold fed to the people.

            Organic implantation of metallic circuitry, Elon Musk would pay BILLIONS for that technology.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >It says it can be made permant effect
            When in reference to "thinking I could control it" i that Bible verse.

            Thats just it...I have zero interest in "controlling it". Lmao, the Holy Spirit really doenst undertand me at all....

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      >men who came to be through history (Buddah is another such man)
      Unfortunately, no, it does not transfer East, my SON.
      >The Son was just a man who knew the truth about the Spirit
      Which he told through lies, this case is rock solid.
      >Any other cosmology is either plain stupid or internally inconsistent.
      I want you to look at this word, COSMOLOGY. You attribute the affection and love you receive from this world to black holes and star dust. Not Life, not Earth Life, not even Nature Worship.

      Matter-Of-Space worshipper. Bless-ed be thy mysterious Dark Matter. Your Father must be proud.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Cult of Passion

        >it does not transfer East
        This is related to Cognition/Genetics, the tribes were made asymmetrical and seperated, they had to figure out on their own how to interpret their peoples.

        East never had to deal with this issue sk the Trinity is a largely small portion of Buddhism, kept as a reference and little more.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Cult of Passion

    >Im a good person.
    Then why is your father being punished for your failures?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      >...because I confuse self gratification with Truth.
      Correct, you are no Judger of Men.

      Pain can build, pleasure can dissolve.

      Do better.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Cult of Passion

        >Pain can build, pleasure can dissolve.
        You dodged the suffering of realizing you made an error for the pleasure of LARPing your claws up in a Petersonian faux-win, but the NeuroChemicals were very real. The belief of the win is real, now youre more certain in your self-delusion than ever.

        In your mind you get a free, unearned, win...the world saw a man spit at Jesus.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't that the fat and burger version of pinhead?

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The trinity isn't explicit in the scripture, is just a theological conclusion.
    The important idea is to understand the authority of the Father, Son and the Holt Spirit, as either God's manifestations or God's messengers, it is implicit that the Father and the Son are the same, one in the divine glory, and the Son, having the nature of the Father but with the limitations of the human fallen condition.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    SUPER DOMON

    THAT'S MY GUNDAM STAY AWAY FROM MY GUNAMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not all are not of the earth and are of the Holy Spirit so their inability to conceive themselves part of the one which is three should surprise nobody.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I find it super hilarious that Christians call people dumb for not "understanding" trinity while Christian themselves have had infighting about the exact nature of it for centuries.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The truth regarding the trinity reveals a controversial reality which the church burried deliberately and so the false explanations provided inevitably lead to confusion since they obfuscate truth.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Cult of Passion

        This.

        There is a Cold War with Satanic forces, its populations are inside of humans (Gene Expressions) literally waging war with each other. War are literally parts of human physiology declaring society operates under their specifications.

        Tyranny is when those specification do not allow for other gene expressions (literally killing life as ita born because society doesnt accept it.)

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there anything else in reality that's "3 in 1" like the Trinity?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Cult of Passion

      Its not often because a break from binary reactions isnt always needed, its rare but if everything was binary then there would only be One religion, One culture, One race.

      There would be one political party forvever, because one is right and one is WRONG, not left, it is factually INCORRECT.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Cult of Passion

        Trinary is rare for a reason, few "get it".

        Positve, negative (giving, reveiving) and neutral (neither/both). Thats three.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, it's like a wave-particle collapse, could go either way when you look at it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >wave-particle collapse
            Duality.
            >go either way
            Duality.

            Breaking from that habit has sunken a many a' battleships.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            are you saying there's a real difference between being a dualist vs nondualist?
            sounds like a duality

          • 4 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >dualist vs nondualist?
            >sounds like a duality
            Dynamic is Binary too, its both,

            https://i.imgur.com/T1CMKZ0.jpeg

            Is there a relationship to this and personality quirks?
            Does it help us ascend to Atom if we are charming?
            Are strangers cast down?

            You appraoch reality with a tinge of Satanic grinning, it makes you only see the moronic Path, so you never take it...and because no Path was worthy you thought you were the worthy one.

            No...you failed at a very young age and will never recover.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh.
            This game again.
            I do try to smile when I spar, as jacob, before Israel.
            I do hate every wrong path, and every man is a mutation, to wich I can not perfectly fit their mold.
            If I must be the only worthy one in this game, then I'll have to divide myself, because it's not good to be alone.
            My failure was that I tried to cover up In the first place, as light is meant to be seen, and I love that you have told me not to recover.

            Am I a schizo, or a corpus callosum, or is there something more than a simple duality?

            Now I took a step down a path you showed me, but you never answered my question. I look back from this tangent we are on, at the many orbits we left behind. Is there anything more to these names, or is it really just vanity?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If we split hairs, we annoy.
            If we split atoms, we destroy,

            It's probably for the best that we all agree, that it's simply not possible to split a quark.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is Adam a quark, and Eve a gluon?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is there a relationship to this and personality quirks?
          Does it help us ascend to Atom if we are charming?
          Are strangers cast down?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can you give a real-life example?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Cult of Passion

          Outside of Physics it becomes linguistical/conceptual.

          Three polar opposites, its illogical from the beggining, but assuming reality is "immediately understandle and logical" is arrogance in one's ignorance.

          >Yeah, dis dont make no sense bro.
          "But you are moronic as shit, why are worshipping your ignorance?!"

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Forget Muslims, do Christians themselves even understand the concept of the trinity? I mean, there's a reason why we have like thousands of denominations, none of which are cooperative with each other.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >they don't know that everything a human today attributes to persons the trinitarians attribute to nature
    >the mind/subjectivity and will and love are all one in the trinity
    >it only has one qualia not three
    >this means with the modern idea of person the orthodox/catholic trinity is more like one person with three unqualified natures that mutually modify the divine person (godhead)
    >none of the cappadocian fathers thought there were three distinct thinking and feeling and willing subjects, only 1
    >one subject (ousia) in three distinct "hypostases" (modes of being)

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Trinity is literally the violation of all three logic foundation principles. If you believe it, you are delusional. I'm not joking or being flippant, the Trinity violates logic. If you believe the Trinity, you can believe anything you want because you've tossed rationality out the window.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The real question is how this is compatible with Divine Simplicity

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Divine Simplicity
      Papist nonsense

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is it because the Trinity isn't identical with Godhead, but is one of its attributes?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This formulation either leads to modalism or polytheism, muzzies have the same problem

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'll never understand why it's so difficult to grasp. It's one being manifesting itself in 3 distinct ways for different purposes. What's the difficult part? There's nothing conceptually confusing about that. One thing presents itself as three things, but they're still the same base thing. Water is ice, liquid, and vapor, but it's all still water. Even if there's all three present at the same time it's still collectively, simultaneously water.

    God is God. When Jesus was on earth, God was on earth as Jesus, and also the ever present manifestion of god in heaven or whatever. The point of the human form was to experience humanity, limiting its own divinity for that experience, therefore feeling fear, anxiety, and so on and that's why Jesus prayed to the father reconnecting to himself. The holy spirit I won't claim to fully understand myself but I kinda understand it as the living force of gods will and word. Why does he need this system to function? Who knows, it's not for us to understand, so why bother. Arguing with non-theists is annoying because it forces theists to argue on the playing field of non theists, rather than athiests arguing on the playing field of theists which excludes extra logical metaphysics that God may operate under, completely beyond our understanding. Intellectually honesty athiests should attempt to argue about the existence of God on the precondition of "if there is a god, there are things about him beyond my understanding", and incorporate that into their logic. But they can't because athieism is rooted in arrogance and the fear of a supreme being displacing ones own ego as most important. So they won't. It's not worth the time

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's Modalism, Patrick

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not really and this is the problem with flinging heresies like logical fallacies. Modalism implies that God presented himself as the father, son, and spirit individually in stages, and did not exist as the other two at anytime as one "mode". As the father in creation, then becoming the son as Christ, and then the spirit after, changing "modes" as needed.

        What I described is the notion that God was continuously a single entity, showing himself through facets as needed. The son and the spirit have always coexisted with the father as a whole singular "God" and the son presented himself as Christ, while the father and spirit remained intact at that same same time hence why Christ references the father and the spirit. The son continues to exist as "god" even after the resurrection and will not present that facet of himself again until the second coming, when needed. The father son and spirit continue to exist indefinitely as a singular entity, but have unique roles in the overall function of God, distinct but never seperate.

        Back to the ice example, if you look at earth right now there is Ice, there is water, and there is vapor. It all coexists simultaneously as a greater, single entity of water, h20 throughout the world is all t he same. H20 on earth is still H20 on earth .You don't have to divy it up by where it is geographically, or what state it's in, or what was first, there is simply, "water on earth". There is simply "God' and the presentation of God, as the father, the son, and spirit are still all the same "God", just presented in different states when needed, distinct but never seperate from the greater whole.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Not really and this is the problem with flinging heresies like logical fallacies.
          Look, the big hats in Rome says the ice/water example is Modalism heresy. If you don't like it, take it up with them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Furthermore, I just don't understand the importance of the Trinity as a concept to most people, it's a cosmological/theological device used to explain the nature of God, but it really makes no difference and has no real importance to your ability to Believe and follow God and his presence in your life. I think it's more of a Catholic thing, growing up. The Trinity was really seldom talked about and just doesn't seem all that important. When someone prays" dear father" or" dear Jesus" it's just a semantic choice it's understood you're praying to God. When people say" that they feel the spirit in them" or, they feel the presence of God" it's just a semantic choice. Choice. It doesn't actually imply any difference.
          The Trinity is a man-made concept to explain the qualities and existence of God as best that we can understand him, especially in scholarly circles, but it really has no bearing on the fundamentals of Christianity or the ability to believe in God and follow him.

          I don't see how your formulation is any better than the traditional trinitarian one, it's just more fuzzy and vague. You haven't made anything clearer.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Not really and this is the problem with flinging heresies like logical fallacies. Modalism implies that God presented himself as the father, son, and spirit individually in stages, and did not exist as the other two at anytime as one "mode".
          No it doesn't. It is merely the view that they are different modes when really they are totally undivided in all ways. It also implies they are different presentations emanating from one guy when in reality they are separately coeternal and one and the same thing i.e. not emanations. They aren't just the concept of godness together they and three distinct beings that are the same being i.e. God. The ice water steam example fails because ice water and steam are necessarily different entities at different instances. In philosophical terms the father son and holy spirit and both type and token identical with God but also completely separate from one another. In your example they are only type identical.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Furthermore, I just don't understand the importance of the Trinity as a concept to most people, it's a cosmological/theological device used to explain the nature of God, but it really makes no difference and has no real importance to your ability to Believe and follow God and his presence in your life. I think it's more of a Catholic thing, growing up. The Trinity was really seldom talked about and just doesn't seem all that important. When someone prays" dear father" or" dear Jesus" it's just a semantic choice it's understood you're praying to God. When people say" that they feel the spirit in them" or, they feel the presence of God" it's just a semantic choice. Choice. It doesn't actually imply any difference.
    The Trinity is a man-made concept to explain the qualities and existence of God as best that we can understand him, especially in scholarly circles, but it really has no bearing on the fundamentals of Christianity or the ability to believe in God and follow him.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."
    That's just one verse that proves trinity wrong but there are hundreds of them.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To combat the trinity you need to approach it through Christological view rather than Muslim, they're incapable of understanding the trinity because they're incapable of understanding that Christ is the Son, Now I am Nontrinitarian myself and I know mulism arguments against the trinity is utterly ridiculous

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >You see, the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.
    Oh, so the Father is the actual God then.
    >No, they are all three God.
    But the Father is the one who is actually the source of everything.
    >But the other persons share his omnipotence and timelessness and-
    But they don't share the trait of being the ultimate reality that's respinsible for everything else. That's just the Father. So he's the only one that's God.

    How do Christians respond to this without sounding mad?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >respinsible
      If my Father tells me to clean my room, but I choose to ignore him, and instead, play with my toys, and make a bigger mess. Who is responsible for the mess in my room?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >proceed
      From a deterministic point of view, this is the effect of a cause.

      From a free will point of view, it is the reward obtained from an event or activity

      Free will and determinism are the exact same thing. You just need to choose which perspective you want.

      If you are suicidal, choose determinism. If you love life, choose free will.

      Determinism leads to a lack of feeling, because a deterministic culture has no need for rewards. If you want more flavor, color, feeling, sense, and awareness. If you love life, and want more, you MUST choose free will.

      Determinism is death. Free will is life.

      If you are deterministic, it's a sign that your headed in the wrong direction, and you need to quickly change course or you WILL end up dead.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A logical framework based on the semantics of Determinism is like a man walking backwards. He can see the road behind him. The logical framework of Free Will, is like a man walking forwards. He can see the road in front of him. Which man is more likely to fall into a pit, or be turned into a pillar of salt?

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You also can't grasp it. You'll grasp it the day you read ACIM.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the Trinity is so important, why did neither Jesus nor his apostles ever communicate anything about it? Actually, they never even assert that Jesus is God, but only “the fullness of deity” dwells in him. No one is saved in the Gospel for saying Jesus is God, only Jesus is Lord

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why did neither Jesus nor his apostles ever communicate anything about it?

      Mark 8:27
      “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
      Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
      30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not hard to get it's just everything is bullshit

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lol nobody can "grasp" the trinity
    it makes no fricking sense

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is a copy of neoplatonism.
    It all originates from the ONE. It is mathematical in nature and all the numbers start with and are bound by the number 1

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *