I'm a bit confused about the Trinity.

>>1136255

Nohing to understand, it's a complete fabrication.

>>1136255
Fedora here
From what I understand, one facet of the Trinity can exist independently of the three, but two cannot exist without the third or it throws it into imbalance

A large part of the Trinity topic is feelings, so semantics are difficult

>>1136255
can you be any more specific?

>>1136255
I guess the law of transitive property doesn't apply to God for some reason

>>1136284
>logic
>god
Pfff. He's only logical when it comes to simple paradoxes.

>>1136268

How can Jesus be God and not God and the son of God and God?

It blows my mind sometimes.

>>1136255
Just read De Trinitate by Augustine, it should put you on context.

>>1136255
watch this vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
It should clarify what is and what is not the Trinity in a humorous way.
>>1136396
3 persons, one ousia.

>>1136255

Literally every way you could think to rationally explain it has been declared a heresy of some kind.

The most honest Christfags just call it a mystery and leave it at that.

>>1136430

What is an ousia?

>>1136255
It's nonsense dude. There is no rational explanation for it.

>>1136448

I don't believe that, most of the great philosophers of history have been Christian. They have found some way to explain it.

>>1136284

F =/= S =/= H

G = F+S+H, G = F, G = H, G = S

pls

Think of this, if you go back in time and talk to yourself, it doesn't multiply your metaphysical essence, which is one, but still you have two existences. God is one being with three existences.

>>1136461

What does this mean?

>>1136466

Thank you Constantine, I love your replies so much and I wish there was an Orthodox church near me.

I'm still struggling though. Sorry.

Are you saying God time travelled?

>>1136461
1 =/= 2 =/= 3

X = 6

X=1, X=2, X=3

Sounds legit

>>1136521

don't think of it in terms of numerical value

>>1136489
Thank you. :)

No, all three persons (or "existences" more literally) of the Trinity existed before all ages, all time, beyond all dimensions and materiality, and continue to, unlimited in every sense, transcending all boundaries and boxes. I put it in those terms to give a parallel human example. God the Father *caused* (but did not create, as this is before all ages, so God *eternally* caused the, as in caused them beyond all time and without any beginning) the Son and the Holy Spirit, which are identical with him in every way. Not just "clones" but identical in the same way as if you went back in time and talked to yourself.

>>1136550
I don't think you understand how logic works and what it is, unless you're just rusing

>>1136255
It is a mistery
The essence of it being a mistery, you cannot explain it by logic
The greatest miracle is the trinity
Something like that, it is not logic, you have to give up and start believing

>>1136592
Are christards really this aggressively retarded or is this just a semi-decent ruse?

>>1136612
>mistery
take a guess

>>1136466
That makes no sense due to the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different properties which cannot be accidental due to the nature of God, but never mind that. I would like to pray to you to intercede on my behalf; should I just say the Ave Maria with each instance of "Mary" replaced with "Constantine", or should I come up with something on my own?

>>1136255
>man, woman, child = family but are not each other

>Father, Son, Holy Spirit = God but are not each other

>>1136255
Because it doesn't make sense.

File: 1321516358603.jpg (40KB, 500x727px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x727px

>mfw i learnt that these christological arguments only make sense in their historical contexts and have more to do with the politics of the 3rd-4th centuries than anything jesus said or did

>>1136656
They don't have different properties, they all have identical properties.

If you want me to pray for you, you have to ask me a way I will get the message. I'm not a saint..

>>1136674
It has to do with God being able to love himself. Love is selfless, yet God loved before all ages when there was only himself to love. Yet how could he love himself if love is senseless? Hence the trinity. God's love is like a stool supported by three legs.

>>1136255
It just works.

>>1136684

lmao dat pure ideology tho. i bet you dont even know the difference between an arian and a menophosite. your namesake also only adopted jesus as a war god because he helped him in a battle.

>>1136698
>only adopted jesus as a war god because he helped him in a battle.
So?

>>1136698
An Arian is the opposite of a monophysite, the former believes Christ is but human, the latter that he is but divine (unless by "monophysite" you mean "miaphysite")

>>1136666
>God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit aren't the same

>Satan quads

Nice try, devil.

>>1136678
So you're saying that they're three identical but separate entities? If they aren't separate, how do you differentiate them?

>>1136816
They are distinct, but not separate. How can they be separate if they beyond and space or time?

The nature of the trinity is that it can never be explained. I don't know, I guess it's a test of faith. If you walk in skeptical you're going to leave skeptical. You need to be a christian first before you can swallow the abandon reason pill.

>>1136807
I said they aren't the same, this is true by definition.

>>1136807
HE DENIES THE TRINITY

HE IS THE REAL SATAN

>>1136818
So, are they distinguished by their relationship to each other?

>>1136684
>God is polyamorous

>>1136876
No, that's RCC theology. They are distinguished by being distinct existences, which love each other infinitely.

>>1136891
God is omniamorous.

>>1136898
So they are not separate entities, yet they love each other?

>>1136937
One entity, with three existences, that love each other.

>>1136950
Why three, then? Why not four, seven, 108, 613, or infinite?

>>1136255
It's pretty simple no need to complicate. They are all one and are God.

>>1136262
Thanks for the input Mr fedora

>>1136967
Because they all do everything as one, as a trio of from/of, by/through, in/among. No more, no less.

What I wanna know is how the fuck is this consistent with the strict monotheism of Judaism?

Because logically it makes no sense.

>>1136997
That's why the Jews reject it. I guess from a Christian perspective it's still one god but of course any outsider is going to look upon that with skepticism.

>>1136997
See Genesis 18

>>1136992
I thought you said that they weren't differentiated by their relationship to each other. Just as a passing remark, this sounds like an oversimplified version of the Sephirot.

>>1137008
Interesting.

Then what is the Jewish argument against the Trinity? How do they rationalize Gen.18?

>>1137047
They say that Abraham is alternatively talking to the three, and alternatively talking to God. That the three are not God, it just looks like that.

>>1136255
Christian here. Dont sweat it. When you die God isnt going to quiz you in your views of the trinity and send you to hell if you answer wrong

>>1136255
Your body is made up of a skeletal system, a muscular system, and a nervous system (I know there are others, using these as an example). Each of those things are separate and distinct, but when someone refers to you they are thinking of the greater thing that is constructed of all of them.

>>1136255
Its literally a matter of faith, a divine mystery. Its the equivlent of believing in a square circle

>>1137137
Partialism, Heresy!

>>1137251
>Actually listening to ancient dudes declaring what is and isnt okay to believe

>>1137257
Oh that definitely smells like heresy.

>>1137137
>Your body is made up of a skeletal system, a muscular system, and a nervous system (I know there are others, using these as an example). Each of those things are separate and distinct, but when someone refers to you they are thinking of the greater thing that is constructed of all of them.

This is heresy that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are components that make up God rather than God itself.

A neverous system is literally not the body whilst Jesus is literally God

>>1136255
>the son is God
>the father is God
>the son is not the father
>therefore God is not God
I'm lost as well OP.

>>1136255
There is an actual serious answer assuming you're looking for one and not just baiting, but it will probably be unsatisfying if you arent a christian.
Its one of the parts of Christianity that simply has to be taken on faith. Most of the Bible and its teaching have explanations that humans can understand, but God's nature is not like the nature of humans, its something we fundamentally cannot understand. The only advice i can give you is to not start christianity with the trinity and also like >>1137103 said, its probably not a salvific matter

>>1137315
>The only advice i can give you is to not start christianity with the trinity and also like >>1137103 said, its probably not a salvific matter

You a very wrong here, belief in the trinity is literally a requirement of salvation. If you deny the Trinity you either deny the divinity of Christ or are a polytheist.

File: 1405743527579.jpg (27KB, 472x461px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 472x461px

Only a complete moron takes the whole bible literally

>>1136255
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IyZYEcyyk

>>1136255
Basically an asspull to justify worshipping three different deities.

File: Anon explains the Trinity.png (222KB, 1446x628px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1446x628px

Idk if I agree with pic related completely, but there's some interesting stuff in there.

>>1136255
It's okay, so are Christians. Even they have to chalk it up to a mystery.

File: adachishrug.gif (311KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 500x500px

3 entities occupied by one greater conscious?

So is Jesus really God's "son" or is that just an analogy for humans?

Because by virtue of being co-eternal with the Father, Jesus can't technically be his offspring.

>>1137773
It's really God's son.

>>1136255
DUDE FAITH LMAO

>>1137776
How?

>>1137773
God eternally "begot" (caused) the Son.

>>1137372
No, the only requirement is salvation in Christ; you could technically be a polytheist and go to Heaven.

>>1137842
Causation requires time, which contradicts co-eternity.

>>1137855
>causation requires time
Why?

>>1137864
If I need to explain cause and effect to you, I don't think you should be trying to discuss metaphysics.

>>1137843
We can't know if polytheists can go to heaven, Christ never said. We can know that *spreading* lies which distort the doctrine Christ *did* pass on, will not count in your favor, and that includes spreading lies about the Trinity.

>>1137876
Cause and effect is simply "B is due to A", not "B is temporally subordinate to A"

>>1137887
How can B be caused by A if A and B have both always existed?

>>1137816
Read the bible, I don't got time to sit on my ass and argue about how shit happened.

>>1137887
>Causality (also referred to as 'causation',[1] or 'cause and effect') is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.
>In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of many other effects, which all lie in its future.

> The Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship between an incidence and a possible consequence, established by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill (1897–1991) in 1965.
>Temporality: The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay).[1]

Temporality seems to be essential, yes.

>>1137898
B is *eternally* caused by A, as in caused beyond all time. Note I am talking about *eternity* here, NOT sempiternity.

>>1137898
There could be a change, an action that B being caused by A

>>1137917
>B is *eternally* caused by A
this is *eternally* nonsense

>>1137879
I always thought Jesus was able to forgive any sin, including being a polytheist? Which is what I was trying to say. (Acts 16:31, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 14:6)

>>1137887
This is just a word game to try to cover up an obvious logical contradiction.

If A causes B than A is before B. This requires time.

>>1137912
Here is the strict definition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cause

Also I'm using it in the theological sense, which is much more nuanced: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%E1%BC%B0%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1

All this long predates the materialist elaborations of the 20th Century

>>1137930
How is the trinity polyheism? Are you stupid? Do you deny that Jesus is God's son? Holy shit this is blasphemy you stupid shit.

>>1137922
>>1137931

Only if you assume God cannot act outside of time

>>1137445
You could apply the same wonder to a pythagorean cult that demands you accept the existence of a square circle.

>>1136255
Read the Athanasian Creed a couple times until you get more confused.

>>1137940
When did I say the Trinity was polytheistic?

>>1137947
You implied it.

>>1137936
You can't, on one hand, use a simple dictionary definition of a word, and on the other bring in a theological Greek term with no relation to it anyway.

If you want to discuss the intricacies of your theological term, then use an appropriate translation or don't bother. Ain't nobody got time for this.

>>1137943
action can only happen within time. it's the same as saying God can make 2 + 2 = fish

>>1137943
You also need to assume that whatever God interacts with acts outside of time (after all he if the object he is interacting with is affected by time any interaction with is affecte by causality).

We know the universe does act within time.

Therefor when God interacts with it he is confined by time too. Your arguement is refuted.

>>1137950
I didn't. All I said was that polytheists are capable of going to Heaven.

>>1137963
I mean, if we wanna play mental gymnastics, fish has four letters in the word.

>>1137966
They aren't though.

>>1137945
Really if you worshipped a schizophrenic who could only talk garbage everything he said would be a divine transcedental mystery.

The notion that Christianity is more believable or beautiful because the core tenants don't make any sense is really fucking strange.

>>1137957
The Father always furnished the Son's existence, as in there was never a time when this was not so, "eternally begotten of the Father". The Son eternally exists beCAUSE of the Father who begot him beyond time.

>>1137963
>>1137965

If action can only exist within time, then how could God create time?

>>1137973
Constantine are you going to adress this point
>>1137965

Seems like it shows a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

>>1137981
The logical conclusion is that God cannot create time.

>>1137973
"Begot" doesn't seem like the proper translation then, and neither does "caused".

I'm not sure if there's a better word to imply "forever existing with and depending on", but those two sure aren't it.

>>1137965
He'll just say God isn't bound by time because, uh, he's God.

>>1137965
He could always just pull out of time.

>>1137972
>The notion that Christianity is more believable or beautiful because the core tenants don't make any sense is really fucking strange.

The mysticism argument is generally used by the the theologically slack, its a simple justification that cant easily be dismissed by the layman.

>>1137996
The universe is bound by time. Therefor whatever happens to the universe must be within the univese's boundries.

If God wants to interact with the universe he must play with in these boundries.

Therefor God can never step outside of time when interacting with the universe.

This logically means God cannot create time in the universe

>>1137969
How come? The only requirement is salvation through Jesus, which is available to anyone. Nowhere does the Bible say there's exceptions. Murderers, thieves, liars, we are all sinners. You and I are just as bad as polytheists.

>>1137985
>God interacts with the universe
>therefore he is bound to it's laws
I don't see how this follows

>>1137990
Yet time did not always exist. Something caused it. If nothing caused it, then it would not be limited, as it would not start at a particular point, because there would be no point of causation to limit its backward trajectory.

>>1137992
It's not just a question of "depending on", which would be merely a predicate. God consciously and willfully caused the Son to exist, he willed his existence, from all ages, before all time, always.

>>1137999
If he does pull out of time he can not than suddenly interact with a temporal thing. The universe works on cause and effect. There for all it's interactions must involve time including it's interaction with God.

At the very best you could say that God has two modes. A time mode and a non-time mode. Whenever he does anything in the universe he is in time-mode. He can stay in non-time mode but only if he takes no actions.

>>1138006
Salvation through Jesus means you gotta be with the program.
>Murderers, thieves, liars, we are all sinners
A murderer will go to hell for committing a mortal sin (blow me Constantine, it's judicial sinning.)

>>1138013
>>God interacts with the universe
>>therefore he is bound to it's laws
>I don't see how this follows
If you challenge God, using the limitations of worldly mathematics, to make a square circle - he cannot, because that breaks the rules he's playing under. It's the same principle.

>>1138023
We're not talking about a logical paradox, just an empirical paradox, significant difference.

>>1138013
If you want to get smarmy and semantical, then you can't say "caused" or "willed" in any sort of tense, because that necessarily implies time, a past age.

>>1138014
>He can stay in non-time mode but only if he takes no actions.
*No actions in this universe.

>>1138013
Suppose you want to move a rock. The rock will only move in relationship to physics. This physics is a two way relationship between the rock and the mover. If the mover is not interacting with the physics he cannot be part of this relationship.

The universe likewise has a relationship with time. All effects have a cause in a time-relationship. If God wants to be a cause he must be in a time-relationship.

There are many theories on how time is formed but your theory of God is critically flawed.

But we do not even need metaphysics. We would only need to turn to your religions bible. You beleive Jesus was God, you beleive his physical body was God. But his body aged, he moved things in time-relationships. Everything he ever did in life was within the frame of time.

If God were completely removed from time as you say he cannot be Jesus.

You can also not have God be omnipresent if you want him to be Jesus since was only in one place at a time.

>>1138029
>We're not talking about a logical paradox, just an empirical paradox,

Actually its a rational one. As its not relying on sense data for God.

>>1138034
Not if God ALWAYS caused the Son.

>>1138042
God is both infinitely transcendent and totally immanent.

>>1138049
It's relying on mechanics derived purely from empiricism.

>>1138050
>>Not if God ALWAYS caused the Son.
If always takes place outside of time, you can't use a tensed verb.

>>1138050
Seems to me he is infinity refuted. You have not addressed a single point. Like always you just ignore points you do not like and spout some innane dribble.

I will also add that other religions concept of God do not struggle with such basic problems as easily. The Muslims, Jews, and even Gnostic have considerably less problems with their theology and metaphysics.

>>1138055
>you can't use a tensed verb
But you can. Because someone just did.

>>1138096
He's allowed to use words incorrectly.

>>1138096
*You can.
Just like you CAN contradict your central terms.
It just means no one takes your idea seriously anymore.

>>1138106
How is You capitalized?
>It just means no one takes your idea seriously anymore.
Don't make me post that.

>>1138055
God ETERNALLY caused the Son.

>>1138122
Or causes, or is causing, or whatever tense you like, since no tense expresses it.

>>1136255
Grats OP, this is the best bait I've ever seen on 4chan.

>>1138129
If nothing can express it, then it's meaningless to discuss it. Chalk it up to mystery and move on.

>>1138150
There's no "eternal tense", but that doesn't mean the concept of eternal tense is not expressible.

File: Trinity.png (376KB, 822x1857px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 822x1857px

>>1136255
This triune God (or Trinity) began to allude to this aspect of His nature right in Genesis 1:26–27. There we read that “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’ . . . God created man in His image.” Here God is a plural noun, said is in the third-person singular verb form, and we see both the plural pronoun our and the singular His referring to the same thing (God’s image). This is not horribly confused grammar. Rather, we are being taught, in a limited way, that God is a plurality in unity. We can’t say from this verse that He is a trinity, but God progressively reveals more about Himself in later Scriptures to bring us to that conclusion.

In Isaiah 48:12–16 we find the speaker in the passage describing himself as the Creator and yet saying that “the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” This is further hinting at the doctrine of the trinity, which becomes very clear in the New Testament. There are many other Old Testament Scriptures that hint at the same idea.

In Matthew 28:18–20 Jesus command His disciples to baptize His followers in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel tells us that “the Word” is God who became man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1–3, 14). Jesus was fully man and fully God. Many other verses combine together to teach that God is triune.

As a start on a thorough discussion on this topic, the chart in pic related is an accumulation of many of the passages that show the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

File: Boy-Jesus-in-the-Temple-Hoffman.jpg (137KB, 1095x802px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1095x802px

>>1136396
The humanity of Jesus is as equally important as the deity of Jesus. Jesus was born as a human being while still being totally divine. The concept of the humanity of Jesus co-existing with His deity is difficult for the finite mind of man to comprehend. Nevertheless, Jesus’ nature, wholly man and wholly God, is a biblical fact.

Jesus had to be born as a human being for several reasons. One is outlined in Galatians 4:4–5: “But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” Only a man could be “born under the law.” No animal or angelic being is “under the law.” Only humans are born under the law, and only a human being could redeem other human beings born under the same law. Born under the law of God, all humans are guilty of transgressing that law. Only a perfect human, Jesus Christ, could perfectly keep the law and perfectly fulfill the law, thereby redeeming us from that guilt. Jesus accomplished our redemption on the cross, exchanging our sin for His perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).

File: christ-rich-young-ruler-hofmann-1020802-wallpaper.jpg (2MB, 2195x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2195x1600px

>>1136396
>>1138191
Another reason Jesus had to be fully human is that God established the necessity of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22). The blood of animals, although acceptable on a temporary basis as a foreshadowing of the blood of the perfect God-Man, was insufficient for the permanent remission of sin because “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God, sacrificed His human life and shed His human blood to cover the sins of all who would ever believe in Him. If He were not human, this would have been impossible.

Furthermore, the humanity of Jesus enables Him to relate to us in a way the angels or animals never can. “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Only a human could sympathize with our weaknesses and temptations. In His humanity, Jesus was subjected to all the same kinds of trials that we are, and He is, therefore, able to sympathize with us and to aid us. He was tempted; He was persecuted; He was poor; He was despised; He suffered physical pain; and He endured the sorrows of a lingering and most cruel death. Only a human being could experience these things, and only a human being could fully understand them through experience.

Finally, it was necessary for Jesus to come in the flesh because believing that truth is a prerequisite for salvation. Declaring that Jesus has come in the flesh is the mark of a spirit from God, while the Antichrist and all who follow him will deny it (1 John 4:2–3). Jesus has come in the flesh; He is able to sympathize with our human frailties; His human blood was shed for our sins; and He was fully God and fully Man. These are biblical truths that cannot be denied.

>>1138199

So. God wasn't powerful enough to forgive human sins without making a son and killing him to forgive the sins he created.

>>1136567
>He doesn't understand basic algebraic principles.

>>1136807
Satan is only 666, not 6666 you newfag.

>>1138013
>Yet time did not always exist.
>There was a time where time did not exist
>This is what one of the most intelligent and well-read Christians on the internet actually believes

Let's assume that the Trinity is a mystery, or at least that there are incomprehensible aspects of Christianity.

Why do Christians believe what they don't understand?

>>1138310
>There was a time where time did not exist
No, it's not a time, anymore than the absence of space is space (which would be the same thing, since spacetime is one continuum, not two separate contina).

>>1138314
I'm pretty sure a lot of people who don't understand quantum mechanics still believe in them.

>>1138359
But the phrase "always" is incomprehensible within a reference frame outside of time, and the idea of causation depends on time, unless you're talking about logical entities, which God and time are not.

>>1138314
because not understanding doesn't have anything to do with salvation

>>1138360
But they don't think about quantum mechanics, and they don't base their decisions on quantum mechanics.

>>1138365
I mean as, "There is no time in which the Son does not exist." Although even more accurately, the Son transcends spacetime,but his existence is due to the Father, but his existence is eternal and eternally due to the Father's, the Father's eternal existence eternally furnishes the Son's existence.

>>1138369
Well, a lot of people don't know how whether forecasts work, yet they believe in those and base decisions on them. A lot of people don't know how cars work, yet they believe in those and factor their existence into their decisions. A lot of people don't know the exact process of how various foods and items are manufactured, yet they believe in those and base their decisions on their existence.

>>1138376
*weather forecasts

>>1136255
Three different execution threads of the same program.

>>1138376

The difference is that although most people do not know how forecasts work, there are people who do.

Whereas if you have a situation where no one does... Well...

>>1138376
Except anyone has the ability to research topics they're interested in. They can learn every intricacy of a car's functions if they choose.

>>1138370
If the Son's existence is due to the Father, and is being eternally furnished by the Father's existence, then how is the Son equal to the Father?

Doesn't that mean the Father can still exist independently of the Son? So wouldn't that make Arianism correct?

>>1138051
>It's relying on mechanics derived purely from empiricism.

And empiricism is derived purely from rationalism

>>1136255
>I'm a bit confused about the Trinity.

That's because it's manifest nonsense. This is why religotards call it a "mystery", which is religion-speak for "don't think too much about it."

Water can be in 3 forms, solid, liquid or gas

The physical world is composed of time, space and matter. A trinity.

God is One, but manifests/reveals Himself to us in three Persons.
>Father
Eternal, omnipotent, omniscient God
>Son
God in human form, 100% man, 100% divine, the Word of God.
>Holy Spirit
God dwelling within us, every new believer gets the Holy Spirit to discern and grow.

>>1139076
0/10 poor bait

>>1138427
We call them monastics.

>>1138449
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like three legs to the stool known as God. God has to be able to love himself, and since love is selfless, he has to have to three existences to do that.

>>1139002
Empiricism is derived from the senses.

>>1139096
Is water also vapor and ice at the same time?

Is vapor also water and ice at the same time?

What about if the ice stops being the water temporarily?

>>1139096
The persons of the Trinity are not just God's "forms", he's not a Power Ranger. They are three distinct hypostases.

>>1139096
A good example is the analogy of Flatland.

Mr. Flat and Mrs. Flat can only perceive in 2 dimensions. They do not perceive us as 3D beings.

Stick your finger in their 2D paper world and you appear as a circle to them. Stick three fingers in their world and you appear as 3 circles to them.

So Mr. Flat starts the church of the one circles and Mrs. Flat starts the church of the three circles. Both of them had seen glimpses of me, but neither know who I really am, how big and immense.

Same goes for us when dealing with 4 dimensional/supernatural events.

God appeared to Moses in a burning bush, or to all the Israelites in the wilderness through a thundering cloud.

>>1139111
>Sabellianism

>>1139104
God doesn't need three existences to love itself.

>>1136430

Where are those accents supposed to be from? They aren't Irish

>>1136255
This thread seems like Flatland trying to understand a report regarding a 3rd dimensional object interaction.

Oddly enough, the majority of the posters here likely believe in 11 dimensions. Place the same concepts in a pseudo scientific, cross dimensional/time travel novel, and it would be accepted much more intensely here than in an ancient mileau.

>>1136255
The way some apologists usually explain is to consider Trinity like Cerberus. Every person of the Trinity is distinct from each other, just like the heads of Cerberus. At the same time those three persons are one being, just like Cerberus is one being.

File: 1398608199750.png (102KB, 415x600px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 415x600px

>>1136521
>F=1, S=2, H=3
OK

>1 =/= 2 =/= 3
OK

>G = F+S+H
>6 = 1+2+3
OK

>G = F
>6 = 1
Not OK

>G = S
>6 = 2
Not OK

>G = H
>6 = 3
Not OK

former christian, the holy spirit is not in the bible neither is the holy trinity. don't worry about that bullshit

>>1136450
essence.
God stuff, basically.
So the persons of the Trinity all share the same unidivided God essense.

>A=X
>B=X
>C=X
>A!=B!=C
>this is what Christians actually believe
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1136255
>I'm a bit confused about the trinity
You are in a long line of people going back over a thousand years.
The chart sums it up. Essentially they are all god, they all have the essence of god in them, but they are not each other.

>>1137445
lol this fucking idiot faggot wanking off on a red board about a concept THAT'S NOT IN THE FUCKING BIBLE LMAO.
>>1139536
ok pagan memer.

>>1139395

You are aware novels are works of fiction, right?

No one reads a time travel novel and thinks "this is real".

File: jesus_satan.jpg (28KB, 285x320px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 285x320px

>>1136255

I'll explain: Satan lies and manipulates the bible, his sons agree that this is the actual true contents of the bible.

The proof? They are very sure and faithful of this doctrine, they don't lack any faith at all, but for some reason they are unable to do a single fucking miracle.

Because you know, the first thing a loving father (God) does to His sons the moment He sees them?

>Delicous pork is forbidden and evil!
>If your son behaves like a kid (that is, is disobedient to his parents) do make sure to murder him with stones!
>If you have a disability you may not approach me!
Three examples are good for OT, there's much more, everyone knows how shit goes in OT.

New Testament:

>Oh yeah, if somebody has a habit of slapping you in the face repeatedly keep forgiving him and turn the other cheek, you have to be forgiving him forever and keep being slapped!
>Truth is money and riches are to good for you, so you sell them and give them among everybody that's poor (wasn't the world filled with demons? Are you telling me to make demons richer at the same time I make myself poorer?)
>Love your enemies!
>I am not here to change the law but to accomplish it, but from now on, the law is going to be fucking different
>the devil totally took me to a very high mountain where everything could be seen because the earth is flat, guise
>don't defend yourselves in court!
>ask and it shall be given to you:
*When I was believing in jesus I asked and didn't receive
*When I decided to ask for things after choosing to ask God to send me His actual people to teach me His actual ways, the moment I started asking for things I started receiving them, example being an xbox one which is coming in the mail, I'm fucking broke and I got a surprise payment that I wasn't expecting which I could use to afford it with my favourite games at that.
>The devils confess that Jesus is the Son of God. According to 1 John 4:15, this is a big no-no when choosing a Christ.

>>1138251
Please go ahead and describe what "algebraic principles" you used to properly algebraically describe it.

>>1139480
That's exactly my point. Jesus can't be the same or equal to God (transitively) and simultaneously be not equal (as in the not the same, different in some essential way) in the same respect. It's a straight forward logical contradiction.

>>1139395
We can 'understand' 4 dimensional objects just fine in logical and deconstructional ways. We just can't physically visualize it (perhaps. Some people claim they can. It is an open debate I suppose since there doesn't seem to be any conclusive way to prove that we necessarily can't)

The point is, 4 dimensional objects aren't allowed to violate logic and can be understood and expressed through lower dimensions. Anything beyong the 2nd dimension can be understood in 2 dimensions, it just takes greater and greater amounts of information, but it's never fundamentally impossible. See: holographic theory for instance.

god is magic, it doesn't have to explain shit

>>1139605
>1 John 4:15
>James 2:19
What?

>>1139678
>We just can't physically visualize it (perhaps. Some people claim they can. It is an open debate I suppose since there doesn't seem to be any conclusive way to prove that we necessarily can't)
That's a really interesting and open question. Cognition in and of itself is simply information processing, the only difference between a three-dimensional brain and a four-dimensional one - topology aside - is that the four-dimensional one would have a higher processing throughput on the count of more dimensions to connect neurons on. I don't see any reason why a three-dimensional brain cannot perceive the same concepts and objects as a four-dimensional one except for the lack of processing power.

>>1139076
>>1139502
>>1139513
>>1139544
See >>1138172

>>1139888
It would be cancerous enough if it was at least on point, but it isn't.

Fuck the Holy Spirit

>>1136255
Fedora here, desert-people made up retarded things that are internally inconsistent, modern people are stuck with having to justify retarded broken ideas.

A=B=C
A=/=C

God works in mysterious ways and all that, so problem solved.

>>1139907
See >>1138172

>>1136396
It blows your mind because it's hot bullshit. Arian pointed it out as such and the early church was so anally devastated that instead of refuting his objections on theological grounds Emperor Constantine simply outlawed his teachings. Arian never lost they simply told him to STFU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

>>1140268
See >>1138191 >>1138199

>>1140530

Nice shitposting.

>>1140961
>I hate facts
Forget about it, yes, it's all just "hot bullshit". Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddo.

>>1140268
HERETIC

>>1141035

You seem to have a bit if a fuzzy idea of what a 'fact' entails.

Hint: it doesn't mean something in the bible.

>So the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us." And Moses interceded for the people. 8Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.…

Just shut the fuck up and believe! Now do you understand? We are talking about Aquaman, right?

>>1141226
What point do you think you're making by posting this biblical passage?

>>1139105
A metaphysical, transcendental form of Water is vapor, water and ice at the same time

>>1141388

It is just hilariously funny, anon.

I love Game of Thrones and the Lord of the Rings, that is why I like the Bible so much.

I like stories about talking animals and giants and magic wizards.

>When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick. 28And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" 29Then Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now."…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgdFSL2A02U

>>1141333
xd

>>1141444
>the creator of the Universe making animals talk thanks to His divine power is impossible xD
The day you will witness paranormal activity, you will either get a heart attack or start to believe.

Christians got it from Neoplatonism and Neoplatonism got it from the Chaldean Oracles.

>>1141427
>A metaphysical, transcendental form of Water
this is just a concept though. are you arguing God is nothing more than a concept?

>>1137726
3 persons that share the same being in eternity

>>1141589
According to this logic then every fruit is really just one fruit because they all share the being of fruitness.

File: lel.jpg (60KB, 388x532px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 388x532px

>>1141507
>The day you will witness paranormal activity,

hahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhah

You seem to be struggling to discern reality from fantasy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Jy2T0uQ9Y

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

Do you believe Mohammad flew to the Moon on a winged horse and that Harry Potter has an invisibility cloak? Or are those the wrong magic books?

>>1141602
No it's according to your logic - you just tried to force an response.

Fruits are not absolute, they are creation.
Fruits are not eternal, and had a begging and forces to shape them.

God shares His being in three Persons because He is perfect in eternity. Love was never absent in God - Love cannot be alone, love in God was shared in three Persons in eternity - there was never a time when there were not three Persons.
All equal but one eternal in the role of Father, another in the role of Son and the Third in the role of the Holy Spirit.

>>1141643
>Fruits are not eternal
Then the gods of every polytheistic pantheon are really just one because they are eternal and share godhood. They're just different persons.

>>1141659
I'm not an cultist so I don't care or know what you as a cultist believe.

God nature an teachings were revealed by Himself in the human form and in His Apostolic church trough the Holy Spirit.

The only answer I've heard to the problem that the word trinity is not in the bible is that other concepts that are taken for granted by christians are not in the bible either, like the rapture. however, I'm not a christian so I have no problem saying its all bullshit, nearly all interpretations of the bible are flawed and self-serving.

>>1141507
>>>/x/

>>1141619
You have to be 18 to post and browse this website.

>>1141688
See >>1138172

>>1136988
>le fedora meme

File: friend.jpg (32KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x342px

>>1141778

Kek.

How old are you and what part of Pakistan do you come from?

>>1136255
That's normal.

>>1136255
From what I understand about the Trinity, it was made up from the Ante-Nicene fathers because everyone was like "this is retarded" but once they blew the smoke out of their ass that all 3 are both separate and not-separate entities at the same time people were like "oh well that makes more sense."

At the risk of sounding like le cringe atist god = 4 plebs, it's not like Christians have historically done much in the way of rational thinking (see: Salem, the Crusades, Ted Cruz, Jehovah's Witnesses)

>>1141836
>le imaginary friend meme
God is God.

>>1141853
>From what I understand about the Trinity
i.e. not much. See >>1138172

>the Crusades
Holy.

>Jehovah's Witnesses
Apostates.

Any questions?

>>1141879

Calm down Mohammad Mohammad. What part of Pakistan did you say you were from again?

>>1141897
I'm Catholic.

>>1141879
I am God

File: DUDE I'M GOD LMAO.jpg (294KB, 1605x787px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1605x787px

>>1141905
We know where that leads, silly atheist.

>>1139310
Love is a selfless expression, at least by the Christian understanding. So for God to love himself, he needs three selves.

>>1141903

C'mon. Be serious.

You can't possibly believe that wafers turn into human flesh.

>>1141911
God is not an atheist, silly mortal

>>1141912
or two

>>1141938
The point of three is that one is love is from/of one, by/through another, and in among/in the last. The Trinity does all things as one, for instance, the world was created from the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

>>1141950
where exactly did you get that love requires three beings? shall we make all marraiges be for three people?

>>1136833
>>1137315
Ok serious question here.
I don't follow a monotheist religion but I like to think about theology.
What exactly helps you differentiate between what the church says on a political level (ie, what the vatican eventually reluctantly changes) and what you do believe is true?
I mean, the mystery anwser holds if we supposed the existence of a specific interpretation of god. But since all of it is uncerain (comes from humans), wouldn't a particular sect of monotheism that doesn't bother with this piece of dogma be more right?

>>1141881
Yeah I'd like to know why you conveniently left out the insanity of Salem & Cruz (others) - do you cherrypick often or is it only when you get butthurt about your shit religion?

File: jesus-walks-on-water-1888.jpg (188KB, 1200x1568px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1200x1568px

>>1141917
This "human flesh" is the Son of Man's.

File: IMAGINE NO RELIGION.jpg (124KB, 790x745px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 790x745px

>>1141996
>shit religion
It's responsible for the civilization and culture you're leeching off, kiddo.

>>1142018
It's also responsible for the oppression of women, scholars, scientists, and free-thinkers since the establishment of the Catholic Church -- Galileo ring a bell?

File: 17JUL-Georges-Lemaitre-FOTO.png (832KB, 1020x720px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1020x720px

>>1142035
>responsible for the oppression of women
Meme.
>scholars, scientists, and free-thinkers
Stale meme.

You know that big bang theory you love so much? Do you know who you should thank for it? Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZDj5nM0KbdUTEpoka1oyAR8BtHfIiVJm

>>1142018
>>It's responsible for the civilization and culture you're leeching off, kiddo.
Doesn't matter, we'd just have a different religion inspiring our culture instead and our civilization and culture owe as much to greece and rome as they do to any given jumped up mystery cult with delusions of grandeur.

File: Christian_world_map.png (43KB, 1420x616px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1420x616px

>>1142065
The Word became flesh.

What don't you understand?

>>1142063
Ah, shit. I've fallen for the bait, haven't I?

RIP

File: Galileo.png (409KB, 721x1566px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 721x1566px

>>1142035
>Galileo ring a bell?
Pic related.

File: 1000yearsdungeon.png (1MB, 736x602px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 736x602px

>>1136455
Christians often declare other Christians heretics so this doesn't invalidate what the first desu desu senpai said

>>1142067
>that map
Wow you mean to tell me that the people who inherited the wealth and power of rome and were being pushed into the sea by the ottoman empire wound up colonizing the world? That's...actually not surprising at all. You stupid fuck.

>>The Word became flesh.
Meaningless statement.

>>What don't you understand?
How one fucking poster can be this fucking autistic.

File: Franciscan_missionaries_in_California.jpg (149KB, 940x594px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 940x594px

>>1142083
>Meaningless statement.
For you.

>>1142072
Galileo was still unjustly imprisoned by a theocracy, you can't get around that. Nobody should be placed under house arrest for offending somebody.

>>1142086
Was trolling this thread part of your plan?

>>1141984
I didn't say love requires three beings, I say that three existences of God have to due the with the principle of how many can do all things together and as a circuit.

Marriage without children is pretty sorry. A marriage is the foundation of a family.

File: 1400960441727.jpg (97KB, 475x699px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 475x699px

>>1142096
I am not trolling.

>>1141950
That doesn't make sense and is an unnecessary prerequisite for what you're saying, which is self love. There is no reason for God to need to love itself through a mediator.

>>1142110
Humor is lost on someone as zealous as you.

File: 1461270880150.jpg (401KB, 889x1126px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 889x1126px

>>1142118
>

File: 1440944606331.jpg (176KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 500x500px

>>1142129
Frogposting isn't humorous in and of itself. Just posting a pepe doesn't make your post funny.

File: 1462477353978.jpg (55KB, 750x719px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x719px

>>1142137
I am not trying to be funny.

File: 1433240627315.png (78KB, 249x250px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 249x250px

>>1142147
I'm well aware of this, you are actually trying to take a gigantic christshit all over the thread because the cross signaled blared in your hovel when people started insulting your religion.

>>1142018
>It's responsible for the civilization and culture you're leeching off, kiddo.
That would be Hellenistic ingenuity coupled with Roman efficiency.

File: 1457743375896.gif (2MB, 251x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 251x240px

>>1142158
>How dare you defend the Son of Man!

>>1142174
>this is what atheists actually believe

>>1142177
Based Cat and Owl duo

>>1142191
shitpost elsewhere fampai

>>1142177
>>worships omnipotent deity
>>worships deity that needs to be protected from slander on the internet.
Pick one.

>>1142191
It's not the only thing our civilization was built on, but it is a major part of it.

>>1142212
>>1142177

Spielst du gern am Montag?

>>1142217
>Spielst du gern am Montag?
>Do you play like on Monday?
What

File: Hell.webm (683KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 720x404px

>>1142212
No but I surely won't stay quiet when an atheist tries to mock Him in my presence.

>Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
Galatians 6:7

File: 1443072164169.jpg (30KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x375px

>>1142248
I'm not mocking your imaginary friend, I'm mocking you, retard. And that webm is part of the reason why I happily do so.

>>1142115
>>1142109

>>1142248
*tips circular reasoning*

File: Trinity Spiel.png (110KB, 1638x318px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1638x318px

>>1136255

>>1142263
See >>1141879

>>1136255
The nature of God is incomprehensible to humans.

>>1142502
Oh look, another meaningless statement.

>>1142590
t. mindless spiritually empty atheist

>>1142109
>I didn't say love requires three beings
Yes you did
>God has to be able to love himself, and since love is selfless, he has to have to three existences to do that.
>he has to have to three existences to do that.
And you still haven't explained why he needs three. The Father loving the Son and vice verse as a mutual exchange fulfills it just fine.

>>1142273
this doesn't make any sense

>>1142273
>Jesus was born in Palestine
fucking dropped
Romans changed Judea to Palestine after Bar Kochba revolt, which happened AFTER Yeshua Ben Yosef was crucified.

>>1142602
t. stupid christard

>>1142273
>The Father can be thought of as God in the abstract
And yet he's literally the guy with a hotheaded personality in the Old Testament who makes all sorts of demands and commands.
I guess Christians don't know what "abstract" means lol.

>>1138191
The Bible never says that Jesus is 'fully God'. We know that 'the Father is greater than I am' -John 14:28

Jesus is always obedient to his father, does his father's will at the expense of his own. The son is never equal, he is always the servant of his father. The trinity is a pagan lie and corruption and deviation from true Christianity. Those who worship the Trinity instead of the true God are abandoning Christianity and turning to paganism

>>1138241
There was a legal issue. God cannot forgive without a legal basis once he has created a legal framework. He told humans they would die if they disobeyed, humanity needed to provide a perfect life to repay that which was lost. Then it gets complicated

>>1138310
This is what physicists actually believe. I believe that transcendent time always existed, but physical time obviously has to begin with the universe, whose existence (both physical and temporal) is finite. Therefore physical time began. Of course, there is always 5 minutes before the big bang. But to observe or record that 5 minutes, one has to be outside the universe or the singularity, or perhaps universal non-existence. Obviously

>>1142801
t. apostate

>“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
Matthew 1:23

>He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am He you will die in your sins.”
John 8:23-24

>Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20:28

Also:

>God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exodus 3:14

>Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
John 8:58

Jesus used the same phrase “I AM” in seven declarations about Himself. In all seven, He combines I AM with tremendous metaphors which express His saving relationship toward the world. All appear in the book of John. They are I AM the Bread of Life (John 6:35, 41, 48, 51); I AM the Light of the World (John 8:12); I AM the Door of the Sheep (John 10:7, 9); I AM the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14); I AM the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25); I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6); and I AM the True Vine (John 15:1, 5).

>>1138314
Those who believe what Christ believed and taught reject the Trinity

>>1142801
>>1142819
Jesus, in response to the Pharisees’ question “Who do you think you are?” said, “‘Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.’ ‘You are not yet fifty years old,’ the Jews said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’ ‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds” (John 8:56–59). The violent response of the Jews to Jesus’ “I AM” statement indicates they clearly understood what He was declaring—that He was the eternal God incarnate. Jesus was equating Himself with the "I AM" title God gave Himself in Exodus 3:14.

If Jesus had merely wanted to say He existed before Abraham’s time, He would have said, “Before Abraham, I was.” The Greek words translated “was,” in the case of Abraham, and “am,” in the case of Jesus, are quite different. The words chosen by the Spirit make it clear that Abraham was “brought into being,” but Jesus existed eternally (see John 1:1). There is no doubt that the Jews understood what He was saying because they took up stones to kill Him for making Himself equal with God (John 5:18). Such a statement, if not true, was blasphemy and the punishment prescribed by the Mosaic Law was death (Leviticus 24:11–14). But Jesus committed no blasphemy; He was and is God, the second Person of the Godhead, equal to the Father in every way.

>>1141879
ass is ass

>>1136567
bob joe and sally are a family. bob is not joe or sally but they are all a family
wow

File: Jehovah.png (118KB, 895x327px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 895x327px

>>1142801
In case you're actually a pseudo-Christian JW's apostate:

>O Jehovah, hear my prayer; Let my cry for help reach you.
Psalm 102:1

>I said: “O my God, Do not do away with me in the middle of my life, You whose years span all generations. Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; Just like a garment they will all wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will pass away. But you are the same, and your years will never end.
Psalm 102:24-27
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/psalms/102/

>Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Hebrews 1:1-3

>But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.”
Hebrews 1:8-12
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/hebrews/1/

Gee, I wonder why in Hebrews 1 they didn't render ''O Lord'' as ''O Jehovah'' like they always do...because this passage is about Jesus Christ!

>>1142801
>>1142858
Hebrews 1:8-12 and Psalm 102:25-27 are about the attributes of "Jehovah": His Eternity, His Immutability and His Creation of the Heavens and the Earth. Only "Jehovah" has those attributes and since they are explicitly applied to Jesus, in the JW's own Bible, it is undeniable that Jesus is "Jehovah", the Eternal God.

Father = "Jehovah"
Son = "Jehovah"
Holy Spirit = "Jehovah"

JW's own "Aid to Bible Understanding" book admits on pages 884-885 that the spelling of "Jehovah" originated with a Catholic monk named Raymundus Martini in the 13th century. On page, 887, they admit that there is absolutely no evidence that any of the New Testament writers ever used YHWH in their writings.

>>1142820
Christ didn't "believe" anything you idiot, he was a teacher not a disciple.

>>1142858
>>1142861
JW cucks on suicide watch

>>1142819
Why do you reject God's word in favour of your own pagan sophistries?

Isaiah 7:14-16New International Version (NIV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[c] will call him Immanuel.[d] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Immanuel is a common first name, meaning 'with us is God'. Surely you can agree that God can be with us without walking around on Earth?
Here Immanuel is spoken of as being born during Isaiah's lifetime. Did the messiah come in Isaiah's time? No, but God was with them then and someone was born (perhaps Mahershalalhashbaz) as a sign of this. Similarly, Jesus' birth was a sign that God was with humankind, not that he was God himself.

Jesus is properly described as 'a God', he is the only-begotten God (John 1:18 ) who has explained 'the' God.
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
-New American Standard Bible
The construction 'only begotten God' is the correct one from the most ancient manuscripts

And the whole business about 'I AM' is pretty laughable, as if every time someone said I am this or that they are saying that they are YHVH. Grammatically and logically, this is utterly absurd and anyone basing their theological worldview on this is pretty naive and their hermeneutics is primitive.

File: Christus-in-der-Wueste-Detail-von-Ivan-Nikolaevich-Kramskoy-20034.jpg (413KB, 900x1046px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 900x1046px

>>1142874
See >>1138191 >>1138199

>the whole business about 'I AM' is pretty laughable
See >>1142822 and stop shitposting you biblically illiterate apostate.

>YHVH
See >>1142858 >>1142861

>>1142822
Jesus used the imperfect tense here, He said, effectively, before Abraham was I existed or was existing. He wasn't using poor grammar.

Please consider this list of the use of the phrase, 'ego eimi'. It might surprise you

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/egoeimi.html

File: 1463030438778.jpg (69KB, 365x404px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 365x404px

>>1142896
>http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html

>>1136255
It is like water being three different states. They think it sounds clever as fuck, it doesn't because it is inherently retarded fundamentally, but the concept is one thing can transform into three equal but seperate things. Water, steam and ice is a decent analogy. Depends on the denomination though. I'll,get btfo because of my analogy

Watch

>>1142566
Then what would even be the point then? If he knew that, everything else seems like a series of poor decisions made out of that basic principle. "My people will never really understand me...let me continue to makenit difficult."

His book he "helped" written by a dozen different people, in different tenses, with conflicting stories and messages also doesn't help with the initial problem here

>>1142858
>>1142861
Jesus is the exact representation of Jehovah, just as a statue could be a very near replica of a person, and perfect humanity was created in the image of God. Therefore, some passages referring to Jehovah are at times applied to the Son, who carries out the divine will to the letter.

As Jesus said "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." John 6:38

How is it possible that the almighty does not his own will, but that of someone else? How could the true God say, as at Luke 22:42: "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

The only possible logical alternative is that Jesus, although great and the most powerful created being, is second in rank to his father.

As Colossians 1:15 states:
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
And Rev; 3:14, English Standard Translation:

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

I could omit mention of the countless times Jesus is spoken of as subservient in the scriptures, God's apostle (one sent forth), at God's (not the the Father's, but God's) right hand, but I have to mention a passage that no trinitarian has ever been able to explain away, and that is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28New International Version (NIV)

>>1139347
its oirish

>>1142937

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[a] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

So even in heaven, at the end of 1000 years messianic rule, Jesus is completely subject to his Father. Incidentally, if you were to depict a family relationship denoting equality, you would never use a father/son relationship. Surely brother/brother relationship?

>>1142937
See >>1138172 >>1138191 >>1138199

>>1142861
Lol. Hebrews 1:8,9 is referring to Psalm 45, which refers to a 'man, a king'. And yes some attributes of Jehovah can be properly attributed to Jesus. We know that Jesus made all things existing, but was not seperate himself from creation, as 'the firstborn of creation'. Everything was created through him and for him. The ultimate creator was God, who used Jesus as his 'master worker'. Jesus has now been granted immortality, therefore will never die.

>>1142867
One needs to believe something to teach something.
>>1142891
Do you know anything about Greek you foul mouthed pagan?

>>1142907
No, I just googled that page. But I can check some of the occurrences. The construction 'ego eimi' is a common one in the scriptures and has no apparent great significance.

>>1142915
But water steam and ice are not equal. It's like saying that graphite and diamond are equal. It's absurd.

>>1142988
>no apparent great significance

>>1142982
t. biblically illiterate apostate

File: KCKYQZh.jpg (69KB, 974x414px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 974x414px

>>1143000
trips confirm

>>1138172
Jesus was present in heaven, as were the 'sons of God' who broke out in applause at the creation of the Earth. At Proverbs 8:30, Jesus is prophetically referred to as personified wisdom:
"Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him"

God has a spirit, just as all humans are described as having a spirit. God's spirit is holy, because he is holy. It is never spoken of as having an independent will (unlike Jesus, whose will could sometimes conflict with God's will and had to be brought into subservience, as he said, "not my will, but yours"). God's spirit never acts independently, it is a thing controlled by God's will. Also known as the finger of God, God's hand, God's active force, God's breath, etc. Nowhere in the scriptures is a triune God even hinted at.
As the Israelites would regularly repeat:

(Deuteronomy 6:4,5, ASV)
4 Hear, O Israel: [a]Jehovah our God is one Jehovah: 5 and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Christianity, like Judaism, is not a form of polytheism. God is one, and his son is one, and they are separate entities.

>>1143000
Oh your that foul mouthed ignorant

Colossians 3:8

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

Ephesians 4:29
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

>>1142949
And, I agree that Jesus was human. Fully human. No human can be fully divine. It would be like saying a creature could be fully frog and fully angel. Or to use the water analogy, something could be fully ice and fully gas. This is fundamentally impossible.

File: 2.png (147KB, 597x243px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 597x243px

>>1143039
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:8-9

>He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9

Now buzz off you biblically illiterate self-righteous apostate.

>>1142994
It is absurd, that analogy was the only onenI could think of to maybe explain to a newfag what a trinity meant. Water and steam and ice are ALL water but different states water can be IN. They dont have power levels, so saying they are equal or not was only relevent to the analogy of the trinity. The analogy really wasn't absurd: trinity is three different states, water has three different states. Chill anon, the trinity is still retarded no matter how I try to explain it

>>1136466
You are literally the dumbest poster in all of /his/. Fucking idiot.

>>1142018
Doesn't mean it's true m8

>>1136489
>>1130619

>>1142915
This, it makes sense like the elements in pokemon or avatar the last airbender or new age ramblimgs make sense

>So, like, God is, like, three elements... it's like water dude and heres some other clever wordplay and that explains why god is real!

>>1142858
>>1142861
Watchtower cucks BTFO

>>1143089
May you escape that judgement by repenting from your evident falsehoods and foul speech. 'By their fruits ye shall know them'

>>1142861
Therefore, Jesus IS David, and whoever in the 8th century BCE. was Immanuel

Jeremiah 30:9
But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up to them.

Ezekiel 34:23,24
And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.

Ezekiel 37:24,25
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Hosea 3:5
Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days.

Where these scriptures are talking about David, they are referring to Jesus. Peter explicitly applies scriptural reference to David as applying to Christ at Acts 2:25-36.

So by your 'logic', Jesus also IS David the person. Also I note you fail to respond to my other points, obviously the totality of biblical evidence refute a trinity utterly and you will not even attempt to provide a rebuttal since such is futile.

>>1143184
Judgement from what? Which delusion happens to be YOUR favorite, anon?

>>1143292
To me, the scriptures are not delusion, and I try to obey them. As I have clearly pointed out in this thread, the scriptures overwhelmingly point to Jesus as being second to his father in power. As Jesus said at John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I am".
As you mentioned,
>He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

You should consider repenting

>>1143301
Unless you aren't that anon I was interlocuting with earlier. In that case, I would say that if you come to know the true God, Jehovah, you will be free from the filth of the world, and have prospects of 'life long lasting'.

>>1143301
I'm not that other anon, but surely you can see how easy is is to criticize something that says (internally) that what it says is correct. Scriptures aren't going to say "nah bro, we wrong" because they'd be the worst salsemen in history. The only thing that says ANYTHING in the Bible is true...happens to only be the Bible. Which isn't really that amazing, anon. Literally every religion does that. That doesn't make it externally or objectively correct or even real. Sorry, that's reality.

>>1143325
I'm good though, thanks. My life is fine without the pretending. I get along fine knowing I'm gonna die. I'm not a religion cuck

>>1136255
The Father: Mind (as in brain, creator, etc.)
The Son: Body (Jesus is literally God made man. He is called the 'son' beacuse in order to be a man, he must be born first)
The Holy Spirit: Soul, Spirit of God. his will, his fate.
Now F≠S≠H, beacuse they represent different parts of God. Yet, being He's representatives in different forms, they are all God aswell.
It's a matter of substance. Not that difficult.

>>1143327
The Bible has a lot going for it. First of all, the universally applicable ethical principles. Many of which are just taken for granted, but prior to the mass distribution of the Bible ethical principles were very different.

Also, prophecy. The Bible foretold many things centuries in advance and they all came true. For example, when the Bible canon closed, Babylon and Nineveh were still in existence, but centuries before Isaiah and Jeremiah had prophesied their utter destruction, which took place more than a millenium later. Also, the exact date of Jesus' baptism seems to have been foretold in Daniel. It is a little complicated, but in Daniel 9:24-27 it speaks of a period of 70 weeks. This began I believe in 455 BCE. After a period of 69 weeks, the Messiah was to come (Jesus being baptized in 29 CE). At the end of 1/2 week (3 1/2 years, 1/2 a week of years) Jesus was to die (33 CE). At the end of the week, the covenant with the Jews was to end (in 36, 70 weeks of years exactly after 455, Cornelius was baptized). A bit complex, but nevertheless a remarkable prophecy.
Also, Matthew 24 and Luke 21 point to the present day, with its global warfare, pestilence and disasters. Also Revelation 11:18 implies that man would be 'ruining the Earth'.

Archaeology and secular history also back up large portions of the Bible. For example, we know that
1. Jericho was destroyed violently in the 15th century BCE (when I believe the invasion of Canaan took place)
2. It seems that there is some evidence for Davidic/Solomonic building on the Zion area. Some coins have been found bearing David's name
3. Shishak/Sheshonq did invade the levant
4. Secular references have been found for other kings like Omri, Jehu, Jeroboam II and Hezekiah
5. The Jews really were delivered from the Assyrians under Sennacherib. The Jews survived rebelling against the Assyrians and no other contemporary rebellious nation did in the Syro-Levantine region.

>>1143372
contd
Why did tiny Jerusalem survive when Damascus and Memphis were brutally captured? Also why did the Jews survive at all? Their very existence is something of a miracle.
6. Belshazzar and Pontius Pilate truly existed, a fact disputed for centuries
7. The Christians were already large enough a community in Rome by 66, a mere 33 years after Jesus death, to be noticed unfavourably. Jesus unquestionably was a real historical figure, as was Paul.

Also, the Bible can change lives, for the better. This has happened on many thousands of occasions.

>>1143339
Obviously it's up to you but at least examine all possibilities with an open mind. At least I encourage you to do so if you haven't already :)

>>1143372
>implying only the Bible has ethics

That is such a tired and illogical argument

>>1143372
Also, the Bible never fortold jack shit. People just edited it over time to match their own predictions.

How do most of you not understand that?

>>1143385
Believing in a faith without evidence is not being open minded

>>1143394
I didn't say that at all
>>1143406
False. We have copies of portions of the Bible that predate the destruction of Babylon and Nineveh. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Bible was remarkably constant in its textual integrity over time.

>>1143410
I've given you some basis for evidence but you close your eyes to it.

>>1143372
Anon, modern historians don't consider the Bible to be a very historically accurate text. Given the fact that there weren't even actual Jews in Egypt, completely made up locations, their dates are wrong, and they conflict with actual historic texts from other cultures.

>>1143418
Because that isn't evidence...?

>>1143417
No anon, just...no. It is not consistent just because you want it to be, it was been changed, modified, edited and whole parts even omitted dozens of times... You aren't being honest with yourself bro. It predicts its own predictions


If this was bait, I fell for it.

>>1143348
kek this guy got it right and nobody cared

If the Word became flesh, what was the Word before it became flesh? What purpose did it serve?

>>1143423
That part of Egyptian history isn't well attested or even well understood. But we do have the hyksos period. We know there were hapiru in Egypt (which refutes your statement, really) and the hyksos period overlaps with the period of egyptian slavery. We know very little of the geography of Egypt of that period. You don't really know what you are talking about.

Modern historians, whatever they are, generally believe the current academic consensus. The current academic consensus scoffs against the Bible and religion. There is no real reason to prefer Manetho or the Assyrian king lists to biblical history. But in any case, sometimes these can be made to correspond with the Bible. The dates aren't wrong. For example, there are 2 alternative dates for the death of Thuthmose II (who did not leave a mummy and whose death provoked a succession crisis partially due to the fact that his firstborn predeceased him, just like the Exodus Pharaoh).

And the other points stand, whether you know enough to be able to try to refute them.

>>1143487
Words have no purpose unless they are flesh?

>>1143487
The Word before it became flesh was the Word, you answered your own question. Simply, the purpose it served was to tell us this, and also how it would come about.

>>1143541
Why would the Word need to exist before it interacts with the physical realm then? Why wouldn't the Father just beget the Son at the exact appropriate time instead of having it always exist?

>>1143534
There is a mummy purporting to be that of Thuthmose II, but there was no actual tomb assigned to that particular Pharaoh, so this remains suspicious, although it is quite likely that this corpse was of a member of the royal family.

>>1143566
The Word is God. It is God's Word. That is why. Jesus came even before creation. Everything God does happens at the right time.

>>1143566
The word went forth during the creation of the universe. Also the word existed as a spirit being. Do Whitehouse spokesmen not exist corporeally unless they are actually presenting government policy? I guess they could be picked out of a cupboard or something.
Jesus in his heavenly form was God's chief spokesman

>>1143581
That doesn't explain why at all.
>>1143584
>The word went forth during the creation of the universe. Also the word existed as a spirit being.
So then what's the purpose of the Holy Spirit? Just having Creator and Communicator would make more sense.