The Trinity

where have you been consty? :3

>>1575750
>what is the Dormition Fast

HOL UP
So lemme get this straight
So you be sayin
So Y O U be saying dat Jesus
Dat Jesus was born out of anal sex?

>>1575771
I'm saying you're a sacrilegious heathen

>>1575771
imagining that jizz ooze out of her asshole and into her still pure vagina really makes me want to get down on my knees and praise God

Honestly outside of Protestant people who cite it constantly the Holy Spirit seems kind of forgotten or ignored by most Christians. Like it's the bassist.

File: it_floats.jpg (110KB, 845x468px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 845x468px

>>1575773
>>1575771
When do we get to burn him?

OT though thanks for the explanation. Although I was raised Catholic I never was particularly religious and didn't take the entire thing seriously, but I learned something new today.

>>1575705
>not stem

>>1575786
i was just thinking that the other day. how often do you hear people use his title as an expletive? we don't even know his name!

the trinity is a bunch of gobbledygook made up by greeks who were obsessed with philosophizing everything to death, especially because they got stuck in a trap where they had to somehow make jesus both the son of god and god himself so that it would be ok to worship him.

it's no wonder so many people just gave up and let the muslims take over, so they didnt have to deal with the constant internecine bickering and schisms over this nonsense

>>1575841
blasphemy

>Abrahamic religiom
>shit

Pick two

>>1575849
>>1575846

>>1575787
Happy to help

>>1575828
The title isn't used as an expletive because blaspheming the Holy Spirit was called the unpardonable sin

>>1575841
"Son of God" here is supposed to parallel "Son of Man" in Hebrew (which is a phrase meaning you are a mere mortal, not God).

>>1575705
How are the three aspects of the trinity different than three incarnations of the Hindu supreme being?

It is straight up horrifying how many "Christians" have absolutely no clue about the Trinity or basic Christology.

>wait... what do you mean Jesus is God?

Damn 12th grade religion classes where you pant a fucking picture of some spiritual bullshit.

File: 1467145864155.jpg (149KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 736x736px

>>1575868
The Trinity are three distinct *existences* that exist at the same time. God only had one incarnation, the Word made flesh, but this was not a existence of the Trinity, it was on existence being made flesh (in-carnal, in flesh, carnate).

>>1575871
That's why in Orthodox Liturgy, we go through a ton of material in the yearly cycle. All Orthodox teaching can be found in the Liturgy, all dogma. The Liturgy's twofold purpose is to worship, and to teach.

This is what the basic worship service is, but different little parts change with each week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwYEyBNXKs

>>1575885
> the Word made flesh, but this was not a existence of the Trinity
I didn't know you were a Nestorian, Constantine.

>>1575892
I meant the incarnation is not a new hypostasis, it was an already continuing hypostasis made flesh. The Word is incarnate, the incarnation is not a new hypostasis

>>1575705
In what sense are you using the terms "existence" and "essence"?

>>1575927
Hypostasis
Ousia

>>1575939
On second thought the sense of those is kind of indicated in the example you gave.

>>1575961
See the first of the "full definition" on each of these
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substance

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsistence

>>1575705
Itt: trying to make sense of an incoherent fairy tale

Nice mental masturbation anon, but god isnt real to begin with

Lol

>>1575972
1) God by Essence is the Noumenal Cause
2) All that is is from the firstfold cause
3) The Noumenal Cause is the firstfold cause
4) Therefore God is the Firstfold Cause
5) Therefore God Is

>>1575976
>wrong axioms
>wrong conclusions

Lol

Is that all you got zeus?

>>1575972
*tips fedora*

The trinity was the part of Christianity which always seemed like BS to me, especially because of how emphasized in the Old Testament God's oneness and indivisibility is. Add to the fact that the early Christians didn't have a belief in it either and it just seems like some philosophy wank that was tacked on later

>>1576033
Read Genesis 18

Also, what do you mean early Christians didn't believe it, are you saying they were Arians, or what?

I am going to marry Constantine!

Are Orthodox more faith based, or do they try to make theological reasoning to prove God a la Aquinas?

My girlfriend is still angry with me

What should I do?

The HS is often refered to as the spirit of God. But if God Himself IS a spirit, how come does he HAVE a spirit?! Is he a spirit with a spirit? Is he one thing and his spirit another? If God as his spirit are two distinct persons, how come we and our spirit are not two distinct persons?

now THIS is some fucking bullshit

Arius and Origens were right, the trinity is nothing more than pagan appropriation and manipulation

Also I've heard a lecture where an orthodox priest tried to explain the Son the following war. The Son is the Logos, or the thought-word-wisdom of the Father. If the Father is eternal God, then his thoughts must be eternal and divine also. Therefore the Son is eternal and divine. But this absolutely does not follow! We and our thoughts are not two separate persons! And if we grant that in case of God, they are because they are eternal, then why stop short of his thoughts/wisdom? Why wouldn't, say, his will, his love, his righteousness, etc., constitute different persons also? Are they not eternal and divine as well?

>>1576397
Why is your girlfriend angry, Anon?

>>1575705
what about the comparison to water? water exists in three forms: liquid,gas and solid,but it is the same substance..

>>1576655
It's complicated

Let's just say she caught me nearly committing adultery

She sometimes lock me in my room too since then

>>1576683
There's already a big word for that: modalism or sabellianism, and it's considered a heresy.

http://www.justindeeter.com/archives/1753

http://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html

https://carm.org/modalism

http://www.theopedia.com/modalism

>>1575705
>In Roman Catholicism, God's essence is the bedrock, the principle of the Trinity; in Orthodoxy, the Father is the principle
I'd love to hear a metaphysical argument in favor of either position, refuting the other.

Hard mode: actual, logical arguments; no appeal to authority, name-calling, anathematizing...

File: 333.jpg (38KB, 835x428px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 835x428px

>>1575771

>>1575885
how do you appeal to people who find that liturgy incredibly boring and dull?

>>1576629
it's just a phrase

>>1576956
Not it's not " just a phrase". People will often use passages such as
>Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
To argue that the Holy Spirit was mentioned in the OT. But John says that
>God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
And before any of you answer, half-assed and to buy time, that he's not talking about the Father but the Holy Spirit here, here's the context of the verse:
>Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
>God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
>Father
>is spirit
>not the Holy Spirit
So the Father is a spirit and he has a Spirit, and the two are different persons. How does that make any sense?

File: image.png (231KB, 388x392px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 388x392px

>mfw some Catholicfag seriously tries to argue for Filioque

Another question. And before any Christians here accuse me again of using "mere phrases", so as to buy time and distract from the issue, and to excuse them from having to answer, I will cite one of their theologians, Gregory Nazianzen, called "the Theologian".

>But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity—a thing which is impossible to the created nature—so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.

So it is possible, he says,
>for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality
You don't say? HOWEVER
>one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity
Oh so that solves it then. I mean, REALLY? Has that argument ever convinced at any one at any time or place? "Oh so it might seem absurd to you that a plurality could ever be a unity, but not if they an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity (whatever that means). Check-mate Arians, non trinitarian!

Is the Trinity of one mind though? But the Bible says:
>"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
>"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
So much for unity of mind.

What else he says?
>so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.
Oh so they are numerically disctinct! NUMERICALLY! He said it! Not me! But it's not poly/tritheism, right guys?!

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xv.html

>>1577274 (Me)
I mean it's hard to imagine how the trinitarian party could have prevailed by anything but the sword... And it's no wonder why to this day, every generation they have to try hard to explain the dogma of the trinity all over again, and it just never seems to sink in! Because it's 100% horse crap!

>Orthodox Christian posts under the trip "Constantine"
>Constantine was a baptised Arian Christian

Oh and I'm still waiting for this >>1576794
Let's grant for argument's sake that everything is true, the trinity, revelation, all of it. How do you logically argue that "the Father is the bedrock of the entire Trinity" instead of "God's essence is the bedrock, the principle of the Trinity". How do prove that, even granted the axioms of revelation, your theology is not just words, and definitions of words, and words fighting against other words, referring to nothing else but words and never describing anything in reality?

>>1575705
Why does the trinity read like fanfiction? It's circular logic that. Just have a single god.

>>1575705

Where did you get that analogy from?

>>1576949
because a lot of people find it incredibly beautiful

File: TNT-3520.jpg (453KB, 916x1146px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 916x1146px

>mfw Latin Neanderthals think they're qualified to discuss theology with Greek master-race
Might as well be talking to a Protestant desu

>>1577453
like half those squares apply to eastern Orthodox as well

>>1576629
>>1576647
>>1576794
>>1577169
>>1577274
>>1577284
>>1577345
I'm waiting...

>>1577462
Waiting for what?

File: 1470457376202.jpg (51KB, 394x379px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 394x379px

>Catholic service is incredibly aesthetic
>Orthodox service is incredibly aesthetic
>Proddy service is shit
>mfw I can't decide between Catholikeks and Orthocucks

>>1577465
For trinitarians to answer these questions, isn't it the point of the thread?

At least, with regards the trinity, protestants go for whatever the bible says, while catholics and orthodox try to explain it using outdated ancient Greek philosophical concepts, creating even more questions, fall on their face embarassing themselves and when someone points them out to them they say: "Oh, it's a mystery"... Then don't bother trying to explain you morons!

>>1576377
The Orthodox are about reaching direct, mystical experience of God.

>>1576629
"Spirit" is also "breath" and "wind" in both Greek and Hebrew, so the imagery is more human, just like God's Word as something that exists prior to God saying anything to anyone.

In a less figurative sense, "Spirit" also means any invisible force. So the Holy Spirit here refers to God's force on earth.

>>1576647
God doesn't technically have thoughts anymore than he has words, those are just titles for your mind to use as a crutch.

The Latins believed the Holy Spirit is properly God's Love. But for the Orthodox, these are just poetic terms. God is actually completely unknowable in essence, and all adjectives like "righteous" are applied to his energies, and only to describe the human experience of them. We can say what God is not, but properly speaking, we cannot say what he is.

>>1576794
We're Orthodox, our argument is that our position is Patristic and taught by Christ in Holy Tradition. We don't have any dogma that wasn't personally taught by Christ. We don't use logical to approach dogma, we do just appeal to authority, and I'm afraid I can't offer you anymore.

>>1576949
I tell them the Liturgy is not about exciting them, it is about humbling yourself before God in worship.

It means that though the existences are distinct, they have one action, "mind" and "element" among them. They don't have distinct minds or actions, they just have one between the three of them.

>>1577292
>Constantine was baptized by a former Arian who was previosuly exiled by Constantine for being an Arian, but who then recanted and so was allowed back
>therefore Constantine was baptized Arian

>>1577473
Orthodox don't have Low Mass

>>1577476
Hell if I know anything about the 3=1=3=1 (but the three aren't equal to each other) game.

Just wait till Constantine gets back. He doesn't post under his trip anymore because he embarrassed himself too much, but you'll know it's him when you start getting a lot of aggressive replies based almost entirely on anecdotes and circular arguments.

>>1577483
Triadological terminology has pretty much zero to do with Greek pagan philosophy, it was purely synthesized by the Church Fathers. There is no pagan philosophy who makes a well-defined distinction between ousia and hypostasis.

>>1577484
So basically muh metaphors and you don't have a single logical argument to offer? Get it. Protip: don't try to argue that your religion is reasonable when you haven't got a single rational argument to give in favor of it.

>>1577504
No one is saying our theology is about reason. Catholics do that, we don't, ours is about direct experience of the divine, beholding the face of God. Dogmatically, the main Orthodox concern is ensuring Christ's teachings are not distorted, not in finding logical proofs for them.

>>1577499
Who is saying anything about "Pagan" philosophy? Ousia, hypostasis, are terms borrowed from philosophy regardless if Christians gave it a new twist or not. The problem is that once you started using them you create more problems than you had when you started, embarassing yourselves.

File: orthocucks.png (2MB, 1212x1564px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1212x1564px

>>1577453
The cycle of each denomination hating on the next is offputting for on the fence atheists.

The Easterners initiated the schism but still say the Catholics are ones who broke away? why?

>>1577484
>I tell them the Liturgy is not about exciting them, it is about humbling yourself before God in worship.
right, and i understand the point of it, but i don't see how orthodoxy is ever going to spread out of its historic ethnic enclaves if people find it boring

>>1577499
>There is no pagan philosophy who makes a well-defined distinction between ousia and hypostasis.
And this is incorrect by the way. What is Neoplatonism? You can't just make stuff up as you go, aren't Christians supposed to not tell lies? Or are you just ignorant? In this case, end your statement with the phrase "that I know of (being the ignorant little cunt that I am)".

>>1577509
You claim that your theology is not about reason (no shit). I hardly believe any church father or Christian, Western or Eastern, before the modern era would claim that their faith is UNreasonable. But I understand how a modern Christian, cornered and embarassed would retreat to such petty and shameful state as to say "Oh our theology was NEVER about reason guize...". But regardless, OP is still trying to force outdated concepts from ancient philosophy such as ousia or essence. What is an essence? Where can we find this in nature? Can you isolate it? Do humans and animals have essences? Then you deny evolution. Do chemical substances have essences? But this is all so childish and absurd that I would blush if I had to explain it to you. You might as well believe all things are composed of fire, air, water and earth! But this is the level of the discussion OP is trying to sink us into!

Shoo, shoo! Go away fucktardians! Back to the cave with you! Go play with words on another board! You are unreasonable by your own admission. You have nothing to say. Shoo!

>>1577518
They're words from the Greek language, They aren't Greek philosophy terms, because terms means having precise definitions, and Greek philosophy does not give those terms precise definitions in contrast to each other.

>>1577523
The only contemporary source for the Massacre of the Latins is William of Tyre. Contemporary Venetian and Genoese sources only mention great damages and an expulsion of merchants and moneylenders. Crusaders were always cancer except for a few good guys like the Templars who of course lost favor with the Latins; Teutons thankfully got rekt at the Battle of the Ice.

We've had several Patriarchs martyred for going against the Turk, including one for baptizing a Muslim. Even our fairly weak EP of today constantly objects to the Turk and speaking against him

Peter's oppression of the Church was greatly resented by here, the synod was scrapped right after the Russian Revolution

There are no KGB in the Russian Orthodox Hierarchy. The only evidence for that was one guy who claimed to see "secrete documents", about the current Patriarch how many people claimed to see such documents at the Vatican?

The USSR tried to replace the Orthodox Church with the "Living Church". But the clergy and laity didn't buy it, and most of the clergy was imprisoned. Fast forward to WWII, Stalin needs the Church, releases the clergy from prison and gives them back their parishes, those who defected have to do penance of apostates. But the Patriarch signs an agreement saying the Orthodox Church is loyal to Stalin and the Bolsheviks, most of the Russian bishops break Communion with him, but Stalin leaves them alone because he needs the Church; Communion is established with the election of a new Patriarch

File: 1468340031897.png (123KB, 420x349px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 420x349px

>>1577573
The Orthodox have been kicked and occupied by Muslims for hundreds of years, and we're still defiant.

The Catholic Church, meanwhile, spent all that time torturing people and being so autistic about the Latin language that they refused Script

But this how they are toward Muslims, pic related

Here is from Vatican II

>The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

-Nostra aetate

>But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
-Lumen gentium

>>1577575
Scripture* being translated into a language people can understand while it's being read, even if they can't read it themselves

>>1577530
The Antiochian Church is spreading fairly well. We're not interested in pandering to modernism to spread faster than that. "Many are called, few are chosen." If you come to Christ's Church, that's because of the Holy Spirit. Drawing in people who wouldn't be interested without Christian rock is not productive

>>1577573
Lying is your last resort... Who would have figured? A religion that is based on lies. Guess what Christiard """"philosophers"""" don't give precise definitions of any of that either. You yourself can't even give ONE example of an essence found in nature let alone an explanation.

>>1577573
Guess what dumb shit? They ARE concepts of Greek philosophy. Saying they won't magically alter history! Too bad you don't have state power to alter history and shut the oppositon up for you now do you?

>>1577499
>>1577509
>>1577573

Is anyone reading this sad spectacle of a Christian apology? They will bold-facedly lie about well established facts and they want us to take their word for blurry, controversial historical facts, let alone metaphysical things? "Totally trust us that this trinity thing is real! After we just bold-facedly asserted that we don't have a single footing on logic and reality and we dowright make stuff up!"

>>1577597
Which Greek philosopher establishes hypostasis's definition in contradistinction to ousia? Or, don't even both, just tell me one who uses it that way.

>>1575771

I see this whole "Jesus was born from anal sex" almost every Christian thread these days.

What the hell?

>>1577620
Notice, anons, before anything, how this little weasel operates. At first he says that ousia and hypostasis are
>They aren't Greek philosophy terms
He is told that he is either lying or ignorant. He must have searched Google. then he retreats, and now he asks
>Which Greek philosopher establishes hypostasis's definition in contradistinction to ousia?
So, he unironically thinks that if no Greek philosophers had a precise definition of hypostasis and ousia (notice Christians don't have precise definitions of either), then they must have NOT been Greek philosophical terms. He, having bought time, must think that he is fooling anyone. He is however like a child caught with cookie crumbs all over him saying that he didn't eat any cookie, thinking that he is fooling all the adults. How to argue with a child? Should I show that his premise is false? Or should I start with his premise and show even then he is wrong? Stay tuned!

>>1577635
Some autistic Lutheran who is camping this board spamming his "ministry" about everyone going to hell and how evolution is Satan.

>>1577460
and

>>1577692
i don't think lutherans tend to be creationists. my father's side of the family is all lutherans and they're all socially liberal

Christianity is Tritheism, no matter how much they attempt to disguise it with semantics and convoluted explanations.

>>1577586
>The Antiochian Church is spreading fairly wel

No it isn't. The Antiochian Church is so small that when it gains a few converts, it just happens to be proportionally big. In reality, it's doing the same as always: it's not spreading at all, and it is actually dwindling.

>>1577635
I dunno about you but I don't mind anal sex from Constantine....uhh...no homo guys, she's a girl.

>TFW my gf still hates me and won't even talk to me

I am scared man

The last thing she said was goodbye
;~;

>>1577744
>no homo guys, she's a girl
define girl

>>1577723
There are basically two kinds of Lutherans. The liberals, and the YEC. ELCA, for instance, is liberal, whereas the Church of Missouri Synod is YEC

>>1577732
Not really, since the three persons of the Trinity have a single will and action, not three wills and actions.

Go away Constantine.

>Each person of the Trinity is a distinct existence of one essence, sort of like how if you went back in time and met yourself, there would be two existences of you at the same time, but they'd both be you.

No, there'd be two separate people who share my appearance and memories.

>>1577742
>As a result of its evangelism and missionary work, the Antiochian Archdiocese saw significant growth between the mid-1960s and 2012. The archdiocese had only 65 parishes across the United States in the mid-1960s and by 2011 this number had increased to 249 parishes.[5]

>>1577750
>Not really, since the three persons of the Trinity have a single will and action, not three wills and actions.

Like I said: still Tritheism, no matter how many fancy semantics or convoluted and arbitrary explanations you try to hide it with.

>>1577750
>Not really, since the three persons of the Trinity have a single will and action, not three wills and actions.

Then they're not three persons.

>>1577678
Cont.

Why not both?

Starting from his dishonest and false premise: that ousia and hypostasis are not Greek philosophical terms because no Greek philosopher ever clearly defined them.

But at least one Greek philosopher did. Aristotle
>Aristotle used hypostasis in reference to a material substratum underlying change in the unqualified sense of generation and corruption, and otherwise in reference to ousia or substance in a secondary sense for genera and species understood as hylomorphic forms.
We see that for Aristotle, hypostasis = primary substance = individual; ousia = secondary substance = universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

>>1577773
Cont.

Now let's go to Neoplatonism.
>. “Hypostasis” is an abstract noun derived from a verb meaning “to place oneself under or beneath”, with the connotation of “standing one’s ground”. The word “hypostasis” therefore denotes a distinct substantial being or realm of reality of a certain kind
On the later's influence on Christianity
>Origen was the first Christian to speak of three hypostases in the Trinity and to use the term homoousios (though only by analogy) of the relation between the second of these hypostases and the first.
>Evidence for the increasing Neoplatonization of Christianity is abundant: The brilliant Christian theologian Origen, some twenty years older than Plotinus, may also have been a pupil of Ammonius Saccas; the Cappadocian Fathers Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus spent their youth in philosophical study in Athens in the 4th century, where they most certainly were exposed to Neoplatonism, while Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was intimately familiar with the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry
>he cut-throat debates about transubstantiation (in the Eucharist), the hypostases of the Trinity, or the divine/human nature of Christ, could not even be followed without a thorough training in current Greek philosophical discourse.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/origen/

>>1577759
Then you reject ontological continuity? That is, every time you change your position in spacetime (since they are actually one continuum), your ontological reality terminates?

>>1577749
i am NOT gay

B-But I had been a naughty boy ;__;

>>1577769
"Person" is just a translation of the Greek term "prosopon".

>>1575868
because One is real , and the other is a lie.

>>1577790
Ok. I don't care for irrelevant bits of trivia, you goddamn weasely little pedant. The key point here is that unless they have three distinct wills, they're not three persons, and if they have three distinct wills, they're not one god but three.

>>1577809
what if god just has three heads? it is called the Godhead after all

>>1577782
I reject the notion that there is a continuous self.

But more than that, the fact that these two entities possess separate wills and diverging mental experiences means that they are not the same person.

>>1577678
>>1577773
>>1577779
Now, out opponent started saying that ousia and hypostasis are not Greek philosophical concepts, that Christians invented it (a statement that in itself would make even an entry level student want to puke by the sheer falsity and boldness)! This because they didn't have a precise definition or distinction of the two. It has been shown that they did. And just by showing that these words had been around since at least Aristotle (and actually since at least Plato), it has been proven that they are indeed Greek philosophical concepts. What will he say next? What embarassing lies and intellectual gaffes will follow? Stay tuned!

>>1577818
Still three persons, the same way a set of conjoined twins is two people.

>>1577823
that's just what people say to make them feel better

So Christian apologists here are downright admiting that their theology in unreasonable >>1577509
Why are we arguing with these people again? Why are we not just pointing out fingers and laughing, like we should? Why aren't we letting them rot in their caves and catacombs, banished from public and political life, and relegated to irrelevance, as we ought to?

>>1577779
>>. “Hypostasis” is an abstract noun derived from a verb meaning “to place oneself under or beneath”, with the connotation of “standing one’s ground”. The word “hypostasis” therefore denotes a distinct substantial being or realm of reality of a certain kind
This has to do with the definition of the word, from its very etymology. If you want to charge the Church Fathers with writing in Greek, you'd be writing.

There was no debate about transubstantiation in the East. As for Saint Augustine, he didn't influence our theology at all, he wasn't even read in the East until long over a thousand years after he wrote. In fact, a lot of the things we disagree with Catholics on stem from Saint Augustine.

You are correct, though, in that Neoplatonism was a huge thing in the Orthodox Church, in fact a crisis. If you'd care to read it, I recommend Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, since the latter part of the book deals with the struggle against Platoboos among the Orthodox, and how Neoplatonist theology was ultimately rooted out thanks to the efforts of Emperor Justinian, Maximos the Confessor, and John of Damascus.

>>1575972
you won't say that when u r standing before Him.

>>1577850
*you'd be right

>>1577820
>I reject the notion that there is a continuous self.
Do you reject the notion of continuous reality in general, or just the continuous reality of the self?

>>1577850
No I had enough of chasing you around like a weasel, always changing position, going back and forth. It gets boring after a while.

>>1577822
>Now, out opponent started saying that ousia and hypostasis are not Greek philosophical concepts,
You're right, I concede that they are. I don't however see them as equating to the Christian existence-essence distinction.

>>1577845
>Why are we arguing with these people again?

Because if we don't, their opinions go unchallenged and may draw people in that don't think too hard about the seemingly reasonable statements of their theology.

>>1577877
I don't care about ancient, outdated philosophical concepts, Christian or Greek. Have a nice day.

File: image.jpg (176KB, 990x1200px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 990x1200px

>>1577850
There is evidence that Maximus the Confessor has knowledge of and read Augustine's works

At least according to the Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor

I am not really a fan of Catholicism but I have a nagging feeling that Augustine might just be misrepresented in Orthodox plolemics against the West

>>1577861
This is going well beyond the scope of this discussion, but I actually reject the notion of time in its entirety, which I suppose would be a rejection of continuous reality. What we call time is actually just a means to measure the change we observe around us (which is itself could quite possibly be an illusion, as the only things that can truly be said to exist are fundamental particles, everything else is designated as something or another by our minds; there is no universal existence to anything above the fundamental). As to our notion of a continuous self, there would first have to be a final self, but as we're in a constant state of becoming there will never be a finalized "us" and thus can never have been said to be a true self. There's an approximation, which is good enough for any purposes, but this approximation is not the same approximation that existed in the past due to this continuous process of change.

>>1577850
While pure neoplatonism might have been routed out, you will find very few scholars who think that it does not impact current Christian dogma, and even the bible

>>1577274
Just reminding that this post went unanswered.

>>1577895
Could he even read Latin? Because hardly any of Augustine was translated into Greek in his time.

>>1577902
So you reject space as well, since they are one continuum?

>>1577917
In what way?

Also, please explain how it impacts the Bible (and through more than just saying the Hebrew phrase "Word of God" is in the Greek language in the Bible).

>>1578023
>So you reject space as well, since they are one continuum?

Not sure about space, but it doesn't require time.

>>1578023
>So you reject space as well, since they are one continuum?

Also, while we're at it you bloody weasel, stop leading people that disagree with you on a wild goose chase. The central point is that they're not the same people because they possess separate wills, you goddamn dipshit.

You already admitted that you don't base your faith in reason, so any argument you make is basically just a sideshow to your central aim of getting people to abandon their reason to buy into your memetic construct.

Start fucking tripping again so we can ignore you.

>>1578030
Space and time are not separate continua, they are a single continuum known as spacetime.

>>1578038
"Person" is a translation of the Greek "prosopon", it should be understood in that sense rather than the casual sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon

Answer this >>1577274 Constantshill!!!

>>1578050
>Space and time are not separate continua, they are a single continuum known as spacetime.

No. Space and time are entirely separate because the latter is just a means to measure change that happens to the former.

>"Person" is a translation of the Greek "prosopon", it should be understood in that sense rather than the casual sense.

FUCK
OFF
WITH
TRIVIA
YOU
WORTHLESS
PEDANT

If they don't have separate wills, they are not separate entities, and the trinity is meaningless. If they do have separate wills, they are separate entities, and thus there are three gods.

This board would be a better place without you, you fucking autistic piece of shit. Discuss things like a normal human being.

>>1577473
Byzantine Catholics have the same service as Orthodox; Western Rite Orthodox use a version of either the Latin or Anglo-Catholic Mass. So it comes down to the Papacy and the last however many ecumenical councils since the Schism (the answer is yes to both).

>>1577523
The East-West split isn't even that big a deal, all things considered. Comes down to the Papal supremacy and culture. The real spilt is when you get to Calvin, Zwingli, and other low-church prots.

>>1577575
Aquinas heavily cited the work of Avicenna and Maimonides. Muslims and Jews shouldn't be given an easy pass, but its not like there can't be value in another Abrahamic faith. Alot of Vatican II was public relations

>>1577590
If you took a university philosophy course you wrote in a paper than essentialism was false because no one could find empirical evidence of essences, you'd fail, even if the professor was an atheist.

>>1578069
>No. Space and time are entirely separate because the latter is just a means to measure change that happens to the former.
That's quite wrong. Spacetime is a single continuum with four dimensions (that we know of). Space and time are only distinct in the way vertical and horizontal are.

They don't have separate wills. One will, with three existences.

>>1578104
No, Western theology is very different. No essence-energies distinction, for example. Vatican II is another huge thing.

>>1578136
Aquinas was very bright, but his theology is terrible. Says that the cross should be paid latria, and that the persons of the Trinity are just relations.

>>1578144
>philosomemers will get mad at you if you walk into their turf and say that their irrelevant and meaningless memes are irrelevant and meaningless and no wonder no one takes them seriously
Oh no shit Einstein! What will you teach us next, that water is wet?

>>1578160
>>1578055

>>1578148
>>1578055

>>1578148
>That's quite wrong. Spacetime is a single continuum with four dimensions (that we know of). Space and time are only distinct in the way vertical and horizontal are.

Again, no. Time is just a measurement of change.

>They don't have separate wills. One will, with three existences.

If they don't have separate wills, they don't have separate existences.

>>1578167
Christ had a human mind, he took one on with the incarnation. To say he didn't, is the heresy known as Apollinarianism, rejected by both the Eastern Orthodox and the Copts. Christ is human in all things save sin.

>>1578164
Not that guy, but why did you come to a thread about philosophy without the desire to discuss philosophy?

>>1578173
>Again, no. Time is just a measurement of change.
No, time is something which itself can change and twist, and does so in conjunction with space. That's what the theory of relativity is about.

They have distinct existences, but not separate existences.

>>1578175
So they don't have one mind and Gregory "the Great Theologian"'s argument is bs?

>>1578173
>Time is just a measurement of change.
A change of what?
Isn't that a tautologous definition?

>>1578176
This is not a thread about "philosophy". This is thread about a forced meme called the trinity.

>>1578186
There is one divine "mind". The Word, one existence of that "mind" took on a human mind with the incarnation, because he took on all human things. Christ's human mind is not synonymous with the divine "mind" shared by the Word, prior to incarnation.

Another question. And before any Christians here accuse me again of using "mere phrases", so as to buy time and distract from the issue, and to excuse them from having to answer, I will cite one of their theologians, Gregory Nazianzen, called "the Theologian".

>But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity—a thing which is impossible to the created nature—so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.

So it is possible, he says,
>for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality
You don't say? HOWEVER
>one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity
Oh so that solves it then. I mean, REALLY? Has that argument ever convinced at any one at any time or place? "Oh so it might seem absurd to you that a plurality could ever be a unity, but not if they an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity (whatever that means). Check-mate Arians, non trinitarian!

Is the Trinity of one mind though? But the Bible says:
>"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
>"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
So much for unity of mind.

What else he says?
>so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.
Oh so they are numerically disctinct! NUMERICALLY! He said it! Not me! But it's not poly/tritheism, right guys?!

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xv.html

>>1578198
Is Jesus Christ not fully man and fully human? Is Jesus Christ not part of the trinity?

>>1578207
fully man and fully god*

>>1578207
He is. But for him to be fully human, he had to take on a human mind in addition to the divine "mind" of the word (and "mind" in these senses is totally different, God does not have a "mind" in a human sense anymore than the wind does, it's just a way of talking about him).

>>1578218
>>1575892

File: 1468803775924.gif (3MB, 264x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 264x240px

>>1578228
>if you aren't an Apollinarian, you're a Nestorian
wew lad

>>1578218
>he had to take on a human mind in addition to the divine "mind" of the word
You realize that the unity and simplicity of God is done with after this?

>>1578248
The Word is not simple, he's composite. Not because God's nature is, but rather because the Word is also fully man.

>>1578160
Vatican II was a pastoral council that tried to minimize the damage from the collapse of Western religion (even in the 50s it was clear it was going to happen) by meeting people halfway. It largely failed and once the VII generation dies off it will have much less importance.

I'd be interested to here what Eastern Catholics have to say on the essence-energies distinction

>>1578256
There are three persons in the trinity. Why is this not a plurality, Gregory? Because they have unity of mind. But
>he had to take on a human mind in addition to the divine "mind" of the word
There is now a human mind and a divine "mind" (whatever way you want to define it) in the trinity. There's no longer unity of mind. The trinity is a plurality.

>>1578256
Do the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost have three minds in perfect sync, or do they have a single hivemind common to all three persons? Or does God's essence have a mind of its own and each of the three persons have their own minds?

>>1578274
It's Ecumenical afaik.

It's not a question of whether or not Uniates acknowledge the doctrine, for us, it is dogma. We're not Anglicans were doctrines are optional. Not union with the RCC is possible unless they agree Actus Purus is wrong.

>>1578275
You are imposing "univoicty of being" on "mind", which absolutely cannot be done here. God's "mind" is nothing like human mind, it's not remotely comparable, it is in fact more different from human mind than a jar of peanuts is. It's only called "mind" for convenience sake; for 99.999% of how you use the term "mind", it is 100% not a mind.

>>1578292
One mind. Not three in sync, but one mind among them.

God's mind is just a way of saying his essence.

>>1577484
Eusebius of Nicomedia was never, under any circumstance a trinitarian, you tool. He was exiled precisely for his defense of Arianism, and allowed back 3 years later when he convinced Constantine that Arianism didn't conflict with the Nicene creed, which he signed "in hand, but not in heart". He never "recanted for his Arianism" and remained a hardline subordinationist until he died, working to expand Arian influence politically, and exiling Trinitarians.

This idiocy is precisely why you had to ditch your trip

>>1578310
I'm not imposing anything. I'm trying to follow Gregory Nazianzen's train of thought. God is one and not three because they are a unity. A human nature gets grafted on to it, having a human mind that doesn't know what the divine mind is thinking, let alone human organs, limbs, hair, nails, etc., in a Godhead that is supposed to be entirely immaterial, and yet we are to believe that anything resembling a simple unity remains after this?

>>1578320
Thanks.

>>1578184
>No, time is something which itself can change and twist, and does so in conjunction with space. That's what the theory of relativity is about.

What changes and twists is the rate of change. Time is just a measurement of that. If the movement of particles has been affected, than time will appear to have been likewise affected.

>They have distinct existences, but not separate existences.

They have nothing of the sort, because they have one will. One will means no meaningful distinction between them.

>>1578190
>A change of what?

The position of particles.

>>1578343
Simple unity within divine nature, but a composite unity in the Word's hypostasis. Christ is 100% consubstantial with God, but also 100% consubstanial with man. Christ's person is the reconciliation of God and man.

>>1578200

Pretty solid.

To put it differently. Does the Son have a different nature or essence than the other two? No. Is there an essence of the Son and and essence of the other two? No. So how can the Son take up human nature to itelf (and become composite as you said) and the other two fail to take human nature to themselves as well? How can the Son become a composite being without the Trinity becoming composite? If the Son is "part" of the Trinity (and yet not a part, since the Trinity is a unity), how can that "part" of the Trinity become composite and the whole of the Trinity not become composite because of it? It is paradoxical.

>>1578353
>What changes and twists is the rate of change
Space changes and twists

>They have nothing of the sort, because they have one will. One will means no meaningful distinction between them.
God the Father did not come down in Human flesh, neither did the Holy Spirit, neither were either of them Crucified. There is a distinction

>>1578389
The Son has two essences, two natures.

>>1578396
That would work, I guess.

But how about this?

The Trinity is one simple, immaterial God. Jesus Christ has a body. Jesus Christ is part of the Trinity. Therefore the Trinity is not simple and not immaterial.

>>1578416
When you refer to the Trinity, you generally can only refer to their united property. Hence the controversy over the Trisagion in the past, where "crucified for us" was being added to the lyrics, and some people didn't approve of that because they said it is being directed to the Trinity, not to Christ in particular. The consensus now is you can have "crucified for us" if it is being directed toward Christ, but not if it is being directed toward the Trinity, but that it can be directed toward either, and must be sung appropriately depending.

I see you're still arguing over this. I wrote this post >>1578200 thanks for the (Yous)

The simpler explanation is that the Christian Trinity doesn't make sense because it is a concoction by fanatical half-wits like this Gregory character that didn't realize the consequences of their words and it had to be forced down everyone's (including other Christian sects) throats throught the sword anyway, otherwise it would have never taken root and behold, it is just as absurd today as it was yesterday, the difference being that xtardians don't hold political power to persecute everyone.

>>1578504
So what are you saying is more in line with Christianity? Sabellianism?

>>1578443
>Gregory character that didn't realize the consequences of their words and it had to be forced down everyone's (including other Christian sects) throats throught the sword anyway,
I don't think Arianism was ever persecuted by the sword.

>>1578550
>So what are you saying is more in line with the ridiculous sand religion? The losing party in a quarrel over some meaningless non-issue or the victorious one?
I think both opinion should be burried in a catacomb.

>>1578554
You think wrong.

>>1578614
Can you show some examples of Arians being persecuted by the sword?

Also, can you explain how Arianism makes more sense when the New Testament says Jesus created the world and how Thomas calls him, "My Lord and my God"?

>>1578625
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians#Arianism
I'm not a Christian, I don't care what the bible says. Arianism makes more sense simply because some is better than none, and the trinitarian position makes no sense.

>>1578392
>God the Father did not come down in Human flesh, neither did the Holy Spirit, neither were either of them Crucified. There is a distinction

If they have one will, then it absolutely was both god the father and god the holy spirit that did those things. Just as it is you that gets burnt when your hand gets burnt.

>>1578644
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians#Arianism
So, speculation?

>Arianism makes more sense
Not in the context of the New Testament it doesn't, since the NT equates Christ and God.

>>1578651
See how the trinity is a never-ending source of contradictions? The easier explanation is that it is just wrong.

>>1577744
Constantine isn't a girl though.

>>1578658
>Not in the context of the New Testament it doesn't, since the NT equates Christ and God.
Yes, from a literally point of view I would say that the "orthodox" position agrees more with the text. But as soon as they try to explain it they fall flat on their faces to the point that one Christian would-be apologist here admited that it is irrational.

>>1578651
My hand isn't a distinct hypostasis. A more apt analogy would be if there were two "me's" with one will, and one of those "me's" was burnt.

>>1578682
Like an avatar?

>>1578678
We don't try to explain it, it's a divine mystery. The only purpose of the terminology is ensure people don't come in and teach what disagrees with the text.

>>1578689
Not really, because neither me is more or less me than the other me is.

>>1578682
If there are two "yous" with one will, there is only one you with two bodies.

>>1578693
When I read a text, say Homer's Illiad, and he speaks about things that obviously don't exist I generally dismiss them as fantastic though, instead of insisting that other people don't come along and teach what disagrees with the text. I'm glad we had secularism.

>>1578693
>We don't try to explain it, it's a divine mystery.

Yet here you are, trying to explain it. The problems with discussing anything with you Constantine is multiple. You have an absurd standard for what your opponents must bring forth to disprove a statement of yours. You refuse to discuss things like a normal human being, act as though terminology actually matters in regards to the meaning of the discussion. You have no actual regard for reason, so the exercise is pointless, as you are actually unwilling to budge from your position, and just engage in discussion as window dressing for advertising that your position does indeed exist.

It's a pointless task, and one only worth undertaking to ensure others aren't sucked into this delusion.

>>1578702
Except these existences would be concrete and distinct metaphysically, not just physically.

>>1578715
That's probably because you read Homer as a work of human literature, not one of instruction from God.

>>1578716
I'm providing analogies. Explaining the mechanics is impossible.

>>1578721
No, they wouldn't, they're just components of a singular existence. There is nothing distinct about them, because they're just parts of a single being.

To be a distinct individual, you would have to have a distinct will. To use an example from pop-culture, individual borg bodies are not considered distinct entities until they are separated from the collective because they're all just facets of a singular will.

>>1578733
>I'm providing analogies. Explaining the mechanics is impossible.

Why do you never address criticism of you? Are you just a narcissist? Is that it? Are you so in love with yourself that you automatically dismiss anything negative said about you?

>>1578733
>That's probably because you read Homer as a work of human literature, not one of instruction from God.
Yes, like the bible.

>>1578755
And the Quran. Inb4 t. Muhammed.

>>1578733
>That's probably because you read Homer as a work of human literature, not one of instruction from God.

But the bible is a work of human literature. There's absolutely no sane reason to think otherwise, as you can see clear historical influences taking from Semitic polytheism, Zoroastrianism, and Greek Philosophy.

Next episode, watch Constantine get triggered and deny basically every credible scholar because muh "divine revelation."

>>1578779


Don't forget "completely making up new translations of passages because he can't into the actual languages used in writing it"

>>1578733
Are you a girl? Do you have a bf? How old are you?
>tfw when no qt Christian gf

>>1578795
I'm not interested in finding a bf over 4chan.Sorry

>>1578807
:(

>it's another Constantine gets blown the fuck out episode

Feels good man.

>>1577852
Of course i wont because that will never happend faggit

Kek, nice fanfiction tho

>>1578023
He spent a lot of time in the Latin west and helped draft the Acta for the Pope for the Lateran Synod. This Acta will contain references to Augustine which Maximus would present to Bishop Theodosius of Caesarea Bithynia in a debate with him regarding the wills of Christ.

There's also notice of similarities between Augustine and Maximus too

200th for christcucks licking very dirty rapefugee feet.

>>1579887
>There's also notice of similarities between Augustine and Maximus too
Well they're both Church Fathers, so there's going to be, but I don't think there's anything to suggest Maximos was influenced by Augustine

There's two things christcucks like, and a third they adore. Refugee feet, refugee toes, and refugee nails.

File: 1470526627285.jpg (11KB, 229x221px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 229x221px

>>1580089
>Refugee feet, refugee toes, and refugee nails.
The rapey trinity. Are they the same essence or same substance?

>>1580063
That is plausible

But you cannot deny that he doesn't cite or acknowledge his authority as a church father

>>1580150
No Church Father does

>>1580280
What do you mean ?__?

>>1580291
I mean you're a heathen, so get lost.

>>1580556
W-Why are you so mean to me all of a sudden ;~;

>>1580631
Because of your vile words in this thread
>>1580185

>>1580636

I only want you to stop believing in blasphemous things about the Theotokos :3

>>1580639
I think you are a sacrilegious heathen and your posts fill my heart with disgust. My entire insides are not sufficient to express the volume of vomit you provoke me to.

>>1580657
Maybe you just need a hug Constie :3

Huggie~<3

>>1580662
You've given yourself over to Satan.

These are the last words that will pass between us.

>>1580673
Constie

Why did you believe such sacrilagious things?

Why did you remain stubborn?

The Theotokos is pure :3

>>1576629
It probably made sense originally, and then translations and the passage of time fucked it up.

File: image.jpg (26KB, 202x250px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 202x250px

>>1580682
I have observed this for some months now.
I feel that there are some people who truly wrestle with their faith. They have a genuine desire to harmonize their secular and spiritual beliefs.
An inquiring mind, trying to rationalize the Scriptural account of Jesus' conception with science is confronted by challenges.

1. The first road I will travel. Was Mary merely a vessel? Did the human being, Jesus, have any of Mary's DNA? OR was the Embryo Jesus simply inserted into Mary's womb via whatever mystical method God prescribed?
2. Then what if one of Mary's eggs was used?
2.a. Was the egg inseminated? This would give Jesus Mary's DNA.
2.a.(1). Was the egg inseminated with "Holy Sperm" OR some other God like equivalent of the male contribution to a "normal" pregnancy?
2.a.(2). Was the egg (YES I'm going to say it) inseminated with human sperm in a manner in which Mary's hymen remained intact?
2.b. Was the egg inserted with "God DNA" and therefore making Jesus a type of clone?

That covers it. It's late. I'm tired. But those appear to be our choices IF we wish to rationalize the Scriptural account in some manner.
>inb4 don't come back Chapter and verse and discount 2.a.(2) out of hand. I am merely pointing out the ways in which Mary could be a Virgin

So. There are other alternatives.
2.c. Jesus was really Joseph's kid.
2.d. Jesus was somebody else's kid (maybe even Pantera's)
None of you are interested in that kind of talk. So given the alternatives, the discussion from last month, while not popular, was quite appropriate for this venue and well within the bounds of trying to rationalize faith.

Oh yeah
3. Alien test tube baby

Have a blessed day.

>"The Tibetan lama listened respectfully to the Jesuit priest [Father Huc] and replied, 'Your religion is the same as ours.'"
>pic Father Huc