Daily reminder that the Filioque is wrong: the Father alone is

>>1680087
the Latin creed requires filioque for perfection. The Greek creed is without filioque.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7nqw2hWwTo

File: 1460600470041.jpg (67KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x534px

>yfw Christians spent the first centuries of the AD era arguing and killing each other over the details of their autistic magic system

>>1680961
>fuck theology lol xD
You have to be 18+ to post here.

>>1680087
>the Father alone is the foundation of the entire Trinity. The Father alone supplies the will of the Trinity, and the Father alone supplies the existence of the Trinity.

This is not why the filioque is incorrect. It is incorrect becuase scripture tells us that

>the son is begotten from the father
>the spirit was sent by the father.

Nothing about will-this or foundation-that. It's simply that the spirit proceeds from the father, and the son is begotten from him.

Elevating the father beyond this and saying that he is some sort of "source" or is above them as the rubric for their triune will is tantamount to subordinationism, which is heresy.

>>1681554
What this nigger says. Stop being a dum-dum OP.

>>1680087
Wasnt that more an issue of the Latin Language and trying to prevent an Arian misunterdanding than theology?

>>1680087
Daily reminder Arianism is the logical conclusion of your statement

>>1681554
The filioque is correct

File: Christians are the SJWS of late antiquity.png (102KB, 609x497px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 609x497px

God-damn it, I wish Christcucks could take a moment to reflect and realize just how ridiculous their discussions over Filioque and hypostases issues are: they are the equivalent of Redditors arguing over who would win in a battle between Superman and Batrman

>>1681554
The Father is absolutely the source of the Son's and the Spirit's existence. That is what "begotten" and "proceeds from" means. They are eternally furnished by him.

>>1682798
No, this is a Latinist meme.

1. The Filioque was added by accident, not Arianism. It was added by Latin copyists who assumed its lack was some copying error, since Latin theologians used it so much in their works.

2. An alteration to the Creed, by itself, is not heresy, it's just uncanonical. Very serious, but *not* heretical. It is only heretical because the alteration is heretical, and the alteration is only heretical because the Latin account of what it means is heretical.

>>1682806
Not unless you equate "eternally begotten" with "created", and leave out the fact that the Father and Son both have one will and action (both furnished by the Father) in all things, including the creation of the universe.

>>1680961
>sir, it appears your conception of the fairy man in the sky differs slightly from mine, let us now engage in devastating wars to see who can prove their point
Abrahamic autism, not even once.

>>1682937
There was never a war fought over the Filioque, bruh.

>>1682908
That's retarded, any idiot knows Superman would win.

>>1680950
But it's not just about the Filioque, it is about the Latin explanation of what the Filioque means, which is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as one principle. This is the issue, the Filioque by itself is just semantics.

>>1682937
tips fedora

>>1680961
>>1682962