So is there some sort of smart theory behind it, or is it just

>>1986654
The religious like things that don't make sense. The more idiotic it is, the more "true" they are as believers for believing it.

>/rel/fag butthurt in 3,...2,...

not even a Christian, but the concept of distinct subsets within a superset shouldn't be terribly difficult to understand

>>1986654
3 hypostatis in an undivided ousia(essence)

>>1986671
so you are saying that son, father and holy spirit are all gods?

>>1986674
can you explain it in a way i can understand?

>>1986671
but that is not what that pic shows.
To keep with your metaphore. The dogma states:
>Set 1 = subset a
>Set 1 = subset b
>Set 1 = subset c
>subset a =/= subset b =/= subset c

Which is /rel/peak for bull shit

this is your brain on Aristotle

>>1986654
why have i never had a problem with this.

File: 1460750908826.jpg (285KB, 889x1126px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 889x1126px

Believe it or not, but that's the most logical explanation for the incomprehensible mess of dogmas Christians believed in by 325 CE.
I mean, how else would you make all these claims compatible:
1. There is only one God.
2. God The Father (God of Abraham) is God.
3. Jesus is God.
4. Jesus isn't God The Father.
5. Jesus was fully human.
6. Jesus wasn't created but coeternal with God The Father, he was fully God.
7. Jesus actually suffered and died.
8. God can't suffer or die.
9. Mary was a human.
10. Mary gave birth to God. (see Theotokos)
11. God The Father and Jesus have separate wills.
12. There is one one God's will.
13. There is this thing called Holly Ghost, that's basically all we know about it.
etc.

>>1986701
But why is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost the unforgivable sin if we don't even know what it's supposed to be?
That's some shady shit right there

>It's not SUPPOSED to make sense! That's what makes it TRANSCENDENT lol!

Christians are awful. Yes they explicitly and deliberately make it contradictory. The point is to shut down rational objections from the beginning.

>>1986654
>a=d; b=d; c=d
>but a=/=b=/=c

yeah, bullshit

I am a human
I am a vegetarian
A vegetarian is not (necessarily) a human

God is the father
God is the son
The father is not (actually) the son

>>1986654
First you need to understand the distinction between essence and hypostasis. The former is what a thing is and the latter is who a thing is, e.g. you and I share a human essence but are two different hypostases.

So it is what with the Godhead. All three persons of the Trinity share the divine essence but are their own distinct person.

>>1986671
That's heresy anon, but it's true that the pic kinda suggests that interpretation

>>1986763
so god, father and holy spirit are different gods?

>>1986761

The "is" extending from God to Son, Father, and Ghost expresses attribution rather than identity. Son, Father and Ghost are aspects or attributes of God rather than God Himself.

>>1986671
>>1986768
Yeah, the idea that God is composed of the Three Persons (i.e. Father = 1/3rd, Son = 1/3rd, Spirit = 1/3rd) is a heresy dating back to the earliest centuries of the Church. So is the idea that Father/Son/Spirit is God in different forms like ice/water/vapour or sun/light/heat.

The Father is wholly God; the Son is wholly God; the Spirit is wholly God.

>>1986654

It's "a mystery", which is godfag speak for "2 deep 4u".

>>1986777
so what's "God" then?

>>1986774
>aspects or attributes of God
Nope, heresy.

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

>>1986777

See, three things can't all be the same thing. This is called "impossible by definition". If you want to claim your god is "impossible by definition" then you're free to do so, but don't pretend it's some great subtle truth when it's literally just "claiming something impossible".

>>1986786
Why would God obey your definitions, filthy epicurean

>>1986791
...and we're back to 2deep4you

>>1986783
Beats me. The Church has largely preferred apophatic theology (saying what God is not) to cataphatic theology (saying what God is)

Though I'd recommend St. John of Damascus' Exposition if you genuinely want to hear it from someone who actually knows what he's talking about rather than an anonymous Senegalese knitting forum.

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

>>1986786
>>1986798
Whatever you say.

The Church and its Saints have repeatedly affirmed the incomprehensibility of God for millennia but if it doesn't make sense to you, then fuck I guess it's game over.

>>1986807
>The Church and its Saints have repeatedly affirmed the incomprehensibility of God for millennia

That must be why they also claim to be his representatives. Because they totally don't understand anything he wants

>>1986807
the tradition doesn't make it anymore logical. besides if the church truly wanted to be consistent in the idea that God is just simply incomprehensible they shouldn't have even set down the doctrine of the trinity in the first place, since it is an attempt (quite poorly) to explain the nature of God.

>>1986786
Korn flakes are not fruit loops are not coca puffs but they are all cereal

>>1986791
>>1986807
Ah, the famous "It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit" argument.

>>1986821
that's heresy according to the church. the trinity is that they are simultaneously all the same bowl of cereal

>>1986819
Don't confuse being the representative of God with pretending to know him intimately. Besides, this is another important facet of theology: the distinction between essence and energies.

It is categorically impossible to know God in his essence, which is what you're asking us to do. We can only know him by his energies, which is an entirely different matter.

What God wants is clear because he tells/told us. What God is in his most intimate nature has only ever been speculation.

>>1986834
>the distinction between essence and energies

And how exactly is this distinction established? Also, what are your definitions of either 'essence' or 'energies'?

>We can only know him by his energies, which is an entirely different matter.

And why is that?

>What God wants is clear because he tells/told us.

But just stated a post ago that this is incomprehensible. Now it suddenly is?

Your post doesn't make any sense at all. It's a bunch of meaningless buzzwords you don't define in advance, which are supposed to 'explain' equally meaningless categories that are also not defined consistently, something that you later vehemently deny is explainable in the first place.

In other words, you're spouting utter gibberish

>>1986829
No, that sort of cop out generally assumes that there is some higher level of knowledge that can be accessed.l someway somehow.

What we're saying is that there are some things about God that are unknowable by virtue of the fact that only God knows them about himself. And will remain beyond us in both this life and the next.

I don't know why you guys have latched onto the idea that each Person of the Trinity is wholly God as being impossible and illogical when that's relatively tame in comparison to the other assertions made about him.

>It is necessary, therefore, that one who wishes to speak or to hear of God should understand clearly that alike in the doctrine of Deity and in that of the Incarnation(1), neither are all things unutterable nor all utterable; neither all unknowable nor all knowable(2). But the knowable belongs to one order, and the utterable to another; just as it is one thing to speak and another thing to know. Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity

>In the case of God, however, it is impossible to explain what He is in His essence, and it befits us the rather to hold discourse about His absolute separation from all things(5). For He does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence(6), but that He is above all existing things, nay even above existence itself. For if all forms of knowledge have to do with what exists, assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly be also above essence(7): and, conversely, that which is above essence(7) will also be above knowledge.

>>1986701
>Jesus was fully human.
People died over statements like that.

>>1986844
>No, that sort of cop out generally assumes that there is some higher level of knowledge that can be accessed.l someway somehow.

>>1986834
>What God wants is clear because he tells/told us.

Again, you're talking utter shit. Why don't just admit that your beliefs are riddled with contradictions, instead of pretending that they're not, when everyone can see that you're completely full of shit?

>>1986850
Is it really that difficult to distinguIsh between what God wants and what God is in your mind?

>>1986867

Yes, because you can't know anything without using your mind, making the former of those two completely unreachable

>>1986707
blasphemy against the holy spirit is calling the truth a lie

when someone denies the resurrection they are blaspheming against the holy spirit

>>1986784

So God is the substantial form of the trinitarian persons, yet the persons are not identical because they have additional attributes besides Godness. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Defeats the purpose of formal ontology, the substantial form is meant to describe the "what is it"of a name. If God is the substantial form of the persons of the Trinity then it must be so that the persons are identical.

Its like they mistake the name "me in position A" or "me in position B" for "me". The name "me in position A" is not "me in position B" but it is not "me" either, strictly speaking because there accidental form of being in position A is made essential to the name of "me in position A". Sloppy.

>>1986876
Bullshit.

Even if God tried to make known to us the more intimate aspects of his nature, who's to say our mind can comprehend it anyway? Just like I could tell you the distance between galaxies as a number but our mind probably does not truly understand such vast spaces.

The closest we ever get is in Exodus, when He tells Moses: 'I AM'. That's perhaps the biggest clue we ever get: God is the only one who truly exists, whereas everything else subsists.

>>1986889
Christianity has to be the OG cosmic horror story

>>1986889
>Even if God tried to make known to us the more intimate aspects of his nature, who's to say our mind can comprehend it anyway?

>>1986834
>What God wants is clear because he tells/told us.

>>1986761
more like:
>a ⊂X
>b ⊂X
>c ⊂X
but
>a isn't necessarily = b, and b isn't necessarily c, and c isn't necessarily a.

or, in numerics:
A = {1,2}
B = {3,4}
C = {5,6}
X = {1,2,3,4,5,6}

A ⊂X, B ⊂X, and C ⊂X but it's very clear that A != B, B != C (and therefore any other combination of those subsets isn't equal)
it's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

>>1986654
THE TRINITY IS A LIE

>>1986682
Its a false doctrine. There is no son or father or spirit. There is only 1 god

>>1986807

If God is incomprehensible, then we can't know anything about it. Either Christcucks can claim to now what god wants, OR they can claim god is incomprehensible. Simply claiming both and saying "it's a Mystery :^)" won't cut it.

>>1986821

That's polytheism, not at all the Christian position wrt God.

File: 393.png (239KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 350x350px

>>1986896
> or, in numerics:
So, neither God The Father, Jesus nor Holly Ghost are fully God? Like, God The Father lacks something to be fully God? That's heresy.
Also, if God = Jesus ∪ Father ∪ Holly Ghost, then God is a complex structure made of simple parts and you can't say he's one, since he's just a name for 3 separate parts coming together. That's not monotheism, that's Power Rangers.

>>1986888
>Its like they mistake the name "me in position A" or "me in position B" for "me". The name "me in position A" is not "me in position B"

Yes it is. No matter where you go or what you do, you are you.

>>1986936

Yes and no. I am not "me in position A" unles I am located in position A. You can say that "me" is more primary than "me in position A" but the names are not identical.

>>1986957

God is omnipresent. For God, it IS true that the He in position A is the He in position B.

>>1986896
Did you even read the thread? This logic has been condemned as heresy. What you say makes sense, but is not the Christian conception of the Trinity and is thus irrelevant for this thread.

>>1986965

That's not the point. Position is just one of many accidental forms than may be attributed to "me". The specific and actual material composition of my body at any given time is also a formal quality, as is the material which makes the ship of Theseus. I am not identified by that specific material, but I can talk about and name a specific version of myself that was composed of a certain material.

In b4 I am criticised for conflating form and matter. Matter or material in Aristotle is a thing with a potential to have form. Any specific material is a thing because it already possesses form. There are no instances of pure unformed matter, tho I can talk about things as matter. So I can refer to the material of my body at a specific point in time as a formal characteristic.

>>1986654
It's a "we want to pretend we're monotheistic so we can make fun of all those pagans for being polytheistic" meme.

Religion will naturally become polytheistic when left to its own devices, monotheism has to be forced from the top down.

>>1986744

This, desu. I like Christians, but this seems almost Dalrymplean to me.

It is like when you can time travel and you, past you and future you in the same room.

I want Arians to leave.

>>1987473

Mystery solved.

>>1986904
So Jesus was praying to himself?

>>1987643
jesus is but a man with his own personality. he is part god part man.

>>1987822
Heresy. He was both fully human, and both fully divine at the same time.

>>1988103
we all know that makes no sense dude

>>1988103
God is who he is.

>>1986671
Water, ice, and water vapor is all H2O
1 God

The moment you reflect upon yourself you are de facto two persona because the object of your observation are you yourself. Somehow that neoplatonic theory goes even further to rationally describe that there's a third persona in this act but I forgot how. It's rather far fetched to believe that God wouldn't be able to self reflection.

>>1986654
Three distinct persons, each one is "made" up of the same immaterial, eternal "stuff" i.e. they each possess the Almighty Godhead. Three persons are in unity of substance and this substance is divinity.

>>1988292
>The moment you reflect upon yourself you are de facto two persona
>describe that there's a third persona in this act but I forgot how
What the fuck is this cretinous shit? In no fucking way does introspection imply multiple personalities, to say nothing of the complete ignorance of our understanding of consciousness statements like these exhibit. This is the reason """"philosophers"""" should be gassed.

>>1986671
The existences of the trinity aren't subsets of it, my friend.

>>1986886
Source?

Not the quote of Jesus saying that blasphemy against the HS is a sin, the source of your explanation of what blasphemy against HS is

>>1986845
Religion of peace, huh?

>>1988325
You think so? Then let's say the human thought is completely under the law of determinism. As long as Descartes' 'cogito, ergo sum' holds true, then you yourself would simply watch how your mind runs on a predetermined course.

>In no fucking way does introspection imply multiple personalities

Actually it does. If you self reflect upon yourself than you are the object of observation and the observing entity. It necessarily needs to be split in two because a thing in itself can't be the observer and the observed at the same time since this would be a logical contradiction.

Some philosophers should be gassed. But it just goes to show that from the moment philosophers stopped thinking about God philosophy itself greatly lost in relevance.

>>1988403
Yes, why?

File: mary-of-egypt.jpg (519KB, 870x1024px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 870x1024px

there are three sides to a coin
two sides for each face,
and then the edge that is both a separate surface but part of the same object: defining the other faces in uniqueness as much as it defines them in unity

so yeah too deep for you to understand: you do not have the spirit which intercedes with groans too deep for you to understand.

File: Arkofsalvation.jpg (904KB, 1526x1133px) Image search: [Google]

904KB, 1526x1133px

/christian/
/christ/
8ch
.net
God be with you all.
-love anon.

File: sundayoforthodoxy.jpg (321KB, 822x1112px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 822x1112px

and of one more blessing:
God bless you!
-lovely love from anon, lovingly

God is one, and those three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are him. His nature is three in one, essentially.

(1 John 5:7 kjv
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.)

God the Father is the eternal God of all creation.

(John 10:30 kjv
I and my Father are one.)

God the Son is Jesus, simply put, the God of all creation made flesh. He cannot die, he GAVE his life up willingly.

(John 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.)

And God the holy spirit, God "inwardly".

You can think of it this way, God is one, but he is ONE eternally, internally, and externally, forever and ever.

>>1988627
>using "John", the theological propaganda piece that doesn't collaborate with any other gospel on historical events that occurred but rather portrays Jesus as conveniently spouting the Orthodox line, as a source

ITT: people who can't comprehend the concept of intransitive identity

>>1986654
Its actually pretty simple, everything is one

>>1988656
Your words mean little considering John is who God gave the full revelation to. The one who Jesus himself said was the greatest man.

https://youtu.be/fbPyNEoeySs

>>1986699
make beweev

From Augustine:

God=Love


Father - Lover

Son - Beloved

Spirit - The love transmitted

>>1988237
Best post. He's not joking either, you're all heretics. video explanation:

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

>>1988611
partialism, heresy.

>>1988444
>a thing in itself can't be the observer and the observed at the same time
wew lad

>>1986654
The problem is explaining acts in accordance to what is both new and alread known

For Jesus to perform his miracles he needs capabilities close to Gods.
But God is all powerful. King of kings and lord of lords. He is the only one with such power.
But we also have the concept of divine truth. But concepts dont make for power structures so easily especially compared to a semi anthroporphised being.

So
When you try to conceptualize this you end up with an equivilency to a single being but with identities which can be extrapolatd and isolated, but not seperated.

Thus the only logical explanation that also follows doctrine is to form the trinity.

>>1988611
A stream is a better example:
>source = God the Father
>stream - Christ
>current - Holy Spirit
Three essences of the same One, inseparable but distinct.

File: Fully human.png (8KB, 581x528px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 581x528px

>>1988188
what about this?

why is everyone thinking so far ahead the only beings that exist in the trinity are the ones that are written on it

everything else is your projection

It's not classical logic

>>1986654

The trinity is the solution to a theology question owing to the large but curated nature of "accepted" holy texts. The reason it's not something that is extremely intuitive to understand is because it's essentially religious rules lawyering to maintain the relevance of Jesus and his sacrifice; they argue that despite somewhat distinct individualities, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (basically just the "Will/Spirit of God"), are of the same "divine nature" or "divine essence". Thus, they have separate individuality and are conceptually separate, but they also are essentially part of God. I would say a more accurate way of describing the Trinity in how it is described and believed would be that they are intrinsic parts of God rather than creations of his- closer to a vital organ or limb than an actual offspring. Keep in mind this is my understanding as a non-Christian and a non-religious person in general.

File: 1453624387556.png (376KB, 535x460px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 535x460px

Trinitarianism is a Catholic meme

>>1989531
Arius pls.

>>1988221

Isn't that Modalism? To the fire you go.

It seems like a simple concept to me but everyone else has trouble with it. Maybe it's just one of those things that you're not meant to think too hard about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2S5ziDcO0

File: 1459254542156.png (498KB, 619x649px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 619x649px

>>1989555

The Church Fathers at Nicaea thought real hard about it so you don't have to!

File: is that one of thsoe.jpg (3KB, 97x96px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 97x96px

>>1989555

>>1986654
Newton didn't buy it.

>>1988444
>then you yourself would simply watch how your mind runs on a predetermined course.
"You" only have access to a tiny fraction of what your brain does. Whether the universe is deterministic or not is completely opaque from a consciousness point of view, not to mention irrelevant.

>If you self reflect upon yourself than you are the object of observation and the observing entity.
>It necessarily needs to be split in two because a thing in itself can't be the observer and the observed at the same time since this would be a logical contradiction.
Are you implying mirrors are a gateway to another dimension?

Where did you pick up this retarded nonsense about logical contradictions?

>>1989876
Is it possible to feel the brain? Cause my front left side feels funny while the middle keeps pushing outwards and im getting pissed off

>>1988734
>The Gospel of John was actually written by one of the disciples

Fuck dude I think theology is cool but Christcucks believe the fakest things about their own history.

>>1990225
blasphemy

>>1989521
It's less that they are "parts" of God, because the dogma demands they all be fully God. A better explanation of Trinitarianism is that God is not rooted in a concrete singular form but can rather do or be whatever he wants. God is God whether you're conceptualizing him as the Father, Jesus, or even a burning bush.

This all makes me think of the Talladega Nights scene where Will Ferrell and John C Reilly are arguing over whether the baby Jesus or the adult Jesus is the right Jesus to pray to. It's technically all the same, and it's not like the young Jesus was only a part of Jesus as a whole, he was wholly Jesus, despite the fact that we have other images and concepts of him in other states, as well.

>>1990252
modalist pls

>>1990257
God literally cannot present himself in his entirety to mortals. Even if he willed it the witness would not fully comprehend it. God does not change modes but he does have influence over how his presence is felt and perceived, hence the burning bush example. It's not like God "became" the bush, or was temporarily the bush; he willed to speak with Moses and did so through that manifestation and did so.

I'm not even remotely religious and I take this discussion more seriously than you. Will you keep shooting down posts without any substantial refutation?

>>1988798
You're professing Arianism, a heresy.

>>1989555
being able to say "3 is 1" with a straight face doesn't mean you understand it.

>>1989555
>a simple concept to me
>linked vid literally says it's beyond comprehension

>>1990285
The point isn't to shoot down the amateur theological metaphors of other posters, the point is that there is only one way to arrive at the doctrinally accepted opinion and:
>the witness would not fully comprehend it
is the closest thing to the right answer. In other words, the answer to OP's question is "yes." It clearly doesn't bother most christians that it's illogical and/or they believe in a heresy that is sending them STRAIGHT TO HELL.

File: it destroys mind literally.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>1990479
>>1989555
>>1990482

File: cs is irrational and illogical.png (193KB, 2000x1800px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 2000x1800px

>>1986654

File: Slit-Experiment-1.jpg (17KB, 480x243px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x243px

>>1990500
I thought it was this for a second

maybe im wrong maybe evryone else is wrong at least im convinced im right

File: one more im done.jpg (4KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 259x194px

>>1986900
delete post and
Burn the heretic

>>1986900
Arius please

>>1986654
Everyone keeps thinking is something they know and don't realize its not only god and t hose who know god know

Any other method of figuring out the trinity is blasphemous and not healthy. Anyone who tries even if its against their will . will end up badly since they are wrong by default

Its better and healthier to leave than to be wrong

and so i leave the thread and hope i never see one of these where everyone is wrong again

>>1990515
You mean in the literal literal sense?

>>1990482

>A concept being incomprehensible means you can't understand the logic of it

Well that's good to know

File: computer.png (150KB, 591x184px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 591x184px

>>1990848
Maybe one day computers will get good enough

>>1990527
stfu wise ass, these are all theologically valid views.

File: IMG_1914.png (123KB, 500x516px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x516px

>this thread again

>>1990882
No they aren't. There's only the meaning god chose everything else is heresy. Fuck specially those smartass who make youtube videos