>3=1

>3=1

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    are you muslim

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Are you deflecting?

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, christianity is spiritual doublethink.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      christianity is judeo-islamic, the buddhism of hinduism for the taoist, basically mormon.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Meds.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Scholarly

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >this guy who went around saying vaguely motivational sounding stories and metaphors is God

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Gay=OP

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >7=1

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      7 of what

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The Seven Spirits of God are seven of the portable gold artifacts from Solomon's Temple (Hebrew: בית המקדש, transliterated Beit HaMikdash):

    the 1st Spirit — gold Mercy Seat;
    the 2nd Spirit — gold Ark of the Testimony;
    the 3rd Spirit — gold Table for the Showbread;
    the 4th Spirit — gold Candlestick;
    the 5th Spirit — gold Ephod;
    the 6th Spirit — gold Breastplate;
    and the 7th Spirit — gold Altar of Incense.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seven_Spirits_of_God&oldid=144504140

    The Seven Spirits were originally inside Exodus' Tabernacle (Hebrew: משכן, transliterated Mishkan), also portable. In the Book of Exodus they are listed and described (Ex 25-40) and in the Book of Revelation they are mentioned four times (Rev 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, and 5:6):

    Rev 1:4 - John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
    Rev 3:1 - And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.
    Rev 4:5 - And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
    Rev 5:6 - And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

    Some Book of Isaiah 11:2 scholars say they are the 6 Spirits of the LORD:

    1 — the Spirit of wisdom;
    2 — the Spirit of understanding;
    3 — the Spirit of counsel;
    4 — the Spirit of might;
    5 — the Spirit of knowledge;
    6 — and the Spirit of the fear of the LORD.

    Many Branch Davidian poems associate the Seven Seals with them.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      wowza G-D, haven't seen that one in awhile

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It’s funny and telling whenever people insult other religions and go on to vehemently defend the trinity

    Ever explanation I’ve heard has been illogical. Yes, the explanation that god is simply an essence, a title, a quality, opens up an entire can of worms with perfection and hierarchy

    The most reasonable position to be in is that the trinity makes no sense and is a demonstration of god’s ability to transcend logic. Pretending it’s logical for the sake of being logical only makes the apologetics look moronic

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The Trinity is impossible to be truly understood by humans thats just the way it is.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        You understand how utterly moronic this is right. Like, if I had seen Jesus Christ irl then sure I could fall back on "well its not possible to comprehend this part", but I haven't, we haven't. There are other religious out there which don't have this gaping hole at the center of their theology.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          smoothbrain

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            says the smoothbrain who thinks the literal creator of the universe was a bastard israeli carpenter who died in a humiliating public execution.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            tips fedora

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            that phrase really is the pinnacle of modern Christian theology

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            *modern christian apologia

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            that phrase really is the pinnacle of modern Christian theology

            m'lady *smacks* was I smart again?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not an atheist Black person

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            n-word is big nono

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >The most reasonable position to be in is that the trinity makes no sense and is a demonstration of god’s ability to transcend logic.
      More like "inability of early Christian writers to write themselves out of the corner"

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Always puzzled me why trinitarians believed that. God cannot die. And the bible says multiple times when you're dead you're dead so that's it.
    Yet trinitarians use so much cherrypicking and ignore most of the holy bible and don't want to listen

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because the spirit is you and the body is like a car. You leave the car and you still exist. Nobody truly dies unless they are sentenced to hell for eternity.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Nobody truly dies
        What religion do you even believe in?
        You think Satan and demons will live forever?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >ignore most of the holy bible and don't want to listen

      Yea because most of the things that you think we ignore is just outdated Mosaic law and stupid israeli believes.
      God can raise people from the dead because hes God its that easy

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but he's immortal so he can't die. Simple as.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >the bible says you're dead you're dead.

      That's literally the anti thesis to the Bible's message.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Right, I forget you think the soul is immortal

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Let me guess, the bible is written by ignorant israelites - Some esoteric philosopher from 20th century and prior said something about souls and somehow now you have all the answers?

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Hail Lucifer the Father, the Devil the Son, and Satan the Holy Ghost.

    LDS, the Latter-Day Saint

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If A = B and B = C then A = C. This is the quintessential transitive relation and a foundational principle of logic. How Christians believe in the Trinity when Jesus himself denies is the only mystery.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Two people get married. Is it two couples, or one couple? How can two spouses make 1 couple? Are you saying 1=2?

      If I remember, the Athanasian Creed says that 'is' does not mean equality. It says something like "The son is god in the same way that the father is god".

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        According to trinitarian "logic", not only are the two spouses part of one couple, but each spouse is an entire couple in itself. So infact, you are the one saying 1=2.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          In Trinitarian formula each person is not an entire God in itself. God = The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
          It's not distributive.

          A God by definition is an individual. If you have 3 individuals who are each individually god, then you have 3 gods.

          > A God by definition is an individual
          no. By definition it's a supreme being, there are many religions with versions of God that aren't an individual, like pantheism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >god = father, son, and holy spirit
            son = 1/3 god

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >In Trinitarian formula each person is not an entire God in itself. God = The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
            That is partialism.
            This is the pattern without fail every single time, the problem with every Trinitarian that thinks it's logical is that they don't even know what Trinitarianism actually is.

            It's not partialism. The Christian Creed says that each of them is God in the same way that the other is God. "Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say that each of them is God in isolation, without respect to the rest. Each person is not an entire God in itself, because when you say God you are referring to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

            Careful, your post contains multiple heresies. The couple analogy is partialism and you'll go to hell if you believe it.

            No I believe the couple analogy holds. You're assuming that each person in the couple is 1/2 of the couple. One couple is itself a union of 2 people, it isn't distributive.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not partialism.
            >each person is not an entire god in itself
            It's partialism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't say that each of them is God in isolation, without respect to the rest. Each person is not an entire God in itself
            Trinitarianism does in fact say that each "person" of God is wholly God themselves.

            I disagree. When the Trinitarian formula says each person is fully God, you can interpret this two ways
            > each person is God in isolation
            > each person is God in the same way that the other is God
            I believe that Creed supports the second. I guess it's because the word "is" can mean "equals" in a mathematical sense, or it can mean "has the aspect" (which you can't interpret with math. Like if I say God is great. And Alexander was great. I'm not saying God is equal to Alexander. Each person of the Trinity has full Godhood, that's why it's called the Godhead.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's tritheism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's not. And first of all I said the same thing as I said before, so how can I be accused of both Partialism and Tritheism? Those are mutually exclusive.
            When Christians say God, they mean a single portion of reality that encompasses Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
            You are just switching conceptual frameworks, when you talk of the distinct persons there are three, but when you talk of the God there is one. Because God refers to that portion of reality that is the three persons. We switch our method of framing all the time in regular speech. A pair of shoes is two shoes, but one pair. It's not two pairs.

            >By definition it's a supreme being
            Yes being, singular

            Again like my post above, this involves switching between two ways of framing the same piece of reality.
            So take pantheism, they believe God is reality, or the universe or whatever. You can think of the universe as one thing. But you can also frame the universe as trillions of distinct things. So do pantheists believe in trillions of Gods? No, because they believe that the portion of reality we call the universe is one being, God.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Saying the persons are to God as a boyfriend is to a couple is partialism. Saying the persons are to God as Alexander the Great is to great is tritheism.
            >so how can I be accused of both Partialism and Tritheism? Those are mutually exclusive
            This just shows how little you understand your own dogma.
            >A pair of shoes is two shoes, but one pair. It's not two pairs.
            Now you're back to partialism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The examples of about a married couple and shoes is about how we frame singular identities as plural all the time, and it depends on your framing whether you see them as separate things (plurality) or a single thing (unity). Do you agree with this, or not? Is it a heresy to believe that a married couple is one union, but also two persons depending on your framing?

            And whether my example of Alexander is Tritheism: if you read the Athanasian Creed you'll see what I mean.
            > The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.

            All these sentences are formed in the same way. You are assuming the last sentence is one of numerical identity, even though you understand that all the sentences before it are not numerical, but predicative.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Is it a heresy to believe that a married couple is one union, but also two persons depending on your framing?
            No, but Trinitarianism requires thinking both members are themselves the couple, and not in a figurative sense.

            >All these sentences are formed in the same way. You are assuming the last sentence is one of numerical identity, even though you understand that all the sentences before it are not numerical, but predicative
            You are misunderstanding consubstantiality. If we say Alexander is not Peter but Alexander is great and Peter is great, we are not saying that Peter and Alexander are consubstantial. But when we say this about God we are because the qualities of being eternal and all powerful are unique to one substance. To treat "God" like an adjective that describes the persons of the Trinity is tritheism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I am thinking of it like this: when you say each person of the Trinity is God, you are speaking of their essence/nature (predicative relation). But when you say God IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are making an equality relation between God and the three person collectively.

            > According to the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675) "For, when we say: He who is the Father is not the Son, we refer to the distinction of persons; but when we say: the Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, and the Holy Spirit that which the Father is and the Son is, this clearly refers to the nature or substance"
            > The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) adds: "Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found.

            I think these quotes show what I mean. The three persons are God on account of their shared/identical nature, rather they are each that divine nature, but when saying that God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit you are making a different kind of claim, an identity claim.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't say that each of them is God in isolation, without respect to the rest. Each person is not an entire God in itself
            Trinitarianism does in fact say that each "person" of God is wholly God themselves.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >In Trinitarian formula each person is not an entire God in itself. God = The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
            That is partialism.
            This is the pattern without fail every single time, the problem with every Trinitarian that thinks it's logical is that they don't even know what Trinitarianism actually is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >By definition it's a supreme being
            Yes being, singular

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        A God by definition is an individual. If you have 3 individuals who are each individually god, then you have 3 gods.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Careful, your post contains multiple heresies. The couple analogy is partialism and you'll go to hell if you believe it.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >you'll go to hell if you believe it.
          There's no hell in the Bible, heretic.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Good enough for me.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Makes sense to me.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      These comparisons are so shit, can't believe catholics have the audacity to come on this board and call people midwits.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Oh man, if you think 3=1 is confusing wait till you guys find out about Hinduism

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Hinduism is blatantly polytheistic and thus faces no logical impossibilities.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Hindus don't have a problem being identified as polytheists tho

        Wait so you guys have been wasting all your time in these threads arguing about vocab? Is that all these have been about?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          It's kind of important when Christians claim to have one god when the trinity is three gods

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, this is about the Christian claim to still be monotheist while affirming the trinity.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Hindus don't have a problem being identified as polytheists tho

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I've been thinking about this one
    > To say that the Father IS God, is not a claim of direct 1-1 identity, but the word "is" here describes an attribute, namely Godhood.
    This one invites criticism of polytheism, because God is just a property that each of the persons have and not a being.
    But more troubling is the implications for divine simplicity and thus all Abrahamic faiths.
    If you follow the logic of divine simplicity, God is a property. Because God cannot have parts, than all his properties like omniscience, omnipresence, mercy are all equivalent to God. So since they are equivalent, God expressed most simply is a being with one property: God. Therefore God is a property.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't everything have the property of "God" then? I'm fairly merciful, do I get to be in the Godhead?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I guess the attribute of God would be omnibenevolence, and a subset of that would be all-merciful, most merciful, etc. So this would be different from a mortal level of mercy. Just like you can be pretty powerful, but not all powerful: so you don't have the property of omnipotence.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    if you really care about this question, then at least ask a real catholic or orthodox priest instead of circle jerking.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They will just refuse to discuss it and leave it at "it's magic I ain't gotta explain shit"("divine mystery").

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I lack the holy spirit

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.hprweb.com/2019/06/is-the-trinity-a-mysterious-contradiction-or-a-rational-mystery/#fnref-24195-7
    The author of this blog has an interesting argument for the Trinity, under the section: "Is the Trinity Best Understood as a Divine Community?" He gives credit to Aquinas, and provides an alternative to the view that "The Father is God" is not a claim of identity. He says it is one, but there are weaker and stronger forms of identity, and the identity between Father and God is a weak one. It's pretty interesting.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      > However, Aquinas says there are two things there: the bronze, which is the matter, and the structure of the bronze, which is the statue. If I were to ask you, “is the bronze identical to the statue?"
      > you would probably agree that yes, the bronze and the statue are identical. However, Aquinas also argues that there are distinctions you can make between the bronze and the statue.
      > The purpose of this strange example is simply to illustrate Aquinas’s point that there is more than one kind of identity: strict identity like the identity of Bergoglio and Francis, and weaker identities such as the identity of bronze and the statue. The weaker identities are still a kind of identity, but they allow for differences between the identical things
      > our saying “Father” simply involves us considering God from a different point of view than when we say “God,” with different things coming into consideration. And yet there is no risk of modalism (the heresy that the Father and Son are simply different, non-permanent manifestations of the one God), since the identity between the Father and God is a weaker identity than strict identity (such as that obtaining between Bergoglio and Francis). This kind of identity allows for real, objective, eternal distinctions within the Trinity: it allows the Father to have features that God doesn’t have, such as the fact that the Father is really distinct from the Son and the Spirit, even though God is not distinct from the Son and the Spirit. Aquinas’s use of multiple forms of identity provides us with resources for a good answer to the logical objection, one that is just as strong as that offered by the divine community view, and, importantly, one that avoids any risk of entailing polytheism.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >modalism with extra steps

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          kek. It's not modalism though. Modalism denies the distinctions between the persons. This argument doesn't do that.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        modalism. Scripture talks about three separate persons, not different interpretations and descriptions of the same person, otherwise it wouldn't be a trinity. The bronze statue is the bronze and the statue but it could also be the landmark, the gathering point, the generous donation from a citizen, the specific work of an artist etc.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          But it's not an argument about the relations of the persons to each other. The argument has to do with the identity of the persons to God.
          The bronze statue analogy has nothing to do with the person's relationship to each other. Which is precisely what modalism is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            yeah but the statue is the same substance throughout the analogy. It's literally the same thing, you're just putting a different name on it. You're calling the same thing (person) three different names, but it doesn't change the fact that they're the same thing.

            There are difference between the three persons, for example, the son doesn't have the same powers as the father. “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father." (Jesus isn't omniscient)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But it's not talking about the three persons.
            The bronze and the statue is an example that two things can be equal and share the same identity, but it's a weak identity. Because the bronze has properties that a statue lacks.
            The purpose of the example is to show that weak identities exist. Then the author argues that the Father and God also share a weak identity. The Father has properties that God does not, namely, the Father is distinct from the Son, but God is not distinct from the Son.

            It's not modalism because it isn't saying that the three persons are simply different names (or perspectives) of the same Being. It's only talking about the identity relationship between the Father and God. It's saying they are different perspectives of the same identical thing. But because of this dual perspective, the Father can have properties that God cannot.
            Modalism would say that God and Jesus are different perspectives of the same being, and that there are no distinctions between them.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >the bronze has properties that a statue lacks
            "a statue"? or "the statue"?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            the statue. The example given is that the bronze can be melted down, the statue no longer exists, but the bronze still exists. So the bronze has properties that the statue lacks.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            okay that's decent I guess. Do you believe all three persons of the trinity are equal despite having different properties?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            equal in status yeah, that's the Christian position.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            but the father is clearly greater?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            how so?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            John 14:28

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            clowned him

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Satan is greater, yes.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Rather, when we say the Son “is” God, we are saying something more akin to the statement that the Son “is” divine.
      That's nice and all but it's heresy.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Did you read the article? That's not the author's views, he is only presenting that to show the possible criticisms of it and then provides an alternative.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        divine simplicity is a heresy as well by the same logic

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  18. 2 years ago
    Dirk

    >87 replies to an ancient strawman
    astounding

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      You REALLY can't stop yourself from eating the bait every time, can you homosexual

      • 2 years ago
        Dirk

        How have I done that

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    reminder that partialism is not a real heresy. There is no official christian document that classifies it as such.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >I want God to justify himself to me since I have the mental capacity to comprehend all the Divine misteries.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      OH OH IM BELIEEEEEEEEVING

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If he needs personification in physical world why didn't he just do it in a form of absolute power to bend kings to his will instead of a man? Would've been far more effective at stopping sin.

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone explain the trinity simply using scripture?

    • 2 years ago
      Dirk

      Sure

      God is one
      >Read: shema
      The father is God
      >Read: Lord's prayer
      The son is God
      >Read: John 1
      The ghost is God
      >Read: Acts 5

      The synthesis of these facts is the doctrine of the trinity

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