"And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Esse...

"And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence"
If three persons are one God, it means each person is a part of God, no?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    For instance, if this universe was a videogame, God could be the programmer, but also get in to play as any other player using a virtual avatar.
    They would be different persons, but the same entity.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wait, I don't get who are the persons in your story. The programmer and...(?)

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        the avatar?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          The avatar is a person in the same sense as the programmer? What is your definition of person, then?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A representation/expression of an underlying entity.
            πρόσωπον alludes to a mask, in the context of a theatrical play.
            You can have many masks.
            Eg.: there is this multiple personality disorder

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So the avatar would be just an expression of the controller, not the controller itself, right?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It would be equally expression and controller. The programmer of a video game can alter the game state without appearing in the game space, or his avatar can open the console and enable cheat codes, and indeed he can do both of these things simultaneously.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's actually modalism

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah

      You have watched too much science fiction written by tards whove been fed half assed theories

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      But why would the character pray to the player asking if there's another way other than what the player predestined for the character? (Jesus asked if there was another way besides him dying on the cross).

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because it's kino

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      modalism is a heresy.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      the character would not be you. I am not CJ!!

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      it is not in the essence of God to subjugate himself to anything, let alone His own creations

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous
  3. 6 months ago
    Dirk

    No

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Then how are they just one God? Can you show me?

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        Yeah read the new testament

        Can you demonstrate that the language of the creed necessarily requires the persons to be parts of god?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah read the new testament
          Which passages are relevant for this matter?
          >Can you demonstrate that the language of the creed necessarily requires the persons to be parts of god?
          My point is that if God in uncountable but quantifiable, then the Creed is contradictory by the fact that three things being the totality of God sum three totalities of God. It's like if three bars of iron each "were" iron. The element iron is all of the iron existing in the universe. So three bars of iron would sum three totalities of all the iron in the universe, a contradiction.

          No. That's why I repeatedly emphasised the importance of differentiating between "person" and "being". As long as you can't tell the difference, it will make no sense.

          I'm not using the word "being", I'm using the word "thing". A person is not a thing?

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            So no, the language of the creed does not mean what you said.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why not?

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Can you show that it does?

          • 6 months ago
            Worker

            >A person is not a thing?
            "Thing" is probably the most general word in the English language.

            Anything (any thing) and everything (every thing) can be called a thing. It's not helpful in this discussion.

            I could say that you're a billion billion billion things, because an atom is a thing, and you're made of a billion billion billion atoms. Or I could say that you're one thing because you're one human. Or I could say that you're two things because you're a person and a being. Or I could say that you're six things because you're a head, a torso, two arms, two legs.

            So it would be much better to not use the word thing...

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I could say that you're a billion billion billion things
            No, I'm made one thing of multiple things.
            >Or I could say that you're two things because you're a person and a being
            No, I'm one thing that can be looked on two angles.
            >Or I could say that you're six things because you're a head, a torso, two arms, two legs.
            No, I'm one thing made of six things.

            >So it would be much better to not use the word thing...
            It's better to use a simpler word than to use the word "being" which opens space for word games like saying it means what something is but that a person is not being, despite a person being something that is. A person is a thing. If three persons are a God, then each person is a part of God. If each of them are a God, then there are three Gods.

            Can you show that it does?

            I think I see the problem. You are concerned with the meaning of the text, and I am concerned with its logical implications and validity also. You are saying that in the text of the Creed it is not written explicitly that each person is a part of God, which is true. What I'm saying is that it's a logical implication from God being three things. The text is contradictory by saying that each person is God, first because it was already implied that each person is a part of God, second because there can't be three totalities of an uncountable God, otherwise it would be countable.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Can you show that the text logically requires what you're saying?

            >the text is contradictory ... First because it was already implied that each person is a part of god
            Where?
            >second because there can't be three totalities of an uncountable god, otherwise it would be countable
            Where are you pulling that word from, "totalities"?
            Who says god is uncountable?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Who says god is uncountable?
            Ousia is uncountable in classical theology, see Gregory of Nyssa.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            "Ousia" doesn't translate to "god"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but that's how the Trinitarian Godhead was defined. There are three hypostases of one ousia. We cannot say, there are three gods, because each of the hypostases is of the same ousia, and the ousia is not divided when individuated in the hypostases. I tried to express all this to him in another thread without using philosophical definitions.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            >one ousia
            Right
            The poster we're dealing with is a recurring spammer. He's conceded a few points at least, one of them being that trinitarianism doesn't compromise aseity.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Can you show that the text logically requires what you're saying?
            I've already done in my previous comment. It's not explicitly in the text though.

            >Who says god is uncountable?
            If God is countable, then three things being God sum three Gods.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Does it necessarily follow from the text? That was my first question.

            >if god is countable, then three things being god sum three gods
            Non sequitur
            Three persons one being

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does it necessarily follow from the text? That was my first question
            It does, because the text says that there are three persons and one God.
            >Non sequitur
            Can you show me?

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            No, it doesn't necessarily follow. Athanasius and every trinitarian after him has not concluded from this text that the persons are parts of god. The text specifically guards against this
            >we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

            Do you concede that partialism is incompatible with the athanasian creed?

            >can you show me (that three x being one y means 3 y does not follow)
            You already conceded this previously, plus the onus is on you to demonstrate the logic, not on me to demonstrate the lack of logic

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Athanasius and every trinitarian after him has not concluded from this text that the persons are parts of god.
            I already said that. It's not the meaning of the text itself or what Athanasius and Trinitarians after him said, but its logical implications independently of them saying these conclusions explicitly.
            >The text specifically guards against this
            Yeah, contradictions can exist in texts.

            And my point is not that 3 of something can't be one of something else, read my previous comments. The problem is the contradiction between the implication that the persons are parts of God (obviously not explicit in the text) and the affirmation that each of the persons are God.
            On the logic, I already explained why it's an implication in my previous comments and you said non sequitur without explanation.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem is the contradiction between the implication that the persons are parts of God (obviously not explicit in the text) and the affirmation that each of the persons are God.
            So you're disputing something that isn't even in the text but that you've inserted into it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Deduced from, not inserted in*

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Deduced from how?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Read my previous comments

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let me try to put it to you in another analogy:

            Let A = (1 + 6)
            Let B = (2 + 5)
            Let C = (3 + 4)
            A = 7
            B = 7
            C = 7
            7 = A Or B Or C
            However,
            A, (1 + 6) =/= B, (2 + 5)
            B, (2 + 5) =/= C, (3 + 4)
            C, (3 + 4) =/= A, (1 + 6)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A, (1 + 6) =/= B, (2 + 5)
            >B, (2 + 5) =/= C, (3 + 4)
            >C, (3 + 4) =/= A, (1 + 6)
            What do you mean by equal quantities nit being equal?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            not being*

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But x+y+z=1 can illustrate why each person is a part

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            What did you concede last time?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That 3 of something can be 1 of something else

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Will you respond to

            But x+y+z=1 can illustrate why each person is a part

            with anything other than "you conceded that three of x can be one of y"? Because, numerically, this (3x=y) imply three equal parts.

            Let me try to put it to you in another analogy:

            Let A = (1 + 6)
            Let B = (2 + 5)
            Let C = (3 + 4)
            A = 7
            B = 7
            C = 7
            7 = A Or B Or C
            However,
            A, (1 + 6) =/= B, (2 + 5)
            B, (2 + 5) =/= C, (3 + 4)
            C, (3 + 4) =/= A, (1 + 6)

            In your example, it's three ways of writing seven. So it would be three different expressions of seven. Three different expressions of the same thing. In the case of the Trinity, the three persons would be the same. It would be three different expressions of the same person. That is, Modalism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In the case of the Trinity, the three persons would be the same
            The three persons aren't the same. They're the same in being God, but they're individuals.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It would be three different expressions of the same person. That is, Modalism.
            That would be if I wrote 7 as 7, seven (the word) and VII. In modalism there is no true individuation.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That would be if I wrote 7 as 7, seven (the word) and VII
            What's the difference? You had wrote the number 7 in three ways as well.
            >In modalism there is no true individuation
            And what was the individuation of each number seven other than the form of expression?

            Exactly. The problem in understanding "One God, three persons" in modern times lies in that the word "person" now means a different thing that in older times. Originally it meant expression/representation, while in modern times it is synonymous with "individual".

            When in doubt always check the etymology of the problematic words.

            Anyway if 3x=y, that means three equal parts of y

            >If three persons are one God, it means each person is a part of God, no?
            Short answer: No.
            Long answer: No, that's an explicit heresy.

            >Originally it meant expression/representation
            That's not the sense in which Trinitarians use it. The idea that the three persons are just modes of expression of one God is a heresy known as modalism.
            Etymology helps, but it doesn't dictate meaning. Especially not when old concepts like 'hypostasis' or 'person' get a new theological twist to them.

            >Short answer: No.
            But if 3x=y, then there's three equal parts of y

            3. Trinitarianism states that there are 3 persons. Therefore there is no conflict with my view in that there ARE persons. We can discuss what 'person' means, but ultimately it is futile, as in the case of God whatever claim we make will be an imperfect and incomplete approximation. You can label my abstract minimal personism as "modalism" and strawman-attack it from fundamentalist trinitarianism as much as you like.
            4. You are a massive simplificationist.
            That is not a surprise considering how much you like -isms.

            But being a person who is God is not the same thing as being an expression or manifestation of God, no?

            https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm
            STOP ASKING moronic QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY TRINITY IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THIS PRIMER

            Which passages show that 3x=y doesn't imply three equal parts of y?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            had written*

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What's the difference? You had wrote the number 7 in three ways as well.
            >And what was the individuation of each number seven other than the form of expression?
            I wrote three identities that each had the nature of being fully 7 and can be called by 7, but are also distinct from calling something 7 alone (i.e. a simple unity), and distinct among themselves.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >distinct from calling something 7 alone
            What is the difference between the 7 and the 7 alone?
            >distinct among themselves
            How?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What is the difference between the 7 and the 7 alone?
            >How?
            A, (1 + 6) =/= B, (2 + 5)
            B, (2 + 5) =/= C, (3 + 4)
            C, (3 + 4) =/= A, (1 + 6)

            You also asked this question

            >A, (1 + 6) =/= B, (2 + 5)
            >B, (2 + 5) =/= C, (3 + 4)
            >C, (3 + 4) =/= A, (1 + 6)
            What do you mean by equal quantities nit being equal?

            Let's say I have one of these toys were you put the shape in the hole. There are three rows of holes to be filled. The first row has a set of holes that is 1 unit and 6 units. The second row has a set of holes that is 2 units and 5 units. The third has a set of holes that is 3 units and 4 units. If you interchange the pieces, you won't be able to complete the board. If you had a piece that was 7 units long, it would not fit in any of the rows though they each make up a length of 7 units. The 7-hood of the rows is distinct from having a piece 7. A caveat with this analogy is that in using a physical rather than an abstract example, there are separate three rows, but with God, the three persons are unified in one. So we call the Father God, the Son God, and the Spirit God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            While it's true that the numbers that make up 7 are not the same, the sum is the same. So if we count the quantity of each row as a person, then there would be three equal persons. If we count the numbers of ways to express the number 7 (number of combinations of two numbers that sum 7 given) as persons, there would be three different persons. The problem is each combination between two numbers is not the sum between two numbers. A and B aren't A+B. So we cannot say that 1 and 6 is 7, for example. We're just taking combinations.

            >Which passages show that 3x=y doesn't imply three equal parts of y?
            Further we say that each of the three has a perfect subsistence, that we may understand not one compound perfect nature made up of three imperfect elements, but one simple essence, surpassing and preceding perfection, existing in three perfect subsistences. For all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise. Wherefore we do not speak of the form as from subsistences, but as in subsistences. But we speak of those things as imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is completed out of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own nature, but with reference to the building that is completed out of them each is imperfect: for none of them is in itself a house.

            The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other , that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.

            >But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise
            >The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other , that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods.
            Why is the subsistences being in each other a reason for the non-compoundness of the essence of God? He writes that "from perfect subsistences no compound can arise" and gives no proof.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem is each combination between two numbers is not the sum between two numbers. A and B aren't A+B. So we cannot say that 1 and 6 is 7, for example. We're just taking combinations.
            God decided to be three persons regardless, who are each fully and the same God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >God decided to be three persons regardless, who are each fully and the same God.
            How is it possible for 3x=y not imply each x being y/3?

            Second, you also conceit that you can fit the sum of all of God in your mind.

            >Second, you also conceit that you can fit the sum of all of God in your mind
            My point is only that 3x=y => x=y/3. Each person would logically be a part of God, no the fullness of God.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How is it possible for 3x=y not imply each x being y/3?
            >My point is only that 3x=y => x=y/3. Each person would logically be a part of God, no the fullness of God.
            Because God isn't divisible either.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because God isn't divisible either.
            >If God isn't divisible, then how can it be three things (persons)? Or you're gonna say that a person is not a thing?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, because the being of the persons is in being one thing, that is, God. They have the thingness of God

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            By thing I mean anything that exists, so to say. A person is a thing, obviously, then.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The persons exist as one thing

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Each person is a thing by definition, though.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. In the Athanasian Creed there is only one official thing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a person is not a thing
            What's your definition of thing?
            >In the Athanasian Creed there is only one official thing.
            What do you mean?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            A person is not a thing, look it up in the dictionary:
            >thing: aninanimatematerial object as distinct from a livingsentientbeing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am using the word thing as defined in

            By thing I mean anything that exists, so to say. A person is a thing, obviously, then.

            The sun's radiance isn't part of the sun. The sun itself is the radiance. Yet they are distinct things. No aspect of the sun is not also the radiance and vice versa.

            >The sun itself is the radiance. Yet they are distinct
            That's logically contradictory

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's logically contradictory
            Okay then, what part of the sun is not also its radiance.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay then, what part of the sun is not also its radiance
            If none, then they are not distinct

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I am using the word thing as defined in

            By thing I mean anything that exists, so to say. A person is a thing, obviously, then.


            I am using the word thing as defined in

            A person is not a thing, look it up in the dictionary:
            >thing: aninanimatematerial object as distinct from a livingsentientbeing.

            Do you understand how if we use the word thing that way it has a different connotation

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Second, you also conceit that you can fit the sum of all of God in your mind.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Let's say I have one of these toys were you put the shape in the hole

            >g*d is the h*ly sq*are

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Which passages show that 3x=y doesn't imply three equal parts of y?
            Further we say that each of the three has a perfect subsistence, that we may understand not one compound perfect nature made up of three imperfect elements, but one simple essence, surpassing and preceding perfection, existing in three perfect subsistences. For all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise. Wherefore we do not speak of the form as from subsistences, but as in subsistences. But we speak of those things as imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is completed out of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own nature, but with reference to the building that is completed out of them each is imperfect: for none of them is in itself a house.

            The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other , that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            (...) For there the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind , and then being identical in authority and power and goodness — I do not say similar but identical — and then movement by one impulse. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference. For with reference to the uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak of separation in space, as we can in our own case. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together, according to the word of the Lord, "I am in the father, and the father in Me" John 14:11: nor can one admit difference in will or judgment or energy or power or anything else whatsoever which may produce actual and absolute separation in our case. Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause , and not compounded or coalesced according to the synæresis of Sabellius. For, as we said, they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other without any coalescence or commingling.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            He just has a more nuanced view on what "being" means than you do. I've seen this before, and the argument is pointless. It's like arguing internet piracy is theft with me when I don't believe in intellectual property or that you can steal by making copies.

          • 6 months ago
            Worker

            >No, I'm made one thing of multiple things.
            >No, I'm one thing that can be looked on two angles.
            No offence, but your grasp of English isn't good enough to be having this conversation. I'm simply telling you that "thing" is too general a term for this discussion. If you want to remain ignorant, then that's your own choice.

            He just has a more nuanced view on what "being" means than you do. I've seen this before, and the argument is pointless. It's like arguing internet piracy is theft with me when I don't believe in intellectual property or that you can steal by making copies.

            He isn't talking about "being", he's talking about "things", which is a term that can be applied to quite literally anything.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, thay was typo. I meant I'm one thing made of multiple things.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >one ousia
            Right
            The poster we're dealing with is a recurring spammer. He's conceded a few points at least, one of them being that trinitarianism doesn't compromise aseity.

            I think do he may yet be brought to understanding, though.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            do think

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Dirk
      Automatically dismissed.

  4. 6 months ago
    Worker

    >If three persons are one God, it means each person is a part of God, no?
    No, that would only be the case if God consisted of three beings.

    God consists of three persons, not three beings. That is why Trinitarianism is monotheistic; there is only one being of God.

    That's why it's important to understand the difference between a person and a being in order to understand the Trinity.

    A being is what something is. A rock is a being. A person is who something is. A rock does not have a being.

    A human is a being, and a person. One being, one person.

    If I threw a rock at you, you'd get mad at me, and not the rock, because I have a person, while the rock doesn't. I and the rock are both beings, but only one of us has a person.

    God is a being, and three persons. What is God? One being. Who is God? Three persons. There are not multiple gods; there is only one God. Like yourself, you are one being. You are one person, but God has three persons.

    Humans can only share their being with one person, because they are finite. God is infinite, and so His being can be shared by three persons. At this point, it's important to remind yourself of the difference between being and person, or you'll become confused.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      A person is a thing. If three things are a God, then it means it thing is a part of God, right?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        means each*

      • 6 months ago
        Worker

        No. That's why I repeatedly emphasised the importance of differentiating between "person" and "being". As long as you can't tell the difference, it will make no sense.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly. The problem in understanding "One God, three persons" in modern times lies in that the word "person" now means a different thing that in older times. Originally it meant expression/representation, while in modern times it is synonymous with "individual".

          When in doubt always check the etymology of the problematic words.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If three persons are one God, it means each person is a part of God, no?
            Short answer: No.
            Long answer: No, that's an explicit heresy.

            >Originally it meant expression/representation
            That's not the sense in which Trinitarians use it. The idea that the three persons are just modes of expression of one God is a heresy known as modalism.
            Etymology helps, but it doesn't dictate meaning. Especially not when old concepts like 'hypostasis' or 'person' get a new theological twist to them.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea that the three persons are just modes of expression of one God is a heresy known as modalism.
            "Modalism" can mean many things.
            It is not even clear what modalists like Praxeas or Sabellius really taught, since our only sources are from their opponents. According to them, modalism consist in God having three roles or apellatives, showing a different face at different people/times. This doesn't have to be the case.
            Modalism is thus a massive strawman.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Granted that we can't be sure what heretics taught exactly (besides heresies). It is still the case that "person" being "expression/representation" is modalism, a heresy. >different face at different people/times
            This is exactly the etymology of 'person'.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >muh heressy
            1. I don't care.
            2. There are massive implications and simplifications in the term "modalism".
            It is an strawman.
            3. You can believe in three "persons" in a "modalistic" or "trinitarian" way, but from my point of view they don't have to be incompatible. Trinitarianism just adds more information over the "persons" thing. And I'm fine with that. It might be true, or not. Nobody can be sure because human language cannot capture God's true nature.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            1 - It's fine if you are ok with being a heretic. Just don't make it seem like your etymological take is valid.
            2 - As there are in "expression/representation". You wrote it anyway.
            3 - Trinitarianism and modalism are mutually exclusive. The heresies serve as negative definitions of the Trinity.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            3. Trinitarianism states that there are 3 persons. Therefore there is no conflict with my view in that there ARE persons. We can discuss what 'person' means, but ultimately it is futile, as in the case of God whatever claim we make will be an imperfect and incomplete approximation. You can label my abstract minimal personism as "modalism" and strawman-attack it from fundamentalist trinitarianism as much as you like.
            4. You are a massive simplificationist.
            That is not a surprise considering how much you like -isms.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Trinitarianism states that there are 3 persons.
            Correct. Not expressions. Not representations. Persons.
            >strawman-attack it
            There is no strawman. Persons as representations of God is modalism. You can claim there is much more depth to what you meant, you can claim that modalism is too vague of a label, but the terms you used are simply the terms from that heresy.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    dreaming of a day when /rel/ splits from Oyish, so that history can be discussed in peace from fanatics and obsessed

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's why the trinity is a "mystery of faith," any attempt to understand or conceptualize it will inevitably lead one to depict it in a way that's heretical. One person will fall into Arianism, another will fall into modalism, another into tritheism, and yet another into partialism, etc. It's impossible to truly grasp and explain the trinity in a way that's neither heretical or absurd. One can say "three is one and one is three" all they want, but it's an unthinking, nonsensical statement to make, one they themselves would laugh at had it been the doctrine of any other religion.

    The trinity is forever beyond human understanding, humans cannot grasp it without engaging in either heresy or mindlessness. Anyone who says the trinity is easy to understand is full of themselves; it's a "mystery of faith," and you just have to trust God about it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There's one God, but this one God is three separate persons.
      >These three separate people are not three gods.
      >These three separate people are not three parts of God
      >These three separate people are not different modes of god, like how liquid, ice, and vapor are different modes of water
      >These three separate persons cannot be separated from each other, since they're one, indivisible union of one God (who isn't one person nor a collective of three persons)
      >Each of these three people are completely 100% God
      >It's not "1+1+1=1"
      >It's not "1x1x1=1" since these three people are not copies of each other, nor has one ever existed before the others
      >All three have existed equally, forever
      >The son is begotten and not made, yet is of the same substance of the father
      >The son is conceived by the holy spirit, yet the spirit proceeds from the son and the father
      >Everything comes from the father, through the son, and by the holy spirit, yet the son and spirit are not the delegates of the father
      >Both the son and spirit are 100% necessary
      >God is sending himself, through himself, by himself, and yet it's not just one guy doing everything, it's three
      >This arrangement is necessary because God says so.
      >God was always prepared to give humans eternal, bodily life, plagued them with bodily death after the original sin, to send himself to be sacrificed to atone for the sins of humanity which God always existed to atone for anyway, all to restore them to eventual bodily resurrection, which God could already do anyway as just one person instead of setting himself up to be sacrificed on behalf of a species he set up to fail in the first place
      etc.

      That's why it's beyond human understanding.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >which God could already do anyway as just one person instead of setting himself up to be sacrificed on behalf of a species he set up to fail in the first place
        I figure having lived and struggled and falling and getting back up again make us more interesting and unique people than if we were born perfect.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm
    STOP ASKING moronic QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY TRINITY IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ THIS PRIMER

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Resurrecting

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The sun's radiance isn't part of the sun. The sun itself is the radiance. Yet they are distinct things. No aspect of the sun is not also the radiance and vice versa.

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