I don't get how it's not three Gods

if each of them has the attributes of God. Can someone explain?

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

  1. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is it:
    Yahweh, Sophia and Asherah
    OR
    Yahweh, Apollo/Dionysius and Sophia?

  2. 9 months ago
    Worker

    It is ONE BEING, and three Persons. One God, three Persons of God.

    All monotheists believe that there is one BEING of God.

    But not all monotheists believe that there is one PERSON of God.

    Unitarians believe that God is one Being and one Person.
    Trinitarians believe that God is one Being and three Persons (who are all equal).

    What's the difference between a being and a person? For example, a rock is a being, but not a person. A human is a being and a person. A rock has a being, but not a person. A human has a being, and a person. We can usually only understand these two examples, and nothing greater or lesser.
    So, what is person vs being? A being is what a thing is. A person is who a being is. A rock is a what, but not a who. A man is a who and a what. God has three whos, and one what.

    God is a being, and three persons make up that being. When we speak of Trinity, we speak of the being of God – which is what makes God, God – which, being infinite, eternal, unlimited, can therefore be shared by three persons. To repeat, the being of God is infinite, eternal, unlimited, so can be shared by three persons.
    If you deny monotheism, you now have polytheism.
    If you deny three divine Persons, you have modalism/oneness.
    If you deny equality of the Persons, you have subordinationism (e.g. JW: one main God, Jesus is creature, Spirit isn’t even a person).

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      What?

      >God is a being, and three persons make up that being
      So each person is a part of that being?

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What?
        Meant for

        Is it:
        Yahweh, Sophia and Asherah
        OR
        Yahweh, Apollo/Dionysius and Sophia?

      • 9 months ago
        Worker

        >So each person is a part of that being?
        No, each person is fully God – they are not simply a part of the being. You're still thinking of persons as beings, because you're trying to divide the being into three, instead of realising that the distinction between a person and a being.

        Each person of God is fully God, there's no separation of parts. It's really hard for us to comprehend, because humans are finite beings and so we can only possess one person. God is infinite, which means each of His persons can be fully God (rather than just a part of God).

        If we begin to think of persons as individual beings, then we get really confused, and that's when error begins.

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          >God is infinite, which means each of His persons can be fully God (rather than just a part of God).
          But if each of them are fully God, then how aren't there three Gods?
          >If we begin to think of persons as individual beings, then we get really confused, and that's when error begins.
          But isn't a person a being also by definition? I mean, not every being is a person, but every person is a being.

          Other people have understood it, so I think you might be the problem, lol.

          [...]
          The 'shield picture' isn't great. But I don't understand why you're saying that the 'shield' implies an inequality of persons? The persons are all equally God, which is why they are equal.

          I repeat, the persons are all equally God. In other words, the singular being of God is made up of three persons. These persons CANNOT be in conflict with one another, because they are all unified under the being of God. As I said in my other post, you cannot make the error of confusing persons with beings.

          If you think that the persons of God are beings, then you will not understand how they can work together and be equal. But once you understand that the persons are God, then it makes sense.

          >The 'shield picture' isn't great. But I don't understand why you're saying that the 'shield' implies an inequality of persons? The persons are all equally God, which is why they are equal.
          So why are there three persons and not just one, if they are all equal (the same)?
          >I repeat, the persons are all equally God. In other words, the singular being of God is made up of three persons.
          >made up
          If God is made up of three persons, how can these persons not be parts of God? It doesn't seem to make sense to me, even with the distinction of person (who) and being (what).

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >But if each of them are fully God, then how aren't there three Gods?
            I keep trying to emphasise the point that there is a HUGE distinction between a person and a being.

            I'll explain again.

            BEING vs PERSON:

            A rock is a being. We can hold the rock in our hands. It exists. However, the rock does not have a person. It has no personality. If I threw a rock at someone, they'd get mad at me, not the rock.

            A human is a being. A human also has a person. There is no issue here.

            God is a being. Only one. God has three persons. Not just one person, but three. There is one being and three persons. In humans, we have one being and one person.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I keep trying to emphasise the point that there is a HUGE distinction between a person and a being.
            But how isn't a person a being too? As I said, "not every being is a person, but every person is a being".

            >A human is a being. A human also has a person. There is no issue here.
            >God is a being. Only one. God has three persons. Not just one person, but three. There is one being and three persons. In humans, we have one being and one person.
            Is person is the same as personality, then?

            >So why are there three persons and not just one, if they are all equal (the same)?
            Because each of the persons has distinct attributes. Each of the persons has their own role within the being of God.

            >Because each of the persons has distinct attributes. Each of the persons has their own role within the being of God.
            Didn't you say that they were all equal?

            your mother is the daughter of her parents, the mother of you, and potentially also a sister to your uncle

            3 different aspects, 1 person

            So each aspect would be a part of God?

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >But how isn't a person a being too? As I said, "not every being is a person, but every person is a being".
            The person isn't a being. The being has a person. Does a rock have a person? No. Does a skeleton have a person? No. Does a living human have a person? Yes.

            The person isn't the being. A being is what the thing is. Like a rock, or a skeleton, or a human. The person is who it is. There is no who to a rock. But there is to a person.

            >Is person is the same as personality, then?
            Not a personality in a human sense (like, it's not "the Spirit has a happy personality, and the Father is sad"). But there is personality in the divine sense, as in different attributes of the person.

            >Didn't you say that they were all equal?
            They are equal, my friend. Having different roles doesn't mean that you're not equal.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Having different roles doesn't mean that you're not equal.

            So the trinity = the different roles God plays?
            He's
            >a father, because he has a son
            >a son, because he has a father
            >a holy spirit, because he's revered
            ?

            The roles aren't the same, but the being is.

            Why so much cope and rope over such a simple concept?

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >So the trinity = the different roles God plays?
            No. The persons have different roles, but that's not what makes them persons.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Simplest answer is wrong it doesn't match my autistic definition
            Jeez, who to believe: Sophia herself, or a random Oyishner who runs in circles?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The person isn't a being
            Isn't the person a "what" too? Why wouldn't it be so?

            >They are equal, my friend. Having different roles doesn't mean that you're not equal.
            What is your definition of "equal", then?

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >Isn't the person a "what" too? Why wouldn't it be so?
            No. You are a human being, which means that you a being that has a person. You are not two beings. If a person was a "what" (a being), then you would be multiple beings.

            >What is your definition of "equal", then?
            Equal in holiness, worth, goodness, power etc.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you are basically saying that God has three personalities? Wouldn't they be parts of God? For example, the "who I am" (personality/person) is a part of my being (human), right?

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please answer

            So you are basically saying that God has three personalities? Wouldn't they be parts of God? For example, the "who I am" (personality/person) is a part of my being (human), right?

          • 9 months ago
            Worker

            >So why are there three persons and not just one, if they are all equal (the same)?
            Because each of the persons has distinct attributes. Each of the persons has their own role within the being of God.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      This doesn't even make sense. You're fricking moronic.

      >B-b-buh you just don't get it
      >M-m-muh scholars!

      • 9 months ago
        Worker

        Other people have understood it, so I think you might be the problem, lol.

        Also,
        >Trinitarians believe that God is one Being and three Persons (who are all equal)
        I don't get it, the Persons are all equal? That's not what the shield in the OP says, at least.

        The 'shield picture' isn't great. But I don't understand why you're saying that the 'shield' implies an inequality of persons? The persons are all equally God, which is why they are equal.

        I repeat, the persons are all equally God. In other words, the singular being of God is made up of three persons. These persons CANNOT be in conflict with one another, because they are all unified under the being of God. As I said in my other post, you cannot make the error of confusing persons with beings.

        If you think that the persons of God are beings, then you will not understand how they can work together and be equal. But once you understand that the persons are God, then it makes sense.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also,
      >Trinitarians believe that God is one Being and three Persons (who are all equal)
      I don't get it, the Persons are all equal? That's not what the shield in the OP says, at least.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Spirit isn’t even a person
      That's some fricking oppression right here, Holy Spirit rise up and break your shackles!

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Everything is one being though

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        All of these religious tripgays run away when you ever mention pantheism. They have 0 answer.

  3. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Listen, we've had triple gods since the fricking bronze age if not earlier, so get on with the times.
    You had no problems with the Morrigu, now that Christianity stole that idea suddenly you get stupid? Why, because this god isn't threatening you if you don't get it?

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >literally admitting that the trinity is a polytheist concept
      Lol

  4. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    your mother is the daughter of her parents, the mother of you, and potentially also a sister to your uncle

    3 different aspects, 1 person

    • 9 months ago
      Worker

      That's literally a heretical illustration

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Black person i dont care
        >but its le heresy
        you think a medieval peasant knew or even cared?? a priest from 12th century leptitzcyakburg wouldve been happy enough that the peasant at least believes in the trinity

        • 9 months ago
          Worker

          Why are you mad?

          You obviously do care because you took the time to give a reply and are now sending yet another reply. And you're even admitting that you were wrong. I can't understand why you'd choose to act like that.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            sorry i just came from a 3 hour lecture
            it was irrational of me to get mad

        • 9 months ago
          Worker

          [...]
          you're right though :/

          sorry i just came from a 3 hour lecture
          it was irrational of me to get mad

          I wasn't trying to be rude, but it is literally heresy. The "leptitzcyakburgian peasant" wouldn't believe in the Trinity if he was given that illustration, because it's not an illustration of the Trinity; it's an illustration of the modalism heresy.

          That's the issue with people trying to communicate the Trinity by saying stuff like, "The Trinity is like the sun; the sun is the Father, the heat is Son, light is Spirit" or saying "The Trinity is like water, ice, and steam". These are all modalism heresies, and not the Trinity.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            didnt know it was a heresy, i knew that its not literally like that; but thought itd be adequate to illustrate the point of how something can be 3 things at once

            i dont know much about theology though so i just take it at face value and dont dwell too much on it tbh

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        Black person i dont care
        >but its le heresy
        you think a medieval peasant knew or even cared?? a priest from 12th century leptitzcyakburg wouldve been happy enough that the peasant at least believes in the trinity

        you're right though :/

  5. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Trinity/Polytheism
    >Monotheism
    Choose one.
    Honestly, it doesn't matter which one. Just choose one, and own it.

    Trying to say "yes, but", "no, but" for the last millennium just makes you look like clueless homosexuals. Literal 1984-tier manipulation.

  6. 9 months ago
    Krishna

    Jesus is a Thief.

    1. Brahma
    2. Vishnu
    3. Shiva

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Those three demons have completely distinct personalities and pretending they're the same being is just a cope

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    If I found out for sure that the trinity is wrong and that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit were seperate. I wouldn't stop worshiping them. I think everyone's lost the plot on this one with every church trying to out-doctrine eachother.

    • 9 months ago
      Worker

      >If I found out for sure that the trinity is wrong and that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit were seperate
      I really don't think you understand what the Trinity is....

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    >My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
    Why would Jesus say this if his will and substance is/was the same as God the Father's? Why did Satan think he could tempt/deceive God Himself in the desert? The trinity always came across as a retcon to me.

    • 9 months ago
      Worker

      >Why would Jesus say this if his will and substance is/was the same as God the Father's?
      Because the person of the Son bore the wrath of the Father. For the first time ever, in all of eternity, the Father forsake the Son on the cross. This is what makes the sacrifice of Christ so powerful, because in taking on the Father's wrath, Jesus bore the sin's of those who would believe in Him.

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't understand, Christians believe it first and then justify it, not vice versa. They just believe whatever they hear

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      The big question is why does Gnosticism actually make more sense than modern Christianity?
      Who manipulated the texts, for what reason, and who perpetuates it?

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not sure how theologically sound my idea of the trinity is, but I think it's pretty simple that one omnipotent God could take on three different, distinct forms, or "persons"

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but I think it's pretty simple that one omnipotent God could take on three different, distinct forms, or "persons"
      That's Modalism, a heresy. Google it.

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