If 3 entities are God, how many Gods are there?

If 3 entities are God, how many Gods are there?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you being So Obtuse?

    this has been explained to you over and over again, in several ways.
    A Child could get it.

    Children DO 'Get It'

    A child can understand, but (You) Can't?

    here's a Great Idea:
    -- Go to a Real Church, go in and ask the pastor or elders (this means older than average people) to explain it to you.
    ALSO you probably should ask them to pray for you, for understanding and Clarity.

    ASK God to show you what is means. to Reveal himself to you.

    -Unless you don't really want to know, it that case you really better NOT do that!

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >this has been explained to you over and over again, in several ways
      What ways? Sophistry like Gregory of Nyssa saying that you count one God because it's one essence, or because the three persons are doing the same action? It doesn't seem to make sense.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      And I'm not pagan

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jehovah's Wiccans (JW) here. Unlike the Christians, we have One God;
        the Jehovah's Wizards (JW), and OFC, the Jehovah's Witches (JW).

        Go JW, the Horned One.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >this has been explained to you over and over again, in several ways.
      And every single one of the so far falls into one of the following:
      1. 3 gods
      2. All persons are the same
      3. Modalism
      4. Partitionism
      5. "Shut up and nod"

      >A Child could get it.
      But an adult well versed in logic can't. When something makes less sense the more you know about logic, that's a VERY bad sign.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Logic was created by the devil to test our faith in god
        Truth is evil
        Submit to god

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Glory to the devil then.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The explanation given was the shitty "one essence" argument which is shit and doesn't actually imply one god, only that you have three gods sharing power or three gods that all have the same power.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The three beings are God in sharing the one power

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's just three gods with one power pool

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            They have one origin not independence existences

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            But they do have independent existences, as evidenced by Jesus being able to become fully human.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's incarnation

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Its not that I don't understand. Its that I do understand that its PURE COPEIUM

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it possible to hold both Christian and Pagan beliefs at the same time?

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It doesnt matter because its not real. Youre chasing shadows, smoke and mirros man. Youre living in a meme.
    The trinity concept was clearly copied from other philosophers, which tried to explain the world.
    But as the end of the day its just a meme, because its speculative, and thus not proven in reality.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I wanna understand the supposed logics behind this speculation then

      the bibles say there are four and twenty

      What?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nay, our Brahma and Vishnu and Shiva exist, infidel. Nay.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that poo-people exist its proof there's no God out there, and we're all living on a giant rock which is lost in the empty space of the universe.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          poo

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    the bibles say there are four and twenty

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    24

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    an infinity of them. first, one god is three, then all three are gods so all three if them are individually three etc., and the ensuing series 3^n diverges as frick.
    ... but let's not get into St. Leslie's theological calculus.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    For all we know, there can be multiple and even infinite gods in these entities. The problem is that the Bible never specifics that well because IMO, the Bible is underdeveloped

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      All praise goes to the Goddesses and the Gods, the universal Ruler.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. It is not comprehensible, God transcends creation and overflows all categories
    2. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/holy-trinity-10173

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      But so do you consider the Trinity illogical?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you mean ‘how?’ God’s triunity is revelation. There is nothing in creation that is analogous to the Trinity. God cannot be comprehended, dude.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          So its nonsense. Okay, great argument!

          Logic was created by the devil to test our faith in god
          Truth is evil
          Submit to god

          Good impression of one of them

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So its nonsense. Okay, great argument!
            Being beyond our comprehension isn't the same as being nonsensical. If that's the way you honestly interpreted what was said, you're more or less functionally illiterate. I'm not Christian, but this proud stupidity on display.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is it nonsense? Do you think God is comprehensible? Who the frick asks, ‘why does God exist in this way?’ If you want to disprove the Trinity, do it with scripture.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you want to disprove the Trinity, do it with scripture.
            What a great way to say, "if the Bible told me the Earth is flat, that 2 + 2 = 5 and that rivers flow upwards, I would believe it and no amount of observation and logical reasoning would change my mind."

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's valid to attack when Christians will attack atheist positions on the basis that they're "not logically coherent" but then won't address logically incoherent concepts in their own beliefs and quite happily handwave paradoxical ideas.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the reality is that we have to trust and believe that God came down and gave us these laws and rules because it is too long ago to observe Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Much like evolution where you have to trust and believe that stuff like the big bang or evolution occurred because it is way too long ago to observe these phenomena.
            We have maybe 200 years total of people questioning the existence of God. Whereas we have had the Bible passed down for thousands of years. I wonder how long people will truly hold on to these new age concepts. Im guessing once America falls a lot of current modern thought will fall to the wayside while people look to pick up the pieces. To sum up, atheists are anti religious zealots who are just defending their new age faith that was instilled in them by people who hate them and are actively conspiring against them. I pray for your soul and hope you try to discredit the Bible by doing your own research. Study til your eyes are swollen. I can guarantee that you will come out a Christian by the end of your research.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            > I pray for your soul and hope you try to discredit the Bible by doing your own research. Study til your eyes are swollen. I can guarantee that you will come out a Christian by the end of your research.
            I did and came to the opposite. There are parts I found far too strange to take on face value, which is my big issue with Christianity. I'm nowhere near as married to a concept like evolution as Christians are to their theology, a Christian would never even entertain the possibility of any aspect being wrong, while an honest scientist will entertain the possibility of being wrong as long as they're provided with a good argument for an alternative.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you haven't read the Bible front to back then you haven't begun research on it. It is very easy to look at excerpts and laugh at your enemies protected by your own ignorance.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I read the bits that actually matter and skipped most of the "Israel getting beaten up by surrounding nations" arc because it gets a bit samey after a while despite being roughly half the bible.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I can guarantee that you will come out a Christian by the end of your research.
            do you know how i lost faith (chrisitan) and turned gnostic ?

            i started to read Bible while preparing for confirmation, then read thing that i didnt find "fancy" (i skip all horrors from Old testament (cough childrens and bears cough) but what shaken me most were esp parables of olive lamps and brides and jesus and fig tree)
            i thats "real faith" then im out

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          But so do you consider it's illogical?

          Docetism has nothing to do with the trinity

          Well, wouldn't Docetism imply Jesus not being God?

          The Shayafooda thing isn't analogous to what is being said. It's one thing to say that something has aspects of it which are beyond our comprehension, and saying here's a thing, you need to believe in it or you will be eternally punished, and it's incomprehensible (that is the information provided by the text. If you need to move the goalposts on it in any way, please at least acknowledge that it doesn't work). I'm not a Christian, but if you think than analogy actually works in this situation, you just don't understand what they're saying.

          What is the difference between "beyond our conprehension (forever)" and "incomprehensible"?

          I don't get it. Isn't each side of this object a part of it?

          One
          >The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abides ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father.

          >One
          Then how are three entities that are God?
          >just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together
          Isn't the light part of the fire?
          >And just as light is ever the product of fire
          So the Son is a product of the Father? So how is the Son not caused by the Father, having no aseity (an attribute of God) and thus not being God?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            They are aspects of the object, they permeate the gestalt.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't the aspects of the gestalt parts of the gestalt?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            First off this is closest to modalism, not partialism and no. And its not modalism because the object is all of these shapes in a thoroughgoing way.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And its not modalism because the object is all of these shapes in a thoroughgoing way
            Yeah, but are each of these shapes the object in a thoroughgoing way? No, right? They're just parts of the whole object. That's what seemed like partialism to me. I don't see the link with modalism, could you explain it better?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its more like the father, husband carpenter thing

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't get it, could you explain it better?

            One. What are you confused about?

            How can three entities be God and there only be one God?

            REMINDER: if have questions about about the Trinity you should read the first book of an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus instead of fishing for half-baked answers on Oyish
            https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

            If you have time to argue about stupid shit on Oyish, you have time to read this, it's not even long

            Thanks for the contribution, I'm gonna try to read it, but do you have an explanation for my question?

            >So how is the Son not caused by the Father
            He is. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are caused by the Father, although they are not created like temporal beings are, the Son is eternally generated/begotten while the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.

            >He is. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are caused by the Father, although they are not created like temporal beings are, the Son is eternally generated/begotten while the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.
            So the Son is caused by the Father, having no aseity (an attribute of God) and thus not being God?
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aseity

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but that would be non-Trinitarian, so less relevant than Arianism. You might as well have a box for Mormon and Muslim theology too at that point.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So how is the Son not caused by the Father
            He is. Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are caused by the Father, although they are not created like temporal beings are, the Son is eternally generated/begotten while the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for giving me my friendly reminder that Christian theology just consists of daisy chaining words together in ways that sound profound enough to make it not quite 100% obvious that what you're saying is of utmost moronation.

            I'm not even gonna challenge you to define "caused," "created," "generated," "begotten" and "proceed from" because I know you'll simply weasel your way out of it like all Christians I've challenged to lay out their beliefs in a precise vocabulary before you.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >DON'T USE TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY REEE
            Okay then, let me put it in even simpler terms: the Word of God(the Son) and the Spirit of God(the Holy Spirit) have a causative point of origin in God the Father, but they were not created on account of being, among other things, eternal and unchanging. That differentiates them from temporal and changing entities such as us and the universe as a whole, which are temporal, subject to change and in case of which there was time when they were not. It's not hard to understand, you're just a brainlet.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Caused but not created!
            God I love this christian double think

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, in terms of relationship between the persons of the trinity the Word of God and the Spirit of God have a in God the Father, while at the same time they're co-eternal because to imply otherwise is equal to saying there was a time when God was subject to change as at some point he was Wordless and Spiritless.
            To bring up the kind-of analogy from that anon before: if there was an eternal flame, it would eternally emit light and smoke. The logical relation between these three is plain as a day(light and smoke come from the flame, rather than flame and smoke coming from the light) but there was no point when there was just the flame with no light and smoke.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Considering Christians will bring up causality breaking as a reason to dismiss cyclic universes, it's hypocritical to then use this logic with regards to their god. Either they accept causality or accept it can be broken.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry buddy, but random words you found in a theology blog and spew to sound profound aren't "technical terminology." Technical terminology consists of words that are very accurately defined for the explicit purpose of forbidding yourself from bargaining like a pussy when someone proves you wrong. It's totally 100% the exact opposite of what Chrisitian theology does, to the admission of Christians I've argued with in this very board. Because you want to bargain like a pussy when someone proves you wrong. Because you have a religious obligation to never ever ever leave any room for questioning your god, and you will openly shit on objective reality if necessary.

            >have a causative point of origin
            >were not created on account of being, among other things, eternal and unchanging
            Self contradiction. If something is caused, it starts. Now's your time to bargain like all Christians before you.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are caused by the Father
            Just a heads up but this is the heresy of Monarchianism; Catholic Dogma holds that this is a sin punishable by death and eternal damnation.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just a heads up but you don't know what you're talking about
            Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed:
            >[We believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; (...) And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father
            Athanasian Creed:
            >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.
            >The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Docetism has nothing to do with the trinity

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Shayafooda thing isn't analogous to what is being said. It's one thing to say that something has aspects of it which are beyond our comprehension, and saying here's a thing, you need to believe in it or you will be eternally punished, and it's incomprehensible (that is the information provided by the text. If you need to move the goalposts on it in any way, please at least acknowledge that it doesn't work). I'm not a Christian, but if you think than analogy actually works in this situation, you just don't understand what they're saying.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous
  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >THERE ARE... THREE GODS!

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    One
    >The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abides ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of the Father.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I bear witness that there is no God but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Twenty-Four

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    One. What are you confused about?

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    REMINDER: if have questions about about the Trinity you should read the first book of an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus instead of fishing for half-baked answers on Oyish
    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

    If you have time to argue about stupid shit on Oyish, you have time to read this, it's not even long

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reality

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    We try to reason it out assuming the Bible is true

    1. God is one god, don't add anything to God - Torah
    2. Jesus is the Son of God - NT
    3. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God - NT
    4. and the Word was God - NT

    We have one supreme being "God" who created the material world and man from clay in his image and breathed life into him
    We have Jesus 'conceived of the Holy Spirit' whatever that means - virgin birth, etc.
    Jesus declared Son of God, who teaches all to live as and be the children of God
    Jesus in flesh now the incarnation of the Word of God that existed at the beginning and was and is a direct manifestation of God
    Where this word of mine this post is a direct manifestation of my thoughts which were before the post, Jesus is the incarnation of the thoughts and words of God which existed alongside God being of the same being at the beginning

    Jesus being the redeemer of mankind, living by the material constraints of the law as caused to be in place by God, teaches not just israelites of the law but the whole world to follow after his way of life, which is of a living man, and not a 'dead letter' which is only of material, only fulfilled by following after the one who lived by it and understood it not as a god in and of itself, an idol in text, but as a useful service to the israelites in constituting the people of God, instituted as it is said by God through Moses and the Aaronite priesthood, which wound up falling away from the correct teaching, alongside the israeli people, who were dispersed according to their state of error.

    So it is one God 'the Father' and one Son the incarnation of the Word of God being of the same essence per Constantine and the creeds, the Son a separate and material being all the while being a manifestation of that Word hence fully divine and fully human, to the extent he was divine he was the Word of God, to the extent he was a man he was material.

    Trinitarians err when they become polytheists; the above is monotheism.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't the Word of God a part of God? How can the Word of God be God? Also, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are God too, then wouldn't there be three Gods? I don't get this.

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    1/3rd

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