Is each person of the Trinity the fullness of God?

If God is quantifiable and logically accesible and 3x=y, with x:number of persons and y:number of God, then each x equals y/3, a part of y. So it logically follows that each person is a part of God, not the fullness of God. The shamrock analogy has this as an implication. Any refutations?

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

    >Any refutations?
    You cannot divide God.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      If God is quantifiable, logically accessible, and not divisible, then 3x can't equal y and the quantity of one God couldn't equal the quantity of three persons.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    God is not a math equation lol. in some sense you can make theology congruent with mathematics, but that is some stupid shit

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      So are you saying that God is not quantifiable?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        What does that even mean? You sound like someome who believes in 3 Gods. There is only 1 God.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean we being able to analyze the quantity of God (10% of God, 30% of God etc).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no percentage because God is indivisible.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If God is quantifiable, logically accessible, and not divisible, then 3x can't equal y and the quantity of one God couldn't equal the quantity of three persons.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        basically if you want a conspiracy for halloween, god or the greatest possible world is just the thing that maintains the world being the same in the father and the son. jesus didn't always exist, and the holy spirit is probably going to be something like the continuity of religious thought. sorry for unclear

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >jesus didn't always exist
          He did always exist.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            immanently. did Jesus always exist immanently? was that information available to the human mind? where in the old testament is this dealt with?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean "immanently"?
            >was that information available to the human mind?
            Why does that matter?

  3. 6 months ago
    Dirk

    3x=y is an imperfect analogy. It does not convey the relationship between being and person in trinitarian theology.
    All analogies break somewhere.

    The doctrine is not stated in the analogy, it's stated in the creeds or other theological treatises.
    I happily concede that the shamrock analogy and the algebraic analogy imply partialism under scrutiny, that's just not the point of the analogy.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >3x=y is an imperfect analogy. It does not convey the relationship between being and person in trinitarian theology
      What is the relation, then, in the Athanasian Creed, between the three persons and the one God? My point was not to make a new analogy, but just to quantify the persons and the Gods in the case of three persons being one God.
      >The doctrine is not stated in the analogy, it's stated in the creeds or other theological treatises.
      What creeds and theological treatises? I guess the relation between the three persons and the one God is not the same in all creeds and treatises.

      basically if you want a conspiracy for halloween, god or the greatest possible world is just the thing that maintains the world being the same in the father and the son. jesus didn't always exist, and the holy spirit is probably going to be something like the continuity of religious thought. sorry for unclear

      I don't get your point lol

      • 6 months ago
        Dirk

        Are you the same daily spammer who already conceded that trinitarianism can account for three persons being one god without partialism?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          When I said "Yes, why not?" to "Can three of something be one of something else?", that implied Partialism to me, because it was exactly saying 3x=y. So yes, I'm that guy, but I didn't say that 3x=y without Partialism.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Continuing: we were talking about the shamrock, so it was clearly Partialism.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            >that implied partialism to me
            So you knowingly do not grasp the basics of trinitarian theology such that you could disprove it. Is that accurate?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The basics of it is that three persons are one God without Partialism, right? What I don't grasp is how that is possible.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            Where is the logical contradiction?

            >three persons can't be one god because... Because they just can't!
            Why?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say that. I said that, without Partialism, I don't grasp how it's possible. With Partialism I concede that it's possible, as quantified in algebraic form.

          • 6 months ago
            Dirk

            The algebra is an analogy
            If you don't grasp it, what's the contradiction you think you see?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The algebra is an analogy
            It's not, it's just a different language for saying the same ("three of something are one of something else"), in case they are quantifiable. I don't grasp how the three of something aren't parts of the something else.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But if the doctrine is another, could you explain to me?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The algebra is an analogy
            Can you show me that it's just an analogy? I mean, I used algebra just to rewrite claims that were already in the Athanasian Creed (supposing we can analyze quantities of God, like 10% of God, 30% of God etc), no?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >to rewrite
            You rewrote them and lost information in the process (that each person is fully God). It's like if you tried to describe the flavor of food using equations. There are qualitative and quantitative properties, don't they teach that at school where you are?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            My point is that the Athanasian Creed is contradictory. So I didn't write in algebraic language all of it or even the parts in which the contradictions would be shown. If I wanted to focus on the contradiction generated by the claim that each person is the fullness of God, I would have written 3x=y, x=y => 3y=y, but I wrote only the claims that would imply Partialism alone.
            >There are qualitative and quantitative properties
            The qualitative would be what they are (x and y, person and God, respectively), and the quantitative would be 3 and 1, respectively, right?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but I wrote only the claims that would imply Partialism alone
            That's cherry-picking though. You recognize the contradiction in saying both are true. It would be consistent to present both partialism and tritheism, even though I don't think the truth is illustrated in a binary logic.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >cherry-picking
            Why? These claims would be contradictory even if I hadn't taken them specifically.
            >You recognize the contradiction in saying both are true
            I say that it's true that the Athanasian Creed implies partialism because of the quantitative logical implication in 3x=y.
            >It would be consistent to present both partialism and tritheism
            What? How?
            >I don't think the truth is illustrated in a binary logic
            What do you mean? Are you gonna talk about quantum superposition?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why? These claims would be contradictory even if I hadn't taken them specifically.
            Because it could be either / or, but you specified the partialist interpretation, but you explain in the next sentence why you did that.
            >I say that it's true that the Athanasian Creed implies partialism because of the quantitative logical implication in 3x=y.

            >What? How?
            Because it could be read as either, and I'm pretty sure you gave the option in previous threads.

            >What do you mean? Are you gonna talk about quantum superposition?
            I'm doing so in the other thread, because the original thread was bumplocked and archived.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because it could be read as either, and I'm pretty sure you gave the option in previous threads
            Now, at least, I don't understand how it can be read as "either", since, as I said, Partialism is a quantitative logical implication of 3x=y.

            I hadn't read it before (Protestant) and had no idea Catholics had such a bizarre idea of the Trinity, thanks OP.
            Apparently the very simple statement "Jesus is a part of God that can act quasi-independently" is against Catholic doctrine.

            Explain your bizarre ideas Catholics

            But the Athanasian Creed is accepted by Reformed churches as well.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Athanasian Creed is accepted by Reformed churches as well
            "Reformed" means "Calvinist"

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't Calvinists Protestants as well? Anyway Lutheran churches also accept the Athanasian Creed.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most Protestants aren't Reformed or Lutheran

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            ? What do you mean?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most Protestants aren't Calvinists or part of the Lutheran denomination, but would be part of other ones
            I can basically guarantee you'll find nearly 0 Protestants saying you can't be saved if you don't think the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (whatever that even means) like that creed does, so I'm skeptical those groups actually hold to it like you're saying.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I hadn't read it before (Protestant) and had no idea Catholics had such a bizarre idea of the Trinity, thanks OP.
            Apparently the very simple statement "Jesus is a part of God that can act quasi-independently" is against Catholic doctrine.

            Explain your bizarre ideas Catholics

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I hadn't read it before (Protestant) and had no idea Catholics had such a bizarre idea of the Trinity, thanks OP.
            Apparently the very simple statement "Jesus is a part of God that can act quasi-independently" is against Catholic doctrine.

            Explain your bizarre ideas Catholics

            I mean it says "Nothing in this trinity is before or after, nothing is greater or smaller" which is a FLAGRANT contradiction of John 14:28, where Jesus says "for my Father is greater than I".

            It also makes the filioque a matter of salvation. Absolutely absurd.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Quran says to stop saying "three" in relation to God. It says that God is one.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No that doesn't make any logical sense

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why?

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    "strives to be" would be more accurate than "is". Makes the trinity a cyclical process with feedback loops which describes the nature of power, as opposed to a static snapshot.

    The Son strives to be the father and the Holy Spirit; youth wants to be as glorious as the past, holding it's culture and flying it's banner.

    The Father strives to be the Son and the Holy Spirit; elders want to create the best chances for their offspring, and do their duty to maintain their society and values.

    The Holy Spirit strives to be the Son and the Father; culture, faith and everything we know is a product of the result of our biggest division as a species; old vs new.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's the Athanasian Creed that says it.
      "So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God."

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    To me, in math God always worked in infinity/3=infinity.
    This can apply here, 3×infinity=infinity.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you divide infinity (the quantity of God, so to say) by three, it's true that you have three infinities. But each if them are different from the original infinity and are a part of, by matter of being contained in the bigger infinity. For example, the infinite set of even numbers is contained in the infinite set of natural numbers.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        There can be only one infinite, because it would be restricted by a second one and thus would be limited. There is not infinite set of numbers because that concerns only numbers, and is then limited.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There can be only one infinite, because it would be restricted by a second one and thus would be limited.
          Wrong, there are infinities that are different from other infinities. As I said, the infinity of even numbers is not the same as the infinity of natural numbers.
          >There is not infinite set of numbers because that concerns only numbers, and is then limited.
          What do you mean? A set with infinite numbers isn't infinite? And even if you're talking about having to contain other things other than numbers, different infinities would still exist. In the Trinity, dividing the infinity of God by three would generate three infinities different from the initial one.

          Most Protestants aren't Calvinists or part of the Lutheran denomination, but would be part of other ones
          I can basically guarantee you'll find nearly 0 Protestants saying you can't be saved if you don't think the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (whatever that even means) like that creed does, so I'm skeptical those groups actually hold to it like you're saying.

          I mean, I thought Reformed meant Protestant because of the expression "Protestant Reformation". Who are the Protestants, then? Also, from wikipedia: "Widely accepted in Western Christianity, including by the Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Churches (it is part of the Lutheran confessions set out in the Book of Concord), Anglican Churches, Reformed Churches, and ancient liturgical churches, the Athanasian Creed has been used in public worship less frequently, with exception of Trinity Sunday.[1] However, part of it can be found as an "Authorized Affirmation of Faith" in the main volume of the Common Worship liturgy of the Church of England published in 2000."

          It’s a metaphor you dumbass

          But if God is quantifiable, why couldn't it be said that 3x=y is an implication of the Athanasian Creed?

          I don't think that we have neither the math nor more importantly language complex/rich enough to be able to quantize such abstract theologies.

          Had never given any thought about this topic in particular, but if I had to give anything to this, it's Metareality's self-projection upon itself as the basis of creation for the telesis, or something along these lines.
          All this goes in infinitesimal fractals downwards.

          >I don't think that we have neither the math nor more importantly language complex/rich enough to be able to quantize such abstract theologies
          Why would algebra be problematic to express the quantity-wise relation between the persons and the God?

          I don't think that we have neither the math nor more importantly language complex/rich enough to be able to quantize such abstract theologies.

          Had never given any thought about this topic in particular, but if I had to give anything to this, it's Metareality's self-projection upon itself as the basis of creation for the telesis, or something along these lines.
          All this goes in infinitesimal fractals downwards.

          >it's Metareality's self-projection upon itself as the basis of creation for the telesis, or something along these lines.
          >All this goes in infinitesimal fractals downwards.
          I don't get it, could you explain it better?

          Highly venerated Christian apologizer Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) on record now affirming the Trinity as being illogical

          Interesting

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I thought Reformed meant Protestant because of the expression "Protestant Reformation".
            It's sort of like "gender-affirming care" really meaning "horrific Frankenstein mutilation surgeries". The Calvinists call themselves "Reformed".

            >Also, from wikipedia
            Indeed but what has an actual person actually said about that creed? I find it extraordinarily difficult to picture a Lutheran (or even an Anglican) saying you go to Hell over an arcane point about the procession of the Holy Spirit

            Do you have anyone from one of those churches actually taking such a view of the creed like Catholicism does, or do they just consider it a good and ancient summary of the issue?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Indeed but what has an actual person actually said about that creed? I find it extraordinarily difficult to picture a Lutheran (or even an Anglican) saying you go to Hell over an arcane point about the procession of the Holy Spirit
            I don't know about this specific point because I don't go to these churches, but I guess it's probably a thing more of priests and theologians. But about each person being the fullness of God and not just a part, I've seen most Protestants agreeing with this.
            >Do you have anyone from one of those churches actually taking such a view of the creed like Catholicism does, or do they just consider it a good and ancient summary of the issue?
            I think that not even in Catholicism most lay people (not priests, theologians etc) don't think profoundly about the Athanasian Creed, but most of them believe that each person is God and not just a part of God anyway.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a false premise. God "is" the father, the son and the holy spirit in different planes of reality. He is the creator, the creation and the energy.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why the scare quotes in "is"? It's in the Athanasian Creed that each person is God.
      >in different planes of reality
      What do you mean?
      >He is the creator, the creation and the energy
      The Creed says the Son is not a creation, though.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It’s a metaphor you dumbass

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      What's the original meaning then?

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think that we have neither the math nor more importantly language complex/rich enough to be able to quantize such abstract theologies.

    Had never given any thought about this topic in particular, but if I had to give anything to this, it's Metareality's self-projection upon itself as the basis of creation for the telesis, or something along these lines.
    All this goes in infinitesimal fractals downwards.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Highly venerated Christian apologizer Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) on record now affirming the Trinity as being illogical

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      sad

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