How to prove that 95% of all Christians are heretics: ask them to explain the trinity.
What is there to explain?
Three persons, one essence. Like three persons, one soul. It's that simple.
>>407517
People thinking that 'their' understanding is adequate.
No one knows the trinity without being heretical.
As crazy as it sounds doctrine is most likely heresy.
Just a bunch of people who think they know and cant comprehend the complex idea that is the nature of the trinity and instead rely on arbitrary man made definitions to understand something which they know they cant.
All in all.
95% are just blowing smoke.
Its the uneducated who un-ironically understand God far better.
>>407517
>a=b=c
>a=!c
Smh senpai
In Catholicism Mary is the 4th part of the trinity. There are also trying to make the church itself be the 5th part.
>>407539
The ghost is not really a person.
>>407558
that makes sense if you consider it to be a directed graph
>>407517
It just werks senpai I don't have to explain shit and that's the only explenation
>Dude Mysterious Ways™ Lmao
>>407565
>4th part of the trinity. There are also trying to make the church itself be the 5th part.
>4th part of the trinity
>4th part
>trinity
>>407567
The ghost is a random character that has no business being there. It's like Mr Poopy Butthole in that episode of Rick and Morty.
>>407568
But it doesn't
>>407589
>The ghost is a random character that has no business being there. It's like Mr Poopy Butthole in that episode of Rick and Morty.
What are you talking about? The ghost was always there.
>>407558
It's more like
A ( =/= BC) = D
B (=/= AC) = D
C (=/= AB) = D
D = ABC
Is your motor equivalent with your gas tank and your gas tank with your wheel? No, but they are all part of the same car.
Are the three leaves of a clover the same? No, but they are part of the same plant.
>>407595
Neither God nor the Holy Ghost exist so I guess they've been there the same amount of time :^)
>>407565
>how to spot a protestant
>>407606
Then say the son, the father and the Holy Ghost are all *parts* of God then
>>407613
But then I don't get to sound smart when I explain it to you!
>>407606
>No, but they are part of the same plant.
Modalist heresy. Repent or be burned.
>>407613
I'm pretty sure that each part also contains the whole too, if that makes sense.
>>407613
That's just a dumbed down metaphor though. They aren't 'parts'.
>>407641
No, it doesnt make sense. The creed was designed deliberately that way .If you think it does, you're commiting heresy.
>>407641
That doesn't make any sense at all unless there are different definitions of 'part' and 'whole'
>>407630
>modalism
ok so that's literally the opposite of what I said
So why did the church go about deeming any logical understanding of the trinity as heresy?
>>407643
That literally makes no sense
>>407654
they didn't.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
>>407661
>not difficult
>DUDE THEYRE LIKE NOT THE SAME BUT THEYRE THE SAME AND LIKE PARTS AAAAAAND THE WHOLE LMAO XDDD
It's funny to watch Christians shit talk us and say we're illogical pagans as a Hindu
>>407567
The Holy Spirit is a hypostasis, which "person" is generally used to translate.
>>407565
>Nestorianism
>>407673
I actually have mad respect for your ideas about the nature of the divine, it's very similar to our ideas about the trinity.
What with the emanations of the divine united in the godhead thing.
>>407567
Not according to Saint Paul
1 Corinthians 12
11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and -->he<-- distributes them to each one, just as -->he<-- determines.
>>407696
I'd say the Alawisi conception of God is the closest to Christian
>>407673
Only fundies in America would do that.
Christians who actually know what they're talking about see the similiarities and links to [some branches of] Hinduism.
>>407707
whats that
>>407517
its like how ice, water and vapor are all the h2o but in different manifestations
>>407715
It's a branch of Shia Islam that believes in a Trinitarian God who had several human incarnations.
>>407751
"H2O" and "water" are collective nouns
"God" is usually understood to be one (in monotheistic religions)
>>407751
Modalism, heresy. Try again.
>>407517
Blah, you still aren't getting it. You also must relate yourself to the picture, You are neither of the other 3 in the trinity but you too are also God.
>>408041
I doubt Protestants even know what that is, let alone find it heretical.
>>408020
How is saying that each person is *part* of the soul? Just because they all share one soul doesn't mean each is a piece of it.
>>408088
Of course. Um, oh yeah, that's obviously the first thing. Well, what I was pointing out is the fact that there are no pieces of them left. Yeah, so, you know, they're intact, wherever they are whole, somewhere, that we can be sure of.
>>407751
But they are seperate unlike God, much like I cannot be a baby, teenager and an old man at the same time like the water particles cannot be steam and ice at the same time.
To use this kind of reasoning we could argue that the Greek Pantheon was monothesitic as each of thier Gods had one equal substance
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
>>407613
they're not parts
>>408110
Sorry, y'all. It was an accident.
>>408296
Calling the three persons of the trinity "states" is fundamentally heresy anyway.
>To use this kind of reasoning we could argue that the Greek Pantheon was monothesitic as each of thier Gods had one equal substance
The Greek gods were not cosubstantial in the sense of ousia.
>>408378
wasn't me man
>>408384
>defining the three persons as relationships
ABSOLUTELY WESTERN
>>408384
>aspect
>aspect
>aspect
ABSOLUTELY SABELLIANIST
>defining one person as personality in contrast to others
ABSOLUTELY ARIAN
>God "earns" his name
ABSOLUTELY MORMON
>>the Son beholds the Father through the Holy Spirit
ABSOLUTE FILIOQUE
>The Son because he was born in the material world
ABSOLUTELY NESTORIAN
>The Holy Spirit is "knowable"
ABSOLUTELY GNOSTIC
>>408418
/thread
John 17 verse 1 to 5
" 17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word"
1st Corinthians chapter 8 verse 4-6
"4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
“My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28.
“I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.”—John 20:17.
“To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”—1 Peter 1:3.
“These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.”—Revelation 3:14.
Galatians 3:20 "20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one"
>>407662
Personification of omnipotence? Like how general Christianity claims were were created in God's image?
>>408463
The alpha and the omega.
>>407517
Christians are polytheists. Believing in a trinity is equal to believing in three separate Gods. There is no God but God. God is one and he does not have the form of a man. You need to embrace Sunni Islam.
A Catholic invention?
>>408533
>Believing in a trinity is equal to believing in three separate Gods
I hope you understand how retarded this statement is
>>408533
Go catch a hike on Muhammad's flying pony m8000000000
>>408540
You do believe God came down in the form of Jesus and let himself be sacrificed? Yet it is not the same God as the God who created Jesus?
>>408533
I wonder how many actual muslims we have on this board. This guy is clearly fucking around but there's a whole board of them over on fredrickchan.
>>408552
>as the God who created Jesus
>created
>Jesus
Holy fuck
>>408552
In the beginning, there was The Word of God.
>>408552
>Yet it is not the same God as the God who created Jesus?
You have a rather limited grasp on christian theology.
Jesus is God,
God isn't a creature
>>408571
Then God is a human and separate from the true God. In becoming Jesus, God simply becomes an idol like the previous false pagan Gods.
>>408574
You know how you explicitly do not worship Muhammad, in fact you do not worship him so hard that you riot whenever someone jokingly draws him or someone writes a book where Muhammad has character flaws?
The Trinity seems incomprehensible from the outside, but from the inside it makes perfect sense. There are not three gods, in much the same way as you guys do not worship Mohammed.
>>408574
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
>He was in the beginning with God.
>All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
God has 3 hypostases
>>408578
>Then God is a human
Yes
>and separate from the true God
No
>In becoming Jesus
Jesus always was
>God simply becomes an idol like the previous false pagan Gods.
what?
>>408586
That's completely different because it is clearly stated that the prophet is not God and he is merely a servant of God.
>>408533
Okay, so you guys know the Qur'an this guy posted has a swastika on it, right?
>>408574
Do you understand the difference between ousia and hypostasis?
>>408595
Not really. Surely if Muhammad was just a prohpet, then "insults" against him would not be so terrible. A movie like The Prince of Egypt woukd have gotten exactly as many riots and death threats (and occasionally, actual deaths) as something like the Satanic Verses. If the no depictions thing was really just about avoiding idols, then a depiction in a non-worshiping context like satirical cartoons wouldn't provoke such instant ire.
It's easy to see, from an outside perspective, what is actually happening with regards to Mohammad and Islam. But believers will make actually many mental gymnastics as possible to make it clear that they do not worship him, despite treating him as an object of worship. The same is true of the Trinity. From your perspective, it seems like three gods with metal gymnastics. Maybe, but as "Isa" would say, look at the plank in your own eye before the mite in the eyes of others.
>>408617
>The official Sunni stance is that every prophet is merely a servant of God.
The official church stance is that there is only one God, thus, there is only one God despite any evidence to the contrary.
>>408617
>Please explain
Different anon but it's essentialy
Ousia means nature/essence/substance
while
hypostasis means person
The Godhead is one God with one substance and 3 persons
>>408617
>Please explain
God is one ousia with three hypostases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)
>video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
>>408552
God begot Jesus, he didn't create him. Jesus is uncreated and the creator of the universe.
>>408647
So Jesus was chilling since before the creation of the universe in a human form while God set the stage for 1st century Roman rule of Judea?
>>408652
>a human form
In the form of The Word. But yes, essentially. The Father was the major player for most of the Old Testament with some Holy Spirit here and there.
>>408652
The Son and the Father both existed from the beginning, as did the Holy Spirit.
The Son was not in human form until Mary gave birth to him.
>>407517
>heretics
>Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same
you cant be a heretic for not knowing something, famm
>>408478
Kinda yea, but omnipresence, not omnipotence. Most people think, "Oh, that means God has a form like a human", because pagan beliefs had their Gods as basically powerful or big humans.
What so hard to explain here? God is samefag. There is nothing more to this.
>>407517
It's really quite simple. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, created by God the Father, distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to the Father. The Holy Spirit is another entity entirely, simply high-ranking in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Is Trinity dialectical?
>>407517
That graph violates the transitivity of identity. If that's a clear representation of the trinity, then it's a logical impossibility
>>409041
the concept of the trinity is supposed to violate the transitivity of identity, because mortal man isn't meant to understand the truest mysteries of God.
>>409037
This is like totally heretical.
>>409041
> transitivity of identity
No such thing. I can be Anon, You can be Anon, but you can't be me. There is no logical problem here. Just define God not as personal category.
>>409045
it is by far the simplest interpretation of the Trinity to explain and to understand.
>>409037
>Jesus Christ is the Son of God
What does that even mean when we're not talking about biological reproduction?
>>409049
No straightforward relationship of identity holds between either of us and anon. That's a membership, which is at best a type-identity relation. The relationship between the persons of God could not be a mere type-identity relation, as this would be straight up polytheism.
>>409042
>I don't have to make sense because magic
>>409049
Anonymity is a property which we both share. However we are clearly different people. Are you saying the three members of the trinity are distinctly different entities, which just happen to share some property?
>>409037
> Jesus Christ is created by God the Father
Arianism is a heresy since 325 and died out by the 6th century. There is no mainstream church who thinks Jesus was created.
>>409061
> would be straight up polytheism.
Polytheism believes in many Gods. But here only one God. It just has multiple personality disorder. Imagine Giant Brain with three minds. Something like this is Trinity. Giant Brain is God. Minds here represents Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>>409070
> distinctly different entities, which just happen to share some property?
One entity that has three distinct local properties like Cerberus.
>>409040
No, because the holy spirit doesn't function as a synthesis of father and son, all are equal to each other
>>407517
you're supposed to understand that you don't understand it
christianity as a whole is about imagining greater power than you could comprehend and then understanding god is greater than that
The Trinity is mystical Eastern alchemy bullshit.
t. true rationalistic Catholic
>>409147
>Catholic
No
>>409141
There is trivial theorem in transfinite numbers theory that proves that you can't distinct real infinity from any defined number. By analogy Trinity is pretty logical. Nothing can be really separated from God. Not Christ, or Father, or everyone else including you and me because formally speaking God is omnipotent and you unable to say that God can't just manifest all power that he wants in the form of your body. Trinity is just arbitrary choose three states of omnipotent God from infinite realizations set.
>>409098
So Jesus isn't God then, but a local property of God?
>>409178
>Nothing can be really separated from God
There's a clear divide between creator and creature because creation ex nihilo
>>409148
>there is "right" and "wrong" in theology
>my interpretation is "right" one because I feel so
>I read NT once and now I know more about "true meaning of Christianity" more than ecumenical bishops in 325 did
>>409191
Is there some kind of definitive counter argument against creation ex deo?
>>407517
It's amazing how the only ways that the trinity makes any sense are heretical.
It's like muslim apologists trying to demonstrate that mohammed didn't fuck up with fractions in the quran.
>>408574
God shows himself in three forms - the "son", Jesus, who came to bring his teachings directly to us, and came back to life after dying.
The "father", who is essientally the "essence" of God. Cannot be known, cannot be seen, absolutely traxcends the universe.
The "holy spirit", basically cable link between us and God.
See it that way: Jesus was the son, God's greatest prophet. Muhammad got his prophecies from the Holy Spirit. The Father is the Father and cannot be grasped.
You could also say Jesus is God in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is God in the spirit, the Father is God trascending all.
The only reason the concept needs to exist is because it's kind of weird to have Jesus be the "son" of God, and because it made it easier for pagans to understand.
>>409257
We read in the Word of God, in 1 John 4:8 that "God is Love".
What are the necessary conditions that this can be a true statement?
For any event of "love" we do need the subject who loves, we need an object which is loved, and we need an expression of this love in some way, i.e. an interaction between the first two.
I cannot love when I am "just by myself". Focussing only on myself is egotism, not love.
Now, how can God BE Love if he was solitary in "unitary aloneness" from eternity past? None of the attributes of God are dependent on his creation. If God could only start loving after he had created us then his attribute of love would be dependent on us. He would not be self-sufficient in his attributes. But if he is unitary as Muslims believe, then love necessarily cannot be an attribute of his [nor can justice or mercy or any other relational attribute] because he is not in any relationship for eternity before he creates.
>>409266
>Now, how can God BE Love if he was solitary in "unitary aloneness" from eternity past?
But he is not. He created us. We don't know what God was up to before creating us.
>>407517
Makes as much sense as this tbqh
>make bait thread complaining how you don't understand the Trinity
>once you get btfo you make a thread complaining about the Trinity
OP pls
>>409554
But that image is incorrect
The value of them are all equal.
2 times 15 equals 5 times 6
>>409554
What the fuck am I reading
>>410025
>is equal
>isn't equivalent
>>410062
They literally mean the same thing.
>>409554
Not really, both the Father and Son are supposed to be beings with minds. Comparing it to maths is a terrible analogy.
>>409554
More like
>1*1 is not the same method of calculating as 0.5+0.5 is not the same method of calculating as cos(0)
>but they're all equal to 1
>>410107
No they don't.
sin(x) is equivalent to x when x is close to 0. But sin(x) =/= x, obviously.
STOP TRIVIALIZING THE TRINITY WITH WORTHLESS ANALOGIES
>At the same Council, Holy Hierarch St. Spyridon gave the Arians a graphic proof of the Unity within the Holy Trinity. He took a brick into his hands, and squeezed it. Immediately, flame shot up from it, water poured down from it, and clay remained in the hands of the miracle worker. Then St. Spyridon said, “Here are three elements, but the plinth (the brick) is one. So it is with the Most Holy Trinity: Three Faces, but One Divinity.”
http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/saints/SaintsE/e_1210_spiridon.htm
>>410149
That would make sin(x) roughly equivalent to x not literally exactly equivalent to x. If you were going to drop 'equal' into a sentence rather than using it as a math symbol you could use the word in the same way, sin(x) is roughly equal to x when x is close to zero.
You're trying to use the difference between the less exact nature of words and the precise nature of mathematical equations to try and claim a difference in the meanings of the two words that does not exist.
>>409547
In the beginning was the Word. And the was with God. And the Word WAS God.
John 1:1
It doesn't make sense, because standard Catholic theology claims that God is utterly simple, and that he has no parts that can be subdivided.
You could always think of it like this:
Your heart is not your lungs and your lungs is not your liver. But all three are part of you.
>>410585
Heresy. The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are not simply part of the same being, they are the same being, they're just not the same being at the same time. It's a Holy mystery.
Burn this man!
>>410585
So Jesus isn't God, but is just part of God?
>>409554
Heresy is algebraism.
2x15 = 5x6 in the same sense as 2x15=30
>>409196
Fuck off with your argument from authority. People in 325 didn't know how to wipe their own asses properly. I don't see why the bishops would be an exception.
There are no logical fallacies in that image
Dog = German Shepard
Dog = Labrador Retriever
Dog = Pit Bull
Pit Bull =/= German Shepard
German Shepard =/= Labrador Retriever
Labrador Retriever =/= Pit Bull
when will this fedora meme end
>>407517
Just think of a three leaf clover. All three leaves are a part of the same plant but are seperate from each other
>>411828
This is the worst analogy yet. It is like the heretics are playing a game of who can insult their own god and abuse Christian theology the most!
How many different types of dog are there?
Is one dog literally the same being as another dog?
Get the fire ready guys, we've got another heretic to burn, burn, burn.
>>411885
Are all three leafs the same leaf?
It's time to burn some heretics boys.
>>411828
This actually is either a hardcore heresy or catastrophic amount of idiocy, since you're technically implying there are three different Gods (not just three aspects of one God, but three separate beings). Basically polytheist / Mormon horseshit.
If I just accepts it and just admit I don't know how it works, is that heretical as well?
>>411828
Literary polytheims m8
Was the trinity intended since the begining or just the result of inconsistent writing that was wrapped up later?
Does this example work?
God is an abstract class and Father,Son and Holy Ghost are 3 derived classes with the same methods etc. but different interfaces?
>>407567
You don't know much about hypostases
Friendly reminder to everyone that filioque is heresy.
Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
>>412205
That would imply they're 3 faces of the same God. Rev up those stakes because we've someone to burn at em.
>>412203
The Trinity as separate persons is expressed by Christ's baptismal formula (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit).
>>407567
>calling the spirit the ghost
>>412544
"Ghost" used to mean the same thing as "Geist".
>>407517
This thread has proven beyond doubt that trinitarianism is untenable. It only took < 2000 years but better late than never.
>>407517
"I can't"
>>407517
at the First Ecumenical Council Holy Hierarch Spyridon took part.
He gave the Arians a graphic proof of the Unity within the Holy Trinity. He took a brick into his hands, and squeezed it. Immediately, flame shot up from it, water poured down from it, and clay remained in the hands of the miracle worker. Then St. Spyridon said, “Here are three elements, but the plinth (the brick) is one. So it is with the Most Holy Trinity: Three Faces, but One Divinity.”
>>410480
Scotus had this covered.
First, a few definitions:
Real Relation: The relation of things considered in their separability. Def “ Separable”: When x and y are conjoined to one another, if x could exist in a case where y did not then x is separable from y, and if y could exist in a case where x did not then y is separable from x.
Real Distinction: If the two things considered could exist separately from one another, I.E. one could exist in a counterfactual situation where the other did not, then there is a real distinction between them. To be really identical is to have the opposite of this condition hold between what we are considering as differentiated.
Formal Relation: A relation considered only in qualitative difference, a weaker kind of relation than a real relation.
Formal Distinction: If things have distinct qualities from each other, though this difference does not go as far as real seperability, then there is a formal distinction between them.
The Father "is not" the Son, the Son "is not" the Father, the Son "is not" the Holy Spirit" , The Father "is not" the Holy Spirit. But for each one we can say that it "is" God. How do we resolve this prima facie contradiction ?
1/2
>>414516
The Father, Son and, Holy Spirit are all formally distinct from each other. There are qualitative differences between the persons. These differentiating qualities are incommunicable between the persons. The father is defined by its creation and spiration, the son by being created and spirating., and the Holy Ghost by being spirated. The “is not” relationship between the three persons to each other holds. The act of creation is not a substantial generation, but rather the father atemporally communicating and informing ( I.E. the relationship implied by communicating and informing in our prima facie experience holds without a temporal process- only the actual foundational and simultaneous ontological dependency that is the core of the relationship holds) the essence of God in such a way that the Son is created and the Holy Spirit is spirated.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share in God’s essence though, and without God’s essence they could not be. There is no possibility that any of them could exist if God considered in his essence did not, they are not seperable from it. The “is” relation that each person has with God is a real identity relationship, as the persons could not exist apart from the essence of God.
Thus each person maintains a formal degree of inequality from each other, while all being really equal to God.
Now while God may have several formalities predicated of him, this does not imply that these formalities are parts. Especially since the formalities are inseparable from one another. This is not just in regards to the identity of the being they constitute, like in how my disassembling a desk will make it no longer be a desk, but in that what we are talking about cannot even be separated into parts so to destroy the thing they constitute.
2/2
God is partless and he is three. The three are one and the three are distinct.
>mfw
>>412453
>they're 3 faces of the same God
But that is correct
There is one God
>>415658
But that's modalism and utterly herretic. Burn, baby, burn.
The Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
>>415678
Eh no.
Having tree distinct subclassed that differ only in (inter)face is not modalism
Stop spouting buzzwords
Why did the Jesus-is-God meme even start? It makes no sense to me at all.
I suppose I should read this thread...
>>415712
>Why did the Jesus-is-God meme even start?
wow
>>415723
None of the old testament prophets were 'God'. It makes even less sense in the case of Jesus both because he has dialogs with God in the bible (talking to himself?), refers to 'God' a lot as clearly not himself, and his killed in a humiliating way ('God' allowed himself to be crucified?).
Why would making Jesus 'God' have ever been thought theologically necessary?
ITT heresy
![cce663a0de8f450a6ea0550ad4b5b580ecb100c98a31713bd17e7f9902082ba0[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9VETYQf.jpg "cce663a0de8f450a6ea0550ad4b5b580ecb100c98a31713bd17e7f9902082ba0[1].jpg")
>>415712
>Why did the Jesus-is-God meme even start? It makes no sense to me at all.
>>415733
We used to put people like you in gaschambers.
Regardless of your beliefs, why would you even expect the trinity to make logical sense? The core of Christianity is that we can't possibly comprehend God and the best we can do is inane analogies. God revealed himself to humanity in a form that we could barely understand, he's the one that directs the relationship. Contemplating his "essence" is literally impossible since it's simply outside our frame of reference, like a program wanting to understand its programmer.
If God made sense then it would be the best argument against theism desu
The ortodox christians have prayers adresed to saints.Also paintings and icons.Isn't that breaking one of the 10?
>>415762
> Orotodox
> Christians
The only true Christians are Protestants, putting the focus on you and your relationship with Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit.
>>415733
Someone answer this man, I don't know it myself but have always been curious.
It can be understood fairly well once you stop thinking about God as anything comparable to a human person. The wording is deceptive and it's better to use hypostasis or whatever.
Essentially, God is a trinity of relations. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in a constant, inconceivable relation of love, which gives meaning to the phrase "God is Love". God is not an abstract, platonic Form of Love itself, God is literally existing in a relation of love between three hypostasis that all, nevertheless, belong to the same essence.
>>415733
Not to mention it smacks of polytheism, which doesn't square with the old testament.
WTF is "the holy spirit" anyway? Is it literally some sort of ghost?
This shit makes literally no sense at all. I consider myself a pretty informed person, and I ever went to catholic school for a bit as a kid, but I have no idea what that shit means, and I doubt 99.99999999% of Christians do either.
>>415799
man, find some hobby for your life. Go tracking or maybe learn a foreign language. Just change something because it's not working out
>>415733
>None of the old testament prophets were 'God'
Correct
>It makes even less sense in the case of Jesus both because he has dialogs with God in the bible (talking to himself?), refers to 'God' a lot as clearly not himself, and his killed in a humiliating way ('God' allowed himself to be crucified?).
God the Father != God the Son
>Why would making Jesus 'God' have ever been thought theologically necessary?
1. John
2, Forgiving sins
3. Identifying himself with the Son of Man
4. Jesus not rejecting being worshipped
>>415760
>Regardless of your beliefs, why would you even expect the trinity to make logical sense? The core of Christianity is that we can't possibly comprehend God and the best we can do is inane analogies.
That is wrong though and it goes pretty strictly against catholic teaching
>>415712
It started with a martyr that declared it in a moment of religious ecstasy. At this point the Greek influence had taken over and early Christianity shifted into a Graeco-Roman mystery cult with a Jew as its focus.
>>415865
No it doesn't. Catholic teaching, which is mostly the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, confirms that the only thing we can actually "know" about god is that he exists, that he's Being Itself. And yeah coming to that point involves a lot of interesting theology but in the end, all you know and can rationally reach, is that God Is.
>>415856
He's the son of god but also the son of man? But also god? But also a man? Seriously this is utter nonsense; just random words strung together without meaning.
>>415905
>One like a Son of Man
here
>“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
>And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
And
>And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
>And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need?
>You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.
Also have you ever heared of "hypostatic union"?
Does "son of man" sound less vague / less line nonsense in the original language?
>>415762
No, and you're making the mistake of falling into the iconoclast heresy, against which there was even an Ecumenical Synod held.
>>415733
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.
Colossians 2:9 - For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily
>>415828
Go study Theology then. That is where people go if they want to find out how it makes.
>>415875
In the Summa Aquinas demonstrates
1.God's existence
2. God's simplicity
3. God's perfection
4. God's goodness
5. God's limitlessness
6. God's existence in things
6. God's immutability
7. God's eternity
8. God's uniqueness
9. What kind of knowledge God has
10. How God's will works ( not to be confused with every individual dictate)
11. God's love
12. God's mercy
etc etc etc
What we can't know is God's essence: The comprehensive knowledge that we have of creatures. God is just too incommensurable to the kind of being we are to really understand him like we do say a dog or a cat. There will always be a hole in our knowledge about him, but we can certainly know about more of his properties than that he exists.
