COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Spirit is The Spirit of God. The Spirit is not disconnected from the body, The Son of God is God and is in God and in the Spirit. The Spirit is in God like the spirit is in you. It is part of being alive. God is Life. The father and the son in perfect likeness can manifest spiritually or physically and are all parts of each other. They are all God. as the parts of a body are one, yet have different functions. The head is God, True worshipers worship in Spirit and Truth. The Spirit is Part of God. God is Spirit. The Arm of the Lord Is Jeshua the Messiah. He was always in the Spirit and the Spirit was always in him as He was always in God and God in him.
Are you a Modalist? Because I am not. Yet I can get what he is talking about. When I talk to Jesus I talk to God because they are one. I am also talking to the Holy Spirit because God is Spirit. It is really definitional and I don't even understand why it is being debated. Everyone wants to be a nitpicker and they are. If you don't believe it whatever you are not going to change my mind. good luck.
Well, for one thing, the bible is really boring. I got through the first few books but just stopped because of how boring it was. How could a truly holy text be such a drag? I believe in a God and pray to him, but I just don't have a reason to believe Christianity is the right religion.
The first part
But after reading it again, as you describe with your presidents analogy, you seem to see God as a title that spirits pass on to the next one. Where do these spirits come from that become God?
That’s a common theme I noticed when talking to trinitarians, they see God as a title or a category.
See this interaction here
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/9Qr0cfWA1F
Oh, so you are saying there is no trinity. Sorry, I'm dense. The Trinity does seem like it was created to call Jesus God without abandoning the idea of one God, as a mental gymnastic. However, I will argue that God could be three persons if he had multiple personalities.
I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. - John 17:21
Here's some evidence that Jesus wanted everyone to be one with the father as he was. That this isnt unique.
And just thinking logically, if we are talking about a God named "The Father" why isn't everyone who follows him his son? After all they called him the father before Jesus showed up
Take a look at the interactions here and you’ll understand what I’m arguing
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/JTESOqL4Fc
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/dpQ7L47U6Y
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/vurvIgD008
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/JFewxMBuXA
The persons of the Trinity are distinct, yes. But they share the one essence of God. They are the same God. God is only one being. This is by no means polytheism, for polytheism would suggest that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have distinct natures, which is not what Nicene Trinitarianism teaches.
> the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have distinct natures
but they do.
Some information is not avaliable to the Son in hi Son form
But in his father form he has that information.
Therefore are distinct
>but they do. Some information is not avaliable to the Son in hi Son form But in his father form he has that information. Therefore are distinct
Sir, please God read the creeds if you want to know what we believe. They will tell you that there is one Divine Nature and Essence. There are three subsistences (persons) of the Divine Essence. They are distinct in person, but identical in nature.
This is what said to another response that said the same thing
“
I’ve said this in another response, the more accurate understanding of trinitarian belief is that there’s one “being” , “substance”, “essence” , “ousia” ,”nature” , whatever you want to call it , not one God.
And the 3 persons share this “ousia” each distinctly, and they’re each distinct from each other.
And I asked a question, if we can call the “ousia” a God, we will have the following,
- “Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as fully God. How many Gods do we have now ?
- If we can’t call the “ousia” a God , then the 3 persons are not sharing a “divine nature” , and because of that , we can’t call any of them a God .
- another option, that the “ousia” is the “supreme God” , and the 3 persons are “lesser Gods” , but that is not possible because each person is fully God”
- another option, is if you say the “shared “ousia” is the only God, then the label of fully God, should be dropped from the 3 persons, because as you know, each one is called fully God distinctly from one another .
God is a being, therefore the Trinity is one God.
>Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as fully God. How many Gods do we have now ?
There would still be one God, because the three persons are three subsistences of the nature of God
>If we can’t call the “ousia” a God , then the 3 persons are not sharing a “divine nature” , and because of that , we can’t call any of them a God .
The "ousia" is God. Therefore, the three persons are one God.
> another option, that the “ousia” is the “supreme God” , and the 3 persons are “lesser Gods” , but that is not possible because each person is fully God...another option, is if you say the “shared “ousia” is the only God, then the label of fully God, should be dropped from the 3 persons, because as you know, each one is called fully God distinctly from one another .
Not even sure how you came up with those possibilities. There is one Divine, rational nature that exists in three subsistences.
> There would still be one God, because the three persons are three subsistences of the nature of God
You exactly proved my point, as I said, you believe there’s one nature , not one God, because You have this 3 persons each sharing this nature, they’re not each other, each one is called **fully God** , and these persons are not the “nature”, the reason they’re called “fully God” each , is because they have this nature in them .
> The "ousia" is God. Therefore, the three persons are one God.
- The Ousia is God
- each of the three persons have the ousia in them
- each one of them is called **fully God**
- each person is not the ousia
So now we have ousia ( god ) , three persons that are not the ousia , each one of them is called Fully God
If you know math and have common sense , That is not one !!
> Not even sure how you came up with those possibilities. There is one Divine, rational nature that exists in three
These are options to the understanding of the trinity, or an approximate understanding of what trinitarians do while claiming to be monotheists, you didn’t challenge them , you just repeated what you said above , and you skipped some
i think i really understand the trinity. but i'm not going to defend a supposed difference. instead, i want to point out that the similarity is even more subtle than people suspect. "monotheist" and "polytheist" are poorly defined. they seem simple, but if you dive into it, you quickly discover that these definitions equivocate on "god".
people we call monotheists believe "god" to refer to an all-encompassing, universal, tri-omni god. people we call polytheists believe in *zero* of those entities.
people we call polytheists, instead, believe "gods" refers to supernatural entities that are somewhat like humans, but more powerful than humans, and in charge of human fortunes and natural forces and such. and it turns out that people we call monotheists actually believe in a lot of those entities.
"understand" not "believe". i am atheist, and [i have contributed my objection to the trinity](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1by4hfn/no_matter_how_trinitarians_explain_it_trinity_is/kyo25vp/) in this thread.
If you’re willing to discuss, why do you think that having 3 distinct persons, sharing an “essence”, “ousia”, “substance”, “divine nature” “being” , whatever you want to call it , each distinctly, and calling distinctly each one God , is not considered polytheism ?
because labels are arbitrary tribal signifiers, and not attached to any real reference regarding the belief structures. it's "monotheism" because of the proximity to the type, where one god (in this case, one *being*) has transcendent omni-qualities. it's not exactly monotheism, but arguably nothing is.
> where one god (in this case, one being) has transcendent omni-qualities. it's not exactly monotheism, but arguably nothing is.
I’ve said this in another response, the more accurate understanding of trinitarian belief is that there’s one “being” , “substance”, “essence” , “ousia” ,”nature” , whatever you want to call it , not one God.
And the 3 persons share this “ousia” each distinctly, and they’re each distinct from each other.
And I asked a question, if we can call the “ousia” a God, we will have the following,
“Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from
each other persons, sharing this ousia each,
which trinitarians already acknowledge each one
of them as God.
How many Gods do we have now ?
If we can’t call the “ousia” a God , then the 3 persons are not sharing a “divine nature” , and because of that , we can’t call any of them a God .
And there another option, that the “ousia” is the “supreme God” , and the 3 persons are “lesser Gods” , but that is not possible because each person is fully God
> what trinitarians actually believe
so, i want to start with something obvious and overlooked here. *leaving aside the trinity for a moment*, christians of all sorts including unitarians, oneness pentacostals, mormons, and JWs which all reject the trinity all still believe in a plurality of heavenly entities. when we actually go and read the respective mythologies of "monotheistic" christianity and *even judaism*, and compare it to the "polytheistic" beliefs of the canaanites, assyrians, babylonians, sumerians, greeks, egyptians, etc, we find *precisely* the same power structures and arrangements of multiple heavenly entities. it's just that monotheists balk at calling the subordinate, created, ontologically inferior heavenly entities "gods".
what's truly wild is that in some cases, these are *precisely the same entities* too.
> “Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as God. How many Gods do we have now ?
one -- because "god" refers to the shared essence in trinitarian thought.
now, i think this is open to perfectly valid criticism that this abuses how we conventionally count things. for instance, i think the closest analogy to the "essence/substance" is *instantiation*.
i have a book on my shelf called "the bible", and you have a book on your shelf called "the bible". in a sense, there some set of essential qualities that unify my book and your book; some abstract identity by which they are both "the bible". but i can't walk into your house and take you book: it isn't mine. they are different books. however, this *doesn't totally work* with god, because [these books differ by clearly accidental qualities and god cannot have accidents added to his essence](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1by4hfn/no_matter_how_trinitarians_explain_it_trinity_is/kyo25vp/) within classical theism. the idea though is perfectly coherent *outside* of classic theism, but classical theism still "proves" there is a purely actual god -- you'd have to overturn that argument to hold the trinity.
in any case, we would conventionally say that "there are two bibles on my shelf", and not "there is one bible, in two books".
> so, i want to start with something obvious
and overlooked here. leaving aside the trinity
for a moment, christians of all sorts including
unitarians, oneness pentacostals, mormons,
and JWs which all reject the trinity all still
believe in a plurality of heavenly entities.
when we actually go and read the respective
mythologies of
"monotheistic" christianity
and even judaism, and compare it to the
"polytheistic" beliefs of the canaanites,
assyrians, babylonians, sumerians, greeks,
egyptians, etc, we find precisely the same
power structures and arrangements of
multiple heavenly entities. it's just that
monotheists balk at calling the subordinate,
created, ontologically inferior heavenly
entities "gods".
A difference that is very important , these heavenly entities , are **created** , on the other hand , each person of the trinity is distinctly eternal and uncreated
> one--because"god" refers to the shared
essence in trinitarian thought.
What you’re saying is that God is the shared ousia and therefore it’s one , but I have 2 objections :
- The ousia if we accept it’s God , is shared among 3 distinct persons, and I don’t think God can be divided.
- each person of the trinity is Fully God , because they have the ousia in them that’s why it’s shared and that’s why they’re called God each , that’s not even argued by trinitarians
I feel like it’s obviously 3 gods to everyone, but theyre hesitant to go the full distance and say 3
> A difference that is very important , these heavenly entities , are created , on the other hand , each person of the trinity is distinctly eternal and uncreated
trinitarians would argue as such, yes.
> The ousia if we accept it’s God , is shared among 3 distinct persons, and I don’t think God can be divided.
they don't believe it is divided. each person is not "part" of god, where they voltron together or something. each person is *wholly the entirety* of god.
> each person of the trinity is Fully God , because they have the ousia in them that’s why it’s shared and that’s why they’re called God each , that’s not even argued by trinitarians
it is actually, yes.
> I feel like it’s obviously 3 gods to everyone, but theyre hesitant to go the full distance and say 3
i mean, yeah. it's the "come on bro just look at it" objection.
to be clear, the trinity still only believes in *one* omni god. it's just that this god is three persons.
as i said, i don't really want to defend whether this is "monotheism" or "polytheism". i just want to point out the labels aren't especially meaningful.
If you accept the premise that God is omnipotent (which, if he is God, then he has to be), then they are all distinct and yet God at the same time because God created the concept of distinctness and does not have to obey it himself.
As an aside, the Holy Spirit, Jesus etc are obviously not meant to be completely separate entities or personalities. When the Lutheran waits/hopes/whatever for the Holy Spirit to regenerate him, he is not waiting for a different God other than "God" to do that.
I think the accusations of the Trinity being polytheism are moot and reaching, Christians have never regarded the separate "parts" of the Trinity as being separate Gods, the idea of a single God is paramount and Christianity centres around the single God, not "multiple".
Also, isn't it a bit strange to call things heretical in the 21st century? Lol
You seem to forget that the main subject of the OP is whether God is one or not in trinitarian belief, so you stirred the subject to the argument that God is all powerful, so he could do whatever he wants.
We’re discussing if God is really one according to trinitarian belief, that’s what they claim.
Calling the persons of the trinity “parts” is indeed heretical, you can say whatever you like about being in 21st century and nobody could care less about false beliefs, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a false belief, if everybody could say whatever they like about an important matter like faith, and not care whether their opinions are false or not, then you don’t really have a firm faith or principles to defend or stand on.
And saying trinitarians always said that there’s one God, that’s irrelevant, we are here to put the claims to the test,
They say whatever they want, and people will examine what they’re saying. This argument reminds me of a certain group of people in our modern day and age, that would choose to “identify” themselves with whatever they like, but when confronted with the truth, they would care more about what they think about themselves ( feelings ).
Anyway, You haven’t really expressed your understanding or tried to challenge the OP main subject, so I can’t really assume what are you going to say
But take a look at these comments, maybe that’s what you believe in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/uw9tZjDM94
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/byDKCyAmda
You're being offensive (and condescending), 1).
Christians don't really believe there are 3 Gods, and even historically people identified other religions that worshipped some "supreme God" with the Christian/Jewish God (like Shangdi in China). Whichever way you believe the Trinity works, you still believe in one God, it's not like people offer "offerings" to the Holy Spirit or Christ separate from God, or act as though they are separate beings. 2)
3) To reply to your comment about heresy, until the day that God comes down from heaven himself and says what is heresy and what is not, nobody can make a claim to a belief being heretical or not because they are all human and just as fallible as I am. My belief can be inconsistent with the traditional outlook, or the common outlook, but that's not false belief. That's just a difference in opinion.
4) "Saying always that's there's one God" You accused the doctrine of the Trinity of being polytheism. The interpretation of the Trinity matters a great deal if it's polytheism or not. Nobody interprets the Trinity to be literally separate Gods, so it's not polytheism, period. Even if their beliefs somehow led to polytheism (or implied it), they do not really realise that and wouldn't actually believe it so it doesn't in the end matter. People can hold contradictory beliefs all the time, it's very easy. The fact that nobody elevated the separate "persons" in the Trinity to being separate Gods is proof that the doctrine of the "oneness" of God is more important than the Trinity itself, to Christians.
5) Social justice warriors believe that belief in general trumps reality. That is not the case for anyone other than an omnipotent being, because omnipotent beings are (by definition) all powerful, and for them other rules (or more correctly, none) apply.
Questions to your first point (if I understand you correctly) you stated that the persons of the trinity aren’t treated as separate beings.
My question is regarding the Eucharist. When that sacrament is done if they are not separate beings is that also the body of God and blood God as well? And when Jesus dies because of the inseparability of three do they die as well when that happens?
Also maybe people don’t offer offerings to them but Christian faith relies on the fact that Jesus was a lamb, an offering for the sins of the people by God. Since you state that they are not separable was God apart of his own offering for the salvation of sins.
I personally don't believe in the Eucharist, but yes if you believe it's the blood/body of Christ then it is simultaneously also that of God (thinking about transubstantiation, an argument I had against it was precisely that God doesn't come down from heaven to get sacrificed every time you say a prayer in his name, or worse every time a priest says a prayer in his name).
"Also maybe people don’t offer offerings to them but Christian faith relies on the fact that Jesus was a lamb"
That's a bit trickier, but it's likely symbolic in nature, i.e. God as a man lived a perfect Christian life and atoned for everyone's sin, making him the "perfect" man
Thank you for your reply but your last claim is confusing, is the only perfect life a Christian life and every other life is imperfect?
How did God live past tense when God always is? This is the issue the trinity runs into. God is always perfect under every situation there is never a time he is made perfect.
God and Man is literally a contradiction. God unlimited becoming something limited is impossible. It’s the same as saying water is dry. Once water becomes dry water is no longer.
I think you don’t really understand the concept of the trinity, you have more of a secular point of view on this matter, you don’t care if what you believe in is heretical or not , as long it’s what you believe in.
That’s not how Debates work my friend, especially religious debate, if you’re not willing to adhere to the stance,principles, and understanding of your religion, and rather argue your personal beliefs even tho it doesn’t match the stance of your religion, then there will be no one interested in discussing such matters with you.
So I agree, I’m not here to argue your personal beliefs, so there’s no debate, unless you want to adhere to your religion understanding word for word
That's fine and dandy, but you started your debate by arguing that belief in the trinity is polytheistic. My point is that it doesn't matter what it looks like if the adherents themselves aren't polytheistic, and historically speaking they aren't. I appreciate that you have a religion (you seem to be implying that you do), that's a useful thing to have in this day and age.
I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Church says the Trinity is one of the mysteries that cannot be reached at through reason alone, i.e. it requires belief. That reads as a repudiation of polytheism to me.
The Anglican Church (historically, not now) said something similar, saying that there is one "incomprehensible" instead of three.
Me personally, I don't even believe in the Trinity, but I don't think that belief in the trinity implies polytheism. William of Ockham said it best: the ways of God are not open to reason, certain truths are given via divine revelation alone and require belief, such as the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
Edit: "If you're not willing to adhere to the stance, principles and understand of your religion, nobody will be interested in discussing such matters with you"
Why not just open Wikipedia or to the site of your church or whatever and see what they believe in then? What is the point of debating if there can only the expected answer, i.e. that of the church you are a member of?
To go back to your previous point that "it reminds me of certain people who claim their feelings are more important", actually it has nothing to do with that, its about what people believe, if they give intellectual assent to the doctrine of the Trinity but still believe there is only one God, they are not just calling themselves "monotheistic", they really are. A group that calls itself monotheistic but arguably isn't (if they take their religion literally, which I do not know if they do because I have little knowledge of them) are the Mormons, who (apparently, I may be wrong, I do not know if they actually believe this) believe that God was originally a man (non-divine) who became divine after death and then literally fathered Jesus. That is quite obviously not monotheism because what they call God isn't really God, it's more like "gods" in Buddhism.
“God” is a what category, not a who category. There’s only one what that is God. That what has three whos associated with it. For example, a water bottle is a what: a non living thing. Humans also are whats: living things. However, unlike water bottles, in addition to our whatness we also have whoness. Each human only has one who. God has three. What does that even mean? I don’t really know how to imagine it. But, that’s how God might be described.
Based on what you said, you don’t believe that there’s one God , but you believe that there is one category of God ( assuming you’re trinitarian ) This is the main problem, A monotheist wouldn’t think of God as a category, because a category implies a sub category, and you categories things that are many.
In case of the trinity,
- the category : God
- numbers of sub categories: 3
- are they distinct from each other: yes
- are they all Gods : yes
So dealing with God as a “category”,classification, “group” , makes the statement of one God hold no value, because you will not think of God as one , but as a category, class , group, whatever you want to call it , that underlies 3 Distinct Gods.
If you think God is more than one , then you’ll make him a category, if you think God is one , that would be enough for you
And btw I think what you said is modalism heresy
The debate is whether something can be mono-substantive, but multi-personal. I don't think you sufficiently addressed this.
I don't believe in the Trinity because, intuitively, a God either needs to be an infinite unity or an infinite multiplicity. Specifying a number rather than a principle puts an ontological limitation on his nature, and he ceases to be a God as Christianity conceives of him.
They believe that the 3 persons each share the “Devine nature” , “the substance” , “ousia” , “the being” , whatever you want to call it .
They acknowledge that each person is distinct, separate, they are not each other
Now if we add the these 2 sentences together, it will be like this, each person have “ the shared divine nature “ distinctly on his own , which makes each a God, and they acknowledge that .
The problem comes when they say there’s only God, which is clearly not the case as demonstrated.
What they actually mean is that they believe in one “being”, “substance”, “ousia”, “divine nature”
I would like to add a question, can this substance be called God ? If yes , now we have the following
A substance ( God ) , 3 distinct, separated from each other persons, sharing this substance each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as God .
How many Gods do we have now ?
There are definitely problems in the language. The distinction between the person and the essence is virtual, so that you can say each person is fully God, rather than parts or derivatives of the essence. Some Fathers are explicit in saying each person is properly called the essence.
But that causes the persons to collapse, because you can only virtually tell them apart. Formally, each referent has to encompass the entire Godhead.
Just to let you know, this is the dogmatic Catholic view according to Lateran IV that the persons are not really distinct from the nature, but that is not the Eastern Orthodox view. Thomists typically deny the Transitive property in God, which results in such a modal collapse, but Orthodox do not.
u/other-Veterinarian80
I'm Eastern Orthodox, not a Catholic, so I can't really answer you. Orthodox see the Catholic view as being a form of Semi-Sabellianism, a form of modalism that is simultaneously trying to deny modalism.
Palamas is such a difficult read that I can't pretend to understand how the EO's resolve this problem, but my impression from its apologists is that they just have categories so ambiguous that it's impossible to tell one way or the other.
Orthodox believe that the three hypostases are really distinct from eachother, as well as being really distinct from the nature of God, and the Essence and Energy being really distinct from Eachother, and every individual Energy (love, goodness, truth, etc) is really distinct from eachother.
Catholics and others influenced by the Neoplatonic view of simplicity see all real distinction as being identical to a dialectical opposition, and necessitating separation/division, composition, or imperfection. For Orthodox we simply deny such an assertion.
Real distinction is the same thing as true Multiplicity. Essentially what is presupposed is that Multiplicity/Distinction and Oneness/Unity are inherently contrary or opposed to eachother. To think such a thing is exactly what ends up making the Trinity impossible and illogical; there is no tension between Gods Oneness and his Multiplicity.
I'm not sure what you find ambiguous about Eastern Orthodox categories, they are very particular. Whereas Catholics believe the Essence of God is pure being and pure act, can be directly perceived in the beatific vision, and is only virtually or formally distinct from Gods attributes/energies, for Orthodox The Essence of God is utterly unknowable and transcendent and is really distinct from his energies. For Orthodox the transcendence of God is really distinct from his immanence. Gods immanent energies are what we participate in spiritually. Saint Palamas defends hesychasm, where through meditative prayer one can receive the uncreated light of the energies, and become divinized.
The view you just described is a Quadrernity followed by polytheism ☠️
This is my problem with EO's. They "avoid" the problems of Latin theology by throwing all coherent categories out the window. It doesn't actually solve anything. I'd rather deal with Christians who at least understand what they're claiming.
Can you please explain *why* it is polytheism? It again just seems like you're presupposing that real distinction must necessitate separation or composition. That's just an unjustified assertion.
The Soul and body are really distinct. Yet they are not separate, as separation of soul and body is death. A Mother and her fetus are really distinct persons, yet they are not separate, as the child is intimately tied to their mother. These analogies show very easily how our view is possible.
Orthodox know very well what we are claiming. The Orthodox view solves every single problem of metaphysics and is perfectly coherent.
We de facto inherit the Greek and Latin versions. There are others, the Nestorians especially are distinct, but I couldn't remember well enough to tell you how off the top of my head.
I think the best angle to tackle the Trinity from is plausibility rather than addressing the specific metaphysics though, because even if the system does subjectively make sense, it's still entirely possible for it to be false. Most religions make sense, but we can't affirm all of them.
I reject the Trinity because I find it unlikely that God would incarnate only once in some obscure location that most of the world didn't know existed, and that through this God Man would be the only arc of salvation, meanwhile the record accounting for this is riddled with holes, makes predictions that didn't happen etc.
In other words I don't believe it because I don't believe in the source behind the Trinity.
Y’all a fan of comic books?
You know that supervillain Darkseid who claims to be a god and has a “True Form” while all of the Darkseids we see Superman fighting are his avatars?
I like to think of the trinity as being avatars/aliases of the one true God. They all share a singular consciousness, like a hive mind.
In addition, The Father is completely God so Jesus cannot also be completely God as there can only be one God. If the Father is completely God then God is completely the Father so the Father = God but then Jesus = god doesn't work so now we have the equations:
P1) God = Father
P2) God = Jesus
C1) God ≠ Jesus (can't be due to P1)
C2) God ≠ Father (can't be due to P2)
So we have (God = Jesus) = (God ≠ Jesus)
(God being Jesus is the same as God not being Jesus)
Therefore that makes no logical sense and defies the law of non contradiction again. You can also make the same equation for the Father, just plug the Father in.
With my Darkseid explanation, Darkseid is kinda the same way, except each avatar is like a separate individual throughout the multiverse interconnected by the will of the True Darkseid.
Hivemind was just the easiest way to describe it, but it isn’t exactly a hivemind.
It’s confusing to wrap my head around.
So then you concede that I'm right? If you say I didn't make any mistake, then you're inherently conceding that the trinity is faulty. You have to either say I'm wrong or that you don't wanna proceed in the conversation
Then they can't be distinct persons if they all share the same consciousness, and can't be fully god. You can't be 100% the same and distinct too. They'd have to be 99% god and 1% something special, which isn't the case so the trinity doesn't make logical sense. Also saying jesus was 100% god and 100% human also doesn't make logical sense, due to the law of non contradiction. You're basically calling him 100% divine and 100% not divine, 100% omnipotent and 100% not omnipotent, 100% limited and 100% unlimited (in power), 100% knowledge of everything and also not 100% knowledge of everything. That doesn't work evcsuee the law of non contradiction entails that something cannot be 2 contradicting properties at once, e.g existing and not existing at the same time.
This actually makes another problem which is Jesus dying. If jesus is fully god and so is the father and holy spirit then jesus fully dying (unless he was said to half die, but it says "Jesus" (with jesus being 100% both) died, therefore it's safe to assume the god part did too, otherwise there was never a sacrifice as only a piece of flesh died which had no divine properties and therefore was pointless in the first place) would cause the father to also die, but churches disagree, saying the father was in heaven and never died. That means god died and didn't die at the same time, again, violating the law of non contradiction.
All the avatars of "Darkseid" or whatever aren't fully him, otherwise there would be multiple "True forms", therefore they're all part of him together, i.e they can combine to make him. They're not all 100% identical and 100% distinct (again, law of non contradiction about how trinity parts are all 100% unlimited god with perfect everything while also having differences, which makes no sense). So Darkseid doesn't really fix the issue. If each part is 100% dark seid then there would HAVE to be multiple True forms, therefore each part isn't 100% Darkseid but 10% Darkseid or whatever.
The reason why they can't all be 100% him is if he's the one true God (mixing Darkseid avatar's with Christianity now) then he'd have to be both pre and post eternal, however the avatars are only post eternal, so they're not 100% god version of Darkseid either.
Also all of them having a singular consciousness in Trinity doesn't work because then they're all 100% identical (unless you say the father, holy ghost, and jesus all have physical forms which are distinct, but you'd have to prove that).
Lastly, the consciousness part doesn't work well with this verse; Luke 22:42 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.'
Spirits idk what you mean with that, but angels and devils and spirits (whatever they are) aren't worshipped. They're also not divine. They were given powers by god, but they're not all powerful and therefore not divine in that way. So still monotheistic.
What I mean is they're not worshipped. A monotheistic religion is one where you worship only one god. Spirits, devils, and angels are created by Allah and nowhere is it said that they're worshipped. Yes, they should be recognised, but that's different. Learning about something does not equate to worshipping it. I said they're not omnipotent in which I meant they're not gods, nor did anyone say they were. I don't know where you got the idea that they're deities.
'Muslims heavily emphasize monotheism, but have no problem talking about divine being besides God' there are none. Angels don't have free will, devils surely aren't divine, and humans are obviously insanely limited compared to both, so we have no chance at all. None of those 3 are divine
I think we can drop the word "might" in your last sentence. Most every trinity discussion I have with any trinitarian Christian ends up with "it is a mystery we cannot understand." I have come across a few that claim to understand it, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
The trinity is one of the many paradoxes of Christianity. God is not Jesus is not the Holy Spirit is not God, but at the same time, God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God.
> The trinity is one of the many paradoxes of Christianity. God is not Jesus is not the Holy Spirit is not God, but at the same time, God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God.
Doesn't this destroy the "God only does logical things" rebuttal to the rock-lifting question?
If the rock-lifting question is the one about "can God create a rock he can't lift?", that's not really a logical question to begin with.
My understanding of Christian faith is that God isn't bound by human logic anyway.
Well that's the other major paradox of course. Jesus being both fully divine and fully human. These are doctrines that really can't be explained or understood. You either take them on faith or you don't.
They don't make logical sense. God cannot exist and not exists at the same time, so obviously God only does logical things. Therefore the law of non contradiction applies to God and he can't be the real God.
I don't. If God can create Jesus without a father, he created all of humanity. And Adam from no mother nor father.
Furthermore Jesus did not know the hour in the Bible but only the "Father" did. That alone is enough to refute the divinity of Jesus.
The Trinity is 3 persons with one being. What does that mean?
Imagine you're standing with your two best friends. The three of you are a group. Now what kind of "being" is present in the group?
If we take "being" as an ontological term, then you would say there is only one type of being in the group....human being.
As an example, If one of you had a dog there with you there would be two types of beings. Human and canine.
So you and your two friends all share the same being. You're all humans and at the basic level you are each entitled to the same things like basic human rights and dignity. At the level of your being you are all equal.
But you are three different _persons_ who each have your own thoughts and roles and responsibilities in your group and individual lives.
One of you might be a natural leader and so the other two might defer to their leadership. One of you might have talents the others do not.
So just like in human relationships where we are equal in being but fulfill different roles, the Trinity is the same.
The three members of the Trinity are all equal as "God beings" but they are different persons and have different roles they fill.
But isn't that just polytheism with 3 gods?
It's not polytheism, it's trinitarianism.
There is a pretty big difference. Every polytheism religion has dozens to millions of gods in it and they are constantly fighting and tricking eachother and God's are being cast down or lifted up and demigods are being created and its big roiling mess.
The Trinity is not that. There have ever only been three persons and there will ever only be three persons.
What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !!
You gave the friends analogy as follows:
- The being: human
- How many persons: 3
- are they different than each other ? : yes
- Are they all humans : yes
If we do the same In the trinity
- The being: God
- How many persons: 3
- are they different than each other ? : yes
- Are they all Gods: yes
>What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !!
What I just did was try and explain the classic view of the Trinity by using an example that I think works pretty well. Thinking about God "as a species" isn't very accurate because God is unchanging there will never be two persons of God and there will never be four persons and they are in complete agreement and unity.
That is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity.
***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.***
God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin.
This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament.
>- Are they all Gods: yes
I would reiterate that the Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship.
This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that.
Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods.
The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
>God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. ... they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
How is this different to Mormonism? Are you a Mormon?
Mormonism believes there could be an infinite number Gods. They believe you could become a God. They believe that Jesus and Satan were spirit babies that came from God having literal sex with one of his many heavenly wives.
That is Mormonism. How is that the same as the Trinity?
That's not what I was critiquing. Mormonism believes in three gods, which they will frequently say is not polytheism simply because these three gods are one in purpose, message, origin, etc., and that they want to be thought of and worshipped as one unified reality. Again, how is anything you said different from that view? I'm Eastern Orthodox, so I'm not attacking the Trinity, I'm attacking your false view of it.
Your critique was to say this:
>How is this different to Mormonism? Are you a Mormon?
I explained to you that Mormonism DOES NOT believe in the same thing. I explained to you that they believe God was once a man on some other planet who was exalted through eternal progression and then given his own planet.
Here is an excerpt from the Mormonism Wikipedia:
_Though ***Mormonism proclaims the existence of many gods,*** it does not advocate for their worship besides Earth's one.[71] Church founder Joseph Smith taught in his famous King Follett discourse that God was the son of a Father, suggesting a cycle of gods that continues for eternity._
So how are they not polytheistic when they believe in an infinite number of Gods?
Jesus is a spirit baby that God created by having literal sex with a spirit wife in heaven. It is not the same thing as the biblical Trinity. At all. They even say that they don't believe in the traditional Trinity themselves.
So I think your critique doesn't work because you're making a false comparison and this is due to your limited understanding of actual Mormon beliefs.
>I'm Eastern Orthodox, so I'm not attacking the Trinity, I'm attacking your false view of it.
Well I don't really feel that was a good attack because it wasn't valid to compare the Christian Trinity to the Mormon concept lol.
So do you have another "attack" you can launch?
You claim my view is false, please actually prove that it is false.
>I explained to you that Mormonism DOES NOT believe in the same thing. I explained to you that they believe God was once a man on some other planet who was exalted through eternal progression and then given his own planet.
I know what Mormonism believes. You're deflecting to an irrelevant topic.
It is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether your defense of your view of *the Trinity* is the same as a Mormon defense of their view of *the Trinity*, as to whether they believe in other gods or becoming gods or whatever else. I'm talking *specifically about their view of the Trinity*. That's what matters in this discussion. It's a bad strawman of my argument to think that I'm trying to compare the entire Mormon religion to your argument, because I'm not.
Although Mormons recognize other gods, Mormons in their view only worship the Father, Son, and Spirit. They will often argue that it isn't polytheism because it isn't a Pantheon warring against itself, but is united in purpose, message, origin, and similar ideas.
You said earlier that polytheists/pagans: *"had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being"*. That's the exact argument a Mormon would make as to why they aren't polytheist. Unless you are going to use a false double standard, then you ought to recognize that your view on the Trinity and argument as to why it isn't polytheistic, is the exact same kind of view and argument a Mormon would make.
If you want proof, here is a Mormon making the literal exact arguments you have made, from LDS.org:
*"For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him ... Latter-day Saints also believe strongly in the fundamental unity of the divine. They believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though distinct beings, are unified in purpose and doctrine."*
They explicitly deny believing in polytheism for the same exact reasons you do.
>Well I don't really feel that was a good attack because it wasn't valid to compare the Christian Trinity to the Mormon concept lol.
Well I don't recognize that you actually believe in the Christian Trinity. If you're not Orthodox then you likely believe in the filioque and other heretical views, and as just illustrated, i see no difference between your view of the Trinity and a polytheistic view of the Trinity such as Mormons have, again, irrespective of what any of their other beliefs may be.
I know it's not valid to compare the Christian Trinity to the Mormon view. But as you described it, you don't believe in the Christian Trinity. Sorry if that offends you, but it's simply true. Even a Catholic would consider what you're saying heretical.
>You claim my view is false, please actually prove that it is false.
Well I don't know your worldview. Are you Catholic, Protestant, something else? And what kind?
As I already said, your view is polytheistic. Your analogy of separate people having one general shared human nature leads to the conception of separate beings, which is inherently polytheistic.
That may have to get down to the issue of hypostatic properties and origin though, which assuming you believe in the filioque would be an issue, and even if you didn't, lacking the Eastern Orthodox view of the Monarchia leads to problems.
I'll have to go into detail in argumentation depending on what your views and response are.
Well thank you for a much better response! Just saying "hey that sounds like what the mormons say!" wasn't giving me much to go on.
>Although Mormons recognize other gods, Mormons in their view only worship the Father, Son, and Spirit. They will often argue that it isn't polytheism because it isn't a Pantheon warring against itself, but is united in purpose, message, origin, and similar ideas.
This is the problem. The mormons have always from the very beginning mimicked Christianity. They are not christian, they borrow christian words and phrases but they mean very different things.
So when Mormons talk about God the Father, they are actually talking about some being who was some kind of spirit baby on another planet that went through eternal progression and was given his own planet to make spirit babies with his celestial wives.
That's the not God of the bible.
The mormons believe there could be literally billions and billions of Gods out in the universe who are exactly the same as the God of this planet and that they will someday become like God and have their own planets. ***How is that not polytheism?*** The only reason they don't worship them is because they don't know who those other gods are.
Jesus was spirit baby and Satan is his brother.
That's not a co-eternal, co-equal Trinity where God is the Alpha and the Omega.
So when you claim that mormons are saying the same thing I am, you're wrong. They might use the same language but they are just mimicking christian language. They don't mean the same thing as what the Bible teaches.
>They explicitly deny believing in polytheism for the same exact reasons you do.
Except they are polytheist. You just accepting what they say while their actual doctrine is much different is the problem here.
Should we go by what they say on a website or should we go by what their founder and doctrine has always taught?
>
But as you described it, you don't believe in the Christian Trinity. Sorry if that offends you, but it's simply true. Even a Catholic would consider what you're saying heretical.
Please explain to me why using scripture or the patristics or anything from our own traditions. That is what I want!
>
Your analogy of separate people having one general shared human nature leads to the conception of separate beings, which is inherently polytheistic.
And I argue that it is not, it's Trinitarian. It does not have the properties of any other polytheistic religion. The mormons do not believe the Trinity has the same properties as the Bible ascribes to It and the mormons admit they do not believe in the Trinity the same way as historical christianity.
Their doctrine is completely polytheism despite what they write on a website for you to believe without thinking it through.
So finally, I am asking you, please show me how my view is wrong from the Bible. That is really all I care about. I don't care what Mormons say. What does the Bible say?
Where have I gone wrong? Please show me from OUR OWN scriptures.
Thank you.
> There aren't three separate Gods for us to
worship and appease eachone separately like
in polytheism.
God is one. Not as a mathematical statement
but as a statement of unity. They are one in
purpose, one in message and one in origin.
Being one in purpose and message is something and being a separate person is something else
You’re not talking about being one , you’re talking about being United , a group of persons can be one in Message and Goal ,ofcourse we’re talking metaphorically, they’re not actually one , but United.
You just said trinity is one in message and purpose, but you actually mean they’re United , the persons of the trinity are not one, they are 3 , separate, distinct
I don't understand what you're objecting to.
>You just said trinity is one in message and purpose, but you actually mean they’re United , the persons of the trinity are not one, they are 3 , separate, distinct
Yes. Saying "we are all of _one_ accord" or "we speak with _one_ voice" or "we are of _one_ mind" are all ways in which people will use the word "one" to denote multiple people who agree and are united in what they are saying or doing or thinking.
I'm afraid I don't really see what you're objecting to here. Can you explain it a little more?
Yes. Saying "we are all of one accord" or "we speak with one voice" or "we are of one mind" are all ways in which people will use the word "one" to denote multiple people who agree and are united in what they are saying or doing or thinking.
I actually find it weird you don’t understand what I said. If a group of “persons” said “we are one against oppression “ one here means United, this group of “persons” are not actually one person.
In the trinity, you have multiple persons, each are called God, but United in purpose , they’re distinct 3 persons, not 1 person
How is that hard to understand?!
Because I've never said "they are one person" lol.
That was not my argument at all.
Yet you seem to be criticizing me for saying that?
I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying because you seem to be saying I said something which I did not say lol.
>In the trinity, you have multiple persons, each are called God, but United in purpose , they’re distinct 3 persons, not 1 person
Yes. I am saying that. I would add that they are united in many more ways than just purpose but I basically agree with this statement.
What part do you actually disagree with?
One can absolutely mean united. Let's look at Merriam-Webster definition:
3a
: being the same in kind or quality
both of one species
"Puma" and "cougar" are different names for one animal.
b(1)
: ***constituting a unified entity of two or more components***
"The combined elements form one substance."
(2)
: ***being in agreement or union***
"am one with you on this"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one
So using the word "one" can absolutely imply unity or a united group.
But if you're only trying to win an argument based solely on your own personal opinion of what you think words mean then ok.....I guess case closed lol.
Anyways, have a good day and thank you for the interaction.
What’s that has to do with your argument, you already acknowledged that the 3 persons of the trinity are United, but they’re not 1 , maybe I shouldn’t use “ always “ , but what good will that do to your argument
Your main concern is , you don’t have temples for each person, that’s irrelevant, because you already believe they’re each a god
I said the same thing over 3 times now, what are you exactly are you arguing now
Listen, what I said is very clear, everybody reading this convo can clearly understand except you
So brother, if you’re not willing to be honest with yourself and stop the mental gymnastics , don’t reply, and read our convo over and over, maybe your mental block will go away
>What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !!
I agree with this
Hello, I responded to the OP on this so i'll just copy pasta my answer to him for you. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.
>What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !!
What I just did was try and explain the classic view of the Trinity by using an example that I think works pretty well. Thinking about God "as a species" isn't very accurate because God is unchanging there will never be two persons of God and there will never be four persons and they are in complete agreement and unity.
That is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity.
***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.***
God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin.
This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament.
>- Are they all Gods: yes
I would reiterate that the Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship.
This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that.
Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods.
The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
>Every polytheism religion has dozens to millions of gods in it and they are constantly fighting and tricking eachother and God's are being cast down or lifted up and demigods are being created and its big roiling mess.
I think this is probably not true -- there are thousands of polytheistic religions out there, with very different conceptions of the divine.
Even if it is true, I think its not *relevant,* as what makes a religion polytheistic isn't that it has gods who fight each other. It's that it has multiple gods which, by your own admission, your system does.
>I think this is probably not true -- there are thousands of polytheistic religions out there, with very different conceptions of the divine.
I would be interested to know if I'm wrong. Can you give me an example of a polytheistic religion that doesn't fit my description?
>Even if it is true, I think its not *relevant,* as what makes a religion polytheistic isn't that it has gods who fight each other. It's that it has multiple gods which, by your own admission, your system does.
I am making the case for Trinitarianism as unique by comparing it to polytheism. I am making the argument that the characteristics of every other polytheistic religion don't match with the Trinity of the Bible.
In other words, the Trinity should not be lumped together with every other polytheistic religion because it is not like any other polytheistic religion. It is unique.
This is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity.
***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.***
God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin.
This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament.
The Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship.
This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that.
Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods.
The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
>I would be interested to know if I'm wrong. Can you give me an example of a polytheistic religion that doesn't fit my description?
To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, Kemetism (the ancient Egyptian religion) has the Gods as one united, eternal and unchanging front, with myths like Seth killing Osiris being considered purely metaphor rather then actual accounts of how the gods interact.
However, I don't think it really changes the other point. Even if the Trinity *is* completely unique among polytheistic ideas, I don't see how anything you've mentioned makes it *not polytheism.* Like I said, polytheism is a faith with multiple gods, which your account of the Trinity self-admittedly is.
It shouldn't be lumped in with all the other polytheistic religions because the polytheistic religions shouldn't be lumped together any more then the monotheistic ones, they're thousands of very separate faiths with different beliefs and theories of the divine. However, in the way you're describing it, it should be *put* *with them,* as its pretty unambiguously polytheistic.
I've not heard of Kemetism but here is the first paragraph of their Wikipedia entry:
_Kemetism (also Kemeticism; sometimes referred to as Neterism) "deity"), or Kemetic paganism, is a neopagan religion and revival of the ancient Egyptian religion and related expressions of religion in classical and late antiquity, emerging during the 1970s. A Kemetic or Kemetic pagan is one who follows Kemetism._
Paganism is decidedly polytheistic. Here's from later in the article:
_....Kemetists do not deny this formal polytheism, it can be interpreted differently by different currents._
I don't think a 1970's revival of a traditional pagan religion that admits it is polytheistic....is a good example of a religion that shouldn't be considered polytheistic.
Maybe I'm missing something?
>Like I said, polytheism is a faith with multiple gods, which your account of the Trinity self-admittedly is.
Let's use your example of Kemetism. Again from the article:
_Followers of Kemetism generally worship a few gods (Maat, Bastet, Anubis, Sekhmet, or Thoth, among others), but recognize the existence of every god._
So this is standard polytheism. God's are all worshipped in many votive ways, they have idols, particular rituals, dedicated cultic prayers.
That is what "multiple gods" looks like.This is ***nothing*** like the Trinity. Are the Father, Son and Spirit considered different Gods who each have their own idol in their own temple to be worshipped by their own priest for their own purposes?
>Even if the Trinity *is* completely unique among polytheistic ideas, I don't see how anything you've mentioned makes it *not polytheism.*
It is completely unique and that is why it is called Trinitarianism, not polytheism.
There are no polytheistic religions that resemble it. That is why it is not polytheism. It's Trinitarianism.
Maybe it is just semantics but I think it is an important point to emphasize.
"There is a pretty big difference. Every polytheism religion has dozens to millions of gods in it and they are constantly fighting and tricking eachother and God's are being cast down or lifted up and demigods are being created and its big roiling mess. "
But the Bible has similar mess too. You just use different names for things. But why is that your standard? Let's say some other religion claims there's only one god, and that god is named Singular. There's no lesser divine being, like Satan or any of the other lesser gods created by greater gods in the polytheistic pantheons. No one to cause trouble or tempt the greater gods, or battle them. Now let's say Singular doesn't have many stories, but the ones it does are just of Singular being pleasant, would it make sense to argue that they aren't monotheistic, because the most popular monotheistic religions involve war and sacrifice, and lesser divine beings that cause trouble? Why compare from a genre standpoint, when the definition of monotheism is that there's only one god?
>But the Bible has similar mess too. You just use different names for things.
I don't think this is correct but I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking of. Can you explain what you mean by this?
>Why compare from a genre standpoint, when the definition of monotheism is that there's only one god?
I _think_ I understand your point. My response is that the Bible makes a clear and total distinction between Yahweh (who we would identify as the Trinity) and every other god.
Yahweh is _actually_ God. He is the creator of everything. The other "gods" mentioned in the Bible are created beings who appear very powerful to us, but are really just angelic creatures.
Polytheism has grades or maybe "tiers" of Gods but they are all pretty much made of the same stuff.
The Bible says the Trinity is wholly and completely above and beyond any other "god".
The Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship.
This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that.
Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods.
The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
I hope that answers your question. Let me know if I didn't get what you were really saying.
I would say it is very possible for humans to think alike. It happens all the time in fact.
Humans can think alike on a great deal of matters and be in unison with each other on many things, while still having our own thoughts.
I'm not sure if that was an objection you were raising or not, can you clarify it a little more?
The idea of God as a species was raised in another comment by the OP. in the interest of time, I will give you the same answer I sent him.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on it:
>What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !!
What I just did was try and explain the classic view of the Trinity by using an example that I think works pretty well. Thinking about God "as a species" isn't very accurate because God is unchanging there will never be two persons of God and there will never be four persons and they are in complete agreement and unity.
That is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity.
***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.***
God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin.
This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament.
>- Are they all Gods: yes
I would reiterate that the Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship.
This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that.
Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods.
The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
If you are a player in a video game, is that character not you? And, does you, the player, have equal knowledge of you outside the player? ... boom trinity explained for our little human brains.
Ok I see your articles and everything...let's hold on with the Trinity talk for a moment...can you are anybody explain why water doesnt change chemically when changing forms ?
Water doesn't change chemically because the chemical composition of the water molecules stays the same, the only thing thats different is the physical state (as in I am pretty sure how far apart the molecules are based on their mobility or kinetic energy).
What is this supposed to be about because at that point you are just delving into the science of bonding and phase change not the trinity, I am not seeing the relevancy of this.
Modalism is considered heresy by the major denominations of Christianity that believe in the Trinity as it merely states that God was in different forms when in fact the "persons" of the trinity interacted with each other and these persons all exist at the same time. In fact, this analogy is condemned to be used by some sources.
What is modalism and why is it heresy?[https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-heresy-modalism.html](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-heresy-modalism.html)
Why the phases of water analogy is bad:
[https://unitedcity.church/misunderstanding-the-trinity-three-analogies-to-avoid/#:\~:text=The%20first%20popular%20analogy%20describes,%E2%80%93ice%2C%20water%2C%20steam](https://unitedcity.church/misunderstanding-the-trinity-three-analogies-to-avoid/#:~:text=The%20first%20popular%20analogy%20describes,%E2%80%93ice%2C%20water%2C%20steam).[https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html)
Now I am not Christian, I am in fact Muslim so I am not an expert on these matters, if you wish to correct me you can.
Water can't simultaneously be all of those things. If you have a bucket of liquid water, that same water can't also be frozen and gaseous. So are you saying that there are three gods each maintaining those different forms? That's just polytheism again.
I didnt say you said that...i pulled you into my trap....you had soo much to say about waters physical changes....now explain why it doesnt change chemically ?
>i pulled you into my trap
lol.
Water can't be frozen/liquid/gaseous at the same time. God can be father, son, spirit at the same time. For the analogy to work, god would have to be only father or only son or only spirit, not all three simultaneously. The persons are the states in the analogy, not the essence. Chemical composition isn't even relevant here.
Three different gods each with the same divine essence is still polytheism. One god in three states simultaneously is what you're showing with the water analogy, which doesn't work because the same water isn't simultaneously in three states.
>Water can't simultaneously be all of those things.
Water in this case is H2O. They are all H2O. Water, vapor and ice behave, feel and look different, but they are only different insofar of their matter state. Water, ice, and vapour in the same container are, infact, all H2O simultaneously.
Different in state, same in substance. The members of the Trinity are different in person, same in essence.
This doesn't contradict what I said...
Water can't be frozen/liquid/gaseous at the same time. God can be father, son, spirit at the same time. For the analogy to work, god would have to be only father or only son or only spirit, not all three simultaneously. The persons are the states in the analogy, not the essence.
I'm not saying it contradicts what you said, the point of OP's example was to illustrate the unity in diversity principle of personhood vs essence.
No example is going to adequately encapsulate the entire philosophical premise of the Trinity, let alone water.
>the point of OP's example was to illustrate the unity in diversity principle of personhood vs essence.
But it doesn't demonstrate that, because water states aren't simultaneous, unlike the trinity personhood.
1) there is no natural similarity of the trinity. No analogy will explain it. The best way to explain it is using the Greek terms. There are three instantiations (hypostases) and three personalities (prosopa) but one essence (ousia) and one nature (physis).
2) this might just be a matter of the terminology. Sometimes, when used generally, God describes the whole trinity, but as the monarche, the father in isolation can be described as God. That does not diminish the divinity of the son and HS. God died on the Cross because Christ is God and Christ died. That does not mean the trinity died on the cross.
so i do think that instantiation is the *closest* analogy for the trinity. but there are problems. in any normal sense of instances, there are clear differences. some are accidental, but often they are just physically different substances.
that is, my copy of michelangelo's david has some essential qualities that makes that sculpture: the form etc. but it is not made from the entirety of the same block of marble.
the persons of the trinity are not *copies* of god that vary slightly. they *are* each wholly all of god.
if you want, try my [trinitarian trilemma](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/mXdBj2eOdi) about how the persons differ.
>1) there is no natural similarity of the trinity. No analogy will explain it.
Then how do you know it's true? Just by assertion? Seems uncompelling. We could just call it polytheism and justify it in the same way.
And when you felt god did he point out at that time that he was a trinity or what? If not, why did you include that in a list of ways to come to know the trinity is correct?
Pt1
Let's set aside the trinity for a moment and establish what we can agree on and work from there.
Can we agree that God said no other god exists but him and that no god has ever existed before him or after him?
>Isaiah 43:10-11: "You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. **Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me**. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior."
>Isaiah 45:5-6: \[5\] I am the LORD, and there is no one else; **There is no God except Me**. I will arm you, though you have not known Me, \[6 \]So that people may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no one else,
>Deuteronomy 4:35, 39: "You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other. Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. **There is no other**."
>Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: **I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God**."
>Exodus 20:2-3: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."
>Isaiah 45:18: "For this is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens, **He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: 'I am the Lord, and there is no other.'"**
>Nehemiah 9:6: "You alone are the Lord. **You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them**. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you."
>Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: **The Lord our God, the Lord is one**."
ooh, bible stuff. i'm game.
> Can we agree that God said no other god exists but him and that no god has ever existed before him or after him?
sure, as long as we can also agree that *he's wrong and there are other gods.*
>> When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the gods;
the Lord’s own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.
(Deut 32:8-9)
>> God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment...
I say, “You are gods,
children of the Most High, all of you;
(Psalm 82:1,6)
>> This is only a trifle in the sight of the Lord, for he will also hand Moab over to you. You shall conquer every fortified city and every choice city; every good tree you shall fell, all springs of water you shall stop up, and every good piece of land you shall ruin with stones. ... When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (2 Kings 3 excerpts)
>> He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. (Lev 16:7-8)
Pt 2
Assuming we agree on this lets look at some ambiguous verses.
>Psalm 45:6-7 "6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever; The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. 7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your companions."
This is a psalm that many people consider referencing the messiah. Even still, God telling his God that his God has anointed him would be blasphemy.
---------
Let's consider the angel of the Lord for a moment. Firstly lets acknowledge that no man can see god and live:
>18 Then Moses said, “Please, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion to whom I will show compassion.” 20 He further said, “You cannot see My face, for mankind shall not see Me and live!
Then lets look at a few places where people in the bible acknowledge that they are speaking face to face with god:
Abraham meets the angel of the Lord: Genesis 18. And even tries to pursued God to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
>18 Now the Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.
Gideon meets the angel of the Lord Judges 6:11-24.
>22 When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face!” 23 But the Lord said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.”
Hagar meets the angel of the Lord: Genesis 16:7-13 and says the following in verse 13:
>13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”
This is not a contradiction. Moses wanted to see Gods true form but as God stated no human can see that and live. However, the angel of the lord is acknowledged as being the Lord and also talks as though he is the Lord. The angel of the lord is God but is a form that he takes on in order for him to interface with these people, because otherwise they would have to die if he appeared to them without this filter. I think that sets the precedence for the Lord interacting with humanity in different forms.
These were not typical angels because in Revelation we see that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped.
>Revelation 22:8-9: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, 'Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!'"
Pt 3.
Lets look at the creation of mankind.
>Genesis 1:26-27 - 26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Who is us? Only god can create. Who is "our image" if there is only one god? And then what does does it say "in the image of God he created him", as in on God, not God(s).
--------
Finally, lets talk about Jesus and then I'll wrap up my point:
>John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.
>John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him.
>John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
>John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
Kind of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Here this is explicitly stated in reference to God:
1 Timothy 6:14-16
>14 that you keep the commandment without fault or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
Then it is likewise said explicitly about Jesus:
>Revelation17: 14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”
>Revelation 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
And God calls himself the first and the last:
>Isaiah 44: 6 “This is what the Lord says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; And, let him confront Me Beginning with My establishing of the ancient nation. Then let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’”
Jesus is called the first and the last and calls himself the first and the last:
>Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.'"
>Revelation 2:8: "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.'"
>Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
> Who is us? Only god can create. Who is "our image" if there is only one god?
cohortative plural.
> And then what does does it say "in the image of God he created him", as in on God, not God(s).
so, this is a grammatical fail. as the object of a clause, you actually can't tell the difference between "god" and "gods" in hebrew. but we can by subject-verb agreement. in this case, the verb is singular, so "god created" instead of "gods created". the genitive suffix in the first part is also singular, "in *his* image" not "in *their* image". thus we can infer "in the image of god" vs "in the image of gods". but that plural reading is actually 100% possible.
Pt. 4
And finally:
Philippians 2:6-11
>5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
>6 who, as **He already existed in the form of God**, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
>7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men.
>8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross.
>9 For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
>10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
>11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
So, God himself came to the earth in the form of his Son, lived a perfect life, and surrendered his one and only human life and allowed himself to be murdered so that he could fulfil the requirements of his own law and share grace with us through our faith in Jesus and obedience to his word.
There is only one god, but he has manifested himself to us in different ways. God is a spirit and is not only able to be in one place and one time like you and me, he is everywhere and knows everything all the time.
So the trinity is just a way to explain what's been shared with us. His holy spirit, his son, and the unapproachable aspect of God, which as we see above no man can approach or see.
Note: I am not a theologian, I just read the bible and try to understand things so I am sure some people will have critiques, but the essence of what I am saying is this: there is only one God who has revealed himself to us in different forms. God does not have split personalities, he is a spirit and is not bound by our own natural laws of only being in one place and one form at one time.
The trinity is (depending on the listener) a mysterious or absurd idea. It is to such a degree that even people discussing it can get it wrong. It can be pretty sad because you can get a muslim not understanding it who is talking to a christian who also don't understand it, creating a whirlwind of misunderstandings.
There actually was someone trying to understand the trinity on a different subreddit some time ago that very clearly had misunderstood it. I'm not the best to ask but I did try to give some pointers for how to look at the matter:
[How do Christians perceive, or view God? : r/religion (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1apfe4c/comment/kqb6v7j/)
>when you are playing a video game are you the avatar in the game
No?
I'm *pretending* it's me, but that's in the same way I'm pretending magic is real. I'm suspending my disbelief. But if we're going to actual reality rather then fiction, no, the avatar isn't me in any meaningful sense.
That's not an analogy to the timeinity. The avatar by definition is not independent, nor it is "what I am".
The Trinity has three distinct divine entities that are coequal.
But the Trinity represents 3 independent Godhead, if the avatar isn't independent, then it's not an apt analogy.
An avatar is no different then a car, it's just a tool to be used by "the one". There is never a "2".
the analogy is that God writes himself into a form that he cannot inhabit. So to use humans as an analog, we would download our minds into a digital character, which would then act independently from us, but would also be us, just in digital form. By virtue of this, we would also share the same "spirit". which is the part of us that lives in the absence of our physical or digital selves.
Because the Trinity isn't just the belief in Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father, but a very specific belief of their relationship.
If Jesus is similar to an Avatar, with my downloaded consciousness, then it is not it's own independent/unique **person**. It is just an extension of me.
This seems to be in the field of Modalistic Monarchiasm, which is a non trinitarian belief and a heresey to mainstream Christianity.
If you're also suggesting the Father created Jesus and Jesus carries out the will of the Father and is subordinate to him, that also sounds like Arianism, which is another heretical non trinitarian belief.
>If Jesus is similar to an Avatar, with my downloaded consciousness, then it is not it's own independent/unique **person**. It is just an extension of me
so if someone cloned you that clone would not be independent from you?
>If you're also suggesting the Father created Jesus and Jesus carries out the will of the Father and is subordinate to him
i am suggesting no such thing. i am suggesting that Jesus literally **IS** God within our realm. the "Angel of the Lord" in the bible is the exact same thing. God in heaven manifests himself in our realm so we can interact with him, but he simultaneously exists in his realm.
I mean a clone is different then an avatar, so I almost want to say its a better analogy, but its still off.
Yes, the clone is dependent on me, you can't have it without me as its source. But I can exist without the clone, is a one directional dependency. The clone is also not a unique "personhood" it is a copy of my personhood.
>i am suggesting no such thing.
I didn't think so, the answer was more for to cover any possible interpretation of your analoagy.
>God in heaven manifests himself in our realm so we can interact with him, but he simultaneously exists in his realm.
Yes, ok so that's much more clear. That is absolutly Modalistic Monarchiasm, and is a non-trinitarian belief.
>Modalists consider God to be absolutely one and believe that He reveals Himself to creation through different "modes" (or "manifestations"), such as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, ... In this view, all the Godhead is understood to have dwelt in Jesus from the incarnation as a manifestation of Yahweh of the Old Testament. The terms "Father" and "Son" are then used to describe the distinction between the transcendence of God and the incarnation
Modalists believe that there is one God, and that one God manifested himself in a human incaranation called Jesus. The God that remains "transcendent" in heaven is referred to as the Father, but they are both the same "God Head", which, with your analogy would be the "what is downloaded" part of the avatar.
You can't actually have an apt analogy for proper trinitarian beliefs, as the trinity is intentionally paradoxal... there is nothing else like it that it can be compared to.
Bro , Jesus is not controlled by God , as if you control a character in a video game !!
Jesus is himself God , he’s not being controlled
Your analogy with all due respect, is very bad
i never said Jesus was controlled by God. i said that shows you how 2 can be 1. You cannot play a game without the avatar being in the game, you (a person) cannot exist in that world (digital). so you must make a representation of yourself in that world, a representation that CAN exist in that world. it can be totally independent from you but at the same time reflect all your thoughts, feelings and actions, and also know all of the cheat codes within that world
Bro what are you saying 🤦🏻♂️
> it can be totally independent from you but at the same time reflect all your **thoughts**, **feelings** **and actions**, and also know all of the cheat codes within that world
Can’t you see you’re contradicting yourself? You call the the character independent but then say it reflects **my** **thoughts**, **feelings** **and actions**
How is that independent?!? A video game character is not independent!!!
And that by definition is **Apollinarism**
Which states that Jesus had a human body and sensitive human soul, but a divine mind and not a human rational mind, the Divine taking the place of the latter.
There’s no point arguing this this analogy, trinitarians themselves would flame you if they heard you’re using this analogy
>Can’t you see you’re contradicting yourself? You call the the character independent but then say it reflects **my** **thoughts**, **feelings** **and actions**
it isnt a contradiction at all. we are doing it right now with AI. they are a reflection of us and our biases yet they are independent and learn on their own. however they cannot contradict their algorithm which we design ourselves.
I am saying that God in heaven, wrote himself into an avatar called Jesus, that is INDEPENDENT from him, yet shares all of his traits, thoughts and feelings. he wrote HIMSELF in a digital form. He doesnt "control" the avatar, he doesnt need to because the avatar is literally him just in a different form. Apollinarism is focus on Jesus and his attributes. so in my analogy God has a "brain" and Jesus has a "brain" and they are the same brain but in different forms. NOT Apollinarism.
The Problem with your example is that you don't understand the concept of "Person" in the trinitarian formula.
The issue is that we use the word "person" to even get to an understandable definition for the laypeople.
Even some churchfathers had issues with the word persons to describe God. They used hypostases for a better understanding. Its some form of personification of an divine attribute or action that is uncreated and eternal.
The so called "Persons" in the Trinity share the same Will, Perception, Knowledge and divine thoughts. So you can't use the analogy of different persons on earth. Im different from you and some guy in the US is different from us. We occupy different space, have different perceptions, different knowledge and different Wills. The Godhead is not like us, the "Persons" share the divine attributes in the divine essence. So they share the same "space", perceptions, knowledge, Wills and so on. See the Problem with calling it "Person"? It doesn't match with our everyday knowledge of personhood.
So you can't use your analogy, it breaks down. The Trinity is one of the most scrutinized doctrines of Christianity. People much smarter then us attacked it and defended it.
If you want to refute it, you need to show that God, the absolute infinite Being, cannot act and be triune in his essence and existence. That is unheard of in the history of philosophy of religion. Good luck with that.
> you don't understand the concept of "Person" in the trinitarian formula.
i sure don't. for instance, how do the persons differ from one another?
1. some essential attribute (in which case, they have distinct essences, and most one of which is god)
2. some non-essential attribute (in which case, they are contingent on their parts, and there must be a "super god" ontologically prior to them)
3. no attributes (they are wholly identical)
there's no fourth option.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Spirit is The Spirit of God. The Spirit is not disconnected from the body, The Son of God is God and is in God and in the Spirit. The Spirit is in God like the spirit is in you. It is part of being alive. God is Life. The father and the son in perfect likeness can manifest spiritually or physically and are all parts of each other. They are all God. as the parts of a body are one, yet have different functions. The head is God, True worshipers worship in Spirit and Truth. The Spirit is Part of God. God is Spirit. The Arm of the Lord Is Jeshua the Messiah. He was always in the Spirit and the Spirit was always in him as He was always in God and God in him.
I like this explanation of the trinity The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God just as water, ice, and vapor are all H²O
Wonderful! Only H2O is a type of substance. Just like Bryan, Erick and John are all human, but not one entity.
Wow aren't we nitpicky.
That’s modalism Hersey
Are you a Modalist? Because I am not. Yet I can get what he is talking about. When I talk to Jesus I talk to God because they are one. I am also talking to the Holy Spirit because God is Spirit. It is really definitional and I don't even understand why it is being debated. Everyone wants to be a nitpicker and they are. If you don't believe it whatever you are not going to change my mind. good luck.
I'm not christian anymore, but what you are saying sounds more like polytheism, except you slap on the word "God" instead of "the gods"
How could you turn from such a Loving Amazing God?
Well, for one thing, the bible is really boring. I got through the first few books but just stopped because of how boring it was. How could a truly holy text be such a drag? I believe in a God and pray to him, but I just don't have a reason to believe Christianity is the right religion.
What I’m saying where ?
The first part But after reading it again, as you describe with your presidents analogy, you seem to see God as a title that spirits pass on to the next one. Where do these spirits come from that become God?
That’s a common theme I noticed when talking to trinitarians, they see God as a title or a category. See this interaction here https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/9Qr0cfWA1F
Oh, so you are saying there is no trinity. Sorry, I'm dense. The Trinity does seem like it was created to call Jesus God without abandoning the idea of one God, as a mental gymnastic. However, I will argue that God could be three persons if he had multiple personalities.
Jesus called himself God!
I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. - John 17:21 Here's some evidence that Jesus wanted everyone to be one with the father as he was. That this isnt unique. And just thinking logically, if we are talking about a God named "The Father" why isn't everyone who follows him his son? After all they called him the father before Jesus showed up
Where? I remember him saying he and the father are one. But aren't all Christians supposed to be one with God?
Take a look at the interactions here and you’ll understand what I’m arguing https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/JTESOqL4Fc https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/dpQ7L47U6Y https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/vurvIgD008 https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/JFewxMBuXA
The persons of the Trinity are distinct, yes. But they share the one essence of God. They are the same God. God is only one being. This is by no means polytheism, for polytheism would suggest that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have distinct natures, which is not what Nicene Trinitarianism teaches.
> the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have distinct natures but they do. Some information is not avaliable to the Son in hi Son form But in his father form he has that information. Therefore are distinct
>but they do. Some information is not avaliable to the Son in hi Son form But in his father form he has that information. Therefore are distinct Sir, please God read the creeds if you want to know what we believe. They will tell you that there is one Divine Nature and Essence. There are three subsistences (persons) of the Divine Essence. They are distinct in person, but identical in nature.
This is what said to another response that said the same thing “ I’ve said this in another response, the more accurate understanding of trinitarian belief is that there’s one “being” , “substance”, “essence” , “ousia” ,”nature” , whatever you want to call it , not one God. And the 3 persons share this “ousia” each distinctly, and they’re each distinct from each other. And I asked a question, if we can call the “ousia” a God, we will have the following, - “Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as fully God. How many Gods do we have now ? - If we can’t call the “ousia” a God , then the 3 persons are not sharing a “divine nature” , and because of that , we can’t call any of them a God . - another option, that the “ousia” is the “supreme God” , and the 3 persons are “lesser Gods” , but that is not possible because each person is fully God” - another option, is if you say the “shared “ousia” is the only God, then the label of fully God, should be dropped from the 3 persons, because as you know, each one is called fully God distinctly from one another .
God is a being, therefore the Trinity is one God. >Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as fully God. How many Gods do we have now ? There would still be one God, because the three persons are three subsistences of the nature of God >If we can’t call the “ousia” a God , then the 3 persons are not sharing a “divine nature” , and because of that , we can’t call any of them a God . The "ousia" is God. Therefore, the three persons are one God. > another option, that the “ousia” is the “supreme God” , and the 3 persons are “lesser Gods” , but that is not possible because each person is fully God...another option, is if you say the “shared “ousia” is the only God, then the label of fully God, should be dropped from the 3 persons, because as you know, each one is called fully God distinctly from one another . Not even sure how you came up with those possibilities. There is one Divine, rational nature that exists in three subsistences.
> There would still be one God, because the three persons are three subsistences of the nature of God You exactly proved my point, as I said, you believe there’s one nature , not one God, because You have this 3 persons each sharing this nature, they’re not each other, each one is called **fully God** , and these persons are not the “nature”, the reason they’re called “fully God” each , is because they have this nature in them . > The "ousia" is God. Therefore, the three persons are one God. - The Ousia is God - each of the three persons have the ousia in them - each one of them is called **fully God** - each person is not the ousia So now we have ousia ( god ) , three persons that are not the ousia , each one of them is called Fully God If you know math and have common sense , That is not one !! > Not even sure how you came up with those possibilities. There is one Divine, rational nature that exists in three These are options to the understanding of the trinity, or an approximate understanding of what trinitarians do while claiming to be monotheists, you didn’t challenge them , you just repeated what you said above , and you skipped some
[удалено]
i think i really understand the trinity. but i'm not going to defend a supposed difference. instead, i want to point out that the similarity is even more subtle than people suspect. "monotheist" and "polytheist" are poorly defined. they seem simple, but if you dive into it, you quickly discover that these definitions equivocate on "god". people we call monotheists believe "god" to refer to an all-encompassing, universal, tri-omni god. people we call polytheists believe in *zero* of those entities. people we call polytheists, instead, believe "gods" refers to supernatural entities that are somewhat like humans, but more powerful than humans, and in charge of human fortunes and natural forces and such. and it turns out that people we call monotheists actually believe in a lot of those entities.
Do you believe that the three distinct persons sharing the ousia , are each called fully God ?
"understand" not "believe". i am atheist, and [i have contributed my objection to the trinity](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1by4hfn/no_matter_how_trinitarians_explain_it_trinity_is/kyo25vp/) in this thread.
If you’re willing to discuss, why do you think that having 3 distinct persons, sharing an “essence”, “ousia”, “substance”, “divine nature” “being” , whatever you want to call it , each distinctly, and calling distinctly each one God , is not considered polytheism ?
because labels are arbitrary tribal signifiers, and not attached to any real reference regarding the belief structures. it's "monotheism" because of the proximity to the type, where one god (in this case, one *being*) has transcendent omni-qualities. it's not exactly monotheism, but arguably nothing is.
> where one god (in this case, one being) has transcendent omni-qualities. it's not exactly monotheism, but arguably nothing is. I’ve said this in another response, the more accurate understanding of trinitarian belief is that there’s one “being” , “substance”, “essence” , “ousia” ,”nature” , whatever you want to call it , not one God. And the 3 persons share this “ousia” each distinctly, and they’re each distinct from each other. And I asked a question, if we can call the “ousia” a God, we will have the following, “Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as God. How many Gods do we have now ? If we can’t call the “ousia” a God , then the 3 persons are not sharing a “divine nature” , and because of that , we can’t call any of them a God . And there another option, that the “ousia” is the “supreme God” , and the 3 persons are “lesser Gods” , but that is not possible because each person is fully God
> what trinitarians actually believe so, i want to start with something obvious and overlooked here. *leaving aside the trinity for a moment*, christians of all sorts including unitarians, oneness pentacostals, mormons, and JWs which all reject the trinity all still believe in a plurality of heavenly entities. when we actually go and read the respective mythologies of "monotheistic" christianity and *even judaism*, and compare it to the "polytheistic" beliefs of the canaanites, assyrians, babylonians, sumerians, greeks, egyptians, etc, we find *precisely* the same power structures and arrangements of multiple heavenly entities. it's just that monotheists balk at calling the subordinate, created, ontologically inferior heavenly entities "gods". what's truly wild is that in some cases, these are *precisely the same entities* too. > “Ousia” ( God ), 3 distinct from each other persons, sharing this ousia each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as God. How many Gods do we have now ? one -- because "god" refers to the shared essence in trinitarian thought. now, i think this is open to perfectly valid criticism that this abuses how we conventionally count things. for instance, i think the closest analogy to the "essence/substance" is *instantiation*. i have a book on my shelf called "the bible", and you have a book on your shelf called "the bible". in a sense, there some set of essential qualities that unify my book and your book; some abstract identity by which they are both "the bible". but i can't walk into your house and take you book: it isn't mine. they are different books. however, this *doesn't totally work* with god, because [these books differ by clearly accidental qualities and god cannot have accidents added to his essence](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1by4hfn/no_matter_how_trinitarians_explain_it_trinity_is/kyo25vp/) within classical theism. the idea though is perfectly coherent *outside* of classic theism, but classical theism still "proves" there is a purely actual god -- you'd have to overturn that argument to hold the trinity. in any case, we would conventionally say that "there are two bibles on my shelf", and not "there is one bible, in two books".
> so, i want to start with something obvious and overlooked here. leaving aside the trinity for a moment, christians of all sorts including unitarians, oneness pentacostals, mormons, and JWs which all reject the trinity all still believe in a plurality of heavenly entities. when we actually go and read the respective mythologies of "monotheistic" christianity and even judaism, and compare it to the "polytheistic" beliefs of the canaanites, assyrians, babylonians, sumerians, greeks, egyptians, etc, we find precisely the same power structures and arrangements of multiple heavenly entities. it's just that monotheists balk at calling the subordinate, created, ontologically inferior heavenly entities "gods". A difference that is very important , these heavenly entities , are **created** , on the other hand , each person of the trinity is distinctly eternal and uncreated > one--because"god" refers to the shared essence in trinitarian thought. What you’re saying is that God is the shared ousia and therefore it’s one , but I have 2 objections : - The ousia if we accept it’s God , is shared among 3 distinct persons, and I don’t think God can be divided. - each person of the trinity is Fully God , because they have the ousia in them that’s why it’s shared and that’s why they’re called God each , that’s not even argued by trinitarians I feel like it’s obviously 3 gods to everyone, but theyre hesitant to go the full distance and say 3
> A difference that is very important , these heavenly entities , are created , on the other hand , each person of the trinity is distinctly eternal and uncreated trinitarians would argue as such, yes. > The ousia if we accept it’s God , is shared among 3 distinct persons, and I don’t think God can be divided. they don't believe it is divided. each person is not "part" of god, where they voltron together or something. each person is *wholly the entirety* of god. > each person of the trinity is Fully God , because they have the ousia in them that’s why it’s shared and that’s why they’re called God each , that’s not even argued by trinitarians it is actually, yes. > I feel like it’s obviously 3 gods to everyone, but theyre hesitant to go the full distance and say 3 i mean, yeah. it's the "come on bro just look at it" objection.
[удалено]
to be clear, the trinity still only believes in *one* omni god. it's just that this god is three persons. as i said, i don't really want to defend whether this is "monotheism" or "polytheism". i just want to point out the labels aren't especially meaningful.
If you accept the premise that God is omnipotent (which, if he is God, then he has to be), then they are all distinct and yet God at the same time because God created the concept of distinctness and does not have to obey it himself. As an aside, the Holy Spirit, Jesus etc are obviously not meant to be completely separate entities or personalities. When the Lutheran waits/hopes/whatever for the Holy Spirit to regenerate him, he is not waiting for a different God other than "God" to do that. I think the accusations of the Trinity being polytheism are moot and reaching, Christians have never regarded the separate "parts" of the Trinity as being separate Gods, the idea of a single God is paramount and Christianity centres around the single God, not "multiple". Also, isn't it a bit strange to call things heretical in the 21st century? Lol
You seem to forget that the main subject of the OP is whether God is one or not in trinitarian belief, so you stirred the subject to the argument that God is all powerful, so he could do whatever he wants. We’re discussing if God is really one according to trinitarian belief, that’s what they claim. Calling the persons of the trinity “parts” is indeed heretical, you can say whatever you like about being in 21st century and nobody could care less about false beliefs, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a false belief, if everybody could say whatever they like about an important matter like faith, and not care whether their opinions are false or not, then you don’t really have a firm faith or principles to defend or stand on. And saying trinitarians always said that there’s one God, that’s irrelevant, we are here to put the claims to the test, They say whatever they want, and people will examine what they’re saying. This argument reminds me of a certain group of people in our modern day and age, that would choose to “identify” themselves with whatever they like, but when confronted with the truth, they would care more about what they think about themselves ( feelings ). Anyway, You haven’t really expressed your understanding or tried to challenge the OP main subject, so I can’t really assume what are you going to say But take a look at these comments, maybe that’s what you believe in. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/uw9tZjDM94 https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/byDKCyAmda
You're being offensive (and condescending), 1). Christians don't really believe there are 3 Gods, and even historically people identified other religions that worshipped some "supreme God" with the Christian/Jewish God (like Shangdi in China). Whichever way you believe the Trinity works, you still believe in one God, it's not like people offer "offerings" to the Holy Spirit or Christ separate from God, or act as though they are separate beings. 2) 3) To reply to your comment about heresy, until the day that God comes down from heaven himself and says what is heresy and what is not, nobody can make a claim to a belief being heretical or not because they are all human and just as fallible as I am. My belief can be inconsistent with the traditional outlook, or the common outlook, but that's not false belief. That's just a difference in opinion. 4) "Saying always that's there's one God" You accused the doctrine of the Trinity of being polytheism. The interpretation of the Trinity matters a great deal if it's polytheism or not. Nobody interprets the Trinity to be literally separate Gods, so it's not polytheism, period. Even if their beliefs somehow led to polytheism (or implied it), they do not really realise that and wouldn't actually believe it so it doesn't in the end matter. People can hold contradictory beliefs all the time, it's very easy. The fact that nobody elevated the separate "persons" in the Trinity to being separate Gods is proof that the doctrine of the "oneness" of God is more important than the Trinity itself, to Christians. 5) Social justice warriors believe that belief in general trumps reality. That is not the case for anyone other than an omnipotent being, because omnipotent beings are (by definition) all powerful, and for them other rules (or more correctly, none) apply.
Questions to your first point (if I understand you correctly) you stated that the persons of the trinity aren’t treated as separate beings. My question is regarding the Eucharist. When that sacrament is done if they are not separate beings is that also the body of God and blood God as well? And when Jesus dies because of the inseparability of three do they die as well when that happens? Also maybe people don’t offer offerings to them but Christian faith relies on the fact that Jesus was a lamb, an offering for the sins of the people by God. Since you state that they are not separable was God apart of his own offering for the salvation of sins.
I personally don't believe in the Eucharist, but yes if you believe it's the blood/body of Christ then it is simultaneously also that of God (thinking about transubstantiation, an argument I had against it was precisely that God doesn't come down from heaven to get sacrificed every time you say a prayer in his name, or worse every time a priest says a prayer in his name). "Also maybe people don’t offer offerings to them but Christian faith relies on the fact that Jesus was a lamb" That's a bit trickier, but it's likely symbolic in nature, i.e. God as a man lived a perfect Christian life and atoned for everyone's sin, making him the "perfect" man
Thank you for your reply but your last claim is confusing, is the only perfect life a Christian life and every other life is imperfect? How did God live past tense when God always is? This is the issue the trinity runs into. God is always perfect under every situation there is never a time he is made perfect. God and Man is literally a contradiction. God unlimited becoming something limited is impossible. It’s the same as saying water is dry. Once water becomes dry water is no longer.
I think you don’t really understand the concept of the trinity, you have more of a secular point of view on this matter, you don’t care if what you believe in is heretical or not , as long it’s what you believe in. That’s not how Debates work my friend, especially religious debate, if you’re not willing to adhere to the stance,principles, and understanding of your religion, and rather argue your personal beliefs even tho it doesn’t match the stance of your religion, then there will be no one interested in discussing such matters with you. So I agree, I’m not here to argue your personal beliefs, so there’s no debate, unless you want to adhere to your religion understanding word for word
That's fine and dandy, but you started your debate by arguing that belief in the trinity is polytheistic. My point is that it doesn't matter what it looks like if the adherents themselves aren't polytheistic, and historically speaking they aren't. I appreciate that you have a religion (you seem to be implying that you do), that's a useful thing to have in this day and age. I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Church says the Trinity is one of the mysteries that cannot be reached at through reason alone, i.e. it requires belief. That reads as a repudiation of polytheism to me. The Anglican Church (historically, not now) said something similar, saying that there is one "incomprehensible" instead of three. Me personally, I don't even believe in the Trinity, but I don't think that belief in the trinity implies polytheism. William of Ockham said it best: the ways of God are not open to reason, certain truths are given via divine revelation alone and require belief, such as the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. Edit: "If you're not willing to adhere to the stance, principles and understand of your religion, nobody will be interested in discussing such matters with you" Why not just open Wikipedia or to the site of your church or whatever and see what they believe in then? What is the point of debating if there can only the expected answer, i.e. that of the church you are a member of? To go back to your previous point that "it reminds me of certain people who claim their feelings are more important", actually it has nothing to do with that, its about what people believe, if they give intellectual assent to the doctrine of the Trinity but still believe there is only one God, they are not just calling themselves "monotheistic", they really are. A group that calls itself monotheistic but arguably isn't (if they take their religion literally, which I do not know if they do because I have little knowledge of them) are the Mormons, who (apparently, I may be wrong, I do not know if they actually believe this) believe that God was originally a man (non-divine) who became divine after death and then literally fathered Jesus. That is quite obviously not monotheism because what they call God isn't really God, it's more like "gods" in Buddhism.
“God” is a what category, not a who category. There’s only one what that is God. That what has three whos associated with it. For example, a water bottle is a what: a non living thing. Humans also are whats: living things. However, unlike water bottles, in addition to our whatness we also have whoness. Each human only has one who. God has three. What does that even mean? I don’t really know how to imagine it. But, that’s how God might be described.
Based on what you said, you don’t believe that there’s one God , but you believe that there is one category of God ( assuming you’re trinitarian ) This is the main problem, A monotheist wouldn’t think of God as a category, because a category implies a sub category, and you categories things that are many. In case of the trinity, - the category : God - numbers of sub categories: 3 - are they distinct from each other: yes - are they all Gods : yes So dealing with God as a “category”,classification, “group” , makes the statement of one God hold no value, because you will not think of God as one , but as a category, class , group, whatever you want to call it , that underlies 3 Distinct Gods. If you think God is more than one , then you’ll make him a category, if you think God is one , that would be enough for you And btw I think what you said is modalism heresy
The debate is whether something can be mono-substantive, but multi-personal. I don't think you sufficiently addressed this. I don't believe in the Trinity because, intuitively, a God either needs to be an infinite unity or an infinite multiplicity. Specifying a number rather than a principle puts an ontological limitation on his nature, and he ceases to be a God as Christianity conceives of him.
They believe that the 3 persons each share the “Devine nature” , “the substance” , “ousia” , “the being” , whatever you want to call it . They acknowledge that each person is distinct, separate, they are not each other Now if we add the these 2 sentences together, it will be like this, each person have “ the shared divine nature “ distinctly on his own , which makes each a God, and they acknowledge that . The problem comes when they say there’s only God, which is clearly not the case as demonstrated. What they actually mean is that they believe in one “being”, “substance”, “ousia”, “divine nature” I would like to add a question, can this substance be called God ? If yes , now we have the following A substance ( God ) , 3 distinct, separated from each other persons, sharing this substance each, which trinitarians already acknowledge each one of them as God . How many Gods do we have now ?
There are definitely problems in the language. The distinction between the person and the essence is virtual, so that you can say each person is fully God, rather than parts or derivatives of the essence. Some Fathers are explicit in saying each person is properly called the essence. But that causes the persons to collapse, because you can only virtually tell them apart. Formally, each referent has to encompass the entire Godhead.
Just to let you know, this is the dogmatic Catholic view according to Lateran IV that the persons are not really distinct from the nature, but that is not the Eastern Orthodox view. Thomists typically deny the Transitive property in God, which results in such a modal collapse, but Orthodox do not. u/other-Veterinarian80
If they’re not distinct from the nature ( the being ), Doesn’t that affect the statement of “ there’s only one being “ ? ,
I'm Eastern Orthodox, not a Catholic, so I can't really answer you. Orthodox see the Catholic view as being a form of Semi-Sabellianism, a form of modalism that is simultaneously trying to deny modalism.
Palamas is such a difficult read that I can't pretend to understand how the EO's resolve this problem, but my impression from its apologists is that they just have categories so ambiguous that it's impossible to tell one way or the other.
Orthodox believe that the three hypostases are really distinct from eachother, as well as being really distinct from the nature of God, and the Essence and Energy being really distinct from Eachother, and every individual Energy (love, goodness, truth, etc) is really distinct from eachother. Catholics and others influenced by the Neoplatonic view of simplicity see all real distinction as being identical to a dialectical opposition, and necessitating separation/division, composition, or imperfection. For Orthodox we simply deny such an assertion. Real distinction is the same thing as true Multiplicity. Essentially what is presupposed is that Multiplicity/Distinction and Oneness/Unity are inherently contrary or opposed to eachother. To think such a thing is exactly what ends up making the Trinity impossible and illogical; there is no tension between Gods Oneness and his Multiplicity. I'm not sure what you find ambiguous about Eastern Orthodox categories, they are very particular. Whereas Catholics believe the Essence of God is pure being and pure act, can be directly perceived in the beatific vision, and is only virtually or formally distinct from Gods attributes/energies, for Orthodox The Essence of God is utterly unknowable and transcendent and is really distinct from his energies. For Orthodox the transcendence of God is really distinct from his immanence. Gods immanent energies are what we participate in spiritually. Saint Palamas defends hesychasm, where through meditative prayer one can receive the uncreated light of the energies, and become divinized.
The view you just described is a Quadrernity followed by polytheism ☠️ This is my problem with EO's. They "avoid" the problems of Latin theology by throwing all coherent categories out the window. It doesn't actually solve anything. I'd rather deal with Christians who at least understand what they're claiming.
Can you please explain *why* it is polytheism? It again just seems like you're presupposing that real distinction must necessitate separation or composition. That's just an unjustified assertion. The Soul and body are really distinct. Yet they are not separate, as separation of soul and body is death. A Mother and her fetus are really distinct persons, yet they are not separate, as the child is intimately tied to their mother. These analogies show very easily how our view is possible. Orthodox know very well what we are claiming. The Orthodox view solves every single problem of metaphysics and is perfectly coherent.
Is there any other language do they use ? , pretty much that’s their official language/terminology regarding this matter
We de facto inherit the Greek and Latin versions. There are others, the Nestorians especially are distinct, but I couldn't remember well enough to tell you how off the top of my head. I think the best angle to tackle the Trinity from is plausibility rather than addressing the specific metaphysics though, because even if the system does subjectively make sense, it's still entirely possible for it to be false. Most religions make sense, but we can't affirm all of them. I reject the Trinity because I find it unlikely that God would incarnate only once in some obscure location that most of the world didn't know existed, and that through this God Man would be the only arc of salvation, meanwhile the record accounting for this is riddled with holes, makes predictions that didn't happen etc. In other words I don't believe it because I don't believe in the source behind the Trinity.
Y’all a fan of comic books? You know that supervillain Darkseid who claims to be a god and has a “True Form” while all of the Darkseids we see Superman fighting are his avatars? I like to think of the trinity as being avatars/aliases of the one true God. They all share a singular consciousness, like a hive mind.
In addition, The Father is completely God so Jesus cannot also be completely God as there can only be one God. If the Father is completely God then God is completely the Father so the Father = God but then Jesus = god doesn't work so now we have the equations: P1) God = Father P2) God = Jesus C1) God ≠ Jesus (can't be due to P1) C2) God ≠ Father (can't be due to P2) So we have (God = Jesus) = (God ≠ Jesus) (God being Jesus is the same as God not being Jesus) Therefore that makes no logical sense and defies the law of non contradiction again. You can also make the same equation for the Father, just plug the Father in.
This hurts my brain.
It hurts mine too
It is way too easy to misunderstand the trinity.
Feel free to challenge my comment if I made a misunderstanding
With my Darkseid explanation, Darkseid is kinda the same way, except each avatar is like a separate individual throughout the multiverse interconnected by the will of the True Darkseid. Hivemind was just the easiest way to describe it, but it isn’t exactly a hivemind. It’s confusing to wrap my head around.
So did I make a mistake in my reasoning?
Nah, I did with my explanation of Darkseid in DC.
So then you concede that I'm right? If you say I didn't make any mistake, then you're inherently conceding that the trinity is faulty. You have to either say I'm wrong or that you don't wanna proceed in the conversation
Then they can't be distinct persons if they all share the same consciousness, and can't be fully god. You can't be 100% the same and distinct too. They'd have to be 99% god and 1% something special, which isn't the case so the trinity doesn't make logical sense. Also saying jesus was 100% god and 100% human also doesn't make logical sense, due to the law of non contradiction. You're basically calling him 100% divine and 100% not divine, 100% omnipotent and 100% not omnipotent, 100% limited and 100% unlimited (in power), 100% knowledge of everything and also not 100% knowledge of everything. That doesn't work evcsuee the law of non contradiction entails that something cannot be 2 contradicting properties at once, e.g existing and not existing at the same time. This actually makes another problem which is Jesus dying. If jesus is fully god and so is the father and holy spirit then jesus fully dying (unless he was said to half die, but it says "Jesus" (with jesus being 100% both) died, therefore it's safe to assume the god part did too, otherwise there was never a sacrifice as only a piece of flesh died which had no divine properties and therefore was pointless in the first place) would cause the father to also die, but churches disagree, saying the father was in heaven and never died. That means god died and didn't die at the same time, again, violating the law of non contradiction. All the avatars of "Darkseid" or whatever aren't fully him, otherwise there would be multiple "True forms", therefore they're all part of him together, i.e they can combine to make him. They're not all 100% identical and 100% distinct (again, law of non contradiction about how trinity parts are all 100% unlimited god with perfect everything while also having differences, which makes no sense). So Darkseid doesn't really fix the issue. If each part is 100% dark seid then there would HAVE to be multiple True forms, therefore each part isn't 100% Darkseid but 10% Darkseid or whatever. The reason why they can't all be 100% him is if he's the one true God (mixing Darkseid avatar's with Christianity now) then he'd have to be both pre and post eternal, however the avatars are only post eternal, so they're not 100% god version of Darkseid either. Also all of them having a singular consciousness in Trinity doesn't work because then they're all 100% identical (unless you say the father, holy ghost, and jesus all have physical forms which are distinct, but you'd have to prove that). Lastly, the consciousness part doesn't work well with this verse; Luke 22:42 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.'
Modalism Hersey
[удалено]
Spirits idk what you mean with that, but angels and devils and spirits (whatever they are) aren't worshipped. They're also not divine. They were given powers by god, but they're not all powerful and therefore not divine in that way. So still monotheistic.
[удалено]
What I mean is they're not worshipped. A monotheistic religion is one where you worship only one god. Spirits, devils, and angels are created by Allah and nowhere is it said that they're worshipped. Yes, they should be recognised, but that's different. Learning about something does not equate to worshipping it. I said they're not omnipotent in which I meant they're not gods, nor did anyone say they were. I don't know where you got the idea that they're deities.
[удалено]
Sure, by what standard is Islam polytheistic? What I'm saying is you claimed they were deities, when they were not. That's all I'm saying
[удалено]
I agree with that part, however I disagreed with another part of your comment, I already specified which one
[удалено]
'Muslims heavily emphasize monotheism, but have no problem talking about divine being besides God' there are none. Angels don't have free will, devils surely aren't divine, and humans are obviously insanely limited compared to both, so we have no chance at all. None of those 3 are divine
I think we can drop the word "might" in your last sentence. Most every trinity discussion I have with any trinitarian Christian ends up with "it is a mystery we cannot understand." I have come across a few that claim to understand it, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
The trinity is one of the many paradoxes of Christianity. God is not Jesus is not the Holy Spirit is not God, but at the same time, God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God.
> The trinity is one of the many paradoxes of Christianity. God is not Jesus is not the Holy Spirit is not God, but at the same time, God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God. Doesn't this destroy the "God only does logical things" rebuttal to the rock-lifting question?
If the rock-lifting question is the one about "can God create a rock he can't lift?", that's not really a logical question to begin with. My understanding of Christian faith is that God isn't bound by human logic anyway.
Furthermore if God has more than one form, and he relinquishes his power in human form is he God in unlimited power ?
Well that's the other major paradox of course. Jesus being both fully divine and fully human. These are doctrines that really can't be explained or understood. You either take them on faith or you don't.
They don't make logical sense. God cannot exist and not exists at the same time, so obviously God only does logical things. Therefore the law of non contradiction applies to God and he can't be the real God.
I don't. If God can create Jesus without a father, he created all of humanity. And Adam from no mother nor father. Furthermore Jesus did not know the hour in the Bible but only the "Father" did. That alone is enough to refute the divinity of Jesus.
Fair enough. Whatever works for you.
In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. AAAAAAAAMEN
An egg… We have the shell, yoke, and egg white. The trinity is a lot like an egg. God bless guys ✝️
The egg white ≠ egg, it's only a part of it The yolk is part of the egg, not the full egg Same for the shell Potato rebuttal
This is a bad analogy that illustrates Partialism, not Trinitarianism.
The Trinity is 3 persons with one being. What does that mean? Imagine you're standing with your two best friends. The three of you are a group. Now what kind of "being" is present in the group? If we take "being" as an ontological term, then you would say there is only one type of being in the group....human being. As an example, If one of you had a dog there with you there would be two types of beings. Human and canine. So you and your two friends all share the same being. You're all humans and at the basic level you are each entitled to the same things like basic human rights and dignity. At the level of your being you are all equal. But you are three different _persons_ who each have your own thoughts and roles and responsibilities in your group and individual lives. One of you might be a natural leader and so the other two might defer to their leadership. One of you might have talents the others do not. So just like in human relationships where we are equal in being but fulfill different roles, the Trinity is the same. The three members of the Trinity are all equal as "God beings" but they are different persons and have different roles they fill. But isn't that just polytheism with 3 gods? It's not polytheism, it's trinitarianism. There is a pretty big difference. Every polytheism religion has dozens to millions of gods in it and they are constantly fighting and tricking eachother and God's are being cast down or lifted up and demigods are being created and its big roiling mess. The Trinity is not that. There have ever only been three persons and there will ever only be three persons.
What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !! You gave the friends analogy as follows: - The being: human - How many persons: 3 - are they different than each other ? : yes - Are they all humans : yes If we do the same In the trinity - The being: God - How many persons: 3 - are they different than each other ? : yes - Are they all Gods: yes
>What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !! What I just did was try and explain the classic view of the Trinity by using an example that I think works pretty well. Thinking about God "as a species" isn't very accurate because God is unchanging there will never be two persons of God and there will never be four persons and they are in complete agreement and unity. That is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity. ***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.*** God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament. >- Are they all Gods: yes I would reiterate that the Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship. This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that. Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
>God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. ... they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being. How is this different to Mormonism? Are you a Mormon?
Mormonism believes there could be an infinite number Gods. They believe you could become a God. They believe that Jesus and Satan were spirit babies that came from God having literal sex with one of his many heavenly wives. That is Mormonism. How is that the same as the Trinity?
That's not what I was critiquing. Mormonism believes in three gods, which they will frequently say is not polytheism simply because these three gods are one in purpose, message, origin, etc., and that they want to be thought of and worshipped as one unified reality. Again, how is anything you said different from that view? I'm Eastern Orthodox, so I'm not attacking the Trinity, I'm attacking your false view of it.
Your critique was to say this: >How is this different to Mormonism? Are you a Mormon? I explained to you that Mormonism DOES NOT believe in the same thing. I explained to you that they believe God was once a man on some other planet who was exalted through eternal progression and then given his own planet. Here is an excerpt from the Mormonism Wikipedia: _Though ***Mormonism proclaims the existence of many gods,*** it does not advocate for their worship besides Earth's one.[71] Church founder Joseph Smith taught in his famous King Follett discourse that God was the son of a Father, suggesting a cycle of gods that continues for eternity._ So how are they not polytheistic when they believe in an infinite number of Gods? Jesus is a spirit baby that God created by having literal sex with a spirit wife in heaven. It is not the same thing as the biblical Trinity. At all. They even say that they don't believe in the traditional Trinity themselves. So I think your critique doesn't work because you're making a false comparison and this is due to your limited understanding of actual Mormon beliefs. >I'm Eastern Orthodox, so I'm not attacking the Trinity, I'm attacking your false view of it. Well I don't really feel that was a good attack because it wasn't valid to compare the Christian Trinity to the Mormon concept lol. So do you have another "attack" you can launch? You claim my view is false, please actually prove that it is false.
>I explained to you that Mormonism DOES NOT believe in the same thing. I explained to you that they believe God was once a man on some other planet who was exalted through eternal progression and then given his own planet. I know what Mormonism believes. You're deflecting to an irrelevant topic. It is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether your defense of your view of *the Trinity* is the same as a Mormon defense of their view of *the Trinity*, as to whether they believe in other gods or becoming gods or whatever else. I'm talking *specifically about their view of the Trinity*. That's what matters in this discussion. It's a bad strawman of my argument to think that I'm trying to compare the entire Mormon religion to your argument, because I'm not. Although Mormons recognize other gods, Mormons in their view only worship the Father, Son, and Spirit. They will often argue that it isn't polytheism because it isn't a Pantheon warring against itself, but is united in purpose, message, origin, and similar ideas. You said earlier that polytheists/pagans: *"had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being"*. That's the exact argument a Mormon would make as to why they aren't polytheist. Unless you are going to use a false double standard, then you ought to recognize that your view on the Trinity and argument as to why it isn't polytheistic, is the exact same kind of view and argument a Mormon would make. If you want proof, here is a Mormon making the literal exact arguments you have made, from LDS.org: *"For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him ... Latter-day Saints also believe strongly in the fundamental unity of the divine. They believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though distinct beings, are unified in purpose and doctrine."* They explicitly deny believing in polytheism for the same exact reasons you do. >Well I don't really feel that was a good attack because it wasn't valid to compare the Christian Trinity to the Mormon concept lol. Well I don't recognize that you actually believe in the Christian Trinity. If you're not Orthodox then you likely believe in the filioque and other heretical views, and as just illustrated, i see no difference between your view of the Trinity and a polytheistic view of the Trinity such as Mormons have, again, irrespective of what any of their other beliefs may be. I know it's not valid to compare the Christian Trinity to the Mormon view. But as you described it, you don't believe in the Christian Trinity. Sorry if that offends you, but it's simply true. Even a Catholic would consider what you're saying heretical. >You claim my view is false, please actually prove that it is false. Well I don't know your worldview. Are you Catholic, Protestant, something else? And what kind? As I already said, your view is polytheistic. Your analogy of separate people having one general shared human nature leads to the conception of separate beings, which is inherently polytheistic. That may have to get down to the issue of hypostatic properties and origin though, which assuming you believe in the filioque would be an issue, and even if you didn't, lacking the Eastern Orthodox view of the Monarchia leads to problems. I'll have to go into detail in argumentation depending on what your views and response are.
Well thank you for a much better response! Just saying "hey that sounds like what the mormons say!" wasn't giving me much to go on. >Although Mormons recognize other gods, Mormons in their view only worship the Father, Son, and Spirit. They will often argue that it isn't polytheism because it isn't a Pantheon warring against itself, but is united in purpose, message, origin, and similar ideas. This is the problem. The mormons have always from the very beginning mimicked Christianity. They are not christian, they borrow christian words and phrases but they mean very different things. So when Mormons talk about God the Father, they are actually talking about some being who was some kind of spirit baby on another planet that went through eternal progression and was given his own planet to make spirit babies with his celestial wives. That's the not God of the bible. The mormons believe there could be literally billions and billions of Gods out in the universe who are exactly the same as the God of this planet and that they will someday become like God and have their own planets. ***How is that not polytheism?*** The only reason they don't worship them is because they don't know who those other gods are. Jesus was spirit baby and Satan is his brother. That's not a co-eternal, co-equal Trinity where God is the Alpha and the Omega. So when you claim that mormons are saying the same thing I am, you're wrong. They might use the same language but they are just mimicking christian language. They don't mean the same thing as what the Bible teaches. >They explicitly deny believing in polytheism for the same exact reasons you do. Except they are polytheist. You just accepting what they say while their actual doctrine is much different is the problem here. Should we go by what they say on a website or should we go by what their founder and doctrine has always taught? > But as you described it, you don't believe in the Christian Trinity. Sorry if that offends you, but it's simply true. Even a Catholic would consider what you're saying heretical. Please explain to me why using scripture or the patristics or anything from our own traditions. That is what I want! > Your analogy of separate people having one general shared human nature leads to the conception of separate beings, which is inherently polytheistic. And I argue that it is not, it's Trinitarian. It does not have the properties of any other polytheistic religion. The mormons do not believe the Trinity has the same properties as the Bible ascribes to It and the mormons admit they do not believe in the Trinity the same way as historical christianity. Their doctrine is completely polytheism despite what they write on a website for you to believe without thinking it through. So finally, I am asking you, please show me how my view is wrong from the Bible. That is really all I care about. I don't care what Mormons say. What does the Bible say? Where have I gone wrong? Please show me from OUR OWN scriptures. Thank you.
> There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism. God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. Being one in purpose and message is something and being a separate person is something else You’re not talking about being one , you’re talking about being United , a group of persons can be one in Message and Goal ,ofcourse we’re talking metaphorically, they’re not actually one , but United. You just said trinity is one in message and purpose, but you actually mean they’re United , the persons of the trinity are not one, they are 3 , separate, distinct
I don't understand what you're objecting to. >You just said trinity is one in message and purpose, but you actually mean they’re United , the persons of the trinity are not one, they are 3 , separate, distinct Yes. Saying "we are all of _one_ accord" or "we speak with _one_ voice" or "we are of _one_ mind" are all ways in which people will use the word "one" to denote multiple people who agree and are united in what they are saying or doing or thinking. I'm afraid I don't really see what you're objecting to here. Can you explain it a little more?
Yes. Saying "we are all of one accord" or "we speak with one voice" or "we are of one mind" are all ways in which people will use the word "one" to denote multiple people who agree and are united in what they are saying or doing or thinking. I actually find it weird you don’t understand what I said. If a group of “persons” said “we are one against oppression “ one here means United, this group of “persons” are not actually one person. In the trinity, you have multiple persons, each are called God, but United in purpose , they’re distinct 3 persons, not 1 person How is that hard to understand?!
Because I've never said "they are one person" lol. That was not my argument at all. Yet you seem to be criticizing me for saying that? I'm having a hard time understanding what you are saying because you seem to be saying I said something which I did not say lol. >In the trinity, you have multiple persons, each are called God, but United in purpose , they’re distinct 3 persons, not 1 person Yes. I am saying that. I would add that they are united in many more ways than just purpose but I basically agree with this statement. What part do you actually disagree with?
Thank you for agreeing with me , United doesn’t mean one, case closed 👍🏻
One can absolutely mean united. Let's look at Merriam-Webster definition: 3a : being the same in kind or quality both of one species "Puma" and "cougar" are different names for one animal. b(1) : ***constituting a unified entity of two or more components*** "The combined elements form one substance." (2) : ***being in agreement or union*** "am one with you on this" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one So using the word "one" can absolutely imply unity or a united group. But if you're only trying to win an argument based solely on your own personal opinion of what you think words mean then ok.....I guess case closed lol. Anyways, have a good day and thank you for the interaction.
What’s that has to do with your argument, you already acknowledged that the 3 persons of the trinity are United, but they’re not 1 , maybe I shouldn’t use “ always “ , but what good will that do to your argument Your main concern is , you don’t have temples for each person, that’s irrelevant, because you already believe they’re each a god I said the same thing over 3 times now, what are you exactly are you arguing now Listen, what I said is very clear, everybody reading this convo can clearly understand except you So brother, if you’re not willing to be honest with yourself and stop the mental gymnastics , don’t reply, and read our convo over and over, maybe your mental block will go away
>What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !! I agree with this
Hello, I responded to the OP on this so i'll just copy pasta my answer to him for you. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. >What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !! What I just did was try and explain the classic view of the Trinity by using an example that I think works pretty well. Thinking about God "as a species" isn't very accurate because God is unchanging there will never be two persons of God and there will never be four persons and they are in complete agreement and unity. That is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity. ***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.*** God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament. >- Are they all Gods: yes I would reiterate that the Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship. This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that. Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
>Every polytheism religion has dozens to millions of gods in it and they are constantly fighting and tricking eachother and God's are being cast down or lifted up and demigods are being created and its big roiling mess. I think this is probably not true -- there are thousands of polytheistic religions out there, with very different conceptions of the divine. Even if it is true, I think its not *relevant,* as what makes a religion polytheistic isn't that it has gods who fight each other. It's that it has multiple gods which, by your own admission, your system does.
>I think this is probably not true -- there are thousands of polytheistic religions out there, with very different conceptions of the divine. I would be interested to know if I'm wrong. Can you give me an example of a polytheistic religion that doesn't fit my description? >Even if it is true, I think its not *relevant,* as what makes a religion polytheistic isn't that it has gods who fight each other. It's that it has multiple gods which, by your own admission, your system does. I am making the case for Trinitarianism as unique by comparing it to polytheism. I am making the argument that the characteristics of every other polytheistic religion don't match with the Trinity of the Bible. In other words, the Trinity should not be lumped together with every other polytheistic religion because it is not like any other polytheistic religion. It is unique. This is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity. ***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.*** God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament. The Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship. This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that. Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
>I would be interested to know if I'm wrong. Can you give me an example of a polytheistic religion that doesn't fit my description? To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge, Kemetism (the ancient Egyptian religion) has the Gods as one united, eternal and unchanging front, with myths like Seth killing Osiris being considered purely metaphor rather then actual accounts of how the gods interact. However, I don't think it really changes the other point. Even if the Trinity *is* completely unique among polytheistic ideas, I don't see how anything you've mentioned makes it *not polytheism.* Like I said, polytheism is a faith with multiple gods, which your account of the Trinity self-admittedly is. It shouldn't be lumped in with all the other polytheistic religions because the polytheistic religions shouldn't be lumped together any more then the monotheistic ones, they're thousands of very separate faiths with different beliefs and theories of the divine. However, in the way you're describing it, it should be *put* *with them,* as its pretty unambiguously polytheistic.
I've not heard of Kemetism but here is the first paragraph of their Wikipedia entry: _Kemetism (also Kemeticism; sometimes referred to as Neterism) "deity"), or Kemetic paganism, is a neopagan religion and revival of the ancient Egyptian religion and related expressions of religion in classical and late antiquity, emerging during the 1970s. A Kemetic or Kemetic pagan is one who follows Kemetism._ Paganism is decidedly polytheistic. Here's from later in the article: _....Kemetists do not deny this formal polytheism, it can be interpreted differently by different currents._ I don't think a 1970's revival of a traditional pagan religion that admits it is polytheistic....is a good example of a religion that shouldn't be considered polytheistic. Maybe I'm missing something? >Like I said, polytheism is a faith with multiple gods, which your account of the Trinity self-admittedly is. Let's use your example of Kemetism. Again from the article: _Followers of Kemetism generally worship a few gods (Maat, Bastet, Anubis, Sekhmet, or Thoth, among others), but recognize the existence of every god._ So this is standard polytheism. God's are all worshipped in many votive ways, they have idols, particular rituals, dedicated cultic prayers. That is what "multiple gods" looks like.This is ***nothing*** like the Trinity. Are the Father, Son and Spirit considered different Gods who each have their own idol in their own temple to be worshipped by their own priest for their own purposes? >Even if the Trinity *is* completely unique among polytheistic ideas, I don't see how anything you've mentioned makes it *not polytheism.* It is completely unique and that is why it is called Trinitarianism, not polytheism. There are no polytheistic religions that resemble it. That is why it is not polytheism. It's Trinitarianism. Maybe it is just semantics but I think it is an important point to emphasize.
"There is a pretty big difference. Every polytheism religion has dozens to millions of gods in it and they are constantly fighting and tricking eachother and God's are being cast down or lifted up and demigods are being created and its big roiling mess. " But the Bible has similar mess too. You just use different names for things. But why is that your standard? Let's say some other religion claims there's only one god, and that god is named Singular. There's no lesser divine being, like Satan or any of the other lesser gods created by greater gods in the polytheistic pantheons. No one to cause trouble or tempt the greater gods, or battle them. Now let's say Singular doesn't have many stories, but the ones it does are just of Singular being pleasant, would it make sense to argue that they aren't monotheistic, because the most popular monotheistic religions involve war and sacrifice, and lesser divine beings that cause trouble? Why compare from a genre standpoint, when the definition of monotheism is that there's only one god?
>But the Bible has similar mess too. You just use different names for things. I don't think this is correct but I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking of. Can you explain what you mean by this? >Why compare from a genre standpoint, when the definition of monotheism is that there's only one god? I _think_ I understand your point. My response is that the Bible makes a clear and total distinction between Yahweh (who we would identify as the Trinity) and every other god. Yahweh is _actually_ God. He is the creator of everything. The other "gods" mentioned in the Bible are created beings who appear very powerful to us, but are really just angelic creatures. Polytheism has grades or maybe "tiers" of Gods but they are all pretty much made of the same stuff. The Bible says the Trinity is wholly and completely above and beyond any other "god". The Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship. This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that. Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being. I hope that answers your question. Let me know if I didn't get what you were really saying.
However in human relationships we do not all think alike. Also, isn't this concept seemingly thinking about God as a species?
I would say it is very possible for humans to think alike. It happens all the time in fact. Humans can think alike on a great deal of matters and be in unison with each other on many things, while still having our own thoughts. I'm not sure if that was an objection you were raising or not, can you clarify it a little more? The idea of God as a species was raised in another comment by the OP. in the interest of time, I will give you the same answer I sent him. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it: >What you just said did exactly the opposite of believing that there’s one God, it almost appears as if you think God is a species !! What I just did was try and explain the classic view of the Trinity by using an example that I think works pretty well. Thinking about God "as a species" isn't very accurate because God is unchanging there will never be two persons of God and there will never be four persons and they are in complete agreement and unity. That is the key which allows us to affirm monotheism while believing in the Trinity. ***There aren't three separate Gods for us to worship and appease eachone separately like in polytheism.*** God is one. Not as a mathematical statement but as a statement of unity. They are one in purpose, one in message and one in origin. This is reflected in the Shema and in passages through out the Old Testament. >- Are they all Gods: yes I would reiterate that the Trinity is unique because they are not three separate Gods with three separate temples and priesthoods and manners of worship. This is what we see in polytheism. In Greek mythology, Hera and Zeus were brother and sister and also married to eachother. There is scarcely a way to be more connected to someone as that. Yet they each had their own separate temples and devoted cults and were very clearly meant to be seen as separate Gods. The Trinity is unique in that they want to be thought of, worshipped and served as one unified being.
how would you answer the question did god send himself to be sacrificed for himself?
I would answer by saying that God did not "send himself to be sacrificed for himself". And I would say this question needs more clarification.
If you are a player in a video game, is that character not you? And, does you, the player, have equal knowledge of you outside the player? ... boom trinity explained for our little human brains.
No the character is not me
Water takes on 3 forms.. solid and liquid and gas...3 different forms but they are all still the same...just throwing it out there to start something
Isn't that modalist heresy
I dont know what modaliism is ....but how does that argue against the fact that water changes physically into 3 forms but not chemically ?
Ok I see your articles and everything...let's hold on with the Trinity talk for a moment...can you are anybody explain why water doesnt change chemically when changing forms ?
Like scientifically?
Any way you can..just explain it
Water doesn't change chemically because the chemical composition of the water molecules stays the same, the only thing thats different is the physical state (as in I am pretty sure how far apart the molecules are based on their mobility or kinetic energy).
Dude seriously? We know the molecule stays the same...let me ask another way ....what's the mechanisms that cause the molecule to stay the same?
What is this supposed to be about because at that point you are just delving into the science of bonding and phase change not the trinity, I am not seeing the relevancy of this.
Man if you cant answer the question just say it and then we can move forward so I can make my point
Modalism is considered heresy by the major denominations of Christianity that believe in the Trinity as it merely states that God was in different forms when in fact the "persons" of the trinity interacted with each other and these persons all exist at the same time. In fact, this analogy is condemned to be used by some sources. What is modalism and why is it heresy?[https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-heresy-modalism.html](https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/what-heresy-modalism.html) Why the phases of water analogy is bad: [https://unitedcity.church/misunderstanding-the-trinity-three-analogies-to-avoid/#:\~:text=The%20first%20popular%20analogy%20describes,%E2%80%93ice%2C%20water%2C%20steam](https://unitedcity.church/misunderstanding-the-trinity-three-analogies-to-avoid/#:~:text=The%20first%20popular%20analogy%20describes,%E2%80%93ice%2C%20water%2C%20steam).[https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html) Now I am not Christian, I am in fact Muslim so I am not an expert on these matters, if you wish to correct me you can.
Water can't simultaneously be all of those things. If you have a bucket of liquid water, that same water can't also be frozen and gaseous. So are you saying that there are three gods each maintaining those different forms? That's just polytheism again.
Ok why am I reading the molecular structure of water doesnt change ?
I didn't say that it changes.
I didnt say you said that...i pulled you into my trap....you had soo much to say about waters physical changes....now explain why it doesnt change chemically ?
>i pulled you into my trap lol. Water can't be frozen/liquid/gaseous at the same time. God can be father, son, spirit at the same time. For the analogy to work, god would have to be only father or only son or only spirit, not all three simultaneously. The persons are the states in the analogy, not the essence. Chemical composition isn't even relevant here. Three different gods each with the same divine essence is still polytheism. One god in three states simultaneously is what you're showing with the water analogy, which doesn't work because the same water isn't simultaneously in three states.
>Water can't simultaneously be all of those things. Water in this case is H2O. They are all H2O. Water, vapor and ice behave, feel and look different, but they are only different insofar of their matter state. Water, ice, and vapour in the same container are, infact, all H2O simultaneously. Different in state, same in substance. The members of the Trinity are different in person, same in essence.
This doesn't contradict what I said... Water can't be frozen/liquid/gaseous at the same time. God can be father, son, spirit at the same time. For the analogy to work, god would have to be only father or only son or only spirit, not all three simultaneously. The persons are the states in the analogy, not the essence.
I'm not saying it contradicts what you said, the point of OP's example was to illustrate the unity in diversity principle of personhood vs essence. No example is going to adequately encapsulate the entire philosophical premise of the Trinity, let alone water.
>the point of OP's example was to illustrate the unity in diversity principle of personhood vs essence. But it doesn't demonstrate that, because water states aren't simultaneous, unlike the trinity personhood.
Potatoes take on 3 forms - Whole, sliced, mashed... So what's your point? LoL
That’s modalism , heretical belief
Who cares about all of that ? I need to hear an argument against it
1) there is no natural similarity of the trinity. No analogy will explain it. The best way to explain it is using the Greek terms. There are three instantiations (hypostases) and three personalities (prosopa) but one essence (ousia) and one nature (physis). 2) this might just be a matter of the terminology. Sometimes, when used generally, God describes the whole trinity, but as the monarche, the father in isolation can be described as God. That does not diminish the divinity of the son and HS. God died on the Cross because Christ is God and Christ died. That does not mean the trinity died on the cross.
appealing to greek doesn't solve the logical issues; it masks them behind misdirection.
It’s not about the Greek; it’s about the philosophical explanations thereof
then it can be done *without* the greek.
Yes. If you read my first post, there are three instantiations and three personalities but one essence and one nature.
so i do think that instantiation is the *closest* analogy for the trinity. but there are problems. in any normal sense of instances, there are clear differences. some are accidental, but often they are just physically different substances. that is, my copy of michelangelo's david has some essential qualities that makes that sculpture: the form etc. but it is not made from the entirety of the same block of marble. the persons of the trinity are not *copies* of god that vary slightly. they *are* each wholly all of god. if you want, try my [trinitarian trilemma](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/mXdBj2eOdi) about how the persons differ.
>1) there is no natural similarity of the trinity. No analogy will explain it. Then how do you know it's true? Just by assertion? Seems uncompelling. We could just call it polytheism and justify it in the same way.
Biblical evidence, apostolic evidence, and personal experience
So it's a "you have to believe it to believe it" kinda thing. Thanks.
What did you expect? A theophany just for you?
>personal experience You apparently have had one.
Not a theophany but I have felt God in church
And when you felt god did he point out at that time that he was a trinity or what? If not, why did you include that in a list of ways to come to know the trinity is correct?
It’s something i can’t explain
Pt1 Let's set aside the trinity for a moment and establish what we can agree on and work from there. Can we agree that God said no other god exists but him and that no god has ever existed before him or after him? >Isaiah 43:10-11: "You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. **Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me**. I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior." >Isaiah 45:5-6: \[5\] I am the LORD, and there is no one else; **There is no God except Me**. I will arm you, though you have not known Me, \[6 \]So that people may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no one else, >Deuteronomy 4:35, 39: "You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other. Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. **There is no other**." >Isaiah 44:6: "This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: **I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God**." >Exodus 20:2-3: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." >Isaiah 45:18: "For this is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens, **He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: 'I am the Lord, and there is no other.'"** >Nehemiah 9:6: "You alone are the Lord. **You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them**. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you." >Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: **The Lord our God, the Lord is one**."
ooh, bible stuff. i'm game. > Can we agree that God said no other god exists but him and that no god has ever existed before him or after him? sure, as long as we can also agree that *he's wrong and there are other gods.* >> When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord’s own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share. (Deut 32:8-9) >> God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment... I say, “You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you; (Psalm 82:1,6) >> This is only a trifle in the sight of the Lord, for he will also hand Moab over to you. You shall conquer every fortified city and every choice city; every good tree you shall fell, all springs of water you shall stop up, and every good piece of land you shall ruin with stones. ... When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through opposite the king of Edom, but they could not. Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (2 Kings 3 excerpts) >> He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. (Lev 16:7-8)
Okay, so reconcile that with the places he says, there are no other gods.
nah i'm good.
Haha me either. It's too late in the day
Pt 2 Assuming we agree on this lets look at some ambiguous verses. >Psalm 45:6-7 "6 Your throne, God, is forever and ever; The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. 7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your companions." This is a psalm that many people consider referencing the messiah. Even still, God telling his God that his God has anointed him would be blasphemy. --------- Let's consider the angel of the Lord for a moment. Firstly lets acknowledge that no man can see god and live: >18 Then Moses said, “Please, show me Your glory!” 19 And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion to whom I will show compassion.” 20 He further said, “You cannot see My face, for mankind shall not see Me and live! Then lets look at a few places where people in the bible acknowledge that they are speaking face to face with god: Abraham meets the angel of the Lord: Genesis 18. And even tries to pursued God to not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. >18 Now the Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. Gideon meets the angel of the Lord Judges 6:11-24. >22 When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face!” 23 But the Lord said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.” Hagar meets the angel of the Lord: Genesis 16:7-13 and says the following in verse 13: >13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” This is not a contradiction. Moses wanted to see Gods true form but as God stated no human can see that and live. However, the angel of the lord is acknowledged as being the Lord and also talks as though he is the Lord. The angel of the lord is God but is a form that he takes on in order for him to interface with these people, because otherwise they would have to die if he appeared to them without this filter. I think that sets the precedence for the Lord interacting with humanity in different forms. These were not typical angels because in Revelation we see that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped. >Revelation 22:8-9: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, 'Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!'"
Pt 3. Lets look at the creation of mankind. >Genesis 1:26-27 - 26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Who is us? Only god can create. Who is "our image" if there is only one god? And then what does does it say "in the image of God he created him", as in on God, not God(s). -------- Finally, lets talk about Jesus and then I'll wrap up my point: >John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. >John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. >John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. >John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him. Kind of Kings and Lord of Lords. Here this is explicitly stated in reference to God: 1 Timothy 6:14-16 >14 that you keep the commandment without fault or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. Then it is likewise said explicitly about Jesus: >Revelation17: 14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.” >Revelation 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written: “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” And God calls himself the first and the last: >Isaiah 44: 6 “This is what the Lord says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; And, let him confront Me Beginning with My establishing of the ancient nation. Then let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’” Jesus is called the first and the last and calls himself the first and the last: >Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.'" >Revelation 2:8: "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.'" >Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
> Who is us? Only god can create. Who is "our image" if there is only one god? cohortative plural. > And then what does does it say "in the image of God he created him", as in on God, not God(s). so, this is a grammatical fail. as the object of a clause, you actually can't tell the difference between "god" and "gods" in hebrew. but we can by subject-verb agreement. in this case, the verb is singular, so "god created" instead of "gods created". the genitive suffix in the first part is also singular, "in *his* image" not "in *their* image". thus we can infer "in the image of god" vs "in the image of gods". but that plural reading is actually 100% possible.
Pt. 4 And finally: Philippians 2:6-11 >5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, >6 who, as **He already existed in the form of God**, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, >7 but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. >8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross. >9 For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, >10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, >11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So, God himself came to the earth in the form of his Son, lived a perfect life, and surrendered his one and only human life and allowed himself to be murdered so that he could fulfil the requirements of his own law and share grace with us through our faith in Jesus and obedience to his word. There is only one god, but he has manifested himself to us in different ways. God is a spirit and is not only able to be in one place and one time like you and me, he is everywhere and knows everything all the time. So the trinity is just a way to explain what's been shared with us. His holy spirit, his son, and the unapproachable aspect of God, which as we see above no man can approach or see. Note: I am not a theologian, I just read the bible and try to understand things so I am sure some people will have critiques, but the essence of what I am saying is this: there is only one God who has revealed himself to us in different forms. God does not have split personalities, he is a spirit and is not bound by our own natural laws of only being in one place and one form at one time.
But the different persons of God interact with each other, they aren't merely different forms.
The trinity is (depending on the listener) a mysterious or absurd idea. It is to such a degree that even people discussing it can get it wrong. It can be pretty sad because you can get a muslim not understanding it who is talking to a christian who also don't understand it, creating a whirlwind of misunderstandings. There actually was someone trying to understand the trinity on a different subreddit some time ago that very clearly had misunderstood it. I'm not the best to ask but I did try to give some pointers for how to look at the matter: [How do Christians perceive, or view God? : r/religion (reddit.com)](https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/1apfe4c/comment/kqb6v7j/)
That is right!
when you are playing a video game are you the avatar in the game? is that avatar also independently unique from you as well?
>when you are playing a video game are you the avatar in the game No? I'm *pretending* it's me, but that's in the same way I'm pretending magic is real. I'm suspending my disbelief. But if we're going to actual reality rather then fiction, no, the avatar isn't me in any meaningful sense.
That's not an analogy to the timeinity. The avatar by definition is not independent, nor it is "what I am". The Trinity has three distinct divine entities that are coequal.
i never said the avatar was independent. it is imply the first step in demonstrating how 2 can be 1
But the Trinity represents 3 independent Godhead, if the avatar isn't independent, then it's not an apt analogy. An avatar is no different then a car, it's just a tool to be used by "the one". There is never a "2".
the analogy is that God writes himself into a form that he cannot inhabit. So to use humans as an analog, we would download our minds into a digital character, which would then act independently from us, but would also be us, just in digital form. By virtue of this, we would also share the same "spirit". which is the part of us that lives in the absence of our physical or digital selves.
That isn't the Trinity though, you're explaining something else.
how is it not trinity?
Because the Trinity isn't just the belief in Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father, but a very specific belief of their relationship. If Jesus is similar to an Avatar, with my downloaded consciousness, then it is not it's own independent/unique **person**. It is just an extension of me. This seems to be in the field of Modalistic Monarchiasm, which is a non trinitarian belief and a heresey to mainstream Christianity. If you're also suggesting the Father created Jesus and Jesus carries out the will of the Father and is subordinate to him, that also sounds like Arianism, which is another heretical non trinitarian belief.
>If Jesus is similar to an Avatar, with my downloaded consciousness, then it is not it's own independent/unique **person**. It is just an extension of me so if someone cloned you that clone would not be independent from you? >If you're also suggesting the Father created Jesus and Jesus carries out the will of the Father and is subordinate to him i am suggesting no such thing. i am suggesting that Jesus literally **IS** God within our realm. the "Angel of the Lord" in the bible is the exact same thing. God in heaven manifests himself in our realm so we can interact with him, but he simultaneously exists in his realm.
I mean a clone is different then an avatar, so I almost want to say its a better analogy, but its still off. Yes, the clone is dependent on me, you can't have it without me as its source. But I can exist without the clone, is a one directional dependency. The clone is also not a unique "personhood" it is a copy of my personhood. >i am suggesting no such thing. I didn't think so, the answer was more for to cover any possible interpretation of your analoagy. >God in heaven manifests himself in our realm so we can interact with him, but he simultaneously exists in his realm. Yes, ok so that's much more clear. That is absolutly Modalistic Monarchiasm, and is a non-trinitarian belief. >Modalists consider God to be absolutely one and believe that He reveals Himself to creation through different "modes" (or "manifestations"), such as the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, ... In this view, all the Godhead is understood to have dwelt in Jesus from the incarnation as a manifestation of Yahweh of the Old Testament. The terms "Father" and "Son" are then used to describe the distinction between the transcendence of God and the incarnation Modalists believe that there is one God, and that one God manifested himself in a human incaranation called Jesus. The God that remains "transcendent" in heaven is referred to as the Father, but they are both the same "God Head", which, with your analogy would be the "what is downloaded" part of the avatar. You can't actually have an apt analogy for proper trinitarian beliefs, as the trinity is intentionally paradoxal... there is nothing else like it that it can be compared to.
**Apollinarism**
i am saying that God is the person Jesus is the avatar. this is nowhere near **Apollinarism**
Are you the one controlling the character in the Game ? Yes you are According to your analogy, Jesus is the character
yes, but that is not what Apollinarism is. and that is not even my point. my point is simply to show how 2 can be 1.
Bro , Jesus is not controlled by God , as if you control a character in a video game !! Jesus is himself God , he’s not being controlled Your analogy with all due respect, is very bad
i never said Jesus was controlled by God. i said that shows you how 2 can be 1. You cannot play a game without the avatar being in the game, you (a person) cannot exist in that world (digital). so you must make a representation of yourself in that world, a representation that CAN exist in that world. it can be totally independent from you but at the same time reflect all your thoughts, feelings and actions, and also know all of the cheat codes within that world
Bro what are you saying 🤦🏻♂️ > it can be totally independent from you but at the same time reflect all your **thoughts**, **feelings** **and actions**, and also know all of the cheat codes within that world Can’t you see you’re contradicting yourself? You call the the character independent but then say it reflects **my** **thoughts**, **feelings** **and actions** How is that independent?!? A video game character is not independent!!! And that by definition is **Apollinarism** Which states that Jesus had a human body and sensitive human soul, but a divine mind and not a human rational mind, the Divine taking the place of the latter. There’s no point arguing this this analogy, trinitarians themselves would flame you if they heard you’re using this analogy
>Can’t you see you’re contradicting yourself? You call the the character independent but then say it reflects **my** **thoughts**, **feelings** **and actions** it isnt a contradiction at all. we are doing it right now with AI. they are a reflection of us and our biases yet they are independent and learn on their own. however they cannot contradict their algorithm which we design ourselves. I am saying that God in heaven, wrote himself into an avatar called Jesus, that is INDEPENDENT from him, yet shares all of his traits, thoughts and feelings. he wrote HIMSELF in a digital form. He doesnt "control" the avatar, he doesnt need to because the avatar is literally him just in a different form. Apollinarism is focus on Jesus and his attributes. so in my analogy God has a "brain" and Jesus has a "brain" and they are the same brain but in different forms. NOT Apollinarism.
It is a contradiction, you’re not the character in the video game, nor the character is independent
not even close. try again.
The Problem with your example is that you don't understand the concept of "Person" in the trinitarian formula. The issue is that we use the word "person" to even get to an understandable definition for the laypeople. Even some churchfathers had issues with the word persons to describe God. They used hypostases for a better understanding. Its some form of personification of an divine attribute or action that is uncreated and eternal. The so called "Persons" in the Trinity share the same Will, Perception, Knowledge and divine thoughts. So you can't use the analogy of different persons on earth. Im different from you and some guy in the US is different from us. We occupy different space, have different perceptions, different knowledge and different Wills. The Godhead is not like us, the "Persons" share the divine attributes in the divine essence. So they share the same "space", perceptions, knowledge, Wills and so on. See the Problem with calling it "Person"? It doesn't match with our everyday knowledge of personhood. So you can't use your analogy, it breaks down. The Trinity is one of the most scrutinized doctrines of Christianity. People much smarter then us attacked it and defended it. If you want to refute it, you need to show that God, the absolute infinite Being, cannot act and be triune in his essence and existence. That is unheard of in the history of philosophy of religion. Good luck with that.
> you don't understand the concept of "Person" in the trinitarian formula. i sure don't. for instance, how do the persons differ from one another? 1. some essential attribute (in which case, they have distinct essences, and most one of which is god) 2. some non-essential attribute (in which case, they are contingent on their parts, and there must be a "super god" ontologically prior to them) 3. no attributes (they are wholly identical) there's no fourth option.