The Trinity

the trinity is a bunch of gobbledygook made up by greeks who were obsessed with philosophizing everything to death, especially because they got stuck in a trap where they had to somehow make jesus both the son of god and god himself so that it would be ok to worship him.

it's no wonder so many people just gave up and let the muslims take over, so they didnt have to deal with the constant internecine bickering and schisms over this nonsense

blasphemy

>Abrahamic religiom
>shit

Pick two

...

Happy to help

The title isn't used as an expletive because blaspheming the Holy Spirit was called the unpardonable sin

"Son of God" here is supposed to parallel "Son of Man" in Hebrew (which is a phrase meaning you are a mere mortal, not God).

How are the three aspects of the trinity different than three incarnations of the Hindu supreme being?

It is straight up horrifying how many "Christians" have absolutely no clue about the Trinity or basic Christology.

>wait... what do you mean Jesus is God?

Damn 12th grade religion classes where you pant a fucking picture of some spiritual bullshit.

The Trinity are three distinct *existences* that exist at the same time. God only had one incarnation, the Word made flesh, but this was not a existence of the Trinity, it was on existence being made flesh (in-carnal, in flesh, carnate).

That's why in Orthodox Liturgy, we go through a ton of material in the yearly cycle. All Orthodox teaching can be found in the Liturgy, all dogma. The Liturgy's twofold purpose is to worship, and to teach.

This is what the basic worship service is, but different little parts change with each week: youtube.com/watch?v=5PwYEyBNXKs

> the Word made flesh, but this was not a existence of the Trinity
I didn't know you were a Nestorian, Constantine.

I meant the incarnation is not a new hypostasis, it was an already continuing hypostasis made flesh. The Word is incarnate, the incarnation is not a new hypostasis

In what sense are you using the terms "existence" and "essence"?

Hypostasis
Ousia

On second thought the sense of those is kind of indicated in the example you gave.

See the first of the "full definition" on each of these
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substance

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsistence

Itt: trying to make sense of an incoherent fairy tale

Nice mental masturbation user, but god isnt real to begin with

Lol

1) God by Essence is the Noumenal Cause
2) All that is is from the firstfold cause
3) The Noumenal Cause is the firstfold cause
4) Therefore God is the Firstfold Cause
5) Therefore God Is

>wrong axioms
>wrong conclusions

Lol

Is that all you got zeus?

*tips fedora*

The trinity was the part of Christianity which always seemed like BS to me, especially because of how emphasized in the Old Testament God's oneness and indivisibility is. Add to the fact that the early Christians didn't have a belief in it either and it just seems like some philosophy wank that was tacked on later

Read Genesis 18

Also, what do you mean early Christians didn't believe it, are you saying they were Arians, or what?

I am going to marry Constantine!

Are Orthodox more faith based, or do they try to make theological reasoning to prove God a la Aquinas?

My girlfriend is still angry with me

What should I do?

The HS is often refered to as the spirit of God. But if God Himself IS a spirit, how come does he HAVE a spirit?! Is he a spirit with a spirit? Is he one thing and his spirit another? If God as his spirit are two distinct persons, how come we and our spirit are not two distinct persons?

now THIS is some fucking bullshit

Arius and Origens were right, the trinity is nothing more than pagan appropriation and manipulation

Also I've heard a lecture where an orthodox priest tried to explain the Son the following war. The Son is the Logos, or the thought-word-wisdom of the Father. If the Father is eternal God, then his thoughts must be eternal and divine also. Therefore the Son is eternal and divine. But this absolutely does not follow! We and our thoughts are not two separate persons! And if we grant that in case of God, they are because they are eternal, then why stop short of his thoughts/wisdom? Why wouldn't, say, his will, his love, his righteousness, etc., constitute different persons also? Are they not eternal and divine as well?

Why is your girlfriend angry, user?

what about the comparison to water? water exists in three forms: liquid,gas and solid,but it is the same substance..

It's complicated

Let's just say she caught me nearly committing adultery

She sometimes lock me in my room too since then

There's already a big word for that: modalism or sabellianism, and it's considered a heresy.

justindeeter.com/archives/1753

apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html

carm.org/modalism

theopedia.com/modalism

>In Roman Catholicism, God's essence is the bedrock, the principle of the Trinity; in Orthodoxy, the Father is the principle
I'd love to hear a metaphysical argument in favor of either position, refuting the other.

Hard mode: actual, logical arguments; no appeal to authority, name-calling, anathematizing...

...

how do you appeal to people who find that liturgy incredibly boring and dull?

it's just a phrase

Not it's not " just a phrase". People will often use passages such as
>Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
To argue that the Holy Spirit was mentioned in the OT. But John says that
>God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
And before any of you answer, half-assed and to buy time, that he's not talking about the Father but the Holy Spirit here, here's the context of the verse:
>Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.
>God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
>Father
>is spirit
>not the Holy Spirit
So the Father is a spirit and he has a Spirit, and the two are different persons. How does that make any sense?

>mfw some Catholicfag seriously tries to argue for Filioque

Another question. And before any Christians here accuse me again of using "mere phrases", so as to buy time and distract from the issue, and to excuse them from having to answer, I will cite one of their theologians, Gregory Nazianzen, called "the Theologian".

>But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity—a thing which is impossible to the created nature—so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.

So it is possible, he says,
>for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality
You don't say? HOWEVER
>one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity
Oh so that solves it then. I mean, REALLY? Has that argument ever convinced at any one at any time or place? "Oh so it might seem absurd to you that a plurality could ever be a unity, but not if they an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity (whatever that means). Check-mate Arians, non trinitarian!

Is the Trinity of one mind though? But the Bible says:
>"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
>"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
So much for unity of mind.

What else he says?
>so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.
Oh so they are numerically disctinct! NUMERICALLY! He said it! Not me! But it's not poly/tritheism, right guys?!

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xv.html

(Me)
I mean it's hard to imagine how the trinitarian party could have prevailed by anything but the sword... And it's no wonder why to this day, every generation they have to try hard to explain the dogma of the trinity all over again, and it just never seems to sink in! Because it's 100% horse crap!

>Orthodox Christian posts under the trip "Constantine"
>Constantine was a baptised Arian Christian

Oh and I'm still waiting for this Let's grant for argument's sake that everything is true, the trinity, revelation, all of it. How do you logically argue that "the Father is the bedrock of the entire Trinity" instead of "God's essence is the bedrock, the principle of the Trinity". How do prove that, even granted the axioms of revelation, your theology is not just words, and definitions of words, and words fighting against other words, referring to nothing else but words and never describing anything in reality?

Why does the trinity read like fanfiction? It's circular logic that. Just have a single god.

Where did you get that analogy from?

because a lot of people find it incredibly beautiful

>mfw Latin Neanderthals think they're qualified to discuss theology with Greek master-race
Might as well be talking to a Protestant desu

like half those squares apply to eastern Orthodox as well

I'm waiting...

Waiting for what?

>Catholic service is incredibly aesthetic
>Orthodox service is incredibly aesthetic
>Proddy service is shit
>mfw I can't decide between Catholikeks and Orthocucks

For trinitarians to answer these questions, isn't it the point of the thread?

At least, with regards the trinity, protestants go for whatever the bible says, while catholics and orthodox try to explain it using outdated ancient Greek philosophical concepts, creating even more questions, fall on their face embarassing themselves and when someone points them out to them they say: "Oh, it's a mystery"... Then don't bother trying to explain you morons!

The Orthodox are about reaching direct, mystical experience of God.

"Spirit" is also "breath" and "wind" in both Greek and Hebrew, so the imagery is more human, just like God's Word as something that exists prior to God saying anything to anyone.

In a less figurative sense, "Spirit" also means any invisible force. So the Holy Spirit here refers to God's force on earth.

God doesn't technically have thoughts anymore than he has words, those are just titles for your mind to use as a crutch.

The Latins believed the Holy Spirit is properly God's Love. But for the Orthodox, these are just poetic terms. God is actually completely unknowable in essence, and all adjectives like "righteous" are applied to his energies, and only to describe the human experience of them. We can say what God is not, but properly speaking, we cannot say what he is.

We're Orthodox, our argument is that our position is Patristic and taught by Christ in Holy Tradition. We don't have any dogma that wasn't personally taught by Christ. We don't use logical to approach dogma, we do just appeal to authority, and I'm afraid I can't offer you anymore.

I tell them the Liturgy is not about exciting them, it is about humbling yourself before God in worship.

It means that though the existences are distinct, they have one action, "mind" and "element" among them. They don't have distinct minds or actions, they just have one between the three of them.

>Constantine was baptized by a former Arian who was previosuly exiled by Constantine for being an Arian, but who then recanted and so was allowed back
>therefore Constantine was baptized Arian

Orthodox don't have Low Mass

Hell if I know anything about the 3=1=3=1 (but the three aren't equal to each other) game.

Just wait till Constantine gets back. He doesn't post under his trip anymore because he embarrassed himself too much, but you'll know it's him when you start getting a lot of aggressive replies based almost entirely on anecdotes and circular arguments.

Triadological terminology has pretty much zero to do with Greek pagan philosophy, it was purely synthesized by the Church Fathers. There is no pagan philosophy who makes a well-defined distinction between ousia and hypostasis.

So basically muh metaphors and you don't have a single logical argument to offer? Get it. Protip: don't try to argue that your religion is reasonable when you haven't got a single rational argument to give in favor of it.

No one is saying our theology is about reason. Catholics do that, we don't, ours is about direct experience of the divine, beholding the face of God. Dogmatically, the main Orthodox concern is ensuring Christ's teachings are not distorted, not in finding logical proofs for them.

Who is saying anything about "Pagan" philosophy? Ousia, hypostasis, are terms borrowed from philosophy regardless if Christians gave it a new twist or not. The problem is that once you started using them you create more problems than you had when you started, embarassing yourselves.

The cycle of each denomination hating on the next is offputting for on the fence atheists.

The Easterners initiated the schism but still say the Catholics are ones who broke away? why?

>I tell them the Liturgy is not about exciting them, it is about humbling yourself before God in worship.
right, and i understand the point of it, but i don't see how orthodoxy is ever going to spread out of its historic ethnic enclaves if people find it boring

>There is no pagan philosophy who makes a well-defined distinction between ousia and hypostasis.
And this is incorrect by the way. What is Neoplatonism? You can't just make stuff up as you go, aren't Christians supposed to not tell lies? Or are you just ignorant? In this case, end your statement with the phrase "that I know of (being the ignorant little cunt that I am)".

You claim that your theology is not about reason (no shit). I hardly believe any church father or Christian, Western or Eastern, before the modern era would claim that their faith is UNreasonable. But I understand how a modern Christian, cornered and embarassed would retreat to such petty and shameful state as to say "Oh our theology was NEVER about reason guize...". But regardless, OP is still trying to force outdated concepts from ancient philosophy such as ousia or essence. What is an essence? Where can we find this in nature? Can you isolate it? Do humans and animals have essences? Then you deny evolution. Do chemical substances have essences? But this is all so childish and absurd that I would blush if I had to explain it to you. You might as well believe all things are composed of fire, air, water and earth! But this is the level of the discussion OP is trying to sink us into!

Shoo, shoo! Go away fucktardians! Back to the cave with you! Go play with words on another board! You are unreasonable by your own admission. You have nothing to say. Shoo!

They're words from the Greek language, They aren't Greek philosophy terms, because terms means having precise definitions, and Greek philosophy does not give those terms precise definitions in contrast to each other.

The only contemporary source for the Massacre of the Latins is William of Tyre. Contemporary Venetian and Genoese sources only mention great damages and an expulsion of merchants and moneylenders. Crusaders were always cancer except for a few good guys like the Templars who of course lost favor with the Latins; Teutons thankfully got rekt at the Battle of the Ice.

We've had several Patriarchs martyred for going against the Turk, including one for baptizing a Muslim. Even our fairly weak EP of today constantly objects to the Turk and speaking against him

Peter's oppression of the Church was greatly resented by here, the synod was scrapped right after the Russian Revolution

There are no KGB in the Russian Orthodox Hierarchy. The only evidence for that was one guy who claimed to see "secrete documents", about the current Patriarch how many people claimed to see such documents at the Vatican?

The USSR tried to replace the Orthodox Church with the "Living Church". But the clergy and laity didn't buy it, and most of the clergy was imprisoned. Fast forward to WWII, Stalin needs the Church, releases the clergy from prison and gives them back their parishes, those who defected have to do penance of apostates. But the Patriarch signs an agreement saying the Orthodox Church is loyal to Stalin and the Bolsheviks, most of the Russian bishops break Communion with him, but Stalin leaves them alone because he needs the Church; Communion is established with the election of a new Patriarch

The Orthodox have been kicked and occupied by Muslims for hundreds of years, and we're still defiant.

The Catholic Church, meanwhile, spent all that time torturing people and being so autistic about the Latin language that they refused Script

But this how they are toward Muslims, pic related

Here is from Vatican II

>The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

-Nostra aetate

>But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
-Lumen gentium

Scripture* being translated into a language people can understand while it's being read, even if they can't read it themselves

The Antiochian Church is spreading fairly well. We're not interested in pandering to modernism to spread faster than that. "Many are called, few are chosen." If you come to Christ's Church, that's because of the Holy Spirit. Drawing in people who wouldn't be interested without Christian rock is not productive

Lying is your last resort... Who would have figured? A religion that is based on lies. Guess what Christiard """"philosophers"""" don't give precise definitions of any of that either. You yourself can't even give ONE example of an essence found in nature let alone an explanation.

Guess what dumb shit? They ARE concepts of Greek philosophy. Saying they won't magically alter history! Too bad you don't have state power to alter history and shut the oppositon up for you now do you?

Is anyone reading this sad spectacle of a Christian apology? They will bold-facedly lie about well established facts and they want us to take their word for blurry, controversial historical facts, let alone metaphysical things? "Totally trust us that this trinity thing is real! After we just bold-facedly asserted that we don't have a single footing on logic and reality and we dowright make stuff up!"

Which Greek philosopher establishes hypostasis's definition in contradistinction to ousia? Or, don't even both, just tell me one who uses it that way.

I see this whole "Jesus was born from anal sex" almost every Christian thread these days.

What the hell?

Notice, anons, before anything, how this little weasel operates. At first he says that ousia and hypostasis are
>They aren't Greek philosophy terms
He is told that he is either lying or ignorant. He must have searched Google. then he retreats, and now he asks
>Which Greek philosopher establishes hypostasis's definition in contradistinction to ousia?
So, he unironically thinks that if no Greek philosophers had a precise definition of hypostasis and ousia (notice Christians don't have precise definitions of either), then they must have NOT been Greek philosophical terms. He, having bought time, must think that he is fooling anyone. He is however like a child caught with cookie crumbs all over him saying that he didn't eat any cookie, thinking that he is fooling all the adults. How to argue with a child? Should I show that his premise is false? Or should I start with his premise and show even then he is wrong? Stay tuned!

Some autistic Lutheran who is camping this board spamming his "ministry" about everyone going to hell and how evolution is Satan.

and

i don't think lutherans tend to be creationists. my father's side of the family is all lutherans and they're all socially liberal

Christianity is Tritheism, no matter how much they attempt to disguise it with semantics and convoluted explanations.

>The Antiochian Church is spreading fairly wel

No it isn't. The Antiochian Church is so small that when it gains a few converts, it just happens to be proportionally big. In reality, it's doing the same as always: it's not spreading at all, and it is actually dwindling.

I dunno about you but I don't mind anal sex from Constantine....uhh...no homo guys, she's a girl.

>TFW my gf still hates me and won't even talk to me

I am scared man

The last thing she said was goodbye
;~;

>no homo guys, she's a girl
define girl

There are basically two kinds of Lutherans. The liberals, and the YEC. ELCA, for instance, is liberal, whereas the Church of Missouri Synod is YEC

Not really, since the three persons of the Trinity have a single will and action, not three wills and actions.

Go away Constantine.

>Each person of the Trinity is a distinct existence of one essence, sort of like how if you went back in time and met yourself, there would be two existences of you at the same time, but they'd both be you.

No, there'd be two separate people who share my appearance and memories.

>As a result of its evangelism and missionary work, the Antiochian Archdiocese saw significant growth between the mid-1960s and 2012. The archdiocese had only 65 parishes across the United States in the mid-1960s and by 2011 this number had increased to 249 parishes.[5]

>Not really, since the three persons of the Trinity have a single will and action, not three wills and actions.

Like I said: still Tritheism, no matter how many fancy semantics or convoluted and arbitrary explanations you try to hide it with.

>Not really, since the three persons of the Trinity have a single will and action, not three wills and actions.

Then they're not three persons.

Cont.

Why not both?

Starting from his dishonest and false premise: that ousia and hypostasis are not Greek philosophical terms because no Greek philosopher ever clearly defined them.

But at least one Greek philosopher did. Aristotle
>Aristotle used hypostasis in reference to a material substratum underlying change in the unqualified sense of generation and corruption, and otherwise in reference to ousia or substance in a secondary sense for genera and species understood as hylomorphic forms.
We see that for Aristotle, hypostasis = primary substance = individual; ousia = secondary substance = universal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

Cont.

Now let's go to Neoplatonism.
>. “Hypostasis” is an abstract noun derived from a verb meaning “to place oneself under or beneath”, with the connotation of “standing one’s ground”. The word “hypostasis” therefore denotes a distinct substantial being or realm of reality of a certain kind
On the later's influence on Christianity
>Origen was the first Christian to speak of three hypostases in the Trinity and to use the term homoousios (though only by analogy) of the relation between the second of these hypostases and the first.
>Evidence for the increasing Neoplatonization of Christianity is abundant: The brilliant Christian theologian Origen, some twenty years older than Plotinus, may also have been a pupil of Ammonius Saccas; the Cappadocian Fathers Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus spent their youth in philosophical study in Athens in the 4th century, where they most certainly were exposed to Neoplatonism, while Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was intimately familiar with the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry
>he cut-throat debates about transubstantiation (in the Eucharist), the hypostases of the Trinity, or the divine/human nature of Christ, could not even be followed without a thorough training in current Greek philosophical discourse.

Sources:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)
plato.stanford.edu/entries/neoplatonism/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/origen/

Then you reject ontological continuity? That is, every time you change your position in spacetime (since they are actually one continuum), your ontological reality terminates?

i am NOT gay

B-But I had been a naughty boy ;__;

"Person" is just a translation of the Greek term "prosopon".