Allow me to explain the Trinity to you, and why the Filioque is heresy

ha ha yes et is but the two of us know noting of that do we my friendo

Jehovah's Witnesses have the right of it

Someone can ask, what I hate in Jude-Christian Trinity?
1st. invocations to Virgin Mary in my country contain "Virgin Mary please pray god for...". So basically they do not believe in power of Virgin Mary by herself.
2st. Jesus son of god Jehovah always is in weakest state ever possible imagine: nailed down to column half-died person. By my opinion show son of god in such state is blasphemy

bump

>2st
>st
>s
>t
REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Don't bump this you cunt
>but that sums up why the Trinity is both three and one

>Jude Christian trinity
Jews don't believe in the trinity and especially don't believe in Jesus.

Anything not said and explained by Jesus Christ is bullshit. Even whatever Peter, the first Pope, said.
Da' fuck does trinity or no trinity even matter? Get real senpai.

Because it's polytheistic and therefore Jesus is a false prophet so Christians have to explain this.

Jesus did teach the Trinity. It's only the term "Trinity" that got coined later, but Christ absolutely taught the theology of the Trinity.

>Well, what makes the Trinity three is that there are three *distinct subjects*.
>But what makes the Trinity one is that there is only *one* will and *one* activity, the Father's will, the Father's activity (all acts by the Trinity are from the Father, by the Son, in the Spirit).

So how is this different than three beings that share one will?

What Jesus was trying to explain wa spretty straighforward. There was no need for volumes upon volumes of "theology", were people argue the equivalent of "who would win in a fight, goku or superman?"
Sometimes it seems to me people subconciously avoid the core teaching of christ over this "theology" so they can avoid talking about why they have never really behave like christ.

I don't think he did. For one thing, he never claimed to be god, so AT BEST he would have taught "the duality".

They have one activity, not distinct activities. And not "one will" as in "total assent" but one will as in literally jut the Father's will, which is also the Spirit's and the Son's will; the latter two do not have copies of the Father's will,the Father's will is literally their will.

The Orthodox only get into that sort of hyper-abstract stuff when absolutely necessarily in order to shut someone down who's spreading lies. Otherwise, Orthodox works of theology are about things like how to pray and control your passions.

He didn't directly claim to be God because that would be too much for people to handle. But saying he and the Father are one, and if you see him you see the Father, and that all the Father has, he has, is pretty clear that he's God. Plus his direct followers said overtly he's God, and they were privy to years and years of learning with him.

>They have one activity, not distinct activities.

But that's not true, Jesus did stuff that God the Father didn't do.

>And not "one will" as in "total assent" but one will as in literally jut the Father's will, which is also the Spirit's and the Son's will

Okay but this doesn't Answer my question. If I buy one of those drone things and fly it over your house to watch you masturbate, my will is the only will involved, but I am not my drone.

>What Jesus was trying to explain wa spretty straighforward.
So it is. But if it's not god's word you're just wasting your life adhering to such morality and exalting Jesus to such a degree.

>But that's not true, Jesus did stuff that God the Father didn't do.
In regard to his humanity, not his divinity. There is only *one* divine activity. To say Christ's activities were only divine is the heresy known as monenergism, which is what Pope Honorius I was anathematized for.

> If I buy one of those drone things and fly it over your house to watch you masturbate, my will is the only will involved, but I am not my drone.
And the Father is not the Son.

>He didn't directly claim to be God because that would be too much for people to handle.

HAHHAHAHA

So he came to Earth specifically to share the knowledge that he was god, but he never actually stated it because he thought we couldn't handle it? this is so stupid it's physically painful.

>if you see him you see the Father

Since the Bible tells us that God made man in his image, this would be true even if Jesus were just a man.

lol nice spooks nerds.

>So he came to Earth specifically to share the knowledge that he was god,
No, he came to earth to die and be reborn so we could partake of immortality. A man is innately mortal (humanity prior to the fall was immortal by grace, not nature), God is innately immortal. When Christ's death engendered a paradox, which was resolved by his Resurrection. By partaking of his Resurrected body in Holy Communion, our bodies share his, allowing them to participate in this paradox that is resolved in Resurrection.

But Christ did indeed make it clear he's God, he didn't just say it (since that would provoke incredulity), he showed it; the first time he made it expressly clear was the Transfiguration.

>Since the Bible tells us that God made man in his image, this would be true even if Jesus were just a man.
No, there's a pretty massive difference in both Hebrew and Greek between image and form, it's the key difference between icon and idol. Seeing an image of something, is not seeing the subject itself.

*monoenergism

>so we could partake of immortality.

Impossible since the Bible clearly states that ONLY god is immortal. But even if you believe that, the whole "oh yeah btw I'm god" part of his mission to Earth is hardly irrelevant, it's THE central part of the religion. If Jesus was just some guy, then Christianity is no different than Orphism.

>But Christ did indeed make it clear he's God, he didn't just say it (since that would provoke incredulity),

Really? Then why is his divinity a central tenet of the faith?

>Seeing an image of something, is not seeing the subject itself.

But all we can ever see is images, we have no direct access to "reality", only what is filtered thru our sense. Seeing an image of something is essentially the same as seeing the thing itself.

>In regard to his humanity, not his divinity.

Okay, so? He STILL did things the Father didn't do, regardless of whether he did them in his capacity as a man or as a god.

>And the Father is not the Son.

Then they're not the same thing, and the trinity is mere polytheism.

Jesus being God is central to partaking of his immortality, because as you pointed out, only God is immortal. If Jesus were not God, we couldn't partake of his immortality.

His Divinity was something that actually was not revealed to Catechumens originally. And the Catechumen process was originally years. So you had to be a practicing Christian for many years before they'd finally reveal this mystery to you. Works like the Gospel of John, were not read in the presence of novices, but only to the initiated (the service was divided into two parts, the one for Catechumens, and the latter part, which Catechumens would not be privvy to; "Catechumens, depart," is still a written part of the Liturgy, but generally not used today; however, more traditional parishes, such as monastaries founded by Athonites monks, even in America, still follow this, and vistor Catechumens must leave the service at this point). You must remember that Christians were originally mostly Jews, and didn't completely sever from that identity until the Bar Kokhba revolt. Jews did not have grounds to openly persecute Christians, because claiming a Messiah others don't think is the Messiah, is not of itself grounds to prosecute someone legally in Judaism; but if it got out Christians worshiped Christ as God, that would be high level blasphemy, and there would be grounds to put them all to death. Josephus relates how James (Christ's Brother) was put to death by a kangaroo court, and even Josephus, a nominal Pharisee, felt this was unjust, but that's because both he and the Jews who killed James didn't know Christians considered Christ to be God. Although many Jews felt Christ was proclaiming himself divine by the phrase "Son of God," which they never caught him admitting himself, but which he owned up to when questioned by the High Priest, and that was grounds for blasphemy, the official reason for Christ's execution.

>But all we can ever see is images, we have no direct access to "reality", only what is filtered thru our sense. Seeing an image of something is essentially the same as seeing the thing itself.
Not in Judaism or Christianity. In Orthodox Christianity, seeing God himself is quite different from simply seeing an image of God. That's our doctrine that you literally *can* see God himself, which Palamas is commemorated for defending, was so controversial. God made it expressly clear that you are not to treat the image of something as the thing itself, that' what idolatry is. The school of thought you're coming from is foreign to ancient Judaism and Christianity. If I create something that is an image of you (it could just be a stick figure), and I see it, it's not really the same as seeing you personally.

>>But all we can ever see is images, we have no direct access to "reality", only what is filtered thru our sense. Seeing an image of something is essentially the same as seeing the thing itself.
> The school of thought you're coming from is foreign to ancient Judaism and Christianity

not him but

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13#.22Through_a_glass.2C_darkly.22

>1 Corinthians 13:12 contains the phrase βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι' ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι (blepomen gar arti di esoptrou en ainigmati), which is rendered in the KJV as "For now we see through a glass, darkly." This passage has inspired the titles of many works.[4]

The word ἐσόπτρου esoptrou (genitive; nominative: ἔσοπτρον esoptron), here translated "glass," is ambiguous, possibly referring to a mirror or a lens. Influenced by Strong's Concordance, many modern translations conclude that this word refers specifically to a mirror.[5] Example English-language translations include:

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror (New International Version)
What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror (Good News Bible)

Paul's usage is in keeping with rabbinic use of the term אספקלריה (aspaklaria), a borrowing from the Latin specularia. This has the same ambiguous meaning, although Adam Clarke concluded that it was a reference to specularibus lapidibus, clear polished stones used as lenses or windows.[6] One way to preserve this ambiguity is to use the English cognate, speculum.[7] Rabbi Judah ben Ilai (2nd century) was quoted as saying "All the prophets had a vision of God as He appeared through nine specula" while "Moses saw God through one speculum."[8] The Babylonian Talmud states similarly "All the prophets gazed through a speculum that does not shine, while Moses our teacher gazed through a speculum that shines."[9]

>He STILL did things the Father didn't do, regardless of whether he did them in his capacity as a man or as a god.
Christ's humanity is not simply a role or function of his divinity, but something that was his actual nature. Christ has a created, human soul, coexisting with his divinity. The divine will and activity is one, and it is in complete harmony and unity with Christ's human will and activity, it is not *synonymous* with Christ's human will and activity.

>Then they're not the same thing, and the trinity is mere polytheism
No, the Father and the Son are distinct subjects. There is only one divine will and activity, but it *subsists* in three subjects.

Yes, our vision is clouded by our fallen state. Once your vision improves, you can literally *see* God at work in creation ("God walked down in the cool of the day") in Orthodoxy, that's what the Palamite controversy was about.

Moses was so filled with radiance he had to wear a veil, and this relates very much to this, yes.

>Yes, our vision is clouded by our fallen state.

You said the type of thinking he describes is alien to Christianity AND Judaism. The quotes presented show its present in the Talmud

I don't see how the Talmud is saying, "Seeing an image of something is essentially the same as seeing the thing itself."

>No, the Father and the Son are distinct subjects. There is only one divine will and activity, but it *subsists* in three subjects.

Then how is this different than my drone example? Only my will is active, but I am not my drone. We are separate and distinct, just like Jesus and God the Father.

> you can literally *see* God

Isn;t this the gnostic heresy?

God is a higher ordered being than we are.

If you were only able to see 2D shapes, and I had a cube with different colored sides, all I could do to show it to you is one side at a time, with the differing colors.

And you would think it was 6 squares.

But I'm telling you it's a cube, an object that exists in a dimension higher than you can perceive.

So you have a choice. You can believe I have 6 squares of differing colors, or you can take my word for it that it's really all one cube, with six different colored sides.

That's the analogy to the trinity that fits the facts.

Everyone sees God. You will see him with your own eyes.

Jesus was not invisible when he was on earth, and the Father is not invisible in his heaven. He dwells in unapproachable light, and unless you are transformed, seeing him would kill you on the spot.

The Talmud is not inspired by God. In fact, in many ways, it is antichrist.

>You will see him with your own eyes.

When I'm dead, when it won't help me.

>Jesus was not invisible when he was on earth

That's nice for the people who got to meet him but how does that help me?

After you die, you will be alive forever, resurrected into one of two states, with one of two bodies, of your choosing.

One, if you choose death, and destruction, and shame, and the devil, and hell; and the other if you choose life, and glory, and Jesus, and heaven.

But you're right. If you're dead before you bend the knee to Jesus, and confess that he is King, you will receive zero benefits and go forward with your trial to prove to God that you are as he is.

You are helped by the people who saw Jesus rise from the dead because they wrote about it, and told you how to be saved.

It didn't happen in a vacuum.

Here's the thing: The Muslims tell me the exact same thing. So do the Hindus, and the Taoists, and every sect of Christianity. They ALL say "if you don't choose us, you burn forever! Because God LOVES you!"

The thing is, if God Actually loved me, he would make his existence clear to me. But he hasn't, he's left me to play Russian roulette with a million possible choices, only one of which (or so the priests tell me) is correct. Why would he do this? Only a sadist would think this is a reasonable situation. I infer from this that EITHER god is a sadist, OR everything the priests tell me about hell is a lie designed to fleece me of my shekels. A truly loving god wouldn't create a Hell, so either there is no Hell, or God doesn't love me.

You're not asking God to make himself clear to you. He already has. He spoke through his prophets, and he sent his son to die in your place. He told you what would happen in the future, the story of the earth from beginning to end. Only he can do that.

You're asking God to overwhelm your faculties and prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is real.

You're like a child with a loaded shotgun looking down the barrel trying to get a better look by standing on the trigger.

What you want is death. Waiting until God proves himself to you beyond all doubt is to see God after you die, and have no options left. Choice made.

And no, the muslims do not say the same thing; they only have one (sure) way to paradise and that's to die as a martyr in a jihad. Elsewise, they have the same pagan balancing system that the devil instituted millennium ago; hope your good outweighs your evil, or your heart outweighs a feather, etc., etc., etc.

Christianity is the confession that Jesus is Lord, and that God raised him from the dead on the third day, as prophesied.

You can know that now, with God's help, if that's your will.

Otherwise, neither God nor anyone else will overwhelm your sovereignty while you yet live.

>He spoke through his prophets

Yes that's what the Muslims tell me.

>and he sent his son to die in your place

Not only is there no evidence for this, it would be an abominable and disgusting thing if it were true. I don;t want someone else dying for me, that's a sick, twisted, narcissistic thing to want. I'm responsible for me, you;re responsible for you, only infants and moral imbeciles need someone else to take their responsibility for them. Really I'd have to say that this disgusting doctrine of cosmic scapegoating is the number one reason I reject Christianity as "obviously bullshit".

>they only have one (sure) way to paradise

So exactly like Christians? Also, I don't know of any Christians who would claim a SURE way to heaven, isn't the whole thing ultimately down to God's grace?

>raised him from the dead

So exactly like any number of savior gods from pagan times? Not really a very impressive trick if a mere human like Orpheus could manage it, is it?

The Talmud is the essential text of rabbinical teachings, and as show the rabbi were using essentially the same metaphor as Paul in the new testament,

and you did say Judaism, stop moving the goalpost

How cute, Christianity thinks its got a monopoly on the holy trinity
See Also:
>Three Fates
>The Tellurian
>Vishnu, Shiva, and Ganesh

Also many Celtic deities were triune in nature, the Trinity is an ancient Indo-European form of paganism.

>The Tellurian

I want Reality Deviants to leave.