Ok, someone explain the trinity to me without

>what are all the orthodox and eastern churches
Where are you from - the American Midwest?

It is different because Jesus is seen as separate from the Father and still God. In other similar occasions in religion, Hinduism being an example, the individual is the same as the god as an avatar, like with Vishu becoming Rama. Either that, or the child becomes a distinct divine entity. The concept of the Trinity is illogical though probably purposefully as an emphasis on faith. It is a shame that all the more logical interpretations were condemned after the orthodoxy was developed.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

What Patty meant was that each petal is still 100% clover. Those who call it a "bad analogy" fail to grasp it. Dude was a confirmed saint, so clearly the church wasn't full of idiots back then.

>grandpa is a hardline commie
>"hey, you go to church, i've got a question for you"
>"is jesus god, or is he the son of god"
How do i explain the trinity (orthodox understanding) to an 80 year old man that's deaf in one ear and has had two strokes, and is a tankie (he still votes for the communist party)?

I personally don't find it very confusing from a Christian standpoint or if we are to consider religion holistically. I should have probably explained that point a bit better, but I've been drinking all day.

>It is a shame that all the more logical interpretations were condemned after the orthodoxy was developed.
I actually disagree with this, and I'm going to offer my advancements on why I think that is so. If they're wrong, then I suppose I'll have to reconsider what I know, won't I? (Which is totally fine)

If you look at the creation of mankind, in God's image and the notion that your body is also a temple it would suggest to me that there is some divine motive in creation and that - as a temple - we are built to receive some gift or touch or mere glimpse of the divine essence. Even in a state separate from God, there is already a tenuous bridge that allows us to receive His Grace, so the idea that we are among but separate is not all that sudden a shift in belief. This is all speculation of course. Now to the real meat.

For God's second covenant with man, Jesus has to die. The idea that a deity may die and be renewed through an intermediary (a sacrifice; the "sacrificial lamb" of the Son) echos the ancient Jewish traditions of sacrifice to the Lord as a renewal of Man's covenant with God. Since God offering himself, to himself is a completely empty gesture, Christ has to be both a part of separate from the Father or otherwise the sacrifice is meaningless. It also has to serve a point about the renewal of life through belief, so I can see why that was ultimately what the bishops and priests decided.

It's impossible to explain. And that's not even the fedora argument, it's the official position of the Catholic church. The Trinity is a mystery and you're not supposed to be able to understand or explain it. Any explanation someone tries to come up with is literally heresy.

Through the spirit (including our spirit) one knows the son who is the way to the father, the judge

the son is the church that is made up of the believers to be married (united) with the son

The petals are still only part of a clover, but since you can't really compare God to anything it's as good as analogies are going to get.

1+1+1=3, but 1*1*1=1.

There's actually no proof that Patrick used that analogy. It was recorded until much later.

Perhaps I should have clarified, because I find all the different terms confusing; what I meant instead of Trinity was the precise Catholic position on Christ's nature. I agree with you on the nature of sacrifice, but I find the overt divinity of Christ in the gospel of John to be a defeat of said sacrifice. Christ is fully aware and equal with the Father, and therefore his suffering and death have no meaning because he wills it.
I think the account in Luke is the most satisfying because it weighs his humanity with his divine nature. I get the sense that he realizes what must be done and willingly allows himself to suffer for the sins of man, though does not directly cause it to happen, rather that is attributed to the will of the Father. This makes the Passion much more spiritually significant, to me at least.
In that sense I think that positions that emphasis Christ's humanity to be more likely. His immediate and complete divinity, to me, robs much of the beauty from the gospels.

It's a flat contradiction. Three gods is not one god. There's just no other way to state this. But because Christians are obsessed with being "monotheists" they pretend it's possible for three gods to be one god, and call it a "mystery".

Father is like Marx
Son is like Lenin
Holy ghost is like the party

ever noticed how the Bible leaves out all this crap? Because it doesn't fucking matter. You aren't even reading the real events that took place. You are reading an edited version that's been translated several times over and complied by ex pagan kings and corrupt churches.

For fucks sakes even the Jews don't believe their own crap. They know they are just fables not detailed description of the true essence of god.

But we they're not three gods, they're three persons sharing one nature...

>Three gods is not one god

But there aren't three god, there is one God who is three distinct persons of the same divine essence and will.

Excuse my shitty grammar, the "we" is not supposed to be there.

>ever noticed how the Bible leaves out all this crap? Because it doesn't fucking matter.

But that's wrong, the entirety of Christian beliefs is not contained in the bible

>You aren't even reading the real events that took place

But that's wrong, the Bible certainly does talk about real people, places, and events.

>You are reading an edited version that's been translated several times over and complied by ex pagan kings and corrupt churches.

But that's also wrong, since the bibles we have now say the same things as they did 2000 or more years ago.

And here I thought that people on Veeky Forums were historically literate.

>But that's also wrong, since the bibles we have now say the same things as they did 2000 or more years ago.

Not if you're reading it in English you're not. Also by "edited" he likely means the process of selecting what material made the cut.

Child, Mother, Father.
Or if you're a ped, there's two guys and a ghost doing I don't want to know.

You silly dense motherfucker
Maybe stop going to Sundayschool teacher he wants to diddle you.

>the entirety of the Christian beliefs is not contained in the Bible.
Exactly my point people live their life's based on the interpretation of fables created ages when people though the world was flat.
>the bible certainly does talk about real people, places, and events
It certainly does but are you telling me there was a flood that enveloped the earth, the Tower of Babel was real, or that the exodus happened pro tip, it didn't happen

>the Bible's we have now say the same things as they did 2000 or more years ago
Also wrong kiddo have I'm not saying I'm a scholar but I've taken a few bible history classes. One of the first things you learn is that OT books like gen and exo are just the Jews modifying other ancient stories like the epic of Gilgamesh. For fucks sakes man just think about the narrative of Jesus birth. The Bible says that Jesus was born in a manger and other crapwhich has been proven to be false.
Furthermore the new testament was written years after Jesus died and we can prove gen an exo have multiple different authors when the church teaches Moses wrote them

Learn to realize the Bible is propaganda that at its core does contain truth about human nature but not the nature of the universe or god

Polytheistic religions were out of fashion and only monotheistic religions were taken seriously, so Christians, having noticed they have two or even three gods made up the Trinity thing to get back to the monotheistic game.

>they're three persons sharing one nature

Yes, they're all gods.

>there is one God who is three distinct persons of the same divine essence and will.

Three distinct persons with their own knowledge and desires = three distinct gods. It's just meaningless to say "these three distinct gods are one god".

>the bibles we have now

Yes, the Bibles that were REDACTED by the church in the 4th century. The Bible as Jesus taught it was burned, BY CHRISTIANS, hundreds of years after the time of Jesus.

And then added back all the missing gods in the form of "saints".

Voltron

Polytheism.

>How the fuck does it actually work?
It doesn't.

Man, the trinity seems almost believable when it's side-to-side with communism.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=AQkFlzFJ3kA

>three deities rolled into one
>devils, demons and angels everywhere
>more saints than days in a year
Monotheism when?

>It's another person who has no idea about Catholicism spouting the same old lies about 'worshipping Saints'

>claims to be monotheist
>prays to the virgin mary

Yet no one does, funny how that goes, having a statue /= worship

But it is a divine mystery.

There are philosophical ways of imperfectly explaining the Trinity, but most people are not intelligent enough to comprehend them.

>fatima, rosary, assumption
i just wrecked your entire argument

>Praying = Worship
It's almost like you have no fucking idea about your own faith

>Yet no one does
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death. Amen

>prays to saints
>not to god
>not polytheism

Ok faghot. If statues, prayers, shrines and holidays aren't worship, nothing is.
You just nullified religion. Good job.

dafuq is this polytheism?? saints aren't gods. how can you not understand that?

Why pray to them?

>semantics, the last straw

because they can hear you?