Reminder that the Holy Spirit is not God

youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

>worrying about aspects of the demiurge
literally lmaoing @ u rn

Wrong
The father AKA God is the father, son and the holy spirit
The holy spirit is the father, the son and the holy spirit
The son is the father, the son and the holy spirit

>being a brainlet

>Abrahamic mysticism attempted to be explained through Greek Pagan rationalization.

That's rad idea for spinner

Then what the fuck is it? You don't know do you.

Trinitarians give me the shits.

>ayo fellow romans lets get rid of all this complicated pagan shit we`ve been doing since forever and adopt that cult of the sandniggers that revolted against us 3 times over
>it destroys the empires unity over people not agreeing on the exact percentege of how divine and human that random jew executed in judea that they chose to worship was

He's multi-threaded. Learn2code, it's 2017.

We wrote this shit down centuries ago, y'all. You don't have to guess.

You think you're so original, huh?

You literally read that picture wrong.

Vivec, Almalexia and Sotha Sil

>the empires unity

Is that a hand spinner?

>modalism
heresy :^)

>A cube is 6 but also one
>You can't explain that

It literally says that The Holy Spirit IS God, you sub-human scum, go back to plebbit you fucking atheist

Every time someone tried to explain trinity got called heretic, arrianism or even modalism make much more sense than this pagan bs

>Reminder that the Holy Spirit is not God.

Yes, what the gospels refer to as the "Holy Spirit" is God. Moses is a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit. That's why Jesus says all who fall on the rejected cornerstone are going to be crushed.

youtube.com/watch?v=vcdYKhs0fdk

*tips fedora*

Poor little babby doesn't want to think out of his social hugbox?

hare krsna hare krsna
krsna krsna hare hare
hare rama hare rama
rama rama hare hare

>a pie cut into 3 pieces is 1 pie
>you can't explain that

Man what the fuck is even going on in the Hindu religion?

The trinity is unbiblical.
Jesus Christ, king of Israel, king of kings, Son of Man, Son of God, is the Messiah, the messenger of God.
>For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus
>"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

There's one God, one personification of His infinite power and spirit (the Holy Spirit) and his only begotten Son - the man, Jesus Christ

A cube isn't its sides and its sides aren't it. Your metaphor sucks.

Newsflash: all of this is a complete bullshit

His stand looks pretty powerful xD

Christianity is too fucking splintered beyond repair, just put it out of its misery desu, just take it behind the shed.

>argument from personal incredulity

What's modalistic about that you retard?
Can't you grasp consubstantiality? Are you familiar with the concept of "substance" as it has been used throughout ancient philosophy? Were you conscious of it as a distinct notion?

Don't criticize classical philosophy if you're ignorant of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=KJF8t-BWVRM

Why did Melvin Bridge decide to create the trinity even though he worshipped the sun? Was it just because he hated the Arian race?

Jesus is God
John 8 24
>I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”

>John 8:24
My version translates it as "...that I am it/that/this..."

He's not saying he's God. He's saying God has sent him from Heaven.

Also the original Greek text just has "I am".

Don't worry, you won't be with any trinitarians throughout your captivity in hell.

>a piece of a whole pie is not the whole pie its just a piece

your metaphor sucks

330,000,000 demons to choose from. All choices are wrong.

Unbiblical. Sure.

John 1 says that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God…..and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
In John 10:30 Jesus said that He and the Father are one.
In John 14:9 He said that anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father.
In Colossians 1:15 Paul wrote that Jesus is the (visible) image of the invisible God.
In Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is called the exact representation of God’s glory
In Hebrews 1:8 God Himself called Jesus God.
God’s Spirit is presumed to be one and the same with God just as your spirit is presumed to be one and the same with you. So if God and Jesus are one and the same, and God and His Spirit are one and the Same, then the three are one.

There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5-6). Yet there are three persons presented as deity in Scripture: the Father (John 6:27; Colossians 1:3), the Son (John 1:1-3, 14; 8:24; 20:28-29; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12) and the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; Acts 5:3-4; 2 Samuel 23:2-3; 2 Corinthians 3:18). Lastly, these three are presented as distinct persons (John 8:16-18; Luke 11:1; 3:21-22; Galatians 4:6). Thus from Scripture we learn that although there is one God, there are three distinct persons who are deity. So the Trinity is the biblical position to hold to once one examines what Scripture teaches.

Reminder that the Holy Spirit is gay

Your ignorance is not my problem. The question is of n dimensional people being able to perceive n + c dimensional objects.

Just as a Flatlander could not see my cube with its six different colored sides, and would insist that I was only showing him six different squares, you are incapable of perceiving God, one God, manifested as three persons for the express intent of us getting to know Him.

You cannot perceive God any more than the Flatlander could perceive the cube. The Flatlander would have to take my word for it that I am showing him one cube, with six different colored sides.

He would never come to that conclusion on his own; he would be incapable of perceiving more dimensions than he is.

In fact, everything perceives one fewer dimension than they are, and not even the same dimension that they are. You see the oblate spheroid of the earth from space, and you see a circle.

Stop trying to brute force this. You don't have the capability.

Trinity is expressly in the bible.

God the Father sent God the Son to the earth to die to redeem mankind. God the Son agreed to go.

The Father is in the Son; the Son is in the Father; both are bound by the Spirit of God.

Father is God
Son is God
Spirit is God
There is only one God.

I Am is the name placeholder for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

>If you knew me, you would know my Father also
>When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
>Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Revelation 1
“Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

...

For anyone looking to understand trinitarianism properly, go read Augustine. It's dense work but understanding the Trinity through psychological analogy is the best way to get a handle on such an obtuse subject.

>I will take rotting in HIFL for 400 Alex.

Or just read the bible. Or stop listening to Origen fanboys and read what John wrote:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

Biblical justification is good for the faithful, but to the skeptics hard philosophy is a better place to start. I'm only Catholic today because Aquinas stuck in my head and I tried every theological position under the sun to shake him.

I m a simple medieval peasant but the diagram at the start of the thread literally says God is the holy spirit so what now?

Why can't you faggots just admit that you're polytheistic?

Best metaphor is the sun(or any flaming object)
>sun(body/source) = father

>heat(come from the sun itself and whenever someone says the sun is hot today it means the HEAT) = holy spirit

>light(comes from the sun itself and when people talk about sun/light interchangebly..example:the sun isn't strong today(talking about heat and/or lighting) = son

And of course we can't apply metaphors to God without making errors but we try our best.
sorry for the bad formatting :v

Good sir I'm atheistic I'm just pointing out an error

>of course we can't apply metaphors to God without making errors
At least you just admitted you're committing heresy. The trinity is a divine mystery, you're not supposed to try to explain it or understand it.

There is a quote from a church father/coptic saint(don't remember who) that says we commit heresy whenever we try to describe God.

It's basic philosophy/metaphysics/logic. Sorry, Christians, not trying to single you out unfairly for your incoherent doctrines regarding the divine.

Believing in God is heresy stop doing it.

So you're saying that a piece of a pie is a whole pie?

I'm pretty sure he's saying that partialism is not trinitarianism. And that's true. God is not divided into parts.

This makes Christians filthy pagans.

>The trinity is a divine mystery, you're not supposed to try to explain it or understand it.
Except that it's in divine revelation, so we do have to understand it in some way.

This is actually a very orthodox statement of the distinction between archetypal (God as he knows himself) and ectypal (God as we know him with the aid of revelation) theology.

Only they are saying God is divided into parts, because clearly there are three parts. Or are there just three modes, and God is only one at any given time?

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm
newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm#article2
newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm#article1

>Only they are saying God is divided into parts, because clearly there are three parts.
Trinitarians aren't. They confess that God is simple and indivisible. Not modal. Not composed of parts. Read

Which is in turn a direct violation of the principle of non contradiction, and Christianity gets btfo yet again by Classical Hellenic Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.

Faith in hebrew mythology should literally be a basis for civil commitment in an institution.

>I'm only Catholic today because Aquinas stuck in my head and I tried every theological position under the sun to shake him.
Why not trying Calvinism? Reformed metaphysics are Thomist metaphysics

>Which is in turn a direct violation of the principle of non contradiction
See

Yes, I saw your links, and I cited the rule that blows it out of the water. Do you want me to just cite Aristotle's Metaphysics, or Plato's Republic/Sophist?

We could have a lengthy discussion about why god cannot be and not be 100% one thing and 100% another, wherein you send a link everything I point out the same problem. If you want to do that, I will, but not on Veeky Forums because it's late and this thread will disappear before tomorrow afternoon which is the soonest I would really sit down and respond in detail.

Alternatively, you could read Plato and Aristotle's works, and then apostatise.

You're just a retarded fedora, aren't you

>Which is in turn a direct violation of the principle of non contradiction
It isn't. You are using distinctions and categories only as old as perhaps the 19th- to 21st centuries. Read what this dude above me posted. You've misunderstood the state of the question, and it's not entirely your fault. Linguistically, the Latin of Aquinas had the sorts of distinctions that you'd need many more words and explanations for in English, like the distinction between potentiality and actuality, essence and accident, the composite and divided sense, etc. It's like saying that the assertion that light is both a particle and a wave is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. It isn't: you just aren't using specific enough language.

>Reformed metaphysics are Thomist metaphysics
Eh, only sort of. Many if not most of the early Calvinists were very Thomistic, but there were also clear Scotist and nominalist influences on many Reformed thinkers as well. Moreover, during and after the Enlightenment, Reformed thought split into even more strains: for instance, Jonathan Edwards and many of his Puritan and 20th-century heirs were very much influenced by Locke and Hobbes, and rejected the Thomistic scholastic distinctions and nuances of earlier Reformed thought in favor of an almost naturalistic hard determinism. There are many other metaphysical developments after the 17th century in all Christian traditions, even Catholicism, that abandon Thomism as well.

Now you're just grasping. If you have a consistent account of your three gods, then I'm sure you'll give your account. As it stands, you are just clinging to a set of links that contain an account which violates the law of noncontradiction, and nobody here is able to give an account in their own words that won't suffer from the same fatal defect of reason.

As for your claims that I'm referring to "distinctions and categories" that are only as old as the 19th to 21st centuries, you have me confused with someone else.

So basically you're a retarded fedora, as per What's insulting is that you're not even trying. Give at least a bit of a damn.

I should also mention that probably most current-day Calvinists will call themselves Van Tillian in their philosophy. Named for Cornelius Van Til, a very innovative Dutch Calvinist philosopher who drew from previous Dutch Reformed philosophers and spread his thought throughout North America during his tenure at Westminster Theological Seminary. It has very little Thomistic elements to it. Van Til, I would say, owes more to Kant, Husserl, even Heidegger, though I suspect many of his current disciples would deny it.

I absolutely give a damn. I've literally pointed out the texts and metaphysical rule that rules out the Christian account of the divine.

The people who don't give a damn are those who are absolutely incapable of explaining or defending their account of the trinity, and instead just keep posting the same tired out link over and over again with no thought or effort.

If you want to explain your god(s), go for it. If some other Christian wants to do it, great. Copy and pasting a link is a joke, do you want me to just copy and paste a link to a dialogue of Plato or to Aristotle's metaphysics, or any other texts where the principle of non-contradiction is elucidated? Ridiculous.

In fact, you should have to first state that you're willing to admit you're wrong if a contradiction is shown, and that you will then give up your hebrew mythology and apostatise. Because, failing that, you are not on the same page as philosophy, because you have subordinated reason to faith.

>I've literally pointed out the texts and metaphysical rule that rules out the Christian account of the divine.
You haven't. And you gave no answers or objections at all to the quotes from Thomas. At all. And when told that there is a distinction between W and X, Y and Z, you have said instead "NOPE THERE ISN'T BECAUSE PLATO ARISTOTLE LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU." Without actually providing any argumentation. Just a statement that you COULD if you wanted to, but you won't because just saying you could would make us btfo. You're not actually doing history, philosophy, or any kind of argumentation. It's so clear to at least a couple of us that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

fucking pagan

what the fuck are you talking about you cuntish pagan?

What is wrong with you

dude you have to know that doesn't make sense. I like the wiccan symbol in the top right corner

And I'm sure any definitions of vector spaces in functional analysis or a treatise on English trust law make no sense to you. What's your point?

>I should also mention that probably most current-day Calvinists will call themselves Van Tillian in their philosophy.
Maybe in America

Change that to "Maybe in the Anglophone world," and also the Dutch-speaking Calvinists, and you'd be more correct. You'd also have to include all the regions where they did mission work, like Nigeria, et al. I'm telling you, that shit spread like wildfire.

The father dwells in Jesus and Jesus dwells in the father and the holy spirit dwells in Jesus.

Two points:

You are yet to acknowledge that if a contradiction or other issue is raised, you would make the adjustments required by reason. Even if it means apostasy. If you won't accept that, then there is no point to the discussion because you don't accept reason as a fundamental rule.

I absolutely did answer your citations, and I did so by giving citations of my own. You just refuse to accept my citations or respond to them in any way, just as I am laughing at your citations.

If you are able to present your god(s) and explain your account, do so. If you just have citations to some medieval text that you find particularly interesting, then I have my citations to the philosophers who laid the groundwork showing beyond a doubt that Christian theology is flawed and irredeemable.

>You are yet to acknowledge that if a contradiction or other issue is raised, you would make the adjustments required by reason.
Two points: 1) I would acknowledge that if I made an actual contradiction I would correct it. 2) "other issue" is intentionally vague and constitute weasel words. I'm not playing your dumbass sophist game.

>Even if it means apostasy.
Apostasy from what? I'm not religious. I have nothing to apostasize from.

>I absolutely did answer your citations
[citation needed]

Christian theology is quite clear what it teaches. You need to show where it is contradictory, rather than say "nuh uh it says gods" or sometimes "god(s)." That isn't honest argument in any way. Submit a paper treating any subject that way and any professor worth his salt would fail you.

Again: at least pretend to give a shit. Do the reading. Then interact with arguments you finally have some familiarity with.

John 10:30 says that Jesus and God are one in purpose.
Hebrews 1:8 is supposed to be "god" with a lower-case g. The word "god" in the Bible doesn't always refer to the one God.
See 2 Corinthians 4:4, where "god" means "devil". It's also used for great men and kings throughout the Old Testament.
How did Jews understand Psalm 45:6? It's not saying that the Messiah is God. It's saying that the Messiah is Great.
Also, read the next verse, Hebrews 1:9.
>...therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.
Even if you somehow get a Trinity out of this, it clearly says that the Father is above the Son (but that would be polytheism, which is heresy).
I don't have anything to dispute about Hebrews Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, they're true.
John 14:9 is true aswell, but I wouldn't take it literally.