What did He mean by this?

even simpler
>the maker of heaven and earth
isn't
>the son of god
isn't
>the giver of life
but they are
>the one god

even simpler
>identity of non-identicals

Just read it the way it's intended:

>Is Not Is God Is Is Not Is Is Not

makes perfect sense desu

Their value after computation is the same, their appearance is different

He means the path to god is within not outside. Nothing will give you the love of god, you must first give it to yourself.

person =/= appearance
shitty analogy

= does not mean identical, it means 'of identical value'.

The holy trinity are 3 different appearances of the same God.
So they are all basically equal to God, but not equal to one another if you just compare the appearance without taking into account that they just have one underlying reality (God).

hard mode doth the holy spirit proceedeth from the father through the son or from the father and the son

Sure is dogmatical metaphysics in here

From the Father, no Son at all.
>Who proceedeth from the Father,

>filoque

wrong, read Frege

>stressing yourself out trying to understand how three things can be one thing but not each other
>falling for the christianity meme

3=1

I made the rules, I can violate them as I please

t. the Omnipotent

I like Hegels interpretation on the trinity

god is the imaginitive absolute
god becomes man - man/god dies on the cross - becomes ghost/spirit
but eacht time the former stage is 'aufgehoben' (sublimated)

Holy shit, Hegel was a retard.

We truly *do* live in a dark age.

>Christfags are such brainlets they struggle with this idea

holy shit you people are dumb.

through the son

We humans are 1 being with 2 essences (body and soul). God is 3 beings (father, son, holy spirit) with 1 essence.

here

you are 4 yrs. old -> you are 12 years old -> you are your current state

but by evolving through these different stages you never lose your 'oneness' and each states is sublimated in your current stage

I don't think that's a retarded notion

WTF Modalism is the only thing I've been taught in every protestant church I'd been to. Whatever, don't believe in it anymore anyway.

weird, protestants are supposed to be Trinitarian

They were baptists/presbyterians in most of the places I'd grown up at.

>tfw orthodox christianity is STILL the only one that got it right
come home, christian man

oh thanks that really cleared it up lmao

Why even argue about which way to be incoherent is right and which are wrong? There's nothing at stake here. How about defining what is referred to by "god is" before flinging nonsense and claiming to disagree with each other? No one can gain or lose from believing any form of specificity about god.

Fuck off, Kant, let's see the Categorical Imperative raise the dead and turn water into wine.

>God is incomprehensible to we mere mortals
>Now let me explain every precise detail of his nature and essence
>If you disagree about my made up nonsense, you are a filthy heretic

Christology, everyone

>i've never been touched by the holy ghost

Because some people have had sublime experiences and they wish to investigate and communicate the nature of those experiences with others.
Not all of us are soulless automatons

>bringing up categorical imperative when it has nothing to do with the thread
>doesn't even know the difference between pure and practical reason

...

Ok how about this lads the nature of the trinity is inherently inexpressable and can only be directly perceived by the carnal senses, and once a person has experienced this they are thenceforth free from all moral obligations and observances

...

someone please explain the holy spirit to me.

The old analogy works.

H2O = solid, liquid, gas

This is wrong, the trinity is not different forms of god but three distinct persons

"17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

What did he mean by this?

Hmm good question

This. It's a stupid mind game that went too far.

is this supposed to be a physical representation of the whole God is possibly three things; All knowing, All Loving, or all powerful

'If God is all knowing and all powerful, he is not all loving'
'If God is all knowing and all loving, he is not all powerful'
'If god is all powerful and all loving, he is not all knowing'

that's the most I can make of it without entering the reddit level of questioning

In fairness, the Trinity actually is present in the Gospels. The word "trinity" doesn't appear, of course, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all present, sometimes all together in a single scene, as at the Baptism of Jesus. And since from Judaism Christianity gets explicit monotheism, there has to be a way to make it all fit together, hence the idea of "one God, three Persons."

Best response. Read the book of Job

I talked to some average christians and even they don't know what the fuck this is about. As in, the all seem to know but when they explain it, the explanations all differ from each other significantly.
It's almost as if it was all made up bullshit.

your average christians in contemporary america are literally heathens with a pick'n'mix approach to religion

user, it's a divine mystery. It's an example of how God is beyond our comprehension. If someone had actually made it up it would probably make sense.

Like Mormonism. Mormonism makes perfect sense once you get the gist of what Joseph Smith was going for, and that's because Joseph Smith made it all up.

>communities were killed debating this

catholics were the allahu ackbars of the early CE

Why do Christians attach such importance to this as a theological concept? It seems inconcequential.

It's the holy trinity

God is the father
God is the son
God is the holy spirit

the father is not the son
the son is not the holy spirit
the holy spirit is not the father

You'd know this if you weren't a heretical proddy.

Is the father cosmic horror?

nah. that's a cool and strangely compelling idea that gets explored a lot in fiction, but it's not the truth.
it's not exactly "the opposite of the truth," either.

so under your analogy "God' is the set G s.t.
G = { c ∈ U : a,b ∈ U, F(a,b) = S(a,b) = H(a,b) = c }

where G ⊆ U and F, S, H ⊆ U×U×U

yes

Same reference, different senses

>bog-standard idea of refraction
>the whole of mankind transfixed

I didn't "get" this until the fidget spinner thing desu.

tradition, partly, and partly to provide an authoritative interpretation of what Jesus meant when he said he was divine. As far as I understand it anyway. It seem inconcequential because the Luther Truthers decided you can just read the bible and follow your heart, but long before that the Church had to combat gnosticism and its followers who understood the divinity of Christ differently. If there is only one God, who is Jesus. Was it true that God took the form of a Man? Or was Jesus and illusion, who appeared to be a man and was never a Man, and God never truly manifested himself as flesh and blood, and thus never truly died and never truly sacrificed....

2+2 is not identical to 4 then

>Each leaf is only part of the clover & cannot said to be the whole clover. Is the Trinity, each person a fully God.

You'd know this if you weren't illiterate

>Making up stuff which doesn't make sense is evidence it is true

>implying we've seen God do either of those things

Or, more likely, Mormonism is coherent because it was all invented by just one or two people, whereas Christianity is incoherent nonsense because it was made up by lots of people over hundreds of years

there was literally a council to choose the best bits and they still couldn't make it make sense

We defined the set S={God,a,b,c}
We then define the set R as the pairs from the cartesian product SxS which contain God.
We then define the "is" relation as follows: x is y for x,y∈S if and only if (x,y)∈R

>soul
non-canonical

could be that god haves multiple personality disorder, but as he is omnipresent, the multiple personalities exists at the same time?

I prefer the perennial philosophy version of the trinity. It actually makes sense.
Father = Godhead, or divine totality of reality. All of existence is God.

Son = Due to the virtue of his existence, man is God, and the Son is one who is fully aware of this fact.

Holy Spirit = Divine Awareness in the mind of humanity. A subjective replication of God.

I even heard a formula in more traditional terms.
Because God is omnipotent, everything that happens is the Will of God.
The Will of God is the Logos.
The Logos is God.
Therefore, God is everything(the universe).

>Subordinationism
..but isn't that what the Bible teaches in the words of Jesus himself, regarding himself anyway?

>It actually makes sense.
It makes sense but it's basically just a fanfic.

Not sure why this hasn't been acknowledged yet considering you're all talking about sacred geometry while this plainly states the truth. Everyone in this thread is underage b& or clinically autistic.

When I read frege that's what I got from him desu

Wasn't the trinity developed much later than early Christianity?

Trinity is inherently polytheistic.

>Why do Christians attach such importance to this as a theological concept? It seems inconcequential.

>the divinity of Jesus is inconcequential to Christianity's theology

Did you even think before posting or does it all just come out like farts?

ITT: people who think there is an objective system of logic.

>assuming a priori that transivity is true

Frege repeatedly and explicitly says that the equality sign means full identity for him (where different sides of an equation are just different names for the same object). You don't remember anything about intersubstitutibility salva veritate being a criterion of identity? That's a major pillar of Frege's thought.

It's one of these ridiculous retcons at the end of a long story written by several authors with conflicting plot lines that somehow need to be reconciled in one conclusion.