/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>What would you call someone like that

Heretic

>>613808

People like that are out there:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com

>>613808

>What would you call someone like that

Heathen

Where does the doctrine of the trinity come from, because it's not biblical, is it?

>>613954

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.

>>613962

Doesn't that kind of mean that there are three Gods though? One greater and two lesser? Serious question. I'm a christian and believe in the trinity but seriously have a hard time grasping what the trinity actually is, logic-wise if that makes sense?

>Trinity

gnostic trash

>>614006

>Monism

platonist trash

>>614012

>Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son, and holy spirit.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html

Tell me how the trinity doesn't violate basic laws of logic

A = B

A = C

A = D

BUT

D =/= C =/= B =/= D? This makes no sense.

It's impossible to think of a real world example with a similar logical scenario.

The only thing close to a real example is not to use "=", so instead of A = B ("A is B") you could have "A roughly equals B" e.g. B is a primary component of A or A equals B in some circumstances. Only then can you have A = B and A = C but C=/=B.

It's like saying D > E and E > F but D < F. It makes no fucking sense.

>>614022

>Yeah man it's almost as if it's some kind of transcendant mystery

It would be a mystery if you didn't know the exact relationship between A, B, C, and D. IF you "know" the logical relationships and it's logically contradictory that's just bullshit.

>>614024

>mystery = something we don't know

Nice meme.

"Mystery" is something which is intelligible, but which is so endlessly profound we will never exhaust it, like Scripture or the Incarnation.

And it's not contradictory. Read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#V

>>614017

Animal = Dog

Animal = Cat

Animal = Bird

BUT

Dog =/= Cat =/= Bird =/= Dog

>>614030

You're just playing semantics.

It is not literally true that "Dog = Animal", dog is a subset of animals, it is a component of animals. Remember how I said the only way you get around this is with "roughly equal"? That's what you're doing. Using B, C, and D as subsets of category A means that it is not literally true in any case to say that A = B or A = C or A = D, at best you could say A ~=~ B or that B is of A.

>>614032

>It is not literally true that "Dog = Animal"

A dog is not an animal?

The absolute state of non-trinitarians

>dog is a subset of animals, it is a component of animals

So you're asking for something created which is exactly like God? Would you like me to show you an example of an eternal creature? How about an omnipresent creature? The only way you can believe what you're asking for can even possibly exist is if you're a pagan that believes God(s) is fundamentally creaturely.

>>614017

> It's impossible to think of a real world example with a similar logical scenario.

My father is a human.

I am a human also.

We share human nature, yet we are two different persons.

Same goes with the trinity:

The Father is Divine

The Son is Divine, yet are two different persons.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same substance or being but are not the same person.

Like how my father and I share the same "being", that is "human being".

>It makes no fucking sense.

Now explain to me how a Divine person (The Father) can beget a Son other than His own substance. Does not human beget only human? Or cat beget only cat?

>>614032

Animal is the genus of dog

This is not semantics is literally basic logic.

Non-trinitarians everyone

>>614034

>It is not literally true that "Dog = Animal"

>A dog is not an animal?

You're just intentionally seizing upon the ambiguity of the English language. It's true that "a dog is an animal", which more explicitly means that an individual dog is an instance of the category of "animal",

Dog = An instance of an animal, animal being a category of life

Category of Dog =/= Category of Animal

What you're saying is

Dog = Subcategory of Animal

Cat = Subcategory of Animal

Bird = Subcategory of Animal

And Subcategory Dog =/= Subcategory Cat. No fucking shit.

>So you're asking for something created which is exactly like God?

No I'm asking for any instance of an equally convoluted logical scenario. You can't think of one because creating an instance of a logical impossibility is impossible.

>Would you like me to show you an example of an eternal creature?

Irrelevant to my point :^)

>The only way you can believe what you're asking for can even possibly exist is if you're a pagan that believes God(s) is fundamentally creaturely.

No I'm pointing out that the logical relationship of the trinity is contradictory because of the meaning of the word "is" and the phrase "is not". And I'm pointing out that there is no real world example that exemplifies this logically contradictory relationship than can even be rationally imagined.

>>614040

>What you're saying is

>Dog = Subcategory of Animal

>Cat = Subcategory of Animal

>Bird = Subcategory of Animal

>And Subcategory Dog =/= Subcategory Cat. No fucking shit.

And to elaborate, this isn't like the trinity.

The Trinity does not say "The Father is a subset of God, The Son is a subset of God, The Holy Spirit is a subset of God, the subsets are equal in power and magnificence but are distinct entities." That WOULD actually be logically possible.

>>614039

>Animal is the genus of dog

>This is not semantics is literally basic logic.

>Non-trinitarians everyone

See

>>614043

>>614040

That example with dogs and birds is nothing like the logical relationship of the Trinity.

>>614044

You failed to respond to the first 3/4ths of my post.

Let me understand your position: are you denying the Divinity of Christ or are you claiming Jesus is the same person as The Father?

>>614039

>My father is a human.

>I am a human also.

>We share human nature, yet we are two different persons.

Father = subset of category human

You = subset of category human

This is not the same thing as "FATHER = HUMAN, YOU = HUMAN, BUT YOU =/= FATHER". In this context "=" means is. You are only one component of the totality of humanity, hence the category human =/= any individual human.

>Same goes with the trinity:

>The Father is Divine

>The Son is Divine, yet are two different persons.

>The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have the same substance or being but are not the same person.

Having the same substance is different from being logically equivalent. Tritheists such as yourself assert that

God is The Father

God is The Son

God is The Holy Spirit

but The Father is not The Son is not The Holy Spirit is not the Father

God is The Son means that the totality of The Son has to be contained by the category God and vice versa. And for this to be true that would mean The Son is The Father is The Holy Spirit. But tritheists deny that.

>>614047

>Let me understand your position: are you denying the Divinity of Christ or are you claiming Jesus is the same person as The Father?

I'm arguing that The Trinity in and of itself is logically impossible due to the meaning of "is" and "is not."

>>614017

>I Failed Advanced Logic and Set Theory Classes: The Post

B, C, D can be a set of metaphysically equal things within the ontological set A (in this case three co-equal persons in one being) without each sub-set being ontologically non-distinct to the other sub-sets. I really don't understand why you think this is difficult when all you need to do is apply advanced logic than just mere equations. God is internally logical because He is logic.

B is in and is A

C is in and is A

D is in and is A

B =/= C =/= D

To force B, C, and D to be interchangeably equal simply because what else is stated above goes against everything we know about logic and math.

>>614040

>It's true that "a dog is an animal", which more explicitly means that an individual dog is an instance of the category of "animal",

A dog is a kind of animal. It is not something less than an animal, it is fully an animal. It is a species of the genus animal. A dog participates in the essence of 'animal'.

>No

Yes you are. 'God' is to 'Father' exactly like 'animal' is to 'dog', except in those things which are fundamentally different between God and creation.

>Irrelevant to my point :^)

Wroong

>No I'm pointing out that the logical relationship of the trinity is contradictory

No you're not, all you're doing is saying is "I don't like that, therefore it is logically impossible"

>And I'm pointing out that there is no real world example that exemplifies this

Correct, there is no creaturely example which is identical to God.

>>614048

>You are only one component of the totality of humanity

Now I might be wrong, he could be Polish, but I'm pretty sure anon is fully human. He is not part human, but completely human. So he would not be a component of human, human would be the totality of him.

>Having the same substance is different from being logically equivalent

Not within God.

>>614048

> You are only one component of the totality of humanity

Are you saying i'm only partially a human, not fully a human being?

That human nature is cut into parts and distributed to everyone?

I really don't think you understand what substance and being is

>>614054

>>614054

>Are you saying i'm only partially a human, not fully a human being

No I'm saying that the instance of a category is not equivalent to the totality of the category itself, the category being a much broader and more complicated thing than the individual.

>>614050

>To force B, C, and D to be interchangeably equal simply because what else is stated above goes against everything we know about logic and math.

>>614051

>A dog is a kind of animal. It is not something less than an animal, it is fully an animal. It is a species of the genus animal. A dog participates in the essence of 'animal'.

A = B is a statement of complete equality and interchangeability. Meaning A is completely equivalent and interchangeable with B, and there is no information contained in B that is not contained within A and vice versa.

If this is what is meant by "God (A) is The Father (B) , God is The Son (C), God is The Holy Spirit (D)",

Then what you're saying is

A = B, A = C, A = D

and if A actually = B, if A actually is completely equivalent to and interchangeable with B, C, and D, then necessarily A = B = C = D.

If B =/= C =/= D =/= B then it is impossible that A is = to all of them individually. You can only say that B is of A and C is of A and D is of A if B =/= C =/= D =/= B.

If this is what is meant originally, you shouldn't say God is The Father but The Father is of God.

>>614055

> No I'm saying that the instance of a category is not equivalent to the totality of the category itself, the category being a much broader and more complicated thing than the individual.

Does your father have human nature?

Do you have human nature?

I hope you've answered yes to both.

Now is your father a human?

Are you a human?

Does that mean that you (an individual) are not human because being human is a "category"???

>>614059

No individual, including myself, is interchangeable and equal to the category human. The category human doesn't even exist in physical reality, it's a concept (Platonists fuck off), while it's true for me to say that "I am a(n instance of the category) human" , I am not equal to the category in its totality.

>>614061

So you are not totally human?

>>614062

Me = ONE instance of the category human

Me = the category human

>>614063

Me =/= the category human woops

>>614064

You need to be aware of the distinction of being apart of humanity. And having the fullness of human nature within you

>>614065

Being a part of humanity is being of humanity. The Trinity is not the idea that The Father, Son, etc. are of God, but that they completely equal to and interchangeable with God.

>>614058

Did you run out of arguments?

>>614068

Ironic that you respond to my arguments with that non-argument.

>>614068

>>614058

I mean, I made alot of points, and you responded to exactly none of them.

>>614070

Which post was yours? Because one was almost entirely assertions/negations, which isn't actually making an argument.

> Being a part of humanity is being of humanity.

Being part of humanity means you are human…. aka having the fullness of human nature.

>they (Godhead) completely equal to and interchangeable with God.

Because they all have the fullness of divine nature within all three persons

>>614073

This one >>614051

It isn't strictly speaking "argumentation", because I've been operating under the assumption that you are misunderstanding the trinity. If you are not ignorant, but are instead dishonest, please state so, and I will stop explaining.

>>614074

I forgot to quote

>>614067

>>614074

>they (Godhead) completely equal to and interchangeable with God.

>Because they all have the fullness of divine nature within all three persons

If The Son/Father/Holy Ghost are completely equal to and interchangeable with God, then there isn't any distinction between them and God. If that's true then how can there be any distinction between The Son and the Father, The Father and the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Ghost and The Son?

>>614067

>>614064

>>614063

>>614064

>>614063

>>614075

>It isn't strictly speaking "argumentation", because I've been operating under the assumption that you are misunderstanding the trinity. If you are not ignorant, but are instead dishonest, please state so, and I will stop explaining.

You complained that I didn't respond to your arguments (while I was responding to two people). Most of it was just assertions and the part about muh dogs = animals shit was addressed in proxy here

>>614061

>>614049

>= is a statement of complete equality and interchangeability.

In this case, it is not. We're not doing high school algebra.

>If this is what is meant by "God (A) is The Father (B) , God is The Son (C), God is The Holy Spirit (D)",

Wrong! God is not "Is the Father, is the Son, and is the Spirit." God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yes, the simple nuance makes a big difference. Neither the Father, the Son, nor the Spirit is the totality of God's being. They are together equally God, but they are not individually the totality of God.

We can use symbols to show this because we are using an abstraction.

>>614059

I know you mean well, but you cannot use any facet of creation to explain the Trinity. We can only use God's revelation and abstractions.

>>614061

Because your personhood is not in the substance of your father's personhood. The three persons are in the substance and identity of God but are not separately the totality.

>The category human doesn't even exist in physical reality, it's a concept (Platonists fuck off)

What Plato got wrong was that an ideal could not explain the particular differences a set or category of things that could exist in a concrete reality without being a deviation from a universal. Humanness has to exist concretely someway beyond mere senses or reason for to actually communicate about and identify that property all humans share. This can only be explained with a being that at once is a unity(God) but also a being of diversity (Trinity) that has the capability (God's infinite nature) to solve the one and many problem (God's eternal decrees vs our communicating one decree vs another).

>>614080

I take this to mean you admit to dishonesty? You really don't seem interested in understanding the doctrine, you just want to attack it.

>>614085

>I take this to mean you admit to dishonesty?

No it means that if all you do is negate what I've said "e.g. Wroong" I'm not going to bother to address that non-argument. If you aren't making an argument or you're making an argument extremely similar to one I'm already presently addressing I'm not going to bother with it.

>>614083

>Neither the Father, the Son, nor the Spirit is the totality of God's being. They are together equally God, but they are not individually the totality of God.

That's wrong anon. That's partialism.

>>614087

>No it means that if all you do is negate what I've said "e.g. Wroong"

My saying that had direct relevance to what I said just above it. It was part of me explaining that you were in fact demanding to see something in creation which was identical to God. Anyone with an IQ over 80 should recognize this without me having to spell it out

>If you aren't making an argument or you're making an argument extremely similar to one I'm already presently addressing I'm not going to bother with it

To clarify, do you want to understand what we believe, or do you just want to attack it?

>>614083

>>614083

>= is a statement of complete equality and interchangeability.

>In this case, it is not. We're not doing high school algebra.

>God is not "Is the Father, is the Son, and is the Spirit." God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yes, the simple nuance makes a big difference. Neither the Father, the Son, nor the Spirit is the totality of God's being. They are together equally God, but they are not individually the totality of God.

Ok, so The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit are not individually equal to or interchangeable with God, so wouldn't it be more accurate to say that individually they are of God rather than that they are God Himself?

If I am a component of a band wouldn't it be silly to refer to me as "The Band" and not as a part of the band?

>>614078

There isn't a distinction between me and the human nature that i am

If that's true then can there be any distinction between me and my father?

Of course there is because substance is not person.

>>614093

>There isn't a distinction between me and the human nature that i am

Yes there is. Human nature is a component of you not the totality of you.

>>614016

So, basically, some Modalist who was confused about nature and hypostasis said that some Gnostic who was as equally confused may have said something in some text that no longer exists.

fascinating

>>614094

>Human nature is a component of you not the totality of you.

Oh really? so what's the rest of me?

>>614097

Your physical body for one.

>>614090

>That's wrong anon. That's partialism.

Yeah, that didn't come out right. Sorry about that. I'm trying to be very careful to not suddenly spout heresy. I probably should have said they all are individually God but are not individually God alone or individually God to the exclusion of the other two persons.

>>614091

>Ok, so The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit are not individually equal to or interchangeable with God

No, my main beef was with the word "interchangeable", the equality of the Godhead Persons is not an interchangeable equality like what we see in algebraic math or syllogistic logic, but a substantial equality. Notice, though I say "persons" and not "being". The Godhead being has interchangeable equality because there is only one God being.

>wouldn't it be more accurate to say that individually they are of God

While it is true they are all of God, you will have

>If I am a component of a band wouldn't it be silly to refer to me as "The Band" and not as a part of the band?

That's true, because you do not possess the total substance of the band. You are not a drummer, if you are exclusively the lead singer. All three Godhead persons possess the total substance of God, which is why we can say the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally God.

You have to understand that we are more likely to figure out all the truths about quantum mechanics within a million years before we get 1/10-to-the-billion-billionth power point to understanding the Trinity. God allows us to understand the very basics, and that's it. Anything beyond that, and our language fails to communicate and our minds fail to grasp the Trinity.

>>614098

No Aristotle teaches clearly that it is the unity of body (matter) and soul (form) that gives us our nature (substance).

> Your physical body for one.

Our physical body without our soul is merely flesh and bone and it is not what we refer to as substance in fact without our form (soul) we are not human.

So again, what am i other than the human nature that i am?

>>614099

>the equality of the Godhead Persons is not an interchangeable equality like what we see in algebraic math or syllogistic logic, but a substantial equality

>The Godhead being has interchangeable equality because there is only one God being.

Did you just say they're not interchangeable and then in the next sentence say that they actually are interchangeable?

That's a bit confusing.

>While it is true they are all of God, you will have

…

You didn't finish your sentence, I think.

>>614100

>it is the unity of body (matter) and soul (form) that gives us our nature (substance).

You're not using substance as it's commonly used in the English language.

You also acknowledged that your body is a part of you so when you say what am I besides my nature, well, you already agreed with me.

>>614099

Meant to say While it is true they are all of God, you still have to say that they are God or you are inaccurately describing God and the persons of the Godhead.

>>614103

> your body is a part of you so when you say what am I besides my nature.

I dont think you understood me. Ill make it as simple as possible.

Your physical body is a part of your human nature not distinct

Without your physical body you are not human.

Im asking you to give me one part of me distinct from my human nature. You said "physical body" which is a part of human nature, not distinct

> You're not using substance as it's commonly used in the English language.

Yeah we arent dealing with chemicals here, maybe if you understood philosophically and theologically what we are trying to tell you you would understand what "substance" is.

>>613808

>Are there any 'christians' who follow Christ Jesus but do not believe in the Trinity?

>What would you call someone like that

Yes, early Christians (pre-Ecumenial councils), Arians, Sabellians, Socinians, Unitarians and Christian Deists all follow Jesus in various forms but are non-Trinitarian. Look those up if you're interested.

I remind you that as per the rules of this board those aforementioned philosophies aren't considered Christian.

>What would you call someone like that

A Mormon

>>614382

>Unitarians

>follow Jesus

Haha

>>613808

Your image is interesting because I was thinking about the reliability of the New Testament earlier today.

However, how do we know that the New Testament wasn't altered between the death of Jesus and the first manuscripts we have access to? Things that weren't said or happened end up being added in later…

>>614382

>early Christians (pre-Ecumenial councils)

Epic meme

>>614382

>Literally the first of not-anonymous Church Father, Saint Ignatius calls Jesus God

>Literally the first apology against judaism have like 10 chapter that defend divinity of Christ.

>Nicene Trinitarain defintion are in fact orgienist in language

>Nicea is the thing only because Arain was first faggot to calim this since Gnostics god BTFO by Ireaneus who also said that Chirst is God.

I wanna go Santa Claus on you.

>>614416

They see Him as a moral and spiritual guide.

>>614421

Trinitarianism was developed after Christ's death. I'm not commenting on its validity, just that early Christians wouldn't have had the specifics of the fully developed doctrine. I don't think that's controversial to say?

>>614429

Trinitarianism is rather specific. Non-trinitarians don't necessarily deny the divinity of Christ.

>>614433

>They see Him as a moral and spiritual guide.

He's either exactly Who He said He is, or He was crazy. Can't have it both ways.

>>614443

>He's either exactly Who He said He is, or He was crazy. Can't have it both ways.

They believe he never claimed to be God.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses

>>614433

>Trinitarianism was developed after Christ's death

Well certainly in a sense it was "developed", inasmuch as the understanding grew, but it was revealed in Christ's life and on the day of Pentecost.

>I'm not commenting on its validity, just that early Christians wouldn't have had the specifics of the fully developed doctrine

The developments added detail. They did not actually alter the doctrine at all. So everyone of the early Christians is accurately defined as trinitarian and they would've been offended at the pseudo-Christian blasphemies against their God.

>>614444

They need to open a bible.

>>614444

>They believe he never claimed to be God.

Check out these mental gymnastics.

<Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)

<1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.”

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/john-8-58b

>>614444

>Unitarians don't even believe that Jesus preexisted His birth.

I wonder what it's like being even more heretical than Jehovah's Witnesses.

>>614476

Also wtf

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1

>The Greek language uses the word “God” (Greek = theos) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities. These include - lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5)

They've corrupted Paul's writing to support polytheism!

>>614479

>They've corrupted Paul's writing to support polytheism!

Kek. I've been reading through some of these and it's quite literally incredible what they believe. These two examples might not even be in the top five.

>>613808

>Are there any 'christians' who follow Christ Jesus but do not believe in the Trinity? That they believe Jesus may be divine in that He was the Son of God, created by God, but not God the Son or God Himself. What would you call someone like that

Unironically, they're called Muslims

>I see a lot of comments on this board claiming that Paul started 'inventing' the Trinity, and that we should instead just read the Bible ourselves to decide. Anybody have any thoughts on these theories?

We all have decisions to make, just like Adam did with the forbidden fruit in the Garden. There is only one God, and if we believe in the same God, then we are in spiritual agreement. Now I – along with many of my brothers and sisters (lol no girls on the Internet) – believe in the Trinity. If you don't, then that means one of us is not following God and is following the devil's doctrine, but I'm not questioning your salvation. Think about it and decide if you'll eat that forbidden fruit. Remember the important thing is to Seek God (Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit) and to read your Bible cover-to-cover.

>>614460

>inasmuch as the understanding grew, but it was revealed in Christ's life

The Trinity in its modern form is a highly specific doctrine that early Christians would not have known about, they may have been proto-Trinitarians but we have to remember Modalism, Partialism and Arianism were declared heresies so none of those understandings about the triune nature of God can be considered Trinitarian.

There's even the filioque split between the East and West today about the nature of the Trinity.

>everyone of the early Christians is accurately defined as trinitarian and they would've been offended at the pseudo-Christian blasphemies against their God

Is there any proof of this?

Why do people still fuzz over the Trinity? It's really very simple. The Trinity is like a network, with 3 nodes and 3 connections. The network that makes them is one, yet seperate. Couldn't be more simple

>>615150

That's partialism.

>>615341

Patrick