Thread 17924604

Why do Protestants use the Catholic canon and adopt the Trinity (a Catholic creation)? Also, it seems like Martin Luther put a ton of stock in Paul, who never met Jesus and taught things that Jesus never taught. Why is this?

>>17924604 (OP)
>Why do Protestants use the Catholic canon
They don't, Protestants rejecting some books that Catholics accept is a big part of the divide.

>and adopt the Trinity (a Catholic creation)?
That's a silly notion. The Trinity is explicitly in the Bible, have you read Matthew 28:19? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

>Also, it seems like Martin Luther put a ton of stock in Paul
All mainstream Christians do

>who never met Jesus
That's not so, he and Jesus did meet on the road to Damascus.

>and taught things that Jesus never taught
All the Apostles taught things Jesus didn't teach during his time on Earth. That's the entire point of prophets: to teach things God wants to be taught.

>>17924630
>They don't, Protestants rejecting some books that Catholics accept is a big part of the divide.
Like what?
>Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Then why didn't other early sects of Christians (like the Ebionites) believe in it? The Old Testament is very clear that there is only one god.
>That's not so, he and Jesus did meet on the road to Damascus.
According to him.
>All the Apostles taught things Jesus didn't teach during his time on Earth. That's the entire point of prophets: to teach things God wants to be taught.
Paul made shit up and we are just supposed to take him at face value?

>>17924647
>Like what?
Protestants don't accept as divine:
-Tobit
-Judith
-Any of the books of the Maccabees
-Wisdom of Solomon
-Sirach
-Baruch

While Catholics think these are divine. But one cool thing about being a Protestant is that you're not bound to any specific canon. If you review the evidence and think one of those books is divine or think one of the books in the generally accepted canon isn't divine, that's OK! I personally don't accept Hebrews (no clear evidence an Apostle wrote it) or James (no clear evidence that _the_ James wrote it instead of someone else by the same name)

>Then why didn't other early sects of Christians (like the Ebionites) believe in it?
We have no Ebonite writings so no firm answer to this. The vast majority of early Christians, including those we know to have direct connections to the Apostolic Circle, believe in the Trinity.

>The Old Testament is very clear that there is only one god.
There absolutely is! Trinitarianism isn't saying there's multiple gods. Saying there's the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is like saying that there's your head, your torso, and your legs. The Son and the Holy Spirit are parts of God, like your limbs.

And this is very much taught in the Old Testament. For instance take a look at Genesis 31:11-13 - "The messenger of God said to me in the dream...I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me.".

So in the Old Testament, God has a messenger, who is also himself God. Sound like anybody you know?

>According to him.
Not just him. The Disciples accepted Paul as well. We have writings from the disciples of the Disciples like Clement where they praise Paul and discuss him as as absolutely valid as the other Apostles.

>Paul made shit up and we are just supposed to take him at face value?
Take him the way Jesus' hand-picked Disciples, and their own disciples after them, took him.

>>17924672
>The Disciples accepted Paul as well
According to Paul.

Protestant Reformers did not necessarily operate on some rational scholarly approach but rather presumed the Christian religion to be true as a starting point, and then judged the material on how Christian they believed it to be. For example, Luther hated the Epistle of James because he believed it to not reflect the core of the Christian religion, no other particular reason.

>>17924678
>According to Paul.
Not just him! The Disciples' own disciples say this. We have writings from them. For example, their associate and student Clement of Rome, as you can read at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm, wrote:
"Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you"

Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, wrote, as you can read at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm: "For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith" and he calls Paul an Apostle in chapter 9.

>>17924683
Unlike the rest of the New Testament except Hebrews, no one who had a connection to the Apostles actually says that James, the Apostle, wrote the book of James. There's no solid evidence for it being written by an Apostle. So we should reject it in the absence of such evidence. It could have been written by anybody named Jacob. The author doesn't even call himself an Apostle or otherwise in any way say he's writing something from God. Someone very well could have just read it and misunderstood what James was the writer. It was a controversial book early on and I think the incorrect decision was made for it.

>>17924630
>Matthew 28:19
I thought the ipsissima verba of Matthew was considered lost, and it must be reconstructed from later versions?

>>17924678
Also according to 2 Peter, which calls Paul, "our beloved brother Paul," though I guess you can reject 2 Peter as well if you want.

>>17924706
>I thought the ipsissima verba of Matthew was considered lost, and it must be reconstructed from later versions?
Not really. Jesus probably wasn't speaking Greek there but no ancient source that I've seen ever expressed any concern that he was being mistranslated in any of the Gospels. Greek Matthew is a translation of Aramaic Matthew, but it's no different a situation from the other Greek Gospels

>>17924724
>Also according to 2 Peter, which calls Paul, "our beloved brother Paul," though I guess you can reject 2 Peter as well if you want.
We don't know who wrote it, so yes, I'm going to reject it.

>>17924696
So people writing decades after Paul's death have nice things to say about him. What does that tell us? That his influence grew after his death (something that we knew before). We also know that Paul did have interlocutors and ultimately a falling out with the the Jerusalem church. I don't deny that in the early stages they were on friendly terms, but that eventually dissolved and there was acrimony between Paul and the other apostles.

>And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
What did John mean by this?

>>17925915
>What did John mean by this?
The Jews did not like Babylon after being horribly humiliated by them.

>>17925915
booba

>>17925915
Babylon
Empire
Harlot
Captivity
Rome
Peter
Authority
Reme Romulus
Capitoline Wolf
Lupanar
Whore
Benedict
La Salette
Seat
Antichrist
Lose faith
Fatima
Padre Pio
End of all time

>>17925902
We don't know who wrote any of the gospels either, since they're all internally anonymous and their traditional attributions came later. IIRC Pretty much the only thing we're decently sure about with respect to the New Testament is that a good portion of six or seven of the letters attributed to Paul do originate from the same first century person who probably called himself Paul. And most academics are confident that there was a historical person named Jesus who preached and got crucified by Pilate, whose apparent resurrection started a religion, though imo there's good reason to doubt that and the consensus is mostly maintained by inertia and peer pressure from the religious people in the field.

>>17926459
>most academics are confident that there was a historical person named Jesus who preached and got crucified by Pilate
This is pretty annoying since historically it's all based on the accounts of cultists who never saw him. So we can forthrightly talk about the existence of Christians but not Jesus the specific person.

>>17924604 (OP)
Trinitarian belief is fundamental christian theology that can not be removed from it without causing it to no longer be christianity.

>>17924672
I debated a Protestant who rejected the epistles of James on sola fide before on this board. I remember you called yourself Prot Anon or something similar.
>The son and Holy Spirit are parts of God
No! This is the heresy of partialism, this would mean that the son and holy spirit are only parts of God meaning that they are X% God.
>>17924647
>only one
Referring to Deuteronomy 6:4, the Hebrew word “Echad” is used in Genesis 2:24 where man (one flesh) and his wife (another flesh) become one flesh. So it can mean plurality. The angel of the Lord isn’t a creature. Exodus 3 does state that Moses saw the angel, but in Deuteronomy 4:15 it is clear that they did not see any form at the bush of Horeb. So angel is a title, not a created medium. God states that his name is in his angel (Exodus 23:21), we read in the Psalms 29:2 and 96:8 and 1 Chronicles 16:29, that there is glory attributed to God’s name. But God gives his glory to no other (Isaiah 42:8). Therefore, the Angel of the Lord is God.

>>17926168
Based Br. Peter Dimond. Does any Catholic here believe in Baptism of Desire to debate it?

>>17924647
>According to him.
According to the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.

>>17925914
>So people writing decades after Paul's death have nice things to say about him
People who personally knew the Apostles. Polycarp was John's own disciple! If the other Apostles rejected him, their followers wouldn't be speaking about him like this.

>We also know that Paul did have interlocutors and ultimately a falling out with the the Jerusalem church.
Not at all! Paul had no falling out with the church in Jerusalem whatsoever. Where are you getting that this is somehow something "known"?

>>17927092
Yup that's me! Yeah, the Gospels, Paul's letters, Revelation, etc. we've got confirmation from the Apostolic Circle that the Apostles wrote them. Not so for Hebrews, James, or Jude. The evidence just isn't there for them, especially Hebrews but James too.

>This is the heresy of partialism
Lol "Partialism" is a nonexistent meme "heresy" made up as a joke about modalism, so far as I can see. There's 0 documentation of some heresy called "partialism" ever being discussed or condemned by any sort of official body.

>this would mean that the son and holy spirit are only parts of God
Well yeah. If something can simultaneously, in the same way and same sense and same time, be true and not true of X without contradiction, then X has parts.

For instance, it can simultaneously be true, in the same way and sense and time, that "Malcolm is wet" and "Malcolm is not wet" because Malcolm has parts: his right arm might be in a bucket of water while his left arm isn't.

Same for God. Things can be true of the Son that aren't true of the Father, but both are true of God, showing that yes, they are parts of God.

>>17927156
>partialism
I’m not going to debate names, but this is a heresy since you are still claiming that God is made up of parts which makes him composite.
>things can be true for the son and not for the father
Does not mean that they are parts, if there is absolutely no distinction than they are both the same person. If God has parts than he is contingent to his parts meaning he cannot be the necessary being. You also forgot relative identity, the father is God according to essence, the son is God according to essence. Your stance of strict identity would mean the father cannot be God because he is not triune. You believe the father, son and holy spirit are not fully God the same way Malcom’s hand is not fully Malcom.

>>17927156
It is discussed, you just can't be a trinitarian and affirm that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not each fully God. This means you don't believe Jesus was God just a part of him, the same way you don't believe your hand is actually you but just a part of you. But anyway tell me do you believe there are three centers of consciousness within the godhead or just one?

>>17924604 (OP)
why do Catholics still accept the names of the months which were given to them by pagan Romans?

>>17927190
because they are those pagans

>>17927190
>look at roman catholic church
>wtf why are they roman?

>>17924604 (OP)
>taught things that Jesus never taught
It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

>>17927165
>I’m not going to debate names, but this is a heresy since you are still claiming that God is made up of parts
And where in the Bible does it say God has no parts?

>Does not mean that they are parts
Can you define what you mean by the word "part" here, so that I know what specifically you're trying to say? This seems to be to just be the basic definition of what a part is. A subset, a piece, something that is X but not the totality of X. If the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the Son isn't the Holy Spirit, then the Son and Holy Spirit must both be subsets, pieces, parts, whatever word you want to use that means "not the totality", of God.

>Your stance of strict identity would mean the father cannot be God because he is not triune.
Can you elaborate?

>You believe the father, son and holy spirit are not fully God the same way Malcom’s hand is not fully Malcom.
Well yeah, otherwise parts of the Bible would make no sense. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 would be completely incoherent if they're all "fully God" and God has no parts:

"But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power...When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all."

Under what I'm saying this makes perfect sense: it's no different from, say, moving an apple slice from your hand to into your mouth and then your mouth to your stomach. It's under the authority of different parts of you, drawing closer to the core.

Under your model I really can't figure out what this could even be attempting to say

>>17927168
>It is discussed, you just can't be a trinitarian and affirm that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not each fully God. This means you don't believe Jesus was God just a part of him
Jesus is fully God in the sense that my hand is fully me: no part of my hand is somebody else.

>>17927168 #
>It is discussed, you just can't be a trinitarian and affirm that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not each fully God. This means you don't believe Jesus was God just a part of him
Jesus is fully God in the sense that my hand is fully me: none of my hand is somebody else.

>>17927255
>would be completely incoherent if they're all "fully God" and God has no parts:
nta but yes the trinity and incarnation are just incoherent, which is why the best defense you have is special pleading like pic rel
>>17927258
>no part of my hand is somebody else
Yep and no part of you is fully you either. Meaning the Father/Son/HS are not fully God, they are each just 1/3 God. You still haven't answered my question and I am not sure why.

>>17927274
>nta but yes the trinity and incarnation are just incoherent, which is why the best defense you have is special pleading like pic rel
I don't think they're incoherent at all. It's no different than if I put my hand in a fish tank to feed and play with my fish. Part of me is in the tank, my core isn't.

Same for the incarnation. Part of God is manifest on Earth.

>Meaning the Father/Son/HS are not fully God, they are each just 1/3 God.
This seems like a matter of labeling rather than actually disagreeing about anything objective

>You still haven't answered my question and I am not sure why.
Because I have no answer for you! The question of what the subjective mental experience of being God is like is probably completely beyond our ability to express. We can hardly even talk about radically different human mental states like the subjective experience of ketamine with our language; I'm confident that most anything we try to use to talk about the mental experience of being God will be too radically short to be useful here.

>>17927124
>According to the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
So, according to him.

>>17927293
That isn't the incoherent parts about the trinity, the "labeling" is. You can't claim on one hand that Jesus identified as fully God and then say well actually he's just 1/3 God. What does that even mean? Is he 1/3 omnipotent? As for the incarnation the issue is that it is a blatant logical contradiction. Literally X AND NOT X = True at the same time
>Because I have no answer for you!
That's the mystery defense, which is just no defense at all. Fortunately though we have scripture where it is pretty clear for example that Jesus has a distinct will and knowledge from the Father, even if it coincides most of the time. So at least the Son and the Father have two different centers of consciousness

>>17927307
>You can't claim on one hand that Jesus identified as fully God and then say well actually he's just 1/3 God.
Once again: Jesus is fully God in the sense Malcolm's hand is fully Malcolm. It's saying "100% of that hand is Malcolm", not "Malcolm is 100% that hand". There is more of Malcom that isn't the hand, just like there's more of God that isn't the Son.

>Literally X AND NOT X = True at the same time
What's X here? Again, it's no different from my hand being in my fish tank to interact with the fish but the rest of me not.

>That's the mystery defense
If there's anything I can say that I don't know with no shame whatsoever it's that I don't know what it feels like to be an omniscient immaterial being. I can't even tell you what a bat's echolocation sense feels like, and that's at least a sense that uses a material brain like I do.

>>17927156
>People who personally knew the Apostles. Polycarp was John's own disciple!
According to early church fathers, who likely didn't know themselves. The best we can tell he was in the generation following the first generation of apostles, but was not a direct follower of John or any specific apostle.
>Not at all! Paul had no falling out with the church in Jerusalem whatsoever. Where are you getting that this is somehow something "known"?
Why do you think he is throwing a fit in Galatians? He's clearly fighting with someone(s). Who do you think that is?

The way Paul uses the word fullness feels almost like a technical term to me. In Colossians 1:19, the Greek doesn't actually say "fullness of God" as it's usually translated, just "fullness" (pleroma), though in Colossians 2:9 it does say fullness of God in the Greek. And in Ephesians 3:18-19, he prays that believers also may be filled with all the fullness of God. "I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God."

>>17927323
>in the sense Malcolm's hand is fully Malcolm.
Except it isn't, Malcolm's hand belongs to the set Malcolm it isn't it. If you cut off your nails did you suddenly lose yourself or just a part of you?
>What's X here?
Examples are in the image previously posted. The problem isn't the method of interaction but the fact that a being sharing human and divine natures is just the same as a shape sharing a circle and square nature. The attributes affirmed by each nature are negated by the other and thus cannot exist in the same object. Even if you are going to cope with the "parts" then you have just conceded that when Jesus incarnated he was never God at all, since he is just the human part of the godhead
>If there's anything I can say that I don't know with no shame whatsoever it's that I don't know what it feels like to be an omniscient immaterial being.
Except you do know if you read the bible and I explained to you how. But what is amusing about this line of thinking is how easily you claim to know how the trinity works when even church fathers explained it poorly enough to fall into heresy. Nowhere in the bible is it mentioned and this is why they and all trinitarian christians struggle to explain it coherently

>>17927168
The way Paul uses the word fullness feels almost like a technical term to me. In Colossians 1:19, the Greek doesn't actually say "fullness of God" as it's usually translated, just "fullness" (pleroma), though in Colossians 2:9 it does say fullness of God in the Greek. And in Ephesians 3:18-19, he prays that believers also may be filled with all the fullness of God. "I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God."

>>17927255
>where in the Bible does it say God has no parts
Does the Bible teach that God is God? If yes than he is simple because being contingent to his body parts would mean he is not independent.
>part
I understand the word part as portion. For example, your hand is a part of you.
>not the totality of X
That would imply that Jesus is not fully God making him a demi-god.
>if the son is not the spirit…
They are distinct by their hypostatic properties. But being is undivided, or else it would be in part not itself. So if God’s being is divided into parts, than he is in part not himself.
>can you elaborate
We believe in relative identity not strict identity. That the X is Y according to Z. Which is another way we believe that the persons are fully God but distinct. You seen to deny such a concept and imply strict identity but in this case your idea would collapse because none of the persons would be God under your view.
>1 Corinthians 15:22-28
Where does this contradict my view or imply parts? The father and son are distinct persons because of their distinct hypostatic properties, but their being is undivided. The essence of God that is begotten (the son) puts all things under the essence of God that is unbegotten (the father).
>>17927274
Relative identity is not found outside of our theology because only our theology professes distinct persons being the same being.

>>17927307
The incarnation is not contradictory for the same reason that your being has a soul nature and flesh nature in theory. Your soul desires love, spirituality, etc…. But your flesh desires different things such as food, rest and drink. Now in reality, your two natures are united in the one person that is you.

>>17927307
Are you an Arian (Or other Unitarian)?

>>17927165
> I’m not going to debate names, but this is a heresy since you are still claiming that God is made up of parts which makes him composite.
Every single time someone tries to explain the Trinity logically, they’re accused of modalism or partialism. I guess the correct answer is that it’s a mystery mere mortals cannot fathom

>>17927348
He probably just means it in the same sense Jesus does when he claims the disciples are one in the Father. But trinitarians believe is means that he is actually fully divine.
>>17927350
>professes distinct persons being the same being.
Yes but for RI not to be special pleading you need to find other users of this theory. Which you have not and as I have demonstrated the majority of philosophers don't find use for it. It's just a variant form of logic that only exists because under classical logic your metaphysics is pure nonsense. And if you use this to "solve" the logical problem of the trinity you have just conceded anyway.
>>17927357
>Your soul desires love, spirituality, etc…. But your flesh desires different things such as food, rest and drink.
Those attributes do not contradict so the analogy fails. For it to be equivalent to the incarnation my soul should desire love and my flesh should desire not love at the same time and in the same state (while they are not separated like after death)

Saying that catholics created the trinity is like saying that Luther created sola fide. Nobody created those things, it's just Bible doctrine that you can read in the Bible.

>>17927379
it's doctrine you read into the bible that has developed for hundreds of years after Jesus came

>>17927383
Holy men of God wrote the Bible with the Spirit's guidance, that's Christianity 101. The Bible is the word of God not what some guy created.

>>17927330
>According to early church fathers
I quoted you the men themselves! Clement of Rome knew the Apostles and Polycarp was John's student. Polycarp had his own student named Irenaeus who also treats Paul the same as John or any other Apostle.

>Why do you think he is throwing a fit in Galatians? He's clearly fighting with someone(s).
He outright says in Galatians 2:9 that "and when James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me".

His disagreement with Peter in chapter 2 is about seating arrangements for meals, it has nothing to do with anyone being rejected for being an Apostle. Peter himself in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter calls Paul "our beloved brother" and calls his writings scripture: "in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."

>>17927387
The authorship of the bible is irrelevant to the theological creed you develop out of it. An unitarian and a trinitarian read the very same text but come to wildly different conclusions about the nature of God. Are you denying there is any interpretation going on?

>>17927390
>seating arrangements for meals
ahaha, this guy was literally tested to see if he still follows the law or not

>>17927379
>Saying that catholics created the trinity is like saying that Luther created sola fide. Nobody created those things, it's just Bible doctrine that you can read in the Bible.
Why do Jews have no concept of the Trinity? More than half the bible is their holy book. The Trinity is only there if you squint really hard and attempt to reconcile passages in books written by different people in different times and attempting to communicate different things to different audiences.

>>17927392
Yeah and when an atheist reads the Bible it's all the sudden a book of fairy tales. You can make anything out of the Bible if you interpret it any way you want.

Things like the trinity and faith alone are so clear in the Bible that it's amazing that someone could not believe in those doctrines after reading scripture. It's like saying 2+2=4 but then somehow you develop different interpretations of what it could be equal to.

>>17927390
>and Polycarp was John's student
This is likely not true. You are regurgitating church dogma.
>He outright says in Galatians 2:9 that "and when James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me".
So it was Paul himself that said he was bet buddies with Peter? We have no record of Peter saying anything about Paul. We have no record of Peter saying anything.
>Peter himself in 2 Peter
Peter did not write 2 Peter. So we know that Paul said that Paul and Peter were buddies, then you have Paul publicly blowing up at Peter for very basic (but important things) like eating with Gentiles. Paul makes it sound like he "won" but we don't know how this argument was settled.

>>17927410
>You can make anything out of the Bible if you interpret it any way you want.
Great, and what makes you so sure "trinity" and "faith alone" are there and not just another subjective interpretation? An atheist looking at the bible will also claim it's so clear that it is a book of fairy tales.

>>17927341
>Except it isn't
Which part of the hand is non-Malcolm?

>Examples are in the image previously posted.
They seemed to be criticizing the model advocated by the other anon here that denies God having any parts. They seem to be criticisms of advocating for "divine simplicity" and also Trinitarianism, and I agree that those notions don't make sense together. I don't endorse "divine simplicity".

>The problem isn't the method of interaction but the fact that a being sharing human and divine natures is just the same as a shape sharing a circle and square nature.
I don't see how that's any different from you being both physical (body) and spiritual (soul). Or really, if we're keeping the shape metaphor, your head being round but your ab muscles being square. (If you browse /fit/!)

You seem to really be overthinking the really simple notion that stuff has parts

>then you have just conceded that when Jesus incarnated he was never God at all, since he is just the human part of the godhead
"Part of the Godhead" means "part of God" which, yeah, that's what I've been saying. It's the same as you: you're a spirit piloting a body. The spirit piloting the body of Jesus happened to be a hypostasis of God.

>Except you do know if you read the bible
The Bible says God's thoughts are as far beyond our's as space is beyond Earth. It emphasizes precisely what I'm saying: God's mind is way way beyond our's. I can't adequately describe to you very unusual human mental states that I've experienced. Describing a totally foreign brain-state like a bat echolocating isn't something I can do either. So how much less am I able to describe a mind that isn't even based on a brain at all, which is omniscient and can almost be said to be "made of" logic itself?

Your argument is like denying the possibility of echolocation for bats because we don't know what the mental experience of this foreign sense would be like.

>>17927371
Can’t they simply state 3 persons in 1 being? The problem is that they are trying to use real life examples to prove it.
>>17927375
>your metaphysics it pure nonsense
>you have conceded
No it RI makes perfect sense rather than strict identity. A dog is the same as another dog according to their dogness but they are not the same according to their age. Your are assuming that if none used relative identity than it is automatically false.
>those attributed do not contradict
It does not contradict for the flesh that God manifested in to feel tired or hungry.
>>17927379
Sola fide is not in the Bible. It is purely Luther’s creation.
>>17927383
The Bible teaches the trinity, I would go over this with you if you wish.

>>17927416
The trinity is literally just Christianity 101 for you, hardly any doctrine is as basic as that. If you have disagreement about the fact that God sent his son to be the savior of mankind, then wouldn't you think it's a pretty big thing you're disagreeing about. It's a huge thing, it's not like disagreeing whether pineapple belongs in pizza or something, you're disagreeing about who God even is and who the savior is. That's big. There should be no questions asked about which one is correct, it should be clear and it is clear.

>>17927405
They do have a concept of divine plurality in the Talmud. Just not specifically three. I would go over divine plurality in the Old Testament with you if you wish.

>>17927350
>>17927255
>where does the Bible say that God is not made up of parts
Exodus 3:14

>>17927432
>They do have a concept of divine plurality in the Talmud. Just not specifically three. I would go over divine plurality in the Old Testament with you if you wish.
I don't think an orthodox Jew would agree with you.

>>17927430
>The trinity is literally just Christianity 101 for you, hardly any doctrine is as basic as that. If you have disagreement about the fact that God sent his son to be the savior of mankind, then wouldn't you think it's a pretty big thing you're disagreeing about.
The problem with this is that Jesus is not literally God in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. He is in John, but that was a later book with a more developed Christology.

>>17927445
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot

>>17927350
>Does the Bible teach that God is God? If yes than he is simple because being contingent to his body parts
This is a weak strawman and I think you know that. Nobody is saying God has physical body parts.

But does the Bible, itself, ever directly state that God has no parts? Or that God is "simple"? No. Never. Indeed it often uses the exact same parts metaphors like the hand of God.

>I understand the word part as portion
And what tells you whether something is a portion or a whole? If you can say one thing about it, and be right and not right at the same time, then you're right about a portion of the thing - telling you it has portions. Correct?

>That would imply that Jesus is not fully God making him a demi-god.
That seems like a disagreement about what label you prefer to assign and word you prefer to use rather than a disagreement about anything objective

>But being is undivided, or else it would be in part not itself. So if God’s being is divided into parts, than he is in part not himself.
Well that's obviously not true. Israel was made up of twelve tribes - does that mean part of Israel isn't Israel? Bodies are made up of parts, does that mean part of your body isn't your body? Years are made up of days, does that mean some of those days aren't part of the year?

Everything is made of parts so your argument here would mean that nothing is anything!

>You seen to deny such a concept and imply strict identity but in this case your idea would collapse because .
And I'm asking if you can explain how "none of the persons would be God under [my] view".

>The essence of God that is begotten (the son) puts all things under the essence of God that is unbegotten (the father).
You're just replacing the word "part" with "essence" but saying exactly the same thing I am o_o. By saying "he has these essences that are different", you're describing exactly the concept of a part: you can say something about a thing and simultaneously be right and not right.

Also I'm putting on a name to make it clearer who is who
>>17927404
Paul himself explains in 1 Corinthians 9:20 "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those under the law."

>>17927415
>This is likely not true.
Polycarp himself had a student named Irenaeus who tells us this. Irenaeus wrote in his Letter to Florinus (as can be read at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm):

"I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the Word of life, Polycarp related all things".

>So it was Paul himself that said he was bet buddies with Peter?
And Clement of Rome, who knew the Apostles, and was appointed bishop of Rome the church Peter founded, loves Paul and considers him an Apostle, as we saw.

And Irenaeus, student of John's disciple Polycarp, writes at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles...". So Irenaeus says that Peter and Paul were coworkers there in Rome.

>>17927436
How on planet Earth are you getting such a notion from Exodus 3:14?

If anything Exodus 3 very clearly teaches the very same thing that I am. Look at verse 2: "And the messenger Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush", then what does verse 6 say? "And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God."

So God has a messenger...and this messenger is also God, and to look at him is to look at God. So God's messenger is part of Himself.

>>17927525
>Polycarp himself had a student named Irenaeus who tells us this.
We don't know which John Irenaeus was referring. This is all regurgitated Catholic dogma. It all boils down to "I knew a guy who knew a guy so everything I said is correct". This is a bunch of white washing by early church leaders to attempt to paint a unified front, but if we look at the letters of Paul, we know there were big problems.
>And Clement of Rome, who knew the Apostles, and was appointed bishop of Rome the church Peter founded, loves Paul and considers him an Apostle, as we saw.
We are talking about Peter and Paul, not Peter and Paul and Clement. And as I already said before, Peter and Paul were on good terms at one point, but not later down the road. We know that Paul and Peter had a huge public blow up but we don't see an ending of it.

>>17927423
It's all part of him, but it is not Malcolm. I can't believe trinitarians don't understand part whole relations. Do you believe the area in green of this circle sector is equivalent to the area of the entire circle?
>if we're keeping the shape metaphor
You posted a circle inside a square, not a square circle so no you aren't keeping the shape metaphor. A thing having a separate body and a soul is not contradictory. What is contradictory is the same thing being physical and non-physical at the same time. Which is exactly what Jesus was as an immaterial god who incarnated.
>The spirit piloting the body of Jesus happened to be a hypostasis of God.
This just means Jesus is a meat suit and not his own person. And for him to be truly human he needs a human spirit
>The Bible says God's thoughts are as far beyond our's as space is beyond Earth.
My argument has nothing to do with bats. I can say I have no idea what it is like to be a bat from a first person perspective but I can also say there is one mind even if a simplistic instinct based one. We are just counting minds not entering their heads. Jesus according to scripture has a distinct will that nearly always coincides with God and he has different knowledge to him. This makes it painfully obvious he has a separate mind.

>>17927428
>Your are assuming that if none used relative identity than it is automatically false.
Nope! I just said it is special pleading and it is according to consensus since only your theology requires it. You have conceded the logical problem because it is assuming classical logic (the standard) and under that system it has failed. This is no different than using alternative logic systems to allow for contradictions to exist.
>A dog is the same as another dog according to their dogness but they are not the same according to their age.
Dog A simply shares some properties with Dog B, there is absolutely no need to say they are the same dog in any sense of the word. It doesn't even work from a linguistic point of view. You wouldn't call yourself the same man as me. Anyway are you now saying the Father and the Son have different divine making properties or that only the things they share satisfy that requirement? Do you believe aseity is required of anything divine?
>>17927430
No you have many Christians who do not believe in the trinity, modern and very old sects, older than yours. You do not have a monopoly on what is Christendom just because your church claims it does. Do you seriously think non-trinitarians believe that Jesus is not the son of God? They simply interpret it in a different way from you

>>17927578
>We don't know which John Irenaeus was referring.
M
Well the Apostle of course. He had just finished talking about "the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles", saying Polycarp is one such "apostolic presbyter".

>It all boils down to "I knew a guy who knew a guy
If that guy is JOHN then yes, that is a HUGE source!!!!! "I knew a guy who knew a guy who was selected by an omniscient God to guide humanity on the path of light" is hugely, HUGELY authoritative!

>but if we look at the letters of Paul, we know there were big problems
He once objected to where Peter sat during lunch o_o

>We are talking about Peter and Paul, not Peter and Paul and Clement
Clement, who knew the Apostles, and was one of their successors, absolutely adores both Paul and Peter. Who were both coworkers founding the church Clement ran. What could be a stronger demonstration that Peter and Paul were comrades?

>not later down the road
Clement and the other students of the Disciples are what's later down the road. And they all have nothing but absolutely glowing love for both Paul and Peter and treat both men and their writings as equal.

>had a huge public blow up
Even in Galatians 2 he says in verse 8 that God works through Peter and that Peter has an "apostolic ministry". He only didn't like an incident where he wasn't sitting with gentiles to eat.

>>17927525
Yes Paul was lying to attract both crowds. If he wasn't under the law and he wasn't teaching Jews not to keep it (he did) why did he take the Nazirite vow?
>>17927464
>Nobody is saying God has physical body parts.
nta but yes you are, you literally believe Jesus was a physical body part of God, but that wasn't what he was even saying. Is the trinity necessary, contingent or impossible?

>>17927673
>Well the Apostle of course.
Of course it is, to you.
>HUGELY authoritative!
No it isn't. And that's assuming that you take EVERYTHING these people say at face value. They didn't lie, or omit key details, or any other other dozen things that we know people do.
>He once objected to where Peter sat during lunch o_o
He harangued him in public, to a great number of people that would kill a relationship for good.
>Clement, who knew the Apostles, and was one of their successors, absolutely adores both Paul and Peter.
You realize that could be true and Peter and Paul could have hated each other at the same time?
>Clement and the other students of the Disciples are what's later down the road. And they all have nothing but absolutely glowing love for both Paul and Peter and treat both men and their writings as equal.
As I said before, the people down the road were attempting to portray a united front, especially because both Peter and Paul were dead.

>>17927618
>It's all part of him, but it is not Malcolm
If the hand touches someone, wouldn't it be true if they said "Malcolm touched me"? Or if the hand punched them, couldn't they say "Malcolm struck me"? It is Malcolm.

>Do you believe the area in green of this circle sector is equivalent to the area of the entire circle?
No, it's a part of the circle. Like the hand is part of Malcolm and the Son is part of God.

>You posted a circle inside a square
Similarly, a human is a spirit in a body. A material and an immaterial part. Just like Jesus.

>What is contradictory is the same thing being physical and non-physical at the same time.
It's no different from your own immaterial spirit and your material body. If there's no contradiction there then there's no contradiction with Jesus, who is a spirit, using a body.

>This just means Jesus is a meat suit and not his own person.
Then that would be the case for all humans. That's more of a matter of labeling than anything objective.

>And for him to be truly human he needs a human spirit
Biblically that doesn't seem to be true. Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 seems to be saying for instance that humans and animals have the same kind of spirit, it's just a question of what body it's in:

"For that which befalls man and that which befalls animals is the same for them both. As one dies, so dies the other. There is one breath/spirit [the Hebrew word here, ruach, can mean either] for them all and there is no advantage of man over animal, for all are like vapor, all go to one place".

In other words, it sounds like a spirit using a human body = a human, a spirit using an animal body = an animal. So Jesus, as a spirit using a human body, is a human.

>My argument has nothing to do with bats. I can say I have no idea what it is like to be a bat from a first person perspective
Same here with me about God. I have no idea what it's like to be God from a first person perspective.

>>17924604 (OP)
> Globally, there are over 45,000 distinct Christian denominations. This figure reflects the multitude of ways local cultures and communities interpret the Christian faith, often adapting it to their unique social realities

>>17927688
>why did he take the Nazirite vow?
That passage in Acts explained it: people were saying he rejected Moses and completely denied the Law. Paul demonstrated that that wasn't the case.

>yes you are, you literally believe Jesus was a physical body part of God
"Was"

>Is the trinity necessary, contingent or impossible?
Necessary. God exists necessarily and is necessarily omnipotent, and you require Trinitarianism or something exactly like it for omnipotence, for the reasons explained quickly in https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SNn5QU-Py18

>>17927689
>Of course it is, to you
To Irenaeus. Did you see what I quoted Irenaeus as writing right after this?

>No it isn't.
What could possibly give "a guy" more authority than being chosen by an omniscient being to guide humanity on the path of light? That man, John, then himself directly guided Polycarp, who himself directly guided Irenaeus.

>And that's assuming that you take EVERYTHING these people say at face value. They didn't lie, or omit key details, or any other other dozen things that we know people do.
Irenaeus himself makes the point there that this isn't all just coming from one guy or a small circle. There were twelve Apostles and they themselves selected successors, and all of these successors (many of whom left us ample writings) were in concord on what the Apostles taught. Others like Gnostic leaders had to resort to "well actually, in secret, they totally told me...".

There were so many Apostles teaching publicly that we don't have to worry about any serious corruption while people who knew them were living.

>He harangued him in public, to a great number of people that would kill a relationship for good.
Only among immature and childish people. A real, professional man can say "He was right. I was out of line. I'll correct that going forward."

Jesus himself harshly criticized Peter in public even calling him Satan, if you remember. That certainly didn't kill Peter's relationship with Jesus

>You realize that could be true and Peter and Paul could have hated each other at the same time?
The point is that they clearly weren't teaching messages diametrically opposed to one another

>the people down the road were attempting to portray a united front
Then everyone was doing it, meaning there was no Peter-ism vs. Paul-ism, which means they were indeed teaching a uniform message

>>17924604 (OP)
>it seems like Martin Luther put a ton of stock in Paul
Luther was influenced by Ockham who saw God's will to be higher than Reason (aka God's actions are almost arbitrary as he is the sole arbiter, not logic) and by Catholic mystics like Eckhart who promoted the view that one has to empty oneself and they either directly or indirecty expressed that there isn't much you can do to ascend to God, he has to choose to descend. Which is a legitimate mystical insight: you're not applying a technique in Christian mysticism, you are building a voluntary relationship. However, Luther took this insight to the extreme in asserting that there isn't absolutely anything one can do to be saved, one merely accepts saving grace. And this saving grace cannot be accepted by virtue of reason or argument because that would be our intellect contributing to salvation.
This seems like a pretty insane conclusion to draw when you compare it to actually legitimate theology, where synergy plays a rather large role, but Luther lives in an era that saw significant secularization and the world really did seem like an arena where one will arbitrarily battles another and one of those is God's. Sadly he perpetuates this worldview and it indirectly leads to massive secularization and some would argue to cultural narcissism, since now you have an entire culture hyper-obsessed about by arbitrary unearned regard, which supposedly saves.

>Why do Protestants use the Catholic canon and adopt the Trinity (a Catholic creation)?
For the same reason Catholics created the term. Because thos are Christ's teachings.

>>17927707
>wouldn't it be true
Yes of course because the part that touched them belonged to Malcolm. However again the part is not Malcolm himself. Chop off that hand and he is still Malcolm while the hand is not.
>No, it's a part of the circle
Similarly Jesus is not God, he's just a part.
>there's no contradiction with Jesus, who is a spirit, using a body
Yes there is because in your example Jesus is not the spirit, he is the meat suit. And unlike us he does not have a human spirit which constitutes his own self. He is just flesh that is being piloted by the rest of the godhead.
>Ecclesiastes 3:19-20
That is speaking about our fate and the way life was breathed into us. The very next verse implies that nobody knows where we will end up and God knows so obviously this is from a human perspective.
>>17927719
>That passage in Acts explained it
It sure did, he is guilty of their accusation and therefore he lied.
>Necessary
Why couldn't it be binitarianism? Even you admitted something like it could take its place. And your definition of omnipotence leads to contradictions no matter what. Do you believe it is possible for the entire godhead to become completely subservient to Satan and get thrown in hell by him?

>>17927094
didn't know there were cool people on this board

>>17927765
>Yes of course because the part that touched them belonged to Malcolm. However again the part is not Malcolm himself.
What is "Malcolm himself"?

>Chop off that hand and he is still Malcolm while the hand is not.
Eh kinda stretching the metaphor a bit too far here. God isn't material so you can't separate his parts by breaking molecular bonds. Jesus is more akin to an attribute of God's, like his wisdom or power.

>Similarly Jesus is not God, he's just a part.
That's like saying "you aren't in France, you're just in Paris"

>Yes there is because in your example Jesus is not the spirit, he is the meat suit.
Well that's clearly not what the Bible is teaching, John 1 talks about how Jesus existed before being flesh.

>And unlike us he does not have a human spirit which constitutes his own self.
And you know what spirits are and how they work, and the details of how the Son was or wasn't identical with or using whatever exactly a spirit is, down to the types he was or wasn't using?

>He is just flesh that is being piloted by the rest of the godhead.
This would make no sense in light of John 1

>That is speaking about our fate and the way life was breathed into us.
It says "There is one ruach for them all and there is no advantage of man over animal". If we were having this conversation in Hebrew, "ruach" would be the word we would be using for spirit.

>The very next verse implies that nobody knows where we will end up and God knows
It doesn't say "nobody knows", it says "Who knows", as a question. It certainly doesn't deny that God knows.

>he is guilty of their accusation
Can you show me Paul rejecting Moses?

>>17927765
>Why couldn't it be binitarianism?
I could see two different answers:
1) It could be and likely was. God was making use of a single hypostasis but then the Son incarnated, so a second was needed while the Son was occupied. If the Son was occupied and the Holy Ghost had to incarnate as well, then there would be a fourth to do what the 'free' hypostasis would normally do, getting us a quadrinity.

2) There are fundamentally different things the Son and the Holy Spirit do. So if God needed to incarnate twice, both would just be instances of the Son, while the Holy Spirit is for different domains of tasks.

I could see either - and indeed, they might ultimately be saying the same thing.

>And your definition of omnipotence leads to contradictions no matter what. Do you believe it is possible for the entire godhead to become completely subservient to Satan and get thrown in hell by him?
Remember that the claim is that God is omnipotent, not that any individual member of the Trinity is on their own. That's why you need a Trinity. God could go to Hell because Jesus could - indeed many Christians believe that he did. You can't move God's "core" into Hell however because it isn't something with a physical location.

>>17927803
>What is "Malcolm himself"?
Everything that satisfies the definition of Malcolm, it depends if you want to take him as an object or whatever. For example here we can say specifically a conscious agent who can self reference because we are talking about objects who have a "himself" (a person). I wouldn't call my hair a person in that context but as a physical object it indeed is a part of me.
>Jesus is more akin to an attribute of God's
Attributes are not parts, they are properties of an object. For example a red circle has the properties of being red and also a circle. You cannot separate them by division of any kind to get an independent redness or circleness.
>That's like saying
Absolutely not, one is a question of how precise you are being with your location and the other is if you are referring to the whole or the part.
>John 1
This just depends on interpretation. Unitarians also believe in this verse, did you know? And now you are implying he wasn't just a meat suit but an actual separate person from the rest of the godhead. Can you be clear and tell me if Jesus is the flesh only or the spirit inhabiting flesh?
>And you know
I know what the text teaches, he was exactly like us. Do you believe God can suffer from temptation? If yes then you believe God lusts after beautiful women.
>There is one ruach for them all and there is no advantage of man over animal
Yes in the context it makes it clear this is talking more about our lifespan and destination from our perspective. Of course God knows that but we do not.
>Can you show me Paul rejecting Moses?
I can show you where he taught Jews to abandon the law and I already did that. He himself, a Pharisee Jewish man has done so. If that isn't a rejection of Moses then I don't know what is

>>17927743
>To Irenaeus. Did you see what I quoted Irenaeus as writing right after this?
Again, you are assuming that he was referring to John the Apostle, but that is an assumption that the Catholic church (and you) make. This is all strung together by scant secondary evidence maintained by people who wanted something to be true.
>What could possibly give "a guy" more authority than being chosen by an omniscient being to guide humanity on the path of light? That man, John, then himself directly guided Polycarp, who himself directly guided Irenaeus.
Again, all this assumes a very clean line, but I don't think that's true. I don't deny that Polycarp was in a group of 2nd generation and Irenaeus was a 3rd generation Christian that might have had ties to John the Apostle.
>Irenaeus himself makes the point there that this isn't all just coming from one guy or a small circle. There were twelve Apostles and they themselves selected successors, and all of these successors (many of whom left us ample writings) were in concord on what the Apostles taught.
Such as?
>Only among immature and childish people. A real, professional man can say "He was right. I was out of line. I'll correct that going forward."
There is no reason to think Paul and Peter patched things up, or that Peter changed his mind. This wasn't a minor thing either, we are pretty sure that Peter taught people to keep the Jewish law. Paul, on the other hand wanted to get rid of it. This is a huge difference between them.
>The point is that they clearly weren't teaching messages diametrically opposed to one another
That's just not true.
>Then everyone was doing it, meaning there was no Peter-ism vs. Paul-ism, which means they were indeed teaching a uniform message
It's really Paulism. That's what survives today. The Jerusalem church was wiped out during the sack of Jerusalem.

>>17927807
>It could be and likely was
Then the trinity isn't necessary but contingent since it could and like was otherwise
>There are fundamentally different things the Son and the Holy Spirit do.
What is within the power of the Son but not the Holy Spirit? Are they not omnipotent? The bible makes it clear that Jesus is powerless and the Father does everything he can do. Except be begotten and ignorant somehow
>Remember that the claim is that God is omnipotent, not that any individual member of the Trinity is on their own.
Yes and I asked specifically about the entire triune being not just a member, you confirmed that he couldn't do it so under your definition he is not omnipotent. But you already admitted that the Father is not omnipotent too here

>>17927846
>Everything that satisfies the definition of Malcolm
And what determines what does so?

>Attributes are not parts, they are properties of an object.
It's feeling more and more like you're not voicing any sort of actual disagreement, just saying which words you'd prefer to use for ideas. If you prefer to call Jesus a "property" of God that's fine: properties aren't the entire thing, just a particular aspect of it.

> For example a red circle has the properties of being red and also a circle. You cannot separate them by division of any kind to get an independent redness or circleness
Cut a non-round piece off: still red, not a circle P:
Scrape the paint off: red's over there, circle's over here P:

>the other is if you are referring to the whole or the part.
Saying "that's not Malcolm, just his hand" is exactly like saying "that's not France, that's Paris". Denying Malcolm's hand is part of Malcolm is like denying Paris is part of France.

>Do you believe God can suffer from temptation?
I know where you're going with this. I don't think James belongs in the canon, as I said before, so this argument is going to be a non-starter. You can for sure tempt God: tempting someone is just trying to entice them to do something. Its never going to work, but nothing is stopping anyone from trying.

>in the context it makes it clear this is talking more about our lifespan and destination from our perspective
The text says, point blank, there is one ruach for them all. If some context gives some nuance, quote it.

>If that isn't a rejection of Moses then I don't know what is
Saying "Moses isn't a prophet"?

You seem to be saying that Jews do have to follow the laws in the Old Testament, which is an odd perspective. What kind of church do you go to?

>>17927863
>you are assuming that he was referring to John the Apostle
He's explicitly referring to the Apostle John, didn't you read what I quoted him saying? He says "apostle" directly.

>>17927863
>>17927869

>all this assumes a very clean line, but I don't think that's true

Where’s the gap? John taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenaeus. They, and the other Apostles, also all taught many other people.

>Such as?

Such as Clement of Rome, who we’ve also been looking at

>There is no reason to think Paul and Peter patched things up
...We've just seen them founding the church in Rome together and everyone thereafter accepting both of them and praising them both equally. Paul himself calls Peter an Apostle and says God talks through him in the very same chapter you're trying to use to show that they were mortal enemies.

>we are pretty sure that Peter taught people to keep the Jewish law
And yet none of the people who knew him or any of the other Apostles ever says a word about this huge message? Peter's writings never say anything about it? You cited Acts earlier and Acts has Peter saying this shouldn't be done in Acts 10:28 - "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."

>That's just not true.
Can you cite an actual ancient source who says this? We have writings from men who knew them, and from men who knew those men, and nobody says a word like this at all. But you've suddenly cracked the code from a disagreement they had about seating arrangements?

>It's really Paulism. That's what survives today.
And why did nobody who knew any of the other twelve Apostles ever say a single word about them fundamentally disagreeing with Paul on what the religion even is?

>The Jerusalem church was wiped out during the sack of Jerusalem.
That's not true. Not a single Christian is recorded as dying there. They heeded Jesus' warning about Jerusalem's coming destruction and left.

If you disagree: can you find a single reference to a single Christian dying in this entire massive war?

>>17927869
>Then the trinity isn't necessary
Under that potential model, some sort of -nity is necessarily true. It would be a trinity right now and could be a binity or a quadrinity in other potential situations.

>What is within the power of the Son but not the Holy Spirit?
I wasn't saying this was a statement of fact, options 1) and 2) were two potential answers. Like I said, I could see either being true, or both being different ways of saying the same thing.

>The bible makes it clear that Jesus is powerless
It calls him "the creator of life" in Acts 3:15, says in John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made", Revelation 21:5 has Jesus saying "I am making all things new", and so on.

>Yes and I asked specifically about the entire triune being not just a member, you confirmed that he couldn't do it so under your definition he is not omnipotent.
Well again you're mistaken. God can go into Hell because the Son can go into Hell, indeed many Christians believe that He did just that. God's "core" can't be in a physical location because it isn't a physical thing. That doesn't mean God can't be there.

Remember that omnipotence means there's nothing any person or thing can do that you can't. "Move God's core to a physical place" isn't something anyone or anything can do. It's a logically impossible self-contradiction.

You seem to be some sort of idiosyncratic Unitarian so you wouldn't believe God could go to Hell at all, right? But other entities can. That's the issue with Unitarianism and omnipotence that God having hypostases resolves.

>>17928144
>Where’s the gap?
The one that you are not seeing, because you accept the Catholic dogma. You take letters at face value, you accept second hand sources as infallible truth. Some letters (which we probably do not have original copies of) from decades after the supposed events say everything was peachy keen between all the Apostles, despite the fact we can see acrimony from very real first hand accounts written by people who were actually there. I don't take letters written decades later as proof, there are so many reason why they could be incarcerate, but the biggest one by far is that people like Polycarp and Irenaeus have incentives to paint everything has honkey Dorey between the 13.
>Such as Clement of Rome, who we’ve also been looking at
So we have Clement, who was a fan of Peter and Paul, saying they were both great guys and liked each other (at one time). What does that say about the totality of their relationship?
>We've just seen them founding the church in Rome together and everyone thereafter accepting both of them and praising them both equally. Paul himself calls Peter an Apostle and says God talks through him in the very same chapter you're trying to use to show that they were mortal enemies.
Again, this is the view of the early Catholic church trying to whitewash the past.
> Peter's writings never say anything about it?
We don't have any writings from Peter.
>And why did nobody who knew any of the other twelve Apostles ever say a single word about them fundamentally disagreeing with Paul on what the religion even is?
Because we don't have any writings from any of the apostles! The one thing that Paul had over all the other apostles was his literacy. It was likely that all the Apostles (except for Paul) were illiterate. And because of that, his word gets passed around the Mediterranean and through history. That's why the church that was founded was Pauline. That and the fact that Paul's self-appointed 'mission' was to the Gentiles.

>>17928144
>That's not true. Not a single Christian is recorded as dying there. They heeded Jesus' warning about Jerusalem's coming destruction and left.
Christians most likely died there, but there is no district record of it (likely because it was a very minor movement at the time). Also, this historical Jesus likely didn't say shit about the Temple falling, as Mark (the earliest written gospel) was written AFTER the temple fell, so the author most likely put it there.

>>17928169
>>17928176
We're starting to get into foundations of historical knowledge: how we know whether an event in history happen or determine the authorship of documents.

So I want to zoom out a bit. What kind of church do you go to? Or, are you an atheist?

>>17928163
>It calls him "the creator of life" in Acts 3:15
The Greek there isn't necessarily creator. Even the KJV translates it as "Prince of life" instead.
>arxēgós(from 746 /arxḗ, "the first" and 71 /ágō, "to lead") – properly, the first in a long procession; a file-leader who pioneers the way for many others to follow. 747 (arxēgós) does not strictly mean "author," but rather "a person who is originator or founder of a movement and continues as the leader – i.e. 'pioneer leader, founding leader' "

>>17928244
So would "a person who is originator or founder of a movement and continues as the leader" of life itself be someone powerful, or powerless?

>>17928253
I was NTA but if I had to guess I think they were recalling John 5:19, "Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." But then soon after he says, "Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes." and "For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and he has given him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man." But then soon after again he says, "I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me."

I'm not totally sure how to interpret it.

>>17928121
As I said it depends on how you are willing to see him as object or person. In any case parts are not wholes and thus Jesus is not God, just 1/3 God according to you. You of course haven't even explained what that even means. So far you have given me that they each individually lack divine making properties like omnipotence and you don't even know if they have a mind. As if you are worshiping a weak dead rock by praying to the Father like Jesus did. I am disagreeing with you because attributes and parts are different concepts. You don't even understand that you haven't separated redness from circleness, you just removed an attribute in each case and added others like "paint"
>Denying Malcolm's hand is part of Malcolm
Straw man, I never said his hand is not part of him. And again it doesn't make sense, when speaking about the location you are currently in you are always going to occupy the same amount of space whether you refer to it by country. However your confusion in understanding what is part/whole will refer to the whole portion or just part of it. I have a feeling you are being dishonest though because you can't say the sector area is not the circle area and then pretend that doesn't mean Jesus is not God in the same sense.
>You can for sure tempt God: tempting someone is just trying to entice them to do something.
Nope, "the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise" according to the dictionary. How is this being God in any sense if he has evil desires?
>The text says
Yep, notice how I never denied any part of it just your interpretation/
>Saying "Moses isn't a prophet"?
So if you reject Jesus' commandments without specifically saying he isn't the Messiah you aren't rejecting him? That's odd, because that's exactly what separates a righteous believer from him according to Jesus

>>17928476
>As I said it depends on how you are willing to see him as object or person.
In other words "I'm not actually working with any objective standard here or making any real arguments, I'm just making purely semantic arguments about how I dislike labels".

>In any case parts are not wholes and thus Jesus is not God
You've just confessed you're not actually talking about anything objective here. Just playing a shell game with words. It "depends on how you are willing to see". So all this boils down to is, by your own admission, you saying "I don't want to see it that way".

>they each individually lack divine making properties like omnipotence
No unitarian entity can be omnipotent. You absolutely require hypostases in order to have omnipotence. God is omnipotent.

>and you don't even know if they have a mind
None of them are mindless. I don't know what the subjective experience of God's mind is like. No one does.

>As if you are worshiping a weak dead rock
?

> I am disagreeing with you because attributes and parts are different concepts.
Attribute, aspect, part, portion - pick whatever word for "not the whole of a thing but still the thing" you want.

>You don't even understand that you haven't separated redness from circleness
"Redness" is just a way something reflects light. Whatever reflects light in that wavelength is the redness of the object

>I never said his hand is not part of him
You keep saying the Malcolm's hand isn't Malcolm. So is it, or not? If it is, then it isn't his totality, so it must be a part.

>Nope, "the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise" according to the dictionary. How is this being God in any sense if he has evil desires?
He doesn't, and never has.

>Yep, notice how I never denied any part of it just your interpretation
You claim it isn't actually saying that because something in the context means it's actually saying the opposite. But what? You haven't yet quoted it.

>>17928163
>It would be a trinity right now
No it won't. For something to be necessary it can only be that way and you conceded that from the get go by saying any -nity would do. Whether it is two or two million if it can't only be just one figure (specifically 3) then the trinity is not necessary and thus you have a contingent "God". At best you can say a multiplicity is required based on dubious reasoning but not the trinity itself and specifically your conception of it.
>two potential answers
Yes and your potential answers lead you into more problems, which is why you refuse to engage with the question you quoted and conceded the first one.
>It calls him
He can still be all that if he is powerless and just gets everything from the Father like he himself says. He is a created being that acts as a tool for the rest of the godhead.
>Well again you're mistaken
Nope, you are just repeating yourself and answering something I didn't even ask also conveniently ignoring the first part about Satan being made superior to his entirety which requires no location. If I asked you can the godhead cease to exist you would say yes because only Jesus can. Who the fuck asked? You are being disingenuous
>so you wouldn't believe God could go to Hell at all, right?
Yes absolutely I don't believe God can ever be anything but the highest at all times and I also don't believe in your idea of omnipotence that creates logical contradictions. Even in your previous example you conceded that God can't do the impossible

>>17928476
>So if you reject Jesus' commandments without specifically saying he isn't the Messiah you aren't rejecting him? That's odd, because that's exactly what separates a righteous believer from him according to Jesus

A) Paul argues at length about why the Old Testament itself teaches that you don't have to follow the Law. Even if you disagree with Paul's interpretations, he does believe this is something Moses/the other Old Testament prophets taught.

B) Now wait a sec. You deny that any of the Apostles wrote any of the books of the Bible. Their own students and all of their successors saying and agreeing that did evidently isn't strong enough evidence for you. So why do you believe Moses wrote anything ascribed to Moses? On what basis are you saying Moses said anything at all?

C) Why didn't you answer my question about what church you go to or what your religion is? My guess would be some sort of highly idiosyncratic Messianic Jew who can't find a congregation at all. Am I close?

>>17928532
>For something to be necessary it can only be that way and you conceded that from the get go by saying any -nity would do.

Once again, that's one of two possible models. Under it, by "Trinitarianism" mean more broadly the notion that God has hypostases. Like I said, it could also be that the Son and Holy Spirit cover different domains and it is always a Trinity. As I've repeatedly said, it could be either, or both are different ways of saying the same thing.

>which is why you refuse to engage with the question you quoted
Seems odd to argue that someone needs to claim to know the specifics of how God - the thing most beyond us in all of existence - operates.

>He can still be all that if he is powerless
He's specifically and directly said to have great power. You can't have great power and be powerless. If you make all things new that is higher power than all other things.

>and just gets everything from the Father
That's like saying "Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't actually strong, he just gets all his energy from his food". Power coming from elsewhere doesn't mean you don't have power.

>like he himself says
On what historical basis are you basing your claim that he said this?

>also conveniently ignoring the first part about Satan being made superior to his entirety
I figured going to Hell was included in that. Unless you mean "superior" in the sense of "better than", in which case no, God is the best possible being so it's logically impossible for anything to be better than him.

>Yes absolutely
Then I can do something your unitarian god can't, making your god not omnipotent.

>I also don't believe in your idea of omnipotence that creates logical contradiction
Like what?

>Even in your previous example you conceded that God can't do the impossible
Not just the impossible. I can do tons of things a unitarian god can't. I can walk, swim, breathe, eat - nearly anything I do is something such a being can't do. It isn't omnipotent in any sense whatsoever.

>>17928523
>In other words
Nope, I already used one standard but you just ignored it. Anyway it's very clear you are being deceptive right now.
>You absolutely require hypostases in order to have omnipotence.
You haven't demonstrated that. And actually by your own logic neither is the godhead omnipotent. He can't let Satan make himself greater and then send his "core" to hell
>None of them are mindless.
Yes they are if they are not conscious, which you don't know.
>pick whatever word
Words have meanings and part is the closest but even then your usage confuses part whole relations.
> is just a way something reflects light
No it isn't, you can have red emissive objects for example. Redness is just an abstract idea like numbers that don't exist individually on their own.
>So is it, or not?
It isn't, it's just a part of Malcolm the same way the sector is just a part of the circle.
>He doesn't, and never has.
Then Jesus was never tempted and he is not like us
>You haven't yet quoted it.
Are you stupid? I am using the very same text you are using and simply giving it an interpretation that is different from yours
>>17928536
>A)
I've argued in a separate thread about the eternal validity of God's law no need to bring that here. it still is a rejection of Moses if you claim God's law is optional.
>B)
I am working under your paradigm, it's an internal critique.
>C)
Irrelevant and you are not close, I am an orthodox/sunni muslim. Now let's see how you are going to desperately try to shift the conversation into one about my religion.

>>17928554
> I already used one standard
You just said that your standard is "it depends on how you are willing to see him as object or person". In other words: completely arbitrary and completely subjective. You've confessed that you aren't even really arguing about anything real with the part vs. whole stuff, it's a purely empty semantic arguments about label preferences rather than making any sort of objective claim.

>I am an orthodox/sunni muslim
Ahhh okay now all of this very bizarre stuff makes sense. I thought you guys were learning the Islamic dilemma: it's basically impossible for Muslims to criticize anything about Christianity without it also bouncing right back on Islam. But perhaps that's why it took nearly 100 replies for you to admit to being a Muslim.

You've strongly rejected what I've said about God having parts. Tell me anon: does Allah have any parts? Like say a hand, or a foot?

And you've also rejected my reasoning based on Jesus being teacher of John being teacher of Polycarp being teacher of Irenaeus, among other such chains. But this is just an isnad. We have multiple chains or narrators to the Apostles, and each Apostle to Jesus. It's even better that hadith traditions since each of these links has people writing things down. Not to mention the dates are far closer to Jesus than Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim are to Muhammad. On what basis can you accept oral hadith chains separated far more while rejecting written documents from the Apostolic circle?

>>17928551
>Trinitarianism" mean more broadly the notion that God has hypostases.
No, to be a trinitarian is to believe in one God and yet at the same time three persons that share a divine nature. Nothing else would do. You claimed the trinity itself was necessary but then retracted by saying any -nity is necessary. Which means you have conceded your original claim, which is what I am saying
>the thing most beyond us in all of existence
Yes but what we know of him from scripture reveals his existence to us.
>You can't have great power and be powerless.
Yes you can if you are given that power, it means you have no inherent power but God's will is channeled through you to perform miracles. The Father has no need to get his energy from anywhere else, Jesus does
>historical basis
You don't want to go there. Very few things about your narrative is historical. I already quoted scripture "By myself I can do nothing"
>so it's logically impossible for anything to be better than him
Exactly, so see you too have non arbitrary limits in your idea of omnipotence.
>Then I can do something your unitarian god can't
Yes, it's not logically possible for God to be sent to hell and make Satan greater than him the same way it isn't for him to depend on sustenance or anything else. God not being able to do the impossible is not a limit to this ability to do all things, married bachelors are not things.

>>17928563
Yes and then I specifically referenced Malcolm to a himself and made the argument he is a person. You forgot that conveniently?
>trying to shift the topic as predicted
Desperate move and it will be ignored. Most of us do not believe in divine simplicity. We believe those are attributes and not parts, they can never be separated from God like you believe when the created Jesus got torn out of God to enter a body.
>And you've also rejected my reasoning
I was not that guy and again I've had the discussion about the superiority of hadith numerous times. Irrelevant!

>>17928567
I wish you'd admitted to being a Muslim at the beginning, now these things are easy to explain.

>You claimed the trinity itself was necessary but then retracted by saying any -nity is necessary.
Let me give you an illustration from the hadith. https://sunnah.com/muslim:804a is saying essentially the same thing as I am:

"Recite the Qur'an, for on the Day of Resurrection it will come as an intercessor for those who recite It. Recite the two bright ones, al-Baqara and Surah Al 'Imran, for on the Day of Resurrection they will come as two clouds or two shades, or two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who recite the".

What happens here is the same as what I'm saying with one proposed model of how the Trinity might work. You believe that Allah's word will come and take on flesh (in the form of birds) in two separate but distinct forms, two Surahs. If such a thing were to happen, exactly what I'm saying with the number of hypostases increasing would have happened. Allah began unitarian but then added two hypostases when the need arose. So you have the core of Allah, then two incarnate instances of the word of Allah getting you, at that time, what I am calling a trinity.

> I already quoted scripture "By myself I can do nothing"
You can't believe Jesus spoke this sentence since in the same breath he calls God his Father, something Muhammad adamantly insisted he never did.

But let me give you an illustration of what I'm saying. When Surah al-Baqara and Surah Al Imran are incarnate, will they be powerless?

>non arbitrary limits in your idea of omnipotence.
Omnipotence is being able to do anything that anyone else can do. In what sense is Allah omnipotent if I can do things Allah can't?

>God not being able to do the impossible is not a limit to this ability to do all things
Going to Hell isn't impossible since people can do it. But you're saying Allah is unable to do something that they can.

>>17928576
>Most of us do not believe in divine simplicity. We believe those are attributes and not parts, they can never be separated from God
Same with the Son.

>like you believe when the created Jesus got torn out of God to enter a body
That's not so, Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" in John 14:11. They were not and can never be separated.

>I've had the discussion about the superiority of hadith numerous times
Get ready to add another to the tally!

>Irrelevant!
Not in the least. You're rejecting from me the same reasoning you accept from Bukhari, despite it being much weaker than him.

>>17928576
>Most of us do not believe in divine simplicity. We believe those are attributes and not parts, they can never be separated from God
Same with the Son.

>like you believe when the created Jesus got torn out of God to enter a body
That's not so, Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" in John 14:11. They were not and can never be separated.

>I've had the discussion about the superiority of hadith numerous times
Get ready to add another to the tally!

>Irrelevant!
Not in the least. You're rejecting from me the same reasoning you accept from Bukhari, despite it being much weaker from him.

>>17928584
>You believe that Allah's word will come and take on flesh
No, the Quran is an uncreated instance of the eternal attribute of speech that was spoken in time. You believe Jesus is the word as in God's ability to speak and not in the same sense we do. Furthermore you also believe him to be created and eternal which makes absolutely no sense. We also don't believe those representations to be divine persons that are part of God in any sense of the word.
>adamantly insisted he never did
Where? Scholars accept that if the previous nations used the term it wouldn't have been wrong or inaccurate of them, the same way God in the bible tells the Israelites to refer to him by a different name to avoid any idolatrous association. Something being given power is not the same as the thing possessing power inherently
>Omnipotence is being able to do anything
That's the definition I am using, the one generally used by philosophers too. The rest you have added is a straw man. Creatio ex nihilo is an example of a logically possible thing that only God can do but you cannot.
>Going to Hell isn't impossible since people can do it.
Yes because we are human beings and not divine. God in the bible says he cannot lie because he is not human for example.
>>17928593
>Same with the Son
You said there was a state of affairs where the trinity could have been different so no it is absolutely not the same.
>I am in the Father and the Father is in me
He also prayed for believers to be one in the Father the same way he is. Did he make you God?
>You're rejecting from me
No I am not. As I said that was a different person. What is curious though is why you a prottie even cares about the church fathers. I can demonstrate how St. Irenaeus believes differently from you anyway and how most of them (prior to Nicaea) could be considered heretics

>>17928626
>No, the Quran is an uncreated instance of the eternal attribute of speech that was spoken in time.
And this uncreated, eternal attribute will take on flesh, intercede for people before God, and do so in two mutually distinct instances. Exactly the same as what I say about the Trinity. You're just of the opinion this will be later instead of now.

>You believe Jesus is the word as in God's ability to speak
Not quite; God still spoke when Jesus was incarnate.

>Furthermore you also believe him to be created
That's not true at all! Mainstream Christians adamantly deny that Jesus is a created being. Jesus is uncreated.

>Where?
Surah 19 is extremely adamant that it's obscene to utter that Allah has a son: "And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son. Assuredly ye utter a disastrous thing. Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, That ye ascribe unto the Beneficent a son, When it is not meet for (the Majesty of) the Beneficent that He should choose a son. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a slave."

>Something being given power is not the same as the thing possessing power inherently
When Surah al-Baqara and Surah al-Imran are incarnate, would it be accurate to say that they are powerless?

>That's the definition I am using
Can Allah sit on my chair?

>Yes because we are human beings and not divine.
So then we can do something the divine can't. So the divine isn't omnipotent.

>God in the bible says he cannot lie because he is not human for example
It doesn't. Titus 1:2 says "God, who doth not lie", not that God can't lie. (Hebrews says God can't lie, but remember that I reject Hebrews, much as Luther did). God is perfectly capable of arranging ink or vibrating air such that he says something false, he just won't.

>>17928626
>You said there was a state of affairs where the trinity could have been different
It's the same here. Are Surah al Baqara and Surah al Imran incarnate right now, like they will be in the future? They aren't. So you too believe that the number of God's quasi-independent attributes will be different in the future.

>He also prayed for believers to be one in the Father the same way he is. Did he make you God?
It's not a question of divinity but separation from divinity. Jesus denied being separated from the Father. We are separated from God because of our evil, but one day that will end. Incarnation did not separate Christ from God, he wasn't "torn out" as you'd said. If he is in the Father then he has not been torn out of the Father.

>No I am not.
Do you accept those sources?

>why you a prottie even cares about the church fathers
As historical sources, of course. Same as I care about other ancient sources.

>>17928668
>Exactly the same as what I say about the Trinity.
Nope, again the attribute of speech never incarnates and is indivisible from God like a part is. At most you can make the argument that an instance of speech does, however that itself is never God.
>God still spoke when Jesus was incarnate
I never said the Son became unavailable during his incarnation. In fact many trinitraians believe he was fully divine even while on Earth.
>Mainstream Christians adamantly deny that Jesus is a created being.
Yes because your theology demands it. However as shown the bible clearly says otherwise. And it's not just there, the church fathers prior also held similar opinions
>Surah 19 is extremely adamant that it's obscene to utter that Allah has a son
Yes a literal son, as in offspring. That's not the biblical definition though, for example Israel is the son of God and there are others beside Jesus
>would it be accurate to say that they are powerless?
On their own they wouldn't be able to do anything yes. For something to be God it must have inherent power, and that excludes Jesus
>So then we can do something the divine can't.
Yes, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - Numbers 23:19
>God is perfectly capable of arranging ink or vibrating air
That's passive deception and not lying. And yes that exists in the bible. However it is not the same thing as God uttering falsehood
>quasi-independent attributes
They aren't attributes and they aren't independent in any sense of the word. Everything is dependent on God, he is the necessary being.
>It's not a question of divinity but separation from divinity.
Wut? He makes it clear he wants believers to be one in the Father the exact same way he is. Do you believe in theosis like the mormons/orthodox or something?
>As historical sources
Great, still your own opinion is more important than tradition

>>17928698
>again the attribute of speech never incarnates
The word of God comes incarnate and speaks, and does so in two distinct forms. This is no different from the model of the Trinity that I've been discussing.

>At most you can make the argument that an instance of speech does, however that itself is never God.
That's more of a semantic question of labeling than a disagreement about anything objective

>Yes
Then "you also believe him to be created" is not correct.

>Yes a literal son, as in offspring. That's not the biblical definition though, for example Israel is the son of God and there are others beside Jesus
Then you don't disagree that Jesus can be called the son of God?

Then, in the same way I call Jesus - God's incarnate word - the son of God, when Surah al-Imran is incarnate, in the same way that will be God's son. So you really agree completely, down to sonhood, with my model of the Trinity. You just disagree about the time when God's son will come.

Indeed: since you believe a surah, God's word, will come incarnate, and Bukhari 3435 (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3435) calls Jesus "His Word which He bestowed on Mary", wouldn't that indicate Jesus is this same sort of thing, some of God's word incarnate, just like Surah al-Imran will be?

In which case you would have a concrete demonstration of exactly what I meant when I said it could be a quadrinity at some point. If you have the word Isa, the word Surah al-Baqara, and the word Surah al-Imran all incarnate, that would be the core (Allah) and three quasi-independent incarnations: what I would label a quadrinity. But only once those two surahs incarnate, and not now.

So see? Your model, and my model, are really the same.

>On their own they wouldn't be able to do anything yes.
If it isn't an issue for them to be "powerless" (as you say) and yet the incarnate word of God, then neither is it a problem for Jesus to be the incarnate word of God and yet "powerless" (as you label it).

>>17928698
>God is not a man, that he should lie
Does say he can't lie or does it, like Titus 1:2, say he doesn't lie?

>They aren't attributes and they aren't independent in any sense of the word.
Whatever you wish to call them is what I would call the members of the Trinity.

>Wut? He makes it clear he wants believers to be one in the Father the exact same way he is.
To be frank you seem to be glitching and running a mental script for people using that verse to argue Jesus is God. That wasn't what I was doing. I was using it to show Jesus was not torn out of God.

>>17928721
>This is no different from the model of the Trinity
Yes it is because Jesus is not merely an act of speech and they are not God while you believe Jesus is. I am not sure how you cannot see that. If I speak something out loud is that thing me?
> is not correct
Your interpretation of scripture isn't because that is what it plainly states. The whole point of this discussion is about that.
>Then you don't disagree that Jesus can be called the son of God?
That kind of language is abrogated like pic rel. But no I do not if it is meant in the correct sense and not like literal offspring as you believe. He wasn't eternally begotten of the Father, whatever that is supposed to mean.
>deliberately misinterprets what Jesus being the word means
"Indeed, the example of Jesus in the sight of Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be!” And he was! " -Quran 3:59
>If it isn't an issue for them to be "powerless"
No muslim believes those chapters to be part of God in any sense of the word. This is just a straw man of our position. You claim to believe in Jesus as God, yet an inherently powerless one. He is lacking divine making properties like self sufficiency and therefore he cannot be God
>say he doesn't lie?
It says he doesn't do it because he is not a man, lying is within the nature of man not the divine. If he wasn't saying that then why link what he isn't with what he does?
>Whatever you wish to call them is what I would call the members of the Trinity.
Word concept fallacy? Nice!
>I was using it to show Jesus was not torn out of God.
What the fuck are you saying? If Jesus wants you to be one in the Father the exact same way he is then it must mean according to your logic that he is making you a God. Which is exactly what many Christians believe. Anyway according to your scripture he said "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." This is a separation

>>17927445
Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism is a modern invention stemming from the Pharisees, made official in 200 AD.
>>17927454
>Mark
He is at the beginning identified with the prophecy of YHWH coming in Isaiah 40:3.
>Matthew
In Matthew 21:16 he justifies infants praising him by quoting Psalm 8:2 about infants praising YHWH.
>Luke
Luke 6:5, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. See the parallels between Luke 7:20-23 and Isaiah 35.

>>17927464
>parts
It is the same concept and you compared God’s parts to body parts to explain.
>correct?
This purely depends on context.
>disagreement
No it is a disagreement because Jesus wouldn’t have the same attributed as God anymore.
>everything is made of parts
If you apply relative identity it could work. But yes part of my body is not my body. My body is my head, middle and legs. My head is only a third of my body and is not my body. Israel is 12 tribes, Judah is only 1 tribe, so if I apply strict identity Judah is not Israel. Now for the case of God, if God has parts, let us say his hand, his hand which is part of God, is not God because God is 100% divine. His hand is only a part of this divinity. So his very nature is at risk, the same cannot be said about creatures.
>how…. Under my view
Because you are applying strict identity. That if God is triune. But Jesus is not triune. Than Jesus is not God. If the father is God, but Jesus is not the father, than he is not God. This is what you apply.
>he has these essences that are different
No he has one essence, this essence which is unbegotten proceeds to the Holy Spirit and generates the son. These are just ways the essence exists, it can exist proceeded, begotten or unbegotten but it is the same essence.
>>17927549
>Exodus 3:14
Because God is who he is. He is his existence. He is his essence. Not parts that are not his essence.
>So God has a messenger… part of God
No because messenger here refers to a title, not a created medium. As indicated by Deuteronomy 4:15. Moses saw no form, there was no form.

>>17927665
>allow for contradictions
They are not contradictions. We can apply relative identity to creatures as well.
>no sense
We can say it depending on what we are referring to.
>different divine properties
They have different hypostatic properties that don’t compromise on the divinity.
>aseity
Yes, the being of God must be independent. Which is another reason he must be triune. For example, God is love. Can love exist without relations? No. Which is why relations must exist within God.

>>17928944
You don't understand what I am saying, using a variant form of logic is the same as using paraconsistent logical systems to get out of contradictions.
>We can say it depending on what we are referring to.
I never said you cannot say it, I said there is no reason to describe that relation and this is exactly why classical logic is sufficient.
>They have different hypostatic properties that don’t compromise on the divinity
Except they do, the Father has greater (pic) and different knowledge like the argument from indexicals points out for example
>Yes, the being of God must be independent.
The Father is the only person of the trinity that satisfies this requirement.
>Which is why relations must exist within God
Absolutely not, God can love his creation before it was created. He knew since eternity past of every single one of us. And speaking of creation, God was the creator before there was any creation so similarly he could love before there was anyone to love. You are saying he is dependent

>>17928953
>variant form of logic
It is not a variant of logic, do you believe logic has variants?
>classical logic
Define classical logic.
>father is greater
We agree he is greater in authority but we do believe St. Iranaeus erred on knowledge.
>the father is the only person that fits this requirement
No because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not dependent on another being, the three are one being.
>God can love his creation
Than love is accidental to God and not essential, and moral obligation becomes a temporal construct, not something grounded in God’s being. You also didn’t read the point that he is independent, in your case he depends on creation for love.
>you are saying he is dependent
Ironically you are saying he is dependent as you believe that he is dependent on creation to love. I believe that morality depends on relationships and relationships exist inside of God, therefore God does not depend on other being.

>>17929010
It literally is, one that rejects the identity of indiscernibles in particular.
>Define classical logic.
Sure, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic
>we do believe St. Iranaeus erred on knowledge
Did he not have the holy spirit to guide him to all truth as John 16:13 says?
>No because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not dependent on another being
They are dependent on the Father, this is why they lack aseity.
>Than love is accidental to God and not essential
That doesn't follow, he has the attribute of love the same way he has the attribute of omnipotence. Somehow he doesn't have to do everything to be omnipotent but he has to love to be loving?
>Ironically you are saying he is dependent as you believe that he is dependent on creation to love
Except that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. Before there ever was any creation he was loving. You are the one saying he needs someone else to exist so he can love.

>>17927300
According to Him.

>>17928795
>because Jesus is not merely an act of speech
Neither will the incarnate Surahs be. They have bodies and they speak.

>and they are not God
Much like "the hand isn't Malcolm", this is a matter of definition and word choice rather than being an actual disagreement about anything objective. The type of being is the same in your model and in my model.

>Your interpretation of scripture
Is that Jesus is uncreated. You might disagree that the text teaches that, but the question wasn't what the text says: it's what "you believe", as you said, and that is not that Jesus is a created being.

>That kind of language is abrogated
So then, you don't even disagree with me about anything about Jesus, you just don't want to use a certain label. But on what Jesus is - the word of God incarnate, the unique son of God because of being the only such being - you agree completely. You just think Allah will have two more sons soon, forming what my model would label a quadrinity.

>deliberately misinterprets what Jesus being the word
I didn't write this, are you quoting the right post?

>No muslim believes those chapters to be part of God in any sense of the word
Once again you're only disagreeing about semantics and labels and not about anything objective. I do labels such things God, you prefer not to use that label. But the label is the only difference.

>It says he doesn't do it
Exactly: he doesn't. Not that he can't.

>because he is not a man
It doesn't say "because" anywhere there. It says that while men lie, God doesn't. There's no causal relation word used there.

>>17928795
>What the fuck are you saying?
You seem to be getting muddled about what this line of discussion is. You said Jesus was torn out of God. I pointed out that he says he is in the Father. So he cannot have been torn out of God in the sense you're stating.

>Word concept fallacy?
Can you elaborate what you mean here? There's no recognized logical fallacy called a "word concept fallacy". I was saying that whatever label you want to use for them you can use for what I was saying about the Trinity, since these beings that you believe will exist are the same as the beings that I believe currently do exist. Even in their quantity.

>If Jesus wants you to be one in the Father the exact same way he is then it must mean according to your logic that he is making you a God
You're repeating a script here rather than looking at what I was saying.

>he said "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." This is a separation
You said "torn out". But even on Earth he remained in the Father.

>>17929626
>They have bodies and they speak.
And? They are not the eternal attribute of speech just an instance that was spoken in time. Jesus is according to you the word of God as in part of him, not just a word that was spoken. I see you are dishonest again and you do not want to answer me. We don't believe the John 1:1 "and the Word was God" so my words are not me. This is your theology not ours.
>keeps spewing straw man by saying I believe the same thing without explaining how
Boring, repeated unjustified claims will be ignored.
>Is that Jesus is uncreated
No, he is literally like Adam. He isn't even a word that was incarnated (your nonsense theology again) just the result of the divine command to be created.
>you don't even disagree with me about anything about Jesus
How the fuck did you get that? Your usage is not biblical and therefore not correct, your usage is what the tradition you reject came up with to worship a man
>the label is the only difference
Absolutely not, you again are just ignoring the meaning of words and imposing your pagan understanding.
>It doesn't say "because" anywhere there
You are being dense on purpose, the same thing is explained here (pic). And Psalm 119:160 says all his words are true. If he had the possibility to lie then this verse is invalidated
>There's no recognized logical fallacy called a "word concept fallacy"
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/exegesis/rob-bell-illustrates-the-word-concept-fallacy/
>rather than looking at what I was saying.
You are refusing to engage, the way you implied he is one with God is just not biblical and therefore your point is invalid. See pic here: >>17927375
>You said "torn out". But even on Earth he remained in the Father.
Yes because he was separated from the Father. That's exactly what it means to be torn. If I tear a piece of paper from the other they are now separate. Anyway I have to go now, if the thread is still up I will continue to refute you

>>17928943
>It is the same concept
In what way?

>and you compared God’s parts to body parts to explain.
The Bible itself does this all the time. Haven't you seen all the passages talking about the hand of God?

>But yes part of my body is not my body.
You're simply not using words the way they're used. If you only see someone's face and the rest of them is under a coat no one says "I didn't see him, just his face".

>Israel is 12 tribes, Judah is only 1 tribe, so if I apply strict identity Judah is not Israel.
Was Jesus, from the tribe of Judah, an Israelite?

>if God has parts, let us say his hand, his hand which is part of God, is not God because God is 100% divine
The Bible itself talks about the actions of the "hand of God" as God's actions, so your disagreeing with the Bible itself here

>No he has one essence
You said "the essence of God that is begotten" and "the essence of God that is unbegotten". Even if you want to say these are portions of the same "essence", you've still got portions. Parts.

>Because God is who he is. He is his existence. He is his essence. Not parts that are not his essence.
You're engaging in free-association untied to anything in the text at this point. I can equally say that he says "I am who I am". Which includes both himself, and a messenger who is also himself, showing part of what the "am" is is parts.

But you're stretching this waaaaaaaaaaay past what it actually says. This is God responding to Moses' question about what he should say His name is, not Moses asking about His nature.

>No because messenger here refers to a title
I have absolutely no idea how you suppose this connects to my point. What are you even denying with "no"?

>As indicated by Deuteronomy 4:15. Moses saw no form, there was no form.
The Messenger of Yahweh (Angel of the Lord) gets seen with a form constantly in the Bible. So if this is your argument it's a non-starter. Jacob saw him at Bethel for instance.

>>17928927
>>Mark
>He is at the beginning identified with the prophecy of YHWH coming in Isaiah 40:3.
>>Matthew
>In Matthew 21:16 he justifies infants praising him by quoting Psalm 8:2 about infants praising YHWH.
>>Luke
>Luke 6:5, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. See the parallels between Luke 7:20-23 and Isaiah 35.
You are squinting at the text, attempting to pull out an answer you are looking for. Mathew, Mark, and Luke clearly show a Jesus that is the adopted son of God, not God himself.

>>17929654
>And?
And this is identical to what I say Jesus is. Whether these can be called God or not is merely a matter of semantics: we agree on the substance of the matter.

>They are not the eternal attribute of speech just an instance that was spoken in time.
Similarly, God could still speak when Jesus was on Earth. He does so several times in the Gospels. Jesus was an instance, a manifestation of this speech. Much like when the Koran itself will incarnate in the form of a pale man and speak: https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:3781.

Its God's word taking on flesh, even in the form of a man, and communicating, even interceding for believers. You can't reject what I'm teaching about the manifestations of God's attributes without rejecting what Muhammad taught about the manifestations of God's attributes.

>No, he is literally like Adam. He isn't even a word that was incarnated (your nonsense theology again) just the result of the divine command to be created.
Very well then, if you don't see this as a point of agreement, take the Koran in its form as a pale man, and the two Surahs in the forms of birds, as the analogue.

>the same thing is explained here (pic)
Does this say he can't lie, or that he doesn't?

>And Psalm 119:160 says all his words are true. If he had the possibility to lie then this verse is invalidated
Not so. God won't ever lie. But that's by choice, not because of a lack of power to do so.

Following your link:
>The word-concept fallacy is the assumption that studying a word (or phrase) means having studied the entire biblical concept.
I can see why this isn't a recognized fallacy anywhere but, apparently, small bloggish websites. How exactly does this apply to our discussion?

>>17929654
>the way you implied he is one with God is just not biblical
You're still following a script instead of having a conversation. My point was to demonstrate that he wasn't "torn out of God", as you said. It's not an argument for Jesus being God. If he is in the Father then he has not been "torn".

>Yes because he was separated from the Father. That's exactly what it means to be torn. If I tear a piece of paper from the other they are now separate.
He can't be separated from the Father if he is in the Father. What is in something is not separated from it, by definition.

>>17929014
>classical logic
Which of the 5 characteristics does the trinity contradict?
>Holy Spirit to guide him
Yes the successors of the apostles when together have the holy spirit guiding them as Jesus told them in Matthew 18:20. But St. Iranaeus alone did materially err on dogma.
>they are dependent on the father
Not another being.
>omnipotence
Simply means that he can do everything logically possible. Does not need relations. Love on the other hand and morality needs relations.
>exact opposite of what I am saying
You are not understanding what I’m saying. God is not dependent on others to love because relationships exist within him. You believe they do not so he needs external relationships to love.
It seems you are Sunni right?
>>17929658
>in what way
You compared God’s “parts” to Malcom’s parts, but Malcom’s parts are not his existence, is it possible that God has parts that are fully divine but not his existence?
>I didn’t see him just his face
This is purely linguistical and doesn’t affect our conversation. Your parts are not fully you. Your hand is not fully you. Your leg is not your existence. You are a composite being.
>was Jesus an Israelite
Yes.
>hand of God
Simply referring to his power, not that he has a literal hand. God is the creator of space, if he has a hand, he is already taking up space and is therefore inside space and affected by it.
>portions
No they are not parts, they are different ways the same essence can exist.
>part of them am is parts
Than he is not his own existence.
>only his name
Yes but he is who he is. This implies divine simplicity because he is his very essence. (I will elaborate on this point in a reply)
>no
I am denying that Moses saw a created medium.
>Jacob
We are talking specifically about Moses, in the case of Jacob and such I believe it was a Christophany.
>>17929701
What I showed you debunks this notion. Show me where these gospels show that Jesus is not God.

>>17929658
>>17929966
>anything that depends on another for its existence does not have existence in itself
>any composite being depends on its parts for existence
>Therefore, no composite being has existence in itself

>>17929966
>You compared God’s “parts” to Malcom’s parts, but Malcom’s parts are not his existence, is it possible that God has parts that are fully divine but not his existence?
What exactly do you mean by something being something else's "existence"?

>This is purely linguistical and doesn’t affect our conversation.
Well it does. You've gone into some sort of odd semantic argument that isn't how anybody actually talks about things.

>Your parts are not fully you. Your hand is not fully you.
Is any of my hand non-me?

>Yes.
Then Judah must be Israel, right? Just because all of Israel isn't Judah doesn't mean that some of Israel isn't Judah. Its the same for the Son: all of the Son is God but all of God isn't the Son. Makes sense, right?

>Simply referring to his power, not that he has a literal hand.
It was body part imagery from my end that you objected to. The Bible does the same.

>No they are not parts, they are different ways the same essence can exist.
If something can be X and not-X then by definition you’re talking about a part. That’s all "part" means: a distinction within a whole that allows contradictory predicates to be true.

Paul says things will alternate between being subjected to the Father and subjected to the Son. Under your model, this is unintelligible - a thing can't be subjected to X but also not subjected to X in the absence of something that could, in some broad sense, be called a part. A change between things is clearly being communicated by Paul. Under your model there can be no such change, because there is nothing for the change to apply _to_.

The only way the passage isn’t incoherent is if there are distinctions within God of some sort.
If you refuse to call them parts but admit the change does happen, you've conceded my position while hiding behind labels.

>I will elaborate
Go for it.

>We are talking specifically about Moses
The same being was there.

>>17929982
I don't think any being at all has "existence in itself". God exists for a reason. There is some logical contradiction resolved by His existence. That's the only way something can have logically necessary existence: that which is logically necessary brings a contradiction if it is false.

What specifically that contradiction is remains to be identified, but there is one.

>>17929966
>What I showed you debunks this notion
Like I said, only if you squint hard enough. What i said is the mainstream consensus among critical biblical scholars.

>>17929963
>we agree on the substance of the matter
You are a liar, no matter how many times you repeat this it won't be true. We don't believe the Quran to be God or a part of him like you do. We don't believe his speech was eternally begotten as an offspring that shares his very nature. This is more neoplatonic pagan philosophy you are inserting into a tradition that has nothing to do with it.
>God could still speak when Jesus was on Earth
I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean you don't believe him to be the actual "attribute" of God. Acts of speech being given a representation is not the same as God's ability to speak incarnating.
>Does this say he can't lie, or that he doesn't?
It says that he does not lie because he isn't a human being since that is within our nature as you keep demonstrating. Which is what you denied previously when you were playing dumb. Later on it says if he were human he might change his mind implying that because he isn't there is no "might" at all
>God won't ever lie. But that's by choice
Nope, in your paradigm there is a possible world where God lies and invalidates the verse.
>How exactly does this apply to our discussion?
Because you are doing the exact same thing, and I am not surprised you haven't even heard of the concept. You seem very uneducated on basic exegesis.
>He can't be separated from the Father if he is in the Father.
The reason you keep coping about muh script is because you don't like what it entails. Jesus is not literally in the Father, that is not what he is saying. It is just another braindead interpretation you keep reading into the text. He is separated from the Father because the text says he left him and will return back to him. How the fuck do you return to someone you never left?

>>17930257
> We don't believe the Quran to be God or a part of him like you do.
Merely a matter of labeling. You disagree on the terminology you'd like to use, not on the substance of the matter. God's word incarnate in multiple forms simultaneously, all capable of quasi-independent action. This is the same as my model of the Trinity.

>Acts of speech being given a representation is not the same as God's ability to speak incarnating.
Clearly God's ability to speak, as a whole in a literal sense, was not incarnate - otherwise it wouldn't have been available for God to be able to speak. What I believe Jesus is is the same thing as what you believe the two incarnate Surahs, and the Koran as a pale man, will be.

>It says that he does not lie because he isn't a human being
Where is a causal word like "because" used?

All humans lie, but God doesn't. The verses talk about his mannerism, not his capability.

>Later on it says if he were human he might change his mind implying that because he isn't there is no "might" at all
It only "implies" it to you. This information is not actually present in the text. I see no such thing there and would never thing it was trying to say God is incapable of something.

>in your paradigm there is a possible world where God lies and invalidates the verse
You do know "possible worlds" aren't real places? Saying something is in a "possible world" is the same as saying "it doesn't break a law of logic if...".

>Because you are doing the exact same thing
How do you figure?

>I am not surprised you haven't even heard of the concept. You seem very uneducated on basic exegesis.
I can only really find references to this on obscure bloggish websites. Can you find me some actual scholars stating that this "fallacy" is a basic tenant of exegesis?

>>17930257

>The reason you keep coping about muh script is because you don't like what it entails.
It's because the script you're going through isn't relevant. I'm not using the passage to argue that Jesus is God. I'm using it to dispel the claim that Jesus was "torn out" of God. You cannot be torn out of what you are in.

>He is separated from the Father because the text says he left him and will return back to him.
Yet also in the Father, so has not been torn from him.

>>17929966
None of those, it is even more fundamental since it attacks classical identity which is used by the others and entailment like Leibniz's law. I am not sure why you think it is such a good explanation since even the likes of van Inwagen admits there are issues
>But St. Iranaeus alone did materially err on dogma
Why? That seems contradictory.
>Not another being
True, just person. Meaning there are divine making properties that are only exclusive to the Father person in the godhead. If only the Father possessed the omni attributes you too would not consider the other persons to be God. I am doing the same just with other attributes.
>Does not need relations
Why not? Omnipotence doesn't need to be actualized every moment but love does?
>You are not understanding what I’m saying.
I am and I am denying that relations like these are necessary in the first place. God has the attribute of creator prior to creation and similarly the same reasoning applies to love. But even if I am wrong (you can't demonstrate that) the relations that are supposedly required exist entirely within God because of his knowledge. Even the bible admits this https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139:13-18&version=NIV Also yes I am but please no faulty analogies like the other guy.

>>17930297
>not on the substance of the matter.
You are literally repeating yourself ahaha. I already explained to you how. Your theologians btw admit that their external actions cannot be independent or else you are a polytheist.
>otherwise it wouldn't have been available for God to be able to speak
That does not follow. Trinitarians do not believe that the divinity of Jesus was reduced when he humbled himself.
>Where is a causal word like "because" used?
I literally quoted it in the image here >>17929654
>This information is not actually present in the text
Reading comprehension issues or just dishonesty? It says if he were human he might do it. That word tells us there is a possibility in the human case.
>You do know "possible worlds" aren't real places?
Under your paradigm there is nothing stopping them from actualizing, especially given an infinite amount of time. The probability only keeps increasing.
>How do you figure?
Are you that dense? You are imposing your concept of what a word is supposed to mean onto our tradition just because a similar word is used. Nobody accepts your nonsense about the attributes of God. Dr. Alan Kurschner is a christian scholar.
>I'm not using the passage to argue that Jesus is God
And I never implied that. I said he isn't literally in the Father because I reject your unjustified interpretation. Your only way out is to concede that you too are in the Father in the very same way he is. In other words checkmate, either you use a sane understanding or become a heretic

>>17930373
>I already explained to you how.
What would you say is the main disagreement between our models? Not in terms of labels - be sure to carefully consider that - but in terms of the actual, objective substance of how each of our models work. Mine of the Trinity, your's of the three incarnations of God's word that Muhammad spoke of.

>That does not follow. Trinitarians do not believe that the divinity of Jesus was reduced when he humbled himself.
Precisely. God's ability to communicate remained, unchanged and undegraded by the manifestation of His word. It being manifested did not degrade or modify God's ability to speak whatsoever. As in my model, so in your's.

>I literally quoted it in the image here >>17929654
My man...the "New International Reader's Version" is not the translation you want to use for getting the nuances of the passage. The New International Reader's Version is, as the publisher explains at https://www.zondervan.com/bibles/nirv-bibles/, "opens the door for new Bible readers of all ages and abilities to understand God’s Word. The NIrV is written at a third grade reading level". This is a children's Bible.

You can see the Hebrew, with word-by-word definitions, here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_samuel/15-29.htm. It doesn't use the word "because" or in any way imply that God somehow lacks the ability to do something.

>It says if he were human he might do it.
And you can quote it saying this, directly?

>Under your paradigm there is nothing stopping them from actualizing
Well sure there is, God doesn't lie. He won't ever actualize any world where He has lied.

>The probability only keeps increasing.
If God considers truth to be sacrosanct and lying to be evil then no, there is no probability of him telling a lie. It's 0+0+0. No matter how many 0's you add, it keeps staying 0.

>You are imposing your concept of what a word is supposed to mean onto our tradition just because a similar word is used.
And which word is that?

>>17930373
>Dr. Alan Kurschner is a christian scholar.
I don't read the images, only the posts. There's a 2000 character limit here for a reason. Posting books and such to get around it is poor form. If you wish to make a point, it's polite to do so in the body of your message.

>And I never implied that.
You continue to say things such as "If Jesus wants you to be one in the Father the exact same way he is then it must mean according to your logic that he is making you a God. Which is exactly what many Christians believe".

>I said he isn't literally in the Father
Do you think he was literally "torn from" God? Of course not. Neither did God lose what Jesus is a manifestation of, his speech-attribute. So your argument about tearing out simply doesn't apply here. Jesus remained in the Father and one is not torn from what one is in.

>>17930611
>Not in terms of labels
I already did, what you call "labels" is a subjective rejection of differences I point out.
>God's ability to communicate remained, unchanged and undegraded by the manifestation of His word
I never contested this, you brought this up for absolutely no reason.
>muh translations
You aren't muslim, translations are valid scripture. There are 5 translations that use because on biblegateway and the same word (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_3588.htm) in Hebrew in other places is translated as that too. But anyway even the Septuagint uses a because as well.
>And you can quote it saying this, directly?
Yes! Are you blind it says that right there?
>He won't ever actualize any world where He has lied.
Why? You can't say because he said so or that he considers lying evil, since you believe statements like those could be lies themselves.
>the probability is zero
So he cannot do it in any possible world.
>reading images is too hard
Don't care! Your problem is that you blabber on about irrelevant things, if you didn't you could use the character limit comfortably.
>You continue to say things such as
That's about your godhood not Jesus. You are claiming to be God, do you know what the biblical punishment for that is?
>Do you think he was literally "torn from" God?
Yes! in the same manner I explained with the paper analogy. Nothing about that implies the Father could no longer speak. Whatever he does Jesus does according to scripture as I have demonstrated earlier. so he could be manipulated into doing whatever the Father wanted remotely.

>>17930675
>a subjective rejection of differences I point out
What would you say is the biggest problem with my model of incarnate word that Muhammad's model of incarnate word resolves?

>I never contested this
You've described it as God's ability to speak being torn from him.

But that's not so. It's a manifestation of the speech of God. Just like the Surahs will be, or the Koran when it comes as a pale man.

>You aren't muslim, translations are valid scripture.
This is a very bizarre point on many levels. Scripture is written in Hebrew and Greek, English renderings are translations *of* that scripture.

>even the Septuagint uses a because as well
Are you rendering "ότι" as "because"? Its an incredibly broad word, as an illustration it's in Matthew 4:12 "having heard moreover ότι John had been arrested", with "ότι" there usually just rendered "that". There's no conceivable way that this word is intended to make the metaphysical claim "God is incapable of...".

What's more the LXX doesn't render this passage as being about lying at all and certainly doesn't say or imply God can't do something. Literally rendered, it says: "Israel shall be divided into two, and he shall not turn, nor shall he change his mind, the Holy One of Israel, for not as a man is he to change the mind." You can read this here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/1_samuel/15.htm

In what way is this at all saying God cannot do something? If you do insist on a "because", it's saying "God doesn't lie because he isn't a man" since all men do lie, and God isn't like them. There is no possible make to make the text say "God, being non-man, is incapable of the action of lying".

>Are you blind it says that right there?
That he can't because he isn't a human and he only could if he were human? Care to highlight that?

>>17930675
>Why? You can't say because he said so or that he considers lying evil, since you believe statements like those could be lies themselves.
At that point you might as well say "You can't say because he said so since you believe you might be in the Matrix and the Bible was actually made by whoever is running the simulation". Universal deception opens the possibility to the falsehood of nearly anything, but in a trivial way.

>So he cannot do it in any possible world.
Possible worlds aren't worlds at all. There is a possible world where you cut off your own hand five minutes ago. But now that five minutes have passed, such a world will never be actualized. Its lack of actualization doesn't mean it ceases to be a possible world.

Similarly, all possible worlds where God lies will lack actualization. Just as you didn't choose to chop off your hand, neither will he choose to lie.

>That's about your godhood not Jesus. You are claiming to be God
Once again you're going on some script where that passage is used to argue for Jesus being God. It's quite odd you keep following this script even when that's not how the passage is being used in our conversation.

>Yes!
Then he disagrees with you, since he says that he is in the Father.

>Whatever he does Jesus does according to scripture as I have demonstrated earlier. so he could be manipulated into doing whatever the Father wanted remotely.
Is it any different with the incarnate Surahs?

>>17930771
The biggest problem with your model is that you made God contingent by giving him parts that can incarnate
>God's ability to speak being torn from him.
Yes and? He can still speak through Jesus
>translations
Jesus and the disciples had zero problem with quoting the Septuagint which was a translation. And even then your NT is most definitely not written in the language of Jesus and the disciples.
>its an incredibly broad word
Both Hebrew and Greek use it to mean because, in the Hebrew is even implies a causal link. The LXX's difference is irrelevant, it is the same word and this is why those translators used it. Furthermore taking a look at Gill's Exposition makes it clear that it is talking about an impossibility
>this title or character of the Lord is given, "the Strength of Israel"; hence HE CANNOT LIE, which is the effect of weakness; nor repent or change his mind, as men do, when something unforeseen arises, which hinders the execution of their first design, and which through weakness they cannot surmount
>highlight
"If he were, he might change his mind.”
>At that point you might as well say
In your paradigm you have no way to trust God, that's the point. No wonder so many of you became gnostic
>Just as you didn't choose to chop off your hand, neither will he choose to lie.
Not analogous. It was not written for me to do that (qadr) so it never was a possible world. What is stopping God from never actualizing it? You are just saying he doesn't but you simply cannot trust anything you know about him because you reject his attribute of al-Ḥaqq/The Truth
>that passage is used to argue for Jesus being God
Nope, verses can be used as evidence in any context. And in this one by refusing a sane understanding you make yourself equal to Jesus. The author does not disagree with me because he absolutely is not using it in the same sense you are.
>any different
Yes but if I explain again for the nth time you will call it a "label" and straw man us

This thread is still going after two days

>>17930848
>The biggest problem with your model is that you made God contingent by giving him parts that can incarnate
A) As we've covered, there's no sense in which Allah is omnipotent if he can't do actions that require incarnation. I can walk and Allah can't. Meaning there is something I can do that Allah cannot, meaning Allah isn't omnipotent. God must have parts that can incarnate, since his "core" isn't the sort of thing that can be material.

B) I don't say God has any parts Muhammad didn't say God has. If the Koran can take the form of a pale man, God's word can also take the form of a man of Israel.

>Jesus and the disciples had zero problem with quoting the Septuagint which was a translation
Sometimes their quotations match the LXX, sometimes they differ. But even if they did fully endorse the LXX, that doesn't indicate that all translations are thereby endorsed - especially not those intended for children; double so when attempting to base colossal metaphysical conclusions on single words.

And if we go by the LXX, then lying isn't even in the passage at all!

>Both Hebrew and Greek use it to mean because
As we've seen, it's a very broad work, akin to the word "for". It can be used in a direct causal sense, but it doesn't denote "this is the caused to be the case by".

You seem really stuck on its sense as "because", but even then it doesn't do what you're trying to do. I might say "I'm not eating ice cream because I don't like it" or "I'm not picking it up because I don't have arms". I'm able to eat ice cream even if I don't like it, but I'm not able to pick something up if I don't have arms. The word by itself doesn't carry either meaning.

>The LXX's difference is irrelevant
Oh so its relevant and absolute proof when they use a word that you like, but when their translation doesn't even talk about the very concept you're attempting to make a point about (lying), suddenly all that relevance goes out the window?

I ain't reading all this shit

>>17930848
>this title or character of the Lord is given, "the Strength of Israel"; hence HE CANNOT LIE
This is one of your most bizarre arguments yet. How in the world does being called the strength of Israel mean you fundamentally lack the metaphysical capability of making false statements...?

>If he were, he might change his mind.
Once again: this is a children's Bible. It's at a third grade reading level. You are attempting to draw metaphysical conclusions from the wording in a kids' book, my man.

>In your paradigm you have no way to trust God, that's the point.
Do you have any way to trust that you're not in a simulation and some bored alien with a supercomputer wrote the Koran and put it in?

Once again: universal deception is a counterpoint to basically anything, but in a trivial way.

>Not analogous. It was not written for me to do that (qadr) so it never was a possible world.
Is Allah bound by the laws of logic to only write one particular world? Or would Allah, if he wanted to, have been able to write a world where you did, but simply chose not to?

>You are just saying he doesn't but you simply cannot trust anything you know about him because you reject his attribute of al-Ḥaqq/The Truth
What on earth are you talking about?

>verses can be used as evidence in any context
And here I'm using it as evidence Jesus wasn't "torn" from God. Do you care to respond to its use that way?

>you make yourself equal to Jesus.
Only in the sense I haven't been torn from God either. I don't think anything's been torn from God at any point.

>he absolutely is not using it in the same sense you are
He is. You can't be torn from something that you are in.

>Yes
In what way are they different?

>you will call it a "label"
Then explain the objective difference, that goes beyond merely the name you want to assign or not assign to things.

>>17930988
>A)
And we have covered that incarnation is literally a logical contradiction and hence it is not a thing. Just like shapeless shapes and other such nonsense. God not being able to do things only weak created beings can like die is not a problem because it is a logical impossibility.
>B)
"The Son and the Holy Spirit are parts of God", you are lying.
>that doesn't indicate that all translations are thereby endorsed
Never said that, however your scripture depends on translation so it's literally scripture. Anyway 5 different ones use my understanding as well as Christian exegetes. You are in fact the odd one out with your insistence that he can lie. This is precisely why you need a third grade reading level bible because regular concepts are too difficult for you
>but it doesn't denote "this is the caused to be the case by"
Yes it does, I highlighted that before and I will do it again in this image. You simply have no way to explain how they got it wrong but you somehow didn't.
>relevance
If I wanted to make a point about the inconsistency of your scripture I would indeed use that point. You are challenging the translation of that specific word and in that case nothing else matters at the moment.
>Do you have any way
Yes, the fitrah and other arguments I could use against an atheist about the necessity of God to exist, send revelation, etc
>bound
He decided this to be creation and that's that. There is no other possibility because he willed it that way. Do you think God doesn't have power over fundamental reality or what?
>use that way
I did, I reject your interpretation of what you think it means and I used the absurdity of you yourself being God under your paradigm to demonstrate it. You can't leave then return to someone that you are always in.
>merely the name
You are just dishonest. The only one ignoring the meaning of established words here is you. Bro you cannot even tell the difference between a part and an attribute.

>>17924604 (OP)
Why do catholics use latin (a roman creation) when jesus spoke aramaic

>>17931202
If you haven't noticed Catholics like to larp as Romans, at the very least they could have used Greek

>>17930988
btw I just looked into Titus 1:2 because I just realized you did not reject it explicitly and you yourself have brought it up, 27 translations on biblegateway say he "cannot" lie... at this point you are being ridiculous

>>17931236
That would be an interpretive gloss if they do. The Greek word is this: https://biblehub.com/greek/893.htm. "apseudés". Which means exactly what it sounds like. Much like atypical or amoral or atheist, the "a" just means "not". Would mean "God the alying".

Adding some metaphysical claim that God is incapable of lying is going beyond what's in the text here and adding a personal view. Hence why the major translations don't add a "cannot". NIV has "who does not lie", ESV has "who never lies", NRSV has "who never lies", NLT has "who does not lie". Those are the major ones in modern English that I see most often, and they all have "does not".

The metaphysical claim-laden "cannot" isn't in the Greek and isn't in the biggest modern translations.

>>17931322
KJV adds it and that is a major translation, I looked at the Greek word in that screenshot I linked earlier and it seems to be an inability to lie. Early understanding also seems to reflect this like in pic rel

>>17931191
>incarnation is literally a logical contradiction
How so?

>God not being able to do things only weak created beings can like die is not a problem because it is a logical impossibility.
So you admit that the Muslim god is not omnipotent?

>"The Son and the Holy Spirit are parts of God", you are lying.
Aren't Surah Baqara, Surah Imran, and the Koran itself as the pale man going to be manifestations of God's eternal attribute? Same for the Son and Holy Spirit. I'm saying nothing that Muhammad didn't say in this regard.

>Never said that
If you're trying to argue that a third grade reading level translation should count as scripture then what translation possibly couldn't?

>your scripture depends on translation so it's literally scripture
And your's doesn't? Unless you think Joseph, Moses, and Jesus were all speaking Arabic the Koran has translations as well.

>I highlighted that before and I will do it again in this image
...My man, in your image it gives thirty-four additional meanings.

Like it says: "of all kinds". Not "cannot". Once again it's like saying "I didn't eat ice cream because I don't like it" vs. "I didn't pick it up because I don't have arms". The word itself doesn't carry information about whether you are able to do something or not.

>have no way to explain how they got it wrong
Who is "they"? Look at https://biblehub.com/parallel/1_samuel/15-29.htm. This lists almost FORTY translations and not a single one says here that he cannot lie. You apparently went digging through nearly every English Bible translation in existence until you finally found a children's Bible that rendered it the way you wanted, ignoring absolutely every other one.

>Yes, the fitrah
C'mon you know this isn't going to work here. Your feelings that it's true are emotional impulses like any other and could easily be part of that simulation.

>>17931191

>and other arguments I could use against an atheist about the necessity of God to exist, send revelation, etc
And you could use those to prove the Koran, specifically? Please show the class, anon.

>He decided this to be creation and that's that.
So then you agree he wasn't bound by the laws of logic to not make the possible world where you cut off your hand five minutes ago. Meaning that the world where you cut off your hand five minutes ago is, in fact, a possible world. But one which will never be actualized.

Hence, there can indeed be possible worlds which will never be actualized.

>I reject your interpretation of what you think it means
All I think "I am in the Father" means is that he is in the Father. What is there to reject?

>I used the absurdity of you yourself being God
Oof still stuck on this script. You ever see that Marco Rubio debate? Now I know what it must have been like to be there live.

>You can't leave then return to someone that you are always in.
When Surah al-Imran is incarnate, will it cease to also be in the mind of Allah?

>you cannot even tell the difference between a part and an attribute
Would you care to elaborate?

>>17931333
I already explained how and the meaning of omnipotence i am using.
>going to be manifestations of God's eternal attribute?
No, I said this repeatedly and explained the difference.
>And your's doesn't?
Obviously we are talking about faulty human translations, not perfect divine ones. The whole stink you are raising is about how words you don't like are just wrong.
>it gives thirty-four additional meanings
Which are all causally related, something you denied.
>Who is "they"?
Ask your handlers to increase your context window, I mentioned the website I used. And independent from any translation I made the case that it should be read that way both in Hebrew and in Greek
>C'mon you know this isn't going to work here.
Why are you pretending to be a physicalist atheist? Christians also have a similar concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous#Eastern_Orthodox I am arguing with a christian, there is no need to start from the basics.
>bound by the laws of logic
I personally believe those to be an attribute of his. I can link you where I have had this discussion before. But anyway no as I said nothing but his will has set the world to be this way. There are no other possibilities as I see it
>What is there to reject?
He is not literally in the Father but there is no point in going over that again because "muh script".
>cease
No because knowledge never left like Jesus claims he did. Also I am not going to get into a discussion about substance–attribute theory with someone who doesn't even care to define what he mean by Jesus being a part.

>>17931344
also I forgot to add but it seems yet again that more old interpretations also agree with me on Titus 1:2, in the previous pic. It's from your link

>>17931324
>KJV adds it and that is a major translation
Definitely not a modern one. That's over 400 years old.

>I looked at the Greek word in that screenshot I linked earlier and it seems to be an inability to lie
I would like to see you justify this claim. Find me a source that says that this word, itself, directly means the inability to lie.

>Early understanding also seems to reflect this

You can see Chrysostom's Greek of this at https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Synchronized-EN/Chrysostom.000350.TheHomiliesOfStJohnChrysostomOnTimothyTitusAndPhi.HomiliesonTitus.html;chunk.id=00000003. He's just using this same Greek word that we've been looking at, apseudés. He doesn't say God can't lie, so far as I can see. That's just how whoever translated this is rendering the word apseudés, presumably following how the KJV has it.

The Greek here doesn't at all explicitly mean "cannot lie", which would require something like μὴ δυνατὸς ψεύσασθαι or ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι. Just having ἀψευδής is just "alying" ( "a-" in the same sense as "atheist" or "atypical") and doesn't carry any information about ability.

>>17931353
I am sure some of those other 27 ones are modern if I bothered to check but that is an arbitrary standard. Your source says it man, what the fuck?
>alying
What the fuck does that even mean??

>>17930020
>something being something else’s existence
For example Your existence = x + y + z
None of x, y or z is your existence as you are composite. In the case of God, God’s existence = God’s essence. Essence answers what is he, he is who he is, his existence. Not composite and simple.
>well it does
But it is false to claim that Malcom’s hand = Malcom.
>any of my hand non-me
It is not you, only a part.
>all of God
No because this would imply that the three persons of the godhead are unequal.
>the Bible does the same
But not that it is a literal hand.
>a thing cannot be subjected to x and not subjected to x
You are doing the same problem of Son = God, Father = God, so Father = son. The kingdom is subject to God’s essence that exists begotten and then to that that is unbegotten.
>the same being was there
The same being manifested in flesh, but he himself is not a form or a created medium.
>any being at all has existence in its self
So you believe in infinite regress, which is false. If no being has existence in itself in the chain, multiplying said beings will not give you existence. Like if you multiply empty cups of water you will not get a full cup.
>>17930080
Which Biblical scholars are you referring to? And how do you explain these verses?

>>17931347
>I already explained how and the meaning of omnipotence i am using.
It isn't omnipotence at all. If I can do something another being can't, then that being isn't omnipotent. Your unitarian god has a smaller range of action than a Trinitarian God and thus isn't "omni" potent, since other beings can do things that Allah can't.

>No
What do you say they'll be?

>Obviously we are talking about faulty human translations, not perfect divine ones.
Which of these categories do you suppose a translation for children at a third grade reading level would fall under?

>Which are all causally related
"Whether", "while", "yea", "but", "for", "how", "except" are all meanings listed. They're causally related in the very very very broadest possible sense. Its as broad, if not broader, than our word "for".

>I mentioned the website I used
_FORTY_ translations there on Biblehub and not a single one has a "cannot". Who is "they", specifically, whose wrongness I can't explain? The children's Bible translators?

>Christians also have a similar concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous#Eastern_Orthodox
I'm not an Orthodox (haven't you seen my name?) and I'm surprised you don't see the irony with linking to this. It says "In this belief, the soul is created in the image of God. Since God is Trinitarian, Mankind is Nous, reason, both logos and dianoia, and Spirit. The same is held true of the soul (or heart): it has nous, word and spirit."

So if you're appealing to this as a parallel to fitrah, which is a supposedly instinctive belief in tawhid, someone appealing to this would according to your link be appealing to an instinctive belief in Trintarianism!

You see atheists say things like "everyone is born an atheist". Even Pagans point to how indigenous cultures are all Pagan. Everyone takes their idea and says it's the pure, built-in, instinctive idea.

>>17931347
>I personally believe those to be an attribute of his.
Laws of logic are just the fact that mutually exclusive things mutually exclude. They don't need to be an attribute of anything, they aren't an actual thing that exists at all.

>But anyway no as I said nothing but his will has set the world to be this way.
So then its logically possible that he could have made the world where you cut your arm off five minutes ago. Meaning that it is a possible world. Meaning that you can have possible worlds that are not actualized.

>He is not literally in the Father
He says he's in the Father, so saying he's been torn from God can't be the case.

>No because knowledge never left
Similarly, the word of God that Jesus is can simultaneously be incarnate and be in the mind of God. Right?

>like Jesus claims he did
What specific passage do you have in mind?

>with someone who doesn't even care to define what he mean by Jesus being a part
Didn't I do that in >>17927156?

>>17930340
>>17930340
Define classical identity and how it is attacked.
>why? That seems contradictory
No because what is infallible in Catholicism is from Ecumenical councils and from Ex-Cathedra statements, Saints and even Doctors of the Church can materially err.
>divine making properties
The divine property is this case is to be an independent being. God is a being not a person. Therefore, if a being is dependent, he is not God. The being of God, which each of the father, son and holy spirit fully is, is independent.
>love does
Yes because omnipotence is simply the ability to do anything logically possible. This is unrelated to the existence of others. But love needs relations to work, or there is no love towards anything than there is no love because love cannot be directed towards nothing.
>the relations exist
This would make love accidental to God, because he would need knowledge of other beings to love in relations. On a sidenote, the NIV is pure garbage, I recommend the Douay Rheims or KJV.
>Islam
So you agree that God’s parts in the Quran and Hadiths are metaphors? Many scholars such as Dr. Zaker Naik believe it to be literal.

>>17931353
>I am sure some of those other 27 ones are modern
The KJV sure isn't a modern translation!

>Your source says it man
I said "Find me a source that says that this word, itself, directly means the inability to lie". Not just is non-lying, but explicitly says the word refers to the inability to lie. You won't find any detailed examination of the word that says it refers to the metaphysical lack of ability to lie.

>What the fuck does that even mean??
"Alying" in the sense of "amoral" or "atheist", with "a" serving as a negator. The word is that, in Greek. It's "a" and "pseudo", "apseudo", "alying".

>>17931350
>it seems yet again that more old interpretations also agree with me on Titus 1:2, in the previous pic
You cite Against Heresies 3.4.2, which can be found at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103304.htm and says:

>To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom...Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

How in the world does any of this say God doesn't have the ability to lie?

You also cite Augustine's Harmony of the Gospels Book 1 chapter 7, which is of even less relevance. You can read it all at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602107.htm.

Where does any of this say anything that's even vaguely like God not having the ability to lie? It's as if you pulled random chapters from random works out of a hat.

>>17931366
Yes it is because your nature allows for you to die, lie, etc. This is far beyond God and is thus impossible. Your trinitarian god is an impossibility. And I will not bother explaining what I already have
>categories
The same one all of your translations fall under.
>They're causally related in the very very very broadest possible sense
Great! meaning there is a causal link between him not lying and his divine nature. I do not care if you think it's "broad"
>forty
It's simple. even with those translations if you are not braindead you can realize there is a causal link.
>I'm not an Orthodox
Yes I know, you're some weird heretic with extremely vague beliefs. Doesn't mean I cannot attempt to bridge the gap with something that is close enough. You could claim an instinctive belief in your illogical deity but unfortunately it took hundreds of years for your theology to develop. So history is not on your side. Again if you want to larp as an atheist do that and then maybe I will engage
>>17931373
That is not what laws of logic are... what the hell are you on about? Also abstract things exist in the mind
>So then its logically possible
No since God willed reality this way.
>can't be the case
It can if you leave your presuppositions are the door, but you won't because you are dishonest.
>Right?
No because they aren't going back anywhere, And you didn't do that. Explain to me what it means for Jesus to be a part. To make things simple feel free to use pic rel. How much of the circle/God is Jesus/sector?

>>17931384
It's from your link bro so don't ask me. Your quoted passage seems to be talking about the truth of scripture. So maybe they meant that they used God as a standard?

>>17931378
Is this too old for you? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%201%3A2&version=NKJV,KJ21 Both say he cannot lie.
>I said "Find me a source that says that this word
It's literally on that page where I highlighted it here >>17931359 and previously >>17931236
>"Alying" in the sense of "amoral" or "atheist", with "a" serving as a negator.
What sense is that? An atheist is someone who rejects God. So this is the negation of someone who can lie?

>>17931388
I used it as a source for what the specific Greek word is. But you saw something that you thought supported your case - even though it plainly didn't, to any extent whatsoever, if you actually look at it - and brought it forward without doing the slightest bit of checking. But were completely, totally, 100% wrong. The passages were simply about God's honesty in some way if you take just seconds to go read them, they are not in any way about God's metaphysical lacking of the power it would take to lie.

I think this is a perfect illustration of your general approach, and a good stopping point for now. Throwing anything out there, no matter how completely baseless, without doing even basic investigation.

>>17931375
"The view of identity just put forward (henceforth “the classical view”) characterizes it as the equivalence relation which everything has to itself and to nothing else and which satisfies Leibniz’s Law." - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/ It's literally the thing which RI rejects, and it is accepted by most philosophers so I am not sure why we have to simply throw it out for the sake of the trinity.
>No because what is infallible in Catholicism is from Ecumenical councils and from Ex-Cathedra statements
Fair enough that seems reasonable, but don't you think it is odd that Church Fathers pre Nicaea somehow always got things wrong about the trinity?
>The divine property is this case is to be an independent being.
Yes, but those persons you call fully God. How can this be if all but the Father qualify for this divine property?
>This is unrelated to the existence of others
Well not really since what is logically possible is creation too, there would be a dependence here. God's love too can be understood to be just an ability that is not actualized at every moment. And even if it had to, the love is still directed to you prior to creation https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%201:4&version=KJV
>because he would need knowledge
He already has it as a result of his omniscience. It's not like he had to find out you exist. Also thanks I didn't know of that translation
>metaphors
Atharis don't believe they are "parts" either, they don't affirm a modality or liken God to creation like that. What they do instead is affirm the meaning like for example when it mentions Adam being shaped by God's hands. They merely say God has the attribute of matter manipulation and everything else they don't speculate.

>>17931406
I know you used it like that. But you cannot read your own link. This is what the author understood from their works. You disagree with him about their interpretation but that is not my problem your source said those things.
>The passages were simply about God's honesty
Yes I am aware and he implied that it is absolute, as in it's his nature to just not lie. The page literally says "Its rarity in the New Testament underscores its precision: it is reserved for the One whose nature is unalloyed truth". You are saying God could do something against his very essence which makes no sense. But anyway I will have to go myself soon.

>>17931416
>identity
Don’t quote it to me, just straightforward give the contradicting example.
>always got things wrong
They overwhelmingly accepted Jesus’s divinity but did a few mistakes.
>how can this be
Because the father and them have the same being. So they are also independent from other beings. I count it by beings not persons.
>there would be a dependence here
But wouldn’t God’s power be characterized his superiority? For example, now he is more powerful than us all. Before creation, he was more powerful because nothing else existed, this so already a statement of power that he can exist independently and that he existed before time. For love, it is not by his nature if only if others exist he actualized love. Another problem is that God being the unmoved mover cannot have unactualized potential including love. But I did not exist, so the love is directed towards nothing.
>he had to find you out
But this means he must have knowledge of things outside of him to experience love. It’s like the Audi A3 I think of, it is outside of me, even if I love it because of my knowledge about it, it is still outside of me.
>thanks for the translation
No problem anon.
>parts
I had an Athari tell me that the parts exist in an uncreated space. That’s not a mainstream Athari view right?