Aquinas explained it in just a few sentences

The trinity is not of this world and so nothing in this world can be accurately compared to it.

>>18429142
1 Essence
3 Persons

Simple.

>>18429178
This is compatible with partialist trinity, which is a heresy.

>>18429196
All heresies are compatible with orthodoxy, you know that right? The only reason heresies can exist is because they begin with a piece of truth.

>>18429221
Christian orthodoxy is that each of the 3 persons is entirely and fully God, not a mere part of God. That is incompatible with a partialist trinity. Your description provided compatibility by omission of an important part of orthodoxy.

>>18429196

just because it’s compatible doesn’t mean it really is heresy. a null point to make about the analogy, however vague it may be.

File: Jesus.png (243.2 KB)

243.2 KB PNG

>>18429142
Comprehend what exactly?

>>18429142
>Why is it so hard to comprehend?
It's not; You choose not to understand it because of the outrageous wickedness of your heart. Keep stoking those flames.

>>18429196
That's as orthodox of an explanation that one can give.

>>18429334
>>18430321
If your explanation leaves room for heresies it's not orthodox, by omission.

>Why is it so hard to comprehend?
simple: they were filtered by real numbers and the concept that the sum of a composite can be greater than its parts.

>>18429142
Because it is a matter of faith.

File: Fathers-of-the-Church-Przykuta-wikimedia-public-domain.jpg (186.5 KB)

186.5 KB JPG

Muh perichoresis but only the father is first cause and Autotheos (apparently this isn't a divine attribute somehow).
"We didn't think of this."

>>18429196
>>18430323
>partialist trinity, which is a heresy.
Partialism is obviously true and nobody calling it a "heresy" can ever point to a single verse in the Bible that it violates.

They're parts by definition of what "part" means. If some statement X can simultaneously be true and false of some thing Y without contradiction, then Y has parts. (I.E. I can simultaneously be wet and not wet if my left hand is in a bucket and my right hand is not.) Different things can simultaneously be true and false of God because they apply to different members of the Trinity. So they are, by definition, parts of God.

>>18430403
If you reject that each person of the trinity is entirely and fully God, that is a heresy.

>>18430417
What passage of the Bible says that each member of the Trinity is, themselves, the total entirety of God and none of God is not them?

>>18430669
Appeals to scripture have been used to deny the divinity of Christ too. Christian orthodoxy as established by the Nicene Creed is incompatible with a partialist trinity.
>God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father

File: 1774867447030251.png (12.9 KB)

12.9 KB PNG

>>18429142
Your fallacious pretense that the trinity is inscrutable stems from your malicious intentions, but fails on account of poor execution.

We have the son, Jesus, the ghost, a dove, and the father, Trump. When these three combine they make one supergod, stronger than all other gods and able to defeat leftists and iron chariots

>>18430681
In other words: no, there is no part of the Bible it goes against. If someone asked me "what part of the Bible does denying Jesus is God violate?" I could give them a detailed answer.

So now that you've admitted it doesn't go against a single verse and so is perfectly Biblical: what is your response to my argument for them being parts by definition?

>as established by the Nicene Creed
This isn't a divine document. It isn't even intended to capture all nuances of the issue.

>>18430741
Cringepost

>>18430741
But this doesn't address Thomas Aquinas' subsistence relations

>>18429142
Trinity explained in 4 easy steps
>make up gibberish words like hypostatic essence or whatever to describe another metaphysical gibberish
>cram all explanations wrapped in these made up gibberish
>shove it down millions of group members who are psychologically willing to accept whatever explanation thrown their way
>use those millions of people to gaslight everyone into taking these made up gibberish words seriously otherwise you're a retard

Organized religion is one big social experiment.

>>18431033
Not so, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SNn5QU-Py18 explains it in dirt simple terms in just seconds

>>18429142
Because every solution to it, was deemed heresy, so you're stuck with it being illogical nonsense.

>>18430741
>provide a single explanation that makes sense to me personally and can be held to be the correct explanation for others
Like all based hellenichad spiritualism, it is not required to make literal sense and be mutually exclusive with other explanations. The first few centuries of christianity was spent combating the hellene's natural propensity to just make up more religion whenever a new idea occurred to him.
New idea? Write a new gospel. New ritual? Write an etiology. People are worshipping an extra god? Write them in.
That was unfortunately beaten out of them over time by the inane push to turn religion stagnant. Probably to make it more politically useful. Reworking religion to better serve the state was a Roman project before the rise of christianity, probably saw the longstanding jewish obsession with books and laws as an element of religion as extremely useful for that.
But the hellenechad knew that a little contradiction and mystery was good for the soul. "It's a mystery" is a feature. That's why they had mystery religions.

>>18431445
Threadly reminder that "Partialism" is a meme heresy and no council has ever condemned an idea called "Partialism"

>>18429142
Because gestalts go against the particle mindset of the individualist.

>>18429224
>each of the 3 persons is entirely and fully God, not a mere part of God
mix your God very homogenously and form three persons!

>>18429178
>3 Persons
Then it's three gods.

>>18430669
>>18430731
The trinity is not a biblical concept to begin with, it was established later. In addition, if each of them is god, then how can any of them be incomplete? How do you divide an infinity into smaller, limited portions?

>>18432853
bullshit
John 15:5
Acts 4:12

your inability to understand the Word is your failing. this >>18430694 is literally correct

>>18429178
By this logic the ancient Egyptian religion was monotheistic since educated Egyptians believed that all gods were aspects of a single divine source that was unknowable and beyond human comprehension and that the gods were intermediaries between humanity and this divine source. Hinduism would also be monotheistic since they believe all their gods are avatars of higher beings and that ultimately everything emanates from a single divine source called Brahman.

>>18432853
Mathematically there are small infinities that exist within larger infinities.
I don't actually care about doctrine from a belief perspective I'm just autistic enough to be here offering this tangential point.

File: Rene-guenon-1925_(cropped) (1).jpg (12.8 KB)

12.8 KB JPG

>>18432859
They are monotheists

File: 9e731404256b8fa3677749814781158a.jpg (116.7 KB)

116.7 KB JPG

>>18432853
>>18432853
You're so ignorant

Also 1 = 0.999 periodic, which is the same as 1/3 x 3. (Since you like to talk about 0, id like to see you explain how 1 = 0.999 other than that 0.001 being the immaterial that completes the physical)

>>18432853
>The trinity is not a biblical concept to begin with
It really isn't possible to be more Trinitarian than Matthew 28:19 - "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The closing words of the first Gospel.

>if each of them is god, then how can any of them be incomplete?
Can you be more specific? "Incomplete" in what way?

>How do you divide an infinity into smaller, limited portions?
I am a mathematical finitist, there are no infinities

>>18432903
>I am a mathematical finitist, there are no infinities
The fuck is this supposed to mean you fucking retard

Real numbers turn the space between one number to the other infinitely dense

>>18432904
>The fuck is this supposed to mean
It's hardly an obscure concept in math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

>Real numbers turn the space between one number to the other infinitely dense
These aren't actual things that really exist. This describes a rule for generating symbols. It's akin to saying that the castles in chess must be actual buildings because there are rules for them.

In actual reality, everything is comprised of base units. You cannot divide, for instance, water forever: eventually you will have a water molecule and this cannot be divided and you still have water. You have reached the base unit.

>>18432913
The base unit as you understand it and are able to perceive it, dumbass

Do you think people have always known about germs?

Imagine not believing in infinity when youre infinitely stupid

>what do you mean a dog is made from the same particles as water, cant you see theyre different
Atheist """scholars""" at their best

File: 1707348036992.png (795.6 KB)

795.6 KB PNG

>>18432927
>Do you think people have always known about germs?
If anything, doesn't this demonstrate my point? Even diseases turned out to have base units: these individual infectious cells.

Let me demonstrate why infinities are logically impossible to you with a scenario. They lead to hard logical contradictions.

Say we had a contest between two people. The contest is going to last one minute. One of the contestants, Person A, wins if there are an infinite number of objects in the stadium after one minute. So after half a minute passes, he makes ten objects, each labeled with the numbers 1 through 10. Once it reaches half of the remaining time, he makes ten more, labels them 11 through 20, and continues this process every time it reaches half the remaining time.

The second person, Person B, wins the contest if he stops the first person and there are not infinite objects at the end of the contest. So each time the Person A makes ten objects, Person B destroys the lowest-labeled one. So in round 1, he destroys the object labeled 1. Round 2, he destroys the object labeled 2, and continues this every round.

Once the minute has passed, which person would have won?

And that's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in your answer!

>>18432937
>If anything, doesn't this demonstrate my point? Even diseases turned out to have base units
If anything it shows how ignorant you are not only of history hut also science

It works in paradigms, dumbass. Thinfs are considered truth until proof of something outside of it forces a shift.

Germs didnt "exist" until they were theyre all the time but we just didnt notice.

How fucking stupid can you be to believe it proved your point, retard?. Do you think science is "finished"?, that the units we know now are the end of it all?. God, youre so ignorant.

At least the ancient people tried to rationalize all of this but you only sit on your ass all day posting inane bullshit about god day in and day out

>>18432940
Your point seems to be "we may keep finding smaller and smaller units of matter". Though that's overlooking my actual point. So far, nothing in reality actually looks infinitely dense: so far all of it looks to have base units. We know the base unit even for disease, as you pointed out. Nearly all substances besides pure elements have a molecular base unit. Elements have an atomic base unit.

The only retreat for someone who believes in infinite divisibility is to propose that we'll keep finding base units of those forever. If you want to point to some trend as you are, we've found more and more things to have base units and the only thing left to even propose to be infinitely divisible are elementary particles.

But observation only gets us so far right now. We can prove something much stronger: no logically possible world contains an actual infinity.

Would you care to answer my question about the contest?

>>18432954
>So far, nothing in reality actually looks infinitely dens
Time?, space?

Lol

The fucking universe?


Your ignorance?

>>18432955
Planck unit is yet to be cracked.

>>18432957
I guess if you planted a seed today and maintained it, it will still be a seed in a year, huh?.

The sun went out today, nothing tells us there will be another day tomorrow.

Nice """philosophy""" youve got going there, buddy. No wonder youre so dense.

>>18432958
Planck unit is yet to be cracked.

File: images (6).jpg (16.8 KB)

16.8 KB JPG

>>18432958
Planck unit is yet to be cracked.

>>18432913
We know infinite things exist such as Gods love.

>>18432913
Based on your posts you dont seem to not believe in infinity. You seem to believe in a lack of infinity in relation to physical objects. Or are you suggesting there is a limit to the possible arrangement of letters in a string of characters that has no upper bound? A, AA, AAA, etc…
This could clearly have infinite permutations even if it could never be physically written down. Its thus an infinite set.

>>18432964
You're so mad kek

>>18432980
>anon finds out letters and symbols are abstract and don't actually exist in nature
Well done!

>>18432955
How do you figure?
And are you going to answer about the scenario, or not?

>>18432956
>Or are you suggesting there is a limit to the possible arrangement of letters in a string of characters that has no upper bound? A, AA, AAA, etc…
Notice what this is. You're saying this *could* go on forever. An actual infinity would be what you would have if you had, say, a book that cover to cover did in fact contain every combination of letters. All of them. In a completed collection.

Contemplate that and I think you will see why actual infinities are inherently self-contradictory. They ultimately boil down to meaning: "a completed uncompleteable".

>Its thus an infinite set.
Sets don't exist. Russell's Paradox already made this extremely clear at the beginnings of set theory. They aren't *things* and cannot be, since then you get self-contradictory sets like "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves".

Saying sets exist is, to go back to an earlier metaphor, like saying the castles in a chess game must correspond to real castles somewhere because there are rules about them.

>>18432994
>there are no infinites
>well there are, just not in nature
Then say that if you dont want a pissing contest. Dont rephrase zenos paradoxes and pretend you’ve discovered a logical inconsistency with the concept of infinites. Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks they apply in the physical world outside of those who state the universe itself is infinite.

>>18432997
Peak dunning kruger

If God ate himself would he become twice as big or disappear completely?
>God cant eat himself
Then hes not omnipotent

This paradox clearly proves how God could not exist.

>>18432997
>the set of all sets that do not contain themselves
Thats a perfectly valid set.

I have what I think is a working nonheretical analogy for the Trinity but its a bit counterintuitive

>>18433019
Theres no analogy
Theres no understanding it intuitively
Its a “mystery”. It doesnt compare to our world. God is not a physical object
God isnt beholden to the rules of our reality where one physical thing cant be another physical thing else where. He is God. He could be 5000 things or 0 things or 3 things that are 1. And any way he is he has always been because he is eternal and unchanging. Illusions of God changing over time are just that, illusions based on human under of his actions. But dont pretend to understand God or the trinity. You dont and you wont and you cant explain it. Doesnt mean it doesnt exist or that infinite sets dont exist. Paradoxes dont disprove him either.

Autistic monks debates this for centuries, while its wonderful for you to carry on their memory, find a better use for the time God has given you. Good night

>>18433000
>well there are, just not in nature
Not anywhere. Not anything. Not in any logically possible world.

>Dont rephrase zenos paradoxes
You seem to be confused. Zeno's paradox entirely relied on assuming time and space are infinitely divisible, and then it attempts to use that assumption to disprove the existence of motion. I am doing the polar opposite.

>>18433008
It shows how sets are fictional, not something that actually exists in some Platonic sense. That set is self-contradictory since if it contains itself then it cannot contain itself.

Just because you can put strings of words together doesn't mean you're talking about something that actually exists. Fittingly: the set of existent things contains no sets. It contains the things in sets if those things do exist, but it does not contain *sets* the mathematical object.

>>18433030
Your paradox is zenos paradox of the race rephrased

>>18433030
I drove past an infinite set this morning tho

>>18429142
Because every sensible solution is a heresy. Christians pretending that it makes sense are just literally too dumb or willfully blind to see why it doesn't make sense.

>>18433034
I really don't think so, but that's really not especially relevant. If it is, that only leaves less excuse for this stalling: then it has been studied for thousands of years and providing an answer should be easy. Who wins the contest?

>>18432997
Sit down and count to the end of numbers, then come back and tell us how much it is

Better yet, count it up as seconds, and tell me at what number does it stop counting.

Or... tell me where does the universe end.

Imagine living in a expanding universe and still saying infinity doesnt exist, truly theres no limit to human stupidity

File: 1520138663115.jpg (162.1 KB)

162.1 KB JPG

>infinity doesnt exist in reality

Not my fault youre too dumb to see math expressed in real life, not my problem youre so stupid you'd rather waste your life posting dumb shit on the internet.

>>18433310
Numbers don't exist in nature, and none of the physical objects in that post can be observed under the planck scale.

>>18433317
>Numbers don't exist in nature
So you dont have 5 fingers in each hand, wow.

Atheist """scholars""" really are on a run here.

>>18433319
I use abstractions like the number 5 to describe my fingers together. The number 5 itself is not physically there, no.

Even the most tribal of societies has numbers yet anon here is renouncing it all to live like an animal, way to go buddy!

>>18433321
>im not using language, i am merely moving my vocal chords to produce sounds

Le very very smart

>>18433323
Language is an abstraction as well, yes.

>>18433317
>none of the physical objects in that post can be observed under the planck scale.
Wow so now were gonna have to add geometry to the list of things youre ignorant about, lol


A line is made by consecutive points... youre gonna see the same thing in planck, just represented in another scale.


Imagine being this dumb and still trying to play mind games, hahahaha

>>18433327
>A line is made by consecutive points... youre gonna see the same thing in planck, just represented in another scale.
That sounds awfully simple, please demonstrate that deeper scale to us, you'd probably win the nobel prize for it.

>>18433328
>no, you see, that is not a dog... thats a lot of plancks
Lol

>>18433298
>Sit down and count to the end of numbers
You have not described an actual infinity here. This is a potential infinity: an uncompletable process. If you "sit down and count", all of your numbers will always be finite.

Give a quick read at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_and_potential_infinity to see the difference here.

>>18433310
>Not my fault youre too dumb to see math expressed in real life
Can you show me an actual infinity somewhere? Otherwise this point doesn't make sense. Unless you're taking a Platonic stance and arguing that if we can describe a mathematical object then it must have real existence. Is that your position?

>>18433335
>This is a potential infinity:
Just because you'll die before you get to the end of it doesn't mean it's finite, youre finite

Do you even understand what the word infinity means?, hahaahahahahahahahaah

>>18433335
>Can you show me an actual infinity somewhere?
Cam you show me the edge of the universe?, is it still gonna be there when you show it to me or will it have moved through time?

Lol, get a load of this retard

>>18433338
>Just because you'll die before you get to the end of it
That's the issue. There is no "it". The list of numbers you have counted is something you are making. You're saying "by following these rules you could always keep making symbols like this". It's no different from coming up with a series of moves that make a chess game neverending if you keep making them. That doesn't make the chess game an instance of actual infinity.

>>18433339
We don't know if it has an edge or not, there's no observation here and so no evidence for either of us.

And are you going to answer my question about the contest scenario, or not?

>>18432872
name checks out

I always thought of it like water. Water can be liquid. Water can be vapor. Water can be ice. Its still the same thing -- just in different forms.

>>18433369
>We don't know if it has an edge or not, there's no observation here and so no evidence for either of us
Lol?

We know the big bang occurred, dumbass.

>>18433369
>There is no "it"
Lol?

Imagine being this dense, hahahaahahah

>>18433811
Thing is: theres retards who think thst everything is set... so theyd believe what you say but theyd deny a newtonian fluid because it goes against their previous knowledge... such is the atheist mind

Lol

I have a Body, I have a Mind, and I have a Soul.

These three separate things come together to form one thing: Me.

>>18433887
To add further, God created Man in his own likeness.

>>18433896
>likeness
The capacity to reason and act accordingly

Animals act according to instinct or "nature".

Someone said earlier that its hormones that dictate your behavior, he must think that everyone is an animal like him... animals feel ab itch and they scratch, man chooses.

>>18433857
>We know the big bang occurred
Not that it's especially relevant, but I actually don't believe in it. What would you say is the single best piece of evidence for it?

File: images (7).jpg (137.7 KB)

137.7 KB JPG

>>18433944
Cosmic wave background

>>18433946
And in what way?

>>18433948
Lol?

Im not your daddy, bitch. You think im gonna sit you on my lap or something?.

Go read.