We have /his/torical proof of miracles at the Temple in Jerusalem. The most recent known are reported by apowerful convergence of eight early sources, citing eyewitnesses and even physical evidence, which report clearly miraculous fire and a star like a cross that marked clothes with its energy halting Emperor Julian's plan to rebuild the Jewish Temple in 363 AD.They report that the Temple couldn't be built by the Pagans and Jews because flames burst from its foundations when they tried, and there was a star or other object in the sky like a cross that both marked and astonished the workmen.1 Ammianus Marcellinus. You can read his account here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2007.01.0082%3Abook%3D23%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D3. He was a non-Christian and a contemporary of Julian the Apostate. He wrote:"terrifying balls of flame kept bursting forth near the foundations of the temple, and made the place inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and since in this way the element persistently repelled them, the enterprise halted"And Gregory Nazianzen, who knew Emperor Julian personally, wrote just months after the event according to https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_3_oration5.htm:"But what is yet more strange and more conspicuous, there stood in the heavens a light circumscribing a Cross...Let those who were spectators and partakers of that prodigy exhibit their garments, which to the present time are stamped with the brandmarks of the Cross! For at the very moment that anyone, either of our own brethren or of the outsiders, was telling the event or hearing it told by others, he beheld the miracle happening in his own case or to his neighbour, being all spotted with stars, or beholding the other so marked upon his clothes in a manner more variegated than could be done by any artificial work of the loom or elaborate painting”.
>>18102095>the Temple in JerusalemThere is no temple there, God does not dwell in that house anymore.
>>18102104Did...did you read nothing but the first sentence before posting the first thing that came to mind?
Ban religion threads
Why do you think magic is more probable that people making up stories?Are you retarded?
>>18103251Define magic
>>18103260Extremely holy
>>18103251If you want to bring up the same point yet again, then pick up the discussion where it left off by replying to https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18087465/#q18090846
>>18102095julian was not a bad emperorunfortunately he took advice from jews and this happened
>>18090894>but there's nothing wrong with thatThere's nothing wrong with using blatantly wrong definitions? That explains so much>This is an empty semantic argument.No it isn't, if something lacks an essential attribute of a nature it is supposed to have then they don't have it and are thus not divine. Can anything be human if it lacks a human soul? No, and it's for the same reason you don't call clipped nails and cut hair human beings>If you're part of God, you are GodGive your justification. Regularly that would mean you're just a part. God is the whole>"God has hypostasis" is the necessary truth in question if you're talking about the necessary truth of Trinitarianism"God has hypostasis" does not necessarily imply Trinitarianism as we have discussed the possibility of other models.>I think he can and you'd have a Quadrinity.That's not Trinitarianism and your admission is exactly why your God is contingent since it isn't necessary and it isn't impossible to be otherwise>You're confusing God being contingent with a certain *description of facts about God* being contingent.With your idea of equating the truth in question as being identical to anything related to it, you have made contingency completely impossible. Your point about possible acts of God has nothing to do with his essence. There's nothing intrinsic to divinity that necessitates smiting Egypt or the 10 plagues, even will unless you believe creation forced him>RightYou're just restating your position without saying why I am wrong.>some fringe people disagreed on thisThat's a straw man. I already granted it wasn't an universal belief. He quotes them as being "wise men amongst ourselves" they aren't just some fringe group of nobodies in the Church.>Can you elaborate on how you see this being the case?Yes, any belief that states "God has hypostasis" will solve every problem you have and that includes the possible Quadrinity. Not that you have even justified your argument in the first place
>>18104403>There's nothing wrong with using blatantly wrong definitions?I said: "if you clearly define it and aren't trying to obfuscate". I can't see any situation where someone in good faith with a sincere desire for communication uses a "blatantly wrong definition" and isn't setting out to ofuscate.>No it isn'tIt is, you're simply saying "I assign this definition to this term and that doesn't meet it". Alright then. Do you have an actual objection about something objective? If not then you're only saying "I don't like that word choice".>Give your justification. Regularly that would mean you're just a part. God is the wholeThat's not like saying "he's not a military man, he's just in the Navy".>"God has hypostasis" does not necessarily imply TrinitarianismIt does by what I mean when I talk about Trinitarianism. I solely mean God having hypostases. If your objections are about it being two, exactly two, and always two then you'll need to find someone else to bring them against.>your admission is exactly why your God is contingent Again: things ABOUT something can be contingent without that thing itself being contingent. It's contingent that I talk about the law of non-contradiction in this post, but the law of non-contradiction itself isn't contingent. "Having been talked about by Julian the Bosstate" is a contingent property that applies to the necessary law of non-contradiction.>Your point about possible acts of God has nothing to do with his essence.So why would forming an extra hypostasis be any different, if indeed that's how it works?>You're just restating your position without saying why I am wrong.My very next words did so; there's a portion of time where you're dependent and a portion where you're not. It's a question of degree rather than being a binary yes or no.
>>18105257>I can't see any situation where someone in good faith with a sincere desire for communication uses a "blatantly wrong definition" and isn't setting out to ofuscate.If someone is going to claim that the Aztec pantheon is made up entirely of Roman deities then yes they are just wrong. It doesn't matter if they say later that they swapped the definition of Aztec and Roman, that would indeed be nothing but an attempt to obfuscate in addition to still being factually incorrect.>I assign this definition to this term and that doesn't meet itYou are the one imposing arbitrary definitions in this conversation, those that go against what is commonly understood such as saying trinitarianism is literally just "God having hypostases" and not the fact there are 3 of them which are coequal coeternal and all that other baggage mainstream Christian theology imposes. Your response doesn't even address the main issue which is what I would like to focus on. How in the world can you claim something is X without it satisfying what being X means?>That's not like saying "he's not a military man, he's just in the Navy".That isn't a justification. And even in your example the navy is a branch of the military not the military itself. >If your objections are about it being two, exactly two, and always two then you'll need to find someone else to bring them against.Why? Is it because you can't actually address my objection so you are coping by answering something I didn't even ask you?
>>18105257>things ABOUT something can be contingent without that thing itself being contingentI never said otherwise. But in your example you can't have anything contingent at all because every descriptor of that thing is merely going to be ABOUT it and not something that actually defines what it is. What's the difference in X having hypostases and X having 3 of them? They both say something ABOUT X that talk about its fundamental reality.>Your point about possible acts of God has nothing to do with his essence.>So why would forming an extra hypostasis be any different, if indeed that's how it works?You're saying that his essence is a product of his will. In other words God is omnipotent because he wants to be omnipotent. That's no different than saying God is triune because God wants to be triune. Wut? And anyway it doesn't even make sense because the persons make the choice of how many they are. It's a nonsensical circular dependency.>there's a portion of time where you're dependent and a portion where you're not. It's a question of degree rather than being a binary yes or no.No because something can be true at one moment and false in the next. The portion of time you are not dependent is when you are 100% independent. The other times you are dependent.
>>18102095There is no evidence any of this shit ever happened, it’s propaganda. Fuck off Christkike
>>18105420>If someone is going to claim that the Aztec pantheon is made up entirely of Roman deities then yes they are just wrongAnon what you said was "I can also say the Aztec pantheon is logically necessary". The whole point of this line of discussion was logical necessity. You seem to be losing track of what we're even discussing.>that would indeed be nothing but an attempt to obfuscate...Which I clearly said isn't the way to go, so I'm not seeing what you think this actually adds to the discussion.>those that go against what is commonly understood such as saying trinitarianism is literally just "God having hypostases" And right now it's two, so a Trinity. Trinitarianism.I believe it's three right now and hence am a Trinitarian. >and not the fact there are 3 of them which are coequal coeternal and all that other baggage mainstream Christian theology imposesI'm a Protestant, I'm bound only to what the Bible says.>the navy is a branch of the military not the military itselfIs there anything navy that is non-military?>Why? Well because that's not a position I'm beholden to, of course. I see no reason to be dogmatic on the point that it couldn't be four or more depending on the circumstances. I consider that an open question.>>18105425>ABOUT it and not something that actually defines what it isSimilarly, for God, I say that what defines what it is is having hypostases, not necessarily the number of those hypostases.>You're saying that his essence is a product of his will. I'm saying "can have hypostases" is part of his essence and it could easily be that the specific number of them isn't.>the persons make the choice of how many they areNot so, the Father would. He is their father, afterall!>The portion of time you are not dependent is when you are 100% independent. Even then, does your boss decide ALL the actions you take at work, or some of them?
>>18105537And what is Ammianus Marcellinus' propagandistic agenda, anon?
>>18105645Literally any explanation I make up, will be more probable than miracle due to my low credence in miracles
>>18105866Why do you have such a low credence in miracles?
>>18105944Why do you have such a high credence in ghosts, witches, vampires, werewolves, and wizards conjuring magic missiles?
>>18105991I don't, I haven't been presented with evidence for these things
>>18105635As I said before learn to track. The discussion went in this direction right here >>18089477>which I clearly said isn't the way to goYes and it's exactly what you are doing right now...>And right now it's two, so a Trinity. Trinitarianism.>I believe it's three right now and hence am a Trinitarian.Irrelevant and you're contradicting yourself the very next sentence impressive.>I'm a Protestant, I'm bound only to what the Bible says.Absolute bullshit for two reasons. One is you reject parts of the bible and the second is without the tradition you have inherited from the Catholics you wouldn't believe any of this convoluted nonsense that took many centuries to develop.>Is there anything navy that is non-military?Yes actually there are cooks for example which are technically part of the navy but nobody would assume they constitute the military (armed forces) of a nation. But you're missing the point, no set is an element of itself. Which would be the case if you insist the Navy is the Army or in other words the Son is God.>I see no reason to be dogmatic on the point that it couldn't be four or more depending on the circumstancesThat's your concession that your deity is contingent because he could exist in other ways in another possible world.>Similarly, for God, I say that what defines what it is is having hypostases, not necessarily the number of those hypostases.Well in that case the Father is not God because he doesn't have hypostases he is one. "the Holy Trinity consists of three hypostases: that of the Father, that of the Son, and that of the Holy Spirit.[2]"
>>18105635>I'm saying "can have hypostases" is part of his essence and it could easily be that the specific number of them isn't.And as usual you aren't addressing the issue with your thinking. It's an arbitrary choice to include that as part of his essence but not the number of them which are also subject to his will because you equating this with the punishment of Egyptians.>Not so, the Father would. He is their father, afterall!The Father is an instantiation of the divine nature just like any other person in the godhead so yes it's exactly a circular dependency. The only possible relevant difference is like what Eusebius says the Son didn't always exist but the Father necessarily does. Speaking of this guy doesn't like how you split God into parts which is another thing that makes your deity contingent but that's a separate discussion.>does your boss decide ALL the actions you take at workHe hires you to take the burden that would have fallen on him, that includes the physical and mental load of any actions you might take to perform your tasks in the workplace. You're still not independent however since you depend on him for your employment
>>18106033So your credence in these things is very low? Or just kind of low? Or more like neutral?
>>18106073Quite quite low indeed
>>18106175What kind of testimonial evidence would convince you there's a guy who can cast magic missiles and uses them to battle vampires?
>>18106048>The discussion went in this direction And it's one that becomes irrelevant since that would be obvious obfuscation; no well-informed person would say such a thing in good faith.>you're contradicting yourself the very next sentenceNot so, it's the Father and hypostases, for a Trinity.>you reject parts of the bibleI'm becoming increasingly convinced you're a Muslim. In your next post, write: "I testify that Muhammad is not the messenger of Allah".>without the tradition you have inherited from the Catholics you wouldn't believe any of thisThis comes from the very earliest Christians, the disciples of the Disciples themselves believed this. Long before the split between Catholics and Orthodox.>Yes actually there are cooks for example They are too, look at https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016/september/charting-course-are-we-all-sailors>that your deity is contingent because he could exist in other ways in another possible worldIt's no different from, say, "his power is being used to bring a plague on Egypt" being true in the possibile world that was Moses' Egypt. Does this constitute some fundamental change to the essence of his power?>the Father is not God because he doesn't have hypostases he is oneI disagree. I believe the Father is what has hypostases, not that he is one.>It's an arbitrary choice to include that as part of his essence but not the number of themIt doesn't rise to even that level. As I've said, it's simply an open question. It might necessarily be two hypostases. It might not. I'm not in possession of sufficient information to make a determination.>You're still not independent however since you depend on him for your employmentSo he gives you the task, but then you decide how to carry it out at the level of the base details, right? How much he specifically determines you do is a degree of independence, isn't it?
>>18106190Same as anything else: testimony with good provenance and good corroboration. Provenance and corroboration are the test of truth for nearly any claim.
>>18106212So let's say you have some European noble writing than he saw streaks of blue flame racing in the sky and that on the same night the commoners all across the town saw a guy throwing blue fire at a pale figure with sharp teeth that could change into a bat. Then you have some historian writing the same thing around the same time.Would that be good enough? If not, what specific changes would there need to be for the thing to convince you? (The question is mostly rhetorical, I know you always refuse to answer pointed questions like that :))
>>18106209>no well-informed person would say such a thing in good faithThat is what you are doing when I am asking about your triune deity and you're responding with triune actually just means God has hypostases. You're changing words to obfuscate the obvious fact that your deity is not logically necessary like you claimed>it's the Father and hypostases, for a TrinityWhat does that even mean? You said there were 2 and then 3>I'm becoming increasingly convincedOh boy here come the diversion tactics>This comes from the very earliest ChristiansEvery denomination claims this even the JW. Every man's orthodoxy is another man's heresy. When we look at your early works we can clearly see they do not use this kind of language and in fact they directly contradict later councils in core beliefs>They are tooI said they are on paper. However unless you want to believe they fight by launching potatoes they are not military (armed forces) And again no set is an element of itself which is exactly what you're asserting>Does this constitute some fundamental change to the essence of his power?No there's a difference between potentiality and actualization. His will operates on what he can do not on what he fundamentally is unless you want to say he has omnipotence in the first place simply because of will>not that he is oneDisagreeing with common words again are we? It doesn't even make sense because that just means only the Father is God since your entire argument is that the one being has hypostases. However you admitted he lacks omnipotence so God by the identity relation also must lack omnipotence >>18089415>It might necessarily be two hypostasesThe very fact there's a possibility it could be otherwise is why he is not necessary. This is basic stuff>isn't it?No the manner you perform a task never depended on your boss. You could type a document for him using your keyboard and you could have also typed a post on 4chan using your keyboard before you got employed.
>>18106175Same with me and fireballs, btw I don't understand how your evidence for fireballs gets off the ground, unless you already have a high credence in fireballs
>>18106048>One is you reject parts of the bible and the second is without the tradition you have inherited from the Catholics you wouldn't believe any of this convoluted nonsense that took many centuries to develop.I can't speak for him, but for myself I can say I reject none of it, and believe this not because of any papist tradition (in which I place no weight) but because the word of God compels me to. My conscience is held captive by the word of God. While the doctrine of the Trinity did develop, it did not develop as purgatory did. It became more specific and precise in response to heresies which denied what had been believed always, everywhere, by everyone. The doctrine of the Trinity can be split (as scripture does) into three distinct doctrines1. There is absolutely only one God2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God3. These persons have existed as distinct persons since eternity pastIf any one of these is denied, scripture is necessarily denied. Now, I have scanned through some of this conversation, and there's some things I would like to clear up (and encourage my brother to study more theology proper). The persons of the Godhead do not exist by choice but by nature, so the Triune God is absolutely necessary and there is no possible world in which He does not exist. A god which is not triune is not God. Also, the persons of the Trinity are not "parts". As the Westminster Confession says God is without body, parts or passions. Each person contains within Himself the totality of the divine nature, so that they are completely indistinguishable. The only ground upon which they can be distinguished is their eternal relations of origin, that is, how they relate to each other (e.g as Father to Son, and Son to Father). Besides this it is impossible to distinguish them.
