Even Academics have a Logical Problem of the Trinity.Why is it so hard to comprehend?
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.
>>184291421 Essence3 PersonsSimple.
>>18429178This is compatible with partialist trinity, which is a heresy.
>>18429196All heresies are compatible with orthodoxy, you know that right? The only reason heresies can exist is because they begin with a piece of truth.
>>18429221Christian 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.
>>18429196just because it’s compatible doesn’t mean it really is heresy. a null point to make about the analogy, however vague it may be.
>>18429142Comprehend 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.
>>18429196That's as orthodox of an explanation that one can give.
>>18429334>>18430321If 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.
>>18429142Because it is a matter of faith.
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.
>>18430403If you reject that each person of the trinity is entirely and fully God, that is a heresy.
>>18430417What 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?
>>18430669Appeals 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
>>18429142Your 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
>>18430681In 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 CreedThis isn't a divine document. It isn't even intended to capture all nuances of the issue.
>>18430741Cringepost
>>18430741But this doesn't address Thomas Aquinas' subsistence relations
>>18429142Trinity 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.
>>18431033Not so, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SNn5QU-Py18 explains it in dirt simple terms in just seconds
>>18429142Because 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 othersLike 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.
>>18431445Threadly reminder that "Partialism" is a meme heresy and no council has ever condemned an idea called "Partialism"
