File: Screenshot_20260521_15424(...).jpg (548 KB, 1080x1694)

548 KB JPG

>>18488997
Fact check on that came back negatory hoss

>>18488997
Baptist and I believe this what are you talking about you cock

File: unshaven-fat-men-visits-p(...).png (828 KB, 800x534)

828 KB PNG

>"And these 'protestants'...are they are in the room with us now?"

>>18488997
The thing that always annoys me about this picture is how it pretends that if you turn an incoherent statement: "a=b=c but not a=c" into a graph it somehow becomes coherent.

>>18488997
The Trinity is one of those dumb things that Greeks converts imprinted onto Christianity early on, and everyone has had to live with ever since.
Like it is obviously the product of Platonists just intellectually colonizing early Christianity and beating everything with hammers until it fit their already presupposed philosophical structures. But then people over a thousand years later now have to pretend that they give a shit when they've never read a page of Aristotle.
It is honestly silly.

>>18489052
What if I told you God is a essence, a 'material' that shapes these three individual but united individuals

>>18489073
Patrick that's partialism.

>>18489052
>Like it is obviously the product of Platonists just intellectually colonizing early Christianity and beating everything with hammers until it fit their already presupposed philosophical structures.
And it’s still not fully Platonic. In Platonism, the supreme divine principle is perfect, immutable (unchanging), and entirely spiritual. The material world, by contrast, is a realm of decay, corruption, and imperfection. The idea that the transcendent Creator of the universe would contract Himself into a fragile, material human body, let alone a poor Jewish peasant, is a philosophical contradiction. To make matters worse, the idea of a god being humiliated, tortured, and executed via crucifixion is entirely antithetical to the Greek concept of divine dignity and absolute power. Worshiping an executed criminal is a bizarre form of superstition (deisidaimonia).

No matter how much it makes you seethe, 3 is not equal to 1.

>>18488997
Non-trinitarianism is not a particularly common feature of U.S protestantism, though. And the ones that exist aren't even particularly vitriolic about it.
Like, aside from from a few restorationist churches, whatever remains of Christian unitarians and technically the SDA church.

>>18489090
>You have arms, legs, a head, and a torso, you cannot be one

>>18489180
>you are your arms and legs
Trinitards adopting Buddhist philosophy to own the catholichuds.

>>18489189
I can't parse the point you're attempting to make from the mockery

>>18489180
>partitionism
If the trinity is true, how come not a single Christian has been able to explain it without committing heresy in 2000 years?

>>18489051
You can say a dog is a mammal, and a cat is a mammal, but a cat isn't a dog. The Trinity isn't supposed to be like that, but isn't supposed to be plain equality either. The important thing is to affirm that the relation exists while remembering to reject any overly clear interpretation of the relation.

>Protestants are anti-Trinitarian
Brazilian education

>>18489090
1 x 1 x 1 = 3

>>18489227
They have, "partialism" is a literal meme from a YouTube video so far as I can tell.

>>18489227
You can explain it without heresy, you just can’t use an analogy without inaccuracy because nothing in creation is analogous to the perfect and incomprehensible being of God. See example: OP’s pic

>>18489411
https://biblehub.com/q/is_trinity_partialism_heretical.htm

>>18489418
>Christian theology makes absolutely no sense at all
I can agree with that.

>>18489481
Cope

>>18489051
A loving relationship necessarily involves actual persons in what constitutes it.
Without the persons, you don't have real substantive love, just a hypothetical intellectual framework.

So you can say that in love between two or more people, those people effectively are that love. Without them, it could not exist. They are necessary elements in it's substance.
But you wouldn't identify these people as the same person, just because you can identify the role each play together in constituting that love.

Which itself can be treated as a person in it's own right, needing to be nurtured and defended.
It could even be said to grow with time, and mature. Emotions fluctuate and change with time, but love itself isn't actually those emotions. Objectively speaking, it's the relationship itself. Love induces emotions, like fire can cause pain or comfort.

>a=b=c
You're not understanding this, so your objection itself is not coherent.

Nobody is identifying the Father and the Son as the same person.
They are saying they are both God, because God is love, the lover, and beloved together. Not a single person, but three in one and one in three.

Here's a formulation more in line with orthodox thought.

X=/=Y=/=Z
X=G
Y=G
Z=G

>>18489418
So what's the problem with my analogy?
That seems to me to be what John himself was teaching.

Once you accept that God is love, the idea of coeternal persons united in the godhead not only makes more sense but becomes positively necessary. If love were eternal and was before creation, then there must have been multiple eternal persons, since love for others is more perfect than so called "self-love". And God was exceedingly perfect before creation, wanting for nothing.

File: christians believe in san(...).png (63 KB, 817x708)

63 KB PNG

>>18489523
>Here's a formulation more in line with orthodox thought.
>X=/=Y=/=Z
>X=G
>Y=G
>Z=G
Don't mind me, just destroying 2000 years of the best Christian thinkers' work with a proof assistant making sure my logic is airtight. :)

>>18489232
I agree it's a way to browbeat people into submission by having them forcefully affirm incoherent concepts.

>>18489523
Patrick that's partialism.

>>18489530
It's pretty neat how you think compsci binary logic is the only kind that exists. As if higher order and many-valued logics couldn't be actually coherent.

Anyways that's not an argument, and it's curious as to how you think Santa has any relevance to this discussion. You're bringing him up as an appeal to emotion, rather than actually engage with the definition of terms and their natural consequences.
Try putting it in your own words next time, you might find it doesn't make any sense when you say it out loud.

>>18489549
No, it isn't.
Like, it's easy to just say things but you have to actually explain your objections.

It's not partialism because I'm just describing the relationship between Father and Son in his proper terms, lover and beloved, which is a loving one and is the source of the divine life from which said Holy Spirit is spirated.

The Father being the lover, from whom the Son is wholly begotten, and the Son being the beloved, does not mean that the Son and the Father are not both entirely God in their own right.

Because God is love, one love.
The eternal love between Father and Son is personified in the Holy Spirit who proceeds thereby.
It really is that simple.
The wholeness of love (which is the divine essence) subsides in each of the three persons of the Trinity in so far as they subside within one another in perichoresis.
And so these three do not divide divinity between them, but each wholly partake in it hypostatically. The fullness of this love is entirely present in every involved party.

When we speak of the Father, we know that the Son and the Spirit are both present in him. Just as Christ is present in the hearts of his faithful.

So when Jesus says to his apostles that he prays they will be one even as he and his father are one, explicitly as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father so is Jesus in his apostles, it is in this modality of divine love.

... that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

>>18489481
...So your evidence for this great heresy of Partialism is some anonymous article?

A terrible one at that. Have you read its...erm..."arguments", to describe them charitably?

The next argument is "Such equivalence reaffirms that the Holy Spirit is fully God, not merely a portion of God’s being.", which doesn't even really amount to an argument at all. No it doesn't? That doesn't even make sense under Trinitarianism since, like OP's image illustrates, the Father and Holy Spirit are both God but they aren't each other. If two things are some thing X, and the two things are not identical, then by definition they're parts.

It keeps doing this over and over again in the article, it next says "'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you'-emphasize distinct roles while affirming a unity that transcends a mere 'partition' of God into thirds."

Which again barely amounts to an argument, it's genuinely just the author saying "I would like this passage to say...".

It gets extremely weird with that kind of "argument". Towards the end it says "Discoveries such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls, underscore the remarkable preservation and reliability of biblical texts."

Which...what? I couldn't make a stronger example of a non sequitur if I tried. It cites..Bible manuscripts? And the Dead Sea Scrolls? No further elaboration?

Based on https://biblehub.com/about.htm which says "This project is privately owned and supported for the express purpose of sharing Bible study tools online. Most of our work is done by volunteers with an interest in using their technological skills to this end" I'm almost certain this was written by some sort of very deeply ignorant layman who, again, probably just heard the about a supposed heresy called Partialism on the internet and decided to write down whatever popped into their head about it.

>>18489549
That video is literally the source of a nonexist heresy of "partialism". It comes from a joke in a YouTube video.

File: IMG_20260522_011621.jpg (1.62 MB, 1080x3222)

1.62 MB JPG

The rejection of the idea that God has parts seems to be an aspect of what was originally meant by the widely held doctrine of divine simplicity. In fact, it looks like the oldest sense of the word "simple" is "without parts" according to etymonline. Regarding divine simplicity specifically, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy says: "God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect. One consequence is that the simple God lacks parts." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/)

See also the picrel stackexchange answers for some historical quotes on the topic.