The doctrine of the Trinity is confusing as hell. It's famously difficult to wrap one's head around, and nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly crop up. It was entirely an apologetic exercise during the Arian heresy. It also sort of cheapens the idea of "monotheism" if God has three distinct "sides" or w/e.My question is - Sabellianism answered the Arians just fine and even came up with the term "homoousion". How come the early Church went with a way more convoluted solution to this problem? Genuinely asking. "God has the power to manifest Himself in various modes or ways as He sees fit" doesn't strike me as heretical or blasphemous at all
>>18629497Because it is unbiblical and heretical and could not prevail against the Holy Spirit.
>doesn't strike me as heretical or blasphemous at allThat’s because you are faithless. Repent and believe the gospel
>>18629552>>18629554Well if you would explain to me how it's heretical etc., that would be great. I already read Tertullian's refutation and it was weaksauce
>>18629564It is heretical 1. Because it presents a different god and a different Christ from the one revealed in the scriptures 2. Because it impugns the sacrifice of Christ, who suffered His Father’s wrath upon the tree, presented His offering before the same in heaven, and sent His Spirit to apply it to His chosen upon the earth.
>>18629497Arianism of something only slightly different from Arianism is what best matches the new testament imo, so any deviation away from it that wanted to last had to be at least passably close to it if you squint hard enough.Jesus is always called "the Son of God," never "God the Son." The Father knows things the Son does not. The Father is greater than the Son. The Son is given his name and authority by the Father. The Son says "not my will but your will." The Son is the firstborn of all creation and the "image" of God. Etc. Etc.
>>18629618Well that makes sense. Thank you for giving a thoughtful answer.
>>18629618>Jesus is always called "the Son of God," never "God the Son."This argument is like an unironic version of “it’s John the Baptist, not John the Catholic”
>>18629497Because this version of trinitarian autism won out against the rest for all we know maybe Arianism could have one too in anouther time line. It’s platonism applied to judeo paganism.
>>18629689No, it could never happen because the course of history is decided by providence and not chance.
>>18629664I think it's a strong point that only seems weak because we've inherited centuries of tradition normalizing the naturally counterintuitive notion of someone somehow being their own son. Normally children aren't their parents and normally children only come into existence after their parents, so if the Son of God is supposed to also be God and to have always existed alongside the Father who is also God, then the Father-Son designations are really more misleading than not. It would be more intuitive to just give the different persons different names and make them metaphorically partners or something, not father and son.
>>18629497Both of those are wrong.>The doctrine of the Trinity is confusing as hell. Neither the Holt Spirit nor Jesus understands it nor does man.
>>18629758>>18629497Enjoy Hell.
>>18629868Stop worshipping yourself like Edomites who LARP as Jews...your God is Jeffery Epstein.
>>18629552dont you drones ever get tired of vomiting dogma
>>18629497Yahweh is not the FatherThe entities in the OT and NT are not identical. Yahweh is satan.https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18623179/yahweh-satan
It might be philosophically confusing for you but not necessarily for them. Considering that bitrintarianism was rooted in second-temple Jewish mysticism, the general idea was that three persons were a type of revealed truth. Philosophically there is now evidence tha tthey had a model of the Trinity or two persons as well acting as a type of metaphysical road map. Origen of Alexandria and Philo of Alexandria are examples of that. The Two Powers literature and philosophical debates also most likely played a role too. Basically, the two persons or Trinity acted as anti-platonists or Gnostic device.
>>18629497>The doctrine of the Trinity is confusing as hell. It's famously difficult to wrap one's head around, and nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly crop upJohn 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) literally is God, Jesus himself also says that "I and the Father are one" and Paul says that Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God but then in all accounts of Jesus' baptism it is described that God (Father) is still in Heaven (much like in the account of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis where it says God is there on the ground in person and calls to God in Heaven at the same time to rain down fire) and speaks saying "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased" while the Holy Spirit descends as a dove, Jesus also later says that he is 'sending the Holy Spirit' from the Father and describes the Holy Spirit like its a person and tells his followers to baptize 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' but also says there is only one God. The only way to make complete sense of this is if it is where God is three separate persons in one being - hence why the early church fathers almost immediately start using Trinitarian languague to describe God almost immediately after the apostles and how they came to this conclusion.>It also sort of cheapens the idea of "monotheism" if God has three distinct "sides" or w/e.No, they are three distinct persons but the same being in essence; in the same way the branches of a tree are still the tree or water in a cup and the ocean are both water or two humans are both human - however, since there can only be one ultimate, God, definitionally, this means that anything else that has the property or essence of being God is also the same being at the same time. Imagine it like God copied himself but because they are also God and there can only be one God this automatically makes it where he is the 'other' God, from 'their' pov at the exact same time except they always existed together like that, 3-in-1
>>18629873
>>18630157>Yahweh is not the FatherTrue.>The entities in the OT and NT are not identical.Have fun burning.
>>18629618>Jesus is always called "the Son of God," never "God the Son.">Romans 9> I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[a] my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.>Philippians 2>5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,[b] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[c] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.>Titus 2>11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
>>18630259Romans 9 and Titus 2 are both grammatically ambiguous according to several common translations, with many of them prefer a reading where Christ isn't called God.For example, the NRSV translates Romans 9:5 as: "to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." And the NIV cites as possible alternative readings "...Messiah, who is over all. God be forever praised!" and "...Messiah. God who is over all be forever praised!"Then for Titus 2:13, I have several points. 1. The NRSV has, "while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." This could be read as saying Jesus is God, but I believe at least the English could also be read as saying that Jesus *is* "the manifestation of the glory of our God and Savior," depending on how you mentally group the words. That might be a relatively weak point, but I wanted to mention it anyway. 2. A stronger point is that the NRSV also allows "of the great God and our Savior" which explicitly separates the glory of God and the savior. 3. My favourite unitarian-friendly translation of this comes from the NABRE. "as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ," where the glory is interpreted as belonging to both God and Jesus separately. I think this agrees especially well with John 17:22, where Jesus, praying to the Father, says, "The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one."
>>18630379>Jesus *is*Correction: I have no idea why I put the "is" in asterisks.>>18630259Regarding Philippians 2, I have a couple considerations. 1. Being "in the form of God" doesn't obviously imply identity with God. I'm not sure exactly what it would imply, to be honest. Given that, athough it isn't a widely represented option by any means, I kind of like David Bentley Hart's very unusual translation choice for Philippians 2:6, "who, subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a god a thing to be grasped." This more obviously parallels the immediate follow-up where Jesus takes on a human form instead. So you can imagine Jesus as something like an archangel (though of course Hebrews says he's definitely superior to the angels) who trades out his archangel-like body, appearance, and powers for an only human body, appearance, and powers.2. The word translated "grasped" has a common connotation of "seized," which is how the KJV ends up mentioning robbery in the passage. To me this more naturally suggests that Jesus doesn't actually have equality with God to begin with. And, unlike, say, Satan he doesn't try to obtain it by force. Instead he obeys God by becoming human, and God rewards him by "exalting him even more highly" ,(perhaps to equality with God?) and "giving him the name that is above every other name." (Philippians 2:9)
>>18630379>quibbling over interpretations of English grammar and different English translationsthis is all null and void in the face of the fact that in the original greek, which the gospels and epistles were originally written in, the text plainly very unambigiously says in John 1:1 that the Logos is Theos, the Word is God. Titus 2 also plainly says 'God and Savior Jesus Christ' as one thing with no clear separation, Theou is Christou Ieosou, denoted by a conjunction kai (and) for God AND Savior, not separate things. Also just the fact that in the Septuagint (the original Greek old testament) God is referred to as Kyrios (Lord) just like Jesus in the new testament, interchangeably. Of course, when Jesus actually said things like "I and the Father are one" in Aramaic, it would have been even less ambigious than the Greek since the word used in Aramaic for one has the same connotation as in Hebrew meaning absolute oneness i.e. the same in being. The fact that the Pharisees are immediately outraged and tr to stone Jesus as soon as they hear him say this tells you that they knew what it was a claim to divinity, not just that Jesus is in agreement with God or something more vague or abstract/figurative.The Unitarian/JW/Arian position is just completely untenable.
>>18630433>>18630433>the text plainly very unambigiously says in John 1:1 that the Logos is Theos, the Word is God. It is apparently not that unambiguous. See picrel for one thing, where DBH sees reason in the text to make a distinction between GOD and god, which is intermediate between the usual trinitarian reading and what I believe is the usual unitarian reading, "a god." Personally, I think even "a god" is viable on the basis that, in John 10:30-36, shortly after Jesus says he and the Father are one, when Jesus is accused of making himself out to be God (or possibly even "a god" there as well?), it really looks to me like his response is more or less to defend polytheism. And that would be very strange if he believed that he and the Father being one meant they were both one God.>Titus 2 also plainly says 'God and Savior Jesus Christ' as one thing with no clear separationArgue with the professional translators, not me.
>>18630453>See picrel for one thing, where DBH sees reason in the text to make a distinction between GOD and god, which is intermediate between the usual trinitarian reading and what I believe is the usual unitarian reading, "a god."this is the JW translation and reading of that line and like the JWs you and your picrel also attempt to justify it with the same squinting and tenuous grasping at the grammar and the way Theos is written in Greek, despite the fact that this word Theos with or without an article obviously long predates it being used for the Hebrew/Christian God and despite all of the other verses and cumulative contexts that point to Jesus literally being Theos such as him being referred to as Kyrios, having the same authority over nature/the elements as God and the disciples 'falling down and worshipping him' when he calms the sea, the ability to forgive sins and the people praising God after JESUS says that the cripple is forgiven and healed etc as well as the Peshitta Bible translation showing you what would have been actually said in Aramaic, that Jesus was claiming actual oneness with the Father, a point that you didn't address. It is clear from all of this that the intuitive, straightforward, obvious interpretation that Jesus simply is God is the intended and correct one.
There's also an unusual suggestion I came across somewhere once that the past tense in John 1:1, "the logos was God" is significant and could be read in a way where the logos began as a part of God, consubstantial with God, who then separated out and became his own entity. I like this because it allows it allows the "begotten/made" distinction to be preserved while still fitting with many unitarian prooftexts, and it allows "the Father and I are one" to be made sense of as a unity of spirit, in line with 1 Corinthians 6:15-17, where a person's spirit can be united with Christ's spirit in a spiritual analogue of the unity of flesh in marriage. The since God is also described as spirit in John 4:24, Christ could be spiritually united with God in a similar way to how believers are spiritually united with Christ.I know that disagrees with divine simplicity, but is divine simplicity actually supported anywhere in the Bible, or is it only a popular philosophical assumption that got imported onto it?
>>18630453>when Jesus is accused of making himself out to be God (or possibly even "a god" there as well?), it really looks to me like his response is more or less to defend polytheismthis is an absurd claim and such a misread. I assume you are referring to this where Jesus quotes from Psalm 82 where it says that God presided over the 'gods'/divine assembly:>29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”>31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”>33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”>34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.The whole point of this passage and what Jesus is saying here is "the scriptures you follow literally refer to non-gods - angels and messengers - as 'gods' just because they've received God's commands and yet you are saying I'm blaspheming even though I'm obviously God but haven't even said that, just that I'm his Son"to think that it's a defense of polytheism is just wrong
>>18630453>>18630484the whole point of the passage is that Jesus is saying his works - his miracles - are so plainly evidence of his divine authority that to say he is blaspheming when he has yet directly stated he literally is God is silly given that their own scriptures refer to even non-gods as gods. It's not a defense of polytheism at all.
>>18630482>There's also an unusual suggestion I came across somewhere once that the past tense in John 1:1, "the logos was God" is significant the whole gospel is written in past tense though so this doesn't mean anything>could be read in a way where the logos began as a part of God, consubstantial with God, who then separated out and became his own entitythis contradicts the fact that Jesus in Revelation refers to himself as the Alpha and Omega i.e. eternal as well as how he references/calls back to God calling himself "I am that I am" from Exodus by saying "before Abraham was, I am" as well as Paul saying "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" in Hebrews.>consubstantial with Godlook into Orthodox theology about the Trinity, it explains the Trinity pretty well in this regard i.e. God the Father and God the Son are separate persons but the same in essence and therefore both the being God, one in substance and the Son being eternally begotten from the Father
>>18630259>citing Paul's fanfiction as informative in any way about the actual teachings of Jesus
>>18630484>you are saying I'm blaspheming even though I'm obviously God but haven't even said that, just that I'm his Son"I notice you added in "even though I'm obviously God," which isn't there. And your intepretation doesn't seem coherent to me. There doesn't seem to be any sensible reason for Jesus to bring up the passage the way you read it. If he isn't defending himself being rightfully called a lower-case g god (defending polytheism), why bring up the passage that refers to lower case g gods? I suppose it's possible that I'm the one who's confused, but I really doubt it. To me it comes across as pure bluster to say that Jesus isn't defending some notion of polytheism there in response to his accusers.
>>18629497It’s kinda funny, arguments for the trinity is equating Jesus and the father, while leaving out that if they are the same being then the Holy Spirit is just as equal to the father and son.Jesus worshipped the father, he didn’t worship himself, but trinitarians believe Jesus is the father, but that brings up the issue of the death for 3 days and resurrection, by that same thought they have you believe god the father can die.
>>18630494>this contradicts the fact that Jesus in Revelation refers to himself as the Alpha and Omega i.e. eternal "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”All of these are boundary markers, but eternity has no boundaries. If eternality is unquestionably intended, "I am the beginningless and the endless" would be more fitting.>how he references/calls back to God calling himself "I am that I am" from Exodus by saying "before Abraham was, I am"There's an argument that this should be translated as "I have been since before Abraham." The "I am" isn't as ungrammatical in the Greek as it's made out to be in most English translations. IIRC there's a blind guy in John who also says it, but no one translates that weirdly like they do when Jesus says it. Even if it's a callback to Exodus, Jesus says in John that he was "given" God's name, so he could use it despite not having it by default.>Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever"Yesterday isn't infinitely far in the past. Maybe you think forever includes infinitely far in the past, but I don't think that applies to the Greek. There are even arguments over whether the words commonly translated as forever really should be so translated as often as they are. Young's Literal Translation has it as, "Jesus Christ yesterday and to-day the same, and to the ages;"
>>18630241>John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) literally is GodIt doesn’t, though. It says the Word is 'theos' with no definite article, which is incredibly ambiguous in the grammatical construction used in that sentence; it can mean the Word is _a_ god, or that the word is capital-G God, or (taking 'theos' a qualitative) that the word is of-god-nature, i.e. divine in some vague sense. Modern translations hide this huge ambiguity because only interpretation #2 suits their preconceived theology, but it's not at all clear that was what John meant.
>>18629497Because Arianism produced Julian, and after he died eastern Christianity reacted violently to exterminate and root out anything that was at all associated with Julian so there could never be another pivot to paganism.
>>18630496 (cont.)>To me it comes across as pure bluster to say that Jesus isn't defending some notion of polytheismIn case I wasn't clear, I specifically think Jesus is defending that he *could* be called a god if someone wanted to do so, since in the Hebrew Bible beings of lower status than him were called gods, though he himself prefers to only call himself the Son of God.
>>18630495Peter and John trusted Paul and accepted his testimony and they were the closest to Jesus so why shouldn't we also believe that Paul really was taken up to the third Heaven in the spirit, saw Jesus enthroned and was guided by the Holy Spirit like them? To distrust Paul and dismiss his teachings means you have to also think the likes of Peter and John themselves were mistaken and tricked, even though they were Jesus' chosen and had the Holy Spirit.>>18630505nope, this is all wrong. Jesus, God the Son, is not the Father, he is a diffeent person. Trinitarians do NOT believe that Jesus is the Father.>while leaving out that if they are the same being then the Holy Spirit is just as equal to the father and sonChristians do not leave this out, they do in fact think the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son, yes, this is correct.>Jesus worshipped the father, he didn’t worship himselfJesus worshipped the Father because he was also fully man and lived a sinless life following the law of God perfectly and lived to set the perfect example, which includes worshipping God, obviously.
>>18630496>>18630540>To me it comes across as pure bluster to say that Jesus isn't defending some notion of polytheism Jesus is supposed to be a perfect Jew who fulfils the Torah and embodies it and refers to the Law constantly so him defending polytheism is literally impossible since this obviously breaks the first of the ten commandments. This is also why him saying something like 'The Father and I are one' and the way he cites that Psalm about 'gods' can only mean that he is saying he is literally God otherwise, again, it breaks the Law if he's saying he's some lesser god or that other gods exist and can be worshipped - and obviously Jesus accepts worship from his followers in the gospels such as on the boat or after his resurrection when Thomas falls down and says 'My Lord and my God!' after inspecting his wounds.>I notice you added in "even though I'm obviously God," which isn't there.there's no other way to read it that makes sense. Jesus suddenly making a case for polytheism out of nowhere is just nonsensical and if this was the case and the intended meaning then obviously the gospels, the epistles and the early church would be radically different.>>18630516the reason why 'I am the aplha and the omega, the first and the last' means Jesus is saying he is the eternal God himself is because God already said this in the old testament>Isaiah 41:4>Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.>Isaiah 44:6>Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.">Isaiah 48:12>“Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last."Almost everything else you said can just be dismissed in light of this.
>>18630519>It says the Word is 'theos' with no definite articlegiven that the Greeks were polytheistic with no conception of THE God when they invented the word theos and their grammar and using 'the' or not had no bearing on anything, even when John was first written, this is such a nothingburger and stretch of a point. It literally doesn't matter, contextually, the reader already knows going into the gospel that the Jews only believe in one god and that this is the same god the Christians are talking about, it's irrelevant. It only doesn't say 'the God' literally just because of how the sentence flows and that it's describing the Word in a qualitative way. This clunky JW-tier talking point is so uncompelling and the majority of translators and scholars all agree it's saying that being God is a property of the Word, not that the Word is some lesser deity.
>>18630586>polytheism is literally impossible since this obviously breaks the first of the ten commandmentshttps://biblehub.com/topical/h/henotheism.htm>"You shall have no other gods before Me." This commandment, part of the Decalogue, suggests the existence of other gods but demands exclusive worship of Yahweh. The phrase "before Me" implies a hierarchy where Yahweh is supreme.>Psalm 82:1 [from the psalm Jesus quotes] "God presides in the divine assembly; He renders judgment among the gods." This psalm portrays a scene where God is depicted as supreme among other divine beings, indicating a henotheistic worldview where Yahweh is the chief deity.
>>18630246>A talking bush? A talking cloud?! MEDS!Stop LARPing youre able to perform Cognitive tests on people...>I cant stop, I am of my Father the Devil and speak his native language of LARP!I know...because *I AM* qualified, dumbass...>>18630248>Im basically the judger of souls until God shows up.How Satanic of you...and when God does you'll call Him a heretic for not conforming to you Satanism, like so many times before... You hueman-mortals are so simplex...and dementedly evil...
>>18629618That's easily explained as it was by Jesus being in human form which He absolutely was and obeying the Will of the Father. Aka homoousion
Utter schizo babble itt. REEE only my version of the magic Jew is real! Repent for your sneeds!
>>18630994>only my version of the magic Jew is real!Yes.
>>18630418Christ as the new Adam is the interpretative key for this one. Can you think of someone else who was made in the form of God, and grasped a thing which made God say, "see, the humans have become like one of us"? Maybe someone who also had their name bestowed on them by God?
>>18630572>Jesus, God the Son, is not the Father, he is a diffeent person.The first commandment says you shall have no other gods before me(singular).It’s one being, one god, not one god in 3 pieces or parts.>the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son, yes, this is correct.John 15:26 But when that Comforter shall come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth of the Father, he shall testify of me. (1599 gnv)The spirit is given by the father, the spirit is not co equal to the father nor the son, bring up the problem of the spirit gave itself to itself.>Jesus worshipped the Father because he was also fully manThe father does not worship himself, he is not a man he is god, he’s not a Demi god or a god-man, Jesus is a man who died and was resurrected 3 days later by the father.God cannot be killed or die.Jesus was given authority by the father to act on his behalf just like an envoy sent by a king is to be respected as if he is the king.
>>18631078>It’s one being, one god, not one god in 3 pieces or parts.Correct. The Trinity is not where God is in 3 parts, that's a heresy. The Trinity is where God is 3 persons in 1 being.>The spirit is given by the father, the spirit is not co equal to the father nor the sonno, the Holy Spirit is also equal to the Father and the Son because the Holy Spirit is also immortal and eternal, not a created being and is also God>bring up the problem of the spirit gave itself to itselfthe Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son; since God is eternal and unchanging this means the Holy Spirit is always proceeding>The father does not worship himselfcorrect, the Son is not the Father and when Jesus was incarnated as a man He was fully human as well as fully God and had two wills, human and divine; it was His human will to worship God because humans are supposed to do that and He embodied the perfect human life>he is not a man he is godJesus is fully man and fully God at the same time>God cannot be killed or diecorrect, God was also still present in Heaven when Jesus died in bodily form on the cross>Jesus was given authority by the father to act on his behalf just like an envoy sent by a king is to be respected as if he is the kingyes and then exalted at the right hand of God and crowned over all creation. Jesus Christ is Lord, King and God.>inb4 that makes no sense/is impossible/illogical/incomprehensibleso you're saying God is limited? God invented logic and predates reality, he is the ultimate, of course He is incomprehensible. Your conception of God is too narrow for it to be God. God isn't just some disembodied superintelligence outside of space, he is the alpha and the omega, the One, the Eternal Being, the I Am.
