So if the Trinity weren't true, Christianity just becomes paganism? Is that why they're so defensive about it?
>>18656306Without the Trinity it is polytheism, but the Trinity is actually what helped Christianity develop an opposing identity to Islam which helped the Church motivate people to fight Islam.
>>18656306If they were equal they would be brothers not father and son.
>>18656306>If Trinity weren't trueSlippery slope fallacy. LARPagans are so silly hihihi
The trinity is literally the pagan greek concept that became popular among the gentile Christian population and the nicea council adopted it for damn political motives.
>>18656315which is funny because sainthood is just polytheism with extra steps, sam with angels.like is there really that big of a difference having a monotheistic god with angels serving him from having a polytheistic high god with minor gods serving him?
>>18656306>So if the Trinity weren't trueyou mean the sun which is but isnt the three phases of the moon a very pagan concept on mother earth and father time
>>18656391shits as old as time the first recorded origin speaks of El separating Anu and Ki becoming the trinity of El time (father) Anu heaven (holy spirit) Ki earth (son) which later became the Trinity of El and his children Ba'al the fertile rain YHVH the violent rain YHVH then becoming the new trinity of Christ
>>18656306>So if the Trinity weren't true, Christianity just becomes paganism? ...If the Trinity isn't true, Christianity isnt true. Christianity is based on the Trinity. That's why they defend it.What do you even mean by paganism?
>>18656534>Christianity is based on the TrinityThe earliest Christians would be surprised to hear you say that.
>>18656571They very much wouldn't. They didnt use the same technical terms used later but they did believe in the Trinity.
>>18656571i think op chose this subject because the pro trinity anti trinity christ cuck debate is easy to insight and troll but op is to dumb to understand how the trinity penetrates all religions as its fundamental to the nature of reality pest present future sleep conscious awake the first kissing number ect
>>18656306From what I understand it's not that Christianity would become paganism, but that Christ would become more or less irrelevant and the problems set up in Genesis would remain unsolved. Instead of concluding and fulfilling the prophets, Christ would just be one more prophet. Instead of your personal savior, he'd be a mere hero that you admire from afar. Instead of God becoming man to help men rejoin God, he'd just be a bloke who cheated death and got promoted to managing you beating your death too. And we now merely remind ourselves with wine. It's still a cosmic narrative, it's still somewhat majestic, but it doesn't really solve anything in the grand narrative. Death still owns us all. Humanity and God are still disjointed. Nations still each do their own thing. We just got one more prophet, more impressive than the rest and that's all. It would be a lot like gnosticism in that it would become a story you study to feel "in the know" but it doesn't offer any unique self-transformation options. >>18656495>is there really that big of a difference having a monotheistic god with angels serving him from having a polytheistic high god with minor gods serving him?Yes. A monotheistic God is of a different kind from a polytheistic one. It's not about the total sum of entities someone may call gods, it's about there being a) one source of reality and minor spirits either serving him or foolishly rebelling against him, or b) a bunch of spirits that compete in power.
>>18656306>Christianity just becomes paganism?It already is paganism. They worship a middle platonic 3 headed (different wills and knowledge) man god who impregnates mortal women and birth demigods. The reason they are defensive about it is because the OT is very strict about worshiping other gods. If that was rejected they'd just be a syncretized Greco-Roman sect of Judaism
>>18656594I'm trinitarian, but I never understood the arguments against having more than a triad.I understand why unitarianism is self-refuting, and that a dyad collapses into a monad, but why not four or seven persons in the divine nature?
>Is that why they're so defensive about it?Because if you worship Christ and he's not literally God then you're not putting God as the most high which makes you instantly fail at the single most important command the Abrahamic God makes.
>>18656641There are infinite aspects of the Divine and It's Nature thats why the alef means both one and infinity 1 became 2 so from 34 could be made all as 1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing_numberSumerians where pretty keen on numbers and their geometric games which is why we go by 12 months 7day weeks 24hours 60minute a hour 60seconds a minute and 360degrees to acircle/square
>>18656604>Yes. A monotheistic God is of a different kind from a polytheistic one. It's not about the total sum of entities someone may call gods, it's about there being a) one source of reality and minor spirits either serving him or foolishly rebelling against him, or b) a bunch of spirits that compete in powernope it's just a difference in semantics
One god having multiple aspects doesn't seem that weird to me. It doesn't seem like paganism if it's the same god. It also doesn't seem like a necessarily unique thing for Christians. The amount of autism over exactly how to systematize the omnipotent seems like a huge waste of mental energy and a recipe for needless rancor between people who are all equally in the darkLike if you think your religion becomes a farce if you can't agree on a flowchart of how exactly God exists in exactly which and how many different ways, and how they relate, maybe you deserve to worry. Because it seems sort of hubristic and insecure.
>>18656652>4 could be made all 3 as 1*pic related the symbol for earth is the h a l o3 seasons landing on 1 spring but its also color RYB landing on the G ofRGB and so much more
>>18656659I don't know why people say that. "Just a difference in semantics". Yeah, it's a difference in semantics because the semantic referent is different. It's like saying Newtonian and quantum physics are just formula differences. Yeah. That is quite some difference.
>paganismWhat's with the retard use of this term here? Do you even know what Paganism really means?Is this some kind of 19th century KJV-only retarded theory?
>>18656668its all the semantics of god and god hides within everything plus most people don't get that all polytheisms are really just about explaining the monadjust because people worship a aspect of the monad as a god and dont care about their broader religiondoesn't mean their broader religion doesn't teach the monad
>>18656675gods-as-aspects is a very late revised take on classical paganism, ironically influenced by monotheist religions. I don't have anything against you interpreting pagan myth this, but it would be verifiably false to chalk the difference between monotheism and polytheism to mere manners of expression, because polytheist gods have personhood, full personhood and aren't mere aspects. As the persons of the trinity aren't, after all.>doesn't mean their broader religion doesn't teach the monadThat's right. The monad missing from all core materials is what means their broader religion doesn't teach the monad. And again, I'm completely fine (and actually happy) if their texts can carry the monad projected upon them. That means the texts are closer to truth than would otherwise mean. But they do not actually teach the monad. You have to teach it to the texts.
>>18656315Nigga Islam developed from Arian Christianity (anti trinitarians). Had orthodoxy not become trinitarian there's a chance Islam wouldn't have appeared and the middle east would still be Christian.
>>18656689anon there has always been the esoteric oral traditions behind the layman's good boy manual/hidden police officer this is why there are middle men aka priests who guide people as they see fit giving the truth to those that can do well with it and keeping to the story for those who need it
>>18656306The problems only arise when you insist that Jesus is God.Christianity works just fine if...A. Jesus is the messiah (and maybe a demi-god like Gilgamesh)B. Jesus spoke figuratively and we are all the sons/daughters of God and we become the Father when we do the work of the FatherC. Jesus is a lesser Deity similar to an Angel and he did not always exist, but was actually born when his human body was born
>>18656735Maybe there were, maybe there weren't. Characterizing a thousand religions by what you suspect was a backdrop of a select few practicioners naturally carries no power. Like I said, I'm happy if you're successful re-purposing pagan myths to carry Truth. Doesn't mean they even remotely knew it. Jordan Peterson made a good chunk of his career on making the Disney's Pinocchio carry profound psycho-religious truths too.
>>18656738The problem that arises in A, B and C is that we've all had that and none of that solved death and sin. It might be good, but it's not news. There is no new humanity.
>>18656745anon the laymen werent even allowed to read the bible back in the day and god isnt a sky daddy dont be daft
>>18656762Back in the day when? When the laymen were a mixture of observant Jews who knew the Torah back-to-front and the New Testament wasn't even written? Those are the people who would miss the fact that Jesus was supposed to solve Genesis? I have no idea what went through your head when you wrote your reply, my nigga.
>>18656772what is going through your head right now yah wacko i said bible not torah and Judaism is more well known for its oral tradition then Christianityman i swear the people here are freaks
also since when the fuck where laymen rebe/rabisthose retards have 613 rules for a reason like do you even know of the outer garden the inner gaden the temple and the holy placefuckin stupid ass goy
>>18656746>sinMaybe original sin was just misunderstood. It wasn't a punishment by God, but the result of humanity removing itself from the natural order (figuratively eating the Fruit of Knowledge). The solution is to rebuild your connection to the Holy Spirit. And to live a minimalist lifestyle as Jesus preached.>deathJust have to trust God to resurrect you at some point, I guess?
on a second thought I dun fucked upnever mind
>>18656784Your understanding of sin is relatively standard, it is indeed an abnormality in our development and God was in many ways merciful to prevent us from making it permanent (gaining immortality right after). However, the solution you propose doesn't hold water because the OT is full of people who lived with God for prolonged periods, communicating regularly and intimately with Him... and it still wasn't enough. Jesus would then become an example of "do everything you've already seen, just longer". I would argue it's still not news that way, it's just another prophet, only quantitatively more impressive than Elijah if at all.
>>18656738>but was actually born when his human body was bornThat part doesn't work because he says he existed before Abraham, and it's said in the epistles that all things were created through him. If he isn't the same eternal being as the Father, then Jesus must have been the very first being the Father created.
cont >>18656794I mean "still wasn't enough" in that it still didn't move the needle on undoing sin on a cosmic scale. The sin-cleaning atoning sacrifices were still necessary for the people and the space alike. If all the 60+ books amounted just to "stop sinning, this time permanently", they could have told us that from the start. The gradual revelation makes sense seemingly only if the final chapter cannot be understood lest for all that came before it. And Christ as one of three persons of the Trinity is only possible to understand with the power of hindsight, sometimes not even that.
>>18656796That's the view of Paul and John the Elder, yeah.
