>the Father is greater than IHow does this fit the established model of the Trinity?Hard mode: Use your brain and not Grok or Google.
>>18680770In Christ, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. The one true God is the living body of Christ formed of its members. The worship of discarnate devils is paganism.
>>18680771>just sidesteps the questionlol
>>18680772I answered the question.
>>18680771But why did Jesus say he's not equal to the Father?
>>18680774>In Christ, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one
>>18680776Okay you are giving an argument for the Trinity. But we are discussing an argument against it. Repond to it or GTFO.
>>18680778>>18680776This is unitarianism not Trinitarianism
>>18680782To be the Devil's advocate. Maybe they are on in being and seperate in persons? I'm leaning Unitarian but let's steelman this.
>>18680782>unitarianismIs the rejection of the fact that in Christ the Father, Son and Spirit are one.
>>18680770Everything the Son has he received from the Father. Hence the patriarchally charged terms "Father" and "Son". Hence the Father is greater, because he is the Source. Or at least that's what I've understood reading theology.
>>18680792But the persons of the Trinity are supposed to be coequal. They have the same power allegedly.
>>18680807They do. The Father shares everything with the Son. But it is the Father sharing.
>>18680817Does the Father share with the Holy Spirit alone or Filioque? Your take?
>>18680823The Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The difference between begetting and proceeding is not one that can supposedly be explained, but it is maintained that it's not the same relationship. I suspect the same would apply to the Father 'sharing' with the Son and '_____' with the Spirit. That's as far as I'm daring to speculate.
>>18680817>The Father shares everything with the SonNo this is just false. The Father doesn't share paternity with the Son (who only has filiation instead) nor does he share aseity. The Son doesn't even have the same authority lol
>>18680830So are you leaning more Orthodox or more Western?
>>18680830>begets>proceedsWhat do these mean? They clearly don't use the regular definition in any case. Why can't we use the word vomit?
>>18680833>The Father doesn't share paternity with the SonWe were discussing power, not whether the Son becomes the Father lol. I appreciate that you have golden nuggets of understanding that you're shaking with excitement to share, but please wait for actual opportunities to do so. Fabricating them is counter-productive.>>18680835I am Orthodox.
>>18680839LMFAO I'm gonna steal this.
>>18680843>We were discussing powerYes and the Son doesn't have the power to spawn a divine Son nor does he have inherent power that is not dependent on the Father. Both of those things mentioned directly have to do with God's power
>>18680848Your language games confuse you alone. I concede that if you frame "being the Father" as a power, then the Father shares all power minus one with the Son. Though I bring your attention to the exchange above to reflect on whether this framing is productive and worth carrying to the next thread you will misread.
>>18680844I didn't come up with it. Unfortunately I am not that creative. Jesus was vomited from the Father's bowels according to their own words
>>18680855Thanks for the concession but I said nothing about the Son being the same divine person as the Father there. I know it may confuse you but a Son can have a Son of his own without becoming his own Father. This is not too different to the issue of the Filioque I am just focusing on another instance of begetting here rather than spiration. That being said this is only part of the issue. Being a parent in any meaningful sense does not necessitate aseity. It just so happens to be the case with the Father and so he uniquely has inherent power
>>18680861I know what you said.
>>18680862Okay so then you can see that the Son and the Father both have different power. Both in ability (to spawn another divine Son) and in nature (derived or not). This is just scratching the surface there are other differences such as the Father requiring the existence of the Son to create anything else while the Son doesn't require any intermediate "tool" to use his own power
It's a mystery. Trying to box the incomprehensible into human logic would just lead everyone to disappointment.
>>18680864I've always seen that framing "being a Father" as one power among many results in problems and having to make disclaimers. That's why my posts don't use that framing. If you do and you are comfortable with need those disclaimers, no objections from my side.
Jesus said the Father was greater than Him. But, it was not because Jesus is not God. Instead, it was because Jesus was in a lower position than God the Father. He was “…made for a little while lower than the angels…” (Heb. 2:9). In Gal. 4:4, it says He was made under the Law. So, as someone under the Law, he had to pray to the Father and do the Father’s will. Also, in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men...”Jesus has two natures: divine and human. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9) and was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4). He became a man to die for people (1 Cor. 15:1-4). As a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law, namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5).---Jesus Christ is The Lord God in the flesh. He came to Earth in human form, willingly died on the cross as a sinless sacrifice for all the sins of the whole world to save you from eternal hell, the punishment for your sins. He was buried, then rose again from the dead. He now offers complete and permanent spiritual cleansing and eternal life to anyone who trusts Him enough to ask Him for it, instead of trusting their own works to be saved. Trust that the work He did is sufficient to pay for you sins, and call upon Him as your Saviour, knowing that you are a sinner, and that without the blood atonement He made, you would go to hell. If you understand that you need Jesus Christ, call upon Him. God will give you everything that you need to accept salvation He promised as a free gift, as long as you really want it. God IS a trinity (1 John 5:7), and no one can come unto God the Father, but by Jesus (John 14:6).www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
>>18680868If you're so allergic to the idea that the Son lacking the power of having his own offpsring makes his ability different from the Father who can do so any time he wishes. Then you can freely address the other differences between their powers which I have brought forth. Why does the Father need a helper to create ex nihilo but the Son doesn't? The Logos theology you have copied by definition makes a distinction between their powers since one of them is too great to interact with creation directly while the other necessarily serves as a mediator.
>>18680878I'm not allergic to the Son not being the Father. I'm allergic to counter-productive semantics. Again, if you're not, have it your way.
>>18680880Great and I mentioned two differences that have nothing to do with paternity or filiation. Also even prior to that I asked you to define two simple words >>18680839 that your entire theology depends on. Multiple different things have been brought forth and you have answers to none of them. Are you content with boxing your mind from any challenge just so you can keep believing in such a nonsensical religion?
>>18680894See >>18680862
>>18680920Your response indicates that you don't and/or that you're running. All of this just so you can avoid worshiping the same God Jesus worships.
>>18680935I worship God. That luckily doesn't include arguing with redditors about how powers should be framed, especially since I've told you twice to go ahead the way you prefer. The only thing challenging here is your demand that pay attention to your semantics and validate them.
>>18680770The trinity exists to obfuscate the incestuous connotations of Jesus Christ's birth. After all, if God inseminated Mary (Matthew 1:18) and Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:30) then that means Jesus impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself in an act of magical incest. Disgusting. Hence the need for a "Holy Spirit" intermediary.
>>18681007>ad hominem and still no has no answersPathetic. I am literally asking you to use your definitions but you continuously fail to provide them. I'm even being generous enough to avoid your allergy. Also no you don't worship God you worship Greek philosophy (which you don't even understand) with a biblical name swap
>>18681138An ad hominem would be "you are personally XYZ therefore your argument is invalid". What I said instead is "you are XYZ, btw I don't care about what you're arguing". No, I will not provide my definitions, not sure why I have to spell it out after making it clear twice.
>>18681143You just admitted that my argument is not invalid. I don't have to engage with you any further now that I know this is just yet another concession and that you're too cowardly to spell it out. My suggestion is repent from your polytheism before you have to face God on judgment day
>>18681207>>I don't care about waht you're arguing>so you're saying it's valid!Are these replies worth it?
>>18681213Let's make it simple for you. Look at the definition you gave. "you are personally XYZ therefore your argument is invalid". You did the first part by your own admission so we can ignore that. Then you negated the second part making your action perfectly represented by this sentence. "you are personally XYZ therefore your argument is NOT invalid" Admit the ad hominem and save yourself from this embarrassment
>>18681235>you didn't say it therefore you negated it>embarrassment
>>18681244You negated the conditional statement "You are personally XYZ, therefore your argument is invalid" In formal logic, to negate an implication (P Q), you are asserting that the premise happens but the conclusion does not (P AND NOT Q). Because you explicitly stated that the premise ('You are personally XYZ') still stands, the rules of logical negation dictate that your position is exactly "You are personally XYZ, and your argument is NOT invalid" Therefore, this is a perfectly fair representation of your position. cope and seethe won again
>>18681267*P then Q
>>18681267>you didn't say it therefore you negated it>again
>>18681275>pagan bot broke so he repeats himselfYour negation was right here >>18681143 "What I said instead" Then you affirmed the P, so what part did you not agree with beside the Q?
>>18681278>Your negation was .... "What I said instead"I will give you one more chance to play it off before I explicitly explain to you the complete basics of reading comprehension. Hopefully your thirst for attention at any cost will be quenched by this.
>>18681282So now you didn't negate it? You're stuck lol either admit your ad hominem or your concession.
>>18681291Finally a correct statement. Correct, Anon, I didn't negate it. I negated saying it. It takes an extremely fragile mind to conflate not uttering a fallacy with disagreeing with the conclusion the fallacy happens to draw. Especially since the ad hominem argument was an example and I could have easily chosen "You are personally XYZ therefore your argument is valid". This is also an ad hominem fallacy. And I have likewise not said this. In your mind, I have negated two ends of a dichotomy about your argument's validity. In reality, I've not addressed your validity at all. This discussion is only lasting as long as it is because you're desperate for strangers attention and you're willing to forsake informal (and even formal) logic to get it.
>>18681304>actually I didn't do "NOT (P then Q)" I did "NOT say (P then Q)" whatever that's supposed to meanOh my you are beyond retarded. With both you affirm that P took place and both P are an act of speech you fucking moron. Your distinction makes no sense you fool. How can you do the "You are personally XYZ" part of an ad hominem without saying it?
>>18681331>>I didn't say that>whatever that's supposed to meanWhy humiliate yourself like this?> How can you do the "You are personally XYZ" part of an ad hominem without saying it?I neither negated this nor negated saying this. Get an adult to read out to you what we're actually discussing.
>>18681341>still can't explain how you can do P without saying itahahahahah rekt, imagine worshiping Greek philosophy while being so bad at argumentation>I neitherWut? I asked you a question. I didn't claim you negated anything in the snippet you quoted
>still can't explain what he didn't claimNo adults were around?You are positively morphing my frustration into pity and pity into curiosity. I'm intrigued - I never said "You're XYZ therefore your argument is invalid". And I never said "You're XYZ therefore your argument is valid." What do you make of this in your obscure approach to negations and mutilated formal logic? What is the implication in your mind?
>>18681369>he's so mad he stops replying to posts>bro stop pointing out my blunders do this irrelevant bullshit insteadWhat a sad display lmao, I must have touched a nerve this time. This must be what orthocuckery does to a Again how you can do P without saying it?
>>18681377*to a man
>>18681377Can't answer, can you? The difference being you are caught in your own statements whereas you're trying to catch me in things I never said. I hope you feel like a winner, Anon. Ask me again.
Having a huge number of sequestered priests/monks was a mistake. They have nothing to do all day, but to argue about contradictions and implications in scripture.
>>18681380>things I never saidDoes your IQ even reach double digits? I am genuinely curious. Read >>18681267 "this is a perfectly fair representation of your position" where do you see anything here about me claiming you explicitly typed out this statement? Where did I say you negated anything relevant here >>18681360 It seems to me like not even a trained adult can help you with your lacking reading comprehension issues. It seems to be a mental issue and so you might have an excuse for your polytheism >I hope you feel like a winnerI do, I explicitly got a concession out of you and trapped you multiple times. orthodox trinitarianism cannot be defended >Ask me againWhich of the numerous questions that you keep refusing to answer should I ask you?
>>18681394So you admit you're pushing me on something I didn't say, but you're still fighting for your life dodging accountability for what you did say.Thank you, Anon. Makes sense you're not a Trinitarian.
>>18680770It's mindless schizobabble that relies on literal doublethink. You're not supposed to question it.
>>18681402>logical implications do not exist in the trinitarian mindYeah it makes sense. Your very best concede that your theology is illogical and that you should appeal to mystery whenever you make nonsensical/contradictory claims
>>18681413>*dodges addressing logical implications*>well naturally it's all about the logical implicationsThe curiosity has turned back into pity. And I regret being mean to you, I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me after you've calmed down. If the concession that your semantics of power do indeed cause problems is dear to you, keep it. I did indeed concede on that. As to the rest of your argument, I'm not sure I could have been clearer on how much I don't care for it. So much so that you had to invent an ad hominem and then squeeze me not uttering the ad hominem to at least have something to engage with. Unfortunate moves. But I'm really glad they were done by an outspoken anti-Trinitarian.Anything you'd like to clarify in conclusion, XYZ?
>>18680770>>18680771The trinity is about the presession of knowledge from father to son, or from God to Creation, through the medium known as the Holy Spirit.The reason why Man is made in the image of God, is because Gods spirit lives through his lineage, despite this world being the kingdom of Satan.Creation itself was the act of God separating/writing down the difference between good potential and erroneous product. By naming the evil, he inherently also created his own image within the living word, which is creation.The Son of Man, is the living image of God within creation - because God within creation is the archetypal faultless Man that named the sins within it.The squatting man symbol has traditionally been the "Son of Man" symbol that Jesus said was his symbol, because that is the shape of super-auroras and magnetism itself, that looks like a man holding/being circled by two snakes.Also, his father was Juba II - making this symbol quite literally Jesus' hereditary tribal symbol.
>>18681423>bro I don't care that's why I keep trying to save faceNobody is buying it. It's been fun seeing you struggle though. Running away from arguments isn't how you save your religion but I guess that's all Jay Dyer is capable of teaching his orthobro minions so I don't blame you. Looks like there isn't anything else left of substance here and I need to go away for a while so don't even bother replying. I am sure you'd rather spend this time drinking some dead saint foot water like a good pagan anyway.
>>18681453That makes sense, I actually cared about your argument so I tried to save my own face. As one does. Good chat :)
>>18681423>I'm not sure I could have been clearer on how much I don't care for it.>>18681459>I actually cared about your argumentOne of these is a lie and that makes you a liar. Instead of playing these games why don't you actually try to reason? If an idea cannot be defended then why hold onto it? It's not like trinitarianism is biblical and early Church tradition itself does not back it. You merely rely on the interpretation of fallible men that came hundreds of years after Jesus. Men who believe it can never be made sense of anyway. Why do this when you can just worship the God of Abraham?
