>>18684211
Ok, what proof methods do you accept for divine revelation?

>>18684213
Let's say it has to be in the Bible. But later I might move the goalpost though...

>>18684217
Ok, 4th person isn't in the Bible. If truth 'has to be in the Bible', this is it.

>>18684223
Well. The Bible doesn't talk about the germ theory. It could be keeping some of the Godhead secret as well. Where in the Bible does it say "Godhead was fully revealed"?

>>18684229
It says "if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Changing 3 persons to 4 changes the faith. Adding germ theory in the background doesn't.

>>18684244
Just because I can't preach a fourth person doesn't mean there isn't one.

>>18684248
It kinda does, Anon, lmao. The gospels present a Trinity. If they were presenting a trinity-so-far or trinity-provisionally, you'd be allowed to speculate. But you aren't. They are presenting a Trinity and making it a point that no changes are to be made to this faith.

>>18684259
Yeah the Christian faith might be Trinitarian (which is debatable BTW and there were many early unitarian Christians but whatever). Still just because the teaching is there are God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit doesn't mean there isn't a Holy Dog of you Neighbour or something.

Because in the Hebrew Bible the Trinity isn't really stated and that was also revelation from God. So God does keep secrets about his nature.

>>18684268
Again, it does. Changing the Trinity into a Quaternity would change the faith and the Bible forbids that, which is what you selected as the criterion of proof. These are your rules I'm relying on.
>in the Hebrew Bible the Trinity isn't really stated
And it neither states that the faith must be unchanged. In fact, they change various parts multiple times. The no-more-changes criterion comes precisely after multiple persons of God are an acceptable Second Temple Judaism belief and after 3 is settled.

>>18684274
Quaternity would change the faith and maybe that's why it's kept secret? Maybe we are supposed to never learn it? Still it could be true.

>>18684277
On your request we are using the Bible as the proof. We're not using it as means to speculate our way to a separate proof in the background of its writing. Your objection is therefore invalid.

>>18684297
Yeah the proof from the Bible would be
>I, Paul, therefore proclaim there are no less and no more than three persons in the Godhead
If the Bible doesn't talk about the limit number of the Godhead we are free to speculate.

>>18684302
Which is equivalent to "it's the trinity, everything else is to be rejected"
You're free to speculate about anything you like. The proof method you proposed concludes 3 persons exactly.

>>18684312
No. The Bible simply leaves the possibility of a Quaternity open. Get used to this idea. It was proposed by people like Shabir Ally and never refuted.

>>18684318
>trinity
>accept nothing else
Sorry, not open whatsoever.

File: Get BTFO.jpg (1.53 MB, 2963x2595)

1.53 MB JPG

>>18684321
>trinity
>accept nothing else
Chapter and verse?

>>18684327
See the thread.

>>18684346
Lol. Just concede at this point.

File: internet_friends_irl_alien.jpg (89 KB, 500x692)

89 KB JPG

>>18684244
>Changing 3 persons to 4 changes the faith.
How? You don't have to interact with the 4th person as a human being. That's just another Son but this one fused with a Martian nature instead so he can get murdered by Martian Pharisees as a sacrifice to himself

Trinity is bullshit and is responsible for the rise of false religions like JW and Islam.

Socinianism gets it right though.

>>18684360
Why does the Christian God needs Muhammad to popularize the idea of an Unitarian God?

>>18684213
It has to be said by a prophet speaking in behalf of God.

>>18684348
I don't usually concede after filling the burden.

>>18684358
You do actually have to interact with it, that's the -une part of the tri-une God. Interacting with one is interacting with all three.

>>18684365
Ok, see the saints.

>>18684376
>Interacting with one is interacting with all three
How? Let's say you pray to the quadrinity and you pray to the trinity. It's still one unified mind that hears your prayer in both situations. The only way this distinction makes sense is if there are multiple independent minds with different knowledge and wills. But even in that case the Martian Son person of the godhead hearing you makes no difference since he only came for the Martians who believe in the work of the Martian cross so he will not answer your prayers

>>18684387
I'm not sure about unified or independent mind dichotomy, but the theology of what "person" means runs surprisingly deep and one of the things it means is that you are one with other persons. They are distinct, but they are not separate. So you cannot interact separately with only one. How that works in your martian religion I wouldn't know.

>>18684389
>I'm not sure about unified or independent mind dichotomy
It has to be multiple independent minds. Jesus makes a distinction between his will/knowledge and that of the Father. And even independent of scripture the argument from indexicals makes that the only possibility that can be defended. But it's okay you can pick whichever one you believe in.
>one of the things it means is that you are one with other persons
Just like they are one with the believers as Jesus prays for. Surely you don't believe every single time you pray to the Father you are interacting with a Christian half way across the globe. But even if you did what's the issue in making this network interplanetary?
>They are distinct
It depends on your denomination but for example Catholics believe this distinction is solely through the manner they were generated. So the only real difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son was begotten. The Martian method could be egg laying instead

>>18684321
Maybe god has a secret part that js so divine and inaccessivle that it shouldn't be worshipped. A complete mystery, reserved only for maybe saints or Jesus

>>18684394
>independent
I don't see that this is warranted.
>Just like they are one with believers
Yes, the persons among the believers.
>Surely you don't believe every single time you pray to the Father you are interacting with a Christian half way across the globe.
I am not yet a person in the theological sense. When I am, I will be united with the rest of the saints at every moment, not just during prayer.
>solely through the manner they were generated
I'm not sure they say "solely".

>>18684395
Maybe OP should have selected a better proof method than "whatever Bible says" for this then. Because the Bible describes the triune God and rejects any other teaching. If we were to abandon this criterion of proof and just leap into maybe's then my counter-argument would have to change into "maybe not". We can go down that route.

>>18684400
>The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
>He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-24 at (...).png (80 KB, 1199x478)

80 KB PNG

>>18684400
>I don't see that this is warranted.
If they weren't then they all just have one united will or knowledge. Which invalidates the problem you have with the quadrinity easily
>I am not yet a person in the theological sense.
So what are you right now then?
>I will be united with the rest of the saints at every moment
Then is it really such a problem to let a couple of Martians into your hivemind? It's no different than letting a foreigner in
>I'm not sure they say "solely".
They actually do see the second highlighted line

>>18684410
>If they weren't then they all just have one united will or knowledge.
You're reiterating the dichotomy I challenged at the beginning. I don't accept it.
>>I am not yet a person in the theological sense.
>So what are you right now then?
A dude.
>Martians
No idea.
>picrel
They did not write generation is the sole distinction, they write their relationship is the sole distinction.

>>18684431
>I don't accept it.
Yeah I am aware and I told you that you're free to pick and choose whichever interpretation you like. I need to know what you actually believe in
>A dude.
If a dude is not a person then what is he?
>No idea
Then you have no reason to oppose their inclusion and a quadrinity is possible making OP's point right
>they write their relationship is the sole distinction
Yes and they explained in the first line the nature of this relationship. It's the relation of origin. btw this is why Catholics really beef with the Orthodox over the Filioque. The latter position makes it impossible to actually distinguish between the Son and the HS

>>18684443
>I need to know what you actually believe in
I believe in You, Anon.
>If a dude is not a person then what is he?
A dude. Personhood is a divine quality that you can acquire, or at least that was the theological definition before the word got inflated by common usage. However, when I'm talking about persons, this is what I mean.
>you have no reason to oppose... quadrinity
I have the proof criterion OP asked me to use - the Bible.
>they explained in the first line the nature of this relationship
They explained they are distinct in their relations of origin. And I agree. And they explained that they are distinct solely in their relations. I also agree. But that is not to say that they are distinct solely in relations of origin. The set 'relations' includes all differences. The sub-set 'relations of origin' includes differences. It does not follow all differences are in the latter subset. But one way or another I don't know what Catholics believe to such level of detail, I'm just skeptical with all these speculations because they 99.9% of the time just end up being word games with words neither party actually fully grasps.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-11 at (...).png (97 KB, 886x863)

97 KB PNG

>>18684452
>I believe in You
Why?
>A dude
I am still confused. Wikipedia lists this as a definition and it calls them persons
"Dude is American slang for an individual, typically male.[1] From the 1870s to the 1960s, dude primarily meant a male person who dressed in an extremely fashionable manner (a dandy) or a conspicuous citified person who was visiting a rural location, a "city slicker". In the 1960s, dude evolved to mean any male person, a meaning that slipped into mainstream American slang in the 1970s. Current slang retains at least some use of all three of these common meanings.[2]"
>I have the proof criterion OP asked me to use - the Bible
What verse in the bible restricts a quadrinity from existing?
>But that is not to say that they are distinct solely in relations of origin
Aquinas says this though, like he is being explicit. Notice how he doesn't deny that statment in his reply to objection 3 and in fact agree that the relations of origin are opposed to one another. And uses pretty much only this to prove the single distinction in the godhead

>>18684545
>>I believe in You
>Why?
Why not?
>Wikipedia lists this as a definition and it calls them persons
Then the article likely comes from after early middle ages, when the word person shifted from its theological to its profane meaning. I'm also using "dude" in contemporary colloquial context, I'm sorry for the confusion, I thought I was being obviously casual.
>What verse in the bible restricts a quadrinity from existing?
I don't know about a single verse, I just know it teaches the trinity and then rejects any other gospel. Meaning the Bible only accepts three persons. And the Bible is the criterion according to OP.
>picrel
Might be, I'm not big on Aquinas or nominalism.

>>18684569
>Why not?
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. In what way are you believing in me? If you mean simply that you believe what I am saying then you don't because you don't agree with me.
>Then the article likely comes from after early middle ages
Yes because that's a relatively new word which just means a type of person apparently.
>I just know it teaches the trinity and then rejects any other gospel.
The authors of those texts had no idea what a trinity even was. At best you can say they knew about middle platonic logos theology but only some later authors of the NT. Furthermore the gospel being rejected by Paul was that of James and the other apostles who still practiced the law. It's completely taken out of context
>Meaning the Bible only accepts three persons.
That's a weak argument from silence.
>Might be, I'm not big on Aquinas or nominalism.
Yes but he is a doctor of the church and they consider him a saint meaning not only is he extremely authoritative but the Holy Spirit works through him according to their belief. Thus making my interpretation of the CCC on point with what they believe since I am saying the same thing as him

>>18684596
I apologize but I took this conversation way more lightly than you did. I used the term dude in the colloquial sense to mean a common human being (that happens to be male) as opposed to a particular theological category of holy beings.
>The authors of those texts had no idea what a trinity even was.
The word? Probably. The idea? He knew it better than you or I.
>>Meaning the Bible only accepts three persons.
>That's a weak argument from silence.
Take it up with OP who set the Bible as the proof standard, knowing full well the Bible denies other versions than itself.
>I am saying the same thing as him
I cannot confirm or deny since I'm not big on nominalism. I notice in both your screenshots they use "real" distinction for example, and I don't know if this is rhetorical or a nominalist quantifier and how far it goes. The same with every other thing Aquinas wrote. Every sentence he writes is so conceptually loaded I have no idea whether you are actually saying the same thing as him without having had time to read related works in full. If your point relies on my accepting your position as official via scholasticism, we will sadly not make way.

>>18684211
I'm not a fan of the Trinity, but I think the argument usually go like this:

>John says Jesus is The Word.
>John says The Word always existed next to the Father (Word and Father are separate persons of the godhead).
>Matthew says Mary was made pregnant through the Holy Spirit (The Holy Spirit and Word are separate persons or the Holy Spirit would give birth to itself).
>The Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus after his baptism while the Father speaks from above (Word, Father and Holy Spirit are separate persons).
>In Matthew tells his disciples to baptize people ""in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (all three named separately, but the action is in the singular name of..."

>>18684618
Yeah but the Bible doesn't say
>these are all the people of the Godhead. That's it no more

>>18684625
Jesus didn't say "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [and the secret fourth thing]"

OP really did fuck himself over when committing to a concrete method of acquiring proof. If he were as dishonest as other atheists, he could go the usual "idk, impress me" and then keep giving "nah, not it".

>>18684631
Yeah but a fourth person could also share this name. Like
>in the name (George) Washington, Bush, Clooney (and many others who share in the name)
There are 3 persons who share the name Yahweh but there could be more.

>>18684635
But the Bible doesn't say 3 people no more though. Go fuck yourself. I took the argument from Shabir Ally and it wasn't refuted up to this day. Also if there are more than 3 people in the Godhead atheism doesn't score any points really. So why are you calling me an Atheist? I could be a Hindu or whatever.

>>18684639
It says 3 persons and rejects every other gospel. That would naturally mean nothing if the Bible weren't proof. But you nominated precisely the Bible as proof. 4 persons is thus disproven.

>>18684637
Then he should have added those too...
>In the name of X, and of Y, and of Z. Furthermore also in the name of W and of V. Also in the name of R who is sometimes known as S, but should not be confused with T.
>Hey Peter, are you writing this down? It's important

>>18684640
>It says 3 persons
No. He names 3 persons when there could be more.
>rejects every other gospel
No. It just says we can't preach other gospels

Maybe the God's plan is to make the fourth person secret forever.

>>18684642
Not necessairly. God can keep his secrets.

Also Peter was a fisherman who was most likely illiterate and no canonical Gospel is said to be directly authored by him.

>>18684645
>Also Peter was a fisherman who was most likely illiterate and no canonical Gospel is said to be directly authored by him.
Yeah, I was trying to do a joke. Peter can't write so we got the short version.

>>18684647
This could literally be what happened. Lol. The first century uneducated dumbasses had no idea what Jesus meant.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-11 at (...).png (34 KB, 1179x126)

34 KB PNG

>>18684616
>a common human being
And do you believe human beings share a human nature?
>He knew it better than you or I
Neither the word nor the idea. It took hundreds of years for your theology to develop this is historical fact.
>the Bible denies other versions than itself
It doesn't and I explained to you how. When that verse was written by Paul there wasn't even a canon nor were some of the newer works you now accept even written
>I cannot confirm
You can and I highlighted for you.
>I notice in both your screenshots they use "real" distinction for example
Aquinas distinguishes between logical relations (relations that exist only in our minds) and real relations (relations that exist in reality). Keep in mind though he believes literally that "a real relation existing in God is the same in reality as His essence and differs from the essence only conceptually" because he believes in divine simplicity. Yes it's convoluted mental gymnastics but that's what trintarianism does to people

>>18684643
>Trinity
>reject everything else
>>>> could be quadernity tho
Sorry, Anon. Like I said, you messed up when you set Bible as a method of proof.

>>18684671
>And do you believe human beings share a human nature?
Yes.
>[The Trinity] took hundreds of years for your theology to develop this is historical fact.
Nope. The word did. The idea of multiple persons of God predates Christianity in Judaism altogether.
>When that verse was written by Paul there wasn't even a canon
I am fine with that. The Gospel is the Gospel. OP might set the standard at the Biblical texts in particular, but Paul doesn't. And we're in OP's thread.
>I highlighted for you
I addressed the highlights and why they're insufficient for me.
>that's what trinitarianism does to people
Didn't do it to me. I have no idea what Aquinas is talking about and I don't like nominalism.

>>18684680
>reject everything else
Where does it say so?

>>18684691
Galatians 1:6-9
>Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
Jude 3
>contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
>“once delivered” (hapax paradotheisē) is used for “once for all entrusted/delivered.”
Revelation 22:
>If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Even if you cope that Quadernity isn't a different gospel from the Trinity through some mysterious reason, and if you deny that Greek grammar works the way it does, it is still the case that to get from 3 to 4, you'd have to "add unto these things".

You guys make a lot of interesting points, ill go masturbate to some big tittied bimbo now, CHRIST IS KING.

>>18684686
>Yes.
Okay so 3 human beings in a room would share one nature. And 3 divine beings in a room would also share one nature?
>Nope.
Can you point to your earliest trinitarian outside of any figure mentioned in the bible?
>The idea of multiple persons of God predates Christianity in Judaism altogether
First off that wouldn't be a trinity and they were fringe heretics who still didn't believe the other "person" to be coequal (and coeternal) to the most high God
>OP might set the standard at the Biblical texts in particular
You agreed to that standard of his. Why can't I also write a book and add it into the bible then claim Paul was talking about my book being a gospel?
>I addressed the highlights and why they're insufficient for me.
Yeah and I explained what he meant by that. If you don't believe me you can look it up yourself
>I have no idea what Aquinas is talking about
Okay so why are you even contesting what I am saying if you are ignorant on the matter?
>and I don't like nominalism
What are you then?

>>18684698
Paul himself preached a gospel different than Jesus because Jesus said anyone who teaches others to disregard even the smallest of the commands of the law will be called least in heaven, but Paul teaches that anyone who tries to keep the law will lose Christ.

>>18684712
>And 3 divine beings in a room would also share one nature?
Is it a living room?
>Can you point to your earliest trinitarian outside of any figure mentioned in the bible?
Ignatius of Antioch. He explicitly describes Jesus Christ as God himself, around the year 110.
>> multiple persons predates Christianity
>they were fringe heretics
Oh really? Hahaha could you name me one who was declared a heretic by the Jews for holding this view? Because I can name you rabbis who were well respected and still famously taught multiple thrones up in heaven. So much so that the Talmud had to go out of its way to retcon his views as to not support Trinitarian theology of the time.
>Why can't I also write a book and add it into the bible
You can on your own time, it will have nothing to do with OP's goalpost.
>why are you even contesting what I am saying if you are ignorant on the matter?
I'm flirting with you, don't you see?
>>and I don't like nominalism
>What are you then?
A dude.

>>18684714
Paul moves beyond the Law as a concept, as does Jesus in his various pleas to the Pharisees who can't see past the letter of it.

>>18684712
cont. >>18684717
Oops I didn't mean to end the first answer on the living room lmao sorry about that. God's "nature" or "essence" or whatever term we call doesn't work the same way our created ones do. That's why it always confused me when theologians explained divine persons on an example of regular people. Because despite sharing and essence, we actually are different people. Totally independent. But not so with divine persons and their essence sharing. Why theologians insist on using terms that are both foreign and misleading, I don't know.

>>18684698
We can just come up with some Aristotelian logic game to explain it how Trinitarians created a workaround that deuteronomy 6:4 actually refers to 3 persons with 1 essence. We can just come up with an additional philosophical category to say that they're all 3 but there's actually 4. 3 coequal persons sharing in 1 essence with a 4th subperson sharing the personhood coequally and in perfect unity with one of them. Or any other number of word games.

>>18684719
And if you like word games, go right ahead. What are you asking me to do about it? Should I concede that your position must be reflected because it can be cosplayed?

>>18684211
God the Father is the Creator who exists as the Person who has limitless power, and infinite knowledge. He exists bigger than all of the laws of our known world. If you have ever watched science fiction then you know there is more than just the present. There is past, present, future, and God knows the future because He tells us about Prophecy. In fact, He tells us the ending because He knows the beginning. You also have to choose which God, I believe in the kjv bible no apocrypha God because it’s His true and inerrant Word. The Holy Bible. And I believe that if a priest kisses a Koran it makes the cross of Christ of none effect for their church.
Next, God the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost which is the same person but different aspects. One is the spirit the other one is the scary ghost is how I would put it. You want to be with the Holy Spirit one. It’s the one that like in the lion king cartoon, Simba talks to his father in the clouds. It’s the one where you see yourself Chase your wife because you love her but she is leaving you and you feel the pain in your heart. Or your children. It’s the one that makes you want to pray and ask for help. It’s the one that gives you peace and rest when you do.
Next, God created th creation. That’s part of Him, but it is also not Him. The Creation didn’t create God. Then God Created Man, Adam. He put Himself into Man. How do we know? Well you are reading text from my post right now, I have a soul, a body, inhave feelings and understanding that transcends my pet animals in my house. They don’t know why they are here and while neither do we, we know that God put Himself into us, and that there is an even higher state of intellect but also understanding and soul than what even we have as Man and that God is the Highest One on the Throne in Heaven and that’s who we worship. In fact just by focusing on that throne and consciousness has an effect and a drive upon the human society we live in. Jesus Christ -

Jesus Christ was then made while Adam gave us the sparks that caused our fall into sin but also human progress, Jesus Christ gave us the translation from sin back to Man again. Otherwise that door was closed and we were banned from returning to our pure hearts again. Is what that means.

So basically there was 6 persons of God here in my answer.
God the Father who hated us and disowned us. God the Holy Ghost who cursed us. Then God the Son Adam who was us who sinned and led us into damnation into the lake of fire hell with no way out.
But the original God the Father is who created us, that one also gave us the witness of the gospel into the world by the Holy Spirit and also sent us Jesus Christ who shed his own blood on the cross for the world’s sins.

I dont know if you guys realize it or not but i am reading this thread while fingering my butthole hehehe xD

>>18684721
Yes because that's the Trinitarian argument in toto.

>>18684740
Nope. The argument is "this was revealed". Aristotelian farmework is only the language in which they decided to express it. If you experience some revelation and need a modified framework to express it, go right ahead. Won't have much to do with me, especially seeing >>18684698

>>18684738
You asked it to be proven. Now you are just asking for God’s Wrath. Don’t get mad if you experience shame, faggot.
No, we don’t have to know what you are doing. That’s between you and God. It’s out of your own damn mouth that hurts you.

>>18684743
We will just write in our new revelation that we are not abolishing the old gospel, but fulfilling it! Also nothing was added, rather it was clarified a truth that was there from the beginning, and we will read the new revelation into the gospel.

>>18684753
Write whatever you like. We're good.

File: lol.png (612 KB, 1121x711)

612 KB PNG

>>18684717
>Is it a living room?
It's a bathroom so what is your answer now?
>describes Jesus Christ as God himself
That's not all it takes, even Arius would have said that. To be trinitarian you have to believe in specifically three coequal coeternal persons in one being.
>the Talmud
The same one that also says this?
>You can on your own time
And it would be scripture according to the standard you have presented
>I'm flirting with you, don't you see?
Why are you as a dude flirting with men? homosexual?
>A dude.
Don't play games you said you reject nominalism so what is your position then?

>>18684758
said the jews

Man fuck this theological bullshit i need dick in my ass right now
>>18684743
>>18684751
>>18684753
>>18684761
All of you come dominate my bussy

>>18684761
>It's a bathroom so what is your answer now?
In that case it'll still be >>18684718
>>describes Jesus Christ as God himself
>That's not all it takes, even Arius would have said that.
He wouldn't. Arius would say Jesus is a god. Not God himself.
>>the Talmud
>The same one that also says this?
Yes the exact same Talmud that disagress with the Trinity. As per my comment.
>And it would be scripture according to the standard you have presented
Nope.
>Don't play games you said you reject nominalism so what is your position then?
The dude abides.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-11 at (...).png (95 KB, 1086x540)

95 KB PNG

>>18684766
>In that case it'll still be
You do realize this is special pleading right?
>Arius would say Jesus is a god. Not God himself.
That's just false.
>Yes the exact same Talmud that disagress with the Trinity
Why was he punished then according to the Talmud?
>Nope.
What is missing?
>The dude abides.
More like the dude is seemingly gay and doesn't want to answer

>>18684782
>You do realize this is special pleading right?
It would be, had it not actually been special.
>Why was he punished then according to the Talmud?
I wouldn't know. The passage you highlighted in >>18684761 is about Aher.
>What is missing?
Nothing is missing, your text just wouldn't be part of what me and OP are discussing. Ever.
>dude is seemingly gay
Hey hey hey that's closeted gay!

>>18684717
>as does Jesus
No he doesn't, he said if you dont keep even the smallest command and teach others to do the same you will be the least of all people.

Christians ignore 100% of Jesus teachings. You never see a Christian teaching to turn the other cheek or love your enemies or bless those who curse you or pray for those who persecute you or let people steal from you without protesting or never ask for what you lend someone back.

Jesus literally said that only after you do these things will you be called a child of the Most High, yet they completely ignore these teachings.

The comandments of modern christians are:
1) Declare Christ is King
2) Hate gays and trannies.

After that you can basically live however you want.

>>18684810
He did say that. And then he changed the letter of the law on divorce lol. Jesus is incomprehensible unless you look past Law as a concept. And Paul points it out more explicitly than the rest.
How successfully modern Christians emulate their ideal is a separate tragedy.

>>18684808
>It would be, had it not actually been special.
Special pleading necessitates that you claim it is special. Which you are doing right now.
>I wouldn't know.
Read the entire thing, it says that he was punished for giving Aher the wrong impression by thinking there must be two powers in heaven and making him a heretic according to the Talmud.
>your text just wouldn't be
Why? You have no problem with random additional texts being added after Paul wrote that verse and you are back projecting that it also includes them.
>Hey hey hey that's closeted gay!
Why do gay guys get horny when arguing with me? It's happened multiple times before and it's not just Christians but Atheists too

>>18684831
>Special pleading necessitates that you claim it is special.
I'm aware. It also necessitates that the claim is unfounded. Which if you think it's unfounded that God works differently than humans do... I can't help you with.
>it says that he was punished for giving Aher the wrong impression
He Akiba? No, it does not say that. If you think that's what the Talmud does, you might want to quote the Talmud.
>the Bible
>random additional texts
I didn't add any.
>Why do gay guys get horny when arguing with me?
Closeted gay guys. I'm not gay.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-11 at (...).png (109 KB, 1261x529)

109 KB PNG

>>18684846
>I'm aware.
Then your objection makes no sense, there is no other difference. Anyway with that standard you're essentially leaving the door open for me to special plead as well
>He Akiba?
No Metatron, see here
>I didn't add any.
I didn't say you did. But you acknowledge you have no problem with additional texts being written into your gospel after Paul wrote that verse
>Closeted gay guys
Okay why do closeted gay guys get horny when I argue with them?

>>18684862
>there is no other difference
There is no other difference between men and God except in how their essences distribute? Are you sure about that?
>Metatron
Yeah you're proving the Talmud disagrees with the multiple person hypothesis. As per my original post. What do you think this changes for me?
>you have no problem with additional texts
I do. Which is why I didn't add any.
>why do closeted gay guys
Idk I'm not openly gay.

>>18684867
No there is no distinction between the scenarios except the subjects in question.
>you're proving the Talmud disagrees with the multiple person hypothesis
Not just that I proved to you who became a heretic because they even dared to even think like you. This is exactly what you were asking me for.
>I do.
>>18684686
>I am fine with that.
lol
>Idk I'm not openly gay.
yes but why did you become horny? I need to know so I won't make it happen again

Holy jesus i just came from fingering my butthole

>>18684883
>scenarios
Ah, so there IS a difference between God and men besides distribution of essences? Be really clear here, don't defer to some scenarios, this is where you make or break the "special pleading" allegation.
>Aher became a heretic
Perfect. In the very text you cited there is a Rabbi who didn't - Akiba lol. So again, what does this change for me?
>why did you become horny?
For a dude? I'm not gay heh ... haha what ... gay people are like... gross, right?

>>18684892
Can you please shut up buddy? Go fuck my bootyhole or something

>>18684883
>>18684867
Both of you need a good ass pounding

>>18684896
If you really are the OP, I already did.

>>18684892
>so there IS
How in the world did you get that? The only difference is the subjects as I have stated
>So again, what does this change for me?
You asked me for an example of a heretic and I provided it. Don't move the goalpost. Also again the two powers are not trintarianism no matter how you look at it
>gay people are like... gross, right?
Yes that's why I don't want to turn you on again
>>18684898
And here is another horny fag. Why does this keep happening?

>>18684927
>>so there IS a difference between God and men besides distribution of essences?
>How in the world did you get that?
If you don't know where I got that, this whole discussion was way above your level this whole time. Your special pleading objection is hereby debunked.
>You asked me for an example of a heretic and I provided it.
Thanks. And I provided a counter-example.
>Also again the two powers are not trintarianism
Which wasn't the goalpost we were seeking by looking into Second Temple theology. Lol

Btw you're cute.

>>18684900
Lol shut up chud, only real men can fuck my gaping ass.
>>18684927
I will rape you with my anus punk.

There are Three Persons but One God
Father = Power
Son = Wisdom
Spirit = Love
Obviously, all Three being One Essence, They all have these attributes and the relationship is one of perfect harmony. So if Jesus were to ask for the Father's Power He would always get it as is written in NT

>>18684407
I don't think any bishops would tell us of a secret Gospel because none exist. There may have been esoteric texts of dubious legitimacy but the Nicene bishops were pretty thorough when they sdandartized Christian doctrine and looked at all available evidence. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the validity of the LXX but such proof wasn't necessary at all at the time because the LXX was ubiquituous among Hellenized Jews. It was their Bible, literally speaking.

>>18684929
>If you don't know where I got that
No I don't know where you invented that nonsensical distinction from. It doesn't matter how you justify your special pleading. "It just is okay" doesn't cut it sorry
>Thanks.
Great so you're wrong and they were considered heretics.
>Which wasn't the goalpost we were seeking by looking into Second Temple theology.
It was. They aren't even multiple persons of the most high God, it's just Hellenized Jews misunderstanding divine agency
>Btw
Look I know you got raped by your priest but that just doesn't justify you indulging in your fetish for religious discussions
>>18684930
Your anus can't even handle it let's be real here you dirty slut

>>18684961
>"It just is okay" doesn't cut it sorry
Agreed. It actually being a special case does.
>They were considered heretics.
They? Who declared Akiba a heretic?
>They aren't even multiple persons
Ahaahahahahah read the Two Powers again. If you had actually read it.

>>18684211
If you accept Christianity as true, then you accept that a branch if Christianity has been correct since its beginnings to the present day. Not a single group has made the claim you are querying about.

>>18684211
Every relation in the universe outside of abstract mathematics requires three entities: the first, the counterpart of the first, and the background/environment. This is the simplest relation from which all relations are built. If a monotheistic perfect God is to exist and interact with the imperfect world while not being corrupted, it must already have interaction built into itself. A trinitarian God, where the first (Father), counterpart (Son), and background (Holy Spirit) are all in relation as one God solves this problem, so God is already perfect in interaction prior to interaction with the imperfect world. Moreover, all three of the Trinity, must necessarily be God if they are to be perfect, by definition, yet they must also be three distinct persons if there is to be perfect interaction. This is the Christian Trinity.

There is a trinity in other religions as well. See the Yin-Yang-Wuji trinity in Taoism, which once again fulfills the perfect interaction criterion.

>>18684990
>>18684987
My asshole is gaping and clinching just reading your replies here, how about you come and nut all over my crusty hole?

>>18684987
I mean, Christianity technically accepted Judaism as true until Judaism got overruled by Jesus, no? Could not the same thing happen again?

File: philo.png (148 KB, 458x742)

148 KB PNG

>>18684964
>Agreed. It actually being a special case does.
Nope no special cope does the trick sorry
>They?
Yes people who believed in the two powers
>If you had actually read it.
Did you? They distinguished between the most high God and the second subservient being which took on the role of the divine agents that the rest of the Jews were familiar with

>>18684987
>history records everything
Amazing /his/torians here.

>>18685005
>Special cases are special pleading even if truly special
Back to school you go.
>[avoids the question about Akiba because it wrecks his case]
Oof.
>second
Kinda like the second person of the Trinity?
>subservient being
Kinda like the Son?
>took on the role of the divine agents
Kinda like The Angel of YHWY?

>>18684938
Jesus literally told his disciples misteries only they were allowed to know. There are absolutely things God hasn't revealyed, and an additional part of him might be possible

File: one_aperture.png (28 KB, 1000x1010)

28 KB PNG

>>18684211
The Conscious Observer, the Black Sun. The Father. Invisible while also being the generator of all visibility. This is my immediate conscious viewpoint.

The Son. My Conscious viewpoint wearing some sort of character. Invisibility putting on visibility.

The Mother. Visibility itself. My Subconscious and my eternal wife. The Fabric of the Dream.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-11 at (...).png (124 KB, 832x616)

124 KB PNG

>>18685057
Let's take a look at the definition
>Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein a person claims an exception to a general or universal principle, but the exception is unjustified.[1][2][3][4][5] It applies a double standard.[6][7]
How have you justified the exception? You didn't lol, you just said it's "special" that's it. The fallacy still stands
>wants me to let him move the goalpost
Okay no problem I will accept this as a concession from you that they were indeed considered heretics. Imagine thinking this guy believed the same things you do and that he would have been accepted for it when even pic rel got the other Rabbis pissed at him
>bro if you squint it looks just like the trinity!
Thanks for admitting that the Son is another God

>>18685301
>How have you justified the exception?
Yes.
>I will accept this as a concession from you that they were indeed considered heretics
I did not concede. My point was confirmed. Akiba was a respected rabbi who had to be retconned by Talmud.

Thank you for proving my points. Will that be all?

File: obscure.png (135 KB, 458x742)

135 KB PNG

>>18685327
>Yes.
No.
>I did not concede
You did, you shifted the goalpost after I showed you they were heretics. Obscure heretics even as the author of the book says. Which were not even Jews most of the time.
>Actually he was just like me if you invent sources
Nope

>>18685402
>No.
>No don't mention Akiba pls
>It just happens to line up 1:1 with the 2nd person
Alriiiiight.

File: akiba.png (148 KB, 458x742)

148 KB PNG

>>18685461
>No please I beg you don't mention how they were considered fringe heretics and most of the time not even Jews!
I also mentioned Akiba are you blind? The author wonders if he could have been associated with heresy for implying Heaven or the Earth were deities.