File: 1774867447030251.png (13 KB, 893x496)

13 KB PNG

>>18770948
Its easy to explain.

1 x 1 x 1 = 1

File: virginmary copy.png (556 KB, 646x804)

556 KB PNG

>>18770948
The trinity exists to obfuscate the incestuous connotations of Jesus's birth. After all, if God knocked up the Virgin 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 why the idea of a "Holy Spirit" which is and isn't God / Jesus is necessary. That's also why criticizing the idea of the Holy Spirit is often considered to be the ultimate sin in Christianity.

>>18770955
Do you also count apples in a basket by multiplying them to each other to make a total? If so you need to go back to first grade. It's obvious we count gods the regular way we do everything else. When you count Zeus and Hermes is that 1 god (Zeus) x 1 god (Hermes) = 1 god or is that 1 god (Zeus) + 1 god (Hermes) = 2 gods? You also can't resort to special pleading here because you also use the regular counting method for the persons in the godhead

>>18770950
Wow, we have so many heresies in one image. Arianism, Subordinationism, Partialism, Pneumatomachianism, Pantheism, and Tritheism

>>18770948
It's just a post biblical explanation for how jesus can be both god and not god. Despite the old testament already having a framework for such.

File: n5g79s9cmve71.png (488 KB, 1200x1170)

488 KB PNG

>>18770948
you need to study more advanced math

>>18771050
It's none of those things.

>>18771058
>multiple things can have the same value
wow, too bad that's not the trinity

>nothing is impossible with God
The Trinity is Biblically sanctioned

>>18771048
If you're eating a green apple, a yellow apple, or a red apple, it's still essentially an apple. You can't say it's a pear or a walnut

>>18771067
>That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:18&version=KJV
Why is lying impossible for God?

File: three-fresh-apples-green-(...).png (378 KB, 980x980)

378 KB PNG

>>18771068
It's essentially 3 apples anon. Just like it's essentially 3 gods in the case of the trinity

File: images (23).jpg (8 KB, 250x124)

8 KB JPG

Right, what was so wrong with arrianism? 'its heresy' at least it doesnt break basic logic.

File: 1789449328492.jpg (117 KB, 648x900)

117 KB JPG

>>18771073
Because God is Eternal Goodness, Truth and Love (there is a debate whether the original term meant Love or Charity, but it is not as important as it seems since Charity is the top virtue in Christian theology). God can allow Satan to lead us into temptation though, and Christ says Himself that Satan has asked God for Peter (Simon in the text). That's why we say "lead us not into temptation" which sounds misleading to modern ears but the Church tradition clearly specifies it's not because God does it Himself but because He allows it. Christ also says "Thy Will be done" which is just as important if not more so. And Christ Himself is lead into temptation by men and demonsl

>>18771080
It's a TriUne God, not three Gods.
When we pray to Jesus Christ we pray to all Three Persons of the Trinity
The same as when we pray to the Father and Holy Ghost
One Divine Essence

>>18771090
Great so some things ARE impossible for God. When he says he is one we should believe him then instead of saying "no God you're actually three"

>>18771058
>study more advanced math
Why? It only takes high school math to realize that √(-1) is ill defined.

File: Spiridon_romas,_iconostas(...).jpg (3.53 MB, 2336x3368)

3.53 MB JPG

>>18771091
How many apples do you see here >>18771080 and how many gods do you see in pic rel? Also no you aren't praying to an essence when you talk to the Father the same way you aren't communicating with the human essence when you talk to your father

>>18771094
So we should not believe the Word of Christ in the New Testament? Are you a jew?

>>18771098
Essentially you are still eating an apple and not another fruit. Yes you pray to the Trinity when you pray to Christ or the Father or the Holy Ghost. Why is this so confusing?

>>18771107
What if you pray to the Most High? Or The Lord of Heavens Armies?

>>18770948
It’s called a mystery for a reason. All you need to know is that if you think you understand, you don’t understand. You were never meant to understand, and it’s not your place to understand. This is all a deliberate humiliation for those who think human reason is all you will need.

>>18771111
>Do not ask questions, just believe

>>18771090
>because christians cannot keep their fairy tale straight between omnipotence and the desire to look as if they had answers
there, fify.

>>18771104
You're saying we shouldn't believe the bible when it says that some things are indeed impossible. One of these verses will have to budge so which is it, do you want to worship a God that lies or one that does what is logically possible?

>>18771111
How is a spirit, equal to the Lord of Spirits?

>>18771104
>everyone who laughs at my fairy tales is a jew

>>18771109
Jesus taught me to pray to the Lord and Our Father. He cries out "Elohi" on the Cross. He also says I AM. I am still praying to Jesus Christ no matter what Biblical name I choose for God. This is what makes me a Christian

>>18771114
God never lies. Jesus revealed Himself when He did. Why would you interpret the Bible as God lying?

>>18771107
If it wasn't confusing you would have answered my question but even you know that you cannot comprehend this nonsensical theology of yours. And again that's equivalent to speaking to humanity just because you talk to your father. You speak to persons not natures, the latter does not even have a center of consciousness on its own

File: 1775612178359.gif (3.25 MB, 720x406)

3.25 MB GIF

>>18771116
>oy vey I'm not a jew
Then you must be indian. At any rate, you laugh at what you don't know

>>18771120
It doesn't merely say that God never lies, it explicitly says that he cannot do it no matter what since it's impossible. If you don't believe this then you don't believe the bible

>>18771121
How does it not make sense to you that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of the same Divine Essence? For me that's a fact

>>18771113
>contributes nothing to the discussion
>pathetic "trolling" attempt
You're brown

>>18771127
That's not the point of contention. Things can share a nature, so what? You can't track the conversation at all nor can you provide an answer to the simple question I asked you earlier

>>18771124
And why would that make God any less Omnipotent? He can smite down all liars right now, and make the concept of lying disappear from the universe. Is that what (you) want God to do?

>>18771117
The Lord of what? The Father of who? Those titles could be applied to anyone.

The words of Jesus were never recorded in Hebrew or Aramaic, so we don't know if when he said I Am, he pronounced it as Eyeh, which is the name God spoke to Moses. Eyeh Asher Eyeh.

File: incoherent.png (39 KB, 1247x133)

39 KB PNG

>>18771132
Your idea of omnipotence is not only incoherent it also goes against the bible.

>>18771048
You’re begging the question.
The three persons of the Trinity are not separate gods

>>18771068
>If you're eating a green apple, a yellow apple, or a red apple, it's still essentially an apple
Those are 3 separate individual apples, unless you're talking about 1 individual apple with all of the characteristic colors you gave as an example.
Do you see the problem? Calling 3 seperate apples "an apple" is wrong. You're using a singular identifier for what is objectively a plurality.
This doesn't magically start making sense when you try to use "god" in place of "apples" either.

>>18771058
KEK

File: trinity101v4.mp4 (2.56 MB, 720x412)

2.56 MB MP4

>>18770948
>>18770950
https://www.enjoyhell.com

>>18771058
i, j, and k make three square roots of -1, not one square root of -1. In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
>In H [the quaternions] there are infinitely many square roots of minus one
Applied to the trinity, that's polytheism.

>>18771230
>listen to someone who officiated over the union between a child of God and a dark hell-spawned demon
The blind, those who choose not to see the light, are unable to lead anyone to salvation in Christ.

>>18771115
Because the Lord of spirits has a part of His nature that is spirit. He is Spirit, and He is more than spirit.

>>18771233
This is why what Hamilton wrote was "i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1", not "i = sqrt(-1), j = sqrt(-1), k = = sqrt(-1), but i != j != k != i."

>>18771238
You're not white.

File: IMG_5994.jpg (335 KB, 1256x1145)

335 KB JPG

>>18770948

>>18770948
Now do modulo 2.

File: holy ghost.jpg (396 KB, 1256x1145)

396 KB JPG

>>18771260
Hindu bro please use this pic from now on.
judeochristianity and Islam are seperate religions, we're not "abrahamics".

>>18771274
Fair. Saved. Hare Krishna.

>>18771233
>i, j, and k make three square roots of -1
Numbers don't "make" other numbers
Operations on numbers make other numbers
Those numbers "are" square roots of -1
Your analogy is wrong. The Three persons of God ARE Three persons of God, not one person of God, duh. But it is still one God just like i, j,k are one number

>Applied to the trinity, that's polytheism.
Nope. You falsely flip flopped between persons and God in your addition. Like pretending 1, .999.., and 2/2 are different numbers and therefore the number 1 is actually an infinite multitude of numbers just because it can be written in different ways.

>>18771230
what a lousy site. At the very least you could slap the charges on each of the people going to hell.

>>18771259
I am, white.

>>18771230
>For further clarity, I present an incomplete list of people going to Hell:
>People who have never heard the name of Jesus
Lol wtf? No way christians actually believe this. Do they?

>>18771312
Of course. They are condemned already because they have not believed on the name of the only begotten son of god. How can they believe on someone of whom they haven't heard?

>>18771111
Quads of truth. Wait is this dubs? Is this quads? Is it both? Damn. Now I gotta think.

>>18771283
>Numbers don't "make" other numbers
It's a standard English expression
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9053/should-i-use-the-singular-or-plural-verb-in-mathematical-formulae-two-and-two
>Those numbers "are" square roots of -1
Yes, square roots. Roots. Multiple roots.
>But it is still one God just like i, j,k are one number
No, they're three numbers, each of which when squared equals the number negative one. It isn't the case that i, j, and k, are each *the* square root of negative one. They are each *a* square root of negative one. The expression sqrt(-1) by itself doesn't clearly point to one number in the context of the quaternions. Strictly, sqare roots wouldn't point to just one number even in the integers, since, e.g. both 2 and -2 when squared equal four, except for the convention that sqrt(x) refers to only the positive root of x. But in the quaternions, there are multiple "positive roots" so the convention breaks down.

>>18771148
I am not, if I ask a monotheist how many gods (yes plural) he believes then he can easily answer with just one. So again why do you count the trinitarian godhead with multiplication but the Greek pantheon with addition like with everything else? What exactly makes them one? That they share a divine nature? Then so do the deities of classical polytheists. You have no symmetry breaker.

>>18770948
How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?

>>18771338
I'd feel pretty hungry because I was a dumbass to skip the most important meal of the day. So you're telling me you feel like a dumbass because you can't count?

>>18771319
>Quads of truth.
Kek is a false god.

>>18771322
the hunt for a persuasive analogy for the trinity continues...

>>18770948
The trinity is a non canon structure haphazardly created by retarded evangelists who managed to schism the church so many times that they gave up all power to the progressive church lol. God isn't real bud. Never will be.

File: 4 inescapable truths abou(...).jpg (170 KB, 1024x1001)

170 KB JPG

>>18771519
Enjoy Hell.

>>18770948
If you want your religion to be logical you're going to need to out down your bible all together, anon.

File: Anderson Enjoy Hell.png (1.18 MB, 1490x1222)

1.18 MB PNG

>>18771525

File: K.jpg (49 KB, 1023x1091)

49 KB JPG

>>18771527

File: IMG_0610.jpg (83 KB, 764x712)

83 KB JPG

>>18770948
The Ridiculous Trinity Doctrine Part 1

https://odysee.com/@Christendumb2:0/the-ridiculous-trinity-doctrine-part-1:6

>>18771048
The being of the true God is not a box of apples, or a pagan idol. Your argument is a category error.

>>18771568
Begone satan

>>18771335
>why do you count the trinitarian godhead with multiplication
we don't. that one guy earlier was just being cheeky.
>What exactly makes them one?
>them
begging the question again. there is no "they". there is one God.
>they share a divine nature?
they do, but not *merely* this. the three persons of the Trinity possess one identical divine essence.

>>18771346
>the most important meal of the day
boomer nonsense

>>18771140
Your opinion is wrong, therefore unBiblical.
Good talk, now go fuck yourself :-)

>>18771133
>were never recorded
They were, butmin Koine Greek. You're not making much sense my brother in Christ. Your "logic" is all over the place, instead of resting kn the Logos, the cornerstone and rock of our existence

>>18771158
Nope, an apple is an apple. Can't be mistaken for another fruit. Just like the Trinity can't be mistaken for anything else. You can eat a green apple or a red one, or both if you want. It makes no difference, you are still eating an apple.

>>18771744
>You're not making much sense
What are you struggling to make sense of? Nothing he said was unclear or incorrect.
>were never recorded
You took 3 words out of a sentence he wrote and responded to those 3 words only, as if that represents the point he made in its entirety. You're confusing yourself by taking things out of context here
>They were, butmin Koine Greek
Did he claim they were never recorded in Koine Greek? Anon I'm pretty sure that poster already knew this information. His claim was that the words of Jesus were never recorded *in Hebrew or Aramaic*. Jesus didn't even know Greek language. Ignoring this to attack an out of context version makes your position look weak

>>18771129
>things
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not "things"
And nature is what God created.
It's impossible for me to answer your questions if you can't articulate them.
Ask and it shall be given

>>18771749
>Nope, an apple is an apple. Can't be mistaken for another fruit.
Clearly you are making a mistake by calling 3 apples "an apple". A singular thing can not be a plurality of itself unless it's divided into other separate singular entities first. Nevermind apples and gods you're just failing at basic simple logic

File: Screenshot_20261030_06053(...).jpg (432 KB, 1078x919)

432 KB JPG

>>18770950
This is correct.

>>18771756
>blasphemous epic beard quote
Enjoy Hell.

>>18771753
>Jesus didn't even know Greek
Wrong.
>What are you struggling to make sense of?
The other anon's confusion. Jesus is pretty clear on Who He is. Clearly neither of you has read the Gospel

>>18771755
>you
No you. You are failing at English comprehension.

>>18771763
>Wrong.
Okay where in the bible does it mention that Jesus spoke in Koine Greek? I've read the bible so I know you wont find anything. You are incorrect.
>The other anon's confusion.
That's all you, bud.
>Jesus is pretty clear on Who He is
Then why didn't he write it down?

>>18771764
>No you
Oh man what a convincing thing to say! We're all so convinced of your side of the argument now.

>>18771760
>blasphemous
To talmudic, devil worshiping jews it is that. Also, your religion does not teach an after death hell, so I must assume you mean the earthly hell. All you jews belong in hell with the dark hell-spawned demons you weaponize against the children of God.

>>18771769
>we
You and what army?

>>18771769
>where
Where Peter calls him Christ.
>why didn't He write anything down
He did, He wrote everything in His Disciples' hearts

>>18771786
Beard worshippers and kikes go to the same hell. Surprise!

>>18771795
Reasonable people are not convinced by your arguments & claims. They're not even correct on their face

>>18771801
>Where Peter calls him Christ.
I asked when Jesus spoke Koine Greek. Peter is not Jesus, anon. The gospel of Peter was written 100 years after Jesus was already dead in the ground. It's not a reliable source of information regarding what Jesus actually said anyway.
>He did, He wrote everything in His Disciples' hearts
Lmao this is really silly cope. You can do better than this spiritually Jewish cult fanfiction, right? Jesus wrote Koine Greek in their hearts?

>>18771833
Jesus writes in everyone's heart since He is God.

>>18771833
>reasonable people
Lol. Lmao even. If they don't accept Jesus, are they really reasonable?

>>18771848
>Jesus writes in everyone's heart since He is God.
Your beliefs aren't governed by reason. Saying things like that and ignoring everything I said only convinces me that you can't be reasoned with.

File: philosophy vs semitic psy(...).png (860 KB, 1280x764)

860 KB PNG

>>18771849
Reason isn't conditional on a belief in Jesus. This was established hundreds of years in formal logic in Greece before Jesus ever existed.

>>18771850
>Your beliefs aren't governed by reason.
Jesus is Reason. Read John 1:1. What do you think the Logos is? Where does logic come from?

File: 1788126297531550.png (925 KB, 1168x1344)

925 KB PNG

>>18771862
>Jesus is Reason
No he was just a Jewish cultist.
>What do you think the Logos is? Where does logic come from?
Its a concept defined in Platonism, in Greece once again, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. Greeks were taught by Babylonians before them, who were taught by the Egyptians before them, who were taught by the Sumerians before them and so on.

>>18771852
>before Jesus even existed
Meanwhile Jesus:
>before Abraham was, I AM
Like come on bro. Early Europeans worshipped Dyeus Ph2tr (Zeus, Iovis, Teiwaz etc.), they also worshipped the Sun whom they considered God's Son and in some places (not everywhere) had a notion of a Divine Force which is a part of God and separate from God at the same time. The Greeks called it Pneuma, the Romans Anima. Sounds familiar?
>inb4 they worshipped other gods too
As did the jews themselves and literally everyone else. My argument was that Europe was preordained to convert. The signs were already there and Jesus came when He did because Rome had already built most of the roads as God decreed

>>18771866
And Jesus (or rather the Son) predates all that
If you don't accept that it's pointless having this discussion. Go smash your kapparot chicken or whatever it is you do

>>18771868
>My argument was that Europe was preordained to convert
That's an illogical argument by definition; you are assuming the conclusion and looping around to it in your reasoning. I don't care what some Jewish cultist said to his fellow Jews.

>>18771869
>And Jesus (or rather the Son) predates all that
Plato was born around 428/427 BCE in Athens, Greece.
>BCE
>BC
What does that mean, anon?

>>18771872
Your skin is the same color as shit.

>>18771641
As expected you'll just have to resort to special pleading. Only your gods get counted in special ways and only when it's convenient. When it comes to the persons suddenly you have no problem applying the "pagan" (read normal) counting method.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (205 KB, 692x1561)

205 KB PNG

>>18771685
No he wasn't trinitarians are genuinely this stupid. He isn't the first one attempting to make this argument.
>there is no "they"
Yes there is. Here is what google says "In English grammar and legal terminology, "they" is a third-person pronoun used to substitute for plural "persons" (more than one individual), or a single "person" whose gender is unknown, unspecified, or non-binary". The only reason you are running from the argument is because deep down even you know your theology is nonsensical. And we went over this you can easily ask a monotheist questions worded this way
>they do
Okay then that is sufficient for the members of the Greek pantheon to be one God too.
>but not *merely* this
You just explained the same thing lmao. Universals are inherently identical under the platonic framework your religion stole from the Greeks. Even your Fathers agree to this when he says we share 1 humanity and therefore we are actually just 1 human being. So you're clearly using the word in an unusual sense. And because of that define nature.

File: Screenshot 2025-09-18 at (...).png (14 KB, 494x248)

14 KB PNG

>>18771754
>The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not "things"
Okay so they are nothing? You're now an atheist, congratulations on leaving polytheism!
>And nature is what God created
You believe God created the divine nature?

>>18771902
They are Divine Persons. You need to read Confucius so you understand the importance of proper terminology.

>>18771899
>The only reason you are running from the argument is because deep down even you know your theology is nonsensical.
This is wild speculation on your part
>Okay then that is sufficient for the members of the Greek pantheon to be one God too.
no it is not. nature and essence are different things.
>we share 1 humanity and therefore we are actually just 1 human being
two entities can instantiate the same universal without being the same being.

>>18771916
How is that answering anything I asked of you? You just said they are not things, therefore nothing. You offered no clarification to this so it stands. And also I asked you to explain about the matter related to the creation of the divine nature which again you have failed to do

>>18771921
The Divine Essence is Eternal, therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are Eternal. They are not things in the material sense. The Trinity is God the Creator of things and nature. You are comparing God to things of the material world, but the Trinity is not of this world.

File: counting.png (69 KB, 880x625)

69 KB PNG

>>18771918
That's not the case. There is no other reason given that can explain your constant dodging.
>no it is not
Why not? Why can Zeus and Hermes share a divine nature and still not be one?
>nature and essence are different things
Every Christian has a different definition of these things so go ahead and define them as I have asked for you. I suspect you won't because you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
>two entities can instantiate the same universal without being the same being
As it happened with the members of the godhead? Why is Gregory saying that Peter, James and John are actually one man and that saying they are three men is just convention?

>>18771754
>The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not "things"
Luke 1:35 KJV:
>And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Try again?

>>18771926
>They are not things in the material sense.
What does that even mean to you exactly? You said they were not things period. Non-material things are still things. In addition eternity has nothing to do with this. If the universe were eternal it would still be a thing.
>the Trinity is not of this world
It is though, ~300 mad men were sitting around a table and invented it for you. And this is just thinly veiled special pleading again with an appeal to mystery as the cherry on top

>>18771874
Spoken like someone who completely fails to make a point or refute any points made. Your spirituality is the color of shit + it's Jewish

>>18771928
>Why can Zeus and Hermes share a divine nature and still not be one?
a fork and a spoon have the nature of being kitchenware, and yet ...
>Every Christian has a different definition of these things
Essence has a pretty regular definition in most philosophy. Essence is a "what", nature is a "how".
>Why is Gregory saying XYZ
idk bro you tell me. did you have an argument besides "he said/she said"?

File: Screenshot 2025-03-31 at (...).png (65 KB, 875x505)

65 KB PNG

>>18771941
>a fork and a spoon have the nature of being kitchenware, and yet ...
They are instances of the kitchenware nature just like Jesus and the Father are instances of the divine nature and how Zeus and Hermes are also instances of the divine nature. In all cases we count 2 but you insist only in your super special theology we must ignore the regular way we count things and say they are just 1
>Essence is a "what", nature is a "how"
The trinity is 1 "what" and 1 "how"? The fuck are you even trying to say?
>idk bro you tell me. did you have an argument besides "he said/she said"?
Ah now you have to resort to blatant dishonesty. But it's okay I too would run away from the church Fathers since they make it clear you're just Greco-Roman pagans worshiping deities with a Semitic name swap.

>>18771939
I'm both spiritually and physically white. Try again?

File: 1781620899673060.jpg (145 KB, 917x1024)

145 KB JPG

>>18771947
>I'm both spiritually and physically white
Not if you believe in Jesus / the bible. You're spiritually bought in to Semitic cult fiction that worships the god of Israel in the form of a Jewish messiah

>>18771951
Great, enjoy burning with billions of shitskinned Hindoos while I'm ruling with Jesus.

>>18770948
>1+1+1 ≠ 1
https://booleanmaster.com/tools/calculator
>1 + 1 + 1 = 1
You are wrong.

File: jesus&apostles.png (624 KB, 797x925)

624 KB PNG

>>18771962
>ruling with Jesus
You will be a servant, not a ruler. You are goyim according to Jesus and his apostles.
The bible is explicit about what Jesus said regarding the kingdom of heaven, but we can all see that you don't read the bible. Instead of seeking power, status, or to be waited on, true greatness in his kingdom is measured by humble, sacrificial service to others. You are instructed to become poor and live your life as a loyal dog to Semitic cult rules

Mark 9:35 and Mark 10:43–44, Jesus stated that anyone who wants to be first or great must become the servant and slave of all. What a stupid philosophy but I'm sure you think it's the perfect word of god

Jesus stated in Mark 10:45 that "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many"

>>18771931
>holy thing born of thee
The Son becomes material at conception.

>>18771935
>non material
Of course abstract concepts can be things but the Trinity is beyond that classification.

>>18771967
>blah blah blah I hate God
Go live your monkey life while you still can then. Why are you here? It really goes to show that every reprobate has a massive "I HATE CHRIST" tumor compelling them to lash out to their own detriment.

>>18771974
Sorry, do you think you just dodged the fact that the Bible clearly calls Jesus a thing? Take the L.

>>18771965
>christcucks count using the OR operator
lol modalism. 1 OR 1 OR 1 means you are evaluating the exact same truth value three times. It tells you nothing about distinct entities as the trinity requires the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be distinct Persons not the exact same person repeated. If you use Boolean OR the three "1s" lose their individual identity entirely. It's a consequence of the idempotent law for logical OR https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RbZvMpL22pM

>>18771976
You keep backtracking, first the trinity was not a thing (aka nothing), then it merely wasn't a material thing and now you accept that even non-material things are things. Meaning that the trinity is a thing, especially since it's an abstract concept describing what you think is a fundamental part of God
>the Trinity is beyond that classification
Why? Also that's false we can classify it as tritheism in denial. It's no different than someone saying they believe in Zeus, Hermes and Apollo and then in the next breath say they're monotheists

File: 1792039371116249.jpg (562 KB, 1614x2123)

562 KB JPG

>>18771978
>I can't refute any point made so I'm just going to adhom shitpost
Christianity arrests the development of virtue. You are Exhibit-A

>>18771986
>It tells you nothing about distinct entities as the trinity requires the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be distinct Persons not the exact same person repeated.
So you can't have a chairperson, a congressperson, and a businessperson in the same body?

File: briish man.webm (3.55 MB, 480x852)

3.55 MB WEBM

>>18771999
>Christianity arrests the development of virtue.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (42 KB, 590x402)

42 KB PNG

>>18772001
Okay so modalism as I have mentioned. This isn't the trinity and you're now a heretic

File: abrahamoid.jpg (220 KB, 1152x902)

220 KB JPG

>>18772004
>Christianity arrests the development of virtue.
Yes. Any other brown people with low impulse control from 3rd world countries that you want to compare yourself to? Abrahamic traditions truly produce bad apples.

File: Styxhexenhammer666.jpg (337 KB, 844x889)

337 KB JPG

>>18772056
That's not what white pagans look like. Try again? Or perhaps you can post a picture of yourself and prove me wrong. That would be rich.

>>18772064
>That's not what white pagans look like
Correct. Brown people from 3rd world countries who have low impulse control are mostly Christians and Muslims.
Low impulse control is a defining characteristic for Christians and Muslims in 1st world countries too

>>18772067
You're braindead. Tick tock! :)

>>18770948
1x1x1 = 1

>>18772014
No, my case was three different roles performed by three different persons (a chairperson, congressperson, and businessperson) who all happen to be of the same substance (physical body instead of spiritual body this case).

>>18772075

>>18770955
>>18771965

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (287 KB, 769x1392)

287 KB PNG

>>18772078
You're describing modalism perfectly, the persons here are just modes/roles of God. Do you want to know what early Christians would have done to you for your heresy? Also it's the same person doing different things.

>>18770948
The Bible verse was talking about baptizing niggas in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

>>18772088
The disciples of Jesus didn't do that though and it doesn't demonstrate three coequal coeternal members of the godhead. It's just three names in a sentence

>>18772086
>You're describing modalism perfectly
No, because I am describing three different persons that share their substance. You are perfectly demonstrating that you don't understand what a person is (protip its legal jargon, not a statement about being or physical substance).

>Also it's the same person
No, its three different persons (a chairperson, congressperson, and businessperson) being executed by the same substance (physical body).

>>18772100
A human being has just 1 person, ITT we can see that the only way the trinity can be defended is either to call everyone the same human being or say that every human being consists of multiple persons. Also no see what Aquinas says "the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person". So how many individuals of a rational nature do you have in your head? If it's more than 1 you suffer from multiple personality disorder. Seek help anon(s)

>>18772109
>A human being has just 1 person
Not according to the law or philosophical tradition or the various etymological definitions of person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
>In ancient Rome, the word persona (Latin) or prosopon (πρόσωπον; Ancient Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various "personae" in the stage play.[12]

A corporate person for instance is comprised of many human beings.

>>18772109
>So how many individuals of a rational nature do you have in your head?
The being I mentioned previously has 3 those of a chairperson, a congressperson, and a businessperson and those three rational natures are often in conflict with each other.

>If it's more than 1 you suffer from multiple personality disorder.
Or you are not just a mindless animal, so you have social and legal commitments beyond just your base human needs.

>>18772071
>more insults
This is precisely why Abrahamic traditions are critiqued because they handicap you from engaging with facts.
You assume the conclusion and work backwards with your reason. It's tragic

>>18772120
Sorry, it's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. You don't possess a functional critical faculty. You can't read at a middle school level.
>Abrahamic
Saaaar

>>18771050
>>18771060
Arius was right

>>18772116
I gave you the definition used by your theologians, no shit a word can have different meanings. What in the world do corporate fictional persons have to do with religion?
>In ancient Rome, the word persona (Latin) or prosopon (πρόσωπον; Ancient Greek) originally referred to the masks worn by actors on stage. The various masks represented the various "personae" in the stage play.[12]
Literally modalism, 1 guy taking on the role of a character.
>>18772119
I asked you how many YOU have in your head. Nice to see you can't answer that because you know it makes you look mentally ill to admit that you have more than 1. You're now saying this hypothetical beings has multiple rationalities? And that they conflict? Sorry but the bible says they can never conflict so yet another failure of an analogy
>you have social and legal commitments beyond just your base human needs
And now you're just equivocating. Why don't you gather your headmates around and discuss exactly what do you mean by person here? Is the Son just a social and/or legal role? What exactly makes them distinct from each other?

>>18772123
>definition used by your theologians
Which doesn't mention humans because that definition doesn't actually indicate "a human being is 1 person".

>What in the world do corporate fictional persons have to do with religion?
They go by the same base definition of person which is not built around humans and doesn't presume that 1 human = 1 person as you falsely claimed not knowing what person means in the legal or traditional sense, you are just trying to redefine it to fit your narrative.

>1 guy taking on the role of a character.
If by guy, you mean substance and by character, you mean person, sure, one substance inhabiting multiple persons.

>YOU
Yes because you are desperate to change the subject to me because you can't defend your argument, but the argument has nothing to do with me, the fact that one person is not actually defined as one human has nothing to do with how many conflicting rational natures I have to deal with because I am part of a family and part of a society and part of a company and part of a nation and so on.

>You're now saying this hypothetical beings has multiple rationalities?
The being expresses multiple persons.

>they can never conflict so yet another failure of an analogy
I didn't say a divine being conflicts, I just said that human beings regularly have such distinct personas that they are in conflict without being to the degree of a clinical disorder, you can see this pretty plainly during election season where party, family, and work ethics are in deep conflict.

>equivocating.
No, you are the one who is equivocating 1 human = 1 person when that isn't actually the case.

>Why don't you gather your headmates around and discuss exactly what do you mean by person here?
Why would I need to do that when the traditional definition I provided a link to already supports my claims and refutes yours?

>a social and/or legal role?
It is a distinct person which is not "just" those things if you bothered to read the links.

>>18772109
Technically you are closer to multiple personality disorder since that is when people think that their different personalities have to be associated with an entirely different being because they can't comprehend that a single being can have conflicting personalities, so they have to attempt to completely compartmentalize their personalities and pretend they are of different substance and not personal manifestations of the same body (in this case not in an ethereal divine person's case which is based on divine will than physical body and doesn't have the same conflicts and physical problems associated with physical bodies).

>>18772121
Im white, but unlike you I don't believe in Jewish cult fanfiction.
>it's a statement of fact
You are assuming the conclusion again. This circular reasoning makes you look very stupid

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

80 KB PNG

>>18772139
>Which doesn't mention humans
And? I addressed your retarded definition of person with Aquinass words not the latter part. That instead was done through the question you're dodging
>They go by the same base definition of person
Show me one legal dictionary that states "the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person"
>If by guy you mean
See how you require to redefine things just so you can make sense of your bullshit you spew?
>but the argument has nothing to do with me
It does because like a coward you preach that humans are composed of multiple people but you're afraid to claim it for yourself since it would make you look literally insane. "multiple personality disorder (MPD), is a dissociative disorder characterized by the presence of at least two personality states" It's a consistency argument retard
>The being expresses multiple persons
I didn't ask that, does this being have multiple rationalities? Yes or No
>I didn't say a divine being conflicts
Why are they exempt but human not? Special pleading again?
>No, you
Nope! You're literally running away to corporate definitions because you cannot defend your theology ahahahaha
>Why would I
And you cannot even provide a definition of what you meant. Your link also destroys you since it explicitly states that trinitarians developed (read invented) their own meaning
>It is a distinct person which is not "just" those things
And that's another blunder, the one true Church states their only difference is basically their relations of origin

File: lmao.png (12 KB, 666x158)

12 KB PNG

>>18772146
Nice straw man but normal people don't suffer that way anon. I realize a trinitarian who has to jump through a million hoops just to worship thinks everyone is afflicted by severe forms of cognitive dissonance every moment in their life. But I can assure you it doesn't happen with people outside your cult. It's possible to have 1 personality

>>18772164
>And?
So the definition doesn't infer what you want it to, it isn't about equivocating humans and persons.

>legal dictionary that states
You didn't provide a definition, you provided a philosopher's qualitative analysis, I already provided the original definition and the legal definition might not exactly use the word rational but are are in line with that and definitely don't say (and in fact refutes) that 1 person is exactly 1 human as was your original false claim.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1
>the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

>how you require to redefine things
No, I am using my original language, you are the one who has to try to change the term from substance to guy and person to character to make your false point, you are just mad I noticed your bait and switch.

>you're afraid to claim it for yourself
No, you are too dumb to read the rest of the paragraph before making a false claim.

>didn't ask that
Because you are trying to redefine things and I am showing how that is a bait and switch.

>Why are they exempt but human not?
Divine nature is different than human nature, its not an exemption, its a categorical difference.

>corporate definitions
No, I am citing legal definitions because as the link shows, they are derived from the traditional ones where personhood was not necessarily tied to humanity.

>Your link also destroys you since it explicitly states that trinitarians developed (read invented) their own meaning
It says that the definition of the word you are using comes from trinitarian developments which you don't seem to understand since you falsely claimed person=human because you are trying to redefine person based on your presumption person=human.

>Church states their only difference is basically their relations of origin
Not according to your pictures, but feel free to provide a source.

>>18772174
>normal people don't suffer that way anon
There wouldn't be memes about people arguing with their family about politics at Thanksgiving if normal humans didn't have personal conflicts and I was talking about disordered people like you who don't understand that a human can express different personalities depending on the situation without being separate humans.

>It's possible to have 1 personality
That isn't the argument, you are saying that its not possible to express more than 1 personality given more than 1 different situation. You aren't claiming that 1 person is sometimes 1 human, you are saying that 1 person can only be 1 human which isn't supported by the traditional or legal definition of personhood which you seem to have trouble understanding.

>>18771981
I didn't dodge it. Your reading comprehension reflects your verbal iq

>>18771993
>tritheism
You're retarded son. You don't even know how to define the terms you use. Please stop embarrassing your mudline further

>>18772174
>I realize a trinitarian who has to jump through a million hoops just to worship thinks everyone is afflicted by severe forms of cognitive dissonance every moment in their life.
>With a dash of insulting personal attacks, people won't notice my non-sequitur argument.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (89 KB, 1263x609)

89 KB PNG

>>18772187
>ignores the rest of the sentence
I am convinced you're unable to track. It must be the other headmates competing for my attention. How about you people share information with each other first?
>the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals
None of that states "the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person" making you a liar
>I am using my original language
Yes one that had nothing to do with the discussion. It's like speaking about bats (the animal) and you like a dishonest faggot start posting about the usage it has in baseball. You literally did that by quoting a text about masks worn by actors on stage then elaborating with corporate fictional constructs when we were talking about theology. I see you little cunt. Don't think your shit tactics works with me. Your entire argument rests on redefining basic terms
>Divine nature is different than human nature
Special pleading lmao. Give the exact difference between the natures that makes the point here.
>It says that the definition of the word you are using comes from trinitarian developments
Yes you fucking idiot I am actually using the meaning your theologians agree with not something vaguely related.
>You falsely claimed person=human
Quote?
>Not according to your pictures
Reading comprehension issues too? No wonder you're a trinitarian. Here I will teach you some more your own theology

>>18772231
I didn't ignore anything, there is nothing in any of those images that equivocates 1 person to 1 human.

>None of that state
No it just states a bunch of properties that require rationality and doesn't state that a person is the same as a human.

>one that had nothing to do with the discussion
It is entirely about the discussion because it is the definition associated with the discussion rather than the false definition you can't justify since no theologian ever said 1 person = 1 human.

> It's like speaking about bats (the animal) and you like a dishonest faggot start posting about the usage it has in baseball.
No that is what you are doing since you aren't using the same definition of person that they were using to define the trinity.

>Give the exact difference between the natures that makes the point here.
Divinity infers omnipotence and humanity infers limited scope.

>I am actually using the meaning your theologians agree
Nope, you definitely have not and can not quote a theologian saying that 1 person means 1 human.

>Quote?
So you are conceding >>18772109?

>Reading comprehension issues
Yes you have reading comprehension problems and are hallucinating 1 person=1 human when none of your images state such a thing.

>>18772193
>people disagree about politics therefore everyone is insane like me with multiple people constantly talking over each other in their heads
No, healthy individuals poses a single core personality as we see here >>18772174
>That isn't the argument
Learn to track idiot, you idiots are claiming that every single internal conflict splits you off into multiple people as if we are all mentally ill like you. And now you're saying even politics is enough to give you imaginary friends. Sorry but this just isn't normal. You might be possessed by demons

>>18772196
>if a hindoo says he believes in 1 god that means it's true!
no you're a tritheist in denial. just admit it already

>>18772240
>No, healthy individuals poses a single core personality
No, healthy individual cater their personality to their function and behave different in an official capacity versus being a family member vs being a friend vs ...

>you idiots are claiming that every single internal conflict splits you off into multiple people as if we are all mentally ill like yo
No, learn to read disingenuous liar, I said the nature of different roles split people into multiple personas and those multiple personalities can be so distinct that they even conflict with each other.

>And now you're saying even politics is enough to give you imaginary friends.
Nope I am saying it is enough to diverge your personality from your personality that dominates your family or work.

>>18772239
You did and I can quote it for you once again. But you can't even follow the conversation lol.
>>None of that state
>No
Thanks for the concession, you're now a liar by your own admission. How many rationalities are there again in your hypothetical person and how many are there in the trinity?
>It is entirely about the discussion
Sorry but modern legal definitions about corporations or what ancient actors did has next to nothing to do with the theological meaning of personhood. I would rather stick to what the doctor of the one true church has to say rather than your bullshit.
>Divinity infers omnipotence and humanity infers limited scope
And? Why does omnipotence mean they must agree? Why can't limited beings agree?
>still no quote
ahahahahaha, a human being having 1 person is not the same as saying human = person but i realize you're desperate enough to need a strawman
>when none of your images state such a thing
Instead they state "Church states their only difference is basically their relations of origin" which you denied "Not according to your pictures" But I see you aren't even trying to defend that anymore now that you got so utterly humiliated. Pathetic

>>18772252
>I can quote it
>proceeds not to quote anything substantial or link to any other post

>How many rationalities are there again in your hypothetical person
There are three persons (a chairperson, a congressperson, and a businesspersons) in the only hypothetical being I have instantiated.

>and how many are there in the trinity?
I accept your concession, you are the one who actually can't follow a conversation.

>Why does omnipotence mean they must agree?
They all have the exact same information about set up and consequences.
>Why can't limited beings agree?
They can, but their limitations also mean that their information isn't perfect and in perfect synchronization, so there can be conflicts unlike with divinity.

>a human being having 1 person is not the same as saying human = person
Then I accept your continued concession, being a person doesn't mean its just 1 human, >>18772109 was wrong about that.

>basically
I accept your concession, not exactly, but for common discussions, it basically holds.

>>18772249
>I said the nature of different roles split people into multiple personas and those multiple personalities can be so distinct that they even conflict with each other.
Yes we know you're mentally ill anon. You do know that even human beings with MPD are actually just one person right?
>The individual’s personality/identity/self states are NOT separate people. These are subjective states of the individual’s mind. All of the DID states together make up the whole person and that person’s total personality. - https://www.sheppardpratt.org/knowledge-center/condition/dissociative-identity-disorder-did/
So essentially you're worse than someone who is seriously mentally ill. How do you manage?

>>18772256
>Yes we know you're mentally ill anon. You do know that even human beings with MPD are actually just one person right?
Only if you redefine person to mean human=person which you still can't prove it ever meant.

>So essentially you're worse than someone who is seriously mentally ill.
So essentially you have completely given up on your argument and just want to talk about being mad at me for successfully refuting you.

>>18772254
Here you go fool >>18772164
>>Which doesn't mention humans
>And? I addressed your retarded definition of person with Aquinass words not the latter part. That instead was done through the question you're dodging
Memory of a goldfish lol
>There are three persons
Didn't ask that, try again. How many rationalities are there again in your hypothetical person and how many are there in the trinity? Your answers should be numbers for both questions.
>They all have the exact same information about set up and consequences
You're confusing omnipotence with omniscience ahahahaha. Still doesn't make them agree unless you believe the reality God created forces God to act a particular way.
>They can
And that means there isn't any actual distinction since humans can also do it.
>a human being having 1 apple is the same as saying human = apple
beyond retarded
>it basically holds
Yes retard "being distinct from one another by relations alone" is explicitly what the church states

>>18772276
I am not redefining anything, that's the exact quote. You need to redefine common words and even then you're worse off than someone with multiple personality disorder. Get an exorcism faggot

>>18772241
>false analogy is false
You can't even define monotheism you brainrotted gremlin

>>18772280
>Memory of a goldfish lol
Nope, I remember that that definition refutes your original claim that 1 human = 1 person, you are the one who seems to have trouble remembering what your argument was.

>Didn't ask that
Then its not relevant to the discussion, you are just trying to redefine things to make them fit your narrative.

>You're confusing omnipotence with omniscience ahahahaha.
Nope omniscience is just one aspect of omnipotence, having all the power to know everything is the same has knowing everything.

>Still doesn't make them agree
It does there are no limits imposed on their knowledge or ability that would lead to disagreements.

>beyond retarded
You never said a human has a person, you were trying to argue that a single human is the only valid person.

>Yes retard "being distinct from one another by relations alone" is explicitly what the church states
Still haven't sourced this, you are still quoting some philosopher instead of the church and its still not incompatible with anything I said.

>>18772289
>You need to redefine common words
No, I was using the traditional definition and you are tying and failing to assert person=human with your own definitions.

But again, we have gotten past the point of facts and arguments and now all you seem to want to do is talk about me and put your gay fake words in my mouth to redefine my argument instead of examining what I actually said.

>>18772299
How is it false? They even have their own trinity
>Its most notable expression is to be found in the theological conception of the Trimūrti, in other words, the manifestation of the supreme God in three forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva

File: 1792410793990.jpg (55 KB, 612x640)

55 KB JPG

>>18772303
>begging for acceptance
Hinpoos are not Christian saar :-)
At least 99% of them

>>18772300
The definition I provided does no such thing but notice how even after I quoted it you will still ignore the actual part when I did address your nonsense. So predictable
>>Didn't ask that
>Then its not relevant to the discussion,
Impressive running skills, concession accepted
>having all the power to know everything is the same has knowing everything
It's not you retard, that's like saying having the power to go to the library and read every book is the same as knowing what is inside every book in that library from eternity past.
>limits imposed on their knowledge or ability that would lead to disagreements
And as we have established humans can still agree despite these limitations
>You never said a human has a person
>>18772109
>A human being has just 1 person
What a miserable and desperate liar
>Still haven't sourced this
Can't read what's on the image and the filename here? >>18772231 Why did you deny that this is what the doctor of the Church teaches?
>>18772302
>blah blah blah if I repeat myself then it will be true
Why isn't the church using your shit definition? Could it be because they aren't trying to be worse than the mentally ill like you?

>>18772309
>The identification of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purāṇa. In verse 1:6, Brahman is worshipped as the Trimurti. Verse 1:9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and verse 1:26 relates to the same theme.[14]
No they are, you're the same as the shit eaters and it is time you learn to cope with it

>>18771877
That’s not special pleading, you idiot, and I don’t have “gods”, you blasphemer. This is a strawman fallacy.

>>18771877
>When it comes to the persons suddenly you have no problem applying the "pagan" (read normal) counting method.
Pagan counting method? Who said anything about a pagan counting method, you clown?
Yes, when counting the number of divine persons, there are three, but the number of divine substances is one. Three persons, one substance; one God.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (52 KB, 1174x212)

52 KB PNG

>>18772331
It is, when it comes to your three gods you count them as one and when it comes to the Greek pantheon you remember your preschool counting lessons and suddenly there are multiple again.
>>18772332
Each of those three divine persons is fully God and thus constitute the entirety of the divine substance individually. Three fully Gods that constitute the entirety of the divine substance individually is three Gods that constitute the entirety of the divine substance. Very simple stuff. Now if you can explain to me how many Gods you see here >>18771098 and how many apples in the linked post there

>>18770948
The Holy Trinity is holy _because_ It is One. If you exclude yourself from this union, you are perceiving the Holy Trinity as separated. You must be included in It, because It is everything. (https://acim.org/acim/en/s/122#8:9-11 | T-8.IV.8:9-11)

>>18772447
In other words nobody but the cult members can ever possibly understand and only after they get the special tickle. Why talk about it then?

File: 1791445150279.jpg (236 KB, 1062x1262)

236 KB JPG

>>18772322
Nah you're the same as them because you share their "morality" and most likely their skin color as well :-)

>MUH MATH
This is a red herring issue because the Trinitarians and the Antis are counting two different things.

This thread would be less retarded if we established the identity of what is being counting.

The underlying question is if Father = God and Son = God then why Father =/= Son?

>>18772444
You are swine

>>18772522
>The underlying question is if Father = God and Son = God then why Father =/= Son?
According to Catholics it's only because "The Father is distinguished by the relation of paternity and by being born of none: the Son is distinguished from the Father by the relationship of filiation" or in other words the difference is the Son was begotten (whatever that means) while the Father was not and he is the one who did the begetting. I see nothing here that helps

>>18770950
>TRInity
>four ellipses

>>18771358
He could be a true demon.

>>18771322
>standard English expression
>SAAR SAAR!!!
Standard English does not have to be mathematically correct rofl
People say "mostly full" all the time but full means 100%.
It's a mathematically incorrect phrase.
Whoever made the other post was speaking gibberish and tried/failed to use it as justification and you are not making a mathematical case as to why it wasn't wrong... you just appealed to popular (wrong) opinion or something
>>But it is still one God just like i, j,k are one number
>No, they're three numbers
Wrong
>It isn't the case that i, j, and k, are each *the* square root of negative one
>They are each *a* square root of negative one
Wrong. They are each *the* square root of negative one in different planes

>The expression sqrt(-1) by itself doesn't clearly point to one number
And the word "God" by itself does not clearly point to one person of the Trinity

You're explaining why that meme is correct at this point....

File: read.png (1.05 MB, 802x926)

1.05 MB PNG

>>18772562
one sentence

>>18772109
>every human being consists of multiple persons
>So how many individuals of a rational nature do you have in your head?
>in your head?
You're being disingenuous.
You arbitrarily jumped from multiple persons to multiple personalities
>If it's more than 1 you suffer from multiple personality disorder
Utterly false. People openly admit they become a different person on purpose in some situations. Look up deep undercover agents who infiltrate gangs. They admit they are different people when undercover.

>>18772993
>No, they're three numbers
>Wrong
i, j, and k are three distinct elements in the quaternion number system. So they are three distinct hypercomplex numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomplex_number

>They are each *a* square root of negative one
>Wrong. They are each *the* square root of negative one in different planes
>in different planes
In other words, if you choose one of them and throw out the other two (along with any other numbers you can express using them), then the remaining one becomes the only square root of negative one in the number system. Sure. That doesn't make the initial statement wrong. If you ignore every multiple of three except for nine, then, in the context you've created, nine is the only multiple of three. Likewise if you want to ignore the Father and the Son, then you can say that the Holy Spirit is the only God "in its own domain" or whatever. But that doesn't mean that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are only one God when you're considering all of them together.

>The expression sqrt(-1) by itself doesn't clearly point to one number
>And the word "God" by itself does not clearly point to one person of the Trinity
So "God" is basically a label that doesn't give you enough information to know what it's referring to, like if I said "that guy whose name starts with J." Do I mean James, Jacob, Jerry...? What's his last name? Usually, when someone says something like that, it's recognized that the the label is ambiguous because there are multiple guys whose name starts with J. But with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the ambiguity of the label "God" isn't allowed to be resolved in this way.

>Whoever made the other post
"Whoever." Right. Totally not you.

Again, you can bring it down a level to remove the mystification of the quaternions. If, in the context of the integers, I said "the number that, when you square it, equals four," do I mean two or negative two? Do I mean both in some mysterious sense? Are each of them somehow fully *the* number that, when you square it, equals four? No, the expression is just ambiguous, because in fact there are two numbers with that property.

And if you say, "Well, negative two is *the* number that, when you square it equals four *if* you're only considering negative numbers with the property." Then I'm going to hit you with a ruler.