As far as I can tell, what sets 3 apart from the other numbers is that it is the minimal condition for any possible actualization. Anything less is insufficient given that the world is indeed actualized. Anything more is built upon 3 as a necessary foundation. At the very least, the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles would have to be negated in order for something less than 3 to be sufficient for actualization in and of itself, and I have yet to find a way of doing that. To further elaborate, consider the necessary conditions for any possible ontology and epistemology. Ontological separation is necessary for anything to exist. Ontological overlap is necessary for anything to be known. As such, in order to have a reality which which can be known (which is the only type of reality which is actually real and not just some abstraction), one must have strictly partial ontological overlap. To the degree that the One is actualized, this partial ontological overlap, and the differentiation implied therein, must be inherent to that One. The differentiation of the One must ultimately reconcile. However, the way in it is reconciled is through the shared division between the Immanent and the Transcendent, i.e. the division which separates the Immanent and the Transcendent is inherent in the Transcendent itself. The failure of the One to overlap with itself is what gives rise to anything which can be actualized, and is what it shares in common with that which is actualized. None of this is strictly based on scripture though, so make of it what you will.
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it. You’re better at the facts and logic than me, esp at laying it out succinctly. I’m in a very iaian McGilchrist space right now, and I didn’t want to be too left-brained in this conversation. If the base of reality is personal and relational, like I asserted, than I want to act that way. :) You’re a smart cookie, Timecake. Always enjoy your contributions.
And what makes "possible actualization" so important? You have shot your target and are drawing your bullseye around it. How is this in ANY way Biblical? Beyond that, how is it Jewish or even Christian? How much time did Jesus spend on telling people about the importance of ontological separation and overlap? These are the musings of men in the guise of religion. None of this is based on scripture AT ALL. Forget about strictly. It is not good enough to say "make of it what you will" when John Calvin is considered a major figure in the church and he **murdered** Michael Severetus on the basis of this Trinity and people like Sam are being kicked out of churches today on this basis. The Trinity is a scourge on Christianity, Satan's brand of ownership on the Church.
What makes "possible actualization" important is that in order for anything to be made (e.g. for God to create anything), it has to be possible for that thing to exist in the first place. Allowing things to exist, i.e. making actualization possible, is how God makes all the stuff that is made in Genesis 1. It doesn't say that God made X, but that God said "Let there be" X, "and then there was" X. As far as I can tell, he makes things by making it possible for those things to exist. The points I'm trying to make are not found in the Bible, yes (at least as far as I know). They are instead the necessary precondition for any possible framing of the reality, whether that framing comes from the Bible or not. They are not the content of knowledge but that which makes knowledge possible. Such things can only be accessed through the "musings of men", i.e. through indirect reasoning as opposed to directly received information, since the latter presupposes, whether explicitly or not, the attainment of the goal of the former. The transcendental ground of knowledge is there whether we acknowledge it or not, since to inquire into anything (including the possibility of access of this ground and the utility of such an inquiry in the first place) presupposes it. Also, by "make of it what you will" I meant that if the lack of a Biblical grounding disqualifies my point from relevance in your view, then feel free to ignore it. I've read less than 1% of the Bible, so I couldn't make my points Biblically grounded even if I tried (despite my earlier justification). If you're getting the sense that I don't know what I'm talking about, that's because I don't.
@@TheTimecake haha. I enjoy your musings and find them helpful. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that we come to the Scriptures with a “blank slate”. I really do enjoy the logical necessity arguments for 3 and being. But, ultimately, I like do focus on the relational pointers, because ultimately I find them to be more formative and substantial. Keep the thoughts comin. At least in my direction.
Yeah, I though about making an argument along the lines of "the Bible doesn't teach you how to read the language it's written in; you have to bring that to the Bible as opposed to getting it from the Bible. Likewise, formal logic and its consequences might not be directly obtainable from the Bible, but that doesn't mean it can't be brought to it (in fact, it might have to be)". The problem with this argument is that it's quite a leap from language to logic, and I couldn't think of a better alternative about what is brought to the Bible than language, or how to justify the leap, so I just left it out.
No "third God exists: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". Without the Father, Jesus would be ALONE. Thus, God is made just by (1) Father and (2) Son: no sign of a "Lord who gives life"! The "Lord who gives life " doesn't exist ANYWHERE in the bible: it's just AN INVENTION. Another verse: " ...not the angels in heaven or the Son, but THE FATHER ONLY knows." Here it's fully confirmed that God is only made by the Father and the Son. Even the angels are present ! But still NO SIGN of an alleged "Lord who gives life"... Further, the same verse also shows that the invented "OMNIPOTENT Lord who gives life" would surely not know the future...
I’m not sure if Luke and I agree or disagree about his threefold ontology business. I guess what I’m pretty we do disagree about is I don’t think that’s the same question or subject as “how many persons is God?” Or “how does Jesus related to God?”
I tried to bring it back to Christianity several times. Honestly, it sounds like someone coming from a Greek philosophical tradition just deciding that their Greek philosophical ideas need to be translated into the Hebrew Bible. No. You do not need to bring your Greek philosophical ideas with you in the Hebrew Bible any more than you need to bring Confucianism or any other foreign belief system. You can, in fact, try to understand the Hebrew Bible as a Hebrew text.
@@WhiteStoneName In order to perfectly and fully represent G-d, you would at the very least need to be both male and female. At least in the Jewish, non-misogynist conception as opposed to the Greek, misogynistic conception. You would also need to be eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and most importantly omnipotent. How does an omnipotent person fail in his mission to convince people to cease from evil and do good? How does an omnipotent person "die" in any way that is at all meaningful? Why was Jesus limited in his knowledge in ways that the Father isn't? This idea of Jesus as the perfect Image of G-d as opposed to one among billions of Images of G-d is a complete refutation of Christianity which says that Jesus was a man who died. Being a man who died is the inverse of representing G-d.
Oh man can't wait to watch this
Man that was a tall glass of water on a hot day!
35:56 "and really, ultimately, at the end of the day.... the real Trinity was the friends we made along the way." :)
This is like a Clash of the Titans epic event.
Titans are polytheism foitz
@@SamuelAdamsT hilarious
55:07 is pretty damning against christianity
I agree with Luke that Jacob is invaluable
smarties
wow nice
As far as I can tell, what sets 3 apart from the other numbers is that it is the minimal condition for any possible actualization. Anything less is insufficient given that the world is indeed actualized. Anything more is built upon 3 as a necessary foundation. At the very least, the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles would have to be negated in order for something less than 3 to be sufficient for actualization in and of itself, and I have yet to find a way of doing that.
To further elaborate, consider the necessary conditions for any possible ontology and epistemology. Ontological separation is necessary for anything to exist. Ontological overlap is necessary for anything to be known. As such, in order to have a reality which which can be known (which is the only type of reality which is actually real and not just some abstraction), one must have strictly partial ontological overlap. To the degree that the One is actualized, this partial ontological overlap, and the differentiation implied therein, must be inherent to that One.
The differentiation of the One must ultimately reconcile. However, the way in it is reconciled is through the shared division between the Immanent and the Transcendent, i.e. the division which separates the Immanent and the Transcendent is inherent in the Transcendent itself. The failure of the One to overlap with itself is what gives rise to anything which can be actualized, and is what it shares in common with that which is actualized.
None of this is strictly based on scripture though, so make of it what you will.
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it. You’re better at the facts and logic than me, esp at laying it out succinctly.
I’m in a very iaian McGilchrist space right now, and I didn’t want to be too left-brained in this conversation. If the base of reality is personal and relational, like I asserted, than I want to act that way. :)
You’re a smart cookie, Timecake. Always enjoy your contributions.
And what makes "possible actualization" so important? You have shot your target and are drawing your bullseye around it. How is this in ANY way Biblical? Beyond that, how is it Jewish or even Christian? How much time did Jesus spend on telling people about the importance of ontological separation and overlap?
These are the musings of men in the guise of religion. None of this is based on scripture AT ALL. Forget about strictly.
It is not good enough to say "make of it what you will" when John Calvin is considered a major figure in the church and he **murdered** Michael Severetus on the basis of this Trinity and people like Sam are being kicked out of churches today on this basis. The Trinity is a scourge on Christianity, Satan's brand of ownership on the Church.
What makes "possible actualization" important is that in order for anything to be made (e.g. for God to create anything), it has to be possible for that thing to exist in the first place. Allowing things to exist, i.e. making actualization possible, is how God makes all the stuff that is made in Genesis 1. It doesn't say that God made X, but that God said "Let there be" X, "and then there was" X. As far as I can tell, he makes things by making it possible for those things to exist.
The points I'm trying to make are not found in the Bible, yes (at least as far as I know). They are instead the necessary precondition for any possible framing of the reality, whether that framing comes from the Bible or not. They are not the content of knowledge but that which makes knowledge possible. Such things can only be accessed through the "musings of men", i.e. through indirect reasoning as opposed to directly received information, since the latter presupposes, whether explicitly or not, the attainment of the goal of the former. The transcendental ground of knowledge is there whether we acknowledge it or not, since to inquire into anything (including the possibility of access of this ground and the utility of such an inquiry in the first place) presupposes it.
Also, by "make of it what you will" I meant that if the lack of a Biblical grounding disqualifies my point from relevance in your view, then feel free to ignore it. I've read less than 1% of the Bible, so I couldn't make my points Biblically grounded even if I tried (despite my earlier justification). If you're getting the sense that I don't know what I'm talking about, that's because I don't.
@@TheTimecake haha. I enjoy your musings and find them helpful.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that we come to the Scriptures with a “blank slate”.
I really do enjoy the logical necessity arguments for 3 and being. But, ultimately, I like do focus on the relational pointers, because ultimately I find them to be more formative and substantial.
Keep the thoughts comin. At least in my direction.
Yeah, I though about making an argument along the lines of "the Bible doesn't teach you how to read the language it's written in; you have to bring that to the Bible as opposed to getting it from the Bible. Likewise, formal logic and its consequences might not be directly obtainable from the Bible, but that doesn't mean it can't be brought to it (in fact, it might have to be)". The problem with this argument is that it's quite a leap from language to logic, and I couldn't think of a better alternative about what is brought to the Bible than language, or how to justify the leap, so I just left it out.
No "third God exists: "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". Without the Father, Jesus would be ALONE. Thus, God is made just by (1) Father and (2) Son: no sign of a "Lord who gives life"! The "Lord who gives life " doesn't exist ANYWHERE in the bible: it's just AN INVENTION. Another verse: " ...not the angels in heaven or the Son, but THE FATHER ONLY knows." Here it's fully confirmed that God is only made by the Father and the Son. Even the angels are present ! But still NO SIGN of an alleged "Lord who gives life"... Further, the same verse also shows that the invented "OMNIPOTENT Lord who gives life" would surely not know the future...
I’m not sure if Luke and I agree or disagree about his threefold ontology business. I guess what I’m pretty we do disagree about is I don’t think that’s the same question or subject as “how many persons is God?” Or “how does Jesus related to God?”
I tried to bring it back to Christianity several times. Honestly, it sounds like someone coming from a Greek philosophical tradition just deciding that their Greek philosophical ideas need to be translated into the Hebrew Bible.
No. You do not need to bring your Greek philosophical ideas with you in the Hebrew Bible any more than you need to bring Confucianism or any other foreign belief system. You can, in fact, try to understand the Hebrew Bible as a Hebrew text.
God is one person. He is perfectly and fully represented in the one Icon the Lord Jesus Christ. Which is breathed from God, mediated by the Spirit.
@@WhiteStoneName In order to perfectly and fully represent G-d, you would at the very least need to be both male and female. At least in the Jewish, non-misogynist conception as opposed to the Greek, misogynistic conception.
You would also need to be eternal, omniscient, omnipresent and most importantly omnipotent.
How does an omnipotent person fail in his mission to convince people to cease from evil and do good? How does an omnipotent person "die" in any way that is at all meaningful? Why was Jesus limited in his knowledge in ways that the Father isn't?
This idea of Jesus as the perfect Image of G-d as opposed to one among billions of Images of G-d is a complete refutation of Christianity which says that Jesus was a man who died. Being a man who died is the inverse of representing G-d.
Just starting, but both Jacob and Luke are wrong
seems like y think Jesus is the crux of all matters. Hail lacroix's
or, consciousness rather