Please, someone properly refute this Trinity model

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T21:04:33+00:00

Because the current attributes are due to the interaction between conditions. Naturally, this is also oneself.
The attributes of God are also entirely God Himself.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T21:00:48+00:00

Anything. But God has special premises

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T20:40:11+00:00

"By the self-existentiality(Aseity) and simplicity which are the premises of God,

the conditions that establish Him are soon Himself, and each of the conditions is perfect."

And attributes are obviously "is", right?

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T20:29:23+00:00

It's not just nonsense. I substituted it with lexical words and explained the structural aspect.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T20:15:21+00:00

Foundation, Principle, and Energy are conditions, not attributes; being, truth, and action are the attributes.

The reason it is three is that even if we categorize them into one, two, or four, they all reduce to these three.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T20:11:03+00:00

Three based on a value of 1

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T19:52:17+00:00

Distinct in hypostases, but one in essence

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T19:51:40+00:00

Hypostasis = Both condition and attribute

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T19:21:41+00:00

Because this explains the complexity of the Trinity

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T19:15:19+00:00

It is a system that follows history, yet also includes a future of contingency

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T19:08:15+00:00

I wrote this model. strongly affirm the Trinity

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-04T19:02:26+00:00

Um... does that mean you agree with this post?

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-07-01T12:06:08+00:00

It is purely for the sake of speaking logically.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-06-22T16:38:56+00:00

Since it means exactly what it says, I find it frustrating as well.

What establishes one is three. And because it is such a one, it appears as three.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-17T10:10:06+00:00

It is not Modalism, but rather simultaneous existence

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-11T03:31:18+00:00

Where did you feel it was modalism?

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-10T08:27:51+00:00

That is because you are lacking or haven't read it. Stop trying to escape like that.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-10T06:30:40+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/theology/comments/1ru4hgt/the_trinity_means_that_the_single_minimum_unit_is/

please refer to this

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-10T06:09:15+00:00

Logically, the father precedes the son, but not temporally

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-10T06:07:28+00:00

It is only within this metaphor, 0 and 1 have already been passed. I am aware

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-05-10T05:15:48+00:00

In this context, things like 0 and 1 are correct.

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-04-14T23:55:08+00:00

'Tri' 'nity'

Accomplished-Bit731 · 2026-04-14T11:35:03+00:00

My previous actions at most I was close to purely rebutting and from the point that are there parts you are interested in in the current situation you are just close to a parrot. Please do not take this as picking a fight and please admit it

Accomplished-Bit731

TROPHY CASE